Quote (Djunior @ Feb 15 2023 11:31am)
MacGregor is providing numbers that are based on research, for example by people closely checking obituaries in Russia and Ukraine, and reports of Ukrainian women complaining that they haven't heard from their men / spouses for a long time while they always kept in touch. Apparently Western MSM isn't even allowed to report on Ukrainian military losses because only Ukrainian civilian casualties are reported on a daily bases. But you believe the huge numbers of Russian casualties reported by Ukrainian sources (Kyiv Independent) that you posted the other day, LOL
Comparison with previous wars? Did you read what I said? --> I reacted to YOU saying Russia is "incapable" which is ludicrous. Napoleon and Hitler thought the same.
History will repeat itself because that "gas station" (LOL) is the largest country on Earth with tons of resources, a hardliner regime that never gives up and 6K nukes which means NATO can't do anything other than donating stuff to Ukraine and the situation only escalates because of that help.
If you can't even read properly just don't even reply, it's a waste of time.
You're the mad hatter here, lol.
Russia is producing more ammo than Ukraine + massive NATO support combined, Western reports that Russia is running out of ammo have proven to be complete trash propaganda, Russia having the upper hand in ammo production now admitted by Stoltenberg. The truth always comes out buddy
BTW keep posting shit about NATO testing grounds and ask yourself who's PARD's mad hatter :lol:
Firstly you are moving the goalposts from Russia being low on precision missiles, to Russia has the upper hand in ammo production.
Secondly you are attacking me as if I espouse what the MSM was saying; Check again the previous page where I showed how you misrepresent peoples positions.
Do you actually believe that if Russia had an infinite amount precision missiles, they would recruiting prisoners and sending human wave attacks against Ukrainian lines?
The Russian army is built for one mode. Attritional artillery battles. We have seen how their goal a swift and sweeping invasion failed, and now they have reverted to type.
It is reasonable to assume they have sufficient supply chains of artillery ammunition, because that is what the Russian army does; Combine that with Ukraine's use of soviet equipment early in the war. Ammunition for which is not manufactured in the West. It is inevitable they will struggle with maintaining supply for those platforms.
Your angle about Russia having more ammunition being a "gotcha' moment" is a total misnomer.
Furthermore NATO is getting masses of intelligence on weaponry and tactics of a near pear adversary. If you don't like that fact, it does not make it any less true.
It is amusing how you use realpolitik to justify Russia's invasion, at the expense of Ukrainians; But when faced with the reality, of NATO getting information at Russia's expense, you become a humanist and deride the fact.
Don't throw stones in glass houses junior. You would do well to hide your hypocrisy more carefully.
Quote (ferdia @ Feb 15 2023 11:46am)
If someone is personally attacking you, just ignore them. if they are attacking your position read more, and if you stand by your position accept some people are entitled to have a different opinion (grins) even if one side is wrong.
In terms of narrative, there is a difference between the words "narrative" and "fact". Ukraine only has so many men. if jets, tanks, tech and nato trained soldiers are being pumped into ukraine what do you mean about a proxy narrative, it IS a fact that this is a proxy war. If Ukraine runs out of men then the natural thing (from a realpolitik/totalwar position) would be for Nato to get involved (they are already involved ok).
Also, the natural conclusion (from one side, at this time) to a realpolitik debate would be that yes, the US is "winning" (of this there is no doubt) but that one side of such a debate would be of the view that the US is the principal architect of this war. I refer you to the Holberg debate of 2022? where this was the topic of debate.
From a humanist perspective one would want Russia to win, noting the alternative is most likely a prolonged war, involving superpowers, where small countries (and populations) won't matter, with massive loss of life/hardship.
A russian strike on kiev with the intention of removing the political establishment (with massive collateral damage) - from the russian perspective they would seek to remove ukrainian leadership. from a western standpoint it would probably galvanize the hawks. i would expect something like that to happen during 2023. if not the capital then the entire country (i.e. more of the same). i am not condoning russia here I am outlining how russia may respond to jets and long range missles (in the event they are making a material impact on ukraine's ability to counter attack). if ukraine can only defend russia will just keep doing what they are doing (in my opinion).
What is your view on tanks, jets, training, tech and long range capabilities being bestowed on ukraine? do you acknowledge that these moves are potential precursor's to a broader conflict noting they are an escalation?
Its fine advice, not that I asked for it but I am more than happy to call out hypocrisy and trash arguments when they arise.
Replying to the bold. Is your position that appeasing Russian aggression, will lead to a lower chance of a broadening conflict? Or further separate conflicts in the future?
By appeasing Russian aggression I am referring to vectors such as the non-reaction to Russia annexation of Crimea, the muted reaction to Russian support for separatist's in Eastern Ukraine.
Or more recently and definitively, not supporting Ukraine to the fullest potential now; In an effort to deter more aggression from Russia in the future.
An interesting side note I heard yesterday was that, if the West and particularly the US, is seen not to resist/deter Russian aggression in Ukraine; What signal does that send to China over the potential attack on Taiwan?
"What is your view on tanks, jets, training, tech and long range capabilities being bestowed on ukraine? do you acknowledge that these moves are potential precursor's to a broader conflict noting they are an escalation?
I do not acknowledge that position. In fact I would argue that it is the most effective way to deter a broadening of the escalation. The cost of aggression should be too high for Russia to continue on this path.
This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 15 2023 06:18am