A vision of victory: What are Russia and Ukraine fighting for? - 14APR2022

[@joelhammer3538]

You cant trust russia to honor any agreement, no matter the terms. Thats a pretty big problem.

[@cy-one]

Whaaat? Surely Russia is still upholding the Budapest agreement considering Ukraine doesn't have nukes, right? Right?

[@simonbach3618]

Then in a bizarre way it should be in Ukraines interest to slow down the war and keep it going long enough to the sanctions and embargos really hurt Rússia, since Ukraine is getting the support to go on, but all of Rússia is on its own.

[@yokof2202]

Impressive analysis on the fundamental difference between “fighting against” and “fighting for”. So inspiring!💪 Appreciate greatly your conversation with Jake. Thank you for all your insightful work🇩🇰🇯🇵

[@Zawiedek]

The situation in Donbas was actually really bad for Kyiv: The Minsk agreements were impossible to fully implement for Ukraine and they felt unfair overall with Russia playing the negotiator while it really was the instigator. The low-intensity conflict in Donbas also hindered further western integration economically and militarily for years, maybe decades to come. That has changed drtamatically now: Russia's invasion put a very high price on Ukraine and its freedom as a nation, but also re-opened the chance to actually re-aquire the separatists' areas and therefore put a very favorable end to the Donbas conflict. I guess Kyiv will give up Crimea for reintegration of Donbas at the table.

[@SardonicALLY]

That seems like a pragmatic assessment. I would add that Crimea might one day be part of Ukraine again, but only as a result of genuine diplomacy and self determination. If the Russian Federation was to deteriorate and fragment that would be a possibility. Only time will tell.

[@lagrangewei]

if Ukraine could not take the seperatist region for 8 years without direct Russian involvement, you are really telling me they have a chance now that they are facing direct Russian involvement? I don't see this as favorable to Ukraine. the main problem is Ukraine economy wasn't well to begin with before the conflict, after the conflict, Ukraine economy is in an even worst state. they don't have the logistic to push. the western aid only cover the weapon and not the logistic, without oil how are they going to move? europe itself is short on oil, it can't supply ukraine with endless supply of oil. US know this, it why they are calling everyone that produce oil, even Iran. but after decade of undermining them, does US really believe they will trust US? we will run out of oil before the war ends. that's the real problem.

[@SardonicALLY]

@@lagrangewei Are you cracked? There was direct Russian involvement from the start, it was just covert. Now it is explicit and there are Russian troops wearing Russian uniforms instead of generic army surplus camo gear... the winner will be the one that is determined to go for longer. Ukraine will never relent, and the fact that there are more troops on the Russian side just makes it that much harder to miss them. Russia is being mauled. Deal.

[@hyhhy]

At least officially, Kiev is demanding Crimea too, including the naval base at Sevastopol.

[@hyhhy]

@@SardonicALLY If Russia deteriorates and fragments, like in your hypothetical scenario, and thus Ukraine gets to dictate whatever it wants, how do you figure that situation as "genuine diplomacy"? Just curious. But it certainly would be a high level of "self determination" for Ukraine, getting to determine everything by itself without regard for the other party's interests.

[@jagadiesel1]

The big question: does Ukraine feel they need to reacquire the entirety of the Donbas or no? This is a crucial question with high costs depending on the answer.

[@joefox9875]

The video implies that Ukraine needs some (but not all) of the Donbas. If Russia can credibily claim to have protected these areas then Putin will declare victory and get a pause to rebuild the military.

[@user-vf2fi4dd2i]

We need to reacquire entire Donbass and Crimea. Also we will demand reparations from Russia. And we would also be pleased if some good people created "the democratic republics" in Russia.

[@HannibalLecter-w3r]

Plans are to counterattack in several weeks to regain all the Donbas and Crimea if possible.

[@peka2478]

Or rather, do they need to reacquire them on the field of battle, before signing a peace? Or can they fight on until Russia gets so weakened that it has to accept a peace treaty and has to give back Crimea and Donbass on the 'diplomatic table'?

