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
3
Next
...
All

@antyspi4466 This is a war between NATO and Russia, for key strategic areas that are vital for Russia, for NATO gaining a foothold to threaten further vital Russian interests, as well as Russia´s status as a great power and regime change in Moscow. Russia hasn't been a 'great power' for a very long time and no one would threaten Russia if they didn't threaten others first. Russia can never back down, as a defeat threatens the very existence of the Russian state. If Russia has to mobilize 10 million men and lead a total war effort, so be it. It can rely on China´s support in that matter, which understands that if Russia gets defeated, exhausted, geostrategically neutered and perhaps even becomes a Western colony like in the early 90´s, Beijing will be the next on Washington´s menu. That's the problem that Russia created for themselves. They believed invading and taking over Ukraine would be a relative easy operation that would take a few weeks at most and they completely miscalculated and have jumped into the biggest shitstorm that they could ever dream of and now they're stuck. I hope China is watching and sees how stupid using military force without much thought can place your nation into a giant hole that you don't want to be in and instead find other non-military means to solve issues that you might have with other nations. So yes, we will most likely see the escalation into WW III and a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, but not because Kiev gets showered with weapons and because of battlefield successes, but because Ukraine is losing and can´t get sufficiently re-equipped. Even temporary Ukrainian successes would just delay the inevitable, as it would force Moscow to double down and increase its war effort to the point where it can break Ukraine´s forces - which brings us again to a NATO intervention. What is Russia going to double down with if it keeps losing men and equipment at the rate they're going at? They're going to fight with ever increasingly less trained and capable men armed with ever increasingly older equipment. Goodluck to the Russians when Ukraine is going in the opposite direction where more and more NATO is becoming more willing to send ever more modern western equipment to help Ukrainians push back the Russians.
1
No need for Russians to fight for Putin too!!!
1
Russia needs to destroy railroad brides, locomotives, tunnels and train roundhouses. Lets see if they can hit what they're aiming at with some regularity first. Or if they're going have to throw a ton of missiles at each target.
1
@RockinRedRover However, my original point stands, and is correct, the Russian army (like Napoleon's to a degree), was always keen on using artillery to soften an enemy, due to the inherently poor standard of their infantry especially from a low level leadership viewpoint - a throwback to the Stalin purges of their trained officers in early Ww2 I think the Russians haven't moved away from artillery as much as western armies have is because they don't have the technology and resources to do so. It costs alot of money and requires alot of knowledge to develop advanced aircraft and arming them with advanced munitions and the same goes for long range precision guided missiles. If the Russians had the know how and money that the US had, they'd probably move away from artillery as well, but since they don't having a large artillery force is probably the next best thing. As for using prisoners to be troops in a war, I doubt that would ever happen in the west because they care about even scum of the earth criminals and believe their lives are still worth protecting and even at times they're more protected than the victims.
1
@karstenriise A recent US study from CSIS shows that the US (and in consequence NATO) simply just cannot produce military equipment nearly as fast as Ukraine is destroying it. As a consequence, US and NATO are themselves running low - even the US and NATO are NOT able to withstand a fight with Russia any better than Ukraine has (not been) able to do. You do realize that the US and NATO both have TONS of equipment that it can donate to Ukraine and still have plenty enough for themselves right? If the US alone gave even a tiny fraction of the equipment it had available it would probably be enough to stop the Russians from advancing any further and allow the Ukrainians to launch effective attacks of their own. NATO not sending equipment isn't because of a lack of supply, but because of politics. According to another Western source, Ukraine has got 80% of its army tied up on the front in the East. By Russia destroying this - by any means, even if cutting them off - there will only be 20% of Ukraine's fighting force left - that is, bye-bye Ukrainian army. Well isn't this what the Donbas offensive months ago suppose to be? To destroy the Ukrainian forces in the east? How did that turn out? I'll believe the Russian ability to defeat large portions of Ukraine's army when I see it.
1
I'll bet you a billion dollars Ukraine will still exist as a nation free of Russian rule even if it doesn't regain all the territory that it lost during the war.
1
@vasilispatsalidis5683 Russia has Crimea, but they don't have Odessa or other parts of the Ukrainian coastline. Ukraine isn't going to be landlocked unless Russia takes and holds all of that coastline which they aren't going to do. Also even if hypothetically if Russia were able to take all of Ukraine's coast, they still wouldn't be isolated considering they're surrounded by EU nations who they could still trade with and move goods in and out of their country by rail and truck. Sure it wouldn't be as easy and efficient as ships, but its still quite doable as we're seeing them do it now.
