Members banned from this thread: evince and Dutch Uncle


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60

Thread: Ending the war in Ukraine

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    The way I see things, Ukraine is the one who truly started this war. There were 2 steps to getting to where we are now. The first would be Euromaidan, wherein Ukraine's elected President, who was much more amenable to Russia and eastern Ukraine's predominantly ethnic Russian and Russian speaking population, was ousted via what amounted to a violent coup, with the help of a false flag operation. More on that here:

    The Mess that Nuland Made | Consortium News

    The Hidden Truth About Ukraine, Kiev Euromaidan Snipers Kill Demonstrators. Italian Documentary Bombshell Evidence | Global Research


    The second would be the renewed assault on the Donbass region days before Putin decided to begin his military operation in Ukraine. Former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud gets into the details of this. I made a thread on this here:

    Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com
    As far as who started the war, the above is a serious oversimplification. Ukraine's political history is far more complex than that, but basically Russia and the West got themselves involved in a Ukraine civil war.
    Can you put any evidence on the table suggesting that the authors I linked to above have oversimplified things? From everything I've seen, Russia tried -very- hard to avoid putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, working on diplomacy for 8 years while around 10,000 eastern Ukrainians were killed by the Ukrainian military, many of which were ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. certainly didn't wait for 8 years after only 3,000 Americans were killed in 9/11 to go attack Afghanistan simply because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden without strong evidence that he was in fact responsible for the event.

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    14,789
    Thanks
    5,361
    Thanked 9,550 Times in 6,222 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 237 Times in 220 Posts
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Can you put any evidence on the table suggesting that the authors I linked to above have oversimplified things?
    Wow. Where to start? I could conceivably go back to The Great War. It would take a book the size of War and Peace - at minimum.
    Ukraine, unfortunately, is at a huge fault line where the East and West meet and the stress has been building for at least a century. Now we have a major earthquake.
    Last edited by anonymoose; 11-22-2022 at 11:54 AM.

  3. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    As far as who started the war, the above is a serious oversimplification. Ukraine's political history is far more complex than that, but basically Russia and the West got themselves involved in a Ukraine civil war.
    Can you put any evidence on the table suggesting that the authors I linked to above have oversimplified things?
    Wow. Where to start? I could conceivably go back to The Great War. It would take a book the size of War and Peace - at minimum. Ukraine, unfortunately, is at a huge fault line where the East and West meet and the stress has been building for at least a century. Now we have a major earthquake.
    I don't see the need to go back that far. I certainly agree that Ukraine is a metaphorical fault line, but I think it's fairly clear who's been pushing the tectonic plates here- the U.S., and NATO to a lesser extent, quite prominently since 2014. I think the 3 links that I posted in post #40 lay out much of the evidence that this is the case quite well.

  4. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    14,789
    Thanks
    5,361
    Thanked 9,550 Times in 6,222 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 237 Times in 220 Posts
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I don't see the need to go back that far. I certainly agree that Ukraine is a metaphorical fault line, but I think it's fairly clear who's been pushing the tectonic plates here- the U.S., and NATO to a lesser extent, quite prominently since 2014. I think the 3 links that I posted in post #40 lay out much of the evidence that this is the case quite well.
    This discussion has now gone beyond the scope of this thread which is " Ending the war in Ukraine".
    Zelenskyy's demands are unrealistic. He's basically telling Putin to surrender and pay reparations .
    If the West ends up paying to rebuild Uk, the price to Russia will be inclusion into NATO, assuming Türkiye accedes.
    AFAIK, Putin hasn't stated any definite demands for a cessation of conflict. We know he wants Ukraine to stay neutral, no NATO. Crimea is non-negotiable. I'd think he would not retreat on any of the regions he's annexed.
    They're just too far apart for any cessation anytime soon. But someday it will end. All wars eventually do at least temporarily.
    Even the Cold War never really ended.
    The Great War never really ended.
    This will continue to simmer for a long, long time, IMO.
    Last edited by anonymoose; 11-22-2022 at 02:37 PM.

  5. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I don't see the need to go back that far. I certainly agree that Ukraine is a metaphorical fault line, but I think it's fairly clear who's been pushing the tectonic plates here- the U.S., and NATO to a lesser extent, quite prominently since 2014. I think the 3 links that I posted in post #40 lay out much of the evidence that this is the case quite well.
    This discussion has now gone beyond the scope of this thread which is " Ending the war in Ukraine".
    It could be argued that in order to understand how to end this war, we need to understand how it began. But it takes 2 to tango in a discussion, so following your lead...

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Zelenskyy's demands are unrealistic. He's basically telling Putin to surrender and pay reparations.
    I'm glad we can agree on that at least :-).

