Comments by "Freedom Crusader" (@freedomfighter22222) on "Anders Puck Nielsen" channel.

  1. A big effect of Ukraine finally calling the Russian bluff is that now Russia will also have to mann their entire border and actually invest in proper defence at home, that removes the large Ukrainian disadvantage of having had far more soldiers along the border than Russia has had.
    1500
  2. Yep, that offensive went the same way anyone with any insight would expect, 30-50k men allegedly preparing for a major offensive is lacking a digit to be believable as a threat. Though to be fair, I don't believe Russia intended it as an offensive to begin with, just a quick land grab of lightly defended border regions for a short-term propaganda effort. Russia might be dumb enough to do it again, but it wont go any better for them anywhere else along the border, the only thing they will achieve is more support for Ukraine from the West. It is crazy that so many people see Russia using half a year to take cities like Bakhmut or Chasiv Yar and think the war is going to end anytime soon, the war will continue for 2-3 more years until western supplies become so vastly more numerous to what Russia can supply that the Ukrainian military overwhelms the Russian combat capabilities. I also don't understand why people think that Russia opening another front in Kharkiv takes away more Ukrainian resources than Russian resources, Russia is attacking into terrain that vastly benefit Ukraine, that is perfect for the Ukrainians as that is exactly what you want in a long war, for the other side to waste resources until your bigger economic support gets up to speed.
    188
  3. Western Media: I talked to 10 Ukrainian soldiers all saying that the war is difficult I talked to 0 Russian soldiers Clearly the Ukrainians are massively losing as 10 more Ukrainian soldiers told us they are struggling than Russian soldiers told us the same. It is depressing to see the defeatism that happens just because people hear more news from Ukraine than from Russia, every single one of these people would have said the Soviets would obviously lose ww2 if put in Moscow in 41.
    140
  4. That's the way war economy usually goes yes, due to data not only being hidden for foreign observers but even being hidden intentionally and unintentionally domestically as well. Nobody knows where the breaking point is, but it is somewhere and if the economy gets there before the war is over it is going to hit incredibly hard, if the war is over before the breaking point then it is still going to be a horrible economic crisis due to how much damage is already inflicted. The only thing that is certain about the amount of time it will take to the breaking point is too much and it can't come soon enough, could be next week or in 2 years, as far as anyone can actually know for certain though.
    68
  5. Classic, the competent person warned everyone the entire way and works double shift to try to keep the entire thing together while everyone blames them for doing a bad job when shit inevitably hits the fan just like they said it would.
    63
  6.  @rphb5870  Russia doesn't outproduce the West in weapons, it outproduced it in some fields but failed to scale up production anymore after the first few months of the war, the West had barely started moving at the time but now does outproduce Russia in large caliber artillery ammunition, despite Russia having a 5 times or higher advantage at the start. The west will continue to vastly outscale Russian capabilities in the coming years as Russia failed to plan for what to do if the war did not end quickly. The West has made plans for the next several years of supplies to Ukraine and are building entirely new factories to expand production, instead of just adding another shift to already existing factories which is all Russia managed.
    59
  7. I have stopped being surprised by how out of touch people that have been following this war for a long time can be, The average journalist or average person has no clue what is going on. That Russia is spending far more money than it can afford long term has been clear since very early in the war, yet people keep talking about Russia being able to afford it indefinitely. Keeps being painful to hear for sure, but it is not surprising anymore.
    45
  8.  @lagrangewei  NATO has no interest in invading Russia and Russia does not have weapons to equip what they say they have in reserve, they aren't even able to properly equip the personnel already at war.
    45
  9.  @markopodganjek845  China isn't propping up the Russian economy outside buying resources from it at reduced prices, it is doing what is profitable to itself and benefiting of Russian losses.
    27
  10. On the asymmetric part the Ukrainian line is not shown in full, Ukraine also mann the border with Belarus in case it joins the war on Russias side or Russia attacks through it again.
    25
  11. True that, if the entirety of the West supported Ukraine entirely the war would be an entirely no-brainer, the question is how many and which countries see the war through and how much they are willing to do. Personally I believe the investments we see in industry is a clear indicator that enough of the West intends to keep up military aid for as long as it takes, but it depends if financial assistance will be enough to keep Ukraine afloat until then. As long as Ukraine continues to chose to fight I believe that it will eventually win the war, but the West should do far more to make certain that that is the outcome and far more than that to make it much easier for Ukraine.
    20
  12. It sure is annoying spending the past few weeks hearing about how Pokrovsk is the keystone of the defensive lines of Ukraine and how it is about to fall, it is half a year since Avdiivka fell and every idiot was up in arms about how disastrous that was and how it signaled the collapse of the Ukrainian military, or how the same tone was rampant when Bakhmut fell over a year ago(after half a year of siege). Bakhmut was sem-encircled long before it fell, Pokrovsk is at the very tip of a salient that is narrow enough for Ukrainian artillery to hit anywhere inside it, definitely agree it will take many months before Pokrovsk fall and that it wont be what breaks the Ukrainian military, it is just another strongpoint that sucks too lose but is ultimately insignificant in the war.
    19
  13.  @luffebassen  Must be difficult for people supporting Russia to answer what is happening, regardless what they come up with Russia is either incompetent for leaving the border undefended or incompetent for its defending troops being overrun so easily. I wonder which one it is and which one Russian bloggers thinks is the most disgraceful one.
    17
  14. That analysis is easy, it is entirely fucked but as long as the West(mainly Europe) keeps financing it that doesn't matter. The Ukrainian economy would not stand a chance if it wasn't for Western money, that's not a secret or something anyone needs to think about to understand or give a good analysis on. I am of course in the mind that the west absolutely should continue sending that financial support, worth every euro and we should give much more.
    16
  15.  @luffebassen  Russia reported the attack as repelled 3 days ago an hour after it started, yet here we are with more civilians arriving in Kursk city and neighboring oblasts as they are being evacuated. You really believe todays reports that the attack has been repelled after the same statement was given both the previous 2 days and the Ukrainians are now being repelled again even closer to Kursk city?
    14
  16. Europe has a much larger military than Russia, it also spends far more money than Russia, even now when Russia has doubled or tripled it s defense budget Europe still spends more. Europe doesn't rely on USA for defence, USA maintains bases in Europe to maintain influence out of its own interests, not because Russia could win a war against Europe.
    12
  17.  @evgeniya7853  Do you understand the meaning of actually being able to advance more than 5m per day? Either Russia's soldiers are trash or Russia didn't have sufficient quantity of troops in the immediate area, pick one(or both).
    10
  18.  @ikiruyamamoto1050  There was no promise to spend 2%, that is from Trumps rear end, there was a 2% target that NATO countries agree to generally aim towards reaching by 2024 and the majority of them did.