[@user-vf2fi4dd2i]

@@peka2478 This is an interesting question because Zelensky says that occupied-pre-February-24th territories should be retaken diplomatically. But MoD and other people in charge say that the military way is the only way. Collective West treats Zelensky as some kind of hero, but here at home he is known as huge corrupt dum-dum who "sees peace in Putin's eyes" (this is his quote). There are no quick advances for both Ukrainian and russian armies, but if some good people had finally given Ukraine significant amount of artillery and, most importantly, long range MLRSes, well, then russians would run as hell from Crimea and russian Black Sea Fleet would participate in old good tradition of collective self-sinking. Speaking objectively, there is no room for negotiations as russia does not see Ukraine as a state. And there is nothing negotiable, too, as russian treaties are not worth the paper they are signed on.

[@davidh3985]

Finally someone that gets it! There are so many Maersheimers and Jeffrey Sachs' out there that are speaking for the russians side i.e. Minsk 3, which is exactly the point you are making for russian victory. Obviously Ukraine needs to win.

[@BeyondHomeCooking]

I went ahead and listened to this for a forth time. I find myself wondering about what level of Materiel and support needs to offer ukraine for the next couple of years. It seems to me, that we need to offer a technological advantage to supply ukraine with the capacity for ukraine to reach their victory condition. Also, after the active conflict is over, we need to help ukraine create a credible deterrent army. I would think the really dollar amount that this is going to cost the west in support is 200 to 300 billion a year for the next three to five years.

[@andrewharrison8436]

... and (ignoring the humanitarian angle) this needs to be compared to the cost of having an expansionist Russia. Since the cold war we have had this economic "peace dividend" - that's well and truly ended. I don't know if your numbers are right but that's money that needs to be found.

[@roberttaylor3594]

really like your channel! You must be one of the few, or maybe the only(?) analysts who predicted a Ukrainian win early on. As of today, May 08, the Ukrainian terms of victory seem more likely than the Russian, especially since the US basically said their aim is to make sure Russia can never do this again.

[@MjulieM63]

Thank you, Sir! I am learning so much from your analyses. Happy to have found you. 🍁

[@Giorg189]

This video has so much useful information, it deserves more views! 👍

[@steveosborne2297]

I must admit I totally agree with your analysis particularly that of what victory is for the two sides involved .

[@fraterleonatus5864]

I kind of agree with you. For now Russia is certainly look for a situation where they can declare victory, having a pause, rearm and try to solve the prolem they created in the longer term. In the longer term I think that's it's blatant that the russian goal to have Ukraine on it's side, to use it as a buffer between them and the west, is definetly gone. At this point they are probably in a "vase of Soissons" state of mind : if they can't have them, no one will, and in my opinion their goal is to weaken Ukraine so much that it will be useless on western side : trying to cut them from sea trade and deporting it's population in Russia are the kind of manouvres that seem to be aimed at this goal. And yes, I'm sure Ukraine will not be willing to give them that "operational pause" that Russia needs. But we still have to see what Ukraine will be able to do at that point, because denying the russian pause means go on the offensive : it will be a harder objective that simply defend against russian attacks, and it will imply to receive, operate, mantain and support a shitload of heavy equipment. And I think that could be very hard as long as Russia is able to bomb ukrainian supply routes and nodes.

[@gubbi1000]

IMO, the prime purpose of the war for Russia is to secure the Yuzivska gas field, discovered in 2010. Ukraine controlling this massive gas field would undermine Russia's natural gas hegemony over Europe. It is the same reason why Russia props up Assad in Syria; To block gas pipelines reaching Europe with gas from Qatar and Caucasus states

[@T1mm_UA]

Wow, surprisingly you made good points. I agree with your way of thinking here. Good analysis, subscribed.

[@steve-rw7ty]

i'm gonna buy a shitload of Levi 501's. i think they might come back in style. in Russia pretty soon. like in the .. the eighties.

