General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

UzuMaki NaRuto
Military Summary
comments

Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Military Summary" channel.

Previous
1
Next
...
All

Everytime the Russians retreat and give up land its ALWAYS 'not a big loss', but when Russia makes any minor gains its always a great victory and is another step towards Ukrainian defeat. 🤣😂😅😆😅🤣
31
As far as I've heard Russia didn't have many ground troops located in Syria. So they're not bringing home many men from there.
14
@Turbo999be If you talk about reporting the losses of the Russians from the Ukrainian MoD, better not to because I've never seen such a pile a garbage numbers. You don't have to believe the casualty figures from either the Ukrainian or Russian side and simply look at what's happening on the battlefield. If Russian men and equipment losses weren't very high they wouldn't be doing so poorly right now and if the Ukrainian losses were as high as the Russians want to believe then they should be running out of steam and be unable to launch more major offensives in the near future with how depleted their forces should be.
10
@simulatedpilot3441 If you look through the past videos on this channel or on the Duran or other pro-Russian channels on Youtube, you'll see that almost all the predictions made in March/April/May have been almost all wrong by these guys. So I find it hard to believe that they'll suddenly be more on target with their predictions now when they haven't been since the beginning of the war.
9
Well its not like either side has a choice if they want to advance. You just have to adapt your tactics to whatever terrain you're fighting on.
8
@qman8816 Well if the Russian airforce is so dominant it sure as hell hasn't shown itself to be so in more than half a year of fighting in Ukraine.
7
@BohemianMarauder Honestly, if I were Russia I would keep the missile strikes going. Not doing so would just be naive. Ukraine won't be negotiating anytime soon, might as well go all out. Seriously if I were the Ukrainians I'd HOPE the missile strikes would keep going to civilian infrastructure because that means less missiles hitting military targets and frontline troops. And going by history bombing the hell out of the British civilians in WWII worked out really well for the Germans didn't it?
6
@Vypnox When Ukraine has all of their troops on the offensive, places like Kiev are not well defended Not nearly as many troops are needed to defend Kiev against Russian/Belarussian human waves of cannon fodder.
6
The war could end tomorrow if Russia decided to pull its troops out of Ukraine. How would Ukraine and the west continue the war then?
5
@jimcroft3633 Neither side has adjusted to the overhead reconinance. I see vehicles hidden from ground observation but stick out like a sore thumb from above not even blending in with the foliage. I don't think you can hide from modern recon aerial vehicles especially when it has thermals on it. Even if you had some material to cover up a vehicle from thermal and other cameras, you'd probably wouldn't have enough to outfit every vehicle in your army anyways. Then of course you'd need to find a way to cover up the troops which makes it even harder. Bottom line is that its pretty difficult to hide on the battlefield these days.
5
@brotherbrovet1881 If its theater then they're putting on an extremely realistic show when Russian helicopters are attacking Wagner forces and Wagner is shooting back with anti-air missiles and downing several aircraft.
4
Except the Russians have never gained air superiority over Ukraine ever since the beginning of the war. Maybe local air superiority at best in a few areas if that.
4
Well if the Ukrainians are smart they will use HIMARS to continue to hit every single supply dump in that region until there's nothing left and then it doesn't matter if they're outnumbered in heavy weapons when the Russians don't have the ammunition to keep firing at UA forces. Pretty much do to the Russians what they did to UA forces in Mariupol. Don't need to outright defeat enemy forces, but simply starve them of supplies until they either surrender or are forced to retreat.
4
@Learn ing People have already identified several of these soldiers and where they came from and its confirmed they're apart of the Russian army. I know it sucks to see soldiers from your side doing such horrible things, but at least acknowledge it rather than trying to cover up their crimes just because they happen to be on 'your team'.
4
@staypuft899 I legit don't know why anyone can take Gonzalo seriously when he's been wrong so often for so long. That guy constantly makes wild accusations and can never back it up with any kind of source or proof.