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    If the West ends up paying to rebuild Uk, the price to Russia will be inclusion into NATO, assuming Türkiye accedes.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it -seems- that you are suggesting that the only nation that would have issues with Ukraine joining NATO is Turkey. At this point, even the -U.S.- is saying that Ukraine joining NATO isn't currently in the cards. I firmly believe that this war will go down as yet another blunder on the part of the U.S. and NATO, akin to Germany's blunders in WWII. The only thing I'm not sure of is when historians will agree on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    AFAIK, Putin hasn't stated any definite demands for a cessation of conflict. We know he wants Ukraine to stay neutral, no NATO. Crimea is non-negotiable. I'd think he would not retreat on any of the regions he's annexed.
    We're in agreement. If Ukraine were to say "Alright, let's stop fighting and just keep the lands we currently have", I think the conflict might be able to end tomorrow.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    They're just too far apart for any cessation anytime soon. But someday it will end. All wars eventually do at least temporarily. Even the Cold War never really ended.
    The Great War never really ended. This will continue to simmer for a long, long time, IMO.
    I can agree that elements of the Great War, and especially of the Cold War never really ended, but officially, they did end. I'd say that we now have Cold War 2.0, although it's getting a tad too hot for comfort in my view. Anyway, I also think that the more people understand what caused this war, the easier it will be to end it.

  6. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    14,789
    Thanks
    5,361
    Thanked 9,550 Times in 6,222 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 237 Times in 220 Posts
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm not sure what you're saying here,
    If the West, meaning mostly the U.S., ends up paying to rebuild Uk there's a good chance we would want to guarantee we don't have to again. Ergo, NATO membership for Uk..
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    but it -seems- that you are suggesting that the only nation that would have issues with Ukraine joining NATO is Turkey.
    They seem to have issues with Finland and Sweden. They're a bit of an outlier in NATO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    At this point, even the -U.S.- is saying that Ukraine joining NATO isn't currently in the cards.
    Of course not. At this point. Uk is involved in a war that NATO does not want to enter into directly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I firmly believe that this war will go down as yet another blunder on the part of the U.S. and NATO, akin to Germany's blunders in WWII.
    It's already a blunder for Russia no matter how justified you think they were to invade. I wonder if Putin and his nationalist yes men could have foreseen the mess they've gotten themselves in , would they have invaded anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    The only thing I'm not sure of is when historians will agree on this. .
    History is written by the victors.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    We're in agreement. If Ukraine were to say "Alright, let's stop fighting and just keep the lands we currently have", I think the conflict might be able to end tomorrow.

    .
    Maybe. But there's more. Russian would want guarantees that Uk does not join NATO. If I were Zelenskyy I say, "You've got to be kidding. After what you did to our country? Fuck that. You and any future Russian nationalists cannot be trusted."

  7. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm not sure what you're saying here,
    If the West, meaning mostly the U.S., ends up paying to rebuild Uk there's a good chance we would want to guarantee we don't have to again. Ergo, NATO membership for Uk..
    Alright, I was essentially right in my guess then.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    but it -seems- that you are suggesting that the only nation that would have issues with Ukraine joining NATO is Turkey.
    They seem to have issues with Finland and Sweden. They're a bit of an outlier in NATO.
    They definitely have issues with Finland and Sweden. Also agreed that they're an outlier in NATO. What I'm getting at, however, is that I doubt they'd be the only ones who'd have issues with Ukraine joining NATO. There's a reason that Ukraine has been on the "at some point" list for some time now.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    At this point, even the -U.S.- is saying that Ukraine joining NATO isn't currently in the cards.
    Of course not. At this point. Uk is involved in a war that NATO does not want to enter into directly.
    So long as Ukraine presents itself as hostile to Russian interests in the region, I can't imagine Russia rolling over and officially allowing Ukraine to enter NATO. I say officially because in point of fact, Ukraine is already getting a massive amoung of aid from NATO.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I firmly believe that this war will go down as yet another blunder on the part of the U.S. and NATO, akin to Germany's blunders in WWII.
    It's already a blunder for Russia no matter how justified you think they were to invade.
    That's a position that you haven't presented any evidence for. I, on the other hand, presented plenty for my opposing view that it's the U.S. and NATO have been doing the blundering in Post #40. You say it's not in the scope of this thread, but it's certainly in the scope of determining whether Russia had legitimate reasons for starting its military operation in Ukraine.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    I wonder if Putin and his nationalist yes men could have foreseen the mess they've gotten themselves in , would they have invaded anyway.
    I would be very surprised if Putin were to regret his decision to start his military operation in Ukraine. It's not like he didn't spend 8 years trying to resolve the Ukrainian problem diplomatically. I -do- believe he was mistaken in conscripting soldiers, but I think that pales in comparison to just letting Ukraine massacre yet more eastern Ukrainians, many of whom are ethnic Russians or Russian speakers in a renewed assault on the Donbass republics.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    The only thing I'm not sure of is when historians will agree on this.
    History is written by the victors.
    Yes, and I strongly believe that Russia will come out of this victorious, if anyone does. What concerns me is just how high a toll the U.S. is willing to pay to try to avert that victory. The higher a toll they pay, the worse it'll be for the entire world.

