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

  1. I hoped against hope the Russians would have succeeded with the Special Operation, but how can you win against the massive Ukrainian Army with a small force? Didn't the pro-Russian crowd say a couple of weeks ago that the Ukrainians didn't have the troops and equipment to launch an offensive? Didn't those guys at the Duran then insist that this offensive was a failure before it barely began? Now all of a sudden Ukraine has hundreds of thousands of soldiers who are able to push the Russians back and FINALLY the pro-Russian folks are forced to admit that the mighty Russians are retreating? Seems like all these pro-Russian people didn't want to admit the truth until they couldn't ignore reality anymore.
    2
  2.  @qman8816  They could have stayed and fought but that would guarantee a loss of men, instead they gave up territory that is not theirs... Lets be real if they Russians could've stayed and fought they would have. If they were making an 'orderly retreat' they wouldn't have left so many supplies and weapons systems for the UA forces to take over that they can then put some back into service for them to use. Be honest and ask yourself if it were the Russians who advanced westward at this pace and it was UA forces running and leaving equipment behind, I seriously doubt you would paint it as 'an orderly retreat', but as a massive Russian victory and it shows how UA forces are breaking and will eventually lose.
    2
  3. I remember months ago after the Russians retreated from the Kiev front, Gonzalo said that the Russians were preparing to launch some massive cauldron battle where they would encircle much of the Ukrainian forces in the east and crush them. Now we're talking about the Russians trying to encircle some Ukrainians in a town as being a major success. How the times and expectations have changed.
    2
  4. The reason why the Russians haven't been able to make significant gains after the first few weeks of the war was because they wasted so much of their combat power that they've never recovered from it. Bakhmut is an example of the Russians failing to learn from their mistakes time and again which is why they keep getting the same results.
    2
  5.  @Shryce  If the Ukrainians keep hitting Russian supply dumps, then we'll see in the coming days and weeks on this front how effective it can be. Its not possible or is necessary to completely stop the flow of supplies unless you have the enemy completely surrounded. If you take out enough supply dumps, the rate of fire from troops, artillery etc. will go down significantly as we've already seen how soldiers can go through ammo when they're in intense fighting.
    2
  6.  @Mr_MikeB  The thing is if the Russians still had enough men, tanks and armored vehicles left along with an airforce worth a damn they wouldn't need to be stopped by strongpoints in the enemy defenses. The whole idea of blitzkrieg is to bypass such defenses and leave them for the follow on forces to take care of. Unfortunately the Russians threw away much of their mobile combat power in the first few weeks of the war and now they have little choice but to slog it out WWI style.
    2
  7.  @Backpacker8381  The ONLY REASON that the Russians are being 'methodical' is because they have been largely reckless in the early parts of the war which cost them vast amounts of unnecessary casualties and equipment loss that has been coming back to haunt them ever since. If they could launch another major armored offensive they would've done so long ago, but the fact is they haven't launched a major mobile operation ever since their retreat from Kiev because they're not capable of doing so.
    2
  8.  @Mr_MikeB  Your point is clear but you are still missing one point - Russia has huge reserves in manpower and equipment but for some reason they are limiting themselves just to 150k man. Well ask yourself why hasn't Putin called for full mobilization unless he knows its going to be bad for him to do so? That would be a clear admission that his so called 'special operation' has failed and that casualties and equipment loss has been so high that he needs to take major measures to save face and gain something out of all the losses they've taken and will continue to take fighting in Ukraine. Also this doesn't even take into account that a good portion of the Russian forces is needed to simply defend its own massive country and keep his own people under control. Land that can be retaken or well trained military men Well its questionable that Russia can retake what it has lost in the last couple of weeks unless they bring much more reinforcements and equipment into the fight and if Russian forces were so well trained they wouldn't be doing so poorly and getting pushed back right now would they? Especially for the DNR militia, why would you throw them into this war without training them better unless you don't care what happens to them which I guess is the norm for the Russian forces. On the other hand as the war is going on increasingly more and more Ukrainians are being trained by NATO advisors and their quality will continue to rise. So it will be interesting to see where Russia will get more well trained men from and equip them properly compared to Ukrainian troops who are getting trained and equipped by NATO at a faster rate now.