4
The city of Kherson will be a ghost city as things look like because the Russians will move to the other side of the river bank where they built their defense lines and pound anything that moves on the other side of the bank once they regroup when the newly mobilized boys join it's definitely clear they will bounce back Well I guess this means that the Ukrainians will have to keep moving forward and drive the Russians even further away to prevent them from doing more damage to Kherson than they already have. Also its funny how just a few weeks ago this was an annexed area by Russia and now they leave without even putting up a fight because they've been beaten by the Ukrainians. Much like the Kiev and Kharkiv retreats, this is probably Russia's best move in pulling back their forces before they get destroyed in an unwinnable battle.
3
If Russians could significantly disrupt Ukrainian supplies they would've done so already. Maybe they'll figure it out eventually, but so far Ukraine has avoided getting most of their incoming supplies destroyed.
3
@D PA Do you have any legit links that say that many Ukrainians have been killed in Izyum. All I ever see from pro-Russian supporters is them claiming neverending huge losses for the UA forces, but when asked to provide some links to support those claims THEY NEVER DO IT. So please provide links so people can see them if you believe what you claim is true?
3
Everytime people say that Russia will win this war, the ammo dump explosion shows why they won't win the war because they're dumb as hell. Unless something crazy happens like the Ukrainians overthrowing their own government or the west stops sending them supplies then its going to stay being a stalemate more or less.
3
@dejanatanackovic909 Don't even know why people still want to have Gonzalo on their shows when he's been wrong with just about everything connected to the war since day one.
3
Militarily it makes sense not to be overstretched and over committed. There's been a huge shortening of the front in the north which frees a heap of forces to face a further offensive in the south. How is it smart to give up territory that took you so long to gain? Especially more important cities like Izyum which is an important rail and road hub for military operations? Imagine spending so many men and resources to gain all this ground and then throwing it all away in a matter of a few days back to the enemy? These past few months when Russian advances were so slow, the pro-Russian folks played it off as minimizing casualties and now its all gone just like that. Minus well not have attacked to begin with if they didn't have enough manpower to keep their gains. I still think that once the Ukrainians burn themselves out with these offensives, a major Russian push will come. Even if the Russians do make a counterattack its going to be a long way to go considering how far they've fallen back. If it took months for them to make the gains that they had and then given up, then how much longer is it going to take for them them to retake the same ground a second time? They were already short on armored vehicles and there's a number of videos that show the Russians now having abandoned many more in their retreat back east. Even if they decide to counterattack its going to be a while to bring up more armored vehicles from back home unless they decide to throw what vehicles they have left into a quick counterattack.
3
@hansjorgkunde3772 Russia got air superiority, and they certainly give ground air support. Choppers can be devastating against infantry. The point that Ukrainian forces attack only during night, i have heard that from my Father. He was professional Soldier during WW2 on German side. The Russians HAVE NEVER HAD air superiority in Ukraine EVER. This is probably the most surprising things about Russian forces during the entire war that they're fighting against an airforce that's vastly inferior to theirs and they still have never been able to dominate the skies. If they did then Ukrainian artillery and HIMARs/MLRS systems would be partially if not significantly destroyed and reduced in effectiveness and their logistics would be taking much more damage than they currently are. Ukrainian portable anti-air as well as large anti-air systems have been doing a good job of keeping the Russian airforce afraid from carrying out deep strikes behind Ukrainian lines. We just saw last week when Russian airforce tried to be more active and they lost several jets and helis for their efforts. He mentioned that they could do things only during the night as the allied forced had air superiority and how devastating this fact alone already was. If the Ukrainians are operating at night its because they have the advantage in night vision goggles that allows them to attack and cause trouble to the Russians that they can't easily stop. Why do you think the US is investing so much into night vision technology? Because they want to be able to have a huge advantage over their enemy at night where few countries can match them. Encircled forces however are at a disadvantage that is a given. But after the map they are not encircled yet. If the Russians in Lyman aren't completely encircled its pretty close and they will soon have to make the decision to either stand and fight and potentially get trapped or to fall back to more defensible positions while they still have a chance to do so.