1
@andrewmckenzie292 If Yanukovych was overthrown because he made some decisions some Ukrainians didn't like (such as promising to align with EU, then switching to Russia instead) then Ukrainians have more rights than westerners. We cannot overthrow our governments by force when we disagree with them. This is both a good and a bad thing. On the one hand having a population that doesn't overthrow a government everytime it dislikes what its doing means a stable and civilized society. On the otherhand it also means if you don't like what the current government is doing you'll have to suffer until the next election to even have a chance to boot them out. I'm in Canada and I hate Trudeau and his party with a passion and wish he would've been thrown out a long time ago, but since Canadians aren't like that, they have to wait until the fall of 2025 at the earliest to get rid of his ass which is far too much time for him to remain in power to do more damage to Canada before he's gone.
1
@Nooraksi Native Americans were also immigrants from Europe and Asia a long time ago.
1
Damn how bad do things have to be going for the Russians that people have to outright lie about video footage that shows something quite different that anyone with two working eyes could see for themselves? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
1
@cg3.0_slowburning2 The USSR took hundreds of thousands of killed, wounded and captured in the first months of Barbarossa. They DEFINITELY should've surrendered and sued for peace instead of fighting for several more years and losing millions more people right?
1
@javierherraizparejamecanic8215 The Ukrainians are fighting to free their people and to regain their land. What are the Russians fighting for? Invading someone else's nation and dying for what?
1
@JackParsons. Not any less delusional to think Putin invading Ukraine is a 'just war' that needed to happen.
1
@iigalaxyii9928 *Bakhmut is worth the fighting because of several reasons. The city is strategically placed at a high elevation and is a crossroad for the Donbas infrastructure which means if Russia can take it that’ll allow the Russians to more opportunities to develop more offensive.* There's a difference between an objective worth fighting for and an objective that's worth fighting for at all costs. Bakhmut clearly doesn't fall under the latter and it doesn't make sense for either side to fight so hard for it especially on the Russian side. I guess for the Ukrainians if they feel its worth it as a delay tactic and to get Russia to only focus on Bakhmut and the surrounding area with them unable to launch any significant attacks elsewhere along the front then maybe the sacrifice is worth it to them. For the Russians I don't see the cost being worth it if any breakthrough they may achieve cannot be exploited by a large armored force. If they don't have an large armor force to push the opening, then its pointless because you simply push the enemy back to their next line of defense WWI style. Heck if the Russians did have any significant armored force they should've been able to close up the pocket long ago and complete the encirclement and force the Ukrainians to counterattack to try and relieve the trapped Ukrainian forces. Its interesting to see the parallels of Bakhmut to Stalingrad where the strategic significance of the objective pales in comparison to the political and media significance of capturing the city. I mean if you simply zoom out and look at the map of Ukraine, Bakhmut is but a tiny dot where taking it or losing it isn't going to make much of a difference militarily in the outcome of the war compared to the political/media gain.
1
@raptorreaper Of course Russia would never face NATO or even just the US alone on the battlefield because they know they would get curb stomped into the ground by either of them. Russia and even the USSR's only hope at ever beating NATO was using nukes because they could never do it in a conventional war.
1
@СергейБулкин-ъ1и What a stupid thing you offer. What's the matter of independent Balic states, which has rather different politics, economics and mentality opposite slavick Russia, Belarus and Ukraine? The Baltic states ARE independent for the first time since they left the clutches of Russian control and they were SMART to have joined the west and NATO otherwise they would've been attacked and retaken by Russia long ago. A distinctive feature of the state of Ukraine is that a third of its land (beyond the Dnieper and in the South) was donated to it by Russia for no money with all the cities, factories, mines, ports and millions of Russian-speaking people. And the third part of its land in the West was torn away from Poland, Hungary and Romania according to the results of WW2 and was also donated to her by Moscow. If this is the case then why doesn't Russia give back Kaliningrad when it was originally occupied by Germany? Russia stole that land, kicked everyone out and made it into their own. Why don't they give back that stolen land?
1
Its a good thing the Ukrainians are gathering a few Queens to train up and equip so that they can be put onto the chess board sometime this year while the Russians can only respond with mostly waves of pawns.
1
Can you show any proof that there's an actual NATO force fighting in Ukraine right now rather than just western troops volunteering to fight there?
