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