General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

UzuMaki NaRuto
Alexander Mercouris
comments

Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Alexander Mercouris" channel.

@Godfrey De Bouillon I'm anxious to hear how you respond to the Wests new bizarre claim that the tanks Russia has destroyed were just a bunch of "farm equipment" despite multiple videos showing tanks and armored vehicles clearly being destroyed. From the videos I've seen so far its mostly been light armored vehicles and perhaps a few tanks that were destroyed, but none of the western tanks and IFVs that were supplied to the Ukrainians. And yes there's at least one video showing a KA-52 helicopter firing a missile at what looked to be a piece of farming machinery. On and on it goes, and the pro Ukranians will believe anything they are told, no matter how bizarre, no matter how provably false. The same could be said about all the pro-Russian supporters who believe people like Alexander and the Duran and the Russian MOD that the Ukrainian offensive is a failure even before its been fully launched. I remember last year Alexander declared the Kherson offensive to be a total failure after the first week or two when there was relative little progress being made and then look at how that turned out? I know Alexander is a pro-Russian hack and he needs to keep the pro-Russian propaganda going, but you'd think by now he'd have learned his lesson and allow things to actually happen before declaring victory for the Russians yet again. Maybe the Ukrainian offensive will only make marginal gains at the cost of heavy losses or maybe it will make a major breakthrough and send Russian forces running in disarray. Why not wait and see rather than declaring success or failure of this operation when its barely even begun?
7
@Blatneyev The Kiev retreat was a 'temporary setback'. Then the Kharkiv offensive was a 'temporary setback'. Now losing such a major city in a region that Putin just annexed a few short weeks ago is just another 'temporary setback'? I wonder how many more temporary setbacks can the Russians afford before we consider it a serious problem?
5
What will you be saying if the Russians don't respond with an effective counterattack and the Ukrainians keep what they've taken or they decide to advance further and take even more territory back?
5
@mikeyom1 Ukrainian offensive was suppose to be a failure and now they're making decent progress. Lets see what happens in the coming weeks.
5
Bakhmut guys, its gonna fall anyday now. I promise! 😂🤣😅😆🤣😂 - Alexander
5
@Cool Clear Water Because attacking civilian infrastructure always works to break a people's will to fight right? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Also if Germany can be completely devastated at the end of WWII and still come back to become the most wealthiest nation in Europe, I'm pretty sure Ukraine can come back from much less death and destruction.
5
Russians should be paying Alexander huge bonus checks for the amount of effort he puts into finding new excuses to try and explain away every new Russian loss/setback. I hope the Ukrainians can keep taking more of their land back just to see what new crap Alexander can come up with to explain those losses too. 🙂🙂😊😉🙂🙂
5
Go back and watch the Duran's videos about this war from several months ago and see what Alexander said back then and compare that to what actually happened and then you'll see how he's been wrong on nearly every prediction he's ever made about the war and how it would turn out.
4
Apparently the Russians aren't nearly advanced as everyone thought they were just as we've seen this entire war. The mighty Russian bear really is more a myth than reality these days.
4
Alexander didn't have a problem declaring the Ukrainian offensive a failure like a week ago when it just started in his other video on the Duran channel.
4
It simply beggars belief that the Ukrainian leadership is so indifferent to the plight of their own men, neither can I grasp the mentality of those men who sacrifice themselves for such a leadership. How come you don't have the same concern for all the tens of thousands of Russians who have been killed and wounded during the disastrous Bakhmut offensive? Why aren't you criticising Putin and his generals for throwing away all of their lives needlessly? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
3
He's probably had many sleepless nights recently having had to work overtime to come up with even remotely plausible excuses as to why the Russians lost so much ground so quickly.
3
@Moggridge One could call this one successful at this stage, or say in a few weeks the ground is retaken and the troops eliminated. Then it would have been a failure. Alexander should've taken this advice when he called the Ukrainian offensive a failure from almost the day that it began instead of waiting a while for more info to come out. But that's what he always does which is why he's rarely right about anything that's military related. A bit like the Battle Of The Bulge that so many cite: initially a success, ultimately a failure. Well if you look at this war in its entirety, the Russian invasion was initially looking to become a huge success and the longer its gone on, the worse its gotten for them.
3
@odinbiflindi Kherson and Kharkiv were how many months ago? What have the Ukrainians done lately except throw their best brigades into a meat grinder. Why don't you mention that Russia's WWI style of fighting is costing them countless thousands of men for relative little gains? And I always find it funny how Alexander is so happy when the Russians make any kind of progress and says its the beginning of the end for the Ukrainians and then on the flipside when the Russians were losing so much territory and towns/cities during Ukrainian counterattacks he tries to play it down as not being very serious.
3
@kingtachalla6181 Source for what? How the Russians are fighting on the battlefield right now? All you need to do is go on subreddits that are covering the war and are posting new videos everyday and see for yourself the tactics the Russians are using these days and how few armored vehicles there are to support their attacks in and around Bakhmut now.
3
The Germans had much superior artillery firepower and it was well-positioned to both destroy the various forts, and to cut supply lines. They did. Using assault tactics developed in the Argonne, the Germans systematically reduced the forts and caused much greater casualties than the French did. It was, in effect, a meat grinder. You do realize that the Germans only took slightly fewer losses than the French during the whole Verdun campaign right? You make it sound like the Germans were trading 10 to 1 in their favor or something when the real number was pretty close so if the Germans were trying to bleed the French dry they failed when they took almost as many casualties as their enemy. Alexander is correct; Bahkmut was a trap the Ukrainians fell face-first into, and bought time to raise an entire new arm and build extensive fortifications to repel Ukrainian offensives. If that's what you and Alexander want to believe to try and justify all the Russian losses in men and equipment go right ahead, but the truth is the supposed 2nd best military in the world threw away thousands of men and countless amounts of equipment to take one small devastated city when at the beginning of the war they were taking kilometers per day with far fewer losses. Congrats to the Russians on their 'success' and I truly hope they continue to attack and have more of these kinds of successes that keep grinding their forces down into dust.
3
The Russian military doesn't lie HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA 🤣😂😅😆😅😂🤣😅🤣
3
Yet he didn't mention anything about Wagner and what they're doing right now.
3
This could very well be another egg on the face of Alexander yet again when last year he claimed that the Kherson offensive was an utter failure after the first week or two when there was relative little progress being made and that the Ukrainians were taking heavy casualties. Then he had to completely change the narrative when the Russians fully pulled out of Kherson city over the Dnipro river. I wonder if and when the Ukrainians actually start their main offensive and if they make major gains what Alexander will have to say then??
3
@abyrahman6610 That's my point. Some pro-Russian supporters claimed that the Russians 'gave back' Kherson city rather than being forced to retreat and avoid heavy casualties the same as they were forced to retreat during the Kharkiv offensive. The same goes for the Kiev front where the mass retreat there was characterized as a 'goodwill gesture' rather than retreating because they were in a bad position. People like Alexander will always try and put a good propaganda spin on every Russian setback rather than simply stating the truth because that's his job and that's how he gets paid.
3
Why do people like you and Alexander celebrate this as some great victory? I mean its obvious why you'd do it, but still its insane to me that all the pro-Russian hacks make it sound like they just took Kiev or something when all they took was a small city that's been turned into a pile of ruble. It took the supposed 2nd best military in the world nearly a year to accomplish this while suffering tens of thousands of losses and countless equipment losses. Congrats on that 'victory' Russia. We can only hope they can have more of these kinds of great victories.
3
Regarding the divergence of viewpoints, it is simply one side understands the reality. The other side appears detached from reality. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!! Did we already forget when Alexander declared that the Kherson offensive was a 'total failure' that gained nothing and that the Kharkiv offensive was only going to make moderate gains at best and that the Russians were going to counterattack and retake all that they lost? That's what he said back in the beginning of September along with 'Bakhmut is falling anyday now bros' and 2 months later its still in Ukrainian hands. So if you want to understand the reality of what's actually happening in Ukraine, Alexander and the Duran should be the last place you should look for the facts from when they've been wrong so many times since the beginning of the invasion.
2
What Alexander and the Duran put out isn't 'the truth'. Its the 'truth' as they see it which is often very far from reality.
2
@BlacKnightm93r This is exactly why Russia uses volume of fire, you can saturate a area, of where the enemy is or where the enemy will be based on probability. This is exactly why Russia is losing when it has to expend so much more ammunition to accomplish the same task that Ukraine can do with a fraction of the shells used, but hey you keep thinking that's the way to go when most Russian shells are hitting empty ground. That's pretty much why in WWI major offensives were preceded by days if not weeks of bombardment and yet at the end of all that shelling enemy troops still survived to come out and fire back at advancing soldiers. Volume of fire will always be more important in a war like this compared to pure accuracy. Accuracy really only comes into play when hitting static defenses or logistical supply hubs with minimal ammunition Russians don't have the widespread capability to land accurate shells on target which is why they go for volume to compensate, but again keep believing that throwing thousands of shells down range everyday is the way to go when Russia already has a ton of logistics issues.
2
Ukraine definitely took significant losses fighting in Bakhmut, but the Russians took even more losses in winning Bakhmut. If you want to call taking all those losses in men and equipment for this pile of rubble a victory than go ahead. Ukraine will happily take these trades all day.
2
Its funny as hell to see Alexander saying that Bakhmut was about to fall to the Russians for almost an entire year and then finally having that come true and thinking all the Russian troop and equipment losses was worth it. The way that he talks about Bakhmut, you'd think that the Russians had destroyed the entire eastern Ukrainian army similar to the Soviets destroying the German Army Group Center in WWII or maybe the allies closing the Falaise Pocket and killing and capturing a good portion of Germany's western army in WWII. Instead for all the Russian efforts here they simply 'win' a small city that has little value outside of political and propaganda uses. Good job to the Russians I guess.
2
Well its certainly not helping that the Russians are giving back Kherson without even putting up a fight. Annex the territory and give back a major portion of it just a few weeks later. How nice of them.
2
Pretty much what's happening in Bakhmut these days with the Wagner mercenaries throwing themselves at Ukrainian defenses and taking heavy losses for minor gains. Also if I were the Ukrainians I wouldn't even bother fighting in Kherson when they eventually get there. Just surround the city and shell all attempts to keep the defenders in the city resupplied and wait it out.
2
@richard carlyon Peace talks should only start when Putin moves his army OUT of Ukraine. You don't reward a bully by giving him territory that he's taken from another country.
2
@edwardmatalka The Ukrainian assault reminded me of the German thrust in the so-called Battle of the Bulge: no aircover, low fuel, moderate levels of ammo, and little manpower. I don’t believe the Ukrainians can maintain an effective counterattack. Militarily, this doesn’t amount to all that much. The direction of the Ukrainian attack is towards major road and rail networks and if they can capture a place like Kupyansk, that significantly affects the ability of the Russians to move men, supplies and equipment around the battlefield. Regaining territory is nice, but if they can continue to take back major road and rail hubs then that will hurt the Russians far more since they rely so much on rail. Between that and the Ukrainians continuing to hit Russian supply lines, its going to be difficult for Russian forces to get around and launch successful ground attacks especially when they're in range of Ukrainian artillery which has proven to be pretty accurate. And while the Ukrainians don't have much in airpower, as we've seen neither do the Russians who have been very careful with their aircraft rather than having them being able to gain air superiority over Ukrainian skies so they too have been attacking in the Donbas with little air support and relying mostly on artillery and missile strikes. Politically, the EU and U.S. neocons can use this offensive to silence critics and push for escalation. I don't get this idea that Ukraine has to show success on the offensive to give confidence to western countries to keep supporting them. By now if countries are in then they're in and if they're out then they're out. War is usually a marathon and there's going to be successes and setbacks and it makes no sense to reduce support just because of a few setbacks. Maybe if the UA forces were completely collapsing and in full retreat then sure it might make sense to stop sending in more equipment and supplies but this isn't the case and won't ever be the case as long as the west provides support to the Ukrainians who seem more than willing to fight for as long as it takes to get Russian forces out of their nation. The USA faced this issue during the Civil War, our bloodiest conflict, actually a War of Secession. Putin needs to understand that it’s time to take the gloves off. If he could 'take the gloves off' wouldn't Putin already have done so and called for mobilization already? Seems like he really doesn't want to do that because it would be a clear admission that he was wrong and miscalculated and that the 'special operation' isn't going well. A supposed relatively quick and small operation that now requires the men and resources of most of Russia? Who knows maybe that's the line that pushes Russian people into finally going against Putin and wanting him gone.
2
Does the Russians taking Bakhmut at this point even matter outside of propaganda purposes? Its one small town in a very large country and ultimately won't make much difference in the war's outcome.
2
@yfelwulf Attacking with under trained and under equipped troops? Yeah any ground these mobilized troops might gain is going to be at a heavy price, but that's just the Russian way and they don't care about their troops. Where have we heard that before?
2
The losses of the Ukrainian military are totally unproportional to the very small gains they have made. Ukraine has lost hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Western provided equipment and thousands, some claim even tens of thousands of men in exchange for the control of a few, uninhabited and strategically unimportant villages. Do you have any links to these claims or are they just 'trust me bro' facts? There's no question that the Ukrainians have taken casualties during this offensive, but they have yet to commit all their reserves so its not like they've expended all their forces. Also you're missing out on the big picture which is if the Ukrainians can get within missile range of the Azov sea and can cut off the land bridge to Crimea, then it will have already been a successful offensive as long as the losses aren't too high.
2
Alexander is a 'genius'?!?!?! If you mean at dropping top notch pro-Russian propaganda then sure he's great at that.😅🤣🤣😅😆🤣 He's pretty much been wrong on every prediction he's made on the war in Ukraine so far and yet THAT'S considered 'genius'? LOL Remember Bakhmut was suppose to be surrounded and on the verge of falling right after the Kharkiv offensive and yet its still in Ukrainian hands after all this time. That's the kind of genius analysis and predictions that you get from this guy.
2
@abyrahman6610 The Russians pulled out of Kherson city and surrounding areas because the alternative was to stay and get destroyed. Do you really think they wanted to give the city up after annexing that region? At least they were smart enough to retreat and save their forces than stand and get annihilated.
