"We Killed Them in Packs": Akhmat Commander on NATO Mercenaries in Ukraine | APT

Summary

In this candid interview, a military expert provides a critical analysis of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, comparing NATO tactics, Western weaponry, and the performance of foreign mercenaries. He emphasizes the superiority of Russian military strategies and equipment, highlighting the failure of Western technologies like HIMARS and Javelins in altering the battlefield. The conversation also delves into the broader geopolitical issues, touching on the involvement of Israel, the U.S., and the dynamics within global military strategies. The expert underscores Russia’s resolve and sovereignty, emphasizing the high stakes of the ongoing war and the implications of NATO’s encroachment on Russian borders.

Takeaways

• 😀 Western military technology is perceived as ineffective compared to Russian equipment, especially on the battlefield in Ukraine.
• 😀 The cost of Western military equipment does not match its effectiveness or performance in the ongoing conflict.
• 😀 Despite receiving advanced weapons like HIMARS and Javelins, Ukraine has not seen a significant shift in the balance of power on the front lines.
• 😀 NATO tactics and military training are being used by Ukraine, but they are deemed ineffective in the context of the Russian military's strengths.
• 😀 The Russian military is portrayed as being much better adapted to combat in the region, with superior technologies and a highly motivated force led by President Putin.
• 😀 NATO's military power, especially U.S. aircraft carriers, is seen as vulnerable to Russian missile systems like the Zircon, which can destroy aircraft carriers with ease.
• 😀 NATO-trained mercenaries, including those from Israel, are said to have been ineffective against Russian forces, with many fleeing after heavy losses.
• 😀 The spirit of Ukrainian soldiers is praised, with comparisons to Russian forces, although their effectiveness is questioned when compared to NATO soldiers.
• 😀 Israel's military tactics, particularly in Gaza, are criticized for indiscriminately targeting civilians, with the Russian military emphasizing its restraint and efforts to minimize civilian casualties.
• 😀 A strong narrative is presented against Israel's approach to warfare, calling it ruthless and lacking in military strategy, contrasting it with Russia's focus on maintaining a humanitarian stance on the battlefield.

Q & A

What is the main critique of Western military technology in the script?

The speaker criticizes Western military technology for being overpriced and ineffective on the battlefield, especially when compared to Russian equipment. They argue that Russian technology is more suited to the conditions of the conflict in Ukraine, offering better results despite being less costly.

How does the speaker view the impact of Western weapons like HIMARS and Javelins on the battlefield?

The speaker believes that while Western weapons like HIMARS and Javelins are expensive and impressive in theory, they have had little impact on the actual situation on the front lines. Despite their advanced capabilities, the speaker suggests that these weapons have not changed the course of the conflict.

What is the speaker's opinion on NATO's military tactics and Ukrainian soldiers trained by NATO?

The speaker expresses skepticism about NATO's military tactics, emphasizing that despite NATO training and equipment, Ukraine is still losing the war. The speaker attributes this to a failure to understand the unique strengths of Russia, including its nuclear capabilities, combat experience, and the determination of its leadership.

Why does the speaker believe NATO underestimated Russia's capabilities?

The speaker argues that NATO underestimated Russia's military strength because they failed to consider Russia's status as a nuclear power, its vast combat experience, and its resolve to defend its sovereignty. The speaker also highlights the importance of President Putin’s leadership in shaping Russia’s military strategy.

What is the speaker's take on the involvement of foreign mercenaries in the war in Ukraine?

The speaker states that many foreign mercenaries, particularly from NATO countries, came to fight for Ukraine under the misconception that the war would be easy. However, these mercenaries faced significant losses and many fled. The speaker suggests that their effectiveness was limited and that the conflict proved far more challenging than they anticipated.

How does the speaker compare the morale of Ukrainian soldiers to that of NATO forces?

The speaker praises the morale of Ukrainian soldiers, calling them highly determined and willing to fight to the death, likening them to Russians in spirit. In contrast, the speaker criticizes NATO forces for lacking similar resolve, mentioning issues like depression among soldiers when basic supplies like beer are missing.

What is the speaker's opinion on the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza compared to Russian tactics in Ukraine?

The speaker strongly condemns Israel’s tactics in Gaza, describing them as indiscriminate and brutal, particularly against civilians. In contrast, they argue that Russian forces, despite facing similar urban combat challenges, have sought to minimize civilian casualties and focus on fighting enemy combatants rather than non-combatants.

What is the speaker’s critique of Israel’s military tactics and how do they contrast it with Russian tactics?

The speaker believes that Israel's tactics in Gaza, such as indiscriminate bombings, lack strategy and result in mass civilian casualties. This contrasts with Russian tactics in Ukraine, where the speaker claims Russia aims to minimize harm to civilians and focuses on targeting enemy fighters.

How does the speaker perceive the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in the context of global politics?

The speaker suggests that the U.S. is deeply entangled with Israel due to shared interests, particularly in terms of maintaining power over political elites through compromised relationships, such as those involving Jeffrey Epstein. The speaker argues that Israel’s influence over the U.S. allows it to control foreign policy decisions.

What is the speaker’s view on the long-term geopolitical implications for Russia if it is defeated?

The speaker asserts that if Russia were to be defeated, it would lead to the downfall of both the U.S. and Europe. They emphasize that Russia's sovereignty is vital not just for Russia but for the global balance, and suggest that Russia will fight until the end to defend its independence, even if it means risking global stability.