1
@waynzignordics Nato soldiers, active or inactive, comprise the entirety of the IL army responsible for the territorial recovery in Kharkiv. Their command structure is comprised of active Nato commanders. Does that fact make you uncomfortable? I never disagreed that in terms of intelligence and assistance in command and planning etc. that NATO has greatly helped the UA forces. I just dispute that actual NATO soldiers who are actively serving within their own forces are fighting on the ground in Ukraine. As far as I've read pretty much all western volunteers fighting right now are not currently serving in their own country's armies. Nato didn't "become involved" after Russia invaded, it's been involved since before 2014. Nato has been equipping, training, or financing AFU for nearly a decade. Unfortunately for Ukraine it wasn't at the pace needed otherwise they should have a much larger NATO trained and equipped force ready at the beginning of the invasion to push back the Russians. Still there was enough that it made a significant enough difference that the Russian invasion was eventually slowed down and now mostly stopped. Russia invaded Ukraine after the AFU began amassing troops on the Donbas border in preparation of an invasion into the region. The Donbas republics asked Russia for help, and she did so under the UN Charter rules. Donbas is still apart of Ukraine and this was an internal matter that Russia didn't have to interfere with, but they did anyways. There wouldn't be fighting if some people in Donbas didn't form militias and try to gain independence by force and then when they started losing Russia intervened to help. Also while many people in the Donbas did want independence or least more autonomy, from what I've read I don't think most residence living there wanted to do it by force and having their people dying and infrastructure destroyed. The initial move on Kiev had the goal of fixing AFU troops in the north-west and preventing them from reinforcing the Donbas region. It worked so well Russia took more land than they could hold with their limited troop numbers, namely Kharkiv. The hope was Ukraine's government would capitulate like in 2014 in Crimea, and ALMOST DID, until Boris Johnson told Zelenskyy no, Biden backed up Boris, and Zelenskyy became the face of the greatest propaganda project the world has ever seen. Congrats for buying into it. This makes no sense. You don't waste a significant portion of your troops and equipment in a 'feint' when its completely unnecessary to do so. As I've said elsewhere the Russians could've accomplished the same objective of forcing the Ukrainians to keep forces near Kiev and surrounding areas by simply having their 40k or so troops stay on the Belarus border and do nothing else. Just sit that Russian force on the border and keep it there and do nothing else and they don't lose equipment and men that's badly needed now. And this doesn't even include all the logistical resources that were wasted supporting that attack that could've been transferred to support the eastern and southern fronts that lost alot of heavy equipment because many Russian vehicles ran out of fuel or broke down and were then abandoned. Russia hasn't "pushed all their chips in." They haven't fully mobilized. They're fighting a SMO (by legal definition), and appear intent on keeping it that way. What I'm saying is that the Russians have nearly used up as much of their forces and equipment as they can short of fully mobilizing which is why the talk of mobilization has ramped up so much in recent weeks. If the Russians were winning comfortably there wouldn't be any talk about mobilization at all and the reason why they haven't done it is because it would be open admission that they're failing badly in Ukraine and that short of throwing much more into the fight they're now not only not going to accomplish their goals, but they might lose much of what they've gained. The Russians believed that what forces they gathered at the beginning of the invasion would be enough and they grossly miscalculated and now they're paying the price. Russia doesn't want all of Ukraine, it wants everything east of the Dniper river, and the entire southern border through Odessa. Kiev can keep the rest (although Poland is gonna take back Lvov, watch). If this was the case then they shouldn't have attacked towards Kiev which was a complete waste of forces and supplies. I think the Russians believed that even with NATO help since 2014 that having seen the Ukrainians fight previously in the Donbas and Crimea, they didn't think that UA forces would be a match for them or that they would even have the will to fight. With those assumptions the Russians invaded thinking that the UA forces wouldn't put up much of a fight and those units that did resist would quickly be overwhelmed. After the UA forces collapse, Zelensky would have no choice but to flee the country or be captured. This is why the Kiev attack happened otherwise it wouldn't ever have happened. Do yourself a favor a listen to at least ONE source of news that isn't funded by Nato's propaganda money. It'll keep you from being so naive about current events. I look at numerous sources from both sides because unlike the pro-Russian hacks of the Duran and others like them, I care more about facts and knowing what's actually happening in the ground in real life than I care about blindly supporting one side and completely discounting all information that doesn't say my side is winning.