3
@mitchyoung93 There was that one podcast that Dima did with the Duran and Lira that their viewers considered 'too pro-Ukrainian' and since then maybe Dima has pulled back or worse become infected by the pro-Russian Duran. Personally I find Denys Davydov to be far more fair and balanced. He's Ukrainian and obviously hopes his countrymen can win, but at least he can acknowledge Ukrainian losses and retreats instead of painting a completely false picture that doesn't match the reality of what's happening on the ground in Ukraine.
3
You have to get those shells and other ammunition to the frontlines in order for them to be useful and if the Ukrainians keep hitting every Russian supply dump in that region with HIMARS or other means, then alot fewer shells and ammunition will be making it to the troops and eventually Russian forces may get starved out there just as UA forces were starved for supplies in Mariupol.
3
@Vedioviswritingservice Yes Bakhmut. The fabled city that Alexander from the Duran said was on the verge of being taken by the Russians right after the Kharkiv offensive drove them back over the Oskil river and yet its still in Ukrainian hands all this time. At this point I would be surprised if the Russians could launch any major armored offensive or any large scale offensive period unless they train their newly mobilized troops really well and arm them good. It would be a major victory for the Russians to not lose anymore land they've occupied at this point.
3
It would be a better outcome for Ukraine if the Russians actually did that. More ammunition fired at buildings and infrastructure means less munitions fired at Ukrainian soldiers.
3
@mabamijebenjaminese6416 The Donbas militia were losing badly to the Ukrainian army in 2014 and the fighting would've been over and done with had the Russians not sent in their army to turn the tide and push the Ukrainians back. So if the militia in the Donbas can get help from outside sources and even get Russian soldiers to fight on their side, then why are they crying foul about Ukraine getting support from the west? At least they're doing almost all the fighting on the ground themselves unlike the militia that would fall if the Russians weren't doing much of the fighting for them right now.
3
The greatest military in history spent 20 years trying to defeat goat herders in Afghanistan, and failed. Afghanistan was a failure because the US was interested in helping the Afghans build a nation when they themselves weren't interested and capable in building a nation. And it all fell apart because the Afghan army was a joke that had few effective units. If the Afghan army showed the same will to fight as the Ukrainians have they would likely still be in control of the cities and the US and maybe other western countries would still be supporting them with more supplies and advisors. But Russia has been systematically tearing the AFU to pieces. If that's the case then why is Russia so desperate to get more warm bodies into Ukraine ASAP with their mobilization? Why are the Russians losing a war that they should relatively easily should be winning? No doubt Ukrainians have taken a ton of military casualties, but the Russians have likely taken much worse which is why they're taking all these drastic measures and threatening the use of nukes to try and turn things around. I feel sorry for all the Ukrainian lives being utterly wasted by callous NATO decision makers. Why aren't you feeling sorry for all the needless Russian soldier and Donbas militia deaths that could've been avoided if Putin didn't go insane and invade in the first place?
3
Well if you look at the troop movements of both sides I'm pretty sure we know which direction the war is going at least right now. At the start of the invasion the Russians were moving on 3 fronts using plenty of armor, making heli born air assaults on airports and they were making gains at a decent pace. Then we had the whole Kiev front retreat and all the pro-Russian folks tried to explain that those forces would be redeployed for the great Donbas assault that's was coming soon that would encircle and smash most of the eastern Ukrainian forces. That never happened and what we saw was a slow WWI style offensive with slow gains being made taking months to do so. On the other side the Ukrainians were on the defensive the whole time trying to survive the early onslaught and begging for western support to help them fight. Throughout the months they were trying to slow down the Russian advance and to give up as little ground as they could while launching only relatively small offensives here and there. Now in the past couple of weeks they launch offensives on two major fronts and for the Kharkiv region they make large gains in a short period of time and in the south its much slower, but still ongoing. Going by these indicators its clear that the Russians lost a ton of forces and heavy equipment in the early part of the war and its come back to haunt them ever since. The Ukrainians are slowly gaining more western equipment and their troops being trained by NATO are now growing in number. Long term unless Russia decides to throw much more troops and equipment into the fight, they're going to soon be lucky to hold onto what they've taken to date let alone losing some if not alot of it back to the Ukrainians who are committed to the fight.
