Russia vs the whole of Nato.
Still on the offensive
Abysmall

Yeah right. It's clear as day you have a favorite and don't care bout actual facts.

As a guy who don't care who win, i tip my fedora to Russia for still being on the offensive after years of Nato supplying Ukraine putting all first world countries into debts we'll probably never recover from due to mass immigration disrupting our countries.

The clear winner is the military industrial complex and all corporations/elite who's making a killing out of those wars + mass immigration profit from using those migrants with their slave wages.

This post was edited by iLoveMyUsername on Sep 27 2024 01:31pm

Main differences:
1) Hundreds of thousands of dead and injured soldiers
2) No tailwind from oil spiking to $110 a barrel
3) Thousands of pieces of military equipment destroyed
4) Stockpiles of old military equipment are emptying out
5) The NWF has reduced by $55bn to fund deficit spending
6) Far higher deficit spending due to much lower oil prices coupled with a significant increase in the military budget

Source re bolded?

Don't feel like finding those specific sources but it's been well known that they've faced huge population outflow. These people aren't going back, certainly not while the war is raging on.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine


So is your point here that Russia is losing all these people while Ukraine is not or? I'm just trying to understand why losses for a country of 150MM would be more impactful vs a country that's at best 30MM currently?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Sep 27 2024 01:57pm

YOU do the research lol

Russia is allocating ~6% of the budget to the war in Ukraine IIRC

For context check what percentage of GDP the UK spent on fighting the Germans in WW2

Inb4 another dodge

You have to subtract all the Ukrainians that fled the country because of the war and a lot of them actually fled to Russia thereby boosting Russia's population.

Many more Ukrainians (men) would flee the country if they could (they risk getting shot trying).

Edit: And a lot of Ukrainians live in the now occupied territories, subtract them too

This post was edited by Djunior on Sep 27 2024 02:07pm

Ukraine simply doesn't have the men to keep this going for more years. USA can provide infinitely many armaments but without the men it doesn't matter. All of these rationales in the last few pages ignore the human cost which is honestly pretty disturbing. Ukrainian lives matter & this cynical approach that NATO states have, which is basically to allow Ukraine's population to die off in order to simply weaken Russia, is abhorrent.

Ukraine is losing a similar number of people, but for them, the war is existential. If necessary, they'll throw every man into the war to preserve their independence as a state. However, Russia cannot feasibly do this. The economic costs are too great to convince the population that it's necessary when it's not a defensive war, and it risks destabilising Putin's regime. That's why he has played every trick in the book to avoid a second round of mobilisation, including huge financial incentives for kontraktniki. Another salient point is that Russia are attacking, and military doctrine generally states that the advancing force should have a ratio of at least 3:1.

You bolded one point and ignored every one of the others - is that confirmation that you are in agreement with me on 5/6 of the key differences between 2022 and now?

The UN has Ukraine's population at 38m for 2024, btw. Something isn't stacking up with what you're saying...perhaps your source isn't taking into account the people that returned to the country.

Lol, no

Russia vs actual NATO ends in a matter of hours. With Russias military in occupied parts of Ukraine completely eradicated.

Russia vs Ukraine with EU and US backing.
Is not the same thing as Russia vs NATO.

Let's at least get over that hurdle as a pre requisite to anything you post being taken seriously.




Didn't you say the exact same thing before Christmas 2023?

Russia doesn’t have the capacity to break Ukraine after almost 3 years. Its basically throwing recruits as cannon fodder against a military that's been doing this type of warfare since 2014.
With backing of the most advanced militaries in existence.

This stalemate will persist. Ukraine took more of Russian territory in 2 weeks than Russia has taken in 2 years.

It's the way you said it yes. I badly explained the situation but yeah the whole backing kind of make a difference. Without that backing, Russia would own Ukraine as we speak.

Yes, but to my knowledge I never made any declarative statements on how long they could hold out. In principle they could go for some more years, but at what cost?

It was true then and it's even more true now

It's not a matter of if Ukraine stands down, but when. NATO isn't going to start WWIII and put troops in. And that when shouldn't be when all the men young and old are dead. They should let men who don't want to fight leave instead of press ganging them. That strategy would be better for long term Ukrainian survival, given that they tend to thrive in Western countries, and a strong Ukrainian diaspora is in their interests.