    9
  19. It is the main thing I don't understand with the Kharkiv and talk of maybe another Sumy attack, Ukraine have large forces tied up on borders where they were not able to be used efficiently. I keep hearing that Russia has a manpower advantage along the active frontline because it has 4-500k against Ukraine's 3-400k, but that Russia has just around 500k+ in total for the war and Ukraine has 900k active soldiers. Why allow Ukraine to use its larger force and on defensive actions as well. I could maybe see an argument for Russia thinking it has a large enough material advantage to believe spreading out would force Ukraine to prioritise supplying some fronts over others, but even if that ended up working the result of that would be a siege of large cities that Russia just does not have the manpower to encircle or fight trough. Extension of the frontline just isn't something Russia can get a long term advantage off, it allows Ukraine to utilize more men that were tied up and ineffective for the war effort. Personally I don't see Russia as having a chance to win the war as I hold the 2 key beliefs that Ukraine will never give up and the West will never stop supplying Ukraine, the west will in my opinion just keep increasing capacity and eventually go far beyond what Russia has the capacity for. But with that note out of the way, if I were Russia and I absolutely wanted to keep going and trying for victory this Kharkiv attack just does not make any sense with the resources dedicated for it. It has to be just a propaganda move, throwing away resources and putting Russia in an even worse position just to show that it is still capable of taking territory. Whether to show Ukraine/The West, internal population or both how Russia is still "winning", some commander wanted to show off how good he was or to show that it is taking the incursions into Belgorod seriously idk, but it definitely is not because it is a viable offensive.
    9
  20.  @dpelpal  You think Ukraine didn't have a military in 2020? or that it is tiny? I get trying to present Russia as weak by loosing to nobodies, but Ukraine had a large army already 4 years ago, in terms of size one of the largest in Europe. Ukraine was in the top 30 most powerful militaries in 2020, top 10 in Europe. The power for its ranking was also largely its size as it was ranked significantly lower its manpower suggested due to lacking sufficient navy and air force. Its army was one of the largest in the world, even back in 2015 it ranked 20th in active military personnel.
    9
  21.  @ikiruyamamoto1050  A. They have been, B. they wont need to Europe has spent 5 times more on defence than Russia for the past 30 years and maintains Both a larger and much more capable military than Russia. You people really seem to struggle with the difference between Europe only supplying surplus material to Ukraine and it not being enough versus whether Europe has a military to defend itself. Russia is not a conventional threat to Europe, it is a conventional threat to the Baltics if the rest of Europe choses not to intervene. When analysts and generals talk about Russia going for more of Europe after Ukraine they don't say Russia could invade the rest of Europe, they say Russia might try to take the Baltic states and hope the rest of Europe doesn't react.
    8
  22. 2.5y inn, you think one side have portrayed a massive advantage? If you think the fight hasn't been equal then whoever you think has had the advantage has performed incredibly embarrassing.
    8
  23. People are idiots, war is a very thought intensive and specialised topic, the general public and media has no clue what is going on and can only quantify the war in terms of land lost. The general opinion are also stupid shit like thinking that countries have equal losses in war or that Russia is a big threat just "because", they can't conceive the possibility that Russia is just much worse at war and takes higher casualties than Ukraine. Even "experts" like Mearsheimer get things disastrously wrong, he has at some point heard Russia is an artillery army and that artillery is the king of the battlefield, so obviously Russia has to be winning and inflicting higher casualties than it is taking, no thoughts spared to whether Russian artillery is actually any good or they know how to apply it effectively. Frontlines stabilized in 2023 because Russia was in terrible shape but had deep saturated minefields to hide behind, now the Russian main position is a deep and narrow salient ahead of its mines, that salient being destroyed is more likely than Russia managing to take Pokrovsk this side of new year.
    8
  24. The vast western economies that can go on indefinitely compared to the Italy sized economy of Russia probably.
    7
  25. Yesn't, it could rebuild the standing army it had before the war(which was and is much smaller than what Europe has), but it could not come remotely close to rebuilding their reserve storage hardware. That is an important distinction that the people warning about Russia rapidly rebuilding its capabilities post-Ukraine war leaves out, the soviets took decades to build those storage capabilities, that isn't something Russia can do in a few years regardless how much it is willing to sacrifice.
    6
  26.  @alexis1451  "It has the means" True that, in the sense that it already has a larger and far more capable military than Russia and has maintained 5 times more spending than Russia for 30 years.
    6
  27. Congrats for Russia to come close to half the advance rate the Ukrainians had in Kursk I guess?
    6
  28. So a light version of what is happening in Russia? But let's not talk about that 😜
    6
  29.  @ikiruyamamoto1050  Why would Europe need to spend more? it already spent 5 times more than Russia for the past 30 years and maintains both a larger and more capable military.
    5
  30.  @HappyDuude  The 500 nukes France and Britain has wouldn't give Russia a pause before going to war with them? Are you good?
    5
  31. Yes, yes, so when do you think Kramatorsk will fall? Give me some specifics we can bet on so I can come back and mock you later(in addition to right now)
    5
  32. Like the Soviets and Americans were losing in 1940-1942?
    5
  33.  @docmike8601  The Soviets had lost a much larger portion of their relevant land in 1942 than the ukrainians have so far. To begin with the entirety of Ukraine but also entire Oblasts of Russia like Belgorod, Kursk, Bryansk, Rostov and their respective cities, as well as half a dozen other major cities. The soviet Union might have been geographically large but half of anything that mattered was occupied, the comparison in Ukraine would be if Russia occupied everything east of the Dnipro River and was half a year+ into sieges of Kyiv, Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro.
    5
  34. Prigozhin wasn't a threat to him, why the fuck would Putin deploy a nuke internally and against either a city or miles of important infrastructure to do something his security forces could do?
    5
  35.  @peterflohr7827  More like realistic, every war scenario where Russia wins relies entirely on "the west/Ukraine will not want to anymore", not on Russia actually having the capabilities to force a win against a Ukraine that refuses to give up. Russia does not offer any peace options that Ukraine is able to accept and the West will never stop supplying Ukraine, There is only 1 logical outcome and that is a dragged out war that eventually fully exhaust Russia and sees its forces defeated.
    5
  36. And things are also getting worse for Russia, congrats on agreeing with Anders I guess?
    5
  37.  @luffebassen  Russia is advancing by 100+km every 3 days on other fronts?
    5
  38.  @luffebassen  lmao, stay mad, period.
    5
  39. Russia has been invited to attend the next peace summit, where Ukraine will put forward their picture of a peace treaty. That is the opposite of what you think it is, the terms at that peace summit is still for Russia to get out of the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine. There has been no backtracking and no new news about peace talks from either Ukraine or Russia.
    5
  40. Damn bro, defense lines collapsing for the 900th day in a row, how disastrous for Ukraine.
    4
  41. So was Bakhmut and so is Kramatorsk. Logistics hub doesn't equal collapse of the military, it equals the frontline slightly moving and new supply hubs being designated according to needs.
    4
  42. Saved Europe is a pretty far stretch, if Russia couldn't make it through Ukraine it sure as hell wouldn't be more than an annoyance if it tried to fight Europe.