2
@albertwesker9385 Yes those T-54s and 55s that the Russians are transporting to Ukraine will lead the final push to Russian victory!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍
2
@shanemedlin9400 I find his reporting to be pretty even-handed, and I think this is a weak sauce attempt to insult someone who is actually quite a distinguished gentleman. Alexander giving 'even-handed' reports???!?!?! HAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAH 🤣😂😅😆😅🤣😂😅😆😅🤣😂 Look through EVERY SINGLE ONE of his videos and find me even one where he criticises Putin and the Russians in a negative manner in any significant way or thinks that they ever did anything wrong? I've watched a ton of his videos from here as well as from the Duran and I've NEVER EVER seen him ever go hard and be seriously critical of the Russians or even admit that they've had a number of major mistakes during this war. Even when the Russians suffer major defeats he finds a way to put a positive spin on it and even when the Ukrainians have successes he finds a way to downplay it and says its 'not a big deal'. Alexander has said a number of times that he thought the Kharkiv and Kherson gains were 'not a big loss' to the Russians. Do you truly believe that if it were the Russians that carried out those attacks and gained all that same territory that he wouldn't be over the moon happy and saying it was the beginning of the end for the Ukrainians? Cmon now. When you report on an event in two entirely completely different ways depending on which side you support then you know that source is biased. Alexander REFUSED to acknowledge that the Kharkiv and Kherson offensives were pretty successful against the Russians. I seriously doubt that if it were the Russians who launched those same offensives that he wouldn't be saying those were brilliantly planned and executed attacks by Russian high command that completely took the Ukrainians by surprise and caused them to retreat in disarray and that it wasn't a massive blow to Ukrainian morale etc.
2
@godfreydebouillon8807 I just disagree with so much of what you said. The videos I saw were CLEARLY tanks, and though I fully admit I cannot distinguish various tanks by mere sight recognition, the Russian claim is that they were Leopard 2s, the Western media claim (unanimously) is that it was "farm equipment", and to support their assertion they present the single most difficult video to discern what it is being destroyed, while refusing to present any other video (again this cherry picking is unanimous) I have no doubt that the Ukrainians are losing men and equipment as their offensive is starting up just now and anyone who says otherwise is simply being dishonest. On the otherhand if there really was a loss of a Leopard or a Bradley it would be shown on every Telegram and news media outlet out there right away. There are drones flying around the battlefield almost 24/7 and you don't think that one of those drones wouldn't have taken a video or photo of a western tank loss when it happens? Cmon now. We've already seen some French AMX 10 RCs either knocked out or abandoned so its not like you can hide equipment losses when they happen. However, General Zaluzhny himself gave an interview, to The Economist, that Alexander read word for word, and he ALSO stated that the Kherson offensive was largely a failure, that the losses were enormous for the little gained, and that defending it was costly. Russia CHOSE to leave, they were not driven away. Ukraine was shelling the very dam that was just destroyed, and the Russian lines were right downstream. Can you link me to this Economist interview that you're talking about? I'd really like to read it. As for the Russians leaving that's just plain coping and putting a positive spin on a bad situation. If the Russians didn't want to keep Kherson city they wouldn't have moved in VDV forces and equipment to reinforce the area to try and stop the Ukrainians from taking it. Putin annexed the region just a few weeks before and you're telling me that he would just give back one of the few major cities that his army has taken during this entire war without a fight? Please. The fact is the Ukrainians degraded Russian logistics to the point that they could no longer properly supply their forces in that area and after being cut off by land and and with the Dnipro at their backs their only option was retreat or face destruction. So yes the Russians made the correct decision to retreat, but don't make it sound like they WANTED to retreat rather than being forced to. That would be as delusional as saying the Russians willingly retreated from the Kiev front rather than being forced to after being placed in a difficult position where they could no longer advance forward and were having major problems with keeping their forces supplied on that front. You fully admit that Western media universally claimed, with absolute certainty, over a year ago, that Russia was at the very end of their supplies of artillery, rockets, missiles and ammo, correct? No one with a sane rational mind would look at the data and say that the Russians were 'running out' of weapons and ammunition. However anyone with a sane rational mind would also look at the facts and acknowledge that the Russian army have taken massive losses to the point where they're reduced to using early Cold War equipment to continue the fight. Can you ever imagine a world where the US army took so many tank losses in a war that they would be forced to pull out M60 tanks to bring to a 21st century battlefield to replace all their losses? It would NEVER HAPPEN and yet here we're seeing this exact thing happening with the Russian army. How INSANE is that? A supposed modern 21st century army losing so many armored vehicles that they're forced to pull out tanks from the mid-20th century and you see nothing concerning with that? Really? Do you understand what a MAJOR problem it is to assert that the 2nd most powerful military on earth, with by far the most munitions stockpiles "is all out of ammo" and then it's proven that claim was literally made-up? Again there's a difference between 'running out' and running low. Remember last summer when the Russians were firing up to 60,000 artillery shells a day and how people like Alexander were saying how Russia's overwhelming firepower couldn't be matched? Well where's that 60k shells a day now? Even during the entire campaign of trying to capture Bakhmut that they clearly badly wanted why didn't they expend more shells to support the attacks and reduce their own losses other than the fact that they couldn't? Look at all the Iskander and other precision guided missiles the Russians fired at the beginning of the war. They haven't been able to fire anywhere near that many ever since. Only short spurts of these weapons that are their most modern and effective ones and I seriously doubt the Russians are holding back. The fact is the Russians will NEVER completely run out of ammunition, but its clear that they certainly don't have the reserves of ammunition as they use to have which is why they've been forced to significantly reduce their artillery and missile usage even when they need it most now.
2
He'll likely spin it as Kherson no longer being militarily important or something just like he did when the Russians gave up Izyum without a fight.
2
@Sayavita Quite striking to compare the US military retreat from Afghanistan and the one that the Russians just completed in Kherson. Gotta hand it to you pro-Russian folks. Always finding the silver lining in every Russian defeat and stupid mistake. If it were the Ukrainians retreating from Kherson and the Russians retaking the city somehow I doubt you'd be singing the praises as to how swift and orderly the Ukrainian retreat was.
2
As long as western tanks and IFVs are getting there eventually then that's what matters most. Compare that to almost a year ago when the idea of the west sending such vehicles was completely out of the question.
1
@tonidimitrova6078 Russia was made aware of the fact that no matter how the Ukraine war ends, they will be fought by NATO to the last European... and maybe to the last American That's what Russia gets for starting a senseless, stupid war that no one wanted except Putin and his marry band of morons. Only way to fix Russia is to send all of them to the gallows.
1
That's assuming that Russia has an airforce that can do anything worth a damn beyond lobbing missiles from a far distance away.
1
@roberttyrrell2250 Russia will never completely run out of ammo, but its pretty clear that they're running low on some ammunition like precision guided missiles. Also it isn't even about running out of ammo, its about not being able to get all those ammo and supplies to the frontline units because of HIMARS/MLRS and in the future longer range guided missiles that the US has just approved of giving to Ukraine. Also the Russians are also running low on tanks and other armored vehicles which is why they're bringing back Cold War era armor to use on the frontlines.
1
@roberttyrrell2250 Again you watch too much TV. Those missile systems need electricity. Putin keeps taking out the grid. Port generators make great heat signature targets, not very mobile. Well apparently the Ukrainian army is still functioning and fighting despite all the strikes to the electric grid. In fact its good for Ukraine that Russia keeps wasting its munitions on civilian infrastructure so that UA forces don't get hit quite as often. Remember the Battle Of Britain when the Germans started bombing civilian targets? Yeah how did that turn out? The MSM keeps saying Russia's running out of ammo, missiles etc. Its furthest from the truth.. Russia is in full overdrive weapons production 24/7. No one said that Russia was running completely out, but its interesting how the '2nd strongest military' is asking the likes of North Korea for help these days. Also this isn't WWII where you can turn industry on with a flip of a switch and start pumping out ammo of every type with relative ease. Why do you think the number of strikes with Iskander missiles has dropped off dramatically since the beginning of the war? It can't possibly be that in some categories of munitions that the Russians are indeed running low which is why they're now seen much less than at the beginning of the war. The point is anything requires more advanced computer chips isn't going to be as nearly easy to replace with all the sanctions imposed on them. Western Govts have terrified its ppl 90 yrs, claiming Russia has a massive military, showing us pic's details. So is it true or not? There's such a thing called OVERESTIMATION. Namely the west believed that the Russians were far more advanced and capable than they really were and now they've been completely exposed as being an overrated fighting force that if it weren't for the sheer size of its armed forces it would've been curb stomped long ago with how poorly they've been fighting. There are some Russian units that have fought well and with skill, but the majority of their forces are garbage and their level of technology is at least a couple of generations behind the west in most areas. In a real war the US alone without the rest of NATO could destroy the Russian army without breaking a sweat several times over.
1
@roberttyrrell2250 Dude I'm only responsible for what I typed. Not what you add to my statements, Or think I typed. You're the one who stated that Russia wasn't running short on ammo and I was saying that at least for some weapons systems that they were and that was fact. Also I know the pro-Russian folks need the Ukrainians to be Nazis to justify this war and for invading them, but at the end of the day Putin miscalculated and underestimated the will of the Ukrainians and how well they could fight and now they're paying for it bigtime. In WWII the Ukrainians sent millions of men to serve with the USSR and now we know that it was all a mistake.
1
Bakhmut is going to fall to the Russians anyday now. Alexander assured us several weeks ago that this supposed super duper important objective was going to fall soon.
1
@JimCOsd55 I think you mean many pro-Russian hacks like Alexander prayed that losing Bakhmut would shake western resolve in continuing their support of Ukraine. In reality it isn't happening for a long time yet if not ever.
1
@anceldesingano8687 How is Bakhmut not a disaster when you've expended tens of thousands of men and countless amounts of armored vehicles and other equipment over the course of almost a year to capture a small city that they now have no use for? Congrats on capturing Bakhmut so now what? The Russians would've been better served to NOT attack and simply keep all their men behind lines and training and saving their tanks and other equipment in reserve to use against the current Ukrainian offensive. I guess when you don't give a damn about the lives of your men who are fighting for you then what does it matter if they get wasted? That has always been the Russian way throughout their history where the lives of their people don't matter and are completely expendable.
1
@jfmolli Here's the difference: one's attacking its own with its own, the other's is a statement of duty towards the oppressed, whom it sees as its own that needs help. Yet another is using the situation as a proxy for its wider agenda, even long before any armed conflict began. Always find it interesting how people leave out the part where the Russians sent men and equipment into another nation to start an insurgency and then when that insurgency was on the brink of being defeated they then dropped all pretenses that they weren't meddling in another country's affairs and sent in their own army to stop the Ukrainians from putting down the Donbas insurgent force. The Russians did the same thing in the Crimea months earlier and it was a shame that the Ukrainians weren't better trained and equipped to stop that attack otherwise they might've been able to keep Crimea and not be forced to try and retake it now.
1
@subtle_savage It has been a military tactic since recorded history to provide a strong enemy the chance to make great advances through an apparent weak sector, and then enfold such cauldrons at a later time. Folks keep finding new ways to cope with Russian defeats. Here's the things. If the exact opposite happened and you can't say the same things, then you know you're lying and are simply trying to put the best spin you can on a bad situation. If the Ukrainians were retreating with barely a fight and leaving behind large amounts of equipment and supplies and allowed the Russians to take large amounts of territory within in a few days would you be saying that Ukraine was leading the Russians into a 'cauldron' that will soon close and annihilate them? I seriously doubt it. I bet you'd be saying the Ukrainians are done for and are collapsing and they should sue for peace ASAP for their own good and so on. This attack by the Ukrainians can be viewed as nothing more than an absolute calamity in the making. They have effectively wasted significant resources in securing strategically inconsequential land and will soon pay the butchers bill for such foolishness. The resources they spent on this offensive have been partly offset by all the supplies, tanks and other weapons systems that the Russians left behind for the Ukrainians. Good on them for making such a nice donation.
1
@subtle0savage Regarding this current engagement, Ukraine has launched a series of major attacks with no discernable goal in mind (of military consequence). If they had succeeded, or nearly succeeded, in capturing/controlling an objective (as in Germanys advance in to the Ardennes during the 'Battle of the Bulge' to cut Allied ground forces in two and control the port of Antwerp), then this current assault could be labelled as a 'Penetration of the center'. Ukraine's goal seems primarily to gain significant stretches of land held by a weak enemy to boost moral, which has negligible strategic value and in point of fact demonstrates they are weak The overall Ukrainian goal is of course to take back all or as much land that they've lost in this war. The thing is I believe that they're flexible in going about doing that. This is just my own speculation, but I think when they announced the offensive on Kherson 1-2 months ago they wanted to see what the Russian reaction would be. The Ukrainians know that the Russians can't be strong everywhere along the front and so perhaps they were looking to see what the Russians would do. When the Russians saw that the Ukrainians were actually gathering to attack in the Kherson area they moved in reinforcements to help with repelling the attack. The thing is this became a pick your poison situation for the Russians. If they move troops to Kherson to reinforce that area, then those reserves won't be available for other parts of the front. If they don't move troops to Kherson then it will be an easier attack when the UA forces go on the offensive. The Russians chose to reinforce Kherson, the Ukrainians saw the opportunity to attack in the Kharkiv area when they saw that it wasn't heavily defended. So between good planning and good intelligence supplied by the west, they were able to take advantage of an opportunity that became available and because there were few reserves available, the breakthrough became much larger than if the Russians had any reserves to stop the offensive from moving so deep so fast. So while this successful attack and retaking of large areas of land is certainly a good morale booster, it also shows that the Ukrainians are capable of outsmarting the Russians as well as being capable of launching larger offensives and exploiting opportunities when they emerge. You'll ignore the some 80,000 Ukraine casualties to date. You'll look the other way when Russia demonstrates it can strike anywhere, anytime, clear across Ukraine, whenever it chooses. Can you provide a legitimate source that shows that the UA forces have taken 80,000 casualties? Also ever since the Kiev retreat, the Russians have barely attacked anywhere but the Donbas region because that was all they were capable of. Imagine starting off the war attacking on 3 fronts with armored forces rolling into Ukraine and then after being forced to retreat from Kiev, they lost so much armor that they no longer had the ability to launch any further large scale mobile operations since and its why they were reduced to fighting WWI style and moving forward in a slow crawl in their Donbas offensive. What took the Russians several months to gain they gave it back in a matter of days. And here's my prediction. The Russians aren't going to be launching any kind of major counterattack anytime soon and if they do eventually go back to the offensive its going to be another slow hard slog forward unless they throw much more men and equipment into the fight. PS: I give Alexander credit for being such a good spin artist that he could make such a bad situation sound like a minor setback. Putin should definitely give this man a big fat bonus check for defending every Russian mistake so hard and always trying to turn it into a positive.