3
@xsommer8558 Putin and his cronies have made NUMEROUS threats with regards to using nukes. I don't even know why you'd dispute it. No one was talking about nukes until Russia started talking about using them months ago.
3
300,000 relatively poorly trained and poorly equipped troops isn't going to significantly change things on the battlefield. Maybe if the Russians are lucky these troops will be good enough to help hold the territory that they've taken already and not lose too much more. Asking them to try and attack is asking for high casualty numbers. On the other side there are increasing numbers of Ukrainian recruits that are being trained and equipped by NATO forces. The quality of Ukrainian troops will continue to increase since they can take the time to properly train their men to be more prepared to fight on the battlefield. These soldiers will make a much larger difference for Ukraine than the mobilized troops will for Russia.
3
They are merely preparations for the Russian offensive. If their future offensives are going to be the same as their Donbas and Bakhmut offensives then the Ukrainians are going to be fine. Its pretty crazy to think that the supposed 2nd most powerful army in the world is resorting to using Cold War era tanks because they've taken so many losses. If the Russians couldn't make many gains with better tanks at the beginning of the war, I'm doubting they're going to be making much gains with much worse tanks and a near non-existent airforce on the battlefield. The Russian tactic all through this conflict was to inflict massive damage to the Ukrainian forces and limiting their own losses. Too bad things have completely backfired on them and they've taken far more losses than they could ever imagine. Its sad that the Russians have never cared about their own people and that they're willing to throw even more Russian lives away for no good reason. I guess this has always been the Russian way and things will never change.
3
@tomk3732 Well, UA losses are between 3x to 5x as high as DPR / LPR.... so I see UA forces as cannon fodder. Russia taken losses but nothing major. If that's what you truly believe then go ahead and believe it, but it doesn't mean its accurate or is anything based on reality. I'm sure the Germans were saying the same things to themselves in WWII when they were taking heavy losses and found it near impossible to make any further large advances in the USSR. Even by absolute most conservative estimates the Russians have lost close to 1,000 tanks and over 5,200 vehicles and we clearly see the results of those losses when the Russians haven't launched any major armored attacks since they pulled back from Kiev. But hey maybe its just the Russians holding back their armored forces until they achieve a breakthrough to exploit or something. 😂🤣😅 Russia has won this war and is in full control. They can slow it down or speed it up. Ukraine is there to watch the progress they can do nothing about. They slowed it down because they have no choice but to slow it down. I really doubt Russia is in love with the idea of fighting more months or possibly even years in Ukraine if they can avoid it. The best chance the Russians had in defeating Ukraine was in the first few weeks of the war and they completely screwed that up and now they're stuck in a stalemate where they can't push forward significantly and refuse to fall back because that would be admitting defeat.
