Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Was Ukraine's counteroffensive really successful?" video.

@dirckthedork-knight1201 Problem is how he frames everything against Ukraine while downplaying Russian failures. Put simply, if the US sends forces into Venezuela and those forces get bogged down with 50k+ deaths in an operation that was supposed to start the full occupation months ago; we rightfully note that the US is in an abysmal situation. Because the power gap is too much to ignore. Same applies to Vietnam or Afghanistan btw; both of which got foreign support. A stalemate, or Heaven's forbid -PUSHING BACK Russian troops is a massive deal. The baboons who claim that HistoryLegends isn't pro-Russian are still clutching on their remaining canisters of copium LMAO
4
@ishitrealbad3039 West doesn't care; Russia has made threat after threat and didn't follow them so their threats are useless. If Russia sees fit to attack the West, the West will respond personally instead of just helping Ukraine.
3
@zachariasobenauf1895 Russia may be a joke to the US, but it's still strong compared to Ukraine. Your logic makes as much sense as "if the US was a Superpower, it should have destroyed the Taliban by now". The reality on the ground doesn't reflect your sentiment.
2
That's literally what everyone is doing with Russia atm seeing as their influence and power is crashing around them. CSTO is literally disintegrated lol
2
@Simo-xj8ln Nobody said shit when Russia invaded other countries either. Want to take a guess what's especially unique about this latest one? Give you a few hints, it starts with Putler's speech justifying the war.
2
@comradetirer US also did nothing in Georgia, as well as the many other countries Russia invaded. Ukraine 2022 was a step too far, especially with the logic they used.
2
@ishitrealbad3039 This was in context of the war itself and the threats made on Western powers for supporting Ukraine. Russia's threats have been a joke. Russia denied it would invade Ukraine, that's not following up on threats. Russia never threatened to take over Crimea, it denied that it's troops took over and claimed it was separatists. Russia never once claimed that its goal was for Novorossiya, and its slowly losing it atm while also losing tens of thousands of men and destroying its influence in CSTO. Mobilizing 300k men when it can barely support the men it has no isn't gonna change anything; it's just gonna speedrush Russia's destruction at this point at more of a blood cost to the Ukrainians. So all you've proved is that Russia is always duplicitous in the name of conquest? Is that what you're trying to tell me?
1
Sounds like Russia too, except unlike the Ukrainians the Russians have effectively no outside help and is thus destroying its future.
1
Literally nothing supports the idea that the cost of the offensive is extremely high to begin with.
1
@molecatcher3383 By this logic the US has never failed in its history, what braindead logic. Also we have no clue how many Ukrainian troops have died -the number is probably roughly similar to the Russian numbers. Which, isn't all too terrible all things considered. Losing land is also kinda missing the point -if the US got beaten back by the Iraqi National Army, they'd rightfully considered to be a joke. And Russia is precisely a joke.
1
@gerfand That means little when Russian artillery has barely been functioning for the past few weeks due to Ukraine bombing their ammo depots.
1
@gerfand Artillery was only used consistently for like 2 months or so; the initial Russian strategy for like 3 months was to rush to B since they expected weak Ukrainian resistance.
1
@gerfand Never said they didn't have arty usage, just that they weren't used in the way you're describing. Russia literally used artillery for everything to the point that some cities like Mariupol looked like they were nuked -that was the time when Zelensky admitted that something like 100 troops were dying every day. Instead of doing American-like maneuvers like Russia attempted in the early war, they devolved back to WW1 style artillery barrages; which was why the front line stalled so much in this time period with incremental Russian gains. So for like 100 days or so Russia was killing about 100 Ukrainian soldiers per day; that makes 10k deaths in about 2 months and a half and that dropped a lot after Ukraine got the HIMARS and targeted artillery depots. Being generous we will double Zelensky's amount for those 100 days making the death toll around 20k, and assume 100 deaths for the rest of the conflict. That makes 30k deaths or so for Ukraine; and that's with me being generous to Russia. So yeah, I doubt very much that the Ukrainians are facing troop shortages.
1
@gerfand Indeed, it seems Ukrainian casualties are much lower in retrospect. Russia is getting screwed hard.
1
@nikitab.6600 Where are you even getting these numbers? Also, the wounded number implies that a good portion of them can return to the fight; that's not 17.5% manpower out of action. Nothing also points to Russia being able to support 10 months, let alone 17 more months of war; its war equipment is dwindling and it has been forced to purchase equipment from elsewhere to make up the shortfall.
1
@daddy_1453 Regardless of whatever logic you use; Russia has to throw men at this war without the means to support them and thus has to use increasingly insane propaganda to maintain war support. It isn't the Ukrainians, whose home was invaded, that needs to maintain momentum. Worse yet; Russia is consistently LOSING territory now. There is no scenario here where Russia doesn't crash into the dirt; the question is how hard Russia crashes as it digs further into the ground. I'd like to see separatists in Russia, personally; seeing as they keep backing separatists everywhere else.
1
@dandrevs Kinda missing how there weren't NATO troops that forced Kosovars to declare independence in the first place; the literal thing Russia did by sending its troops into the region. Wagner AND Putin literally admitted as such but fascists butthurt about the West don't care and just want to see the world burn for their pride.