1
@subtle0savage Frankly my estimate of 80,000 was erring on the side of conservative caution. The number of casualties, given the amount of devastation observed of military formations, anecdotal comments by captured Ukrainian soldiers, the lethality of Russian weapons, is likely in the 120-150,000 range. I don't doubt that the Ukrainians have taken significant casualties during this war so far, but I doubt the 80,000 number let alone higher until you or anyone else can provide an official legitimate source that can prove this to be true. On the otherside I don't necessarily trust the super high Russian casualty estimates that have been put out there by some, but I don't doubt that they've definitely taken more casualties than the Ukrainians have. What we know for certain is that 40,000 soldiers would never, by any military around the world, be construed as enough to seize and hold a well-defended city the size of Kiev. Personally I think Russia was primarily attempting a bluff, a gamble that if it was pulled off, would save an enormous amount of deaths and cost. When will people give up this excuse and accept that Russia's attack towards Kiev was a failed assault and they paid for it dearly? Look at every single coup/overthrow attempt of a government and tell me when have you EVER needed to conquer the entire city and its population to successfully get rid of a government or leader and take control of the city and gain power? Look at one of the more recent coups in Myanmar in 2021 where the military there simply arrested all the politicians who were in charge at the time and then installed their own government in its place. Did the military need to send tens of thousands of soldiers out in the city to keep the capital's 900,000+ population under control? Not really and that same military government is still in charge today. So I don't get this insistence that you need tens of thousands of troops to take over a capital when all you really need to do is capture, kill or make the existing government flee and then take over important government and news media buildings and perhaps some military installations and that's about it. Personally I think Russia was primarily attempting a bluff, a gamble that if it was pulled off, would save an enormous amount of deaths and cost. Completely unnecessary. You could've just put those same 40k soldiers at the Belarus border and sat them there the whole time and accomplished the same objective of forcing the Ukrainians to put tens of thousands of troops to face you without losing a single soldier or tank. If the Russians did that, they would now have a large fresh armored reserve to work with instead of a badly beaten and depleted one that needed to be refitted. Regarding the goal of Ukraine being to take back all of the land it's lost... that is a pipe dream. It has been losing ground consistently since the beginning of the war--and that when it was strongest. Disagree. While the Ukrainians have lost some good units during the war, they're also gaining new ones who have now had combat experience and are getting better by the day. Also ever increasing amounts of UA soldiers are being trained by NATO advisors which means they'll come out being good troops unlike the untrained, substandard soldiers that Russia are increasingly turning to. And we didn't even talk about the Ukrainians getting massive equipment upgrades from western countries that they didn't have at the beginning of the invasion. Just the addition of HIMARS/MLRS systems have made a HUGE difference to the war with their ability to hit vital targets far behind Russian lines. If only they had them at the beginning of the war, things would be vastly different by now especially with that 40km column that HIMARS would've turned to dust. As an addendum, Russia has barely used its actual forces in Ukraine. Most of the fighting has been done by the Wagner group, the Donbass militias and the Chechens under Kadyrov. That's what Alexander told you and if you want to believe it that's up to you. He just doesn't want this debacle and embarrassment of a performance to be put on the Russian army so just blame it on the militia. If you can show me other sources that prove that Russian troops haven't been doing as much fighting as we know they are, then please post it here. Otherwise its just another 'fact' that Alexander has pulled out of his ass to try and explain away the losses and defeats as not being Russian army losses and defeats.
1
Alexander knows that Bakhmut will fall back into Ukrainian hands eventually so why bother calling it anything else?
1
Russians winterizing their troops?! They can't even properly train and equip all the newly mobilized recruits they just called up. Lets see in the coming weeks what happens, but I'm betting there won't be many Russian victories to speak about in the winter either.
1
@fsaari Powerful shells mean nothing if the majority of them are hitting empty ground. Also you should read up on the effectiveness of trenches that can protect troops from shells that hit close but not right on so that they can avoid getting hit by shrapnel. Also accuracy matters when you see a large number of Russian armored vehicles getting damaged and destroyed when they're not moving by accurate Ukrainian arty fire. I've haven't seen Russian artillery hitting Ukrainian vehicles nearly as often and recently its been Iranian drones that have been hitting Ukrainian equipment more because surprise surprise its a guided munition.
1
@fsaari What good is it for a bunch of Ukrainian soldiers to come out of their holes to see russian soldiers advancing with heavy equipment and all they have to respond with are portable weapons? Machine guns arent gonna cut it against advancing tanks and heavy weaponry. Dude were you asleep the first couple of months of the invasion last year??? Did you not remember seeing thousands of Russian tanks and other armored vehicles rolling across the Ukrainian border last February? Shouldn't they have crushed the Ukrainians long ago? Somehow though the lowly Ukrainian soldier armed with ATGMs stopped that seemingly impossible wall of Russian armor and here we are a year later. If Russian heavy equipment was so effective so much of it wouldn't be sitting on Ukrainian land as scrap metal right now. So yeah I don't think Ukrainian troops have much to worry about when it comes to Russian armor and its why the Russian advances have been so slow and have gained relatively little land ever since the beginning of the invasion. The Russians threw away so many of their armored vehicles at the beginning of the war that they haven't been able to launch a major armored offensive since the retreat from the Kiev front.
1
@michaelhagley4762 If Alexander actually cared about the fallen from both sides he'd call for Putin to stop this war ASAP and fall back. Of course he won't do it and the only solution for Alexander is ALWAYS for the Ukrainians to 'stop this madness'.
1
"The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant." Well this certainly doesn't describe Putin because if he had faced reality he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine to begin with.
1
When we see units mounted in these vehicles we will know that the AFU has committed it's strategic reserve and that the real test for the Russian Army is at hand. If the Russian Army breaks this attack the AFU will be finished as an offensive force. It will be interesting to see what the Russians have left in the tank in men and especially in equipment. They've taken so many losses in Bakhmut that I wonder if the Ukrainians are able to break through the Russian frontline that they wouldn't perhaps have another Kharkiv like offensive where the Russian reserves sent to stop the advance won't be strong enough to do so and the Ukrainians will just keep on going.
1
@CyrilSneer123 Dear lord man the Russians have thousands of tanks. Who have taken losses in Bahkmut? The PMC Wagner? That's the not the Russian army. Do you get it yet? Ukraine has been fighting a PMC not the Russian army. And I suspect the Chechens may replace them in the area and again they're not Russian army. You need to realise that fighting a war of attrition against Russia is doomed to fail. There's a difference between having tanks in storage and having tanks that actually function that you can take to the battlefield. If the Russians have plenty of tanks then why are they resorting using many T-62s, T-64s and even T-55s when at the beginning of the war they were using mostly T-72 and T-80 era tanks? Also ask yourself if they had so many armored vehicles in reserve then how come we've never seen them launch any major armored offensives in Ukraine since the Kiev retreat? Why have they been launching infantry heavy attacks that have resulted in massive casualties? Also yeah Wagner is 'not the Russian army', they just get their recruits from Russia and use Russian army equipment and supplies. So whether or not these soldiers are apart of the Russian army officially or apart of Wagner, all these thousands of men dying ARE Russians. Its just interesting to see where at the beginning of the war the Russians were measuring their advances in kilometers per day and now they're measuring their advances in meters per day and now the apparent capture of one small city is seen as a major victory. If THIS is what the Russians consider 'success' I hope they keep having many of these kinds of successes.
1
@sarahbrown5073 Stalin was certainly the king of sending people to their deaths with no care for their well being as long as the mission was accomplished. Putin is the same although on a much smaller scale.
1
NATO troops aren't being sent in because Russia has nukes and no one wants to risk escalating the war to where nukes might actually be used. If Russia DID NOT have nukes, NATO would never be afraid of Russia ever. They probably would've entered the war from nearly the very beginning with at least a no-fly zone over Ukraine as Zelensky asked for. NATO airpower plus precision missile strikes would probably be enough to stop the Russian invasion because the Russian airforce would get annihilated easily and as we've seen Russian air defense isn't as good as we thought and it can also be defeated with anti-radar missiles. If it were really needed for NATO to put troops on the ground, their losses wouldn't be very high at all because NATO forces would completely curb stomp the Russians without even having to try all that hard. All this is being prevented simply because Russia has nukes that no one wants them to use and then have to retaliate with in kind. Heck if Ukraine didn't give up all its nukes and had kept a small stockpile for defense, Russia almost certainly wouldn't have invaded Ukraine now because the risk of getting nuked is there.
1
Alexander is definitely in a league of his own when it comes to turning Russian losses and setbacks into something positive. Putin himself should be writing fat bonus checks to him for all the hard work he's doing for trying to cover for him.
1
The answer is nothing. No matter how bad the situation is Alexander and the rest of the Duran crew and every other pro-Russian hack will find a way to minimize those Russian losses and setbacks while continuing to blow smoke up your ass that the Russians are fine and will ultimately prevail.
1
@Papi1960R You make broad sweeping claims, whose validity is tarnished by your constant use of terms such as "usually", "generally", "maybe" and "probably". Your lack of sources for any of your statements place your views squarely in the realm of promoting your own wishful thinking. If you want sources for the claims made by someone, then why don't you ask Alexander and the Duran for sources for all the claims that they've made that have mostly turned out to be utterly wrong? All you have to do is look at the early videos on the Duran channel and all the predictions they made about the Russians and the war back in March/April and see how grossly wrong they've been. Its all there for you to watch if you want and then come back and tell me how reliable the Duran is in providing accurate info that matches reality and what's really happening in this war.
1
If Russian advances were 'speeding up' then how come they're not using their tanks and other armored vehicles to speed up this advance even more? Large scale Russian armored attacks haven't happened much if any ever since the retreat from Kiev.
1
@anncoffey8375 They retreated from Kiev in March to demonstrate good will when the negotiations in Instanbul were underway. You CAN'T BE SERIOUS to believe that lie right? No seriously you can't actually believe that to be true right????!? Just think it through logically and ask yourself why would the Russians launch an attack towards Ukraine's capital, come fairly close to their objective while taking thousands of casualties and losing hundreds of vehicles and then all of a sudden completely abandon that front and all that progress all as a 'good will gesture'? Does that logically make sense to you? Even if you believe it was apart of negotiations towards a ceasefire or stopping the war, why would you abandon all that progress BEFORE you have an agreement in place rather than AFTER you come to an agreement? How does it not make more sense for the Russians to hold their position with their army threatening Kiev and negotiate rather than completely pulling all Russian forces back from Kiev into Belarus and losing everything that you gained? Do you not think that the more logical reason for the Russians to give up so much territory is because they HAD NO CHOICE but to do so? Namely they didn't have enough supplies to continue to support the army heading for Kiev and they were taking heavy losses and the only reasonable choice was to pull back and give up that front rather than face having your army get destroyed. Don't you know that Nato was intent upon using Ukraine as its proxy to attack Russia? Again ask yourself logically how does that make sense?!?!! Russia will always have a large army with decent technology even if they're not the best. In what world can a much smaller Ukrainian army with much less advanced weaponry even with NATO help could they ever hope to attack Russia? Also ask yourself WHY would Ukraine ever want to attack Russian soil? What would have to gain from doing that? Can you answer that? It absolutely makes no sense for Ukraine to do so when all they've ever wanted was to keep their country and defend it.
1
@mitchvanderben1000 you are a daydreamer, get back to reality pls, ever since NATO was formed the primary objective was to keep Russia in check and using Ukraine <ex USSR republic> as a springboard for possible war against Russia You said it yourself that Russia needs to be kept in check. Maybe if they weren't always being a threat to the rest of Europe and elsewhere all the time, NATO wouldn't need to have existed in the first place to keep the USSR and now Russia in check. This would be like a violent gang roaming a neighborhood and terrorizing and robbing them all the time and finally the people in that community decide to all join together and stand up to that gang and it works in stopping them and then all of a sudden the gang comes and cries and complains that they can't bully your community anymore. This is what's happening with Russia now. They don't like NATO because everyone who joins no longer has to fear getting attacked by Russia or being threatened militarily by them. They see NATO as being 'expansionist' because of all the nations who want to join and be free of Russian influence and threats and of course Russia doesn't like that.
1
@olliefoxx7165 You slander this channel yet can't list your sources of "reliable" information. You can't even say what Alex has said that's not true. Go back to the Duran's early videos on this war from back in March to May and see what they had to say about the war and then see how many of those predictions actually came true. Then come back and tell us how 'reliable' Alexander he is. Look at the Bakhmut attacks happening right now where that offensive began since the Kharkiv offensive began and Alexander has been going on for weeks about how it was about to fall and now its still in Ukrainian hands. That's the kind of 'reliable information' you get from Alexander and the Duran.
1
Too bad men on both sides are being killed...it is not a competition as to how many are killed on either side. Even one death is too many. All this wouldn't have had to happen if Putin didn't invade Ukraine period. He made the decision to launch this invasion and now everyone has to pay for it. The Russians cannot accept less as it is existential. So the war will go on and the Russians will have to be prepared to pound Ukraine and take the war unfortunately to the limit. Considering how well the Ukrainians are doing against the Russians right now, it would be stupid for them to stop and negotiate a ceasefire that will reward Putin and his aggression instead of punishing. The only good solution is to kick the Russians completely out of Ukraine and maybe even Crimea and then join NATO. That's the only way that the Ukrainians will ever find long term peace and be protected from any future possible Russian attacks. The Baltic states were smart to join NATO as soon as they could and look at them now. Instead of facing the same fate as Ukraine and getting invaded and taken over by the Russians, those small nations are forever protected against Russian aggression and can live peacefully and free from the Russian threat.
1
@fazilm1 he would not have invaded if the Ukrainiae was not killing Russian speaking eastern Ukrainians since 2014 and NATO was not heavily arming Ukraine for only one purpose. And the Ukrainians wouldn't be fighting the Donbas militia if the Russians didn't support them when they were about to lose and then bring in troops to fight and push back Ukrainian forces. So the Russians already invaded Ukrainian territory back in 2014 and they did it again in 2022 only on a much large scale. This time the Ukrainians were able to stand up and fight back and the Russians are paying for their miscalculation. Unfortunately the Ukrainians also have to pay for Putin's idiot decisions. Also you do realize that most of the people in the Donbas region might've wanted more autonomy and independence, but NOT to breakaway from Ukraine entirely right? And even fewer wanted the Donbas region to be apart of Russia. So even the people living in the Donbas didn't want to completely breakaway from Ukraine let alone have an intense desire to join Russia. Only a few very people did and Putin decided to back them and turn it into a wider and more destructive conflict and now 8 years later Putin again decided to turn this relative low intensity conflict into an all out war. So trying to say this wasn't Putin's fault is pure bullshit.