[@bgshin2879]

Wonderful contents. My 2 cents worth: 1. Ideologically Russia believes one can be submitted to surrender whereas modern ideology dictates that will of people will always prevail. This fundamental difference creates separate political system of totalitarian dictatorship vs democracy. Putin’s understanding or lack of it started this war. 2. Russian military was never the quality orientated force. It was more of quantity orientated force. Putin underestimated the importance of modern military doctrines including integrated force manoeuvres (air cover + CAS + artillery + infantry + armoured units). This reflects his lack of on the ground military experience (he is an intelligence personnel not military). This somewhat reflects Hitler vs Stalin. Hitler commanded German forces till the end whereas Stalin let military prepare and execute military tactics. We know the outcome well and clear. 3. Putin underestimated the West reaction or unity. Once again, he thought the West would submit to Russian military might but what he failed to understand is change in the comprehension of ‘might’. As much as the military might is important, equally or even more so, the importance of economic might has grown over last 30 years. The simplest way to explain is, you can buy military might with money but not the other way round. His failure to understand this change indicates his principles are outdated. Summing up all these: The end game Russia wanted was a submission by Ukraine, Eat Europe and at least respect from Nato, EU and USA. What is likely to happen is the opposite. It has united rest of Europe, it cut off its biggest buyers of its produce (oil and gas), it isolated itself from technology and other industrial supplies, brain drain, decimated its military exports, Belarus is likely to go thru similar transition bringing it closer to the West reducing the core military range to Moscow from West’s sphere of influence thus making it more vulnerable. On the Ukrainian side, it is no better. It will be laden with huge war debt (not all military assistance is free), huge reconstruction cost (more debt), destroyed lands, brain drain, decimated industrial production base, less political options available etc. the worst fact is, to repay such financial, military and diplomatic debt to the West, it will be forced to surrender its resources. This will weaken prospect of any economic recovery in medium to longer term. Naturally, corruption and crime will remain high due to income disparities (natural resource development hardly ever brings prosperity to the general population but brings more corruption and concentration of wealth). This war will only enrich the West.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

With regard to your point 3., Russia seems to be operating on the ancient principal of looting the occupied. They’re foraging in grocery stores, they’re robbing ATMs, they’re stealing cars. Early in the war I remembered seeing Russian position that had been retaken by the Ukrainians territorial defense force. The Russian soldiers had been staying in a building basement, and the basement was littered with refrigerators. My initial thought was that they were using the refrigerators as improvised defensive bulwarks (in case the building got shelled). Then I realized, THEY WERE STEALING REFRIGERATORS!! The ones scattered about in the basement were the ones that didn’t get loaded onto trucks before the Russians withdrew. For the Russian military, stealing and looting (and of course, much worse, as we have learned) isn’t an unfortunate breakdown in discipline. It would seem to be official policy. I think when Russia is eventually forced to withdraw, we will discover that they’ve stolen everything that wasn’t nailed down. I would also bet that they will try to destroy anything they can’t steal.

[@consideredthoughts1791]

@@MarcosElMalo2 Maybe, but they're going have to loot a shedload of refrigerators to make up for the cost of just one tank they have lost on the battlefield. The fact they have lost tens, if not hundreds of tanks, doesn't make thing any easier for them. If one were to look at it from purely a monetary perspective, this war really hasn't done the Russian economy any favours.

[@andre0000000007]

@@MarcosElMalo2 just stop and think what you're saying bro... why the F would they steal white goods? the article i read was they were transporting it off to belarus and posting the stuff back to russia......... how the F does that makes sense? 2nd hand white goods?? postage?? fuel?? you'd get a better one in russia for much less!? also the ukranian average wage is 3000 p/a what kind of good white goods would they have on that wage? it would be old crap. don't believe all that is written, we should all stop and think if it makes sense.

[@decnet100]

@@MarcosElMalo2 That is very much ongoing, as the "export" of a couple millions' worth of John Deere tractors to Chechnya proves... Which also proves another thing: It's usually hard to make good use of production tools that you're looted elsewhere. In case of the tractors, they were remote-disabled and probably can only be used for spares (which probably means, just use mechanical parts that aren't directly connected to the tractors' system busses and so on, I suspect anything with a bus connection might have a few "don't play with such and such serial number" features to them, or receive them in the next mandatory firmware update - which in the worst/best case means, those looted-for-spares tractors will take down the other tractors with them, the ones their "banned" spares got installed into). It's the same when you dismantle an entire factory: Often, stuff is very specific to an installation, or require quite some hands-on training to use, even for a trained operator. The dismantled factories from soviet-occupied Germany after WWII weren't all that useful to Russia either; in fact they took long to install and set up right, and when they were finally up and running, the processes used in there had already become obsolete, hindering actual production quite a lot, over the alternative - just setting up modern facilities from scratch, and claiming reparations from the production of those factories in eastern Germany.

