Comments by "UzuMaki NaRuto" (@UzumakiNaruto_) on "Russia Details Ukr Losses, Kakhovka Dam Destroyed to Enable Ukr Redeployment; Medvedev RU Offensive" video.

@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
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
@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
@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
@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