1
@fazilm1 He said the separatists were armed by Russian speaking defectors from the Ukrainian armed forces, and it was the alarming defection rate that drove the Minsk agreements. Please link me to a legitimate source that shows this to be true. I'd really like to see it. I do not know where you get the notion that the Russian speaking people, who having endured years of atrocities did not want to join Russia. My own recollection is that they wanted greater autonomy and only turned to Russia after their demands resulted in the Ukrainian govt unleashing the ultranationalists on them. There were polls done that showed that most people in the Donbas wanted autonomy while REMAINING WITHIN Ukraine and not breaking away from them and very few wanted to actually join Russia. Find me a poll from 2014 to even more recently before the war that disproves this and post it here so I can read it if you're able to. And 100% almost no one but a few militants supported by the Russians wanted to breakaway by violent means. These relative few people who took up arms and rose up were quickly being put down by Ukrainian forces until the Russians intervened with their own troops and pushed Ukrainians forces back. If Russia didn't invade back then, the Donbas militia would've been dealt with and peace would've mostly been restored and there wouldn't have been 8 years of low intensity conflict leading up to the present day war.
1
@fazilm1 Russian forces did not invade the Donbass until Feb 2022. Those breakaway republics wanted to join Russia since 2014 and Russia said no. Russia took back Crimea in 2014. Again all the info I looked up showed that NONE of those regions wanted to leave Ukraine let alone join Russia. The majority of people in the Donbas wanted more autonomy and independence for their areas and that's it and certainly the vast majority of people in the Donbas didn't want to leave by force. If you can show me proof that the majority of people in Donbas wanted to leave Ukraine even if it was by force then please post it here. I gave you the name of the NATO advisor who was in charge of training the Ukrainian army in 2014. Do your own research . Sounds like you made up your own poll in your response? Again if what you say is true then you should be able to find me more than one random source that supports what this supposed NATO advisor said.
1
Are you insane? If Russia was fighting the US almost every Russian artillery piece and missile system would be a smoking wreck when they get hit by long range air and ground launched precision missiles. Artillery is for poorer countries that can't afford modern aircraft and missiles that would wipe artillery off the map before they had a chance to make any difference on the battlefield.
1
@KJ-md2wj If Russia WERE fighting the US they would achieve early superiority as you suggest, but wars are won on the ground unless you want to go nuclear. If Russia were actually fighting the US their weak airforce would get completely destroyed in short order and after the US gains air superiority then the Russian army would get completely curb stomped very quickly. In a modern conventional war if you don't have control of the air then you're fighting with an impossible to overcome disadvantage when your enemy can destroy your army and logistics with ease. This is why Russia is having such a difficult time in Ukraine when their airforce is complete trash that it can't even beat a nation with barely an airforce to fightback with. Ground wars take longer and US/NATO strategic thinking hasn't thought about this even being possible. Ground wars don't take long at all when you have superior weapons systems and you saw that in both Iraq wars. After seeing how poorly they've performed in Ukraine, the Russian army would fair no better than the Iraqi army did against the US especially after they take complete control of the skies which is the final nail in any chance that the Russians ever had against the US armed forces.
1
@patb5266 Imagine if social media existed during WWII. All you idiots would've declared Germany and Japan to be winners of the war and that it was time for other nations to put down their weapons and sign a peace agreement. Why have the USSR continue the fight with all the massive losses they took in men, equipment and territory in the first few months of the invasion by Germany? Just give up already its hopeless!
1
@Ceyla99 Just go any number of subreddits that are covering the war and posting new footage daily or go to the many Telegram channels that are out there and see for yourself how the Russians are doing vs the Ukrainians. Why do you think the Russians are clamping down on Russian supporters who are reporting on the war? I'm sure its partly because of security reasons, but mostly its because they don't want Russian bloggers complaining and criticising the Russian army and high command for their incompetence and poor performance during this war and showing all the mistakes they've made and the losses they've taken. Do you think the Russians would be taking these steps if they were doing great during this war? That they wouldn't want to show all the videos of the Russian army destroying the Ukrainians and kicking their asses? Cmon now.
1
That will never happen. Ukraine after this war will be free from Russian influence and meddling.
1
@odin Biflindi Listening to some western outlets my own country Ireland in particular you would think Ukraine are steamrolling towards the gates of Moscow as we speak, the detachment from reality is quite something. Listening to pro-Russian hacks like Alexander you'd think that everything was still going according to plan and that everything is fine and that all these 'minor setbacks' don't mean anything and that Russia will ultimately prevail in the long run. I really wish Alexander and all the other pro-Russian folks would be FORCED to go to the frontlines and see how the Russian army is REALLY doing and then see if they can comeback and still believe in all the bullshit they keep spewing.
1
T-90s are still far inferior to any modern western tank. As we've already seen, destroying them isn't very difficult at all.
1
@MatoVuc you remember that the two best western MBTs, M1 and Leopard2, were destroyed just as if not easier in Syria and Yemen by much inferior opponents? First the M1s and Leo 2s that were destroyed weren't used properly by their crews who were poorly trained. I mean we're talking about Saudis here. I'm pretty sure Ukrainian tank crews being trained by western trainers will do significantly better. Second we're talking very few losses here. We're not talking about hundreds or even probably dozens of western tanks lost. We're talking about very few western tanks that were outright destroyed even with poor handling. Compare that to THOUSANDS of Russian tanks being destroyed on both sides. No one is saying that western tanks are impossible to knockout. There will be losses, but if used properly they will be far fewer than how many Russian tanks have been lost and also Ukrainian crews will have a much higher chance of survival than they ever would in a Russian tank.
1
@thememe986 War is about more than territorial gains. If you go all out for a small territorial gain all you're really doing is wasting valuable resources. All these supposed 'small territorial gains' has added up to being alot of ground and towns/cities being taken back. If it were the Russians taking the exact amount of territory and it were the Ukrainians that were running away Alexander would be having neverending orgasms at all the gains his cherished Russians were making in just a little over a month. And also war is about beating your enemy and making them run and the Ukrainians are doing plenty of that the past month or so.
1
@rosszografov614 Of course it could be a trap, but more likely it isn't. Many pro-Russian hacks thought that the Kharkiv offensive that took so much ground so quickly was a Russian trap as well and that there would be an eventual Russian counter attack that would destroy the Ukrainian forces the same way that the Germans were destroyed at the Battle of the Bulge. Anyways we'll find out soon enough when the Ukrainians arrive at Kherson and see if they meet any resistance or find any traps or they simply find a city empty of Russian forces who have indeed left in a hurry and had given the city back without a fight.
1
@rosszografov614 It isn't Kherson. That's the province name. It's Kherson city they talk about so misleadingly in western media. Furthermore, it isn't even the city proper, just the left bank, which would be of no military help to Zelensky..as his troops will be stuck exposed there in the open, with all bridges destroyed and in a heavily mined area I guess we'll find out in the coming days just how much the Russians have given back to the Ukrainians in their retreat and what they'll be doing afterwards. Liman was taken back 5-6 weeks ago..but as it's usual to expect, western media hasn't reported on the Russian gaining back the Northern East.. except a small captions on some western news services, saying: Liman under Russian control. Please show me a legitimate news source says that Lyman was retaken by the Russians? If you have a link please post it here. Western media is full of propaganda and misinformation, and the Russian side doesn't comment much, as a traditional rule by the military.. all that, leaves knowledge in a state of confusion. Are you saying Russian media is 100% accurate and honest in what it reports? 😂🤣😅😂😂🤣 Look even if you don't trust either side's media, you can still do your own research on the internet and also see what's actually happening on the battlefield to get at least a half decent accurate picture. Like for example many pro-Russian hacks like Alexander still push the lie that the Russians haven't taken high casualties and yet if you look at the actions of the Russian government where they've called for mobilization as well as finding as many troops as they can from everywhere that they can, it certainly doesn't seem like the Russians have taken only light casualties going by the measures they've taken. This isn't very different than the Russian invasion of Chechnya where they launched a poorly planned and poorly executed assault into that country and took significant casualties and tried to cover it up. Then mostly by being a vastly larger army with much more equipment did the Russians finally win through brute force. The same is happening now in this war except that Ukrainian being a much larger country with a much bigger population is able to fight back effectively with western help. This time around Putin had bitten off more than he could chew and he's paying for it bigtime now. It's clearer to us, that with each day Zelensky's troops have run out of steam, weapons and energy. We can't see any advances..it all looks grey, cold and gloomy on the Zelensky's side Again if what you say is true then we'll soon see it on the battlefield where the Ukrainians will have taken so many casualties that they will be unable to launch further major offensives against the Russians. So far that hasn't proven to be true when people like Alexander kept insisting that the Russians were winning with their small advances in the Donbas. Then when the Ukrainian offensives began he said they were minor gains and that the Russians would hold and probably take back what they lost with counterattacks. Then when that didn't happen and the Ukrainians kept moving forward, he claimed that they were taking heavy casualties for their advances and said that the Kherson offensive was still a failure. Then when the Ukrainians started making advances in the Kherson front he said they were minor gains at heavy cost and that the Russians would hold. And now we see that was false too and that the Russians chose to retreat now rather have another Kharkiv happen where the Russians ran and retreated in disarray. So we'll see in the next few weeks and longer as to what will happen and then see if Alexander, you and all the other pro-Russian hacks will be right or will you all be wrong once again like almost every other time.
1
@rosszografov614 You actually ask me to go back weeks ago to look for information and then serve it you, on a plate..?? In a discussion when someone asks you for your sources for the statements you make its usually up to the person making the statements to provide those sources. Unless you're just pulling shit out of your ass or you don't have any confidence that your sources are reliable then you should have no trouble providing proof and facts to backup your statements instead of trying to make someone else do it for you to disprove you. I mean how hard is it for you to post a link to the source you used so that other people can read it themselves? Not hard at all unless you were bullshitting or you used a source that wasn't really reliable.
1
@Peter Azlac Ukraine has occupied a small part of what Russia calls the crumple zone or that area they retreat from to invite Ukraine forces into a fire kill zone which is why it keeps changing hands! I remember Alexander saying something similar during the Kharkiv offensive when he kept saying that the Russians were luring the Ukrainians into a trap before they would launch a counterattack to smash UA forces who had overstretched themselves and then it never happened and he had to make excuses for the Russians. What Ukraine has definitely demonstrated over the past week is that neither the Western weapons nor the training its new brigades have received are game changes as claimed by the Western media and neither will F-16s be. The offensive just started so it remains to be seen if western training and armored vehicles still won't make a significant difference on the battlefield. Judging an offensive based on a few days of data would be as dumb as saying the D-Day landings were a failure because the allies took thousands of casualties in the first day of landings and made less than expected progress. The real purpose of the mines and defense lines is to stall any advance so it can be defeated by air, drone, and missile power, which is the specialty of Suravikin and he has hundreds of aircraft and helicopters plus it was recently stated some 20,000 kamikaze drones. Mines are a problem, but they can be overcome otherwise mines would've stopped every offensive in the history of war which obviously it hasn't. I guess we'll see how effective Russian aircraft, artillery and missiles will be in stalling the offensive and eventually stopping it or maybe the Ukrainians instead find a way through without taking too many casualties and they eventually push to the Azov sea as they probably planned to do.
1
@trevorcrook5753 Under the circumstances they are doing well . Certainly better than the Americans in Afghanistan and Vietnam The Russians have lost more men in about 9 months of war with Ukraine than the US has lost in 30 YEARS of war in both Afghanistan and Vietnam COMBINED. Russians are certainly doing well. 😂😅😆🤣😂😆
1
@Amaze-2savage The west IS SUPERIOR in military technology which is why they're able to keep human casualties down. The Russians don't give a damn about losses which is why they care more about simplicity and large numbers to overcome their enemies. Too bad for them its failed miserably in Ukraine.
1
@roki5941 Sadly it might be a disaster for us in Europe, but I suppose that we get what we deserve by not standing up against the insanity. Only insanity happening is one country invading another and now is getting its ass kicked and is so desperate that they have to continually threaten the use of nukes and annex territory that they don't even control in the hopes of gaining something out of this disaster of an invasion.
1
@patb5266 ok clown, Russia's WW1 fighting style that doesn't exist except in the fake media, throwing waves of troops at the Brave Heroic Ukrainians. The Russians are firing tons of artillery at Ukrainian lines before sending in mostly infantry to attack with relatively little armored vehicle support. If that's not WWI style fighting I don't know what is. What happened to earlier in the war when you saw huge columns of Russian armored vehicles and trucks advances kilometers per day? Now you barely see any large number of Russian tanks and IFVs and they're advancing mostly with troops at such a slow rate and at high cost. Please explain what happened to all those tanks and armored vehicles and why we haven't seen them being used in large scale attacks since the beginning of the war?
1
@va3403 If that's the case then I'm sure we'll see reports of a massive Ukrainian retreat from that area in the coming days then.
1
@va3403 Not sure about that. Russia is happy to keep poundering the Ukrainians from the air and ground until there is not a single soldier left in there. So, technically, they may not retreat, as its a long way back through an open area where they'll be like targets for the Russian army to practice. Looks like the Russians are playing 4D chess in letting the Ukrainians take back Kupyansk and possibly even Izyum with relative little fight. Guess they're really looking to lure the UA forces deep before letting loose and bombarding them to death right?
1
@antipropo461 The Russians aren't 'retreating', they're just advancing in a different direction like they've been doing for the past almost 2 months now. 😉
1
Relax I seriously doubt there's ever going to be any missile fired from the Ukrainians that will get anywhere close to Moscow. This just gives the Ukrainians more range to strike almost anything within their own borders which will make Russia's life that much more miserable and difficult. Will be interesting to see what goes up in flames with these new longer range weapons.
1
@enshk79 If the Russians were truly fighting the west they would've gotten curb stomped into the ground within a month or two.
1
@Geri Snoke Its funny how Alexander keeps talking about Bakhmut as if its some huge and extremely important military objective and then when people try to look for it on the map you can barely find it. However because that's mostly the only place where the Russians are making any kind of headway right now, Alexander has to turn that tiny place to being the most important place in Ukraine right now where winning that city would be a great victory. Alexander has legitimately become the new Baghdad Bob of this war.