    4
  43.  @michaelstiller2282  Nobody believed that 200k men stood around the Ukrainian border for an exercise, Some people thought it was to invade Ukraine, others thought it was a bluff to pressure Ukraine and/or the West for concessions, but nobody thought it was an exercise.
    4
  44. I don't know who I dislike the most, the actual pro Russians, or the Western people that think this is about natural gas and minerals in the Donbass.
    4
  45. Interesting, the last comment I saw mentioning Vance said that Trump picking him as VP proved it was over for Ukraine once Trump is in office since Vance is one of the most anti-Ukraine republicans. I have no knowledge of the guy so idk which one of you is closer to the truth but I know the internet is a very entertaining place :D
    4
  46. Trump would find it impossible to stop supplying Ukraine entirely, large sums have already gone into expanding production that the US just has no need for itself and which Europe would be on the door offering money for, I would enjoy seeing Trump try to stay in office for the short time he had after telling the Republican party he will refuse to sell arms to Europe and instead planned to scale down the jobs that has been created to do just that.
    4
  47. The west is by far the largest producer of shells today, much thanks to the incredible surge in production in both Europe and USA. Weird how people say the west has no industry when Europe has caught up to and accelerated production much faster than Russia.
    4
  48.  @luffebassen  So, can't wait for your take on last night, the attack been repelled again?
    4
  49. Because at the start they were still in denial and didn't think Russia could actually be that bad, after 2.5y most of them(except Mearsheimer) has gotten out of that denial, It also helps that a year ago Russia had just over 1m soldiers in the military, since then it has recruited 30k a month with the intention to grow their forces, latest estimates of their forces is about the same as a year ago. It would take a university degree in denial to keep saying that they think Russia only loses a couple thousand men a month. Bad analysts base everything on math, in the average war claimed enemy casualties is commonly about 3 times higher than actual casualties, so that HAS to be the case with this war as well... of course, any real expert would know that just blanket applying average to everything is moronic, that average includes conflicts were the casualties was claimed as 10 times higher and ones that had to be revised up after the war as claims had been lower than actual casualties. Same with how long the war would last, the vast majority of wars end in a couple weeks or months, so of course the Ukraine war would never take more time than that. Those dumb math assumptions are made with no regard for the factors available, people were still saying the war would be over any day now a month into the war when it was clear it wasn't going to end anytime soon. Now analysts and experts have finally started realising that the numbers they said were the most likely casualties for the first 2 years doesn't match the war we are seeing, if Russia had only lost 20-50k men in the first year they wouldn't have had a problem holding Kharkiv or Kherson, they must have lost far more men for the situation to get as bad as it got. It isn't possible for Russia to have more men, more material, better material and take much lower casualties than Ukraine while also losing the entire Northern front as well as Kharkiv and Kherson, that brain tumor of an analysis doesn't make any sense.
    4
  50. Russia has advanced 40km since Avdiivka fell 10 months ago, anyone describing that as a collapse is a moron. When a collapse happens it will look like the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive, which of course doesn't even mean the opposing force is defeated, just that a strategic advantage was gained. Russia isn't advancing along the entire front or taking ground rapidly in a certain theater, it is concentrating much of its forces in small areas(Kursk, Kupyansk and Pokrovsk directions) and still barely moving forward under large bombardment and infantry advantage. What you're looking at is a normal average offensive from someone that is willing to keep going despite taking overwhelming losses, that's not a success, that is embarrassing. Which other offensives in military history do you know of that covered a distance of 40 kilometers in nearly a year do you know of that you would describe as having been a clear collapse of the opposing forces? The cases where the frontline moved in this fashion are usually described as impressive fighting retreats that took advantage of an enemy that didn't know when to give up, if it wasn't for all the defeatists in the West and the ridiculous cope from tankies and Russians the Pokrovsk offensive would be described(correctly) as a monumental disaster for the Russian military.
    4
  51. You do realize a nuclear accident in a nuclear power plant happens at the nuclear power plant right? not on a strategic or tactically beneficial location? An "accident" at a nuclear power plant isn't going to help Russia in any way, like, Crimea is immediately downstream from such an accident, just like half the warm water ports Russia has.
    3
  52. Very cool argument, Russia is still now in a nuclear conflict because the until then unbeatable Russian army wasn't able to deal with the already defeated and easily crushed NATO forces. I am sure nobody in the population or other people in power that could survive a post-Putin world would have any objections.
    3
  53. The problem was solved over a hundred years ago when the destroyer was made to deal with packs of torpedo boats. Destroyers are of course too large and not designed to deal with the drones Ukraine uses today but it is the same principle, to deal with swarms of small ships you need slightly larger purpose built small ships yourself. Small corvettes are perfect for the purpose of dealing with the types of drones Ukraine uses in the black sea today, think something like the Norwegian Skjold class.
    3
  54. "Yet, as Perun shared in one of his earlier vidéos, this doesn't mean the Russian economy is close to collapse" Of course, that also means it doesn't mean it isn't close to collapse, people just agree that it is headed towards disaster, but nobody has any idea if that happens in a month or 2 years.
    3
  55. Belarus has a relatively small and poorly equipped army, it is intended mainly to secure the President and there isn't popular support in the army or populace to conduct a war in Ukraine. The buildup is very likely posturing so Luka can tell Putin he is drawing some Ukrainian forces to the northern border, if Belarus does enter the war its capabilities wont be enopugh to take any significant territory as its army is just too small short term. Western response would very likely be more significant in favor of Ukraine than the Belarusian impact in favor of Russia would be.
    3
  56. Russia is a great bit bigger than 3 times the size of Ukraine, But you're applying that 3:1 standard in the entirely wrong way anyway, so the wrong size comprehension doesn't matter. It is entirely normal for the defender to lose more than the attacker and for an attacking force 5 times greater than the defender to be wiped out while doing almost no damage at all to the defender. The 3:1 ratio is a rule of thumb that says you should bring at least 3 times the force of the defender to be relatively comfortable that you will win, not that you will take 3 times higher casualties. While a 5:1 ratio is applied to be certain of victory(but that can of course still fail at times) It has nothing to do with losses, it also has little to do with manpower as 3 guys in a tank is worth a lot more combat power than 1 guy in a trench.
    3
  57. No, wars do not always end with negotiation, they also end with unconditional surrender or collapse of states, seriously, "wars always end with negotiation" is a dumb ass statement, unless you count the salt Rome threw on the ruins of Carthage negotiation.
    3
  58.  @802Garage  lopsided as in Russia has lost more materiale than Ukraine has had combined in the war?
    3
  59.  @chuhrov  Wanna bet? You think Russia leaves this war with Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? I'll bet you 1000 US bucks they don't. Or if you have any other funny delusional prospects of something concrete that can be proven wrong or right I am all ears, but it has to be specific since if Russia ends up losing Crimea you would just still say Russia reached its goals and does not need Crimea anymore.