    2
  9. Sure as long as you're not the one on the battlefield being pushed forward carelessly to turn that yellow into red on the map.
    2
  10.  @wandameadows5736  Germany having any chance of winning relied on them taking Moscow with there initial push & when they failed to do so it was over. Todays situation is different. The same can be said about the Russians failing to take Kiev and removing Zelensky and his government in the first few days of the war. Things have been going down hill ever since.
    2
  11.  @zachariasobenauf1895  sure - after Ukraine revived all the killed and crippled LPR-DPR-civilians ... and paid the held-back pensions and the "small" reperations for their shelling "avtivities" You do realize that more Ukrainian civilians have been killed since Feb 24 when the invasion started than all 8 years since 2014 when the Donbas conflict started right? Yet somehow you don't mention that fact or care too much about them and call for justice for those innocent murdered people by the Russians. how the West could continue war ? with ease ... they did what they wanted for 70 years You mean the west FORCED the Russians to invade Ukraine and continue the invasion even when they're slowly but surely being pushed back and are forced to scramble and push for mobilization to prevent a potential complete disaster on the battlefield? The west pushed Putin and the Russians to do that? OK. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
    2
  12.  @justgames9516  Russian army is suffering greatly, but like they've always done in their history they have the population size to take huge losses and keep on going. If Russia and Ukraine had the same population size, Russia would've been done and have retreated out of Ukraine long ago. So many conflicts in the past where Russia has relied on its size to overwhelm their opponents and here they are doing it again. It works but its very costly.
    2
  13.  @bhangrafan4480  I think that under the surface Russia has refocused its primary goal as annexation of Luhansk and Donetsk and is holding a lot of territory it does not care much about at the moment. The Ukrainians are attacking these areas and the Russians are carrying out, perhaps not an 'elastic defence', but a fighting retreat. Do you really believe that the Russians want to give up all the territory that they've fought so hard to gain? I seriously doubt it. They gave up the ground because they couldn't hold it and most of their forces were in full retreat. Especially places like Izyum and Kupyansk which are vital to military operations because of their road and rail connections, you'd be stupid to give that up without a fight unless you couldn't defend them. Well with Kupyansk the Russians seemed to put up a fight and only perhaps yesterday did the Ukrainians finally take it. Also ask yourself if everything was exactly the same the past couple of weeks except it was the Russians rapidly moving forward and the Ukrainians retreating and leaving equipment and supplies behind, do you really believe all the pro-Russian folks would be saying the same things that they're saying now? Namely something like 'Yes the Russians gained alot of ground which is nice, but much of it isn't very valuable and its only a minor setback for the Ukrainians and also we have to see if they can hold it too against a pending UA counterattack.' Do you really think they'd be saying that? Or do you think they'd be saying something vastly different? As long as the Ukrainians are focusing on expendable territory, where the Russians are trading space for time, the Russians are able to focus on capturing Bakhmut and securing more of Donetsk. Yes Bakhmut. The new place that if the Russians are able to capture will be seen as a super decisive victory by the likes of the Duran who will be orgasming all over themselves for any good news for the Russians. Well from what we've seen the past couple of weeks I'm pretty sure that the Ukrainians would be more than happy to trade a Bakhmut for all the territory gained in the Kharkiv region assuming they can even take it.
    2
  14. @Furykidxxx Dima, your panic about that "support" from the West is uncalled for, first of all, it will take a few month to properly train Ukrainians' to use them, secondly, there's very few of them to make any substantial difference, you can listen to The New Atlas' Brian Berletic analysis of that, man knows his military equipment. What the West is sending to Ukraine will hardly help them to achieve anything. How do you know this isn't just the beginning. Who thought NATO would supply Ukraine with Bradleys and Marders even a few months ago and now they're getting at least a few Challenger 2s to go along with their modern IFVs. Who knows in a month or two perhaps they start getting even more modern tanks and IFVs and their effects on the battlefield become even more significant.