3
@pite9 The idea that Russia should be able to roll over them is not realistic. Even if they fully mobilized, it would be very costly to try to advance on all fronts with very inexperienced soldiers. Russia is handling this war exactly like they should. From their perspective, this is more like USA's war in Iraq than it is like the wars Russia fought in WW1-2. Russia expecting to roll over UA forces is EXACTLY what they were looking for and assumed what would happen. They were expecting it would be 2014 Crimea all over again just on a much larger scale that would include all of Ukraine this time around. Putin was counting on some Ukrainian troops defecting and others simply refusing to fight or to quickly surrender in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds and forces against them the same way it happened in Crimea in 2014. That was likely the assumption the Russians were basing their plans on which gave them confidence to attack on 3 wide fronts with the aim of taking the entire country with relative little Ukrainian pushback. If they had known before invasion that Ukrainian resistance would be so fierce they either would significantly increased their attacking forces or else they would've scaled back their plans to more reasonable goals. Perhaps they would've simply concentrated in the Donbas/Luhansk region and put all their forces to take those areas and most likely they would've been successful with much less resistance. Instead they went for all the marbles and failed miserably and now they're stuck in massive mess where their enemy won't stop fighting and they will have to keep a large force of Russian troops for probably many years to try and keep everything they've taken even if they don't plan to advance any further. Russia's inactivity may lead to less ukrainian losses and a prolonged war, but they save their own troops too. Proportionally, it's a winning strategy for Russia, especially since manpower is their weakness. They can afford to waste artillery shells, but if they lose too many men, it will make the civilians at home unhappy and it might even force them to do a draft. The Russians have no choice but to fight a long drawn out war now because they've lost too much equipment to be able to launch mobile armored attacks like they did at the beginning of the war. As I said above they didn't expect such fierce UA resistance because if they did and could do things over again they'd probably use much more artillery and missile strikes like they're doing now to pummel UA forces before advancing their armored forces forward. That would've saved them so many unnecessary troop and vehicle losses which could be used now, but because they assumed that UA forces wouldn't put up much of a fight they probably wanted to try and minimize the damage they were doing to Ukraine since they were going to occupy it or at least put in a Russian friendly government so it was best not to wreck too much Ukrainian infrastructure at first. Now they're stuck and while the Russians probably won't lose everything they've gained, its going to be pretty difficult for them to keep all that they've taken.
3
@kathya1956 That would mean that Russia wants a peaceful end which clearly they don't. You can't negotiate with someone who wants to give up next to nothing and yet wants everything.
2
@nimaalesaid9190 That's what the Russians thought when they retreated back from Kharkiv area behind the Oskil River and then the Ukrainians crossed it and continued their offensive anyways. I don't see why the Ukrainians can't cross the Dnieper and continue their offensive if they wanted to as well when the Russians can't be strong everywhere or have their good soldiers holding the line in every place rather than having poorly trained and equipped troops being overwhelmed as they were in Kharkiv. I guess we'll see what happens in the coming weeks.
2
Is there a legit source that shows this story to be true? You'd think there'd be video of this event out there by now wouldn't there?
2
@thescythian321 The Ukraine forces are in their last throes, collapse of Donbass Arch is inevitble and come winter, desertions will increase. The same pattern will continue until then; of Ukraine forces retreating either in disorder or leaving a deadly trail of mines and committing war crimes in their wake. Seems like this is all your hopes and dreams of what you wish will happen rather than it being based on any kind of real proof and facts. If you actually do have any kind of real evidence of what you're saying is true then please post the links here so I can read them. I'd genuinely like to see it. Otherwise anyone can make all the claims they want as to who's winning or losing this war at any given point.
2
@oldrocker1970 Battle of the bulge was a German victory until the weather cleared, at which point their armor and infantry were destroyed from the air. LOLOLOLOLOL 'German victory' LOLOLOL. It was a defeat the moment the Germans launched the attack. Sure they were 'winning' and gaining ground, but it was only temporary when the Germans had little in the way of reserves and resupply compared to the Allies that had limitless supplies and men to bring up to retake whatever they lost. At that point it was simply prolonging the inevitable.
2
Jamesp wickstrom The Germans were defeated by a lack of supplies including fuel. Their attack was a failure from the moment it began because it had no chance for long term success with the massive supply and soldier advantage that the Allies had.
