Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Ukraine. Military Summary And Analysis 11.09.2022" video.

Militarily it makes sense not to be overstretched and over committed. There's been a huge shortening of the front in the north which frees a heap of forces to face a further offensive in the south. How is it smart to give up territory that took you so long to gain? Especially more important cities like Izyum which is an important rail and road hub for military operations? Imagine spending so many men and resources to gain all this ground and then throwing it all away in a matter of a few days back to the enemy? These past few months when Russian advances were so slow, the pro-Russian folks played it off as minimizing casualties and now its all gone just like that. Minus well not have attacked to begin with if they didn't have enough manpower to keep their gains. I still think that once the Ukrainians burn themselves out with these offensives, a major Russian push will come. Even if the Russians do make a counterattack its going to be a long way to go considering how far they've fallen back. If it took months for them to make the gains that they had and then given up, then how much longer is it going to take for them them to retake the same ground a second time? They were already short on armored vehicles and there's a number of videos that show the Russians now having abandoned many more in their retreat back east. Even if they decide to counterattack its going to be a while to bring up more armored vehicles from back home unless they decide to throw what vehicles they have left into a quick counterattack.
3
@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
@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
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
All the money in the world can't replace all the equipment the Russians have lost and short of mobilization they're going to be short on men as well which according to pro-Russian folks is why the Ukrainians were able to push so far so fast in the Kharkiv area. They were saying the Russians being pushed back were either police/DPR units or something else, but whatever the case it wasn't Russian troops. If that's true then you have to ask why there weren't Russian soldiers holding the frontline or at least acting as a reserve ready to immediately respond to an enemy attack.
1