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

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10.  @Backpacker8381  Kiev was a fixing operation. The Russian forces there were not tasked to take the city but to prevent Ukrainian forces there from reinforcing the Donbas while Russia moved in. That's the lame excuse that the pro-Russian hacks like the Duran has been pushing for ages now and it doesn't make sense. As I've said many times the Russians could've accomplished the same objective with occupying Ukrainian forces by simply sitting in Belarus and NOT ATTACKING. If the 40k or so Russians are sitting on the border and not attacking, do you really think the Ukrainians still wouldn't be forced to have a large force to oppose them anyways? Do you think they would say to themselves 'well this large mass of Russian troops aren't moving towards Kiev, so we don't have to have keep major forces in the area in case they do attack'. Of course not. They're still keeping a large force there in case the Russians do attack. Imagine if that was what actually happened? That the Kiev invasion force didn't actually attack? You'd have a completely fresh force of 40k troops with all their equipment intact ready for operations in the Donbas or elsewhere right now. Instead they took major casualties and lost alot of equipment and they had to be pulled out of the line and refitted. Where is your confirmation of "vast amounts of casualties" other than exaggerated reports and rumors that have not been confirmed or fact checked? The BBC did an extensive fact checking investigation into the number of confirmed Russian dead using many teams of fact checkers. At the end of June, the number of confirmed Russian dead was a little over 4000. The proof is the Russians started with having the ability to launch 3 major armored assaults into Ukraine simultaneously and then after the Kiev retreat they were reduced to being able to launch only one offense in the Donbas region with little offensive operations happening anywhere else. And even then they haven't launched any major mobile operations since the Kiev retreat because they lost so many armored vehicles and other equipment. Look at the Lysychansk salient from a few months back when the UA forces had several hundred or maybe even a few thousand men surrounded on 3 sides by the Russians and at one point only had a 10km gap from which they could escape from. That would've been the perfect time to launch a mobile attack from both flanks and encircle them and either force a Ukrainian counterattack or have another Mariupol like victory as they slowly starve out and grind down the trapped UA forces and yet they couldn't even do that because they had so few armored forces. The point is you can believe whatever casualty reports that you want to believe, but what's actually happening on the ground and especially in the past couple of weeks, it doesn't support the Russians taking only light casualties and not having lost a ton of equipment.
    1
  11. 1
  12.  @Mr_MikeB  Huge failure for Putin in case of mobilization? Dont be ridiculous - all Putin has to say - now we are with war with NATO, so gloves off and mobilization on. Very easy. Plus thats true even now. Putin can say Russia is fighting NATO, but will the Russian people believe it? And there's no getting around that it would be an embarrassment to do so after all this time telling his people that this was going to be small operation, but now has evolved into a near full blown war. Sure they have to keep some reserves for protection, but I see no problem why they could not double manpower involved. After all there no other country like Ukraine on their borders. Plus China can help to deal with them. Also army is not the one keep civilians peaceful. You do know that mobilization is more than manpower right? Unless the Russians are going back to true WWI fighting style where they're throwing bodies into the fight until they overwhelm their enemy, then its going to take time to train and arm these new troop to be something other than cannon fodder that's only good for taking a bullet. Also China is smart to stay out of this war and they would have to be stupid to change their minds. As for retaking land back - maybe you havent noticed Russia has already destroyed all equipment Ukraine has before war. Now all Ukraine has is what NATO countries had in stockpiles - literally new army. So questiion is - after all this stuff will be destroyed will NATO have more tanks, artillery and so on to supply? Ukraine is only being given largely Russian tanks and armored vehicles and maybe a few aircraft so far and have only received western equipment when it comes to artillery and missile systems, light armored vehicles and personal gear for soldiers. If NATO gave Ukraine even a small portion of its modern tanks and aircraft it would be completely over for the Russians in no time. Also the fact that Russians keep talking about using nukes shows how desperate they are and how they know they have no hope of winning long term unless cheat. Like I said before without nukes the Russians aren't very scary at all.