[@rogerwilco2]

I think you are spot on, except for one thing: The West understands that if Ukraine wins, it needs a strong Ukraine for Russia to not try again. I expect to see a huge effort to get Ukraine back on its feet and running well. A prosperous and well armed Ukraine would be a huge benefit to its neighbours to the west and then the rest of Europe. Think West-Germany and Marshall Plan.

[@henrik8812]

Hej Anders, hvordan ved vi om der var atomvåben på Moskva skibet? er de blevet fjernet eller er der en risiko for at de er på bunden af havet?

[@anderspuck]

Det ved vi vel sådan set heller ikke, så det kan godt være. Vil dog mene at det mest er på deres store ubåde at de har dem.

[@MWSCologne]

I just discovered your channel today and I am surprised by your spot on analysis. I watched all your recent videos, almost frightening how accurate your prediction were in January! Very interesting, hope you will have a much bigger audience soon. We need to discuss the political impact of this terrible war much more. Thank you for sharing your expertise with us.

[@andre0000000007]

please, the guy is a hack. check out alexander mercouris, alex cristoforou, maj. scott ritter, col. richard black, gonzalo lira2, the duran, etc. get the real story

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

Should Georgia and Moldova be thinking of taking back their territories while Russia is being distracted?

[@Чеховський-ы8ю]

Their armies have no chances, Russia still have a lot of troops

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

​@@Чеховський-ы8ю For now, perhaps, but they won't be able to keep it up indefinitely.

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

​@@Чеховський-ы8ю Also, Georgia is one thing, but how will they even get into Transnistria if they can't even reach Odessa? Fight all the way through Romania and western Moldova, which would trigger article 5?

[@henrik5761]

Is it possible for Ukraine to take back all lost territories, politically? Sorry found it, 04may

[@jean-marcsalotti999]

1 year and a half later .... this analysis seems a bit ridiculous .... especially the belief that Russia could lose ....

[@alejandroluisful]

Very clear!! Thank you for the analysis. One player is out of the ecuation: the goals of USA. Because Ukraine could gets its goal if USA or NATO keeps it supplying with guns and intelligence. Have USA the same goals that UKN? Or in some point of the fight will "restraint" UKN goals in order to stop the conflict?Thank you

[@BeyondHomeCooking]

The goals of the USA and the goals of NATO are not the same. The United States has two great oceans on either side, and is rather unassailable in conventional war. I would think the USA has half a trillion dollars to see russia humiliated (we wasted 10 trillion in iraq), and that would be cheap (beside we REALLY like the idea of assisting ukraine in its war of independence). European NATO is under direct threat, but an ascendant Ukraine (leading the slavic block) would disrupt the German/France homogeny and control of brussels. I think the USA will supply arms to ukraine for as long as they are successfully using them to degrade russian capacity. the cost of a three javilins to see a destroyed russian armored vehicle is very reasonable (if we don't have to have boots on the ground). Cheaper still is Stunga-P's. So I would think the USA is looking at any Materiel it offers to ukraine as a force multiplier. It is france or germany that will call for restraint, not the USA.

[@davidh3985]

@@BeyondHomeCooking NATO does not have a foreign policy goal other than mutual defense. Different countries have foreign policy goals. USA is walking a fine line, they don't want to provide too much weapons to Ukraine to provoke Russia, but they do not want to see Ukraine lose. If Russia faces strategic defeat, I am afraid Putin is going to escalate so that he can explain the defeat internally in Russia as he didn't just get beaten by Ukraine but all of NATO. The macho attitude of the russian psyche does not allow it to be defeated by little Ukraine.

