You keep stressing that Russia did not run out of ammo like some commentators had predicted, so it's just fair to stress that Russia's ability to continuously attack cities in Ukraine's hinterland wouldn't be there (at least not at nearly the same intensity) without Iranian drones. Likewise, you and your "side" stress how Russia dominates Ukraine in terms of artillery shells used per day, but don't acknowledge that North Korean supplies contribute to this advantage.


The Chinese economy is still in the mud in spite of all the cheap commodities they're currently getting from Russia. In fact, they don't use more commodities than before, they're just getting them from other places (more from Russia, less from the Middle East) and at a discount. I highly doubt that the extra exports from China to Russia are noteworthy in the grand scheme of things from China's pov. For Russia, the technology imports from China are absolutely crucial since they prevent the Western sanctions from starving the Russian industry of high-tech products.


Neither is the West throwing its industrial capacity behind Ukraine. You yourself were the one who claimed that the West isn't currently matching Russia's military production (in spite of its much larger industrial capacity).

There's a fundamental difference between the Iraq war and the Ukraine war: in Iraq, we invaded a country which was not currently waging war, nor about to attack anyone. Furthermore, the country did not have the social and political conditions to develop into a liberal democracy, so any nation building efforts were doomed from the get go. Dito for Afghanistan.

In Ukraine, we aren't invading anyone, we're helping the country which has gotten invaded. This is more similar to the Gulf War from 1991 than the Iraq War from 2003. Furthermore, Ukraine - or at least the parts of Ukraine that we're trying to defend from annexation by Russia! - are explicitly pro-West, are explicitly striving for a liberal democracy. There is good reason to assume that nation building efforts in a post-war Ukraine will have a much higher likelihood of success.

Right now Russia is engaged in a whole lot of that nation building, in the DPR, LPR, Crimea. The west is still wringing hands over Ukrainian migrants and protectionism against their grain exports. Beyond the whole bit of Russia's casus belli and the Maidan's western backing, the outcome isn't looking much hotter than Syria or Libya or Yemen. We're getting the poorer half of the poorest country in Europe, deprived of its natural resources and economic hubs, bombed to ruins, and with lukewarm western support that isn't committed to rebuilding. Depopulated and particularly having lost productive aged males. I mean, a big difference in those other conflicts is we usually left the broken countries in total ruins when we lost and abandoned them, like how Gaddafi invested heavily in civil engineering and water resources and just this past year 5000 people were killed in the Derna dam collapse. But now in Ukraine, the parts of the country being annexed by Russia are getting massive infrastructure projects and reconstruction. And we're supposed to be proud when a NATO backed shadow op managed to briefly knock europe's longest bridge out of service for a brief period before Russia rebuilt it, too. What does it say when in November Brussels held a "Mariupol Reborn" forum that showcased a plan to invest $30 billion of non-existent western funds to build infrastructure in a city they don't control, while the Ukrainian FM is protesting a showcase of actual reconstruction in Mariupol (ya know, by Russia) being held in Modena next week, calling it a provocation.

A different outcome but not a better looking one.

/e dear me, didn't read the followup, turns out they actually had the censors shut down the event in Modena and blocked the exhibition from being held, even though it was a private event;


The pride of western democracy. We're so much more enlightened and brimming with freedom than those dirty neo-soviets who are steeped in propaganda, amirite?
Well maybe they'll use the timeslot at that hall to hold another forum on how the EU can invest $100 trillion in a de-occupied mariupol to build maglev trains and hyperloops and a bigger burj khalifa and a skyhook space station in geosynchronous orbit and everyone will drink free bubble up and eat that rainbow stew

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 13 2024 05:02pm

The west most certainly did send all of its reserve munitions/stockpiles, there is a threshold of military capacity the west has to maintain in order to protect itself in the event of another conflict ( like the ME) and this is why the gibs have stopped we literally don't have the capacity to arm Ukraine and maintain a presence on the global stage.

Russia absolutely proved to be borderline incompetent at the beginning of the war and Ukrainians have fought and punched well above their weight and it is commendable.
However the longer this conflict drags on the more dead Ukrainians add up, the west has abandoned ukraine

Mate, the drones and whatever else they got from Iran/NK is a drop in the bucket compared to the collective help Ukraine has got and is currently getting from the west. One country is completely dependent on that help while Russia is really not.

The Chinese continue to do business with Russia as before because it's good for China. They are opportunistic and were able to fill their oil reserves for cheap, why would they damage their own economy and comply with western sanctions? They secured long term gas deals and pipelines guaranteeing energy needs, for cheap. What's the alternative ,to look like Germany? Lol.

The west is running out of key things Ukraine needs to support and actually win this war. 155mm shells are in short supply, free gibs is also in shorter supply compared to as before given most Americans don't want to give away money we don't have. Sure we can fire up the factories and pump out all the shells in the world that we'd might need but are we willing to make those long term investments?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 13 2024 06:19pm

Up and coming distraction. Low intensity conflict with Philippines in South China Sea.

but didn't you hear, Ukraine is winning, da TV said so

Rusophobia is OK



This post was edited by Norlander on Jan 13 2024 09:31pm

Man, if living under Russian rule is so much better, the Ukrainians have to be the biggest morons in history to prefer living in the EU. Dito for the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians etc. pp., who all couldn't wait to join the EU and NATO, because they had actual, first-hand experience with living under Russian rule and collectively said "never again". But what do they know, they're probably all suffering from collective Russophobia, right?

On a more general note: it is completely trivial and a non-argument to note that places which are living in peace and can actually go through with rebuilding efforts look better than places which continue to be shelled on a weekly basis...

------------------------------------------


That's not categorically true. I just looked up some pre-war data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GDP_per_capita

If you list the GDP of Ukrainian oblasts by GDP per capita in 2013, you will see that 10 of the 13 oblasts with the highest pre-war GDP are currently being controlled by Ukraine, not Russia. This includes very populous oblasts like Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv or Odessa. Luhansk and Crimea are actually surprisingly far down the list. In a list weighted by population, Luhansk and Crimea would rank firmly in the bottom half.

Here's a visualization with 2008 data:


Yes, the stuff in Western Ukraine looks bad on the map, but there aren't actually a lot of people living there.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 14 2024 12:23am

No, I'm laying out the facts of what the war is, which is Ukraine fighting with western support and Russia with Iranian/Nk/Chinese backing.
YOU claim that this is somehow a level playing field or even an unfair insurmountable task for Russia to dislodge Ukraine. I have proved that is completely false.

The Russian military has underperformed. Period.

You say that is the problem with NATO, but what NATO country has ever been attacked? The answer to that question is sufficient to disprove your statement entirely.
NATO doesn't need to conscript cannon fodder like Russia does. NATO have voluntary forces and the collective deterrent of the alliance is the reason why Russia doesn't want that fucking smoke. They can continue creating frozen conflicts on the fringes of NATO, and that is their lot.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 14 2024 03:40am