Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "HistoryLegends" channel.

This is winning. Ukraine has had lower losses then Russia. Sometimes the 5 to 1 rate was correct, sometimes Russia actually got the edge temporarily and Ukraine lost slightly more or Russian soldier. But on average Ukraine has consistently lost fewer troops for one simple reason, they where defending and Russia was forced to push very defensible positions. Don't get me wrong. This is a morale blow for Ukraine and the west. But in terms of actual combat capability changes over time Ukraine has been growing their combat capabilities while Russia has actually been losing them. This channel isn't a reliable source of information about the war. If you want one that's neither too Western/Ukrainian biased nor Russian biased I suggest Willy OEM. Look at his videos and the dates they where posted. As for western media, it just hasn't caught up with the realities on the ground yet. At the time of that BBC article for instance there was still 4-5 highrises in Ukrainian hands. They where obviously going to withdraw soon, but making that public before it happened could potentially influence things on the ground... But at least western media generally doesn't have goverment agencies controlling what is or isn't published.
7
@vasilisgm8966 Eh, the Norwegian defense left a lot to be desired too... We wheren't really prepared here in Norway either. But our terrain gave us the time needed to organize a little bit. And it didn't hurt that the Germans underestimated us quite a bit.
4
@theangrycanuck8331 No, you won't always have higher losses then the defender. But it's a pretty good rule of thumb and when you are not a superpower (something neither Russia nor Ukraine is) then it holds water pretty well. Western style combined arms maneuver warfare is one way to make progress without that kind of losses, as you can isolate defending troops and deal with them later when they're starved for resources. That's how Ukraine managed to make major advancements earlier. Russia doesn't really have that capability right now. And must instead do the slow grind again Ukraine. Russia isn't incompetent however and the defensive positions dug are intended to stop such big movements in the future.
3
@ruslander1 Failing to make good arguments and instead turning to insults only reflects poorly on you, not me mate, but if it makes you feel better, by all means... Honestly I feel sorry for you all more then anything...
3
@ruslander1 Clearly you're not if you think that Russia actually won this engagement or for that matter this war. If you want more sources I suggest Willy OEM and Perun as a couple of pretty good ones. Willy OEM has interviewed troops fighting on both sides, both people fighting for Wagner and people fighting for the Ukrainians in the battle for Bakhmut. As well as in several other sections of the frontline. He has actually been there talking with people himself despite fighting cancer. He knows what he's talking about and knows what he's not qualified to say anything about. Perun genuinely does look at pro-Russian sources too, but if you use source criticism you quickly see that they're often making impossible claims, like the shooting down more of the Ukrainian air force then what Ukraine had prior to the war + everything they've received from the west and planes promised but not yet delivered combined and then some... Or destruction of western tanks in Ukraine before said tanks where even made available to Ukraine... Such sources obviously needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Likewise the discussions between people related to soldiers on the front about their lack of training and equipment, about how their commanding officers stole their shoes to help said officers make a living etc differs significantly from what official sources says about the state of Russian troops... Satelitte pictures of tanks left to rust since the days of the Soviet Union, clearly not in a state where they can be easily repaired. Artillery rounds way past their expiry date and even in some cases even rusting... What's going on inside Russia isn't as hidden to the west as Russians like to believe. Even if you ignore Ukrainian sources you can still find a lot of information publicly available, not as information from biased sources, but raw information that does not paint a rosy picture for Russia.
3
19:10 Not the same outcome. More Russians died then Ukrainians in the capture of Bakhmut. Troops that won't be available to Russia in the future in the fight over the next village, of for that matter defending against the planned Ukrainian offensive.
2
@Surprido This is a pyrrhic victory for Russia, aka the same thing that happened in Finland. Everyone in the world consider the winter war won by Finland despite the lost territory. Indeed the winter war was a direct cause of the German invasion as it showed just how incapable the Soviet Union was of fighting effectively at the time convincing the Germans that it would be easy to win again the Soviet Union. In other words, every single soldier that died on the western front again Germany indirectly died because of the attack on Finland. This is similar. It's showing just how weak Russia is and making Russia more vulnerable by the day. So yes, technically Bakhmut is now in Russian hands. But with all the equipment and lives lost it leaves Russia vulnerable to Ukrainian offensives, it convinces us in the west that this is winnable and worth supporting. And quite frankly while unlikely it makes it easier for us if we where to invade you elsewhere, like at the Norwegian, Finnish or Baltic borders... Or for that matter a amphibious assault along your northern or eastern coast by special forces units.