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    We're in agreement. If Ukraine were to say "Alright, let's stop fighting and just keep the lands we currently have", I think the conflict might be able to end tomorrow.
    Maybe. But there's more. Russian would want guarantees that Uk does not join NATO. If I were Zelenskyy I say, "You've got to be kidding. After what you did to our country? Fuck that. You and any future Russian nationalists cannot be trusted."
    It's Ukraine that has betrayed their word time and again, starting with the first Minsk accord and continuing with the second. In an ideal world, Zelensky would have fulfilled his peace mandate back in 2019. Unfortunately, he decided to side with the right wing nationalists. It's understandable, his very life had been threatened by them, but it's part of the road that led to where we are now. Another piece that he played a part in was starting a renewed assault on the Donbass republics mere days before Putin finally decided that diplomacy was not working in Donbass and the only way to truly protect them was to start a military operation against the Ukrainian military.

  8. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    3,810
    Thanks
    1,941
    Thanked 1,026 Times in 827 Posts
    Groans
    69
    Groaned 117 Times in 112 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Russia seems to be holding its own with conventional weapons for the time being. And there are certainly some military analysts who believe that they'll be able to continue taking Ukraine territory if Ukraine doesn't sue for peace in the near future. Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, said precisely this in an interview with The Real News network earlier this month:


    I finally got a chance to hear/see the entire video.
    Before?
    I just glanced at the transcript.

    1) I appreciate you posting it. He seems a very interesting guy. He certainly is not spewing forth the same nonsense as NATO and the MSM.
    2) I learned a fair bit about things non-related to Ukraine. Especially the 'Dark Eagle', long range, hypersonic missile America has developed.
    3) However, the only part that I disagreed with him on was his TOTAL confidence in Russia winning the war in Ukraine.


    Now, I am not saying Russia cannot win.
    But from the data I have seen - I don't see it (unless the West stops supporting Ukraine).

    Here are the (supposed) military losses in equipment for both sides in Ukraine:
    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...ukrainian.html
    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html

    Using MBT's as an example:
    Russia has lost/had captured 1,383 MBT's so far.
    Ukraine - 341 so far.
    That is over 4:1.

    Russia's yearly, military expenditure is (supposedly) $65.8 billion (in 2021).
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ran...tary-spending/

    In only 9 months this year - the West has given Ukraine over $96 billion in aid.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...er_for_Ukraine
    Now even if only 2/3 of that is weapons and cash (so Kiev can by more weapons)? That is still about $60 billion in only 9 months.
    Over 12 months, that is over $75 billion.
    And that does not include the money, Ukraine itself spends on it's military.
    Plus - Russia's economy has to be weaker now then it was before the war (thanks to huge, western sanctions).

    Simple, economic reality.
    If things keep going as they are?
    Russia cannot keep up with Ukraine/NATO in terms of total, military spending.

    So I do not see what Scott Ritter is talking about.

    I could be wrong.
    But since he provided no sources of data for us to examine?
    Based on the data available?
    If the world keeps pouring arms/money into Ukraine at it's present rate?
    I cannot see how Russia can hold onto Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.


    BTW, Ritter also stated that Russia would not use nukes unless Russia itself was threatened.


    So, based on these numbers and if the world keeps pouring 'stuff' into Ukraine?
    I personally, do not believe that Russia can hold onto Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.


    But - he is an expert.
    I am not.

    Anyway, I enjoyed the video and thanks for posting it.
    Last edited by McRocket; 11-23-2022 at 07:54 AM.

  9. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Russia seems to be holding its own with conventional weapons for the time being. And there are certainly some military analysts who believe that they'll be able to continue taking Ukraine territory if Ukraine doesn't sue for peace in the near future. Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, said precisely this in an interview with The Real News network earlier this month:


    I finally got a chance to hear/see the entire video.
    Before?
    I just glanced at the transcript.

    1) I appreciate you posting it. He seems a very interesting guy. He certainly is not spewing forth the same nonsense as NATO and the MSM.
    That's for sure, lol :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    2) I learned a fair bit about things non-related to Ukraine. Especially the 'Dark Eagle', long range, hypersonic missile America has developed.
    3) However, the only part that I disagreed with him on was his TOTAL confidence in Russia winning the war in Ukraine.


    Now, I am not saying Russia cannot win.
    But from the data I have seen - I don't see it (unless the West stops supporting Ukraine).

    Here are the (supposed) military losses in equipment for both sides in Ukraine:
    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...ukrainian.html
    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html

    Using MBT's as an example:
    Russia has lost/had captured 1,383 MBT's so far.
    Ukraine - 341 so far.
    That is over 4:1.
    I'm going to assume that by MBT, you mean Main Battle Tank. I took a look at your links. They have no "main battle tank" listing, it simply has a listing for tanks lost. For Ukraine, it says that they lost 370 tanks, while Russia's says they lost 1,503 tanks. Perhaps they've lost some more since last you looked at the links, or perhaps not all of those are "main" battle tanks. Regardless, the most important number there is not how many tanks they lost, but how many they have left in reserve, fully fueled and ready to go. I don't see that number in either case. Are they there somewhere? I strongly suspect that Russia still has a lot more left in reserve than Ukraine does, and that's despite all the military aid Ukraine's been receiving from NATO.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Russia's yearly, military expenditure is (supposedly) $65.8 billion (in 2021).
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ran...tary-spending/