    2
  15.  @123456qwful  That's the beauty of having NATO as your friend isn't it? Ukrainians can start building munitions and have their weapons systems repaired in neighboring countries without the fear of those facilities being destroyed.
    2
  16. What battle for Kiev? I doubt there's going to be a second try anytime soon from Belarus area attacking into Ukraine again.
    2
  17.  @AO-ow6tt  This isn't a narrative. This is FACT. Russian airforce has failed to get any kind of air superiority over Ukraine otherwise they would be bombing the hell out of Ukrainian artillery, missile and other units. That's the whole point of air superiority so that you can attack your enemy's ground forces, supply lines, command and control etc. with relative little resistance. If the Russians had that kind of control over the airspace in Ukraine, their forces wouldn't be using artillery and missile strikes so much to try and suppress the enemy before slowly advancing forward. You only do that because you have no other choice.
    2
  18. Likely they were afraid that HIMARS which has a longer range than artillery might be used on their troops and artillery units as well as having their supply lines continue to be pounded meaning not enough supplies and ammunition for their men to fight with. All those many weeks of seeing HIMARS blowing up huge supply dumps in the Kherson region are now finally paying off.
    2
  19.  @chick930  What makes you think they are not fighting nato , nato are just employing ukrainians to fight. NATO is providing supplies, weapons and alot of intelligence support, but its still Ukrainians doing the fighting and dying on the ground. Also how quickly the narrative has changed from the pro-Russian hacks who just a few months ago were saying that NATO helping the Ukrainians wasn't going to change the outcome of the war and was simply prolonging the suffering for them and now these same people are complaining about NATO help being OP.
    2
  20. @young749Au A falling temperature is important because it freezes the mud. The frozen ground allows the heavy tanks and other heavy military equipment to move across the ground without getting stuck in the mud. This helps Russia a lot since it has a lot of heavy equipment that I am sure General Surovikin is wanting to move in a massive mobilization in the Donbas. Yes I'm 100% sure the Ukrainians will be shaking in their boots when the mass of Soviet Cold War era tanks roll forward into the attack right into all those ATGMs that they've had so much success defeating so far. Ukrainians are doomed!
    2
  21. The Russians are definitely running through much of their tanks and armored vehicles. If they didn't have such a huge stockpile from the Cold War era they would've been done for a long time ago. They can take many losses, but they can't do it forever.
    2
  22.  @GeraldM_inNC  They're only able to make small gains because they've lost so much of their combat power and armored vehicles. Short of throwing much more men and resources into the fight, I doubt that the Russians will be able to launch any large armored offensive like they did at the beginning of the invasion anytime soon.
    2
  23.  @cruiser6260  When it comes to 'demilitarizing' the Russians are doing it to themselves far better than they're doing it to the Ukrainians. And lets not lie and say the Russians didn't want to take the entire Ukraine at the beginning. If they wanted to take only the east they would've launched all their forces there instead of wasting thousands of lives trying to take Kiev and removing Zelensky.
    2
  24.  @jacobjorgenson9285  Russians are reduced to advancing WWI style. Use massive artillery and missile strikes and then advance little by little forward because they've lost much of their ability to launch anymore armored attacks due do so many losses during the initial phase of the invasion. So yeah they're advancing still, but nothing like what it use to be and they're not likely to get significant territory anytime soon unless they throw a ton more troops and equipment into the fight.
    2
  25.  @qinby1182  My belief that since then this is Russian territory (according to Russia) this changes the situation A LOT. Because then from a legal Russian perspective Russia is occupied and attacked by a foreign power (It is no longer an SMO) and a lot of restrictions will be removed. Maybe in the minds of Russian leaders it makes a difference for them and their people in justifying keeping this war going, but for everyone else this changes nothing and Ukrainians should keep going and retaking what was lost to the Russians. Imagine every country doing what the Russians are doing now. Invade your neighbor, annex the territory and then when that country fights back you claim THEY'RE ATTACKING YOUR 'territory'. How stupid is that? Its such a joke that even many Russian friendly nations aren't recognizing the results because the elections were such a sham. Thing I still am a bit unsure about is EXACTLY what Russia considers Russian territory... since this has not been clarified. Its not clarified because they're losing more territory everyday. Even that supposed failure of a Kherson offensive is now moving forward and taking back some decent amount of territory in the last 24-48 hours.