    3
  60.  camencowogh8333  If the Russian losses weren't staggering they would still be in Kherson and Izium, reality doesn't check out if you think Russia both has had a much stronger military, far fewer losses and also lost a third of the territory they occupied at the height in 2022.
    3
  61.  @ttexastt  The fatality counts makes sense considering how many hundreds of thousands of men Russia has pushed into service without actually showing growth of the army for it, the size of the current Russian army just does not compute in a world where it only lost 100k men.
    3
  62.  @johns2262  "It is hard to argue about objective territory changes though", it is hard to include them in any argument due to how significant any movement has been since fall 2022, were you as sure Ukraine was winning when they advanced in equal amount during the 2023 summer offensive?
    3
  63.  @johns2262  I'll take that bet, What do you think the Ukrainian lines breaking will look like? or the Russian offensive stopping looks like? How do you think the war ends? which territories will Russia for sure leave the war with?(if you say Zaporizhzhia due to Putin including it in Russian territory i'll easily put 1000 US bucks on that not happening)
    3
  64.  @anaremelam5998  Already have friends in Russia, they all tell me Russia is obviously losing and the economy is now fucked for no gains.
    3
  65. What advantage does Russia have in a war of attrition? Both sides have more people coming of age each year than they are losing, Ukraine has a far larger industrial base backing it. The strategic depth of Ukraine at the rate of Russian advance means Ukraine has no problem just waiting out Russia for many years to come. Where is the Russian advantage? Currently the Russian demands for a ceasefire(Not peace, ceasefire to start discussing peace) are: Russia gets all of the 5 oblasts it says it has annexed Ukraine changes government Ukraine disbands its armed forces Russia invades the rest of Ukraine Personally I think those aren't terms it is worth entertaining. Except not really because Russia has said it no longer wants to negotiate. What negotiations are you suggesting? unconditional surrender?
    3
  66. lmao
    3
  67.  @luffebassen  My point exactly, congrats? What Ukraine did in Kursk isn't of territorial significance, just like what Russia has done combined in 2023 and 2024 isn't either, it isn't an amount of territory that changes anything. You're clearly delusional if you think Russia has been winning this war.
    3
  68. As someone from Northern Europe(considered western in your terms I assume), you were paranoid, Russia is not going to start marching into central Europe, Europe has a far larger military and is not at all in any kind of risk from a conventional attack by Russia. Not at all surprised Russia attacked Ukraine and not at all surprised Russia is failing so disastrously, because it doesn't have a large enough army to conquer and occupy a country with the population and size of Ukraine, then some people are paranoid Russia is a threat to an area with 10 times the size, population and even larger difference in economy? europe has spent 5 times more on its military than Russia has for the past 30 years(AT THE LOWEST), it has never had less than 50% more men in the military either, most of that time the differences were even larger. Europe isn't and never was in danger after the fall of the Soviet Union, only countries outside the EU/NATO are.
    3
  69. What I think people get wrong about Russian mobilization is thinking Russia has the weapons to equip another 300k men... Men are useless without weapons, there is nearly nothing to gain for Russia from mobilizing a few hundred thousand men compared to the economic and political repercussions.
    3
  70. The European economy? what about it? things have generally been working out fine for decades now, it is pretty chill actually, no huge economic depressions like Russia had in the 90's either.
    3
  71.  @michaelotieno6524  Bruh, Russia has been running a staggering deficit the past 3 years, that's not even taking into account the value of lost equipment.
    3
  72. There really isn't a question that those countries you mentioned would go to war with Russia over aggression like that, It is completely missguided to think otherwise. And those countries alone would so overwhelmingly tip the current war against Russia that it would immediately collapse. With all those countries involved already the rest of Europe isn't going to sit it out either, France and Germany isn't going to see an all out war in Northern Europe and decide to sit out a war that would be completely one-sided in their favor. It is ridiculous to question the strength of NATO in Europe, the European members are still vastly stronger than Russia regardless of American support and there are more than enough countries that we are certain would back up the Baltic countries and Finland that it would immediately cause a chain reaction that would get every country to join the war in fear of ending up outside the alliance that would dominate European military affairs.
    3
  73. Some area on the flanks of the Russian salient also falling as it becomes more difficult to sustain them, Then a new frontline settles in with new supply points. The long term strategic significance is somewhere between insignificant and irrelevant.
    3
  74. Let's go, commentary on the last few days funny.
    3
  75. What the fuck Romania? Just gun the drone down, how would that be a big deal? "drone entered out airspace, we shot it down" is not any way a bigger deal than "drone entered our airspace, we guided it back towards it target in Ukraine" Shooting down a drone is not something that can be made into a big deal.
    2
  76. Been fun saying the same for the past 2-3 years and seeing everyone else agree that Ukraine would be forced to immediately surrender if Trump took office. Nice to see people who understand that it is not something Trump can do if he would and that Trump also probably doesn't actually want to do.
    2
  77. Ukraine's future already depends on both, there's just no need to talk about Europe because we already know there is not chance it will stop supporting Ukraine. Ukraine would be in an even worse situation if Europe cancelled all aid than it is if USA does so, Europe just isn't going to do so.
    2
  78. I wish him good luck in telling the Republican party that their military factories in their home states are going to wind down production, But in a less silly note: Trump is not going to cut in the weapons shipment to Europe, only maybe change a bit in how it is presented.
    2
  79. Ukraine gets a say in that, USA offered Afghanistan to itself as well, too bad the taliban didn't consider what USA had said they should do. Europe will continue to support Ukraine and Ukraine will continue to fight in this war regardless what Trump or USA think about it.
    2
  80.  @mitchyoung93  One journalist? that is your source pool? And one that doesn't write anywhere that lines are collapsing, just that some positions might be lost. Do you just see a couple headlines and throw out the name of people in the hope that nobody bothers actually checking your source? That sure has to be the reason since you didn't manage to even provide a specific article just a guy that has written a few hundred or thousands of articles so you can be fairly sure nobody will be able to prove that he didn't write what you claim.
    2
  81. It does not, the war is not decided by land in Donbas, Russia does not have the capability to sustain the war long term but the Western aid to Ukraine is a rounding error in its budget.
    2
  82. We are prepared, without America in NATO the remaining countries are still by far the second largest military power in the world, Russia remains insignificant to NATO without the US in it. Compare Europe and Canada to Russia please instead of to America, makes no sense to compare the other country's military to the US military if you're trying to explain why Europe would not be able to handle Russia...
    2
  83. Europe is the second largest exporter of weapons in the world after USA, yes, of course it can supply itself. Not that switching quickly is necessary, Europe has a larger military than Russia and a far larger civilian pool to mobilize in the case of war, Russia wouldn't be a conventional threat to Europe, notice when people talk about Russian attacks on Europe they talk about Russia attacking the baltics and the rest of Europe potentially choosing not to intervene, also notice that the "Europe must spend more" crowd always compare European spending to US spending, not to the actual potential enemy of Europe, which is by the way because if you compare Europe to Russia it becomes very difficult to maintain the story that Europe doesn't pay for its own defence, it obviously does spend more than enough to deal with Russia.