2
@juliensalemkour5708 Despite the fact, that Putins words were totally misrepresented in Western media, I believe Russia could be inclined to use them, simply because they would get away with that, which would make NATO even more look like very weak. Who would look weaker? NATO for hypothetically not responding in kind to Russia using a nuke and using one in return? Or Russia for believing that their armed forces are so inferior and have been beaten so badly that they think there's no other choice but to use a nuke to try and change the direction of the war? I don't know about you, but I'd say it would be the latter. I can't ever imagine a scenario where the US gets beaten on the battlefield so brutally that they would have to resort to using nukes to save themselves from defeat. And we're not even talking about Russia getting beat by the US or NATO which would be understandable that the Russians would get desperate. We're talking about the Russians getting beat by the Ukrainians who don't have a fraction of the equipment that Russia has and they're still holding their own.
2
@cruiser6260 Gonzalo IS A JOKE. Since pretty much from day 1 of the invasion he's been prediction Russian victory and he's been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. Go back and watch some of the early videos on the Duran Channel when they had Gonzalo on and see what he said back then at the beginning and even after the Russian retreat from Kiev. Pretty much every single prediction or opinion he's had on the war has been wrong.
2
@cruiser6260 we don't know that theory of creating diversion is incorrect on the initial incursion. It's classic military strategy to dummy attack and draw forces. Actually advancing in is a bit different. Key points though, There was no battle for Kiev attempting to take the city and no sustained seige, which would be humanitarian disaster anyway. Did it in fact draw a lot of ukr forces to Kiev, if it did then it's not an unreasonable theory. Saying the Kiev front was a diversion is merely pro-Russian folks trying to explain away the disaster that was the drive to Kiev was. Diversionary attacks ARE NOT meant to destroy your own forces in the process and if that's what happens then you're doing it VERY wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't throw significant numbers of your best troops flying in on helicopters supported by aircraft to try and capture two major airfields just outside of Kiev so that you can fly in thousands more men to open up a forward front and then having tens of thousands of troops racing to link up with them and do all that as a diversion. You do all that because you have the real intention of trying to take the capital of a nation because historically in war that's ALWAYS been an important objective. Just look at both Chechen wars where the Russians both times made Grozny their primary objective. The Russians did not expect major resistance from the Ukrainians which is why they believed they could occupy major government and military installations in Kiev quickly and take control of the city. People think you need hundreds of thousands of soldiers to take a major city yet all you have to do is look at Kherson where it was taken at the beginning of the war with barely a fight from the people living there. People who keep saying this attack was all a diversion are just trying to explain why the Russians took huge casualties and were then forced to retreat and why it was worth it rather than acknowledging the disaster that it really was. On NATO not wanting direct war with RUS, that's been true since about 1949. In a conventional war, the Pentagon's wargaming shows they can not win a war against Rus in Europe or in the Pacific against China, definitely not both. There may have been a time during the 1950s, 60s and 70s where the USSR was indeed very strong and NATO definitely didn't want to go to war with them, however that time has LONG PASSED. Even if the USSR existed today, NATO would be more than able to beat them in a head to head conventional war. With the breakup of the USSR there is ZERO CHANCE that Russia could ever beat NATO on its own. The US alone could destroy Russian forces completely in a land war. The only reason NATO doesn't want to go war with Russia now is because they don't want Russia potentially using nukes when they're getting their asses beat on the battlefield. If Russia didn't have nukes, almost 100% probably a no fly zone over Ukraine would've been implemented by NATO from the beginning of the invasion and perhaps even turns into attacking Russian ground forces if they cross a certain line and don't turn back. I'll say they're both right on the himars. Not enough have been supplied to make a decisive difference, but you can't say they haven't made any difference at all. On the last round table Dima was saying Rus has a system with the same capability just a lot more. He also suggested lira not underestimate ukr. Absolutely disagree. HIMARS and later on other MLRS systems have made a MASSIVE difference in this war. Before HIMARS arrived Russia was firing off huge amounts of artillery and missile barrages everyday. That has been drastically reduced now because HIMARS/MLRS systems have made it impossible for the Russians to place large amounts of ammunition close to the front without it getting destroyed quickly. How many videos of huge ammo dumps did we see go up in a big fireworks display before the Russians finally got their head out of their asses and pulled their dumps farther back and break them down into smaller ammo dumps so that a hit doesn't destroy huge amounts of ammo and supplies? HIMARS/MLRS would not be such a great strategic weapon with such a major impact if the rockets they were launching weren't so pinpoint accurate and had a decent range. If the Ukrainians were given ATACMS, you could kiss Russian logistics and command centers bye bye and they would be in even worse shape than they are now.