1
If Putin ACTUALLY ran a tight ship his armies would've been much better trained and organized and his equipment would've been in much better condition and the Ukrainians would've probably been beaten by now or at least lost much more territory than it had. Luckily for Ukraine the Russians were as disorganized, incompetent and stupid as ever and they were as about as ineffective as one could hope for.
1
@ArgentPure Anyone who bothered to follow the war closely themselves and look at the facts could easily see the reality of what's really happening on the battlefield rather than listening to some Russian nuthugger like Alexander who only says what the pro-Russian crowd wants to hear.
1
@JA-nq7xf The logistics game resets when Ukraine loses electric generation and distribution capacity. That affects the civilian population far more than the military who can switch to fuel to generate electricity if they haven't been doing so all along. Also the logistics problems goes both ways when the Russians can't get enough supplies to their troops in Kherson. Manufacturing of all kinds of materiel comes to a halt without power, traveling at night becomes very arduous, staying alive in freezing weather becomes more difficult, and even something as simple as the industrial scale bagging of fresh vegetables becomes impossible. Well good thing when it comes to military supplies the Ukrainians can get them from NATO so manufacturing becomes less of an issue. Also several MILLION Ukrainians served in the Soviet army in WWII so I'm pretty sure they'll be fine fighting in the winter especially when NATO countries have already been donating winter equipment to the UA forces ahead of the winter weather. Lets see how the Russians deal with the winter and if anything they'll suffer far more on the frontlines than the Ukrainians will and if I were them I'd keep the offensives going throughout the cold weather and see if the Russians don't crack especially the newly mobilized troops.
1
@LevanGudadze My prediction is that Bakhmut will come under Russian control in the coming days, before February 20-21, when Russian President Putin will address the federal assembly. I noted this in my today's update, pointing out the deplorable situation of the Bakhmut garrison and the city nearby Chasov Yar. Pretty obvious that any Russian advance was going to be reported by Alexander as some massive success and was the beginning of the end for the Ukrainians. He said it himself during the Kharkiv counteroffensive that there would be back and forths between the two sides in this war and now that the Russians have seen some success at such a high cost, he's happy again without remembering that things could change in the coming months.
1
@cliff311976 Whatever back and forth happens in this war, Russia is not going to be pushed back. That's what pro-Russian folks like you said before Kharkiv and Kherson offensives happened and then it went from 'Russia is not going to lose ground' to 'This is only a temporary setback for the Russians'. Lets see in the coming months as more Ukrainian troops get NATO training and equipment and then see what happens on the battlefield.
1
@Peter Dixon Disastrous is an apt description of the last 14 days of Ukraines failed offensive, thank you Alexander. As opposed to the super successful and very low casualty Bakhmut offensive by the Russians right? 😂🤣😅😆😅😅
1
@simnobody Against an establish battlefront running around in vehicles (armored or not) looking for openings is just makes you dead Well this has certainly been the case for the Russians so far in this war which is why all their major armored pushes early in the invasion have eventually been halted by the Ukrainians. They've lost so much armor that they were reduced to fighting WWI style with infantry heavy attacks. Its crazy to think that a modern supposedly 2nd most powerful army in the world could lose so many armored vehicles that they're no longer capable of launching large scale mobile offensives. It would be like the US Army losing so many Abrams and Bradleys that they have to dig up Vietnam era tanks to bring back to push to the front. It would be insane to see the US being reduced to doing that, but here we are seeing the Russians doing exactly that.
1
@clarenceedwards2866 If we do a comparative analysis between this war and the US/Iraq war, the Iraqis did not have the kind of defensive weapons that Ukraine have so that they were not able to defend their skies like Ukraine have; also they were not able to launch missiles at US bases in the region. Lets be real. No matter what weapons you gave the Iraqi army they still would've gotten curb stomped because of how poorly trained and led their troops were. In order to have an effective army you need proper equipment that's being used by well trained troops and are led by well trained commanders. Otherwise the result you get is the Russian army that's getting wrecked by an army that only has a fraction of the size and strength that the Russians do. This is also testimony to Russia's capability to fight wars against formidable enemies because they are in fact fighting the entire west through their proxy Ukraine. If the Russians were actually fighting NATO they would've gotten their heads caved in long ago. This war would've been over in a month or two at most. The fact is the Russians have been fighting a much less well equipped army who after all this time is still only receiving a very tiny percentage of modern NATO weapons and they're still fighting the Russians to a standstill. In the beginning of the war pro-Russian hacks were sure that the Russians could defeat NATO and now they've been proven to be a complete fraud of an army who's always had to rely on being larger than their enemy in order to defeat them. Now that they've met an enemy that they can't intimidate with their size and are willing to fight back, they're getting their asses handed to them.
1
This does come with a significant increase in weight and also makes them a much larger target. The weight increase for Bradleys is also because of increased protection for its crew and troops. Unlike the Russians, NATO countries actually CARE about the survival of their troops because they don't see them as throwaway cannon fodder. Also the lower profile of the BMP and other vehicles has done nothing from having 2,500+ of them destroyed or damaged so far during this war. A few feet in height isn't going to make much difference to a ATGM coming your way.
1
Russia could leave Ukrainian territory tomorrow and there would be near immediate peace. Very simple and easy.
1
@chesshooligan1282 Russia isn't in Ukraine yet. Russia is in Russia. Ukraine could leave Russia tomorrow and there would be peace tomorrow. Yeah let me just come over to your home and annex a third of it and then tell you that its now mine and you have to accept it or else there won't be peace and see how you feel about it. LOL Just being Russia says a part of Ukraine is now there's doesn't make it theres'. Only MORON Putin could think that would work. Also if we're talking about returning land back to their historic owners, then why doesn't Russia give back Kaliningrad to the Germans when it they had occupied that territory for centuries and then was stolen by the Russians after WWII? Isn't it hypocritical for Russia to say Ukraine is apart of them and yet they happily still live on land that was stolen from the Germans/Prussians?
1
@Shares Games This war wouldn't need a resolution if idiot Russia didn't invade to begin with believing they could take over Ukraine within days or a few weeks. If they knew what they would be in for, they likely wouldn't have invaded to begin with which would be the best decision for everyone. The only real solution now for long term peace is for Ukraine to regain most if not all of its lost territory and then join NATO ASAP. Only by joining NATO can Ukraine guarantee that it won't ever be invaded again because that would bring NATO nations into the fight and that would end in a complete curb stomp of any Russian invasion. The Baltic countries are proof that NATO works and that joining them prevents Russia from threatening aggression towards them otherwise they would've been back under Russia rule a long time ago.
1
@miguelestrada3157 There's a difference between preparing to encircle a place or an army and actually doing it. Russians haven't shown that they have either the forces or ability to complete such an operation.
1
@KANAŁ SENIORA This gives Russians a lot of logistics advantages. Their troops would have all the necessary supplies at hand. If the Russians were any good at logistics they might've taken most if not all of Ukraine in the first few months of the war rather than being pushed back over a year later. The Russians have always been mediocre to horrible at organizing their logistics and being able to keep their troops supplied and moving forward.
1
@freedomofpress5605 If the Russians were great at taking out Ukrainian logistics then the majority of western supplies and heavy equipment wouldn't have reached the frontlines would it? The Ukrainians shouldn't be able to launch their offensive now if all their supply depots were going up in flames the same way that the Russians have been since last summer when HIMARS arrived. Also you keep saying that Ukraine have been feeding their troops into the meat grinder as if Russia haven't been doing the same except in far greater numbers. I don't even know why they bothered with wasting so many men and resources to take Bakhmut when the Russians could've saved those forces and put them on the defense to meet the expected Ukrainian offensive with more reserves to fight with.
1
Dude Russia just took a small city. Its not like they took Kiev. Cmon man have some common sense. It took the Russians a better part of a year to take this one place and you call this a major victory compared to at the beginning of the war when Russia was measuring their advances in kilometers per day? They won a pile of rubble while losing thousands of men and countless amounts of equipment. I really hope Russia will have more of these kinds of victories.
1
@Humbulla93 Better to be NATO's bitch than Russia's slave like Belarus has become. Funny how so many former USSR nations feel the same way and were RUNNING TO THE WEST to join NATO/EU the first chance they got rather than stay in an alliance with Russia.
1
Western nations have alot of problems, but its still LIGHT YEARS better than living in the backwards shithole that is called Russia. If I could move anywhere it would be to Japan or some place else in asia.
1
The Russians have lost at least 2,500+ IFV/APCs to date so I don't think that lower profile is working out too well when facing modern ATGMs.
1
@mikelee7318 Perhaps Ukrainian commanders believe that they're still able to cause enough damage to the Russians to make it worthwhile to take casualties continuing fighting them there? Perhaps they think that delaying them at Bakhmut is also worth the expenditure of forces as well as reasoning that if they give up the city sooner rather than later that they'll have to fight them elsewhere anyways and have more territory and cities ruined so why not try to reduce the damage to their country by fighting at Bakhmut for as long as possible? Sure the Ukrainians are taking significant casualties, but so are the Russians and their offensive is barely crawling forward right now. The Russians nearly have the Ukrainians encircled yet even after all these weeks they're unable to close the gap and complete that encirclement. As well Russian armored vehicles are getting destroyed in significant numbers in and around Bakhmut and now they can't even launch any further large scale armored offensives anymore. Could you ever imagine that the US army would be losing so many Abrams and Bradleys that they would be reduced to pulling out Vietnam era vehicles to replace those losses while having their soldiers fighting in trenches WWI style the way the Russians are doing now? I sure as hell couldn't and yet the supposed '2nd most powerful' army in the world is doing exactly that which is truly insane for them in 2023.
1
No one with a sound, sane mind will believe all the crap that Putin has said either.
1
@brianwesley28 Why stop at only 10x? Lets just say the Ukrainians have lost 20x more men than Russia has to try and make yourself feel abit better over every single Russian defeat. I mean that's pretty much all the pro-Russian hacks have left to try and console themselves over Russian disaster after Russian disaster. The Chechen wars where the Russians got their asses handed to them by a much smaller nation with a much smaller population and army should've been a huge warning that the Russian army needed to change and get updated and yet 20+ years later they still haven't learned a thing and keep doing the same things and keep getting the same disastrous results.
1
@georgekostaras The future role of mercenaries in modern warfare has been vastly overestimated. As we’ve seen with Wagner they’re politically unreliable and the circumstances that made them so successful are passing Only Russia was dumb enough to give Wagner heavy weapons to allow them to have such significant combat power to even entertain the idea of turning against their own side. If Russia didn't hand them tanks, armored vehicles and other heavy weapons they wouldn't have had to consider if a mercenary group was 'politically reliable' or not.
1
The Russians know how to wear an average western citizen down. These back and forths seriously lose traction on Ukraine in the west. It gets harder to justify Ukraine situation when nobody cares. Sure the Russians know how to wear a westerner down, by throwing massive amounts of men and equipment at a enemy and trying to overwhelm their opponent with sheer numbers regardless of the losses they take. It worked in Chechnya but it won't work in Ukraine sadly for the Russians.
1
Congrats to Finland for getting final approval to joining NATO on April 4th, 2023. 😎😎😎😎😎😎
1
That's why Russia is stuck in WWI doctrine and will ultimately lose the war. You're trying to justify WWI tactics because back then artillery lacked precision and the only way to hit the enemy was through volume of fire. Russia is acknowledging that they haven't advanced very far from WWI when they still have to rely on volume of fire rather than accuracy. I think you don't understand how modern wars are fought when you think firing thousands of shells everyday is the way to go without thinking how much resources it takes to produce those shells and then to haul them hundreds of kilometers to the frontlines to your guns. That takes time, energy and plenty of fuel, manpower and trucks. If you can accomplish the same task of hitting your target using much fewer shells, that greatly reduces the burden on your logistical train which Russia is already having major problems with and is why the invasion in the first few weeks was such a disaster for them.
1
@malvolio That's part of the reason. The other part is that the Russian airforce is also a paper tiger that's incapable of gaining any kind of air dominance in Ukraine and anytime they've ventured behind Ukrainian lines to try and attack, they've taken losses from Ukrainian air defense and man portable systems. It doesn't look like the Russians have the aircraft and perhaps more importantly the missile technology that the west has to suppress air defenses that would allow them to go out and bomb the hell out of Ukrainian support and supply systems. If this was a US or NATO operation, the enemy airforce would be largely destroyed within probably the first couple of weeks and air defenses would be mostly wiped out as well and that would open the skies for NATO airforces to bomb enemy supply lines, artillery, missile systems etc. while being able to provide close air support to ground troops. That's the power of having a good airforce with modern aircraft with well trained pilots. It costs alot to build and maintain, but it can provide you with alot of firepower and flexibility in how you can attack your enemies. Fortunately for the west, Russia doesn't have an airforce that can match them.
1
@alanmcbride6658 Well as we've seen so far in this war, the vast majority of supplies and equipment being sent to the Ukrainians seem to be getting through relatively unharmed. Haven't seen much of it getting destroyed before it reached the frontlines and was put into action. As far as I've seen recently, the biggest destroyer of NATO equipment like western artillery has been from loitering drones rather than from anything else.
1
@ChrisCollier Well he was a dumbass for criticising Ukraine while BEING IN UKRAINE and then when he was detained last time he didn't learn his lesson and kept going. He should've left when the war began and then be like Alexander and criticise Ukraine all he wants from a distance.
1
@Seerwealth The Russians tried that on the first day of the war and they ended up taking significant casualties. I don't think they'll try again anytime soon without air superiority which they've never had. Too dangerous these days to be flying around in helis close to enemy lines with all the air defense around.
1
You're kidding yourself if you actually believe Chinese armed forces will actually ever be equal to the US. They can and probably already have surpassed the Russians, but no one will ever surpass the US as long as they continue to spend so much money on defense every year.
1
Dude are you for real? You do understand that all the equipment that NATO has sent to Ukraine is barely scratching the surface of all the equipment that NATO countries have in their inventories right? The US alone has THOUSANDS of Abrams tanks sitting in the desert doing nothing but gathering dust waiting for a possible major future war that will likely never come. If they were serious in wanting to beat the Russians quickly they'd send hundreds of these tanks to Ukraine and allow them to really kick some ass with them. When the war ends down the road it will take the Russians far, FAR longer to recover from their equipment losses than it ever will take from NATO countries to do the same.
1
@redpillscholar560 And yet somehow its Russia that's still mobilizing hundreds of thousands of more men after the first 'partial mobilization' for this 'special military operation' that wasn't suppose to be so costly.
