It looks like RU-vid has a problem where a lot of comments disappear for no particular reason. It is a recurring problem but it seems particularly bad right now. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it. It is something that RU-vid does, and the disappearing comments also don’t show up on the admin pages so I cannot retrieve them. I have not been able to identify any particular political views that they are filtering, and it seems more or less random.
'Fer sure, and always look forward to the latest overview & analysis from Anders! BTW, in light of the 'unpredictability' of the upcoming U.S. election, sometime would be great to hear his opinion of NATO's 'fallback plan', if any, for continued aid to Ukraine... in case Biden _isn't_ re-elected.
I used to love Jake Broe, I thought he was a class act. Until he recently became unhinged in one of his recent videos and displayed very undignified behavior. Ukraine is a very important issue and if you look at any of my comments on the subject, you'll see that. I've got into arguments with friends and family in support of Ukraine. But, it is not the only issue facing the US and for Jake to insult people that care about more than one issue is unbecoming of him.
dear Cheryl, the idiocy of European pseudo-experts is amazing. These people are not familiar with Russian history and its traditional military strategy and tactics. Russians start the war poorly and end victoriously. The offensive of the Russian army will only accelerate and increase. in 2 years wait in Berlin )))
Was IT ? I tried to che Check that Claim. So i searched for an older "prediction" or assumption in english. First one i came across was 2 " i think Russia is going to invade" he Said that on 19.01.2022 Maybe you should be more specific ! @@shueyk2320
I like you because you break it down without rhetoric, and talk about the big picture. You always have reliable and objective opinions and arguments on the war. Keep doing what you do good sir!
That's why I find him and Perun the only watchable pro-Ukrainian channels. I desperately want Ukraine to win but I also find the overoptimism, cherrypicking and sometimes downright lying from other channels - like Denys - simply unwatchable.
His objectivity and professionality are very much needed. The Russians only hear lies and opinions from their dictatorship and we should never stoop low like that on this side of the war.
Thank you, Anders Puck Nielsen, for your thorough analysis. Very much appreciated. Thanks also for joining Jake's Roundtable. 🇺🇦 Перемоги та миру всім українцям! 🇺🇦
In my opinion, Ukraine should focus on active defense at least as long as they have the opportunity to have even local air superiority. And this is the THIRD time I write this comment, apparently something in this comment was a violation of some rule of the opinion of this ridiculous platform at least in the opinion of the You Tube bot, it's hard for me to see what in my comment causes it to be removed, although recently even comments that literally just read good day or something have been deleted from the beginning equivalent. there seem to be relatively double-moralistic rules on this platform, straw puppet comments that are not even related to the topics of the videos and the lies of the Kremlin that have been debunked a thousand times can be written, but if you literally write good day, the comment will be deleted
@@Eris123451 Yeah i have noticed that, i just cant see any logic behind this comments where there is nothing wrong or are not rude to anyone in any way are constantly deleted, but at the same time outright lies are allowed to be written and comments where other commenters are directly childishly insulted do seem to get through their censorship.
I would love it if every RU-vidr or public person making predictions about the war made their predictions public and probabilities, like in Superforcasters. This was a good and balanced prediction, earned my subscription.
@karldubhe8619 Imperialism ( colonial empires ) fell after world war 2, not after world war 1. If you are referring to monarchies, they didn't fall after world war 1, not even after world war 2. Denmark, Great Britain and Sweden, the Vatican, Spain as well as Liechtenstein are monarchies as well.
@karldubhe8619 If, by imperialism, you mean seeking domination over other nations, that didn't end with world war 1 either. The Soviet Union ( Russia ) invaded Hungary in 56 when it tried to secede. The French fought the Indochinese in Vietnam. The US attempted to invade Cuba and invaded Grenada ( for different reasons ). Being imperialist means to have an Empire. Not all of those were seeking to extend their zone of control either even if they were the result of conquest.
@@chrismath149really? What about Austro-Hungarian empire after ww1? What about Russian empire after ww1? There are marine empires and there are landlocked ones.
@@Dede_Stepas Austria-Hungary fell apart, Russia transformed into the Soviet Union, Germany lost large parts of its territory but what about those who remained? France, Great Britain, Japan, the US ( Philippines were a US protectorate iirc )
Thank you very much Anders, as usual your take and commentary is with a very clear perspective and not with cloudy glasses, I think it is spot m8. Cheers from Australia
Ther owner, thank you for not being into Russian propaganda. Many folks speak headlines from the news they like and it's pathetically challenging to save their minds from being affected by that.
