Comments by "Sedna063" (@Sedna063) on "Putin's military vapourises Ukrainian army positions with the feared TOS-1A heavy flamethrower" video.

Don't forget that Ukrainians have the same experience.
6
That's really not how to conduct wars...
3
And why?
2
@Rajath_2001 It is a war… read the definition. Organised fighting characterised generally by extreme violence and destruction. And no, civilians typically are not the prime target although armies love nothing else to destroy the enemy civilians later on. So Russia attacks Ukraine, sends thousands of missiles onto Ukrainian soil but it is the West and Ukraine that is to blame? Jesus Christ, Indians, did the recent heat wave affect the ability to think logically?
2
@blizz3621 Yep. I served. Obviously you guys did not because you would otherwise agree with me. Going soft in the opening stages of a war is insane. You risk unnecessary losses of soldiers and equipment, give the enemy time to entrench and replenish, to train new soldiers and get international help. And it also costs you your soldiers morale if you waste their lives. Sorry for shattering illusions.
2
@J.M.254 Times have changed, the nature of warfare has adapted but general principles did not. You don’t give the enemy any soft strikes that he can adapt to. And you don’t waste your soldiers lives in outdated equipment
2
@Rajath_2001 Whatever the Russians call it, it is still a war. Obviously they don't wanna say this but I picked two definitions. "Armed fighting between two or more countries or groups" "the desired territorial, economic, military or other benefits expected following successful conclusion of a war" This conflict is a war no matter whether you like it or not. Yes, it is a way to crush morale. 1. Ukraine is not in NATO nor is Minsk treaty a treaty where Ukraine agreed to forego the possibility to join NATO. Neither did Ukraine formally started negotiations to join NATO. Make sure you know what you talk about! Anyway, shouldn't countries be sovereign in their decisions to join alliances anyway? 2. Why should NATO have dissolved? It was and is a useful way of defence for many European countries. Having the US and an entire continent in your back is surely nice. 3. Dude, just check out the trade volume between Russia and the EU (most of which are also NATO member states). In 2021, the trade volume was 257 billion Euros, with an additional 29 billion Euros in services. Europe had 311 billion in investments in Russia. This is hardly isolationist. Germany was about to start the Northstream II pipeline with them. 4. Russia was not isolated. They have lost former countries and parts of the USSR to the west though but that was through those countries own decisions. Love it or hate it, Eastern Europe is very much not pro-Russia and they remember what they did during the 20th century with them. However, Russia was not disqualified from trade, investments, other security alliances with partners everywhere... 5. NATO did not launch those wars. At least not all of those. Afghanistan was UN legitimised and NATO was tasked to give protection to the new Afghani government. And the other war would be Libya, again with UN legitimisation. I don't care who you support or not. But please, get your facts straight. That much should be expected from anyone. Oh, and the irony when you support Russia which is doing exactly that on Ukraine - terror. But then Indians like Russia so they make excuses. So, excuse away.
2
@Rajath_2001 1. Russia annexed Ukrainian territory, funds separatists and then some and now the Ukrainians are the baddies? 2. Find me the treaty where Ukraine agreed not to join NATO! Please. Concrete evidence. I can provide evidence where Russia guarantees the inviolability of the Ukrainian borders. 3. NATO was not involved in Iraq! This was an American-British war. NATO didn’t do anything. Check your facts. 4. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who gassed the kurds… just saying. I disagree with the Iraq war by the way. 5. Why are we talking about the US now having ridiculous gun laws? They vote for this shit. Can‘t understand it either. 6. Have you been to Russia? 7. The US have regular elections which are largely characterised as free and fair. Just look who comes up in politics. You can criticise the President, US etc…
2
@losfromla1480 It might not make me a strategist but at least I seem to know a lot more about warfare than some of those commentators here. If they are commanders, I'd pity their underlings. What are they showing us? That they are not a world power?
2
Actually Zelenski does a much better job
2
How so?