[@BeyondHomeCooking]

​@@davidh3985 So I think there is universal agreement that Russia will not de-escalate before it escalates the conflict, meaning brutal times ahead. Of course, escalation could be asymmetric. NATO does periodically join into expeditionary forces, so called "coalitions of the willing", so I would not say that NATO has no foreign policy goals that it pursues, but because it is an organization of 30 about countries its goals are diverse, somewhat fluid and not homogenous. Since Putin controls the information space almost completely, he can explain the end of the conflict in any terms he chooses. One thing Putin can't do, is mobilize his security forces for the war. I am not sure how much the USA does not want to provoke Russia. We don't want to be seen, by our European allies that have more at stake, as provoking Russia, which is different then really wanting to avoid it. I think the united states is quite interested in underwriting the investment in the depletion of russian combat power (my prediction is in excess of $200bn in 3 years worth of interested). I think the limiting factor in the USA suppling weapons to Ukraine is logistics. The USA wants to only supply enough weapons and materiel right now as can be used in the battlespace. A US official who supplied extra weapons that were seized by the russians would be held accountable, and dragged in front of congress. So they want to do it smart, supply Ukrainians with what they can get from the west to the eastern front, and can use in the eastern front. Not to mention the fact that it would take only one stinger in the wrong hands to make this whole military operation from a US public media perspective look like "Black Hawk Down and Somalia", better to be smart about it, the US military has its lessons learned. A future conversation, once the conflict moves into a frozen state, will be what sort of Built Army does Ukraine need, and how can the USA help that to happen. And I predict, the United States will not give a fig about antagonizing Russia when it arms Ukraine so that they can control their own destiny.

[@BeyondHomeCooking]

@@davidh3985 PS. they call it article 5 because it's only one of the treaties articles. Check the NATO mission statement for it's foreign policy goals.

[@davidh3985]

@@BeyondHomeCooking Poland is even more hawkish than the USA, remember the MIGs that was going to be provided to Ukraine? And Poland is hawkish for a good reason, do you know how many times they have had russian invaders on their soil? European nations in general see providing weapons to Ukraine as a win-win. They have a ton of weapons specifically built to combat Russia and they get used for that purpose without having to lose their own soldiers. Ofcourse the west was hesitant to provide too much weapons, having the Afghan Army in recent memory, before it was clear that Ukraine was not going to fall like a house of cards. Logistics are not the limiting factor. There are already plenty of stingers and other equipement that have fallen into the wrong hands in Ukraine, I don't see that as limiting factor either. CIA was super careful in the 1980's with the stingers they provided to the pre-taliban and that worked out. As for NATO articles, pretty much article 5 is the only one that matters. The others are just spelling out how we in the west see the world order and how fair geopolitics are to be conducted, i.e. "determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of the peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law." "Coalitions of the willing" are soverign nations with similar geopolitical interests, they use NATO for that since the organization is in place. NATO does not decide to take non-article 5 military actions on it's own. In 1999 for instance, to prevent a genocide of albanians in Kosovo, members decided that they did not want to repeat the mistake of sending weak UN flagged contingents as they had done to Rwanda or Srebrenica. (But there was a UN resolution, 1244 that was the foundation) As for the future, I think Putin is in the same situation as he was before the war, but reversed. Before the war he knew that the longer he waited to invade Ukraine the stronger the the Ukrainian nation would become. (And he majorly misjudged how strong they were) Now, he has lost the war and the longer he waits to admit defeat, the more pain the defeat is going to cause him.

[@MrTodayistheday]

Well done!

[@Miata822]

Thank you. somebody needed to say this.

[@mackiechang]

nice take

[@eklhaft4531]

give that man a piece of ukraine...

[@bjornsvalling1066]

Just discovered your channel, and I like it a lot. Thanks! Greetings from not very far away!

[@rocko7711]

🦃

[@henrikbocarlsen]

Hej Anders! Is it a goal for Russia to connect Crimea (or even Transnistria) via Donbas & Mariupol to Russia? It would ease logistics and strengthen ownership over Crimea, plus give control over the Sea of Azov…..

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Russian generals have said as much, indicating that Moldova could be their next target. But is this a realistic goal? Their thrusts toward Odessa has failed. Two ships crucial to an amphibious assault on the Odessa coast have been sunk or severely damaged. The big supply push trying to get conventional offensive weaponry to Ukraine indicates that Ukraine is preparing a counter-offensive. I think in the meantime they will allow a costly Russian advance to further deplete Russian forces before the counterstroke.

[@jordigirvent9250]

I dont understand how ucrania is goong to win the war, how they will be able to take territori without tanks and without air superioriti?