As an American now living in Europe for 20+ years I think it is time for Europe to step up and stop depending on the US. The fate of the Ukraine & Europe's security should not be dependent on the US elections. It is sad, but true. And if Europe doesn't care enough to meet their commitments (promises versus delivery), then why should America?
All the frontline states already surpass the NATO obligations. You are seeing ghosts when you think “Europe” (which is a continent of numerous countries) isn’t doing anything. And stop thinking you’re providing charity, the American state and military industry benefits heavily from the alliances that were formed through American defence spending. But I guess you’d rather go back to being an isolationist insignificant backwater like before the 20th century?
Any plans on doing like a video on the status and capability of the Scandinavian armed forces in a scenario of the war spreading? Might not be the most likly atm but since you're Danish it'd be interesting to hear what you have to say about them.
Anders I have a question about the long term consequences of the war. You've said in the past that with the current sanctions, Russia can sustain the costs of this war for 5 years until their war economy grinds to a halt, right? Assuming that Ukraine continues to get the same Western support, do you think they can outlive the Russians economically and militarily?
Hi Anders interesting to watch this now. I think Ukraine must have listened to your advice - right up until 'wait until after election'. They sure took everyone by surprise. 💙💛
The most important thing to remember about American elections is that the challenger MUST always oppose the decisions of the incumbent during the election. It is a two party system which means that it is either black or white. There is no room for the middle ground. Everything the incumbent does has painted wrong. Because, if the incumbent is right, why change? Also, Americans' attention span is short. So after the election, generally people forget about your stances. For example, Nixon was an anti-war candidate, yet, in office, he escalated the war and sent a record number of troops to Vietnam. All of this, along with short elections and the separation of powers between President, Congress and the Supreme Court make for very little long term change. If you don't like the election returns, just wait two years and it will reverse.
They don’t have to oppose every part of the incumbent agenda. Especially when it comes to things like security policy, especially during a war it’s perfectly fine for the challenger to agree with the incumbent and thus show the country being in strong determination. Trying to score political points at the cost of possibly prolonging the war is in fact pretty ugly. This, and numerous other facts, including statements made by Trump makes it pretty clear that a Trump win is probably Putin’s one biggest wishes, a wish he’ll certainly do whatever he can to make it come true.
@@evgeniya7853 The guy who explicitly says he wouldn’t honor the commitments to NATO if Russia attackes a member and who has said he’d force an end to the Ukraine war by stopping military aid, thus forcing Ukraine to accept any terms is “the same shit”? We know for a fact Russia spent millions trying to infleuence the elections in 2016 and 2020 and since then they’ve increased their spending on information warfare.
@@bewing77 Yeah, it's all the same shit. It was Trump who imposed tough sanctions against Russia in his first presidency. Whoever comes to power in the United States, they will continue to try to destabilize Russia according to their own doctrine of "national security" (the poor things are constantly threatened by the whole world). In the United States, it is necessary to change not the "presidents", but the entire state system... Otherwise, this endless "tale of the white bull" will end in disaster
Thank you for the great video Anders! I have a question about your general approach to making videos: As an analyst and a public figure, you are undoubtedly aware of the power your words hold. How objectively do you think you present your analyses? Do you think you are consciously or unconsciously introducing certain nuances in your videos with the intention of supporting Ukraine? If so, what is the thinking process or framework behind it? Or does this influence only affect the topics you choose to cover for example? I know this is can be seen as a sensitive topic. However, I greatly respect what appears to be your objective approach, and I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this matter. How do you navigate the balance between maintaining objectivity and the potential influence your narratives might have on public perspectives?
Repost of the comment of the Finnishguy777 "In my opinion, Ukraine should focus on active defense at least as long as they have the opportunity to have even local air superiority. And this is the THIRD time I write this comment, apparently something in this comment was a violation of some rule of the opinion of this ridiculous platform at least in the opinion of the You Tube bot, it's hard for me to see what in my comment causes it to be removed, although recently even comments that literally just read good day or something have been deleted from the beginning equivalent. there seem to be relatively double-moralistic rules on this platform, straw puppet comments that are not even related to the topics of the videos and the lies of the Kremlin that have been debunked a thousand times can be written, but if you literally write good day, the comment will be deleted".