    2
  84. The war will still last years and the economic might on the scales with the west supporting Ukraine is like USA vs Japan in ww2, Russia's capabilities to sustain this war is entirely non-existent long term. You shouldn't need any youtube blog tell you that the larger economies always win long wars. This war will go the way ww1 went, but instead of Germany pretending it is doing fine before a sudden economic collapse it will be Russia doing that.
    2
  85. It is not hindsight at all to say a military plan that relies on the enemy to "give up" as soon as you show at the border is retarded, that was the entirety of the Russian plan and the only backup plan(that they hadn't considered but are going for now) is the only thing they can do, shut their eyes, put their hands over the ears and hope Ukraine and/or the West just doesn't want to anymore after a while.
    2
  86. The vast majority of aid to Ukraine is given. not loaned, What is loaned is in vast majority also free money as they are the classic "totally a loan we aren't giving away money" that politicians use to get necessary expenses through the morons blocking it, interest rates far below inflation and frozen payments with no interest increments for the first 10 years. Once the war ends Ukraine will very rapidly grow its economy and the West will throw more money at it while deferring a bunch of the loans. Ukraine is not at all owned by foreign creditors, it has been countries giving "loans" with good intentions that has supported Ukraine and will continue to do so, the "burdened by loans" narrative isn't real, it is a tankie and Russian talking point they can use because people don't know how money works.
    2
  87. Russia started taking loans a couple years ago, very fucking bad ones with horrible conditions because nobody wants to lend money to it as it is obvious it will not be able to pay back. Russia has also run with large deficit(not counting the value of lost material), energy money isn't remotely close to cover the cost of the war and sanctions.
    2
  88. ​ @MrZlocktar  15% in 2.5 years is really one of the worst ramp ups in military history, the Ukrainian military is already 300% bigger than it was pre-war and even that isn't particularly impressive when it comes to military mobilisation at the outset of war. 15% really shows how much Russia is struggling to keep up with loses.
    2
  89. Answering that question was the entire video... By increasing support to whatever level necessary to make sure that nuclear bomb did not help Russia win the war and properly telegraphed to the entire world taht nuclear weapons for offensive wars will not be tolerated.
    2
  90. When are you going to stop claiming that the Ukrainian military is broken and next week Russia will take Kyiv?
    2
  91. Ok, but I would hardly use Mearsheimer as an example of an expert :P The only thing Mearsheimer is good at is being an example of someone that is wrong. Edit: ok, my bad, I wrote that before the follow up section that said the same thing about him :D
    2
  92. For a section of the eastern front* that section will see the frontline move a bit and then settle in a new position as Russian forces outpace their own logistics hubs. Bakhmut was also an important position like Pokrovsk and Kramatorsk is, the fall of Pokrovsk(sometime next year at best for Russia) wont be much more significant than Bakhmut was when it fell over a year ago and every moron was out saying that its fall would leave to the collapse of the frontline...
    2
  93.  @dingbobgasama8224  "open door" lol, that's what they said about Sievierodonetsk, Bakhmut and Avdiivka as well. You think the Russians are going to be able to rush to Pavlohrad or something once Pokrovsk falls? The Ukrainian army still counts over a million men, a few hundred thousands of which are spread along the active frontline.
    2
  94.  @bigmoe9856  In the vastly larger economies backing it up that are scaling production much faster than Russia?
    2
  95.  @yellowtunes2756  The West is terribly outgunning Russia, you just have to use your brain to realize that the ramp up in production in the West will inevitably lead to a Ukrainian victory.
    2
  96.  @luffebassen  I had a feeling i was speaking to a child. Now its confirmed 👍 Quickly copy/paste this too, so we can have a double confirmation!! You are probably better off just sticking to those video games and other similar things you probably know something about.
    2
  97.  @luffebassen  Thanks, means a lot coming from you.
    2
  98. Who is going to force Ukraine to stop fighting? Trump doesn't have the power to do so even if he wanted and Europe is clear that it will continue support regardless how long it takes.
    2
  99.  @luffebassen  Now you just lie as well? everyone in here knows you would lose if you fight a child.
    2
  100.  @AEH-df7ho  Countries don't sign deals like the one Russia is offering, giving up Ukrainian territory is not on the table.
    2
  101. lol
    2
  102. Good that you know in advance Russia is doing poorly, shows you're of great intellect
    2
  103. Have fun with China America, while Europe continues to outspend and maintain a much larger and more capable military than Russia and chills at home.
    2
  104. I would expect more from a Russian troll, yet here you are.
    2
  105. Yeah, it has been extremely bad and getting worse since 2022, sadly the western press is busy talking about how Russia can keep this up forever to actually fact check any politician's or Russian state media claim.
    2
  106. It is nice to have some comic relief in hour long debates though.
    2
  107. Took 4 years for the German war economy in ww1 to come to the point Germany gave up, it isn't exactly unusual for the economic decline of war economies getting to the point of failure taking several years. Maybe a few months, maybe a couple years, but inevitably the Russian economy can not continue selling off assets and taking horrible interest rate loans like it is doing. It took 20 years for Putin to build the wealth of Russia to the point it could support this war, the upcoming economic collapse that is coming is going to be far worse this time than it was after the Soviet Union fell. Personally I find it very sad that you decided to commit suicide in this fashion after Europe tried so hard to build friendly economic relations to the point it ignored the wars in Chechnya, Georgia 2008 and the invasion of Crimea/Donbass 2014. Europe just kept giving you chances to not be retarded and every step on the way you slapped that hand away, now you have proven to it that eastern Europe was right and there will not be a new chance, this time it ends with the collapse and balkanization of Russia, as you have chosen yourself. But you guys have good luck and fun with that, that is going to be terrible and I sincerely would have wished otherwise like the vast majority of the West did as well.
    2
  108.  @ChristianSt97  Ok? relevance? Did you also think Ukraine was in no doubt winning when they advanced every day for the second hall of 2022? Both countries have far too much strategic depth to make the capture of 1000 square kilometers to have any meaning when taken over many months.
    2
  109.  @EngineerMFB  How in the world do you come to that conclusion?
    2
  110.  @valeriesolanas4077  Not necessary when real life already does the job for me.
    2
  111. Europe has been spending 5 times as much on defense as Russia has for the past 30 years, it also has a much bigger everything when it comes to the military, more aircraft, more soldiers, more navy, Compare European military to Russia instead of to USA and what morons are saying about Europe not being able to defend itself starts seeming rather retarded.
    2
  112. The Russian population isn't under any pressure, the Russian government is blowing through the Russian reserves right now, in 2025/26 the Russian people will start feeling it as not only are all the reserves gone but the Russian government will have maxed out all the loans it could get. By the time it gets to the point the Russian population is feeling it, it will be far too late, be felt stronger than it got in the 90's and be irreversible. Putin is literally torching all the progress that was made in the past 30 years right in front of the Russian people's eyes and they are all pretending they can't see it, but in a couple years it will be impossible to pretend it isn't happening just by closing their eyes as it will be felt instead.