    1
  13.  @Mr_MikeB  Do not worry - they will. After all NATO is not even hiding its support to Ukraine. Plus - they trust Putin. But anyway I do not think there will be mobilization any time soon. But then again - who knows? Well Putin just announced it. A partial mobilization. I wonder how many men and how much equipment that will involve? Really sad to hear that this war won't be ending anytime soon. 😐😪😒🙁☹😟 Only way to stop this madness now is Ukrainian victory with the help of massive western support. Unless Russia is pushed back or there are negotiations that lead to only some Ukrainian territory given up for a ceasefire any more than that and it will be pointless and we could be doing the same thing a few years from now. Then when the war is over Ukraine needs to join NATO ASAP and that will be the only way that their nation will be safe for the long term. If Ukraine doesn't join NATO then they will never be completely safe from Russian aggression. As for mobilization reserves - Russia I believe have 2 millions people with military background. So couple weeks in training for them and go ahead! For others they could do 3-4 month courses if needed... But you correctly indicated that WW1 type fighting is very unlikely going to happen, thats why I do not believe in total mobilization. Whatever troops the Russians are calling up they better train and equip them well because otherwise what would be the point other than wasting their lives over a war that doesn't need to be fought? I mentioned China not to suggest it will join war with Ukraine, but as its possible role to keep an eye over east border of Russia so none will start big war in all those Central Asia countries I seriously doubt any nations have an interest in attacking Russian land. Everyone just wants Russia to STOP ATTACKING OTHER COUNTRIES. No one has threatened to invade Russian territory since WWII and its only Russian paranoia and stupid leaders that believed this. Rather than wasting all this time and resources in attacking other countries and causing problems for everyone, imagine how far better off Russia would be now if it had proper leadership that chose economic development and the improvement of the lives of their people over conflict? How different and so much more prosperous would their nation be now if they had the Russian version of Deng Xiaoping that helped China go from being a large but still very poor country and guiding them to become the huge economic power that they are today? This just goes to show how important it is to have good leaders to rule a country where a good leader can help guide their nation to great success in just a few decades compared to bad leaders who don't do anything for their country and decades later they're only at best marginally better than they were several decades ago. Also its nice you trust so much in superiority of Western weapons.... You really think Abrams or Leopard tanks cant be blown up? Or F16 - shoot down? Really? Anything can be destroyed, but the difference is western weapons are so far ahead of whatever Russia has that this means the loss of western weapons would be much less than the loss of Russian weapons. An Abrams tank isn't invincible, but its certainly much harder to destroy than any Russian tank that's at least a generation behind and in turn an Abrams will be far more effective on the battlefield where it can destroy anything it sees in front of it much more easily than a Russian tank can. The same goes for the F-16 or if NATO really wants to go all out they could give the Ukrainians F-15s which would pretty much wipe out anything that the Russian airforce has. As for nukes - its West who is talking all the time that Russia is going to use them in Ukraine. Russians never did that. They have doctrine which very clearly states when they will use them. ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? The Russians have been talking about nukes being on the table since nearly when the war began and they tried to threaten the west into not sending help to Ukraine. NOT ONCE have I ever heard any western country say that nukes are in play the way the Russians have said on a number of occasions. The west has no need to use nukes because they know that if they keep supplying the Ukrainians that UA forces will hold against the Russians if not outright beat them. The Russians realize this why is why they haven't ever said that they won't use nukes because that's the only thing that makes western countries nervous. If the Russians didn't have nukes to threaten the world with, NATO would've probably established at the very least a no fly zone over Ukraine from the very beginning of the invasion because there's nothing they could do about it. Nukes are the ONLY THING that has the west still taking Russia seriously as a military threat.
