Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Ukraine. Military Summary And Analysis 23.01.2023" video.

@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
@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
@duboisdvoleur The biggest reason why the Battle of Arnhem was lost was because the allies didn't drop the bulk of the British 1st Airborne on the first day of the attack when they had the most surprise. They also didn't drop them near the bridge so that they didn't have to march and fight several miles to their objective and lose men and the element of surprise. So the British at Arnhem were at the greatest disadvantage when they were the furthest away from help and had the fewest troops landed on the first day of the assault far from Arnhem bridge. One battalion of British paratroops held one end of Arnhem bridge for several days on its own. Imagine if most of the entire brigade designated to hold the bridge actually made there? Probably would've been able to hold onto the bridge until ground forces arrived to relieve them.
1
@pvanb2 Perhaps..John Frost, who the bridge is now named after, did a heroic effort, but armour, and air cover, was essential in that war. Paratroops did land on the fields just across the Nedier Rhine, but again lightly armed. Of course having armor and air cover would do wonders for the paratroops, but the fact that Frost's battalion could hold out for several days on its own with little outside support is a testament to how well trained and motivated troops can do extraordinary things and they probably could've held out for even abit longer had they not ran out of ammo and weapons to fight with. As stated before the biggest mistake was that the British weren't dropped much closer to the bridge because of fears of heavy AA fire that might down the transport aircraft. The fact is dropping the paratroops close to the objective and taking a few more down aircraft would have been worth the trade off and at the end of the day probably would've cost much fewer men in killed and wounded compared to having all 3 battalions being forced to march to the objective and having 2 of those battalions taking heavy casualties trying to fight their way to Arnhem bridge and being stopped cold. Again if Frost's single battalion could hold out for so long, imagine how long the Brits could've held out if most of the 1st Para brigade had actually been defending the bridge. And to expand further if most of the British 1st Airborne division had been dropped on the first day and were defending the bridge, then they likely could've comfortably held out until XXX Corp arrived to relieve them even with all the delays that occurred. The only thing necessary was to simply keep the supplies coming to 1st Airborne and they probably would've held out for as long as necessary until ground forces could arrive.
1
@bozo5632 Sending a few is better than nothing and they can still be used effectively if you put them together with the Russian tanks that Ukraine has. Namely use western tanks to spot the enemy and provide support fire with their superior fire control systems and optics while the Russian tanks move forward. On defense western tanks and IFVs can stop the enemy at a farther distance. Also the fact that NATO is even sending a few tanks and IFVs opens the door to sending more in the future because that political bridge has already been crossed. Its like just before the invasion started NATO west hesitant to send even Javelins and NLAWs to Ukraine for fear of angering Russia and look at how things have gone now where finally western armored vehicles will be sent and used in Ukraine.
1
@coltm4a186 What if the Russians win this and all those NATO vehicles, guns, and gear end up in Russian hands? All of that for nothing and a net loss Abrams and Bradleys and other western equipment have been around for decades so it'd be surprising if the Russians wouldn't already have had samples of these weapons and have broken them down and studied them long ago. So unless its something newer and more advanced I don't see what the big deal is even if the Russians get their hands on NATO weapons.
1
@mikeforester3963 There are plenty of places where western tanks can be used that doesn't have bridges or water and I'm pretty sure that unlike the Russians they'll make sure to check that the weather and territory is ideal before they deploy their tanks. I mean is it really that difficult to ask your weather guys if the ground is firm enough to support the weight of a tank in an area that you're interested in launching an offensive in? 😂😅😆😅🤣😂
1
@mikeforester3963 If even half of the RF-MoD numbers are true, UKR needs several tank regiments (= apprx. 100 pieces per rgt.) in order to replenish their lost Soviet gear with NATO-tier tech. Please don't entertain the notion that a NATO-tank is invincible -- they're not! Sure not having great numbers of western tanks and IFVs sucks for Ukraine right now, but they are getting a decent number of Bradleys and Marders to begin with and the few western tanks could be just the beginning of many more to come. In the meantime if you don't have many western tanks then to me it makes sense to spread them out to be more as spotter and support tanks. Namely for every platoon of 4 Russian tanks you give them a Challenger to stay back to spot and provide support fire with their superior optics and fire control systems. That's one way of using a scare resource more efficiently and reducing their chances of getting destroyed until Ukraine hopefully gets more western tanks to outfit whole units with. Also no one is saying that NATO tanks are invincible because nothing is indestructible, but they are far FAR superior to any Russian tanks on the battlefield these days and they certainly are more superior when it comes to protecting its crew and increasing their chances of survival. Western tanks and IFVs in enough numbers can make a difference on the battlefield, but who knows how big a difference that is until it actually happens especially without the kind of air support it received during the two Gulf wars. In a way this war in Ukraine has become a mini WWIII where we may soon see some of the best western equipment going up against Russian equipment as both sides had planned for in all those decades during the Cold War. It will be interesting to see how well western tanks and IFVs being used with western training and tactics will do on the battlefield and see if the western doctrine of fighting wasn't the better way all along. And on top of it, you'll need the maintenance crews for these vehicles as well as replacement parts because western tech tends to gum up pretty fast The Ukrainians have proven to be fast learners and able to adapt and solve problems as they arise. There's no reason why Ukrainian mechanics who are currently servicing Russian tanks can't quickly learn at least the basics of how to service western armored vehicles. And if there are really complicated issues that can't be solved quickly come up, there's no reason why these vehicles can't be shipped back to a NATO country so that they can be properly serviced in safety and with the proper people doing the job. Lithuania for example has already been servicing PZH 2000 SPHs for Ukraine for several months now and have pledged to do so for as long as the war goes on. No reason why other countries can't do the same for western armored vehicles if needed. At the end of the day the west has plenty of resources that it can draw upon to help Ukraine to win this war, it just depends on if they have the political will to use all those resources and it seems like slowly but surely they're shifting towards increasing their help to Ukraine. It would be nice if it were quicker, but slow progress is better than nothing.
1
@coltm4a186 Im an American and it would really be embarrassing if all the stuff my government gave to Ukraine was for nothing and ends up in Russian possession. I can only pray we don’t give them Abrams tanks if Ukraine loses this. Ukraine is fighting a near total war and as much as you don't want to lose equipment to the enemy eventually its probably going to happen so there's no use in worrying over that. Also its not like Abrams tanks haven't been lost in battle before or that they haven't probably already been in Russian hands to break down and study long ago. The Saudis have already lost some Abrams tanks in battle before so its not like someone couldn't have gathered some of those pieces and brought them back to Russia or China to study.
1
@mikeforester3963 No Bradley ever saw combat on Ukraine soil. All they experienced was the sandbox. Well Bradleys and Marders are about to go into combat in Europe in the coming months. So lets see how they do. The "West" (especially the EU) does NOT have the resources. Not by a mile. Only the US has got enough material rotting about in hangars that they can spare and issues profitable orders for new shit from Raytheon, Carlyle a.s.o. NATO as a whole collectively even minus the US does have plenty of resources and combat power to fight Russia if need be and they also have a fair bit to supply Ukraine if they wish. And even they (Biden) are curiously hesitant to sign off on an Abrams delivery. Why the hell do you think they are pressuring Germany to confirm the "Leo" deliveries? Because the Poles will get a nice deal on US gear. Looks like things have changed abit now that the US looks to have agreed to supply Ukraine with Abrams tanks after all and a number of European countries seem ready to give some Leo 2 tanks as well.
1