    2
  113.  @nunterz  Europe is the second largest military power in the world after the US, by a fucking mile ahead of China and a completely different league compared to Russia. Americans really need to open a book before throwing tantrums about defense.
    2
  114.  @kasperchristensen8416  nono, some people that are supermarket employees claimed that on reddit so clearly that was the consensus of the West.
    2
  115. Well, I for one can say I made an accurate prediction of the invasion :D
    2
  116. You think this war is ending anytime soon? That is impressively delusional.
    1
  117. Trump will choose what his voters are most likely to like, that is neither Russia or Ukraine, it is selling weapons to Europe. Trump would not finish his first week in the office if he told the Republican party that their military factories has to wind down because he no longer intends to sell weapons to Europe.
    1
  118.  @oggierock  And now you're saying "on his way out" so in that scenario why not just use nukes?
    1
  119.  @oggierock  Why would he do something that is deniable on his way out? something that does severe damage to Russia? Just go with the nukes in that case. An "accident" at a nuclear plant is dumb and serves no purpose, it has been talked about because of fear mongering by idiots but is not a real scenario.
    1
  120. Neither side is remotely close to agreeing on "the reality on the ground" Ukraine's security issue is Russia inside Ukraine, Russia's security issue is an Ukraine that doesn't want Russia inside Ukraine, please do come with good suggestions for how to address those issues in a way to makes both sides happy.
    1
  121.  @phueal  The west has made it pretty clear in writing of contracts to military production companies that it intends to keep increasing aid over the next several years. Doesn't look like any large movement on the ground is likely anytime soon, but there will inevitably be movement towards Russia, might not be before 2025 or 2026, but it will happen.
    1
  122. Whether Trump wins isn't relevant to the outcome of the war, at best the influence he has is how fast the determined outcome happens, By the time he might enter office next year regardless what he does he can't stop Ukraine from winning, Europe was and remains the most important supplier to Ukraine and at this point is capable of carrying Ukraine the rest of the way without the US. Not that I think US aid would stop flowing under a Trump administration, that would make Trump seem weak and irrelevant as the war continues anyway, he has no option but double down on aid so he can claim he shows more strength than Biden and so he can take credit when the war is won.
    1
  123. Russia has less money from that export than it is using, far less. It has been and continues to burn reserves at a high and unsustainable pace at the same time as it is taking up loans at ridiculous interest rates.
    1
  124. Not without Western aid, of course, western aid is still arriving so the Ukrainian economy is irrelevant in the equation.
    1
  125. Given that Europe has been by far the quickest to ramp up production for this war? Given that Europe has been investing far more in continued production increases? Europe has made far more long term plans for support than anyone else, Europe had a slow start but it has made far more long term plans than anyone else and its military industry is expanding much faster than anyone else.
    1
  126. Russia has been invited since day 1 and Ukraine has had contact with China since day 1, nothing changed in its stance at all.
    1
  127.  @qZbGmYjS4QusYqv5  Damn, moving the time now? You actually willing to put some money on the war ending on January 20th?
    1
  128.  @Koczu0  Fair, but the general reality is that Europe would easily beat Russia, the reason some European countries are arming themselves faster than others is because everyone would like the war from the start to be fought in Russia instead of in their own territory. As in, right now Europe would definitely win, but for the start of the war the Baltics, eastern parts of Poland and Finland might se a lot of damage to infrastructure, so it would be nice to make sure that they have enough military power to immediately dive 100km into Russia so all destruction happen there.
    1
  129. Disaster? Here? Nice shitposting attempt, Russian bot.
    1
  130. Trump will blame whoever can give the most money to him and USA, Russia is not part of the competition for that and Europe already won it, he is just going to pretend play that it is a difficult decision to make so that he can appear even stronger and smarter when he inevitably point out that Europe has increased its defense budget and is buying more weapons from USA now thanks to him(not at all something he has had an effect on).
    1
  131.  @Notrusbot  Putting "bot" in your name sure makes you seem like a reliable source and reasonable voice 😂
    1
  132. The large majority of aid promised to Ukraine this year by USA has not been delivered but has been ordered from industry for delivery as soon as possible. USA also didn't have an amazing military industry at the start of this war, in artillery shells for example Europe produced more than USA in 2021. Much of the US industry is dedicated to systems that it doesn't want to give, which is why USA also has mostly delivered from stockpiles, USA just has much deeper stockpiles than Europe but that isn't because it produced a lot in the last few years, it is because it produced a lot in the 90's and 2000's.
    1
  133. It is not at all realistic for Russia to be able to maintain occupation of Ukrainian territories over more years of war, it has no chance to keep up with western production capacity of war material over the next few years as the west keeps ramping production much faster than the Russia that still mostly converts old equipment instead of building new.
    1
  134. 1 Trillion value, not profit, after cost of extracting it all you're down to a couple hundred billion, even if it was 1 Trillion it would still be less than the war cost Russia. Minerals and fossil fuels has absolutely nothing to do about the war. 1 Trillion isn't even that much in natural resources long term, the farmland of the territory is worth much more than that.
    1
  135. Even Trump would be out of office within a day if he said Europe isn't allowed to buy weapons to transfer, his entire following exists because he claims he will improve their economy and make their military greater. Imagine what would happen if Trump went out and said he is going to cancel all the planned expansions of factories to supply Ukraine and not even that but he was going to ban Europe from buying weapons for dozens of billions of dollars that would go right into expanding the american military industry.
    1
  136. Trump never does what he says he is going to do. And the rhetoric on peace has not changed at all, the demands from all parties remain the same as 2 years ago, Ukraine still intends to take everything back and is holding peace negotiations with the rest of the world excluding Russia because it sees Russia's current government as entirely irrelevant to an eventual peace.
    1
  137. Trump calls everyone a friend until they are in direct opposition, that doesn't mean he is actually going to help or sacrifice anything for them. Trump also called Zelensky a friend and intelligent man when they met...
    1
  138. What objectives? Asking so I can come back and laugh in 2 years :)
    1
  139. 1. NATO isn't even trying yet, it hasn't shifted its economies focuses 2. yes, the current economy of NATO is very sustainable long term
    1
  140.  @MarcosElMalo2  Ukraine doesn't hav ethe resources to take it back right now* Always include the passage of time in talks about who can conquer what territory, long term Russia is completely incapable of supporting the war the way the West can.
    1
  141.  @glintongordon6811  Russia had "almost completed the donetsk oblast control" 2 years ago... If that is the passage of time you perceive as quick then Crimea is very much being lost "soon", so in 2-3 years maybe.