1
@dandrevs If you ever bothered reading that resolution, you'd know that the UN only promised to honor the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia while allowing the Kosovars to decide what THEY wanted to do -which was why their later declaration of independence was considered LEGAL by international law by the International Court of Justice. Besides, you missed my point; you claimed that the situation in the Donbas is the same as Kosovo. They're not; one side declared that they were independent without being forced to be a foreign entity, the other only did so AFTER foreign troops entered the land and coerced such a thing. Basically; Ukraine was invaded while Yugoslavia had a civil war. The difference is massive. And that difference is why NATO bombing Yugoslavia, while controversial, isn't an act of imperialism while Ukraine's bombing of the Donbas can never be construed as such. Especially when we have proof from the Hague of Serbian attempts at genocide while Russia has jack all but their propaganda. No international human rights group on the planet believes Russia's claims of ethnic Russians being genocided and have instead noted that both Ukraine and Russian troops have killed civilians in the Donbas. Russia is a terrorist state. Get over it.
1
@dandrevs As far as we know; nobody saw any irregularities in the voting for the representatives that declared for independence; there weren't US troops organizing anything. Their wish for independence was kinda obvious after the first time where they literally battled Serbs for independence without any US troops around. Idk how else to spell this out for you. Majority of Americans in some States are ethnic Germans, that doesn't suddenly mean that they want to join Germany. Does Austria want to join Germany tomorrow too? My point is that Donbas didn't exactly make a referendum by themselves and then suffer a literal attempted genocide and then later declare themselves independent. Instead Russia rushed in with their troops and set up a referendum in which outside observers were shot at and declared independent. Yes, people of the same ethnicity almost always don't just automatically want to join the country of that ethnic background. I have literally no issue with a Kosovar being tried for war crimes; neither does the West. The International Court of Justice recognizes Kosovo's declaration of independence to be legal, so why shouldn't the West recognize it? The Resolution didn't guarantee any security forces from Yugoslavia to be in Kosovo. What are you even talking about? "Demands in particular that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia put an immediate and verifiable end to violence and repression in Kosovo, and begin and complete verifiable phased withdrawal from Kosovo of all military, police and paramilitary forces according to a rapid timetable, with which the deployment of the international security presence in Kosovo will be synchronized; " I'm sorry, but I really don't have an issue with bombing genocidal maniacs to make them stop. If Russia had actual proof of Ukrainians ethnic Russians, then I'd also not care all that much about Russia bombing them. Instead all I see are Russians justifying genociding Ukrainians. Subsequently, I don't care if Russia gets bombed to the Stone Ages.
1
@dandrevs I think that there is far more nuance if through referendum the Kosovars want independence compared to foreign troops coming in to make said referendum happen in the first place. The latter is a flat out invasion from a hostile power, the former is not. The Hague already concluded that the Serbs committed genocide. Nothing you say will change that. How about you get the Kosovars that did terrorism and try to get them arrested for war crimes instead of trying to justify your imperialism? I already told you; Resolution 1244 only guarantees Yugoslavia territorial integrity insofar that the will of the Kosovar people doesn't conflict with it. It doesn't guarantee independence, but it guarantees that Kosovo chooses for itself what it wants: "Authorize the United Nations to facilitate a political process to determine Kosovo's future status. Kosovo's future status would take into consideration the Rambouillet Agreement which Serbia refused to sign in 1999, and which calls for the "will of the people of Kosovo" to be one of the guiding principles in defining Kosovo's status, another being the respective compliance of the disputing parties to the Agreement. The resolution reaffirms calls for "substantial autonomy and meaningful self-administration for Kosovo"." And yet again the International Court of Law decided that Kosovo's declaration of independence was COMPLETELY LEGAL BY INTERNATIONAL LAW. Idk how many times I have to tell you this. It's pathetic how many Serbs just conveniently ignore everything just so that they can cry about Kosovo. Vojvodina did not push for independence and there is no provision that gave them their right by international law to do so. That's all there is to it. I've already explained the difference between Kosovo and Donbas; the only precedent that exists, put frankly; exists in the demented. Putin pushes every lie and fabrication to justify his actions, crying about Western "dictatorship" one second and then crying about "Western decadence and LGBT propaganda" the next. Russia is an imperialist country that literally annexed foreign territory with brutal war crimes that the UN has already made note of. Russia consistently bombs civilian infrastructure far from the front lines for no reason but to terrorize the Ukrainians and his state media has called for "de-Ukrainizing" the country. And now Russia has threatened to nuke Ukraine AFTER he has threatened to start a nuclear war with the West multiple times. Russia is a terrorist state and will be treated as such.
1
@dandrevs 1991 Kosovo Independence Referendum. No US troops, done by Kosovars, made the war between Serbs and Kosovars official. The 2008 Declaration of Independence happened long afterwards and was done in accordance of Resolution 1244 and international law. Yugoslavia did not recognize it of course, but the fact that it happened and a war was being fought over it meant that to bring peace Resolution 1244 had the provision of allowing Kosovars to decide what they wanted. And they wanted independence. Seriously, why are you arguing this if you did not know these basic facts?
1
@dandrevs It had a turnout of 87% of the population and Serbs who boycotted only made up 10% of the population. There's no such thing as an invalidated referendum because 13% of the population didn't vote. The Donbas referendum was invalidated because foreign troops entered and initiated it, not because of turnout. Legality of the nation-state can and has been tossed out in favor of the new state all the time; Serb history proves that much too. International law also mandates that the will of the people be respected; its a duel between the respect of the country's territorial sovereignty and the sovereignty of the people. If the Constitution mandates that all Albanians should be killed -does that mean that the UN has to accept that? The answer is, of course; it's a case-by-case basis. And the war proved ruinous enough that Yugoslavia not only collapsed, but multiple states which also declared independence got said independence despite the Yugoslav Constitution saying otherwise. Kosovo by international law is a sovereign entity, and it was done without foreign troops literally going in there and doing it for them like Panama and Donbas. Whoever lives in Kosovo are Kosovars, regardless of ethnic grouping.
1