[@zxb995511]

Ask the Vietnamese how they defeated the Americans without tanks, aircraft bulletproof vests....or basically any modern armament. They made the war simply too costly to continue for the Americans and that is your answer for Ukraine.

[@Dagh1]

Tanks are coming, artillery pieces are coming and mobile air defense systems are coming as well, iirc. That should at least keep the russians from dominating the sky completely and possibly facilitate some pushback on the ground. With any luck those famouse migs are being repaired and updated behind the scenes, or Ukranian pilots are being trained on western planes, like we've seen for other systems so far.

[@andre0000000007]

they can't win it. get telegram and see the real news from the front. they're surrendering in the thousands, the front lines have been decimated, the javelins aren't even working, they are selling a lot of US equipment too!! it's a mess.

[@rogerbogh3884]

Many thanks for the concise summary. I have been thinking along these lines since soon after the war went hot, but have not been able to explain them well. A few additional thoughts: 1. Ukraine kinda needed this. To be a 'country' they have to believe they are a country. They have to win. Otherwise, they are assumed to be - or are - a client state. 2. I haven't really thought this through, but a war of independence - however it is fought - leaving the two combatants with a shared border is unstable. 3. Russia really did not need this, but now they need this. It is a mess of epic proportions for Russia and they are losing confidence.

[@MegaBanne]

Yeah. Russia pretty much turned Ukraine's president in to a national father figure. Resolving an issue that has split the country so much in the last 8 years.

[@tlmoller]

I would say Russias goal is the same as before. What we have now is “just” a temporary setback seem from the Russia perspective. We might end with some kind of stalemate, and Russia will thing this over, learn from the mistakes, and give it an other go in some years. Go for Ukraine, Moldova, Baltic and Poland. How do we prevent this more long term goal?

[@doomedwit1010]

If Germany rearms, America doesn't go to pot, and Europe is serious about defense (France doesn't abandon NATO with President Orange) ... Poland and the Baltics are completely off the table. Europe should be able to beat Russia with absolutely no help from the U.S. except a nuclear retaliation umbrella. And if Ukraine gets NATO compatible militaries so the NEXT time the refurbished European factories can resupply Ukraine with 0 training. . It also will not get easier for Russia.

[@joefox9875]

Keep helping Ukraine. As long as Russia can't take Kiev, other countries don't need to worry.

[@ArchOfficial]

Russia is doing a pretty good job at ensuring their military will never fight another war in the next half-century.

[@bc-guy852]

I REALLY like your stuff Professor! (sic) please don't mind a few comments along the way as to style - all meant to help... - (shirt and tie in newer vids is nice - even just a shirt with a collar) - camera is too high in this one - you're almost cropping out of image (but good to keep PowerPoint overlays high for those who use subtitles) - can you crop the lower boundary of the video (to not show the hands moving so much) Some presenters do it so much it is distracting - like conducting an orchestra - distracts from the spoken word. Your motions are natural IMO but a tad much for me. (Just ONE opinion.) - first bit of background music on this one - too hot - boomy. But nicely done. (I use a THX rated system and I have never noticed any sibilance or plosives in your audio. Nice!) - date stamp is a nice touch!! - I play some of these in the background - and although I speak English - I do use subtitles instead of backing up; yours are already corrected. Again - nice! And I completely concur with your analysis with one caveat - - that is, that Putin - has not gone mad.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

I think the real question is "Will Ukraine be able to seize the initiative and go on the offensive?" If they cannot, then they will not win. Right now Ukraine has an excellent defensive army, but in order to take the offensive they are going to need to be able to achieve at least local air superiority, and they need an armored spearhead. They also need to project their airpower into Russian airspace to neutralize the cruise missile threat. For this to happen quickly, NATO needs to ramp up support even further.

[@eliasross4576]

What do you mean by win? Winning might mean different things to Ukraine like going back to borders before the latest invasion.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

@@eliasross4576 Winning means whatever Ukraine decides winning means and can get Russia to accept. The reverse is also true for Russia.

