Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "Alexander Mercouris"
channel.
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hj925
You need to be more specific. You never once named what 'Eastern' project you're taking about.
If you're referring to North Korea, then you just spewed out a lot more words than necessary to avoid saying,
"you're right, I was wrong. The Americans aren't liable to public pressure any more than the Russians are. And my attempt to distinguish the two was biased by my own beliefs."
The US currently has 800+ officially confirmed bases around the world, and in numerous instances they aren't wanted there but bribe or threaten the government so they can stay (Guantanamo Bay, Okinawa, South Korea, Taiwan— Chiang Kai Shek also faced student uprisings against the US' presence in their country, northeastern Syria).
Your waxing poetic about how special of a case North Korea was doesn't change the fact that the US is as persistent, if not more, than Russian is, once it gets its hands on a country's territory.
That's an obviously bad, insidious thing when a rival country does it, but something tells me you'll find a way to spin continued unwanted US presence as a good thing.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SergeyMilitaryRankings
Lmao "this is copium to the highest degree"
Even needing to speak in absolutes like that tells me you have no legs to stand on. Putting all your cards in with a bad hand.
Truth is never that simple, and you spoke like a child who doesn't understand nuance or the actual, real details of a situation. Which is fitting for you.
Even a cursory reading of Wikipedia will tell you I'm right.
The Ukrainian strategy was to divert focus to Kherson, make the Russians thin out their northern forces, and then catch them by surprise in the south. In other words, get the Russians out before even attacking.
From Taras Berezovets:
"[they] thought [the counteroffensive] would be in the south… then, instead of the south, the offensive happened where they least expected, and this caused them to panic and flee."
This is a Ukrainian military spokesman speaking. You want to tell me that Ukraine deliberately fought their way through dense fortifications?
They themselves say the genius of their plan was making Russians leave before the attack, then forcing the rest to RETREAT INSTEAD OF FIGHTING.
Literally like I said:
a few initial big losses Verbivka, Volokhiv Yar, and by the time they reached Iziyum, the Russians decided to cut their losses.
Or take a quote from none other than Zelenskiy:
"The Russian army in these days is demonstrating the best that it can do — showing its back. And, of course, it's a good decision for them to run."
Get the idea yet?? They didn't fight and lose every inch of the region. They left early on. How many more ways do I need to put this?
You said that "they were pushed back" and then told me about Kupiansk.
Dude... they got to Kupiansk 3 days after starting the offensive.
Does that remind you of anything I may have said, about early victories BEFORE the decision to retreat??
"so if a country goes into battle and the other side just leaves"
I don't know, that's what the US did in Vietnam, and to this day people are calling it a "tactical retreat".
1. Like I said before, Kupiansk and Iziyum were reached mere days after the start, after that point the Russians left Kozacha, Lopan, and Vovchansk, among others. Even local residents attest to the fact that they left so fast they left weapons behind.
2. "a tactical retreat is leaving an area to regroup and resupply and counter attack"
...Man. What is happening LITERALLY RIGHT NOW? What are the Russians doing in Kupiansk? You already told me.
By your own definition, the Russians tactically retreated.
They're back instead of leaving forever, so they, according to you, retreated.
But it seems you weren't smart enough to notice your inconsistent line of reasoning.
3. A defeat in terms of what? I just said it's not strictly a defeat in Kharkhiv because they were never overpowered and forced to sign a treaty or something like that.
If you wanna make sweeping claims like that you need to back it up. Explain why they were defeated in your eyes.
What criteria are you basing that on?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evolvedape3341
I did argue the allegations. You called the actions in question evil, I disputed that. You noted sympathy of one country, mutually exclusive of another. I questioned that.
If you want me to address the final part of your allegation, that Russia's actions are colonial, then sure.
I don't believe they are colonial.
The amount of manpower the Kremlin has dispatched isn't enough to permanently occupy all of, or even the currently occupied part of, Ukraine.
If it were colonial, it would have taken steps specifically to consolidate control of the land permanently.
Another piece of evidence: the March 2022 negotiations.
They were about finished, with Ukraine having agreed to close its doors to NATO, before Boris Johnson flew in and convinced Zelenskiy to throw out the negotiations. Russia was perfectly willing to rescind all (save for Crimea— that might have benefited the national unity of Ukraine anyway) of the territory it had gained in exchange for keeping US influence out of the region.
This clearly suggests their ultimate goal, and intention, with invading wasn't to conquer.
Hence, not colonial.
Any other silly questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1