    1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37.  @mabamijebenjaminese6416  who is crying? just simply stating fact so people will know AFU will not stand a chance without d west. Plus with all the help Russia still control about 20% of Ukrainian land. Well its pretty obvious that without western support that the Ukrainians no matter how bravely they fought it would be near impossible to stop the Russians when they have vastly less heavy equipment, a small airforce and not alot of ammunition and supplies to sustain a long term war. The will to fight isn't enough when you don't have enough bullets, shells and weapons to fight with. This was the same with the Donbas militia in 2014 when they were losing badly to the Ukrainian army and they were on the verge of getting wiped when the Russian army stepped in to turn things around and push the Ukrainians back. The thing that you don't mention is that even if you get the necessary supplies and weapons to fight with, you still need the men to be able to learn to fight with those weapons and have the will to fight for their country. This didn't happen in Iraq or Afghanistan which is why despite all the support given to them the US could not get the Afghan or Iraqi army to be an effective fighting force like the Ukrainian army has become and as soon as the Americans left things turned for the worse. The Ukrainians received support, but they also had the ability to learn quickly much of the knowledge that their NATO instructors gave them which is why they're fighting much better now. Plus with all the help Russia still control about 20% of Ukrainian land. The Russians are controlling 20% of Ukrainian land FOR NOW. At the rate the Russians are retreating, who knows if in the next few months if the Ukrainians won't take much of it back. Several months ago this looked like a fantasy for the Ukrainians, but now it seems like a real possibility when Ukrainian troops are getting better trained and armed while the Russians seem to be throwing increasingly less trained and equipped troops into battle.
    1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40.  @justgames9516  You are kinda right but you are forgetting one small thing. Ukraine is poor, no military industry at all and heavily relies on the west. No matter their population if nato didn’t supply weapons (which they should to avoid even more deaths) Ukraine would have been gone in a couple of days maybe weeks but since Ukraine revived about 300 billion or so I think they are collapsing slowly. Ukraine isn't a rich country, but it isn't 3rd world poor either and its why they wanted to join the EU so that they could have a better chance at growing their economy compared to sticking with Russia. Also Ukraine's defense industry is actually pretty good, just that it hasn't had much of a chance to go into major production when its being heavily disrupted by the war and they have to setup factories outside of Ukraine. If you lookup some of the weapons systems they've developed, they're actually really good. Stugna P ATGM system is probably their most famous weapon right now with how many Russian targets its taken out so far. Also they're ramping up production of their 2S22 Bohdana artillery system which is similar to the French Caesar and their drones are getting better and more lethal as the war goes on. And of course Ukraine would've been done without NATO help. You're talking about a country with a vastly smaller population, landmass and stocks of equipment compared to Russia. Only way to fight such a huge opponent is with tons of outside help. However if both nations had the same population and Ukraine still received NATO assistance, they would've probably already pushed the Russians out of most if not all of Ukraine by now. Ukraine has obviously taken significant casualties in this war, but the Russians have taken vastly more and if both nations had about the same population size, Russia would be done for by now. I don't know why conflict after conflict Russia leaders never seem to care about the amount of losses they take as long as the mission is accomplished. With just even A LITTLE BIT of care they could save so many of their men's lives and not have to continually recruit more men to replace their preventable losses.