[@johnathanhughes9881]

Thing is, Ukraine actually doesn't have to go on the offensive at all. Remember that Vietnam won a war in which they lost almost every battle to the Americans - even the famous Tet Offensive wound up a military victory for the Americans. All the Vietnamese had to do was to keep bleeding the Americans until they couldn't persuade their people to continue fighting. This will be easier for the Ukrainians, because they have inflicted so many severe losses on the Russians (The battle for Kyiv, the loss of several key units, the Moskva, a big chunk of the senior officer corps; right now I suspect that General Gerasimov was actually killed in the bunker the other day, or at least so seriously wounded as to be out of the fight) so quickly. But remember that largely untrained people with rifles, RPGs and Bombs have defeated the Americans multiple times - and the Russians are nowhere near as well-supplied or technologically advanced.

[@thekinginyellow1744]

​@@johnathanhughes9881 I disagree. Russia is not the same as the United States. They are not more concerned with getting re-elected than with the prosecution of the war. They also have have no qualms about forcibly resettling populations from captured regions. Furthermore, no heroic Ukrainian resistance is going to help them recover Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea.

[@johnathanhughes9881]

@@thekinginyellow1744 You're right, EXCEPT whilst it's highly desirable for Ukraine to regain those territories, Ukraine does not need to do so to "win". I grant you that to get them back would be a better win, but Ukraine wins nonetheless if it's still standing and still costing Russia blood to keep its ill gotten gains.

[@stormiewutzke4190]

Well said

[@MarcosElMalo2]

A war in search of a purpose? That just doesn’t sound rational.

[@andrewharrison8436]

Agreed but I would add: sounds less rational than the normal irrationality of war.

[@kenlodge3399]

We're not worthy, we're not worthy, we're not worthy! I gotta tell ya you're a brainiac when it comes to this stuff. So you got my attention and went a few episodes back to January 25 and your analyses are spot on. So I have to tell you I don't get it, as in why you're not blowing it up? Of the 6 or 7 videos have seen you got 2 to 3000 hits which is Ok, but have only around 3000 subscribers, huh. I've been on youtube only a short while and listen to a couple like channels plus a lot of news outlets since the war began, you really knock it out of the park every time. Hope you do more as you are a substantive source compared to all the others. Honest to God when went to give a comment on the first one of yours I saw thought there'd be a thousand ahead of me, but if that's not your goal that's great too. You get a Big Fat WTG! from me (you didn't kill somebody did you... just kidding just kidding)

[@TorianTammas]

I asked myself the same question as he excels in his analysis compared to other more visible KZbinrs.

[@patennielsen7724]

@@TorianTammas ihe is not primarily a youtuber. He is a military analyst at the defense academy in Denmark. i really like him too

[@andre0000000007]

please, the guy is a hack. check out alexander mercouris, alex cristoforou, maj. scott ritter, col. richard black, gonzalo lira2, the duran, etc. get the real story

[@812guitars]

Great videos. Very informative. Keep up the good work

[@Asptuber]

This was depressing. Good analysis, but very depressing.

[@andre0000000007]

please, the guy is a hack. check out alexander mercouris, alex cristoforou, maj. scott ritter, col. richard black, gonzalo lira2, the duran, etc. get the real story

[@fredsmith2277]

ukraine will fight them to a stand still at bare minimum ?

[@zxb995511]

That's the whole point. It cannot come to a standstill. Ukraine has to keep pushing Russia to its absolute limit, well past the point where they are even willing to occupy Donbas Region.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

@@zxb995511 I’d throw in Crimea, too. Ukraine might not give up until Russia has been expelled completely. Zelensky has said Ukraine was willing to return to 2014 boundaries-and maybe he would if Russia ceased hostilities immediately and began withdrawing to those borders.

[@zxb995511]

@@MarcosElMalo2 I'm very shaky on the idea that they can take Crimea back. Not sure if its even possible at this point.

[@stephanregenass2411]

good analysis of the situation.

[@1weirddoe571]

They'll continue south and try to take Moldova by staging those raids by their stooges

[@joelhammer3538]

They have no chance in hell of doing that. Its just theater.

[@Alexander_rekaX]

I love your analysis. It’s very on point!