2
@111julos Russia has shot more artillery, because pretty much anyone in the Russian army can call a Artillery strike, no matter how little they really know about military matters, leaving less ammunition for the important stuff. By comparison Ukraine has adopted the western approach of making access to artillery support restricted to certain officers, meaning that the ones that can call a strike at least has some training in when it is genuinely needed rather than just useful. As a result Russia uses it more but more often then not it's just suppressive fire, while the Ukrainian shells actually tends to do some damage more often (although occasionally they also use it for suppressive fire, but often in more important situations). Of course there are situations where the Russian approach might be more useful then the western approach. But unless you have endless supplies of shells and a unlimited logistics capacity it tends to be more of a problem then a advantage.
2
@benblue361 Honestly, regardless of what side you're on gloating really doesn't make you look good right now. Both sides will spin it as a victory, and both sides did win something from this. But both sides also lost something. Russia had larger losses in terms of personnel, ammunition and equipment. Ukraine lost the city with the ramifications to morale involved. On the whole Ukraine probably got the better outcome from the battle over Bakhmut because it was so pyrrhic for Russia. But it's ignorant of anyone on either side to start gloating and acting like this is a big unambiguous victory for either side. The war of attrition continues. And while that's slowly improving the situation in terms of equipment for Ukraine it's definitely not like this is won for either side.
2
You're obviously trying to be neutral. But it sounds like you're using a bit more pro-Serbian sources then pro-albanian ones, to put it like that...
1
A pyrrhic victory. We'll see what they're capable of after wasting so much resources here.
1
@АндрогинЙао The only "source" of that is a US leak that was modified by pro-Russians by switching around two numbers making it look like Russia lost less troops then Ukraine, a change that was only made in one place in the document, while everywhere else the correct numbers are seen, showing that Ukraine is losing fewer troops and that pro-Russians have faked it... Furthermore pro-Russians, including the Russian government itself has repeatedly claimed Ukrainian casualities that's simply impossible, like more planes then Ukraine has ever had access to, like their whole airforce shot down more then once. And likewise tank kills of tanks that hasn't even arrived in Ukraine yet. You guys really should question your propaganda sources a bit more... Because they're quite frankly just bs. Doesn't mean that everything in the west is always 100% accurate, but at least accurate information is generally more or less *available*.
1
Noticed how you have a heavy bias towards Slavic language sources?
1
@ismail91210 The destruction was mainly done by Russian artillery... Western equipment is for the most part too expensive and limited in availability for use against individual soldiers. Instead it has been focused more on taking out Russian supplies and to take out the Russian heavy equipment. Without the Russian equipment advantage the Ukrainian troops are actually better trained and more effective on average (although there's definitely exceptions to that), but Russia are still burning through their cold war stockpiles of heavy equipment giving them a edge early in the war before the himars where available. Once they came in Ukraine could suddenly take out high value targets at will neutralizing that Russian advantage. And with western equipment and training Ukraine could push quite a bit. Then came bud season and both sides dug in. And it's limited how effective western equipment is against dug in troops. You can still punch through them, but not without casualities that Ukraine can't afford without having so much equipment that they can afford to lose some. Something they're just now starting to get. It's still a open question if they'll be able to push through the most fortified positions that the Russians have access to along whatever route that Ukraine choose to attack. Western equipment is capable of it, but the quantity/availability is a problem. Like not having western fighters yet...
1
@baniSaqer Not really. Very little NATO equipment where actually present there. Most of it was reserved for the planned offense. Ukraine did have to commit some of their western trained special forces to help deal with some of the better Russian ones, both Wagner veterans from other wars and from the Russian paratroopers stationed there. But overall Bakhmut wasn't really that high of a priority for Ukraine. It was mainly intended as a meat grinder for Russia to waste resources on. It of course was never *irrelevant*. But it was a means to an end.
