Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Ukraine. Military Summary And Analysis 20.01.2023" video.

@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
@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
@ronr6605 *Article 26 of the German Constitution, (2) export of offensive weapons (exported by Germany) for warfare needs the acknowledgement of the federal gov of Germany. Germany regarding their history in ww2, killing 26M Citizens of the USSR, doesn't want for now to cross that red line.* Germany already crossed that line by agreeing to send Marders and their modern SPGs earlier in the war. Don't know why sending modern tanks is the new 'redline' and I think there's a good chance that they will change their minds down the road and at least allow other countries to send their Leos if they want to.
1
@ronr6605 Read the law, the 1st sentence too, understand what it might mean. It is about export of offensive weapons suitable for a war of Aggressions. Main Battle tanks fit that framework. I didn't write that law, didn't write the Constitution of Germany, I don't have to act accordingly. What is this specific 'law' that you are referring to? Can you link it? Because as far as I've read this is a political issue and nothing to do with any kind of law. Also you do understand that most any weapon can be used in an offensive or defensive manner right? If you attack with Marders then it becomes an 'offensive weapon' and if you defend with it then it becomes a 'defensive' weapon. Germany already sent 14 PzH 2000 SPGs which is some of Germany's best weapons systems. That can be used to attack enemy positions before Ukraine sends in ground forces to attack or it can fire at attacking enemies if they decide to attack Ukrainian lines. So this whole crap about tanks being offensive weapons and therefore cannot be sent is BS when Germany has already sent offensive capable systems to Ukraine that its been using for months now.
1
@ronr6605 *Article 26 GG (Grundgesetz) that is German Constitution. Panzerhaubitze2000 is a self-propelled Howitzer, no Main Battle Tank, as howitzer it is Artillery* Can you show me the line where it says specifically that tanks aren't allowed to be used offensively by another country? I'd really like to see it. Germany is on Ukrainian side as NATO is, they deliver weapons to help Ukraine defend themselves, not to carry the war to Russia. So they move along that strict laws exporting weapons to a party but not to get involved (party) in a war of Aggression against Russia that would get it if Ukraine moves into what international law considers as Russia. Do you not understand that attacking to drive the enemy out of YOUR OWN country doesn't count as offensive 'aggression' towards Russia?? Now if and when Ukraine starts attacking INTO Russia then that will be an offensive war against them. So if Ukraine is using western tanks against Russia to drive them out of their own land then what's the problem? It attacked Russian forces in the Kharkiv offensive to regain territory and it did the same in the Kherson region. So I don't see any difference with Ukrainians launching more offensives similar to those except with western armored vehicles.
1
@nath9091 The west still has plenty of MLRS rockets and shells left to give to Ukraine, but it needs armored vehicles to successfully attack Russian lines while taking less casualties and gaining more ground. This is the opposite of what the Russians have been doing the past few months where they attacked with relative few armored vehicles and alot of infantry and as a result have suffered large casualties for relative few gains. Also a good amount of Leo 2s were build and there's no reason why some of them can't be sent to Ukraine if nations wanted to. Personally if I were in charge of a country that had modern tanks I'd send them all to Ukraine because they'll be put to the use that they were designed for rather than sitting in a warehouse somewhere doing nothing. Then down the line replace them with something newer and better if you really need to.
1
@johnpaul-ww8wt The Russian tanks are much smaller, T90 - 46 Tons, T72 42 Tons, this is for good reason, mud right now is a massive problem, the Leopard and Abrahams are much bigger and more than 70 tons, it's kind of logical So you're saying we haven't seen videos of Russian tanks being stuck in the mud right now? LOL. Enough western equipment will make a major difference on the battlefield if NATO decides to give it.
1
@theclotshotdidit3115 *I remember Germany beating Russia in WW2 because it had fewer more complicated heavier tanks...... Oh no I don't because it didn't happen 🤣 Quantity is a quality of its own* Except Russian tanks back in WWII weren't that far off in quality to German tanks and the Russians built far more than the Germans ever did. Today western tanks are far superior to Russian tanks and it doesn't help that they lost alot of their newer tanks already so that they're now turning to Cold War era tanks that will make the gap between NATO tanks and Russian ones even wider. If NATO gives Ukraine enough of their modern tanks and trains their crews well, I think NATO tanks and IFVs for that matter will do quite well in this war.
1
@krisztiankalman5805 I do not understand the excitement about Leo 2. The Germans would send how much? 12? 24? Rumour has it that even ISIS was able to deal with this number of Turkish Leo 2 in Syria. If modern western tanks like the Leo 2 are so average or even bad, then why were the Russians so afraid of them at the beginning of the war as to that was a line that NATO shouldn't cross? Leo 2s when used properly will do fine in Ukraine especially with their better fire control systems and thermal and optical sights that will give them the edge over Russian tanks and being able to spot the enemy before they get spotted themselves.
1
@krisztiankalman5805 It will make a difference if used right. With so few going to Ukraine right now, the best way to use them is as support vehicles where you have say a platoon of 4 Russian tanks backed up by one or two Challengers or Leo 2s if they get them eventually. Let the Russian tanks go forward with the western tanks spotting the enemies and providing accurate support fire. This uses the western tanks strength of being able to effectively engage enemy targets while keeping them back and lowering their chances of being knocked out. Do the same for the Bradleys and Marders that they will receive so that they won't have to lead the attack and have a higher chance of getting destroyed. When hopefully they get more, then it would make sense to create whole units that are completely outfitted with western armored vehicles.
1