[@andre0000000007]

please, the guy is a hack. check out alexander mercouris, alex cristoforou, maj. scott ritter, col. richard black, gonzalo lira2, the duran, etc. get the real story

[@Fastfish3]

The main part of this war is not on the battlefield. It is being fought on the financial, economic and energy fronts. Europe cannot divorce itself from Russia's energy supply, and next winter is coming. Europe needs a peace/cease fire deal before next winter, or even by mid summer. If Russia does turn off the taps of natural gas and storage facilities are not filled by fall, the industries of Europe will be starved of energy (and don't think that they can import it at in sufficient quantities and anywhere hear a reasonable price, as oil will go to 150USD/bbl and natgas likely to 20-50$/mmBTu). Russia is back channel pressuring European countries to rein in Ukraine and the war mongering and cheering US and UK administrations. Russia maybe did have a best-case-outcome scenario where they take over all of Ukraine, but they are also happy to hold the eastern provinces and a corridor to Crimea (which will ensure no more fresh water cut offs); and then remain in a low grade, simmering, conflict until the pain becomes too high for Europe. In the mean time Russia will accelerate connectivity with China and other friendly countries. So as long as it takes for Europe to find a way to wean itself off Russian energy supply, is how long it will take Russia to build supply networks to elsewhere (with China's belt and road assistance). Ultimately, Russia will have a commodity based currency, a buffer zone against NATO, a stronger relationship with China, Iran, and others, and likely a weaker economy for five or so years. Europe will have unstoppable inflation, massive economic hardship, further rising national debts, devaluating currency, internal bitterness and mistrust, higher military spending, and much higher energy costs going forward. Not to mention rebuilding costs in Ukraine. The longer the conflict continues, the worse it gets for Europe. Zelensky needs to stop listening to the parade of American politicians and celebrities and come under the thumb of rational European leaders who are not afraid to take what may look like a loss for the benefit of their citizens. The longer the conflict continues the more all sides are losers.

[@TorianTammas]

The Illusion of the China connection is irrelevant as Russia does not have the Infrastrukturen and it would take IP to ten years and billion of Dollars to build the necessary pipelines. What about liquid gas to be transported by tankers? A lovely idea, but Russia hasn't the loading terminals So yes Russia is totally and absolutely dependant on the Europeans as buyers of their gas and in s lesser degree on their oil. Not to mention that China just don't want the Russisn oil as most modern Chinese refineries have long contracts with Saudi Arabia. So Russia is in deep trouble.

[@zxb995511]

I don't know where you get the idea that Russia can fight a war losing 10 thousand men and 1000 tanks a month on up to winter. More and more weapons are pouring into Ukraine from the west. The USA alone has more money in weapon shipments on its way to Ukraine then Russia's whole annual GDP, and Biden keeps asking congress for more money for more guns. Poland, Moldova, Lithuania, the UK, Ireland and even Germany are sending weapons and food to the Ukrainians. Russia is the one who is outmatched economically.

[@Fastfish3]

@@TorianTammas China builds 10 story buildings in a few weeks, a hospital in a matter of days, and pipelines in a matter of months. As an O&G guy who has build pipelines (that's me), I can tell you that 95% of the time is regulatory, finance and environmental. If China and Russia cooperated to build a p/l it would be done in 1-2 years. Regulations, environment, and people be damned. In terms of oil, Saudi only supplies 16% of China's consumption. Russia is no. 2 for China at 15%. On the other hand, the EU gets 27% of it's oil from Russia, with no. 2 being Iraq at 9%. No easy replacement for the EU.

[@Fastfish3]

Not to mention that 41% of natgas for the EU comes from Russia. It would require 50% of an entire year's global shipments of LNG to be rerouted to the EU (over and above what they already import) to the supply of NG from Russia. China, Japan, South Korea, India, and Taiwan may have something to say about that as they make up 65% of the global import market. There simply isn't anywhere near enough LNG to supply the EU in the case of Russian gas getting shut off.

[@Fastfish3]

@@zxb995511 Your points are very valid and on the mark. For Russia those are likely their most crucial concerns. I don't have insight into Russia's fighting ability (from here in Canada), but I would assume they are working feverishly on that problem. Scorched earth, trench warfare, carpet bombing, and even nuclear would be their options. I would not want to push Putin into a losing situation, or the situation 'will' escalate into an even worse outcome for Europe and the rest of us.