    1
  142. And you will keep hearing it until it bites Russia's ass
    1
  143. Then why are you still feeling the need to stay around convincing everyone Ukraine lost?
    1
  144. No, that is not possible, where did you get that idea? Even if the speculation from people who have no clue is that there might be a ceasefire wasn't fiction that does not come remotely close to suggesting the West would revert any sanctions. Reverting sanctions isn't something anyone that matters have suggested, Europe is speaking in unison on the topic and says all sanctions will stay in place until a final peace has been negotiated and Russia has agreed to cover the cost of damages in Ukraine. Meanwhile in USA not only does Biden find the idea hilarious but Trump strongly agree with Biden on the topic, which isn't exactly weird considering how strong sanctions on things like Nord Stream 2 was under Trump's last presidency. Sanction reversion isn't only off the table, it has been thrown in a safe and dumped somewhere in the center of the Atlantic ocean, absolutely nobody talks about that which are related to making such decisions. As a bonus, despite it obviously being propaganda to appear strong, even Russia says the sanctions don't matter and their economy is actually stronger now that it stopped supporting Europe with energy and got new trade partners 🤣
    1
  145.  @mufinsp0  He already did work that out, which is why he is going to play hard to convince at least until he is in office and then wait a bit before pointing out that USA is making huge bucks while also increasing its military capacity because Europe is buying so many weapons. Trump isn't going to stop aid(for more than a small time to pretend he has a tough choice to make), he is just going to pretend he made the deal much better and all the change in Europe is thanks to him.
    1
  146.  @evgeniya7853  Mostly how dumb he is and how little he understands about politics, economics and war.
    1
  147. What do you mean? Europe is the part in this war that is out scaling everyone else in production and deliveries. Europe can't just materialize 10 new factories out of thin air in a couple months, but it is investing more successfully in increased production than both America and Russia.
    1
  148.  @maritaschweizer1117  You are totally wrong, NATO without USA maintains a significantly larger and more capable military than Russia, it also spends far more than Russia and control access to most of Russian ports through the chokepoints in the Arctic, Baltic and Black seas. Germany would of course fight Russia, polls that ask if you would fight for your country lets people assume the question is if they would fight in an offensive war, turnout for the military once you're the one being attacked is always far higher. You're a fucking clown if you think nobody would come to Finnlands aid, a Russian attack on them would 100% certainly result in a full war with all of NATO.
    1
  149.  @a5cent  The vast majority of wars in history has gone as predicted, they are absolutely predictable besides a few odd cases. Russia does not have the resources to maintain the current consumption rate indefinitely, the West does. Ukraine is not going to give up, that is a fact, you can argue that in the end Ukraine will end up ceding some small territories on borders but saying that it will give Russia what Russia wants is entirely and objectively wrong. Talks about needing to "see the future" is just idiot talk, you might as well just question any prediction anyone makes down to the retardedly simple shit. We can say we know you will survive til tomorrow despite not having seen the future about it, sure, you could get run over by a truck, but the chances are you wont be and we can be perfectly certain about it.
    1
  150.  @a5cent  Of course one sided predicted wrong, that easily happens, especially from the point of the aggressor as those think there is no way the other side will refuse to give up. Luckily, as any intelligent person would have thought of, not only the 2(or more) countries in the war gets to have an opinion, there is a whole remaining planet of countries that usually somewhat agree who is going to win. The USSR thought it would win, the rest of the world was laughing its ass off, just like USA thought it could win in Afghanistan and again most of the rest of the world was laughing its ass off while the US allies did as little as they could get away with doing while claiming they were honoring their NATO agreements. In Vietnam the US definitely would have won if it could be bothered with it, it wasn't defeated in Vietnam but in Washington, the governments that considered the invasion was entirely accurate in their capabilities militarily. Then to go on: the rest of the world thought Iraq was being retarded when it remained in Kuwait, the rest of the world was correct. The rest of the world thought Argentina was being retarded when it didn't give up once the UK signaled that they were coming to take the Islands back, the rest of the world was right. Of fucking course one of the participants of each war has to be wrong you fucking clown, but most wars also see the majority of experts and governments successfully predict who would win a given war. In some wars like the Japanese against the US in ww2 even the japanese knew they had no chance to win a war, they just hoped USA wouldn't be bothered.
    1
  151.  @Princip666  At least get China to support the view that Crimea is a new part of the RF before you start spouting nonsense, if your only significant political ally doesn't even believe you then why would anyone else?
    1
  152.  @luffebassen  Very ignorant statement. But ok...u are free to think like that ofc
    1
  153. Russia doesn't expect the current effort to be enough, they have nothing more to give. This is it, this is the "Russian threat" that everyone is so very worried about, and it is pathethic in comparison to not the west but to just Europe. Russia just don't have a plan beyond "do the best we can and hope the other side gives up" because that is the only possible hope they have to win, whenever they sit down to try and come up with a plan it becomes painfully obvious how hopelessly outmatched they are in the face of a Europe and Ukraine that wont budge. At some point this year(maybe already happened) we are beyond Russias peak advantage in this war, from there on out the rapidly accelerating production in support of Ukraine will continue to outscale whatever the fuck the Russian economy thinks it is doing.
    1
  154.  @kjj26k  lmao, the entirety of his followers would be up in arms against him if the Europe that they all want to pay more came with dump trucks of money to USA and Trump refused it.
    1
  155. That doesn't do anything, despite Russian hopes that it might.
    1
  156. Trump will increase weapons support to Ukraine after pretending he is the reason Europe has increased its investments in its military, he has to prove that not only has he "forced" Europe to increase spending on its military but also that now when it is USA will be a strong partner to a strong Europe.
    1
  157. Putin being unable to remain in office without a big piece of Ukraine is exactly why there will be no peace until the government of Russia changes, whether that be due to economic collapse or Putin dying of old age is of little importance.
    1
  158.  @luffebassen  You people is why I'm here, this is excellent entertainment and I get to stroke my ego knowing how fucking idiotic some people are.
    1
  159. Ukraine would be in a far worse spot, wasn't it for the Western economy supporting it. The money necessary to keep Ukraine afloat indefinitely is a rounding error in the Western economy, due to that whether the Ukrainian economy can keep itself afloat becomes irrelevant, it doesn't need to. Nobody is pretending the Ukrainian economy isn't doing poorly, the rest of us just see that Europe alone can sustain the entire Ukrainian economy indefinitely, while Russia just can't sustain itself and isn't being propped up by anyone else.
    1
  160.  @charlygriffin2828  Anyone thinking there's a chance Russian artillery is as good as Western artillery is as big a moron as Mearsheimer. Just like anyone thinking that someone having more artillery has the advantage while attacking into enemy fortifications, Russia need vastly more artillery than Ukraine just to make it even on the battlefield. Ukraine uses artillery to fire at incoming troops and Russian artillery, Russia uses artillery to level fortified positions and urban terrain, one of those 2 uses requires many more times as many shells as the other. Lack of knowledge on technological differences and battlefield uses is an excuse the first time you hear about it, but like Mearsheimer I assume you're going to return down to "but they have more"
    1
  161. What do you mean "emerged"? The US already was the largest economy with a gdp more than twice as high as the Soviet Union(2nd place) in 1938. The US didn't get a larger economy due to spending a lot on defence, it already had a large economy and despite spending far more than long term sustainable on its military it remained the largest one because most of its competitors got their economies blown to pieces.