    In only 9 months this year - the West has given Ukraine over $96 billion in aid.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...er_for_Ukraine
    Now even if only 2/3 of that is weapons and cash (so Kiev can by more weapons)? That is still about $60 billion in only 9 months.
    First of all, it appears that this amount is more like promised aid, not aid that has been fully delivered yet. Second of all, ev en if it were all allegedly delivered, you may be aware that CBS did a story documentary wherein they found that only around 30% of weapons aid makes it to front Ukrainian front lines. The powers that be quashed the story, but it's still available on Bitchute. News Punch did a story on it:
    CBS Quietly Deletes Own Film Exposing How Only 30% of U.S. Weapons Aid for Ukraine Makes It to Front Lines | News Punch

    This would slash that $96 billion in aid to less than $30 billion. The second important thing is, is that equipment being used wisely or is it being used recklessly? Based on what Mr. Ritter has said about much of it being burned up already, I'm guessing it's being used recklessly. Furthermore, only listing Russia's military budget for 2021 is misleading- I'm fairly sure they're using a lot more equipment than was paid for in 2021.


    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Over 12 months, that is over $75 billion.
    And that does not include the money, Ukraine itself spends on it's military.
    I think we can agree that what's most important is not what a country spends on its military, but how much military equipment they currently have at hand, and perhaps most important, how wisely they are using it.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Plus - Russia's economy has to be weaker now than it was before the war (thanks to huge, western sanctions).
    Not nearly as weak as you seem to think:
    It’s no surprise Russia is weathering the West’s sanctions: Putin has been preparing for them for nearly a decade | Business Insider

    Europe, on the other hand, is not nearly as prepared for the consequences of said sanctions:
    How Europe’s Energy Crisis Could Turn Into A Food Crisis | oilprice.com


    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    If things keep going as they are?
    Russia cannot keep up with Ukraine/NATO in terms of total, military spending.
    That bit about "things going as they are" is important. I don't think that'll be the case. Furthermore, Ukraine needs more than military aid to keep going. Here's a problem it currently has:
    Russia has crippled half of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and this winter ‘will be about survival,’ top WHO official says | Business Insider


    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    If the world keeps pouring arms/money into Ukraine at it's present rate?
    I cannot see how Russia can hold onto Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
    As I imagine you know, Russia left Kherson city and evacuated a good portion of its population as well. This doesn't mean they won't come back for it in the not too distant future, perhaps in the spring, but I think that Russia knows that it can play the long game here, and that Ukraine is running out of time. To quote a saying from the Game of Thrones TV series, "Winter is coming."

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    BTW, Ritter also stated that Russia would not use nukes unless Russia itself was threatened.
    Yes, but please remember that Russia now considers the 4 regions it annexed as part of Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    So, based on these numbers and if the world keeps pouring 'stuff' into Ukraine?
    I personally, do not believe that Russia can hold onto Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.


    But - he is an expert.
    I am not.
    Well, I certainly agree that having articles backing up his points would have been nice. Hopefully the articles I provided can further the aims of this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Anyway, I enjoyed the video and thanks for posting it.
    You're welcome :-). I fully admit that I'm not completely sure how this war will turn out, but I seriously doubt that Russia will be relenquishing any more of the land its has required, barring a massive Ukrainian offensive with corresponding massive Ukrainian losses, a nuclear war, or a negotiated settlement wherein Russia agrees to give up a token amount in exchange for an end to the war.
    Last edited by Phoenyx; 11-23-2022 at 08:29 AM.

  10. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    3,810
    Thanks
    1,941
    Thanked 1,026 Times in 827 Posts
    Groans
    69
    Groaned 117 Times in 112 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm going to assume that by MBT, you mean Main Battle Tank. I took a look at your links. They have no "main battle tank" listing, it simply has a listing for tanks lost. For Ukraine, it says that they lost 370 tanks, while Russia's says they lost 1,503 tanks. Perhaps they've lost some more since last you looked at the links, or perhaps not all of those are "main" battle tanks. Regardless, the most important number there is not how many tanks they lost, but how many they have left in reserve, fully fueled and ready to go. I don't see that number in either case. Are they there somewhere? I strongly suspect that Russia still has a lot more left in reserve than Ukraine does, and that's despite all the military aid Ukraine's been receiving from NATO.
    Yes, MBT is Main Battle Tanks.
    Sorry - I thought that was obvious.
    My mistake.

    And Russia's tank reserves are inferior to the tanks they already lost.

    America and Germany alone have 3,450 M1's and 2,500 Leopard 2's, respectively, in storage.
    Almost all of which are FAR superior to the semi-garbage T-62's, 7,000 lousy/decent-at-best T-72's and 3,000 okay-at-best T-80's the Russians have in reserve.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Ground_Forces
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ite_note-:1-52
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...he_German_Army

    Plus, Russia is losing MBT's at a present rate of approximately 2,000/year.
    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html
    That is NOT sustainable, long term.
    And with a crumbling economy - they cannot afford to build many more.