    2
  26. @Guus Ellenkamp Just because Russia declares something is theirs doesn't mean its theirs. If that's the case Germany should declare that they're taking Kaliningrad back from the Russians and kicking all the Russians out since it wasn't theirs to begin with. Konigsberg was a nice place until the Russians turned it into a poor place.
    1
  27.  @drumming-and-discipline  Without using nukes, how much more can the Russians use in Ukraine besides more manpower? Are they going to be able to throw in hundreds of more tanks and other armored vehicles? More aircraft? Doesn't seem like they can or want to do that. Even with the extra manpower coming in the next few weeks and months it doesn't seem like they're going to be using them for attacks, but rather to mostly stablize their lines and hold what they've taken.
    1
  28.  @drumming-and-discipline  The SMO has been a very limited operation mostly fought by Donetsk and Lugansk militia and Wagner Group and such. Are you serious? Do you really believe that? Because it makes absolutely no sense from a logic standpoint and from all the information that we have. Do you really believe that the Russians took a couple of hundred thousand DPR/LNR militia OUT OF Ukraine pre-invasion, trained them and then allowed them to crew some of the best tanks and armored vehicles that the Russians had to lead the invasion into Ukraine? Really?? LOL That would make zero sense and if that's what actually happened then that would mean the Russians were even MORE dumb and incompetent that they currently are showing. The facts clearly show that it was Russian troops leading the invasion as it should be. There's no indication at all that DPR/LNR militia played a major role in the initial offensives into Ukraine because they're likely not trained to undertake offensive armored operations, at least not competently although the Russians weren't all that competent either. The time that we first saw the DPR/LNR troops in any significant numbers was after the Kiev retreat and when the Donbas offensive began which would make sense since that's the territory that they were most interested in fighting for. This whole notion of Russian troops not being involved is just excuses to try and not show how they've been stopped by the Ukrainians and now even beaten back in some areas. We hardly saw anything Russian army until now. Did you see a lot of air power e.g.? When the (new) Russian territory is being attacked Russia will defend itself and the (whole) Russian army will be fully involved and take the lead. Ukraine will have no chance whatsoever then. I bet you a million dollars we're not going to see some massive increase in Russian airpower all of a sudden that's going along with this mobilization. I would be shocked to see the Russians suddenly be able to come up with hundreds of more jets and helicopters to support their troops when they didn't during this entire war so far. The Russians hadn't ever had air superiority in Ukrainian skies and they never will.
    1
  29.  @surendramumgai631  Once the new mobilised troops arrive ukraine will no longer have a numerical advantage over the russians. Having more troops and having more troops that are properly trained and equipped are two different things. We'll find out soon enough how well Russian mobilized troops can fight vs ever increasing numbers of NATO trained and equipped Ukrainian soldiers.
    1
  30.  @nimaalesaid9190  Well lets see what happens in the coming weeks. Having come this far, I can't imagine the Ukrainians wanting to stop their offensives when they're still pushing the Russians back. They still have alot of territory to regain and I don't know why they wouldn't want to take back everything in the south that they lost when its an important part of their country.