1
@ub210 They won't lose. Their manpower and material loses may be greater, but they are not going to lose. Russians have already lost the war and Ukraine has already won for the simple fact that they still exist when the Russians wanted to take all of Ukraine and turn it into another Belarus like puppet state. How much land they can regain is still up in the air, but whether they can take back more land or not they will continue to exist as an independent country free from Russian tyranny and that in itself is a victory.
1
@ub210 There, you said it. Whether they will exist as an independent country is up in the air. If they DO NOT disavow NATO ambitions and continue to provide a platform for invaders to attack Russia, they will never be independent. Their current govt is an existential threat to the RF. The sooner the west realizes that, the sooner this war will end. Otherwise, they will be nothing but a wasteland buffer zone in the western Ukraine. A real "okraina". That's what they appear to have signed up to be. Ukraine WILL exist as an independent country as long as NATO keeps supporting it. This is obvious because war is costly and Ukraine cannot fight it alone. NATO will NEVER allow Ukraine to fall so it will remain a free nation. Now when you're talking about how big the new Ukraine will be that then that's up in the air. Maybe the Ukrainians get much more western tanks, armored vehicles and even western fighter jets and it pushes the Russians mostly out of Ukraine if not all of it. Or maybe they continue to get moderate support and at best they take back some land without being able to take back everything. Who knows at this point. Also I don't know in what world you believe the Ukrainian government is 'a threat' to Russia other than it won't do its bidding anymore and chooses to align itself with the west for a better future for its people. No nation who has ever stuck with Russia has ever prospered otherwise the USSR would still be here in 2023. The first chance that former Soviet nations had to choose their destiny many IMMEDIATELY ran to the west for protection and prosperity and guess what most of those countries are doing better economically than they ever did when they were apart of the USSR. This is what Ukraine also wants and it sucks that Russia refuses to let them go under the guise of their own security. Lets be real Ukraine will NEVER attack Russia because its too small and weak to do so. The only reason Russia doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO is because that FOREVER STOPS Russia from having the opportunity to invade Ukraine again in the future. The Baltic states would already be back under Russian rule by now if they weren't under the protection of NATO and that's why Ukraine and other countries want to join so that they too can gain protection from Russian aggression. The RF has stated its terms and the west won't agree until NATO is facing a choice between collapse and being a direct party to the conflict through open intervention. What terms? 'Give us everything we want or else we continue this war'? That's not negotiating, that's making insane demands that the other side won't and shouldn't ever agree agree too. Also Russia doesn't want to fight NATO head on because it would get absolutely curb stomped without the west breaking a sweat. Good luck to everyone then because the losses NATO will suffer will cause them to resort to tactical nukes first. NATO isn't losing anything other than sending its equipment and money to Ukraine. They can do that for a long time, but if they were smart they would send a ton of equipment to Ukraine and end this war quicker with a Russian defeat.
1
@ub210 You made good points. We can agree to disagree. Basically, we both agree that the war and killing on both sides are overdone and it's time to end this! Why won't the west sit down and talk to Russia? They've shut down all avenues of communication, so much so that doves like Lavrov have been pushed to the back seat. How do you sit down with Russia who's made it clear that it really doesn't want to give back much of the territory its taken so far in this war and also that it doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO? Lets roleplay and say that if you were Zelensky and were to negotiate with Putin, what terms would you agree to that would be acceptable to Ukraine? What would you agree to if you were in his position?
1
@jacobdautriche9023 concerning Russia losing the war my friend: According to WS journal Ukraine shoots 40 k shells a month. Russia 600 according to pro russian sources. Ratio 15:1. There is no way Russia loses without NATO entering the war... just leave it bro this thread is lost for you Ukraine is already a better trained and better led army than the Russians and they will continue to get even better over time as NATO continues to increase the number of Ukrainians it trains. The problem is no matter how well trained your men are, you still need weapons to fight with and the Ukrainians are lacking the kind of heavy weapons that are necessary to fight and win a war with in the long term. No matter how poorly the Russians are fighting the two things that they can always count on is the amount of men and equipment that they can throw at a problem and considering the Russians don't care about how many men they throw away, eventually its going to make some difference on the battlefield. The only way for the Ukrainians to fight against much larger numbers is with more and better quality equipment and men. Their men are getting better trained so that's slowly getting taken care of, but they still need the equipment. If NATO gave the Ukrainians what they needed in equipment, there's no way they would lose to the Russians.