    Whereas almost all the tanks Ukraine lost were of Russian origin - i.e. not very good.
    And they were only losing those at a 1:4 rate to Russian losses as is.
    Almost anything the West could provide would be an upgrade.
    And the western economy - even at present - is MILES better and larger than Russia's.
    They can out build Russia by HUGE amounts.

    In addition, the West is giving Ukraine, INCREDIBLE intelligence data.

    'But in addition to the weapons comes the intelligence and western control of the skies.

    NATO spy planes they fly over the Black Sea continuously. There they have access to electronic and magnetic data of the Russian forces. These data, together with those obtained from Western surveillance satellites, are made available to the Ukrainians so they can see what is happening on the ground in almost real time.'

    https://yokad.com/war-in-ukraine-wea...an-withdrawal/

    I just grabbed the above link. Not sure of it's bias.
    But it is common knowledge that NATO knows every movement Russia makes.
    Yet, Russia is largely blind to the reverse.
    Apparently, their spy satellites over Ukraine are being jammed/degraded (though I cannot prove this).
    But, I believe it is also common knowledge that the West is far superior technologically than Russia is.

    Russia alone CANNOT win a war of attrition so long as the West is 'all in' to help Ukraine.
    It is statistically impossible.



    First of all, it appears that this amount is more like promised aid, not aid that has been fully delivered yet.
    You are guessing. Please post data/facts from unbiased sources as anything else means little to me.

    Second of all, ev en if it were all allegedly delivered, you may be aware that CBS did a story documentary wherein they found that only around 30% of weapons aid makes it to front Ukrainian front lines. The powers that be quashed the story, but it's still available on Bitchute. News Punch did a story on it:
    CBS Quietly Deletes Own Film Exposing How Only 30% of U.S. Weapons Aid for Ukraine Makes It to Front Lines | News Punch

    This would slash that $96 billion in aid to less than $30 billion. The second important thing is, is that equipment being used wisely or is it being used recklessly? Based on what Mr. Ritter has said about much of it being burned up already, I'm guessing it's being used recklessly. Furthermore, only listing Russia's military budget for 2021 is misleading- I'm fairly sure they're using a lot more equipment than was paid for in 2021.
    I am not REMOTELY interested in any guesses or opinions...especially from the staggeringly biased, western MSM.
    Whether the report was quashed or not.
    I am ONLY INTERESTED IN FACTS/DATA from unbiased sources.


    I think we can agree that what's most important is not what a country spends on its military, but how much military equipment they currently have at hand, and perhaps most important, how wisely they are using it.
    Again...you are guessing. Where is the hard data, please?


    From your own link: 'Russia's economy is expected to shrink 8.5% in 2022, with a further decline of 2.3% in 2023, the International Monetary Fund projected in an April report. That would be the economy's largest decline since the years following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.'

    A GDP drop of 8.5% is HUGE.
    That is almost - be definition - a depression.
    Not a 'recession'.
    A 'depression'.
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/depression.asp

    The Russian economy is suffering MASSIVELY with a recession, FAR larger than the Great Recession was.


    That bit about "things going as they are" is important. I don't think that'll be the case. Furthermore, Ukraine needs more than military aid to keep going. Here's a problem it currently has:
    Russia has crippled half of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and this winter ‘will be about survival,’ top WHO official says | Business Insider
    Are you seriously suggesting that Ukraine will surrender out of economic hardship?
    Never in military history has that EVER happened (to my knowledge).
    All hardship does is make the masses hate the enemy more.
    And make them just that much more determined to keep going.

    On the other hand, how long do you think the Russian people will put up with massive, economic retraction and (eventually - standard of living)?
    Let alone the tens of thousands of their soldiers dying per year?
    For territories (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia) that I bet - though cannot prove - most Russians don't give a shit about?
    (note - this is not a guess...it is a question)


    As I imagine you know, Russia left Kherson city and evacuated a good portion of its population as well. This doesn't mean they won't come back for it in the not too distant future, perhaps in the spring, but I think that Russia knows that it can play the long game here, and that Ukraine is running out of time. To quote a saying from the Game of Thrones TV series, "Winter is coming."
    You are guessing again.
    Without any hard facts or data to back it up.

    And I heard nothing about much of the population leaving Kherson. Just the Russian troops.
    Why would Kherson residents leave their own homes to live as nomads with retreating, Russian troops?

    Yes, but please remember that Russia now considers the 4 regions it annexed as part of Russia.
    Again...you are guessing. All we know for certain is Putin says they are now part of Russia. Until you can find respected polling services, confirming that the vast majority of Russians feel that way...what Putin says means little.


    You're welcome :-). I fully admit that I'm not completely sure how this war will turn out, but I seriously doubt that Russia will be relenquishing any more of the land its has required, barring a massive Ukrainian offensive with corresponding massive Ukrainian losses, a nuclear war, or a negotiated settlement wherein Russia agrees to give up a token amount in exchange for an end to the war.
    You seem a decent fellow.
    And quite, well read.

    But you seem to - imo - put too much stock in opinions.
    And not enough in hard evidence.