In Donbass, the entire NATO is undergoing a demilitarization, a military block of fifty countries that surpasses Russia in armed forces x7, in mobilization potential x14, and in military budget x100
Russia will inevitably exhaust its Soviet era stockpiles of hardware. This is a certainty and it's born out by counts of remaining hardware in Russian storage bases. From what I have seen, Russia will run out of armor sometime in 2025. Whether that's April or October does depend on whether Russian can extract any value from the bottom of the stockpile. What's more interesting to me is the status of Russia's remaining stockpile of artillery. In a sense it does not matter how many artillery pieces Russia has left because at the present rate of loss - averaging 1,500 per month - it is only a matter of months before Russia experiences a shortage. Now, if you're talking about when Ukraine goes on the offensive then I'd suggest that Ukraine is wisely waiting for Russian attrition to take its toll. Not just the last dregs of the stockpile, but the pipeline of repair bases and intermediate storages that lead to Ukraine. The best point to attack is when Russia is at its weakest. Yes, Russia does have production but a) Ukraine is attacking Russia's supply chain (and fuel refining) and b) Russia's production is suffering from shortage of labour, lack of critical supplies and good old fashioned corruption. It cannot sustain the present rate of loss. So, the other critical factor is what will Ukraine do in the event of the US sinking into the Trump swamp? The obvious answer is that it will have to rely more on certain European allies and it will have to increase domestic production (which is happening. I think that the lack of US support will certainly slow Ukraine down and even postpone the decisive offensive, but at the same time a lot of analysts are missing just how bad a state Russia is actually in. The very fact that Putin and his shills are pushing the whole "Russian cannot lose" narrative speaks volumes about Russia's vulnerability. The losses are hurting. The third factor is that Ukraine is clearly waiting to establish at least local air superiority. It will have the means to silence Russia's glide bombers. It will be able to deny Russia close air support, but it won't happen next week. The F16s need to arrive. Various things need to be done. It will take months. The other thing I'd like to know here, Anders, is this. The US never supplied Ukraine with more than a token number of Bradleys. Is this going to change before Jan 20 next year? Can the Europeans step in with a Bradley equivalent? Does Ukraine now have adequate mine clearance? (it didn't last year - another US failure). And will it have sufficient shells to launch an enduring offensive? Last year Ukraine was given a batch but it wasn't anywhere near large enough. One lesson to be learnt from the summer offensive is that where Ukraine moved forward it was the result of massive artillery strikes. Ukraine absolutely needs to be using tens of thousands per day? Where are the western production facilities up to?
Yes I have also seen those very comprehensive works by especially Cover Cabal. Great work and kudos to him/them. But it is unfortunately very much a "all other factors being constant" analysis. And I think they can easily extend this period by adjusting their tactics slightly. And this will happen when they start feeling the pain. Look how many times it has been predicted that they would run out of missiles. And yet it just does not happen, and attacks on UA is as devastating as ever. I would not bank on this having a significant impact in the foreseeable future, unfortunately.
Thank you for your illogical and counter intuitive analysis. You’ve been completely wrong all the way through this war so one has to admire your consistency.
Your description at the beginning (which RU-vid won't let me paraphrase) sounds exactly like what was shown in the movie "All Quite on the Western Front". It's so sad that what's happening in the US may well decide this situation. I don't even know what to say.
Something tells me that after Trump is elected, and once he is briefed officially on our efforts on Ukraine, and as long as the public still supports Ukraine, he will go all in on helping Ukraine. Above all else, Trump loves doing things that make people praise him. So I think we have an opportunity still with Trump. But it is the one thing that scares the hell out of me in terms of Ukraine's future
Thanks for your analysis. You clearly have a lot of insight on how Ukraine operates. One other thing that I would like to learn more about is how Ukraine's military command and control operates? Could you create a video on that? Specifically, are there regional cross-branch command centers coordinating all military activities within each region, or are decisions made independently by the leadership of each branch? Additionally, where are strategic decisions primarily made - on the field or by branch leadership in Kyiv? The same question applies to tactical decisions: are they mainly made on the field or by branch leadership in Kyiv?
How can Ukraine mount a substantive offensive? With what? It is short of man-power and munitions, still has no airforce and NATO support (financial and military) is dwindling. How did their last offensive go? I feel you are drifting into Happy Think. Also, the problem is not delayed western money, it's lack of western manufacturing capacity.
