Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Sep 23 2023 06:25pm)
Much of what you have said is inaccurate or untrue, I'll try to reply to what is actually based in reality.
"EU losing cheap Russian natural gas"
Completely true. But as it stands the EU is entirely prepared for another winter without Russian pipeline gas, it did not freeze to death last winter as predicted and the effect of losing cheaper energy supply will be absorbed. Because there is no alternative. EU countries can't be seen to oppose Russia's illegal war and still purchase energy at pre war levels.
The effect is also mututal. Russia has lost its largest customer. It has had to replace that customer with selling energy at cut prices to China and India. It is also having to sell unrefined products in much larger quantities.
The revenues that Russia had from trade with the EU will not be replaced in the same volume and consistency for at least a decade. And that is if a second pipeline to China is agreed and built in that timeframe, it is not currently approved.
You didn't reply to what I said about trillions in total inflation / energy crisis costs. Rising cost of living is an issue and I'll add that in the EU / US governments are held responsible by their voters.
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Sep 23 2023 06:25pm)
"Russia is NOT isolated, BRICKS countries refused to be bullied by US / EU and continue to trade with Russia and BRICKS is expanding."
This has no detrimental effect to NATO. NATO exists to oppose aggression, primarily from Russia. It will continue to do so.
Agreed that BRICS is expanding its membership. Albeit two members including Argentina and Belarus have flatlined and dependant economies, so it is essentially a mute point.
Also a well supported opinion on BRICS is that in theory it could be effective but in reality it is two potentially global powers in China and India with diverging interests and several lesser powers all with their own agendas that do not synergize to the point of being effective.
Does BRICS matter? Undoubtedly. Is it a detriment to NATO? No it isn't. Is BRICS expansion a result of the Ukraine war? Debatable at best. It was perhaps inevitable.
Boded: glad you mentioned this, NATO went from a defensive policy to an aggressive expansion policy as we all know. This whole thing could've been avoided.
Secondly, reality is that BRICKS has huge manpower resources and production potential and the West knows that this would be a problem.
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Sep 23 2023 06:25pm)
"Russia absorbing everything NATO could throw at them depleting NATO's entire stockpile"
First part is an interesting way word "Russia was stopped from achieving its military goal and expended at least 100,000 military personal in the process"
Its ironic you would say by pointing out the geopolitical truth that I am cheering for Ukraine's destruction. While you completely ignore the immense cost to Russia in celebrating a pyrrhic victory.
The second part about depleting NATO entire stockpile is not true so I will not respond.
Russia only lost that many troops because the West emptied their stockpiles like I pointed out. Javelins, Stingers, NLAWS and all the rest. You know what was sent, warehouses were emptied. Biden literally said they're out of 155 mm shells which is why they're sending cluster ammo. This is reality. And Russia still occupies a large part of Ukraine. The combined West went balls out on supporting Ukraine and the NATO trained NATO supplied Ukrainian brigades were bloodied trying to penetrate the Russian defenses.
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Sep 23 2023 06:25pm)
"Russia sending captured Western military tech to Iran and China, maybe even North Korea. Ouch"
This is factored in to any military conflict. Do you actually believe that those countries did not acquire tech during 20 years of conflict in the middle east? Specifically in two countries bordering Iran.
You have to be more realistic here. This is not a detriment to NATO.
Iran has been sent javelins to reverse engineer and reportedly a Leopard 2 (credible since a bunch were destroyed and abandoned in Ukraine), you're not gonna tell me this is not an issue. The UK went as far as to specifically instruct Ukraine to retrieve every Challenger 2 from the battlefield in case it got knocked out, you know this.
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Sep 23 2023 06:25pm)
Also in general if you are able to diminish the cost to Russia as "pinprick actions", then I see no tangible benefit of debating someone so abject of objectivity.
Dishonest ^^
I described what I called "pinprick actions" and I didn't say the cost to Russia, clearly.
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Sep 23 2023 06:25pm)
I would ask if you could elaborate on Russia "ramping up" I and others have witnessed Russia become militarily stagnant since summer 2022 when they began digging in after a series of lost battles and embarrassing retreats. The significant exception to the rule being Russia's costly control of Bhakhmut.
Russia ramping up means mobilizing more troops, increasing production (24/7) and increasing the defense budget.
You know that Ukraine mobilized a lot of manpower and received a lot of aid before the Russians started their mobilization in September / October 2022 right. This explain a series of lost battles and it also explains why the Ukrainians are now unable to repeat that.