1
@JQ0110 Russia can reinvade around Kharkov at will, while it cannot cross the Dnepr at will. There is no comparions at all. What is Russia going to invade with when they're using Cold War era tanks right now to replace all the armored vehicles that they've lost to date? Are they going to start using WWII vehicles or something? Or are they going to start stripping units of their vehicles from other parts of the country? Either way launching more major offensives especially armored offensives seems very unlikely for a very long time otherwise they would've done so already.
1
@paulmorris5166 Russia losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory and a number of towns/cities during the Ukrainian Kharkiv and Kherson offensives - 'Its nothing significant bro, just a minor setback for the Russians' Russia finally taking over Soledar and perhaps Bakhmut someday after months of fighting - 'These are massive victories that spell the beginning of the end for Ukraine bro!!' 🤣😅😆😂😁😄😅😅🤣😂
1
@ThillerKillerX Honestly if Russia would have done a shock and awe, this would have been over already. The Russians DID try the shock and awe except it was the ghetto discount version and not the US version. Without tons of very accurate precision guided weapons and overwhelming air superiority, the Russians could never hope to launch a shock and awe campaign that is anything as massive and effective as the US could.
1
@OzzyBloke Do you have an actual trustworthy source that you can link me to that shows this to be true or is this just another 'trust me bro' claim?
1
@MegaCavatina Putin isn't laughing now. Wagner group moving in the wrong direction and now he and the Russians have to deal with it.
1
USA's time at the top won't be over for a very long time. They just might have to share it with China as a 1A and 1B. Russia as a major power on the otherhand was over probably back in the 1980s and the breakup of the Soviet Union was the final nail in their coffin as being a major power in the world rather than a regional power that's only strong enough to bully nations that are far smaller than they are.
1
Its OK. If the Ukrainians start making deep advances, just like last time Alexander will say the Russians are luring them into a trap before they'll launch a fierce counterattack that will devastate the advancing Ukrainians.
1
So you're saying the tons and tons of munitions already fired and all the burnt out wrecks of thousands of vehicles haven't already polluted the earth in Ukraine? OK. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
1
@SupernaturalPowerz why didn't they destroy Ukraines power grid from the start? Probably because they expected the Ukrainians to collapse quickly and hence why destroy infrastructure that you're going to take over? Now when its clear the Russians aren't going to advance much anymore and that if they can even hold all that they've gained they'd be lucky, then they don't care if they start destroying Ukrainian infrastructure.
1
@harryflashman4542 Russia is not concerned with daily optics in the news but the real lives of civilians and soldiers. HAHAHAHHAHHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 🤣😂😅😆😂🤣 If the Russians actually cared about civilians they wouldn't be bombing them now and if they actually cared about their own troops they wouldn't be wasting them so carelessly on the frontlines. There's already some of the recently mobilized troops on the frontlines in Ukraine right now just a few weeks after being called up which means they've had little if any training. So much for 'caring' about their soldiers when they're already throwing some to the wolves.
1
@SupernaturalPowerz Advance to where? Thought they've already annexed their regions, who said anything about going deeper into Ukraine? Russians have annexed what they've annexed because they've admitted defeat that they can't annex anymore. If the invasion went according to Russian plans they would've annexed the entire Ukraine and taken it over and installed a Lukashenko type of leader to run things and be their lackey. Unfortunately they failed spectacularly in that objective and then they failed to keep everything they've taken and as a last resort they 'annexed' the territory that they did in the hopes of keeping what they've taken and even that isn't working out when the Ukrainians have taken a decent chunk of those annexed territory back and are looking to take more back. It will be interesting to see how the Russians will spin things when Kherson city eventually falls back into Ukrainian hands again and they've lost a major city within their newly annexed territories.
1
@harryflashman4542 oh you really believe that it's Russia's goal to blow up kindergartens and playgrounds. That is just propaganda. Russia is hitting substations in civilian areas. Whether you believe the Russians are doing it on purpose or not, its clear that they've been hitting civilian targets with their missiles since the beginning of the war. If you really believe all these missile attacks where many of them are hitting civilian areas are 'accidents' then it just shows how really inferior Russian technology is that they can't hit their intended real targets rather than killing innocent people. And this doesn't even include all the video of Russians killing civilians in cold blood by shooting them dead up close and personal. Like just a month ago there was a video that was released that showed Russians in the first few days of the war sitting by a roadway at an objective and they were shooting up every vehicle that they saw coming down the road towards them and all of them were civilian cars. They simply opened up on any car that drove by near them without any care in the world as to whether they were military or civilian. So don't tell me that at least some Russian troops haven't purposely shot and killed civilians in this war. As for troops, they are ex-military, reservists, they are already trained. For that matter there is not a lot of contact between Russian troops and Ukronazis, they are just killing them with artillery. Maybe some troops that the Russians have mobilized are reservists with some training, but clearly there's a sizable portion that have been called up or forced to join that AREN'T reservists and are raw recruits with little to no training and have been poorly equipped with weapons and supplies. This proof comes from the Russian recruits themselves that have posted numerous videos complaining about their conditions and how they've been treated by the Russian authorities since they've been called up. The American's nuked Japan twice just to prove they could. But they had been fire-bombing cities for a long time before. Millions of civilians burnt to death. The west has no moral ground to stand on when it comes to civilian casualties. What war has the west fought in recent history when civilians have not been targeted. Are you really trying to compare a WORLD WAR to a war between two countries? OK. LOL. Also its funny how you mentioned the Americans bombing and nuking the Japanese but conveniently leaving out the countless MILLIONS of Chinese people as well as millions of other asians around Southeast Asia that the Japanese murdered and many more that they used as slaves or when it came to women as sex slaves. Yes leave out all those millions that the Japanese killed and abused and enslaved so that you can try and say the Americans are the evil ones for nuking the Japanese. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Seriously you need to read up on all the Japanese atrocities that they committed during WWII and realize that the Japanese getting nuked was being kind to them compared to all the horrors that they inflicted on much of Asia during the war. The Rape of Nanking ALONE killed more Chinese civilians than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs COMBINED.
1
@harryflashman4542 I'm of the view that it is the Ukrainian missile defense system which is either hitting civilians or causing Russian munitions to fall on non-military targets. Frankly I don't believe that Russians have any interest in wasting munitions on non-strategic targets. Of course you would say that. I think people like you, Alexander and the Duran don't really care to find out the facts and if they point towards the Russians doing something wrong that you would have the courage to acknowledge it. Instead you'll find any and every excuse to either justify or excuse Russian actions no matter what they do because they're 'your side' that you support. I really don't believe anything they post as their strategic goal is using the media to draw the world into this war. More money, more weapons, troops, NATO strikes on Russia. Imagine a nation that's being massively invaded by its neighbor asking for help to defend itself? Oh my God HOW EVIL OF THEM! How could the Ukrainians even think of defending themselves!! 😯😯😯😯😯😯 They should just pull an Afghanistan and lay down without a fight and give their entire country over to the Russians for them to run. 🙄🙄🙄 As to Japan, the civilians in Japan did not have a role in killing civilians overseas. That is akin to killing people merely because they share the same nationality as the perpetrator of a crime. Genocide. If that's your argument then why aren't you condemning the Japanese army for murdering millions of Chinese civilians in retribution of Chinese troops killing Japanese soldiers? The Japanese command turned a blind eye and didn't stop their troops from raping, looting and murdering Chinese civilians as they kept advancing and Nanking was one of the worst examples of that when they unleashed a level of violence and carnage on the Chinese that was so horrible that it can never be forgotten. And the funny thing is that one of the few people who tried to stop this massacre was a German Nazi Party member and businessman by the name of John Rabe who established a safe zone for Chinese civilians to escape to and used his Nazi Part membership to try and influence the Japanese to stop what they were doing. He also documented the Nanking massacre in detail along with photos and film and later when he returned to Germany he tried to write to Hitler to tell him about the atrocities and to ask him to contact the Japanese to get them to stop the violence. Of course he was unsuccessful and he was the one to get in trouble with German authorities for trying to do the right thing. And the Japanese of course never stopped what they were doing until the Americans defeated them. If you want to say Japanese civilians didn't deserve getting killed, then what about the millions of asians killed by the Japanese military before and during WWII? Did they deserve it? This is a case of reaping what you sowed and the Japanese in WWII certainly deserved to reap what they sowed.
1
@danijelagrujic823 Because its good to get information from various sources even if you don't agree with everything everyone says. If you want to avoid living in an echo chamber and care more about facts than simply cheering for your side then I'd say its good to listen to opposing opinions and debating them if you want than just hearing all the real or fake good news that your side is winning. What's the point in that when inevitably that house of cards will fall. Alexander is trying his best to cover for the Russians, but its getting increasingly hard for him to do so when the Russians keep getting pushed back on the battlefield and he has to keep coming up with new excuses as to why they're losing so badly when they're suppose to be the superior force in this war.
1
@limedickandrew6016 Regardless of the type of tanks the Iraqis had during the Gulf wars, its pretty clear that they were nothing but cannon fodder for the Allied armored forces. The Russians have already lost a large portion of their newer tanks and its going to be interesting to see how many even remotely modern tanks they're going to have left to bring to the fight in the coming months and how many even half decently trained crews they'll have to run them. If the Russians hadn't completely messed things up so badly in the opening few weeks of the war, they'd be much better off now than they currently are. Luckily for the Ukrainians the level of Russian incompetence was off the charts and now they're fighting at a huge disadvantage in modern equipment and in experienced men.
1
If the Russians use nukes it would show how truly weak their armed forces are that they have to resort to using the ultimate mass destruction weapons to try and get their way.
1
Good job on the Russians for taking three quarters of the ENTIRE WAR to take a small town and its surrounding area that has relatively little strategic value. It was funny as hell to see Alexander minimizing the Kherson and Kharkiv offensives where the Ukrainians took back significant amounts of territory and many towns and a major city over several months and see him saying it was no big deal and then now see him jizzing all over himself that Bakhmut is almost taken as if that means anything.
1
Well the flow is going Ukraine's way and in many places Russia isn't pushing back much and that flow is slowing becoming a flood. Could anyone have seen the Ukrainians moving close towards Kherson city even a week ago? And yet here they are doing just that.
1
@tds187 Russia has been patient. But mobilisation is deep in force. And any gains Ukraine has made in the past month will be quickly recovered by Russia. How does it make sense to not try and stop the bleeding now instead of losing more territory that you will have a hard time getting back? Also what about the Russians already there? Are they going to be simply sacrificed for nothing? And Russia is about ready to step up in the next phase in these newly Russian territories. What next phase? Sending poorly trained and equipped troops to the frontlines to take a bullet?
1
@tds187 Russia has no urgency because time is irrelevant. Russia can manage this conflict as long as it needs. And as cold weather comes, Russia is fully armed and clothed and prepared. Ukraine is not. So Russia has no need for urgency. Russia doesn't seem to be training their new recruits much before sending them to Ukraine and even if they are I doubt it will be better than the training that the Ukrainian troops are now getting from NATO instructors. In the long run Ukraine will get ever increasingly better trained and armed soldiers while Russia will likely be throwing worse and less trained troops in more and more. Also I don't know why the Ukrainians wouldn't be able to fight in the cold when they share the same climate as Russia does.
1
@tds187 the difference is in Russia there is a compulsory period of military service after high school. Where those in Ukraine that were mobilised was simply putting a gun in the hand of a civilian and sending them off. Maybe at the beginning of the war when Ukraine was desperate they were giving guns out to anyone who wanted to fight, but ever since then as the war has gone on that hasn't been the case. I've watched alot of combat footage and most Ukrainian troops I've seen in the last couple of months are pretty well armed and equipped and when it comes to their training well the proof is on the battlefield. If the current units of Ukrainian soldiers were poorly trained I doubt they would've been able to make all the progress in that they have in the past few weeks. Contrast that to the slow crawl forward by Donbas forces the past few months. Some get trained by NATO. But vs Russia, historically one of if not THE best of land militaries, 3-4 weeks training is useless when all of Russias mobilised have minimum a year experience and generally far longer. Russia has NEVER been a great land military at least not in the last 100 years. They survive and win because of their numbers, because of production and because of the size of their country. Put Russia's entire population in WWII into western Europe and they would've suffered the same fate as the French and have surrendered in a few short weeks. The fact is the Russians were lucky that they live in a country that is so huge as to be impossible to be completely conquered and its saved their bacon a number of times. As for training, I'll take NATO training over whatever crap training system the Russians have anytime. Again the results on the battlefield speak for themselves where the Ukrainians fighting well and are able to be flexible and to act quickly according to the change circumstances on the ground. The Russians have yet to show they can do the same outside of maybe a few units which is why their attacks are so simple and their defense is so weak now that they're getting pushed. We'll see in the coming weeks and months if all these new recruits will be any better but it seems doubtful. On the otherhand NATO is ramping up the number of Ukrainians who are getting trained and equipped by them and I'll put money on them performing better than the Russians on the battlefield anyday.
1
If Putin was 'brilliant' he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine especially with the state of the Russian armed forces its currently in.
1
Well according to reports, Europe largely has enough supplies to last the winter already. Far more people will likely die to the heatwaves in the summer and the lack of air conditioning than they will to winter weather.
1
@adinahaun6001 So you don't even want to mention the tens of thousands of killed that Russia has already suffered and will continue to suffer against a much weaker Ukrainian army that has only received a fraction of western military hardware that they have available for war? One can only imagine what the full might of NATO forces would look like when so little modern equipment given to the Ukrainians can already do so much damage to the Russians.
1
@williamtell6750 This is the strongest army in Europe and has been built up over more than 8 years with finance and advice from the West. For most of 2022, the Russian (allied) forces were outnumbered. ARE YOU ON CRACK?!?!! 'Strongest army in Europe'?!?!?!! LOL. The Ukrainian army in 2022 is just a smaller version of the Russian army except with some of its troops being NATO trained and some with combat experience from fighting the past 8 years in the Donbas. I don't consider any army to be 'the strongest in Europe' when: - it has an outdated and weak airforce - most of its armored vehicles are from the Soviet area that would get demolished by western armies - still have a large portion of its soldiers not be well trained, well led and well equipped - have to rely on outside sources for much of its ammunition and supply needs - rely mostly on western intelligence to be their eyes and ears to know what the Russians are doing because those kinds of resources themselves Pretty much the Ukrainians have the same advantages that the Russians do that prevents most countries from messing with them. Namely lots of manpower, lots of old but still useful equipment and a good sized country where you can trade territory for time as it did during this war. I just find it funny how all the Russian nuthuggers just a few months ago were saying the Ukrainians were weak and overmatched and that it was only a matter of time when they would be defeated and now some like you make them out to be 'the strongest army in Europe'. 😂🤣😅🤣😂🤣 The truth is that we all know that on its own Ukraine would've been defeated most likely within a few weeks of the invasion starting no matter how brave the Ukrainians were and how hard they fought because no matter what you can't fight without weapons, ammo and supplies and with the way the Ukrainians were going through their ammo supplies they would've very quickly ran out and that would have been that. Western support has helped Ukraine survive and keep fighting for this long and if someday the war ends and Ukraine is able to retrain and rearm its armed forces up to NATO standards ONLY THEN it may become Europe's most powerful army.