    1
  31. @Clint Loran Rand What happened to the Ukrainian forces being on the verge of collapse? I thought it would be anytime now that the Russians would be making the breakthrough and hugely pushing the UA forces back? NOW we're acknowledging that this war might go on for a while? LOL
    1
  32. @Aquila Rossa I had been thinking about why Russia does not use large armoured pincers to create pockets. Russia has the amour to do it, so why not? Correction. The Russians USE TO have the armored forces to conduct mobile combat operations. After the first couple of months they lost much of that ability and now they have no choice but to grind it out in a WWI like fashion. Real time drone and satellite data combined with accurate artillery due to advanced ballistics computing can create traps for armour. They can use it to wait for armour to be in a kill zone and then destroy vehicles in large numbers. Well if the Russians had air superiority and were capable of effectively conducting combined operations between ground forces, their airforce and supporting artillery and missile units, they likely would've been able to overcome the Ukrainian defenses eventually. The problem is that the Russians never were able to gain control of the airspace over Ukraine and they don't have enough precision guided munitions to take out all the important Ukrainian targets that could severely degrade UA forces' ability to fight. Combine that with the Russian inability to launch a proper co-ordinated offensive and the Russian invasion in the early phase was a complete shitshow. Another factor could be that these thrusts require large numbers of infantry to then occupy land in the wake of the armour's advance. Russia has not mobilized its around 2 million reservists, so probably can not do this (only the reservists on scheduled rotation are involved, but usually in support roles). But I think the main reason is the artillery, intel and the threat it is to armour. It has made the conflict primarily an artillery duel. Ironically this tech advance has seen a return of trench warfare. Well that's a major problem isn't it? Too large a scope of an operation with not enough forces that were properly trained to carry it out. They hoped that Ukrainian resistance would be relatively light and that major, prolonged fighting wouldn't be necessary and that gamble failed. Now they're paying the price for that massive miscalculation and they're going to be paying for a long time. And again the only reason this has turned into a WWI slogging match is because the Russians screwed up so much in the early phases of the war that they now have no choice but to fight this way. Could you ever imagine the US losing so much of its airforce and armored vehicles that they would be reduced to fighting in this manner? That would never happen. And yet here we see a supposed 'superpower' military doing just that because they're a massive paper tiger who's bark is far worse than its bite.
    1
  33. @The Scythian The Kremlin walks a tightrope; there would be too many civilian casualties to conduct a Lightning War, but the slow gains of Trench Warfare grind away at both sides in morale. Quite the opposite. A quick lightning war would've ended the conflict long ago and civilian as well as military casualties would've been much less than they are now. The fact is the Russians messed up and now they're stuck in a long protracted war that as bad as it is for the Ukrainians, its just as bad if not worse for the Russians. No easy way out for the Russians now. If I were the Ukrainians I would never stop fighting until I got most of the territory back that was lost or until the west decides to stop supporting us. Anything less is just asking for another war in a few years when the Russians regain their strength and try to take Ukraine again unless of course they've joined NATO before then.
    1
  34.  @isurus8906  If that's the case then why do the pro-Russian hacks not believe that the Russians have taken massive casualties spending all those months taking Bakhmut? All of a sudden those huge numbers that are being reported of Russian losses are 'fantasy' and 'propaganda'. Weird.
    1
  35. It's good to hear that Russian Military is pushing forward to liberate the Donbas so that the people can make a choice for themselves. Complete hypothetical but what if these referendums were held and the people in the Donbas region had a change of heart and decided to remain with Ukraine after all? Would Russia respect the decision of the people there?
    1
  36. Pretty dumb of him to criticise Ukraine WHILE BEING IN UKRAINE. Should've left the country when the war started and be like the Duran and criticise Ukraine from outside their country.
    1
  37.  @tatfly5779  Right all those fireballs and huge clouds of smoke are a bunch of nothing. LOL OK. Even if you want to believe that, the fact is that if this was indeed a missile strike then the Russians would be dumb to place too much resources in that area knowing that it can be hit and they have to move their supplies elsewhere to be stored if they don't want it to be destroyed.
    1
  38.  @pennyhardaway7491  As Dima mentioned an authoritative figure in Lyman stated that the Ukr losses are catastrophic compared to their own, if so, this is a low cost strategy for RuAF even if Lyman is eventually taken by Ukr Can you show me a legitimate link that says that Ukrainian forces are suffering heavy losses in their attacks in and around Lyman? I'd really like to see it for verification.
    1
  39. So if the Ukrainians don't push significantly deep into Russian held territory during this offensive then its deemed a failure, BUT if the Ukrainians are making good progress and the Russians are falling back then its called a trap laid by the genius Russians to lure the Ukrainians in for the inevitable counterattack that will crush them? Ok. I guess we'll see what happens in the coming weeks.