    And please, confine your arguments with me on this to facts and data from unbiased sources.
    Otherwise I won't continue with this discussion.
    No offense intended.

    I want data/facts that I can learn from.

    Not running around and around with you saying your opinion and me saying mine.
    That is almost pointless, to me.
    Last edited by McRocket; 11-24-2022 at 03:53 AM.

  11. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm going to assume that by MBT, you mean Main Battle Tank. I took a look at your links. They have no "main battle tank" listing, it simply has a listing for tanks lost. For Ukraine, it says that they lost 370 tanks, while Russia's says they lost 1,503 tanks. Perhaps they've lost some more since last you looked at the links, or perhaps not all of those are "main" battle tanks. Regardless, the most important number there is not how many tanks they lost, but how many they have left in reserve, fully fueled and ready to go. I don't see that number in either case. Are they there somewhere? I strongly suspect that Russia still has a lot more left in reserve than Ukraine does, and that's despite all the military aid Ukraine's been receiving from NATO.
    Yes, MBT is Main Battle Tanks.
    Sorry - I thought that was obvious.
    My mistake.

    And Russia's tank reserves are inferior to the tanks they already lost.
    I'll take your word for it, but I'm guessing they're still a lot larger than Ukraine's remainder. Do you have any idea as to the current remainder of either force?

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    America and Germany alone have 3,450 M1's and 2,500 Leopard 2's, respectively, in storage.
    Almost all of which are FAR superior to the semi-garbage T-62's, 7,000 lousy/decent-at-best T-72's and 3,000 okay-at-best T-80's the Russians have in reserve.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Ground_Forces
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ite_note-:1-52
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...he_German_Army
    How many tanks did Afghanistan's Taliban have when the U.S. left in a rush last year?

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Plus, Russia is losing MBT's at a present rate of approximately 2,000/year.
    https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/0...equipment.html
    That is NOT sustainable, long term.
    And with a crumbling economy - they cannot afford to build many more.
    From what I've seen, Russia's crunch pales in comparison to Europe's.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Whereas almost all the tanks Ukraine lost were of Russian origin - i.e. not very good.
    And they were only losing those at a 1:4 rate to Russian losses as is.
    What I'm curious on here is when Russia lost most of its tanks. I'm guessing they lost most near the start of the war, when Russia apparently thought they could take Kyiv. What I'm getting at is that I strongly suspect that Russia is being a lot more careful with its tanks now.


    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Almost anything the West could provide would be an upgrade.
    And the western economy - even at present - is MILES better and larger than Russia's.
    They can out build Russia by HUGE amounts.
    If we're factoring in the U.S., sure, but it really becomes an issue of, do western -people- want to be doing this? From what I've seen, average western citizens are getting increasingly tired of funding a war that does little if anything to further their own interests. The only true beneficiary here that I can see is the military industrial complex.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    In addition, the West is giving Ukraine, INCREDIBLE intelligence data.

    But in addition to the weapons comes the intelligence and western control of the skies.
    The west doesn't control the skies, despite Zelensky's numerous pleas for them to do just that. The only way to do that would be for the west to engage in a hot war with Russia, not the warm one they're currently engaging in. Fortunately for everyone, they haven't been so reckless as of yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    NATO spy planes they fly over the Black Sea continuously. There they have access to electronic and magnetic data of the Russian forces. These data, together with those obtained from Western surveillance satellites, are made available to the Ukrainians so they can see what is happening on the ground in almost real time.'
    https://yokad.com/war-in-ukraine-wea...an-withdrawal/

    I just grabbed the above link. Not sure of it's bias.
    But it is common knowledge that NATO knows every movement Russia makes.
    Yet, Russia is largely blind to the reverse.
    Apparently, their spy satellites over Ukraine are being jammed/degraded (though I cannot prove this).
    But, I believe it is also common knowledge that the West is far superior technologically than Russia is.
    I'm sure the U.S. was far superior technologically in Afghanistan as well. They still left in quite the rush last year. Hearts and minds are key here.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Russia alone CANNOT win a war of attrition so long as the West is 'all in' to help Ukraine.
    It is statistically impossible.
    Perhaps. But the west can't win in eastern Ukraine either. I believe that diplomacy is the only real way out of this war, just like the U.S. couldn't win in Afghanistan after billions of dollars and 20 years.