1
@truthalwayswins3078 Satellites aren't perfect for that. They have limited exposure time, artillery positions from that high up are hardly visual and are equally fast to disappear before the reconnaissance can be acted upon.
1
There are peace talks. But neither side is willing to make or can make the concessions the other side wants.
1
1. Satellites are not stationary and only show a momentary picture. It is therefore not all that easy - neither are satellites real time intelligence. A moving weapon convoy will be out of harms way. 2. It's not rocket science. They get introduction and a course. Anyone can learn it. They teach this to experienced troops - those will school the newbies. Combat action will be additional training. 3. While true, they are being propped up by EU and US. They have enough food, oil and energy.
1
Security guarantees are also important for Ukraine. And Russia is a nuclear power. Ukraine is not
1
@J.M.254 Russia will want much more than just that.
1
@losfromla1480 I never proclaimed to be an expert, chill. However, the amount of idiocy coming from the commentators where they argue that using outdated equipment that risks their men is a smart move on behalf of Russia is disturbing. Yeah, keep calling me a pawn. You are most probably way above this.... And no, the army I served in (Not American) doesn't work like this. We use intelligence, not brute force.
1
@DymonBeats Do they? Their jets get shot down quite constantly
1
In your dreams.
1
@Casanova4Cinderella I face reality and I see Russia loosing ground soon
1
@Casanova4Cinderella Nah; just looking at the maps, combat losses and reinforcements
1
@Casanova4Cinderella 1. Kherson: The Russian offensive beyond Kherson has been stalled and the Ukrainians are pushing back onto the city. And if you care, you will find street protests in Kherson on Youtube, showing exactly the sentiment of the people. 2. Mariupol: Took them almost 3 months in a besieged city without outside relief to conquer it. Not at all a master achievement. 3. Donbass has been occupied for 8 years now by as much as 80%. They have had 3 months and did not even manage to fully take the remaining 20%. A shit show. Open your own eyes.
1
@Casanova4Cinderella And how do you arrive at that conclusion? A city that was captured is now again fought after. A city Russia surrounded for weeks now gave up the final resistance. Another city was relieved by Ukrainian troops. Donbass is still not occupied fully.
1
@Casanova4Cinderella Nah, not really.
1
Why are we to be blamed? You'd rather Ukraine surrender their fight and submit to Russia? The Ukrainians demand those weapons because they don't want to.
1
It would be far easier if Putin orders the withdrawal of the Russian army....
1
So if you were attacked by a drunkard bully and you defend yourself, it would be your fault to be in pain? Damn, be reasonable
1
@ssingh1683 So it is basically his fault he got attacked by someone? Damn, sou guys really try hard to spin the fault. You do realise that Russia has no right to the loyalty of Ukraine?
1
I hope you are not in the Indian military otherwise I fear for your country. 1. Attrition is not in the interest of any army. Ever. No army ever fights a war of attrition if it can prevent this. It is costly in material and men and can go very wrong. Speed has always been a key part of warfare. 2. Russia did fight Napoleon and Hitler with attrition because there was simply no other method they could use against them. Both were tactically much better. 3. Ruble is being propped up extensively. Nonetheless, the real economic costs are slowly coming. 4. How do you figure Russia stabilised economically? Just look at the interest rates and their inflation rate is higher than in the west. 5. Belgrade was a nation that genocided people! Kabul was UN-sanctioned against the fucking Taliban. I agree on Iraq - Bush should be in jail. And Damascus - that would be Russia. US isn't in Damascus.