    1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43.  @anceldesingano8687  Considering most if not all the Ukrainians casualties are from artillery then the Russians are unscathed or didn’t you forgot about there artillery that still have Considering that they only have minor offensive here and there with companies level of troops not battalion level or even brigade level means they have massive losses or else they never go so far as finding more men in there territory to the point of looking at the refugee in other countries If you consider the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives as being 'minor' then I don't know what to tell you. All the territory that the Ukrainians gained in those offensives were more than the Russians gained since their initial offensives were brought to a stand still. The Donbas offensive was a joke in comparison. Most offensive are from infantry with support in from armored and artillery that happens since ww2 you think that armored spearhead is still a thing even though those sort of strategy are vulnerable to modern weaponry as shown in Israel wars with Arabs Is that why the Russians invaded Ukraine being led by a ton of tanks and armored vehicles? If what you say is true then why did the Russians send in hundreds of tanks to lead the charge instead of sending infantry in first and having tanks and IFVs supporting them? The reason why the Russian armored attacks failed was because they had no air superiority to provide close air support for their ground units and also their infantry and armor did not work together to lower the damage that Ukrainian anti-tank units were causing them. Also it doesn't help that Russian tanks are vastly inferior to western tanks and can't take a hit worth a damn. beside Ukraine while can get territory will never get you nowhere as long as the enemy military capabilities are still intact those 20k troops will moved to other fronts when the Ukrainians should have destroyed to make this whole front much more easier than already is You do realize that Ukraine is the country with the vastly smaller military budget and has much less equipment right? Namely it would've been nice if the Ukrainians had taken more Russian troops prisoner than they did, but its pretty hard for them to do when they're at such an equipment disadvantage in comparison to the Russians. A large portion of Ukraine's armored vehicle force is coming from captured Russian equipment these days. That's how poor they are and how small their defense budget is that they have to try and put every piece of capture equipment into service to keep themselves going. Yet even despite fighting at such a disadvantage they've managed to stop the Russian advances and are now counterattacking and taking back alot of what they lost. That's pretty damn good against a supposed 'superpower' nation that pretends their army is comparable to western country armies.
    1
  44.  @anceldesingano8687  while Kherson and Kharkiv aren’t minor but the overall of the War effort they may as well be since again they failed to destroy the Russia military units in those offensive of theres and the Ukrainians don’t even have that much bigger disadvantage than the Russians both of them have advantage and disadvantage As I said while it would've been great to capture more Russian troops, they still lost significant numbers of troops and equipment in their retreat. That's not nothing and also the territory that the Ukrainians have taken back its not likely to fall to the Russians again because of their lack of combat power and competent troops led by competent leaders. Kherson city and the areas retaken by the Ukrainians are going to probably remain in their hands indefinitely for the rest of this war and beyond. The same probably goes for all the other land retaken in other parts of Ukraine. If the Russians took only moderate to light casualties escaping the Kherson area, if they ever decide to try and invade and retake that area its going to likely mean heavy losses for them now that the Ukrainians will be ready for any Russian attack in that area. Even if they have Air superiority they armored spearhead will never going to work infantry based weaponry is bane to all vehicles especially tanks what they need is more infantry which they doing with 300k men after all air superiority is nothing more a factor in overall war this type of conflict is decided by artillery which the Russians have huge abundance off This is where you're completely wrong. The reason why NATO and especially the US place so much priority in having the world's best airforce is because AIR SUPERIORITY IS EVERYTHING on the battlefield. Once you gain control of the air, you command the battlefield and can attack anything, anytime, anywhere. What does it matter if you have 300k troops and 1,000 tanks when it can all get wiped out with airstrikes and guided missiles? You say artillery is important and I agree, but airpower is king and when you have air superiority you can bomb the hell out of artillery and missile systems and wipe them off the map. All you need to do is find these units with surveillance drones or perhaps special forces operating behind enemy lines identifying targets and calling it in and boom that target is gone. Remember that 40km supply column that was headed to Kiev early in the war? The Ukrainians didn't have the weapons to destroy that juicy target. With NATO's airforce that entire column would've been completely wiped out along with most of the troops, tanks, IFVs etc that were on the front as well and it would've been a massive blow that the Russians might never have recovered from and may have ended the war right there. That's how important air superiority is. Artillery and rocket systems have more importance in Ukraine right now because both sides don't have control of the air and hence neither can launch deep airstrikes into enemy territory without having a high chance of getting shot out of the skies. Most of Ukraine equipment came from the west not the Russia equipment or else they be have logistics problems which they already have with different components that only belong to Russia factories case in point like MBT like T-80 and T-90 those tanks have different engine and different parts than the T-72 or the T-64 tanks that Ukraine have in abundance making them mostly rarely be While its true that NATO countries have donated some tanks and armored vehicles to Ukraine, a vast number if not the majority have come from captured Russian equipment and you do remember that Ukraine was a big producer of armored vehicles for the USSR in years past don't you? 'Malyshev Factory - is a state-owned manufacturer of heavy equipment in Kharkiv, Ukraine. It was named after the Soviet politician Vyacheslav Malyshev. The factory is part of the State Concern UkrOboronProm (Ukrainian Defense Industry). It produces diesel engines, farm machinery, coal mining, sugar refining, and wind farm equipment, but is best known for its production of Soviet tanks, including the BT tank series of fast tanks, the famous T-34 of the Second World War, the Cold War T-64 and T-80, and their modern Ukrainian successor, the T-84. The factory is closely associated with the Morozov Design Bureau (KMDB), designer of military armoured fighting vehicles and the Kharkov Engine Design Bureau (KEDB)[2] for engines. During 1958 it constructed "Kharkovchanka", an off-road vehicle which reached the South Pole the following year. At its height during the Soviet era, the factory employed 60,000 of Kharkiv's 1.5 million inhabitants.' As you can see the Ukrainians have plenty of people who can service captured Russian equipment when many of them were involved in building those vehicles many years earlier.