    1
  162. Yes? that's the point? the West can sustain Ukraine, it doesn't need to sustain itself. The whole idea here is that Ukraine's economy is irrelevant since it is a rounding error in the Western economy, while Russia has to carry itself and it can't do that at this pace indefinitely.
    1
  163. Per IMF Russia is nr.11...
    1
  164. Not exactly a hard thing to understand but i'll help you. The purpose of the video is to make clear to everyone that the media talking about how Trump is the end of Ukraine has no idea what they are talking about.
    1
  165. Trump will of course end up selling weapons to Europe and Ukraine, he just wants to play politics first to show he is the one that made it so Europe is stronger than Russia. Cutting aid permanently is out of the question, he just has to capitalize on Europe increasing investments in their militaries first by taking credit for a thing that happened irrelevant to his input.
    1
  166. And? who will care? him saying it wasn't him doesn't affect that the nuclear powers and everyone else will see whether that nuclear explosion benefited Russia and take action accordingly.
    1
  167. Inflation at the normal rate? 2-3%? just like most economies aim for???
    1
  168. China has no interest in sacrificing its own economy to prop up a failed Russian one. As China has made clear for years now, Crime is a part of Ukraine and the Western economy is China's only serious customer, sure it would like Russia to keep existing, but it isn't going to commit suicide just to help Russia hold on a bit longer.
    1
  169.  @Princip666  I countered everything I read cause I like everyone else that sees your comment stopped after the first half sentence :P
    1
  170. Trump would set a record for shortest presidential term in US history if he suggested selling US weapons to Russia.
    1
  171. He specifically notes that western aid is the question in the last part of the video. And IF this backing end Ukraine would be in a worse situation. Allow me though to do say what you claim Anders said, the West will maintain necessary backing for Ukraine indefinitely.
    1
  172. By the West only giving it 2% of their attention. Sad as it is it shouldn't be a debate who is winning, but since the West isn't giving it any effort here we are.
    1
  173.  @Alejandrica  Weird how you manage to add those up to 100% of world GDP while 100 countries aren't member in either, almost as if one of those doesn't represent 50% of the world GDP, probably the same one that isn't made up of countries with shared values and strategic goals.
    1
  174.  @Alejandrica  West/BRICS 50/50 in first comment but now BRICS is 2-3 times greater than the West because someone disagreed with you? You're just going to be that blatant showing that you don't actually care about real numbers?
    1
  175. What is giving you the idea sanctions will be relaxed? Sure isn't what any current or coming governments has signaled so I am genuinely curious if it is the new US government, lead by the man that started saying Russia should be sanctioned all the way back before nord stream 2 construction began, or something different you read in a headline that is completely detached from reality?
    1
  176. It really is just because most people don't try to understand what they are reading/hearing, it should have been obvious to anyone that wanted to know for the past 2 years that Russia does not have the capability to escalate anymore. That ball has been in the Ukrainian field which is why this invasion of Kursk was done once Ukraine felt like it is in a strong position and should start pushing for Russia to burn men and materiale even faster so Russia loses the war faster. Big news organisations suck at explaining complex matter(of course, that is because they know their audience doesn't want to understand it only read one paragraph/sentence that gives them an answer), meanwhile mainstream media like Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, etc are all drowned in morons, defeatists, Russians and some actual useful information, but because people don't want to think they can't figure out who is sharing useful information and who is a moron. Escalation was explained perfectly fine in the past, but people that don't want to think don't know if Anders or History Legends is the genius or moron so they read the headlines of both and think "well those disagree but I have heard Russia was a big threat to Europe 40 years ago so Russia must be winning".
    1
  177.  @JELmusic  yes yes, Ukraine is not in NATO, what is that relevant to? certainly isn't relevant to whether it is in NATO's interest for it to win this war and join NATO.
    1
  178.  @rphb5870  yes yes, any time now Russia is going to send in the real army, it has spent 2.5 years fooling around because ???? but next month it is for real!
    1
  179.  @benwinchester8819  The same to do? The thing that they already do? That I precisely described them already doing in my comment? That was the foundation for the comment and the entire point of it that Russia has to match now but Ukraine was already doing the entire war? No wonder everyone you meet is a general, a person of average intelligence must seem like a military genius compared to yourself.
    1
  180. Damn, you describe the entire point of the analysis yet didn't understand it, very impressive. The whole idea is that nobody does Einstein.
    1
  181. lol, the West has far more resources than Russia, you just have to accept that.
    1
  182. You didn't need to "think" they were going to prepare enough, they weren't and that was public information, they had assembled a force smaller than the Ukrainian army. Why would you think any military follows their own doctrine? Very few militaries come close to performing to the same level as their doctrine dictates, Russia isn't and clearly wasn't one of those. Russia was obviously not a professional military as stated by anyone that ever witnessed any of their exercises or paid any attention to any war they were in. Seriously, you can not see the Russian effort in Chechnya, Georgia, Syria or Donbas and say it was rational to believe the Russian army would be conducting war according to their books or in a professional manner. It has been widely public information that the Russian military still acts as a 20th century military with a bit of new paint, saying otherwise is clear denial on the subject. Russia was obviously going to lose, saying the rational thing to believe is that the invaded country wouldn't resist is just trying to sidestep the issue of having been wrong, you would also have predicted Germany would beat the soviets and continued years after the war to say that was the logical thing to believe.
    1
  183.  @charlygriffin2828  Wanna bet? Any specific geographic points you think the Russian army will reach by new year? When do you think Pokrovsk falls? Konstiantynivka(the one west of Chasiv Yar)?
    1
  184. At this rate, by the beginning of 1942 the Soviets will have lost enough territory to start thinking about signing a peace treaty. And other good jokes desperate people tell themselves when it is clear they have failed to win the war and will now spend the next couple years getting ever more delusional as they drag the rest of their country down with them.
    1
  185. You really think the Russian woman high up in the bank system wouldn't be constantly accused if anything went bed in the economy? She would definitely be used as a scapegoat just due to how easy it would be to accuse the "spy that is only here to destroy our economy!"
    1
  186. No it wouldn't and no it don't
    1
  187. Ukraine has several million more people eligible for military service, Neither Ukraine nor Russia is going to run out of people within the next few decades, both their militaries are far larger now than they were 2 years ago and have both not only continuously grown since then but does so now as well. Manpower is a desperate talking point for the pro Russian community because population is the only thing they can definitely point to and say Russia has more, but that is irrelevant because both sides have millions more than they can train and equip.
    1
  188. Where di you get the idea Ukraine is low on manpower? It doesn't generate enough manpower to fulfill its wishes of increasing the army to 5 million men, it has no problem generating enough to keep up with what is necessary and is still expanding its armed forces like it has done continuously for the past 2 years. Just like Russia has the exact same situation itself, both of them has far more men than at the start of 2022, just not as many as they would like to have to win the war faster.
    1