1
@ub210 I understand your point. From the Russian side, also understand that Ukrainian was doing everything it could to wipe out the opposition over the last 8 years, especially in the Donbas. You do understand that it was the Russians who supplied weapons to the Donbas militia and then they sent troops to help them too. This is despite the fact that very few people living in the Donbas who wanted more autonomy from Ukraine NEVER VOTED to separate from Ukraine by force. That was Putin trying to provoke a situation so that they would have justification to attack and that's exactly what happened. *If they continue to progress and more territories vote to seek protection from the Kiev govt under the RF, what then? We're not going to support a 10-year war that has decimated Ukraine, NATO stores, and may further erode Ukrainian territory, are we?* That's makes no sense. Russians invade an area and Ukrainians flee the region. They then hold elections where everyone who would vote against them have already left and they 'win' the election and claim that that region wants to leave Ukraine? How much of a joke of an election can you hold that no one would ever recognize if they had half a brain? You're pretty much ethnically cleansing an area so that all opposition against you is gone and then claiming the territory as yours. Surely, the west sees this? The US military has made it clear that they do not want to get involved. This is clearly overreach by the US State Dept and agencies under it. If NATO and the US didn't want to get involved, they wouldn't have supported Ukraine for this long and be slowly but surely expanding their support. Sure it would've been great to see NATO step up with tanks and other armored vehicles from the beginning, but the fact that the US and Germany are willing to send Bradleys and Marders now and the UK is willing to send a few Challenger tanks as well is a great start from even a few months ago when such donations were out of the question. So yes NATO won't put boots on the ground, but they're also not going to let Ukraine fall after being committed to helping them for so long. When they start respecting each other, we'll get somewhere with nogotiations. If not, with time, respective western govts will be replaced with people who are able to make the tough decisions that will lead to peace. How can you negotiate with a tyrant like Putin who's already made it clear that he's not willing to budge on much of anything? Giving in to his demands only emboldens him to do it again to Ukraine or other countries in the future. Unless Putin drastically changes his mind, the only way to force him to change his mind is to beat his army to a pulp on the battlefield or else have the Russian people say enough and enough and rise up against him which seems very unlikely. An uneasy peace is worse than no peace at all as you can see with North and South Korea where even though they're not fighting each other there's a neverending uneasiness between them where violence could break out at anytime. The only long term solution for Ukraine is to join NATO and be under their protection. The Baltic states prove that NATO protection works because without joining, they would've been taken over and fallen back under Russian control long ago.
1
@jacobdautriche9023 Why should NATO step down when its Russia that's invaded another country? THEY should be the ones stepping down if they want to avoid further losses and escalation in this war.
1
@jacobdautriche9023 NATO did not respect vital national security interests of Russia, regime changed the democraticly elected pro russian president, pushed the puppet government to a genocide of the russian speaking population and escalated the situation. What 'vital national security interests of Russia'? NO ONE was ever going to invade Russia not now not ever. However EVERYONE is afraid that Russia might invade them which is why so many former Soviet vassal states ran to the west to join NATO as soon as they had the chance. Why do you think that is other than they were tired of being treated like shit by Russia and NEVER want to be under their control again. Ukrainians feel the same way as well and did not want to fall under Russian influence again which is why they rose up to overthrow the puppet Russian government because they DID NOT want to become another Belarus. Maybe if Russia treated their fellow member states better and helped them improve their nations the USSR would still be together today rather than breaking up several decades ago. Today most countries who use to be apart of the USSR are doing better today with closer ties to the west and that's what Ukraine wants for its people.
1
@niccolobrioschi3758 because NATO is technically a third party and shouldn't get involved in wars between non-NATO countries lol you people are mad Why should the west allow a tyrant to invade a major country in the middle of Europe that doesn't want to be under the yoke of Russian rule any longer? People keep talking about how corrupt and criminal Ukraine was before the war yet they don't like to mention that they learned from big brother Russia much like other vassal nations in the USSR did. Like I said before Russia did NOTHING to improve the lives of people living in other countries that were under its rule and its no surprise that when they finally had a chance to choose they RAN not walked away from Russia ASAP. Ukraine is making that same choice now and its too bad Russia won't let Ukraine leave them without a fight. If there's one silver lining out of all this death and destruction happening in Ukraine right now its that its removing alot of the bad Soviet era crap from its country from corrupt officials to bad construction. There's a real opportunity for Ukraine to rebuild to be a much better and more prosperous nation someday that might otherwise have taken much longer to do. It has a chance to rise from the ashes of its old Soviet past to become a modern and more civilized and peaceful society that it could never achieve under Russian rule.