1
@williamtell6750 The full Russian army is stronger than who? Certainly not NATO of course never the US who would've curb stomped the Russian forces into the ground long ago.
1
If the Russians do not fully occupy Ukraine right up to the Polish border, the US will rearm and retrain another powerful army to attack Russia again. Too bad for Russia that will NEVER HAPPEN and if they can even keep what they've taken so far they would count it as a major victory let alone trying to take and occupy more territory.
1
@Paul Kirby What peace agreement? The same kind that Russia will break yet again sometime down the road? Only path to permanent peace is ejecting Russia from Ukrainian borders and having them join NATO ASAP. Just see how effective that was for the Baltic countries and how they're still free today rather then having them falling back under the boot of Russian rule. NATO works and its why Russia doesn't want anyone else joining it.
1
@harryflashman4542 The Ukraine government and oligarch class have stolen the wealth, now they're killing the men. That's not a recipe for success. Well if the current leadership can change and clean things up in their country then they have a good chance at becoming something something better than they previously were. Not every country has to remain an eternal backwater craphole like Russia. All it takes is to have good leaders who want to do what's best for their nation and their people and for the population to be willing to work together towards that goal to build a better country. Just look at China where under the leadership of Mao it was a complete disaster of a country that was far behind the west in development. Then when Mao died and he was replaced with Deng Xiaoping and his government, everything changed and he laid the foundation for the massive turn around of China being a largely poor and underdeveloped nation to becoming the second most strongest economy on the planet in just a half century or so. The point is things can change for the better if you have the right people in charge and a population that's willing to work hard to collectively improve their country. Ukraine has its problems, but maybe this war when it finally ends will be a sort of a new beginning for them when they start rebuilding their country and who knows, perhaps they can come back stronger than they previously were. All that is in the future though because the first order of business is to get rid of the Russians first.
1
@harryflashman4542 If you say so. I think the Ukrainians can comeback and become a stronger people and build a better nation at the end of the war. They don't have to be a backwater shithole of a nation like Russia forever.
1
@Alex D According to latest reports if they're to be believed in some areas in and around Bakhmut the Russians are putting up little to no fight before falling back. That would be pretty insane to fight so hard to gain so little ground and then start giving it up so easily the moment your enemy starts coming forward.
1
@louise_rose I remember back in the day the Germans controlled like 90% of Stalingrad and had declared that they had the city under their control. Gee I wonder how that turn out? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
1
@nvmffs If Russia is ending the war at the same speed that they've almost taken Bakhmut, then we'll be here for years.
1
Alexander and the Duran has to be receiving Russian money to want to keep doing what they're doing. All of it is pretty useless other than giving pro-Russian supporters some false hope that they'll somehow prevail against Ukraine when that won't ever happen as long as the west supports them.
1
If Russian tanks don't sink then why did they get bogged down in the first weeks of the war and were forced to stick to the roads where the Ukrainians were taking them out like ducks in a barrel?
1
I wonder how will the Western media spin it when (not if) the Russians achieve the objective and total victory of their 'special operation'? Ukraine is clearly running out of men and options, at this rate the Russians will achieve their objectives before the Autumn. The Russians failed long ago in their 'total victory' objectives which was taking the entirety of Ukraine and turning it into another Belarus. Also if you truly believe that Ukraine is running out of men and resources then why aren't the Russian advances as fast and large as they were at the beginning of the war? According to you the Ukrainians should be on their last legs. Why not launch a truly large offensive and really break the Ukrainian army?
1
And yet even the 'woke' US armed forces of today could still easily kick the asses of the Russian forces without ever breaking a sweat. Without their nukes, no one in the west would ever take the Russians seriously as a threat anymore.
1
@spartan2188 We also shouldn't forget that the majority of people living in Donetsk and Luhansk DID NOT WANT TO BREAK AWAY FROM UKRAINE and that they only wanted more autonomy WHILE REMAINING in Ukraine. It was the Russians who backed a relative small group of militia to rise up to fight and try and breakaway from Ukraine that started everything.
1
@xana7196 to be precise we only wanted an autonomy because when the coup happened they started threatening Donbass. Can you show me proof that the Ukrainian government started threatening people in the Donbas? Please post the links here if you can because I'm genuinely interested. Also everything I've read so far indicated that the Donbas people wanted more autonomy while STILL REMAINING in Ukraine. Very few people in the Donbas actually wanted to separate from Ukraine and become completely independent and/or wanted to join Russia.
1
@spartan2188 Who attacked first, the milita or the Ukrainans? I'm assuming this is in 2014, when it all started. Russia attacked first when it took over Crimea by sending in their forces and then they thought they could do the same in the Donbas and then in 2022 they thought they could do the same yet again with all of Ukraine. Seriously if Russia had scaled back their plans to be more realistic and simply invaded and took over the entire Donbas region as many people believed they might do, they probably would've gotten away with it and wouldn't be stuck in a long term war where they're now taking huge losses in men and equipment as well as taking a hit politically and economically. It would've been much more difficult for Ukraine to fight back against a large concentrated Russian army streaming into the Donbas and who knows if the west would've reacted so quickly and united to give Ukraine the supplies and weapons it needed to fight back against the Russians. Now their best bet is to hang onto what gains they've made and hope that global support for the Ukrainians to continue the war eventually dies down. The Russians can't do much more than that without taking even more losses for relative little further gain.
1
@makafuistonenyabada373 What RUSSIA is doing with the SMO is to collapse the entirety of Ukraine as a military force and render it very unattractive for the COLLECTIVE WEST to want to invest militarily there. You do realize that this is coming at a MASSIVE COST to the Russian army as well right? They're taking many more casualties and equipment losses than Ukraine is so how is this going to work in the long run when the Russians are grinding themselves down at a faster rate than they're doing to their enemy? I mean they're digging up T-55 tanks that are actual museum pieces to take to Ukraine to replace their losses. I thought it was crazy when they were taking out T-62s and T-64s to use and now they're bring out EVEN OLDER tanks?? And you would have me believe that the war is going well for them and they're on the brink of victory? Cmon now. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 At the rate they're going, there's a decent chance that the Russian forces themselves will collapse well before Ukraine does especially if the west actually decided to drop the gloves for real and send large amounts of modern heavy weapons for Ukraine to use. Its pretty insane to think that the west sending in modest amounts of modern equipment to Ukraine is already enough to fight the Russians to a standstill and how much actual combat power they have yet to give that would completely annihilate the Russians in short order if they actually got serious about helping the Ukrainians.
1
@xana7196 yes, you are right stating that we wanted an autonomy as a part of Ukraine. But those nearly 9 years of the civil war have been mind changing. It's now impossible to return. Or we are free or dead. Very few people here want back to the Ukrainian deadly hugs If the Russians didn't interfere in Ukrainian affairs the Donbas conflict probably wouldn't have gotten to this point of full out war. The Donbas militia uprising would've been crushed and hopefully Kiev and the people in the Donbas could've sat together and come up with a more peaceful solution than further fighting. Also with regards to Crimea you do realize that the Crimean Tatars lived in Crimea LONG BEFORE the Russians were there and then over time the Russians preceded to purge and deport them out of the region so that only a relative few remained living there present day. So Crimea isn't really Russia's. They just got rid of the original inhabitants, put Russians in there and claimed the land as their own over time.
1
@xana7196 Since Ukraine split up with the USSR it was planned to become an Anti-Russia. There was a huge under surface job done by the common West and their Ukrainian puppets to fulfill it. So their favourite tactic, divide and conquer, had been already applied on the Ukrainian society. Did you ever wonder why the USSR fell apart in the first place and why when it did many former nations who were apart of the USSR IMMEDIATELY wanted to join NATO and the EU instead of sticking with Russia? It couldn't possibly be that Russia treated those countries like complete crap with little regard in helping them improve their standards of living or the lives of all those people under them could it? It couldn't be that they were tired of being constantly bullied and brutalized by the Russians could it? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 Maybe this is less about the west trying to divide and conquer and more about Russia doing a piss poor job of managing the USSR to the point that everyone wanted out and they only stayed because they were forced to. If nations were happy with being under the control of the Russians, they wouldn't have run away at the first chance they got to the supposed 'enemy' who they looked to for protection and more prosperity for their people. Seriously how bad do you really have to be that even the very pro-Russian people living in the Donbas had little desire to become apart of your nation? 'We like you alot Russia, but hell if we want to break away from Ukraine to join you'. Perhaps Russia should stop blaming others for their problems of which many they have created for themselves with their shitty ass government and leaders managing things so poorly. Imagine if Russia had its own version of Deng Xiaoping that created the foundation to help China become the economic power that it is today? How different would things be if Russia had a leader like that running their country and managing things properly? China got lucky that it got Xiaoping after the disastrous Mao and Russia got unlucky that it had a never ending line of incompetent/corrupt/inept leaders for much of its history. This is why China is where it is today and Russia is where it is today.
1
If you TRULY CARED about 'balanced reporting' then you wouldn't be watching Alexander and the Duran for your information.
1
This war is more unwinnable by Russia than it is for Ukraine. The Russians aren't likely going to be making many more major gains in their offensives in Ukraine while the Ukrainians will fight as long as it takes to get the Russians off most of their land.
1
2,500+ lost armored IFVs/AFVs later and I don't think the lower profile of Russian vehicles are making much of a difference to the ATGMs that are taking them out.
1
What tempo? The Russians are pretty much throwing masses of men and equipment at the enemy to make any kind of advances. That's not tempo, that's simple brute force because they don't know how to fight any smarter in a manner that would save more of their troops and equipment for future battles. I'm glad the Russians are that stupid and hope they keep doing it for the modest gains they get from it.
1
@maddmike8516 The Russians are following a simple path of movement to contact then instead of rushing in they drop back and call artillery. Then they will move forward again until more resistance then they drop back call artillery again. Repeat. It’s simple. Slow. But reduces casualties. Dude ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!? Tell me ONE SINGLE modern, well trained, well equipped army in the entire world that would ever CHOOSE to fight the same way that the Russians are doing now because its supposedly the best way to do so? Do you really think that if the US Army were fighting in Ukraine right now that they would be employing the same tactics that the Russians are now because its the best way to reduce casualties? Do you really believe that? Cmon now. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 . The Russians are launching infantry heavy attacks because they've lost too many armored vehicles to be able to launch any large scale armored offensives. Seriously ever since the retreat from the Kiev front, when was the last time you saw the Russians launch large armored attacks with hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles the same as they did at the beginning of the war? How about NEVER. Not during the Donbas offensive and certainly not during the months of fighting in and around Bakhmut. Could you ever imagine the Americans fighting the same way? Not using all their Abrams and Bradleys or airforce and launching infantry attacks that are only mostly supported by artillery and ground launched missiles? You would say the Americans are insane for trying that and yet here we're seeing the Russians doing exactly that and you say its 'good tactics' rather than them having no other methods of attacking? Ok there. 🤣😅😂🤣😅😆
1
@KingOhmni Believe it or not but directionless men can find themselves during times of war. More so if they already co,e from broken backgrounds or are prone to violence. How can they 'find themselves' when so many of them have been wiped out at the front being thrown to the wolves? Dead men can't find themselves.
1
@CochinKerala Russia at the beginning of the war - Counting advances by the number of kilometers forward per day. Russia currently in 2023 - Counting advances by each town taken after many weeks of heavy fighting But hey Russia is winning right?
1
@halilzelenka5813 Alexander has filmed alot of videos where he's been proven wrong. Its mind boggling that anyone would still take him or anyone at the Duran seriously when they've been constantly wrong with almost every military prediction they've made.
1
@halilzelenka5813 he’s also been right about things. Like the resignation of Truss and her chancellor of the exchequer, including the timeline of resignation as well as the order in which they resigned. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day, but mostly when I talk about how wrong Alexander has been I'm mainly referring to his military opinions on the war in Ukraine where he's been almost completely wrong every step of the way. If you look back at all his videos here or on the Duran channel and look at his opinions and predictions that he made in the early months of the war and then see how things actually turned out, he's been wrong almost every single time. From the very beginning of the war until present day, I can't remember very many predictions that he's made concerning the war and the Russian and Ukrainian military that have ever been correct. The reason for this is because no matter what has actually happened in real life, Alexander still believes that the Russian military is strong, is competent and has capabilities that it clearly doesn't have. The Chechen wars exposed how poorly led and trained the Russian forces were and the Ukrainian war now shows completely that Russian forces is 100% a 2nd rate military that even after all this time still relies more on sheer numbers to overwhelm their enemies rather than improving the quality of their army to be more effective with smaller numbers like most western armies have. The bottom line is Alexander is 100% a Russian shill that refuses to acknowledge reality when it comes to the utter piss poor performance of the Russian army in Ukraine. No matter how big the disaster is, he'll find a way to put a positive spin on it to lessen the blow and criticism towards the Russia military and Putin.
1
@halilzelenka5813 keep in mind that the Russians withdrew from Kherson, preserving their manpower. It wasn’t a complete debacle. The troops were not stranded on the west side of the Dniepr. You're pretty much using the line that Alexander will use when talking about yet another major Russian retreat in his next video. This is the only silver lining out of an otherwise major defeat. For how long did Alexander and many other pro-Russian folks keep saying that the Kherson offensive was going nowhere and that Kherson city wasn't going to fall anytime soon and yet with proper planning and a healthy dose of MLRS systems that destroyed so many supply dumps and continued to disrupt Russian supply lines that finally they made the smart decision to fall back across the river rather than fight a losing battle that would've resulted in high casualties. Who would've thought that back in September that Kherson would return into the hands of the Ukrainians and yet here we are witnessing just that even as Putin had just annexed this region a few short weeks ago. Also this is more confirmation that the Russians have definitely taken high casualties during this war that they would throw in poorly trained and equipped troops into the fight. The Ukrainians on the otherhand are increasingly becoming the opposite where they're able to send their new recruits to western countries to be trained by NATO instructors and be properly equipped by them. With troop quality going in favor of Ukraine more and more over time, its going to be difficult for the Russians to stop them unless they themselves start training and equipping their own troops better.