    1
  40. @Aquila Rossa Russia responded well in Kherson and inflicted very heavy losses on UKR Is there a link that the Ukrainians suffered heavy losses? And what are the losses like for the Russians in the Kherson area? That economy is the West's true target. They want it to collapse, so they can get regime change. Protecting it is more important than protecting some village in UKR that can be retaken soon enough. Wasn't it even a week ago or so that many people were insisting that the offensive was a failure? Now its already changed to 'whatever the Russians have lost to this offensive they'll take back shortly'? What a change in just a few days. Also Russia's economy wouldn't be under attack if Putin didn't go insane and decide to invade another country with a couple of hundred thousand troops. People like him need to be taught that in the 21st century you cannot do that without serious consequences.
    1
  41.  @robertlund1137  When quoting what someone else has said, use quotation marks. That's what they're used for. There are other ways to quote someone and I find that its much more effective and visible to replace quotation marks with BOLDING the sentence(s) that you're quoting from someone. As far as the losses in the kherson region (as for any other area), unless you're there on the ground or handling the information on one side or the other it's impossible to know the exact numbers. So for most people they have to forum their opinion based off the images and MoD reports etc... It's up to you if you believe what you see or read. That's right. No one really knows what the casualties actually are on the ground for both sides. The thing is many pro-Russian people are insisting that the Ukrainians are taking heavy losses especially for channels like The Duran who without providing any proof are claiming the Ukrainians are taking significant losses on the Kherson front. I guess its their way of coping with how they were wrong in saying the Ukrainian offensive was a failure shortly after it began. But as far as the mapping shows from both sides, is that the Ukraine kherson offensive hasn't worked out too good for the Ukrainians If you don't have any good evidence of casualties on the ground for either side, then how can you be so sure the Kherson advance is going poorly? I find it funny that when the Donbas attack by the Russians was going at a very slow pace, the spin on that was that the Russians wanted to avoid taking more casualties and so they were going slow and steady. But all of a sudden if the Ukrainians want to perhaps do the same with a slow and steady advance in the Kherson area all of a sudden THAT means their attack there is in trouble?? OK. 🙄🙄🙄 I said it before and I'll say it again, they've been attacking for barely a week now or something? I'd give it at least a few more weeks to see if they had completely stopped their advance there or whether they were moving forward slowly and maybe looking for a soft spot to try and break through on. If I were the Ukrainians I'd just keep doing what they're doing right now. Namely hitting every supply dump and troop concentration that they could find. No need to rush forward when you're slowly starving your enemy of ammo and supplies that they can't fight without as well as hitting any reserve troops that might be coming up to help. The bottom line is that people will always find something to complain about, especially the pro-Russian folks because they don't want to accept that their supposed mighty army is taking a beating and isn't fighting nearly as well as they had hoped. And what consequences did the U.S and it's allies suffer for the invasion of Iraq and other countries in the 20th & 21st century? None.. Why? I think there's a pretty big difference between invading a backwater country like Iraq and a slowly modernizing Ukraine that's right in the middle of Europe that also provides food and resources to the world. If Iraq was in Ukraine's position on the map people would likely care more about them too.
    1
  42. It's not that Russia cannot break through, why should they when Zelensky keeps forcing the meat through the grinder? This is another tactical position. Don't kid yourselves. If the Russians could've broken through at Bakhmut they would have already. Its dumb to think the Russians are implementing some genius plan to grind the Ukrainians down when there's plenty of videos of the Russians themselves being ground down. It makes zero sense to fight a battle where you're losing just as much if not more men than your enemy is when it would make more sense to redirect your forces elsewhere for another purpose.
    1
  43. @2ndTim32 Throwing your forces un suicidal attacks might be great for songs and movies but in the long run you use up your remaining forces and equipment. Well if that's the case then we should be seeing a massive counterattack from the Russians that will retake everything they lost and then some shortly against the weak Ukrainians who have thrown their forces away right? Also where is the Russian airforce in all this? Its the perfect time for them to show up bigtime and bomb the hell out of advancing UA forces and yet we've barely heard anything from them even now.