1
@pauliusiv6169 I very much doubt that. That's just as much pro-Ukrainian dreaming as most of the pro-Russian here are doing... The only exception is the unlikely event that the planned offensive is intended that particular section of the front. Because the only reason Ukraine was spending any resources on those flanks where to keep supply lines open to Bakhmut. While pushing around Bakhmut isn't impossible it's just more effort then it's worth, and the terrain in general doesn't favour attack regardless of the side attacking. Defending the flanks where worth it to keep the meat grinder of Bakhmut going since on average it hurt Russia more then Ukraine. But now that it has fallen the rest of the land in the area isn't really worth using that much resources to attack in.
1
@ruslander1 Yeah, according to Russian propaganda based on a US leak that was then modified by pro-Russians by exchanging two numbers making it look like Ukraine was loosing more troops then Russia all this time, a change that was just done one place in the document, while the real numbers where available everywhere else. As if that was sustainable and something a professional army would do long term when a country with a larger population is attacking a smaller one. The logistical value of Bakhmut has been destroyed a long time ago by all the fighting. Russia was fighting over it for morale and propaganda reasons, and Ukraine because it was a cheap way to kill a lot of Russians while losing relatively few Ukrainians pr lost Russian. Another factor was that since this was Wagner Russia didn't care about the casualities...
1
@groupb9420 No. First of all, the winter war predates the second world war. Secondly, the continuation war and the second world war is technically two separate wars involving the parties of WW2. Finland was a co-belligerent in the war against the Soviet Union during the continuation war. But they didn't actually join the axis or sign any alliance with Germany, instead they simply cooperated with each other in their separate wars till the Finnish objectives where achieved. The Finns then left the Germans to fight on separately as they had no desire to actually destroy the Soviet Union. Simply to free the homeland of their peoples (Finns, Sami, Swedes and Karelians, their main ethnic groups) Their end goal was a negotiated peace of some kind, not a Soviet destruction. Also, the winter war was faught without any German involvement, be that weapons or men. Nordic countries, western allies and interestingly Hungary and Italy helped Finland a tiny bit. But for the most part they essentially won (maintained sovereignty) that war on their own. The continuation war was a attempt to regain lost territory using world events (after all, the country was still full of refugees who had been driven from their homes by the Soviet invasion)
1
@Sebby6666 Maybe, I haven't had a chance to look at up to data sources I trust. That said, if you're talking about the Russian volunteers that moved i to Russian territory my understanding was that they where mainly just taking a few minor villages near the border in order to deny Russia the ability to use that area to attack Ukrainians inside Ukraine. And it's quite likely that this is a shaping operation meant to essentially force Russia to move troops back into their homeland and away from the actual objective of the offensive. Although, who knows, they might be planning on pushing further into Russia and exchange some land in negotiations if the area has poor enough defenses. They can't use western equipment there, but western equipment can free up their own stockpiles from elsewhere on the front for operations there if desired. Another option is that this isn't real and only meant to sow confusion? Who knows.
1
@Cokehead_Drug_Addict_Zelensky Thanks, but the last thing I'd like to do is working for a American company... I'm European. Employees have rights on this side of the pond. And a work life balance. I'm free to do this if I wish. Also, why are you impersonating the Ukrainian president if I may ask?
1
@vitraxgdanski1305 It was mainly important because of Russian obsession with it. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't irrelevant. And while it was still standing the railway infrastructure and road infrastructure still had the potential to support further advances. But both have been so damaged at this point that they have limited value in that regard... It's like capturing a height. Yes, it provides a advantage. But pro-Russians seem to think that winning in Bakhmut is somehow equal to winning the war. And that far from true. Also, the amount of Russian casualities was worth more then Bakhmut was. Fighting and losing the city ended up being a good trade for Ukraine, even if it was painful.
1
@vitraxgdanski1305 True. Still, Russian soil is Russian soil, and this is embarrassing for Putin and his cronies. Of course not enough to change the outcome of the war. But it offsets most of the morale effects of losing Bakhmut.
1
@Cokehead_Drug_Addict_Zelensky The "firecracker" mostly likely was a Russian false flag operation to justify a even more hawkish nuclear rhetoric and more importantly make it seem like they genuinely had a causus bellie against the west or for a nuclear strike against Ukraine...
1
@timmommens901 Following this war is always interesting. I hope that Ukraine manage to push with their newly trained troops. But with howndug in the Russians are it wouldn't surprise me if the gains ends up being rather moderate.
1
5:24 It's Danish. And it's the same in Norwegian too (previously under Danish controll) I'm not sure about Swedish, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same there...
1