I don't understand that some in the US thinks the gain outweighs the loss by not supporting Ukraine. I know the argument why should the US pay for something that don't benefit them, that just prolong the war and cost more lives, instead of using the money in the US. It's to a point basic US isolationism which has been a topic in US since it's founding, and you could also arguably rightly so, ask the question why EU can't take care of this themselves. First what I never see those people arguing for US to pull the support mention, is that US together with UK and Russia(think we can rule them out) gave Ukraine security assurances against the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territory or political independence when Ukraine gave up the nukes it inherited from the soviet union. So basically if US stops helping who would then ever trust US again to upheld their commitments in NATO, or for example Taiwan? Secondly if US pull their support, then how can they expect EU to support them if things should turn hot with China and Taiwan. I mean sure they might believe that they can handle china on their own, but I would just think they would prefer to have all the help they could get against a country with comparable GDP and 3 times the population, but maybe they believe that the help that US sends to Ukraine outweighs the help that EU could/would give against China. Thirdly I would just think that the US in a very cynical calculation would be happy to bleed Russia of resources, like in the proxy wars during the cold war, as long as it does not cause to big political instability in Russia. And fourth we already see EU working towards becoming less dependent on the US due to the doubts that has been cast on the US commitment and stability. EU is a much more stable partner than for example Saudi Arabia(sure after US started fragging and became Oil independent again their relations to Saudi Arabia has cooled a lot), and EU fundamentally also share the same values. So how does it in any way or form benefit the US to loose an ally and get a potential competitor/rival instead, except of course to create a foreign threat to garner political support for your own internal agendas in the US? @Anders maybe I'm naive or ignorant, but logically I just don't understand the US thought process here, and I would really like to hear you input on this..
Read an article from WashingtonSpectator from 27/04/2022 - Dave Troy and Hamilton Fish , : Elon Musk, Steve , trump and russia And you will all understood
As someone who will vote for Trump in November, I agree with your points. I'm *hoping* that Dr. Gorka, as a mouthpiece for Trump, is more accurate than the media reporting has been because he recognizes Putin as a truly bad actor. Ignoring bot comments; Trump provided Javelins which helped save Ukraine, while Obama & Biden provided MRE's & blankets. Worse, the current Administration has not actually supported Ukrainian victory; instead, they've demanded that Ukraine not defend themselves so effectively that it impacts gas prices prior to November. The problem is that Trump's own bombast about "solving the war in 24 hours" has put him in a tenuous position. He doesn't want another "forever war" as both Iraq & Afghanistan threatened to turn into, but he doesn't seem to realize that Putin will simply start attacking again once he believes the Red Army is sufficiently rebuilt.
The thinking of Americans that don’t support funding Ukraine is simple. They feel the USA government shouldn’t be paying billions and billions of dollars for a war far away. They think the money could be put to better use back home in the USA than spent on supporting a corrupt government in Ukraine. After 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan the American people are the most isolationist since the 1930s. With Trump being shot more Americans are rallying around him. Biden is making more speaking errors like call his own Vice President Trump and calling the President of Ukraine Putin. Biden’s cognitive abilities are clearly in decline most Americans don’t want an actual puppet as president with Biden not knowing what is going on so it’s unlikely he retains the Presidency in 2024. Europe will have to support the war more or less without America’s help going forward if Trump is elected president. But who knows he might throw more support behind Ukraine if Russia doesn’t not negotiate in good faith for a peace deal after he is elected president he is a wild card that way.
I remember that the Budapest Memorandum assumed guarantees not only in relation to Ukraine, but also in relation to ALL participants (USA, Britain, Russia, Ukraine) among themselves. The same agreements were with Belarus and Kazakhstan. I am trying in vain to correlate the points "Inviolability of political sovereignty" and "Inviolability of economic sovereignty" with the coup d'etat organized by the United States in Ukraine + the SANCTIONS of Britain and the United States against Russia and Belarus
@@evgeniya7853 talking about a "coup" without having any proof is simple Russian bullshit propaganda. The same that wants to make you think that Ukrainians wanted to be "liberated" and be part of Russia, while the reality is that nobody wants to be part of a dictatorship state with no freedom and very low living conditions. If you want to play the invasion game and conquer a foreign land and people, the sanctions are the least you can get.
If ukraine was able to be effective on the defense and was more conservative with their forces and was willing to give up land when they had to they might have had a chance with such a strategy but they tried to go tow to tow with the russians while fighting for every square inch. Doesnt take a genius to know how this would end.