    1
  45.  @anceldesingano8687  air superiority aren’t everything only become such a thing ever since iraq war a country which mind you don’t have modern Air defense system if say Nato fought on Ukraine they have the same problem as Russia having right now Air superiority has become nearly everything ever since WWII when aircraft became an important and vital part of fighting a war and any nation that didn't have a strong airforce was placed at a huge disadvantage. Having control of airspace gives you the ability to do surveillance, attack the enemy whether near the frontlines or deep behind lines and it significantly prevents the movements of armies and their supplies around the battlefield. Heck look at the battlefield in Ukraine at the soldier level right now where having drones has changed things so massively since the beginning of this war. The ability to be able to fly a drone to enemy lines and watch what they're doing and call in artillery fire on them and even drop small bombs on them to injure and kill soldiers shows how important having control of the air is these days. On a more strategic level look at how the Russians not having air superiority has hurt them so much because Russian aircraft cannot go deep behind Ukrainian lines to destroy HIMARs and other MLRS systems as well as western artillery pieces that have been doing so much damage to the Russian army and their supply lines. If Russia had air superiority they would have a much higher chance of finding those systems and attacking and destroying them and reducing Ukraine's ability to fight in this war, but too bad for the Russians they've never gained control of the air and therefore can't launch those types of attacks deep behind enemy lines. if I remember right and beside that factory especially now with there energy grid still having problems you also forgot that while they can build engine but only with the older T-72 tanks not newer tanks or like T-80 or the T-90 those tanks uses way different components than the Ukrainians have in there arsenal thus making them Harder to maintain properly like any other captured vehicles really and you use the soviet era not Modern Ukraine which mind you are different both economically and militarily to begin with those people that have experience either are in old age or left the country once the conflict start and fact that most of those factories were bomb by the Russians The point is there are plenty of qualified and skilled workers who can keep existing Ukrainian vehicles running and also repair and fix many abandoned and damaged capture Russian vehicles who are similar if not the same in the parts they share or else they can cannibalize some Russian vehicles to fix other ones. Here's a video of what I'm talking about where Ukrainians are opening small repair centers to fix vehicles and put them back into service and then they move elsewhere to prevent themselves from being found and potentially bombed by the Russians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLzSU0Ayic They didn’t lost that much troops or equipment in Kherson after all they retreated with 20k and 5k plus military vehicles and those vehicles that can’t be fall back either left behind or destroyed although most this military vehicles are broke down vehicles either there engine or transmission so good luck to the Ukrainians for repairing them That's the point. Even broke down vehicles that can no longer be fixed to working condition again can often be torn down for spare parts to fix other less damaged vehicles and put them back into service. You wonder where the Ukrainians can get spare parts to fix their vehicles, well they're often getting them from directly from the Russians themselves thanks to their generous donations.
    1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1