1
@niccolobrioschi3758 Propaganda creates tyrants out of democratic rulers or democratic rulers out of tyrants when necessary. Don't try to sell the good cowboys trope to me, it's clear how the west runs. Sure I don't disagree that the west isn't perfect and has its issues too when it comes to invading nations, but in this instance its as clear cut as it gets when Ukraine didn't want this war and Russia said screw you and invaded anyways. If there were issues that needed to be solved they could've did it at the negotiation table, but Russia didn't want that and it believed it had the combat power to take all of Ukraine and bring it back under its sphere of influence. They miscalculated and now they're stuck in a war that they cannot win and the best outcome they can hope for is to keep whatever territory they've taken. Ukraine seems to have only been able to achieve higher and higher levels of suck since the fall of the USSR, evident in their never reversed demographic decline, shared by the baltics on EU life support and especially Moldova. Baltic states have been doing much better than its ever done under Russian rule and Ukraine's slow progress is due to it being still under the influence of Russia. That's why getting rid of the Russian yoke and moving to closer economic and military cooperation with the west is vital to Ukraine's future and whether it will continue to make slow progress or achieve more rapid growth and success. Also I don't buy this whole demographic decline crap. If we actually believe in this climate change stuff then we should be HOPING that the world's population should be on the decline so that we reduce resource usage and garbage and emissions output. They won't improve if they won't mantain good trade relations with their neighbours, chiefly with Russia, and this is not surprising since it's trade that makes an economy run This is why Ukraine needs to move away from Russia when trading and dealing with the west and the rest of the world is much, MUCH more profitable.
1
@niccolobrioschi3758 however demographic decline is always incompatible with economic improvement and sustainability, the baltics are just living of subsidies, and Ukraine is not south of the USA so it's not profitable for them to trade with the west. Trade what, btw? Grain? Kefir milk? Ukraine has a large quantity of natural resources including alot of rare earth metals that are needed for various electronics. Also it may take a while, but tourism could help them as well in a major way down the road. Also even if you believe that the Baltic states are only living off subsidies from the west, that's definitely more than Russia has ever done for them and other nations where all they ever did was to suck those countries dry. I imagine can't why these nations would be running away from Russia to the west. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 Also demographic decline is a good thing for the world if we actually care for it. And there's a reason why the majority of countries that see success and have better standards of living have also gotten their population growth under control.
1
How has neutrality benefited Finland? Now that they've joined NATO there's ZERO CHANCE that Russia will ever invade them. Why do you think Russia is so desperate to keep Ukraine out of NATO? Because they know that once they join, Ukraine is lost forever to them unless they want to invade and start a war that they truly can't win. That's why they're in Ukraine now to stop it.
1
@Tonik-13 Neutrality is what guaranteed Finland's security. Finland was a bridge between Russia and the West, and it was very profitable. Now Finland has become a target. Neutrality meant that Finland always had to be mindful of Russia and to not do anything to provoke them into possible threatening military force against them. Now that they're apart of NATO they're among allies who will come to their aid should Russia attack for whatever reason. Just look at Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and ask yourself do you really think that they would still be independent nations if they all weren't apart of NATO instead of being absorbed into Russia or become Russian puppet nations like Belarus has become? Somehow I seriously doubt it. Russia wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO because Putin, for some reason, loves Ukraine and does not want to destroy it in the event of a global mess. This is HILARIOUS. Putin 'loves' Ukraine so much that's he completely wrecking that country right now 'out of love'!! LOL. How does this even make sense?!?!? LOLOLOL!! Why not just admit that Putin doesn't want Ukraine to join NATO because he knows that once they like every other country that joins is fully protected from ever being invaded by Russia ever again? What makes you think that Russia certainly wants to attack some countries and the only insurance against evil Russia is NATO? There was literally a plan for Russia to take Moldova after Ukraine that Lukashenko revealed so that they could 'free' the Transnistrians the same as they did in Crimea and then the Donbas. Also they have already shown repeatedly that they have no problems threatening or actually using their military to get what they want in places like Georgia and Chechnya. If you think Russia isn't a threat then just ask yourself why so many countries are BEGGING to be apart of NATO and NO ONE begging to stay in the former USSR? If the Soviet Union was so great and beneficial to all the nations that were apart of it then why would it have broken up and many of those nations that were formerly apart of the USSR fleeing westward to join the EU and NATO? The Russians FORCED nations to become apart of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. NO ONE is forcing nations to become apart of the EU and NATO and in fact you have to go through an entire process to become apart of both organizations.