2
@cruiser6260 Normandy landing was only made possible by preventing German resupply by rail. Normandy landings was also made possible by having overwhelming air superiority as well as great numbers of troops, equipment and huge amounts of supplies. Bombing civilian infrastructure will hurt, but it won't break Ukrainian resolve to win and UA forces will find other ways to get their supplies to the front. Look at the Russians who have had their logistics severely damaged by Ukrainians. It hasn't completely stopped the Russians from completely getting supplies through to their troops, but it has gotten more difficult.
2
@RockinRedRover anyone who knows how Russia fights its wars, knows they prefer to use artillery first, be they rockets or guns. The Russians are fighting this war like it was WWII because of all the armored vehicle losses they took early in the war that has reduced them to relying on artillery and rockets. That and the fact that their airforce has been mostly useless in supporting their ground forces. No modern western army would be fighting this war like the Russians are and they certainly wouldn't be throwing away their troops the way that the Russians have either.
2
It would be dumb to base your decision on whether to continue or not to support Ukraine just on one attack. By now you should know whether you're in or not regardless.
2
Almost no small town/city the size of Bakhmut is worth fighting most of a year for while losing thousands of troops and countless amounts of equipment in the process. Any half decent army would've figured out a way to take such an objective much quicker and with far fewer casualties. This of course doesn't describe the Russian army.
2
@tellitasitis Things have gone so far that Russia may need to demand NATO forces out of the Baltics (also in NATO) or invade them as well. I would LOVE to see Russia try and invade any of the Baltic states just so they can get curb stomped back into the stone ages. Even Putin isn't that insane and stupid to do such a thing.
2
@marcgatto9675 Russia is like the giant hydraulic force that slowly slowly slowy applies pressure until even the strongest material eventually shatters. More like Russia keeps throwing massive amounts of men and equipment hoping that their enemy will finally break under their sheer numbers rather than being smart and using good strategies and tactics to minimize casualties and losses. Just look at the Russian performance during the Chechen wars and see how poorly they performed and then you have to wonder how in the hell did they not improve in the past 20 years so that they wouldn't repeat the same mistakes again.
2
@waynzignordics The Russians are now fighting a Nato army staffed by Ukrainian troops, and a volunteer army staffed by Nato troops. So are you saying there are active duty soldiers from NATO countries fighting in Ukraine and not just former western soldiers who are volunteering to fight there? That's the first I've heard of that. Do you have proof of this? Why is it a Nato army? The AFU is financed by Nato, has strategic planning led by Nato, has intel gathering by Nato, and an information warfare unit led by Nato. But its soldiers are Ukrainian. Funny thing is Ukrainian soldiers have proven to be superior fighters than European Nato soldiers. Well that's what the Russians were risking when they invaded Ukraine that there was a possibility for western involvement. They did it anyways and not even a limited assault, but an all out invasion with the goal of taking the entire country and toppling governments rather than simply taking all of Donbas region as people expected they would if they were actually invading. Maybe if they had stuck to that more limited objective, they might've gotten away with it. Namely with more Russian forces concentrated to take less ground, the Ukrainians would probably be pushed back and Donbas might've been in their hands long ago with much fewer losses. Instead they chose to push all their chips in and now they're paying for it with their massive miscalculations. And give credit where credit is due. All this happened because the Ukrainians chose to fight and resist and having Zelensky and their government staying in the country. If none of that happens then NATO support doesn't happen and Putin would be celebrating a victory and perhaps be fighting an insurgency fight at most by now.
2

Previous
1
Next
...
All