    1
  44.  @cruiser6260  It seems you are worse than him in the opposite direction though. If the war is not over or even going in Ukrainian favor, you can't say he's wrong predicting a Russian victory. Im not going to take hours to watch the Duran, when you could take a minute to tell me specifically what he's been wrong about. While I hope Ukraine ends up prevailing in this war, I'm not a blind cheerleader that ignores the facts and only chooses to believe stories that support 'my side'. Whether the Ukrainians are winning or losing, I care about the truth and what's actually happening on the battlefield unlike the guys at the Duran or Gonzalo or other pro-Russian folks who ignore reality and/or always find a way to positively spin a Russian defeat or failure. As for how Gonzalo is constantly wrong: - He predicted an easy victory for Russia when the invasion started. OK alot of people said the same so give him a pass - He said that the retreat from Kiev was a 'brilliant move' by the Russians because it tied down Ukrainian forces in the west so that the Russians could encircle and destroy Ukrainian forces in the east in a great 'cauldron battle'. - He said that NATO was weak and was no match for Russia in a head to head fight on the battlefield which is why the west wanted to avoid direct confrontation with them. LOL - He said that NATO sending support to Ukraine would not change the outcome of the invasion because Russia would be strong enough to overcome it. - He's stated at least several times that the Ukrainian forces were on the verge of collapse and that they were so desperate that they needed to press old men into the frontlines to fight - There was one time when Dima was a guest on the Duran livestream show during the time when HIMARS was just being sent to Ukraine and Gonzalo was also on that show. When Alexander asked Gonzalo about HIMARS he said that they wouldn't make much difference on the battlefield because they were too few in number to matter. Alexander then asked Dima what he thought about HIMARS being sent to Ukraine and he said that HIMARS was a very powerful system because each rocket it fired was extremely accurate like a sniper bullet. He then said that the Russians needed to make it a top priority to hunt down and destroy every HIMARS system ASAP before they did too much damage to the Russians. Upon hearing that both Alexander and Gonzalo thought he was exaggerating and overstated the effectiveness of HIMARS, but now we know who was right.
    1
  45.  @NeferAnkhe  It does make sense militarily to give ground you fought hard for, when with changing circumstances other areas are higher priority: losing them would be way more detrimental that losing what you give away. It's about winning the war not just a battle. I agree with you that sometimes you have to give up ground even when you don't want to, but the thing is why not at least try and put up some resistance rather than simply running away? I know the pro-Russian hacks like Alexander from The Duran try and spin it as 'an orderly retreat' and that the Russians were thinking about giving up that ground anyways and all that crap, but the truth is the Russians just plain ran without a fight in alot of cases. Izyum is a major road and rail hub and several other towns/cities were significant as well and they're now in Ukrainian hands. If the Russians are still wanting to launch offensive operations they're going to need those places back because of course roads and rail lines are vital to troop and supply movement. Giving those important objectives up so easily its like an admission of defeat and that they don't intend to attack in those areas anytime soon. I actually think that despite the ground gained, it is a failed offensive for the Ukrainians. The reason being in that they needed the Russians to fight for the territory in the north and commit reserves. I think the fact the Russians didn't take the bait is a major blow to the Ukrainian plans. That doesn't make sense. Why would the Ukrainians WANT resistance to their attacks instead of wanting little resistance and gaining ground easily and with fewer casualties? And if that's the case then the Ukrainians are getting their fight in Kherson where they're facing plenty of opposition and where many people have already declared that a failed offensive. Also lets be honest here. Would you be saying this if the reverse had happened? Lets say that the exact same events happened in the exact same way EXCEPT that it was the Russians who were rapidly advancing and had gained so much ground in just a few days and it was the Ukrainian forces who were retreating and largely did so without putting up much resistance and leaving supplies behind for the Russians to take. With that ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE would you be here stating that you believed that despite gaining large amounts of territory the Russian offensive was largely a failure? Or would you be saying something vastly different? I'm gonna put my money that suddenly you would have a change of heart and say that the Russians were smashing the Ukrainians with such a swift and decisive offensive and I'm sure all the other pro-Russian hacks would be saying the same. All because one fact in this story changed where it was the Russians doing the attacking and the Ukrainians doing the fleeing.