1
Listened to some old WW2 journal entries from German soldiers on YouTube. This sounds like instant replay…. Russians moving forward with unlimited tanks and artillery while Germans move back with lack of everything. Ukraine gets what they vote for. You know what's also the same? Russians taking huge casualties moving forward and not caring as long as the objective is achieved. This has been the Russian way of fighting for centuries where more often than not its about overwhelming their opponents with numbers and equipment than actually outsmarting and outfighting them.
1
@jay64j Yes, this can be an aspect of Russian war, but you describe it out of context, like a western propaganda rag. There is strategy underlying the action. Western ways, now also forced on Ukraine, are often with far less strategy, bigger bombs, more death to civilians. I don't know if you've been following the war since the beginning, but I have and I can tell you it isn't 'western propaganda' at all to say that the Russians have been throwing troops and equipment away recklessly since the beginning of the conflict and things still haven't changed now. From the first days of the war when the Russians were taking significant casualties as well as having many of their men abandoning their vehicles because of poor logistics and often running out of fuel, so many people thought that this was actually part of the plan to send their low grade units to soak up Ukrainian supplies before the real units went in. Now we see that this is the actual state of the Russian army and while things have improved since the early days of the war, the Russians are still throwing away men and equipment with very little care as long as they achieve their objectives. If you disagree then please tell me what you believe the Russian strategy is these days?
1
@FR_PS So what are the Russians dying for other than the insanity of Putin's decision to invade for no good reason?
1
Ukrainians don't need NATO troops to beat Russia, they simply need NATO weapons, training and supplies to do it. If they received even a relative small amount of modern heavy equipment and aircraft from NATO countries, the Ukrainians would probably be able to kick the Russians out of most of their country. Also unless Russia is smart and decides to train and equip these new troops they're raising to be of decent quality then they're not going to be much more than cannon fodder that can take a bullet for you. Interesting how the more things change, the more they stay the same where the Russians had no problems with needlessly throwing away Russian lives in WWII and now they're doing the same in 2022. You'd think they would change and start caring about their people, but nope that doesn't seem like something that Russian leaders are capable of doing EVER.
1
@dr.embersfield1551 The Russian attack towards Kiev wasn't a feint, it was a legitimate rush to try and take the capital and overthrow/capture/kill Zelensky and his government. It was a failed operation and the only way pro-Russian hacks can justify it is by saying it was a feint to tie up Ukrainian troops. In the end it did succeed in tying down Ukrainian forces that could've been used elsewhere just that the cost was high and included losing some of Russia's best troops in the process.
1
The west isn't going to stop supplying Ukraine with arms and other supplies they need as they're likely in it all the way now. Even if the Russians have plenty of money, they're not going to be able to replace all the equipment they lost and they'd have to mobilization to get more troops together to throw into the fight. If the Ukrainians keep having their men get trained by NATO instructors, then over time they're going to have more troops that are better trained and equipped than whatever the Russians have. So I'd say as time goes on it favors Ukraine more.
1
Isn't that what supposedly happened in the Kharkiv offensive? That the Russians put in people who weren't all that capable of defending the front and when the Ukrainians pushed forward they got up and ran? Unless these new reservists are much better trained and equipped, how do the Russians know the same thing won't happen? Over time we know that the Ukrainians will have more NATO trained and equipped troops to fight with and I wonder if these new Russian troops can even receive close to the same amount of training that UA troops will have.
1
@Dae_Dae_Chiefin It can't replace heavy equipment losses quick enough which is why they have been unable to launch large scale armored offensive operations since the retreat from the Kiev front.
1
From the reports I've read the Ukrainians are still moving forward beyond Lyman and now they're nearing Kremmina and other parts of eastern Ukraine. Also there's some reports that Ukrainians might be making some progress in the Kherson area as well. We'll have to see what comes of these pushes in the next few hours and days, but if they're accurate then its pretty surprising that the Russians haven't been able to establish some sort of solid defensive line to stop Ukrainian advances.