  12. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Russia's yearly, military expenditure is (supposedly) $65.8 billion (in 2021).
    https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ran...tary-spending/

    In only 9 months this year - the West has given Ukraine over $96 billion in aid.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...er_for_Ukraine
    Now even if only 2/3 of that is weapons and cash (so Kiev can by more weapons)? That is still about $60 billion in only 9 months.
    First of all, it appears that this amount is more like promised aid, not aid that has been fully delivered yet.
    You are guessing. Please post data/facts from unbiased sources as anything else means little to me.
    I'm going from the Wikipedia linked article that you yourself provided above. If you take a look at the actual aid provided, you'll see that a lot of the promised aid doesn't specify if it's actually been delivered yet. Perhaps more importantly, a lot of the aid isn't actually military in nature. Furthermore, a significant chunk of the 93.8 billion Euros in aid is financial and humanitarian.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Second of all, even if it were all allegedly delivered, you may be aware that CBS did a story documentary wherein they found that only around 30% of weapons aid makes it to front Ukrainian front lines. The powers that be quashed the story, but it's still available on Bitchute. News Punch did a story on it:
    CBS Quietly Deletes Own Film Exposing How Only 30% of U.S. Weapons Aid for Ukraine Makes It to Front Lines | News Punch

    This would slash that $96 billion in aid to less than $30 billion. The second important thing is, is that equipment being used wisely or is it being used recklessly? Based on what Mr. Ritter has said about much of it being burned up already, I'm guessing it's being used recklessly. Furthermore, only listing Russia's military budget for 2021 is misleading- I'm fairly sure they're using a lot more equipment than was paid for in 2021.
    I am not REMOTELY interested in any guesses or opinions...especially from the staggeringly biased, western MSM.
    Whether the report was quashed or not.
    I am ONLY INTERESTED IN FACTS/DATA from unbiased sources.
    Are you suggesting that CBS is biased in favour of Russia? Their documentary certainly wasn't. What you might wish to consider is why CBS deleted the documentary form their website. The article I linked to speaks a bit about that:

    **
    The full film, which was produced by CBS’s Alex Pena and is now deleted from their website, was remarkable in how despite it being totally biased against Russia they nonetheless highlighted how our endless billions in aid was being dumped into a black hole.

    “Flooding a country with advanced weapons can have grave consequences, even when done with the best of intentions,” CBS’s description read. “This CBS Reports documentary goes inside Ukraine to get a firsthand look at how military aid gets from the border to frontline soldiers, and explores the difficulties of getting the aid to the fighters who need it.”

    After CBS’s report went viral, orders appear to have come down from the top to have the film censored.

    “We removed a tweet promoting our recent doc, “Arming Ukraine,” which quoted the founder of the nonprofit Blue-Yellow, Jonas Ohman’s assessment in late April that only around 30% of aid was reaching the front lines in Ukraine,” CBS News said on Sunday night.

    **

    Source:
    CBS Quietly Deletes Own Film Exposing How Only 30% of U.S. Weapons Aid for Ukraine Makes It to Front Lines | newspunch.com


    Now, the article immediately goes on to say that Ohman now says that delivery has improved, but there is no mention of how much he believes it has supposedly improved, never mind why he's come to that new assessment.

  13. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I think we can agree that what's most important is not what a country spends on its military, but how much military equipment they currently have at hand, and perhaps most important, how wisely they are using it.
    Again...you are guessing. Where is the hard data, please?
    I admit I didn't think you'd question the reasoning I laid out above. Tell me, why do you believe the U.S. left Afghanistan in a hurry last year?

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    From your own link: 'Russia's economy is expected to shrink 8.5% in 2022, with a further decline of 2.3% in 2023, the International Monetary Fund projected in an April report. That would be the economy's largest decline since the years following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.'

    A GDP drop of 8.5% is HUGE.
    That is almost - be definition - a depression.
    Not a 'recession'.
    A 'depression'.
    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/depression.asp

    The Russian economy is suffering MASSIVELY with a recession, FAR larger than the Great Recession was.
    You are confusing predictions with reality. The Business Insider article I linked to and that you quoted was from the middle of June. An article posted Tuesday brings us up to speed as to what actually happened:

    **
    Yet the Russian economy has proved quite resilient to war and sanctions. In April and May most forecasters expected Russia’s GDP in 2022 to fall by 7−8 percent, while some predicted a 12−15 percent fall. Investments were expected to go down by 25−28 percent and retail trade by 8−9 percent, while prices were expected to rise by 20−25 percent. Russia's GDP grew 4.7 percent in 2021, and this was another argument for a sharp recession owing to a high base effect.

    However, things turned out differently. The sharp decline in imports, bans on foreign currency exports, and a requirement for exporters to sell foreign currency earnings led to a sharp appreciation of the ruble, while state aid to banks and companies enabled them to keep up investment levels. Sanctions against Russian exports, extremely important in the medium and long term, proved ineffective in the short term because high energy prices continued to fill the state’s coffers.

    According to the most balanced forecasts, the GDP decline in 2022 will be only 3.3−3.4 percent, inflation will level off at about 12 percent, investment will fall by about 1 percent, and the population’s real income will decline by 2−2.5 percent. Only the estimated decline in retail trade is close to the spring forecasts, 6%.

    Industry in 2022 avoided a recession with the rapid growth in arms manufacturing. Since the beginning of 2021, according to an estimate by an economic think tank close to the Russian government, the share of weapons of undisclosed value in Russia’s industrial output has increased. Previously rarely exceeding 1−2 percent of all industrial production, the output of military goods has increased in 2022 to 4−5 percent of all production. In wartime, the army needs more tanks, missiles, and shells. Military production helps the GDP but has only a negative impact on the population’s economic well-being.