    1
  46. I bet you 100% we STILL won't see Russian aircraft flying in Ukrainian skies at will. It would be interesting to see them try and then get wiped out.
    1
  47.  @sapphosplace  I always try to be wary of reports until I see at least several reporting the same thing and its surprising to see the Russians still giving up ground relatively easily in the east. Territory that might've taken the Russians weeks to take they're now giving back in a matter of days. Seems like they're holding the strongest down south in the Kherson area, but I wonder how much longer the Russians can hang on if the Ukrainians can keep blowing up their supplies and command and control units.
    1
  48.  @anceldesingano8687  while destruction civilian infrastructure won’t hurt the resolve of Ukrainians but it will hurt for there logistics especially if Russia now going to hit there railway lane logistics that Ukraine desperate using this days Again you're assuming the Russian missiles can accurately hit what they're aiming for on a consistent basis which we've seen the Russians are having hugeD trouble with. If the Russians had their own version of HIMARS the Ukrainians would be in deep shit, but thankfully Russian guided weapons are much less accurate so we'll have to see if their attacks will have nearly the same effect as HIMARS has had on the battlefield since it started being used. I remember when it first arrived on the battlefield, the Duran, Gonzalo and most other pro-Russian hacks were laughing at the idea that a little more than a dozen HIMARS systems could significantly make a difference on the war and that's exactly what its done. HIMARS along with other western MLRS systems firing very accurate missiles have vastly helped turn the tide of the war into Ukraine's favor and thank goodness the Russians don't have anything nearly as good in their arsenal. Also Dima was probably one of the few pro-Russian folks who saw the danger of HIMARS to the Russians and I still remember him going on the Duran as a guest speaker and when asked about them, he stated that the Russians needed to target and eliminate them ASAP because they were that dangerous. Gonzalo who was on the show at the time completely didn't understand the threat that HIMARS presented and blew it off as being something that the Russians didn't have to really worry about. The bottom line is shooting alot of missiles is only good if you're hitting what you're targeting. Western MLRS systems are hitting what they're targeting which is why they've become such a big game changer for the Ukrainians and such a nightmare for the Russians. The same isn't the case going the other way where Russian missiles hitting and destroying their targets are a crapshoot.
    1
  49.  @aleksandarzoric2452  It was Soviet Union not Russian and the difference is obviously just look videos how Soviet Union withdraw and how "#1 army" runaway and left everything. Crazy to think that the Soviets spent 10 years in Afghanistan and lost at least 14,000 troops and the US spent nearly double the time there and lost about 2,400 and the Coalition lost about 1,200. Don't know how you can say the Soviets at the time did better when they took so many more casualties in a much shorter time.
    1
  50.  @aleksandarzoric2452  #1 army & Co. lost around 2500+3600 (around 6100) troops PLUS CONTRACTORS Not all contractors were military and many who were in Afghanistan were there doing civilian work so not sure why you include them? I'm just including western military where US and Coalition forces were around 4,000 or thereabouts over almost 20 years. As for leaving behind so much equipment, I don't know why other than they thought the Afghan army would actually use it when they were expected to stand and fight rather than surrender without firing a shot. Its a shame though because much of it could've been sent to Ukraine when the war started barely half a year later. So what would happen if #1 army didn't have all the technology,60/70 000 kia like in Vietnam...because it easier to compare those wars from technology aspect There's no way the US would ever lose that many troops in Afghanistan even if they had Soviet level of weapons simply because they would be better trained and better led and their leaders wouldn't be throwing their lives away the way that the Russians do in every conflict they fight in. Also can't compare US in Vietnam with Soviets in Afghanistan when the US deployed far more men and equipment during the Vietnam war than the Soviets ever did in Afghanistan.
    1