1
No offense to Ukrainians, but this war will not end well for you. At this stage, a swifter end to the war would be the best outcome for all sides. Remember when the Germans were rolling through the USSR nearly unopposed killing hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and taking hundreds of thousands of prisoners and also vast amounts of Russian soil? If only the Russians had surrendered sooner to avoid taking millions more casualties and even more devastation to their lands....... 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
1
@111076tom They can't arm, move or supply a few houndred thousand men, and Dima fears a 5 million army!? Neither could the Russians which is why they're in this mess to begin with. If they had properly organized their logistics before invasion they would've done much better and gained more ground for much less cost.
1
That's because western governments actually give a damn about their citizens unlike Russia who have ALWAYS seen the majority of their people as being nothing more than disposable assets that you use until they die and then you simply throw them away into the trash.
1
@Waynzig Nordics That's the official start of WWIII, and the end of life as we've known it for the last 75-years. WWIII seems unlikely unless Russia starts using nukes because they can't get it done with their armed forces. If Russia didn't have nukes no one in the west would be very afraid of them because NATO forces would curb stomp the Russian army anytime anywhere. Russia is a bully that starts a fist fight with someone and when they start to lose they threaten to come back with a gun to settle things.
1
@waynzignordics WWIII officially starts when Russia's allies, bound by mutual security agreements through CSTO, enter the proxy war being waged by Nato, forcing Nato to enter into direct conflict. That's the literal definition of a world war. CSTO countries would have to be INSANE to want to send their troops to Ukraine to fight for Russia and its doubtful that they'll do so if they have any intelligence in their government. Nothing in this current conflict bares any resemblance to what direct warfare between Nato and CSTO nations would look like. Lets hope this doesn't escalate to get even worse because if NATO actually ever got involved for real it would be a complete slaughter of Russia and its allies and it wouldn't be close. You were probably in diapers when the US invaded Iraq, or you'd know that Russia is using kid's gloves against Ukraine by comparison. Russia doesn't need nukes, but the threat of using them serves the purpose of discouraging Nato from escalating further. If Russia didn't need nukes it wouldn't threaten to use them constantly and saying they're on the table all the time. Only a nation in a weak position and feels like they have nothing to lose would threaten using such weapons that would take this conflict into a new level of danger that we shouldn't ever go to. You said it yourself in that the threat of nukes serves to discourage NATO from supposedly escalating things further. That means that Russia doesn't believe that its conventional forces are a strong enough deterrent to stop NATO from potentially interfering more. On the otherhand NATO DOES feel its conventional forces are strong enough that it doesn't need to talk about using nukes except only possibly as a response to Russia or someone else using them first. Russia has made many mistakes throughout the SMO, but their success in taking a quarter of Ukraine despite being massively outnumbered will be studied for decades. It doesn't look like on the map now that Russia has 25% of Ukraine and you're forgetting that Russia had the massive equipment advantage and supposedly the better trained army over the Ukrainians at the start of the invasion and even then they couldn't defeat them because of their utter incompetence. Now Russia is doing what they've always done in their history. Namely throw more men and resources at a problem and hope the red horde can eventually overwhelm their opponents through numbers and brute force.
1
It all depends on if the west will keep Ukraine supplied with arms and equipment to keep going or not. Doesn't matter if you have the best soldiers in the world if you don't have the weapons and supplies to fight with.
1
Zelensky and his administration are the true war criminals for continuing this war when they clearly have already lost the war. I hope to be able to visit Kharkov when I return to Ukraine in mid July 2024 for another 90 days. There wouldn't be a war to begin with if Putin didn't decide to invade. Imagine if I broke into your home and refused to leave and you kept fighting me to get me out of your house and you weren't successful. Would you be happy if I said 'We can stop fighting if you just give me your living room and kitchen and you can keep the rest'? Somehow I don't think you would be happy with that outcome and would continue to fight until you got your entire home back. The same is happening here with the Ukrainians.
1
Its human nature to pick a side and support them. I don't know why you see it as a bad thing when its something that comes naturally to us. I'm sure everyone wants this war to end, but just that they want their side to be the winners or at less of a loser than their opponents.
1
@Hermann Piana It seems that the Russian tactics will be the same as in Syria, and they will crush the defense lines with overwhelming air power. 'Overwhelming air power' that never existed since day one of the war, but will suddenly turn the tide into Russia's favor over a year later? OK. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
1
@jesusiscoming6843 What exactly are the Russians going to bring to the fight now that they haven't already other than more manpower? Its not like they have tons of modern T-14 tanks have been held back that they're now going to use in Ukraine and its not like they're going to be bringing hundreds of more aircraft to gain air superiority either.
1

Previous
3
Next
...
All