1
@abhijit1509ibskol 1. If you want to mention imperialists, don't forget the Russians and their "Russian empire". Or do you not know how Russia became the largest country in the world. Our history books are full of Russian wars of conquest. The idea that speed is only for marauders as you say is moronic! Speed has been a defining element of warfare since basically ever. And no country will pick attrition as basic fighting mode if it can be helped as it is costly in men and material. Raw materials don't help you if you can't afford them. In Ukraine, Russia is fighting a war of aggression against Ukraine. The Russian-speaking Ukrainians are not persecuted and very much NOT genocided. This is a false premise to give justification. As for the Neonazis, yes, there are Nazis in Ukraine but also in Russia (Do you know Wagner group, the mercenary company? Guess why they are named Wagner). As for Nazism in numbers, in the last parliamentary election in 2019 did not give significantly large results to the Nazi supporters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_parliamentary_election Results table included. The only party that could be called a Nazi party would be Svodoba. 2.15% of the votes. 1 Seat in parliament. This is not a large party. This is a small party without government influence. And Selenski is jewish. Jews don't survive long in Nazi states.... The idea that Ukraine is full of Neonazis is very much propaganda and not grounded in reality. It is a phantasy to give legitimacy to the invasion. 2. If you mention Napoleon and Hitler, well, you oughta realise that Russia didn't do it alone. Against Hitler, millions of Ukrainians perished and the USSR survived with the help of the allies (which supplied it with food and weaponry and explosives and also threatened the German concquered regions to the point that 1 million German troops were in France, 400,000 in Norway and several fronts in Italy and Northern Africa... And as I said, Russia could only fight a war of attrition because it had nothing else. The German army was a superior force but could only be outnumbered and outgunned. And we see how much it cost Russia. Their losses were beyond imagination. 3. Gold standard is a bad idea. Russia doesn't nearly have enough gold to cover all the rubles printed (and not printed but virtual). There is a reason why countries around the world deviated from the gold standard. Yes, we should do everything to get rid of foreign energy suppliers. Then otherwise we could have supported Ukraine much better now. 4. If you want to look at the ruble exchange rate and then at backfiring sanctions - well, I wanna know where you studied economics. Anyway, while inflation has been seriously on the rise here with some 9%, in Russia it's some 17%, the base interest is 14%. Their growth pace drastically fell and that has been hindered by the rise in fossil fuel commodities which form a major base of their economy and most of their exports. Their non-commodity growth has accordingly been hit drastically. Furthermore, with strong sanctions on technology Russia will begin to exhaust stocks on vital goods in the near future without being able to resupply. They have already announced that their oil / gas production will suffer (they need western extraction technology) and data centers consume electronics like crazy, which won't be resupplied anytime soon. Their aircraft fleet is basically pirated against the Capetown convention which they signed but no more spare parts are coming in. 5. NATO has bombed Serbia because there was a civil war and ethnic cleansing. Actual ethnic cleansing with evidence! Depleted Uranium bombs don't exist! Uranium is used in projectiles, not bombs. You use Uranium for armour piercing rounds - using it as a bomb casing or in a missile defeats the purpose of Uranium. It is heavy and not very hard. Steel is cheaper and more suitable for bomb casings. Anyway, countries around the world, including Russia right now in Ukraine use depleted Uranium rounds. As for cancer, check out the demographics of Serbia. It is an old country, the median age is 41.6 years. Cancer is a disease of the old. I don't think Uranium is the main cause for Serbian cancer rates.
1
1. This war could have been very much avoided had Putin not invaded... 2. Nobody forced Russia to invade. Stop making excuses.
1
Why doesn't Russia withdraw and talk?
1
Nobody forced Russia to this invasion. Stop making excuses.
1
@shishirnair4563 First, Ukraine did not even formally ask for membership... They were insofar outside of NATO and would have remained for quite some time. Secondly, Ukraine would not have qualified for NATO membership either. It is not enough to merely ask for admission - there is a host of criteria to be fulfilled and Ukraine did not fulfill them all, Thirdly, Ukraine is a sovereign state - sovereign states should be allowed to make their own choices. It should be noted that Ukraine primarily wanted to join the EU for the economic benefit. Wouldn't have been easy for them either. And you should stop making excuses for Russia.
1
@shishirnair4563 WIth regards to Afghanistan there was a UN resolution. As with Syria, the US did not invade Syria. Agree with you on iraq though
1