1
@halilzelenka5813 what happened in Mariupol? Ukraine refused to withdraw and their forces were encircled. That was the decision of the Ukrainian forces there to defend to the end when the better choice would've been to fall back. The only good to come from that was that it tied up and killed alot of Russian forces for a couple of months that could've been used to push further west on the southern front. What happened in Severodonetsk and Lysichansk? Ukraine refused to withdraw troops that were in a hopeless situation. These troops were then encircled and destroyed or captured. This didn't happen at all. Most of the Ukrainian forces in the Lysychansk salient escaped because the Russians didn't have the armored forces to close a 10km gap to complete the encirclement. I was watching that area closely during that time and the Russians had lost so many armored vehicles by then that they didn't even have the forces to close that relatively small gap. Who has more artillery capacity? Russia. How are most people killed in this, and any modern, war? Artillery. Having more artillery pieces isn't as important if 1) your artillery fire is largely inaccurate and requires a ton of shells to complete a mission and 2) having more artillery pieces means you need more logistics to keep them supplied with shells and spare parts to keep them running. That is a HUGE downside when your logistics are already poor to begin with and you're already having major difficulties keeping your army supplied in the field. Compare that to Ukrainian artillery when it started receiving more western artillery pieces and SPGs. Much more accurate fire which means less shells needed to accomplish a mission which also means less logistics required to keep them in service and firing. Especially recently when the Ukrainians have been receiving the Excalibur shell from the US and now they're able to hit targets with amazing accuracy. And this doesn't even include HIMARS/M270 MLRS systems that can hit targets with pinpoint accuracy up to 80kms away. You don't need a huge volume of fire when you have a HIMARS rocket acting like a sniper bullet hitting your target from dozens of kilometers away. But keep telling yourself that the casualty ratio is heavily in Ukraine’s favour. Unlike you, Alexander and all the other pro-Russian hacks who choose to live in fantasyland, I do my own research and follow the facts. If we're excluding civilian Ukrainian casualties and are only talking about military losses then the Russians have absolutely taken more casualties. Imagine at the beginning of the invasion you're able to launch multiple major armored attacks into Ukraine and now barely 9 months later you're barely able to launch even a few moderately large mostly infantry heavy assaults against your enemy and you're using mostly Cold War era vehicles and you're telling me that the Russians haven't taken huge losses? Cmon now. The facts speak for themselves and its reflected on the battlefield. Take off your pro-Russian hat and look at what's actually happening on the ground for a change.
1
@davidmorris6226 *it will make gains. It’s sustaining the gains that’s an issue. Russia has more men to throw in this fire than Ukraine, which after Russia’s invasion has a population of like 20 million people.* Just because Russia has more actual men to throw at a fight doesn't mean they'll all go willingly especially if they keep getting thrown to the wolves with poor training and equipment. Also even if Russia has the manpower, they can't simply pull tanks and other armored vehicles out of thin air to replace all their massive losses. They're currently using their stock of 60s tanks and are dipping into their 50s era tanks. What are they going to do when they start running low on those?
1
@brewsterly2927 Russia has (now) the most highly trained and combat hardened force in the world! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAA!!! 😆😅🤣😂🙂😂🤣😅 Hey man whatever you're smoking, I want some too because its giving you some amazing fantasies. Seriously if that's truly what you believe then Russia should be smashing the Ukrainians with their superiorly trained men instead of taking heavy losses as they've been doing for months now fighting at Bakhmut and elsewhere. For real you haven't been following the war much and watching all the videos of the battlefield if you really believe that the Russian army is 'the most highly trained and combat force in the world'.
1
@RR-qq3jo You're right. Ukrainians should've just let Putin and the Russians take their country and do with it what it wanted just to save themselves from all the pain and suffering. I wonder if someday someone should break into your home if you'll let the robber take anything they wanted and maybe let them live there too if they wanted? Forget resisting. Just give them whatever they want right? 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
1
@R H While the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite Russia protests and concerns. Maybe if the Russians weren't such tyrants and bullies to the nations under their control for so long, they wouldn't be running to the west at the first chance they got to join them. Maybe if the Russians brought any kind of prosperity to these countries instead of sucking them dry, some or all would still hang around. Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons They reserve the right to use nuclear weapons because we've seen how utterly weak and laughable his conventional forces have been in Ukraine and hence has to resort to threatening to use weapons that could end the world to have anyone take them seriously anymore. The Russians know that without nukes the west would not be afraid of them. If they didn't invade Ukraine they probably could've maintained the charade of having a powerful army for a little longer.
1
How can you call it an 'achievement' when it took so many thousands of casualties, countless amounts of equipment lost and resources used to take one small city? I'm sure if the Ukrainians wanted to be so wasteful and not care about losses they could just counterattack around the flanks of Bakhmut and eventually take it back. They're smarter than that though and any attack they'll launch in the future won't be nearly as costly and wasteful.
1
@paulmorris5166 Seems like everything Putin does and says is 'brilliant' to all the pro-Russian hacks.
1
Bora Bora *But when Russia try to protect million of their people on their door steps You collective West call Russia Invaders occupiers unjust etc.* Protect those people from what? Knowing what a better standard of living looks like? More like the Russians are trying to prevent people from knowing how much better things are when you're not living under the boot of Russian influence and control.
1
@andresarmento7227 Lightly armored vehicles is also the reason why the Russians have lost like 2,500+ of them to date if not more. I guess when you care more about the speed of advancement during an attack rather than the protection of your troops and crews then it makes sense to prioritize mobility over protection. Lets just put it this way. Given the choice you would NEVER EVER choose to be inside a Russian tank or IFV over a western one if you value surviving an attack.
1
@user-gy9qs7nd4q Russia has decided that it will not put time constraints on its operations,in other words military objectives will take as long as needed. This Russian invasion DID have time constraints in that they wanted to overwhelm and take Ukraine within a few weeks at most. When that didn't happen that was when they threw the timeline for victory out the window and settled in for a longer fight. Military success is the benchmark that is guiding them hence the tactical withdrawals we have observed. The fact is that the Russians will be lucky to hold all that they've taken so far during this war. If they're able to keep what territory they've gain now, it would be considered a major victory for them. Who knows if that can do that though as they're increasingly scraping the bottom of the barrel in men and equipment that they can throw into the fight.
1
@dantheman9228 really so two military police units have tanks and artillery and travel with huge ammo supplies yea right and besides nobody chased them out in a fight they just packed up and left. There's at least several videos online that show all the armored vehicles that the Russians left behind and several supply dumps with plenty of ammo. Its not an insignificant amount of stuff they left behind for the Ukrainians.
1
I bet you a million dollars that even if the latest Russian offensives make any progress it will be far from over for the Ukrainians. Seriously how can anyone have followed the war for any amount of time and believe that Russia can still defeat the Ukrainian army? Pretty much the only way Ukraine can lose is if the west stops sending support to them.
1
If the Russians weren't desperate then they wouldn't need to be pulling people from everywhere to join their army right now and get them into the fight ASAP would they? Its funny how Ukrainians are suppose to be the desperate ones and yet they can take the time to send their troops outside of the country to get their men trained and equipped by NATO before committing them to battle and the Russians want to get their newly raised troops into the fight ASAP.
1
If Putin and the Russians were handling things well there wouldn't have been a coup attempt to begin with. The fact that it got to that point and that Wagner had the forces to even try such a thing is INSANE.
1
@brianmead7556 Better to work for peanuts in another country and live than go back to Russia and possibly get called up and die.
1
How are Soviet tanks better when they're getting destroyed at such a high rate to the point that the Russians are resorting to bringing tanks from the Cold War era back into service because they lost so many of their moderately modern ones? Could you ever imagine the US losing so many Abrams tanks that they would have to resort to bringing M60 tanks back into service to replace their losses? Would never happen.
1
@T1227trx How were Ukrainian supporters coping with regards to Mariupol? Also in general I don't think those who support Ukrainians are anywhere near as delusional and biased and are allergic as Russian supporters are. Even now you have pro-Russian hacks who refuse to acknowledge reality and continue to play down every Russian loss/setback as being minor.
1
@Nehron Ghamil One of the big reasons Russian helicopters are operating with such impunity is the result of a system known as Vitebsk or President S (Russian Military Tech is simply astounding). In a variety of ways, it neutralizes (jams and/or redirects) the assortment of manpads in the Ukrainian inventory, manpads being the biggest threat to low flying aircraft. If Russian helicopters are so successful in jamming Ukrainian anti-air missiles then why have they been so ineffective on the offensive where they've been largely unable to come near the frontlines and support their ground forces in the attack? I'd say the reason why they're doing damage now in their intended role is because they're mostly operating far behind Russian lines where they can simply wait for the Ukrainians to move forwards towards them rather than having them travel to the frontlines where Ukrainians can launch their missiles at them.
1
@nehronghamil4352 uh, what Island have you been shipwrecked on? The Ukrainian are losing loads of Armor( including Leopards, Bradleys,etc and IFV s, welcome to Bradly square) precisely because the KAs are engaging them at night, close up when the Ukrsinians often make their move. The KAs also have excellent night vision. Of course they are not going to fly deep into the enemy rear to launch attacks. I've seen a few losses of Bradleys and Leopard 2s, not 'loads of them'. I've watched many KA-52 videos from recent battles and not all of the vehicles they've knocked out are Leopards and Bradleys. As I said the only reason they're more effective now is because the enemy is pushing into them while Russian helicopters and aircraft have been mostly unable to push into Ukrainian airspace. If they were effective at the beginning of the war they could've helped keep the Russian advance going when they had plenty of armored vehicles and fresh troops to work with. Instead they took significant losses from Ukrainian air defense and manpads and now they can only be used effectively on defense even though they may have already lost a couple of KA-52s in the last few days and at least one has been confirmed on video to be heavily damaged trying to make it back to base.
1
@nehronghamil4352 you sre still missing the point. KAs as well as any other attack helicopter, are NOT designed or intended as a deep penetration aircraft. Their real purpose is to destroy tanks and IFVs at the front line which by all accounts, they are currently doing magnificently! By the way, I have yet to see any convincing evidence of any lost KAs during the So-called offensive. It depends on the situation. If you're fighting low level fighters in Africa or the Mideast you definitely can use attack helicopters deep in enemy territory when the threat level is relatively low. If you're using them in a conventional war such as Ukraine then you have to be more careful and gain air superiority before you can use them more aggressively. What happened in the early stages of the war should not be applied yo current trends. The Russians have drastically upgraded their fielded gear and tactics. There's no indication at all that the Russians have brought in increased modern equipment to the battlefield and every indication that they're getting desperate when they're bring back T-54/55 tanks to the battlefield. Heck at least one has been used as an mobile IED where there's a video of a T-54/55 tank being packed with explosives and then being sent towards Ukrainian lines where it hit a mine and was stuck in the field before it reached its target. It was then hit with an anti-tank weapon and it blew up in a huge explosion the same as you would see with a car or truck bomb. Can you imagine the US army being so desperate that they'd be reduced to bringing back early Cold War era tanks to the battlefield and even more crazy using some of them as big mobile IEDs that they send towards enemy lines? Yet here we are seeing the modern Russian army doing exactly that and somehow you still believe everything is 'fine' with them??? Really? A similar misconception also applies to the use of Russian fighter aircraft. The SU30, SU35 and SU 57, are NOT ground attack aircraft. Their role is perform in air to air combat and take down Ukrainian Aircraft. Since the Ukrsinian air force has been largely eliminated, their activities have been somewhat reduced. Fighters are suppose to gain and maintain air superiority over the battlefield against your enemy. The Russians have NEVER been able to do that because while the Ukrainian airforce obviously is too small to compete, the Russians have yet to successfully suppress Ukrainian ground air defense which is why the majority of their missions haven't been in Ukrainian airspace. If they had effectively destroyed Ukrainian air defenses, they would be roaming the skies now taking out any target they see and Russian attack helicopters would be doing their job in providing close air support to ground units who are on the offense. Obviously this has never happened during the entire war and the Russians simply gave up trying to gain control of the air after all the losses they took. This doesn't mean they can't fly sorties and be useful, just that their effectiveness is massively reduced when they have to fly low and stay within their own airspace. And of course the TU95s and occasionally the TU160s are busy devastating Ukie ammo dumps and decision making centers derp in western Ukraine. Except this hasn't happened on a large scale because the Ukrainians have been pretty good at hiding their supplies unlike the Russians who required dozens of their huge supply dumps to go up in flames from HIMARS strikes before they finally learned to move them back and split them up. Even just the past few days we've seen some pretty big Russian supply dumps go up in flames again while during the entire war we've seen relatively few Ukrainian dumps go up in flames like that.
1
@comingviking Its not nearly as important if you can't use it going forward. And even if you do deem it important you still have to weigh the costs of gaining that objective compared to its value. If it took you a large part of a year and thousands of casualties and countless amounts of hard to replace armored vehicle losses to take it, to me it wasn't worth it. If you were fighting for Kiev then sure at least you can somewhat justify those massive losses, but for a place like Bakhmut? Not worth it in my opinion. It would've been better to not fight for Bakhmut and continue to train your new recruits while saving your armored forces to hold everything you've gained so far and if needed to use it against the anticipated Ukrainian counter offensive.
1
@fatdaddy1996 I mean It is going to fall at some point and it's not as though there was any time pressure. So why are you laughing? Do you not see the hypocrisy coming from Alexander and most of the other pro-Russian hacks out there? When the Russian advance is slow and plodding and barely moving forward its seen as being 'slow and methodical', but when the Ukrainian advance is slow its seen as a 'failure'. Alexander keeps talking about the Ukrainians taking heavy losses for their current offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson and yet he doesn't mention that the Russians and their mercenaries have taken MASSIVE casualties while banging their heads against the Ukrainians defending Bakhmut for months now. If you want to see what paying blood for every meter of ground gained is like Bakhmut is that place right now. So many attacks and yet only minor progress at best everyday. It makes me wonder why the Ukrainians don't pull a Stalingrad on these Russians and let them into the city more before attacking the flanks and surrounding all these forces.
1