    Still, Russian industry as a whole will finish 2022 without a recession. Construction and investment will also continue to grow. At the same time, private investments are gradually being replaced by state investments and peaceful investments by military ones.

    **

    Source:
    Russia’s Economy at the End of 2022: Deeper Troubles | wilsoncenter.org

  14. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    That bit about "things going as they are" is important. I don't think that'll be the case. Furthermore, Ukraine needs more than military aid to keep going. Here's a problem it currently has:
    Russia has crippled half of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and this winter ‘will be about survival,’ top WHO official says | Business Insider
    Are you seriously suggesting that Ukraine will surrender out of economic hardship?
    Never in military history has that EVER happened (to my knowledge).
    All hardship does is make the masses hate the enemy more.
    And make them just that much more determined to keep going.

    On the other hand, how long do you think the Russian people will put up with massive, economic retraction and (eventually - standard of living)?
    Let alone the tens of thousands of their soldiers dying per year?
    For territories (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia) that I bet - though cannot prove - most Russians don't give a shit about?
    (note - this is not a guess...it is a question)
    I've already shown that the dire predictions made by economists concerning Russia's economic prospects this year were far less dire than predicted. But I find it curious that while you thought this would affect things greatly in Russia, you seem to think it will have no effect on Ukraine. Currently, I'd say that the -only- reason that Ukraine is continuing its war with such aplomb is because of the massive financial aid it's being supplied with by the west, with the U.S. leading the charge. As for the average Russian citizen's concern for Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, I also don't know. However, the fact that both houses of Russian parliament voted unanimously to approve the annexations makes it clear that those in power are strong supporters of the decision.

    Sources:
    Russian Duma approves annexations of Ukraine territories | laprensalatina.com

    Russia’s parliament approves annexation of Ukraine’s regions | dailypost.ng

  15. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    403
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 84 Times in 73 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 2 Times in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    As I imagine you know, Russia left Kherson city and evacuated a good portion of its population as well. This doesn't mean they won't come back for it in the not too distant future, perhaps in the spring, but I think that Russia knows that it can play the long game here, and that Ukraine is running out of time. To quote a saying from the Game of Thrones TV series, "Winter is coming."
    You are guessing again.
    Without any hard facts or data to back it up.

    And I heard nothing about much of the population leaving Kherson. Just the Russian troops.
    Why would Kherson residents leave their own homes to live as nomads with retreating, Russian troops?
    Russia's partial evacuation of Kherson city was covered by the mainstream western media back in October:
    Russia moves civilians out of key Ukrainian city as Putin's military signals a new setback | NBC News

    Now that Ukraine has taken control of it again, they are beginning to do the same:
    Residents start evacuating Kherson as officials warn of harsh winter and Russian shelling | CNN

    What I find interesting is the numbers. The NBC News article mentions that Russia evacuated 60,000 civilians. So far, Ukraine has only evacuated 100. Why the discrepancy? One possible answer is that Kherson civilians preferred evacuating to Russia controlled territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Yes, but please remember that Russia now considers the 4 regions it annexed as part of Russia.
    Again...you are guessing.
    No, that's not a guess, that's fact. When the U.S. government annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845 after the Republic of Texas voted to join the U.S. after a referendum, I doubt anyone was asking what the average American thought of the decision. The U.S. government had already made its decision, and the Russian government has made its decision as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    All we know for certain is Putin says they are now part of Russia. Until you can find respected polling services, confirming that the vast majority of Russians feel that way...what Putin says means little.
    I haven't seen Putin make a single decision in this war that wasn't backed by various people in positions of power. In the case of Russia's 4 Ukraine region annexations, they were backed unanimously by every single member of Russia's lower and uppper houses of Parliament in Russia. That isn't to say that I wouldn't appreciate knowing what average Russian citizens think, but Russia's elected politicians are completely united on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by McRocket View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    You're welcome :-). I fully admit that I'm not completely sure how this war will turn out, but I seriously doubt that Russia will be relenquishing any more of the land its has required, barring a massive Ukrainian offensive with corresponding massive Ukrainian losses, a nuclear war, or a negotiated settlement wherein Russia agrees to give up a token amount in exchange for an end to the war.
    You seem a decent fellow.
    And quite, well read.

    But you seem to - imo - put too much stock in opinions.
    And not enough in hard evidence.

    And please, confine your arguments with me on this to facts and data from unbiased sources.
    Otherwise I won't continue with this discussion.
    No offense intended.

    I want data/facts that I can learn from.

    Not running around and around with you saying your opinion and me saying mine.
    That is almost pointless, to me.
    I bring as much evidence to the table that I can, but there are ofcourse limits to the available evidence. For issues where we aren't sure, we can either ask questions or make educated guesses. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as we make it clear that we aren't completely sure on certain things.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-09-2022, 09:10 AM
  2. Trump had a duty to INSIST Ukraine investigate crimes by americans in Ukraine
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 11-19-2019, 10:16 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-24-2019, 11:25 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-01-2019, 03:32 AM
  5. Nothing unites our political class like the threat of ending our never-ending war
    By Niche Political Commentor in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-23-2018, 10:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •