The Ukraine Crisis

[UNI88]

History proves that Putin can be defeated

Watching Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson was a disturbing experience. Not only did the American come across as a second-rate game-show host, Putin displayed a view of history so distorted it was like listening to an eight-year-old telling you that Narnia definitely can be found at the back of the wardrobe.

Even Putin’s apologists were aghast. No one believed the dictator’s line that “Poland start[ed] the War in 1939.” But it puzzles me that the one bit of the interview that was widely accepted was that “Russia cannot be defeated”.

The past two years have shown Russia’s military can be beaten. While Putin might live in his own Narnia, the international community understands that the Kremlin has already lost.

Putin’s “three day” special operation has already lasted two years. He has lost around 50 per cent of the land he took in February 2022. If you bear in mind Putin initially invaded with around 165,000 men and has now lost well over 300,000, his army is a skeleton of what it once was.

Opinion piece but the author is Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP who served as British Defence Secretary from 2019 to 2023.

[houndawg]

I'm guessing that the source of your butthurt, this time, is Al Smirnov's connection to Russian intelligence? Yeah, you look pretty stupid, but, hey, it can happen to anybody.

As Capn Cat used to say, "boy, go out and study up and report back when you learn something".

Smirnov has nothing to do with artillery casualty ratios, but I now see you aren't bright enough to make that connection.

Your non sequiturs are better than StUnis though, so there is that.

You've been AWOL at the Hunter Biden thread, figured I'd try over here

[SeattleGriz]

How are US sources getting the casualty numbers?

I don't know but I trust them more than numbers provided by russia and/or putin sycophants.

They're pounding the snot out of each other.

The only country that has retained land in this war is Russia. If Russia has been the only one to gain land, how is Newsweek assessing Russian deaths?

Do you think they asked Putin if they could mill around Russian gained territory and tally up the dead?

Hell no. Newsweek, Yahoo and you are parroting a made up narrative that has NO grounds in reality, because they can't gain access to the battlefield.

My 9:1 ratio is based on military history of previous artillery battles.

[SeattleGriz]

As Capn Cat used to say, "boy, go out and study up and report back when you learn something".

Smirnov has nothing to do with artillery casualty ratios, but I now see you aren't bright enough to make that connection.

Your non sequiturs are better than StUnis though, so there is that.

You've been AWOL at the Hunter Biden thread, figured I'd try over here

Hunter Biden.

Wake me up when they say Hunter is a swell guy. Might as well have Durham on the case. Nothing during his father's term will happen to him.

[houndawg]

You've been AWOL at the Hunter Biden thread, figured I'd try over here

Hunter Biden.

Wake me up when they say Hunter is a swell guy. Might as well have Durham on the case. Nothing during his father's term will happen to him.

Thats what happens when you got nuthin

[SeattleGriz]

History proves that Putin can be defeated

Watching Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson was a disturbing experience. Not only did the American come across as a second-rate game-show host, Putin displayed a view of history so distorted it was like listening to an eight-year-old telling you that Narnia definitely can be found at the back of the wardrobe.

Even Putin’s apologists were aghast. No one believed the dictator’s line that “Poland start[ed] the War in 1939.” But it puzzles me that the one bit of the interview that was widely accepted was that “Russia cannot be defeated”.

The past two years have shown Russia’s military can be beaten. While Putin might live in his own Narnia, the international community understands that the Kremlin has already lost.

Putin’s “three day” special operation has already lasted two years. He has lost around 50 per cent of the land he took in February 2022. If you bear in mind Putin initially invaded with around 165,000 men and has now lost well over 300,000, his army is a skeleton of what it once was.

Opinion piece but the author is Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP who served as British Defence Secretary from 2019 to 2023.

You do understand Britain is the worst of the narrative spreaders don't you? They have no capable military, so they resort to disinformation.

Perfect example is The Telegraph. The most conservative news org in Britain and they published stupid shit like this. (Sep 2022 article)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ry-sights/

Putin is finished. The Ukrainians have him on the ropes with a stunning victory in their sights

[SeattleGriz]

Hunter Biden.

Wake me up when they say Hunter is a swell guy. Might as well have Durham on the case. Nothing during his father's term will happen to him.

Thats what happens when you got nuthin

I've said it before. While I'm not happy at the influence peddling in DC, it has been allowed for years by the American public. As much as I think Joes a corrupt old fool, he was only playing the game every other politician was allowed to play.

In regards to the Clinton's, they were smart enough to do their influence peddling with an actual organization devoted to collecting money.

[houndawg]

History proves that Putin can be defeated



Opinion piece but the author is Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP who served as British Defence Secretary from 2019 to 2023.

You do understand Britain is the worst of the narrative spreaders don't you? They have no capable military, so they resort to disinformation.

Perfect example is The Telegraph. The most conservative news org in Britain and they published stupid shit like this. (Sep 2022 article)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ry-sights/

Putin is finished. The Ukrainians have him on the ropes with a stunning victory in their sights

Being a laughingstock seems to be not sitting well with you - I'm surprised given the amount of practice you've been getting.

[UNI88]

I don't know but I trust them more than numbers provided by russia and/or putin sycophants.

They're pounding the snot out of each other.

The only country that has retained land in this war is Russia. If Russia has been the only one to gain land, how is Newsweek assessing Russian deaths?

Do you think they asked Putin if they could mill around Russian gained territory and tally up the dead?

Hell no. Newsweek, Yahoo and you are parroting a made up narrative that has NO grounds in reality, because they can't gain access to the battlefield.

My 9:1 ratio is based on military history of previous artillery battles.

Thank you Mr. Sycophant.

Your 9:1 ratio seems overly simplistic. Is it based solely on artillery advantage or does it include other factors like:
- Control of the airspace. I would guess that the country with the superior artillery typically controls the airspace
- The impact of new technology like drones.

I'm sure I'm missing other important factors but I don't think the russian artillery advantage is overcoming their other issues enough for a 9:1 ratio.

Take away your artillery advantage 9:1 ratio and how are you determining that russia is pounding the snot out of Ukraine? Let's see some links to your sources. You like to summarily dismiss sources that you disagree with but are reluctant to put your own sources out there for review and criticism. Why is that?

[SeattleGriz]

The only country that has retained land in this war is Russia. If Russia has been the only one to gain land, how is Newsweek assessing Russian deaths?

Do you think they asked Putin if they could mill around Russian gained territory and tally up the dead?

Hell no. Newsweek, Yahoo and you are parroting a made up narrative that has NO grounds in reality, because they can't gain access to the battlefield.

My 9:1 ratio is based on military history of previous artillery battles.

Thank you Mr. Sycophant.

Your 9:1 ratio seems overly simplistic. Is it based solely on artillery advantage or does it include other factors like:
- Control of the airspace. I would guess that the country with the superior artillery typically controls the airspace
- The impact of new technology like drones.

I'm sure I'm missing other important factors but I don't think the russian artillery advantage is overcoming their other issues enough for a 9:1 ratio.

Take away your artillery advantage 9:1 ratio and how are you determining that russia is pounding the snot out of Ukraine? Let's see some links to your sources. You like to summarily dismiss sources that you disagree with but are reluctant to put your own sources out there for review and criticism. Why is that?

I covered this previously in this thread. Pay attention son. Russia has a 9:1 advantage in artillery and the advantage of almost endless supplies of inventory. As to urban fighting among the mercenaries, probably close to 1:1, but 70% of this war is artillery.

That works out to around 7:1. Still a huge advantage.

To believe the "experts" from Newsweek and Yahoo as if they had special access to Russian captured land, in which they meticulously inventoried dead Rooskies, stretches incredulity.

[UNI88]

Thank you Mr. Sycophant.

Your 9:1 ratio seems overly simplistic. Is it based solely on artillery advantage or does it include other factors like:
- Control of the airspace. I would guess that the country with the superior artillery typically controls the airspace
- The impact of new technology like drones.

I'm sure I'm missing other important factors but I don't think the russian artillery advantage is overcoming their other issues enough for a 9:1 ratio.

Take away your artillery advantage 9:1 ratio and how are you determining that russia is pounding the snot out of Ukraine? Let's see some links to your sources. You like to summarily dismiss sources that you disagree with but are reluctant to put your own sources out there for review and criticism. Why is that?

I covered this previously in this thread. Pay attention son. Russia has a 9:1 advantage in artillery and the advantage of almost endless supplies of inventory. As to urban fighting among the mercenaries, probably close to 1:1, but 70% of this war is artillery.

That works out to around 7:1. Still a huge advantage.

To believe the "experts" from Newsweek and Yahoo as if they had special access to Russian captured land, in which they meticulously inventoried dead Rooskies, stretches incredulity.

You don't believe any source that you don't agree with unless they have access to the battlefields and are able to count every single dead body? And you want me to believe your estimates based solely on ratios from past wars?

You're ignoring russia's inability to control airspace and the impact of drones and as usual, you didn't provide any links to back up your statements.

The Newsweek article used russian estimates of Ukrainian equipment losses and Ukrainian estimates of russian equipment losses. Not perfect but at least they didn't pull it out of their asshole like MAQA yahoos do.

Yahoo didn't write the article. I've tried to explain to you that they're an aggregator but you're too smitten with putin to get it. They write some of their own stuff but a lot of it is pulled from other sites. That article was from the CBC and written by someone who has been boots on the ground in Afghanistan. It also seems pretty balanced giving russia credit for rebounding faster than expected. You would know that if you had actually read it and not dismissed it out of hand. Maybe you shouldn't accuse others of things that you're guilty of.

[kalm]

History proves that Putin can be defeated



Opinion piece but the author is Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP who served as British Defence Secretary from 2019 to 2023.

You do understand Britain is the worst of the narrative spreaders don't you? They have no capable military, so they resort to disinformation.

Perfect example is The Telegraph. The most conservative news org in Britain and they published stupid shit like this. (Sep 2022 article)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ry-sights/

Putin is finished. The Ukrainians have him on the ropes with a stunning victory in their sights

One of the top 10 militaries in the world has no capability? Who knew?

[houndawg]

You do understand Britain is the worst of the narrative spreaders don't you? They have no capable military, so they resort to disinformation.

Perfect example is The Telegraph. The most conservative news org in Britain and they published stupid shit like this. (Sep 2022 article)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... ry-sights/

One of the top 10 militaries in the world has no capability? Who knew?

Filled with Scots, and you know what a bunch of sissies they are.

[SeattleGriz]

I covered this previously in this thread. Pay attention son. Russia has a 9:1 advantage in artillery and the advantage of almost endless supplies of inventory. As to urban fighting among the mercenaries, probably close to 1:1, but 70% of this war is artillery.

That works out to around 7:1. Still a huge advantage.

To believe the "experts" from Newsweek and Yahoo as if they had special access to Russian captured land, in which they meticulously inventoried dead Rooskies, stretches incredulity.

You don't believe any source that you don't agree with unless they have access to the battlefields and are able to count every single dead body? And you want me to believe your estimates based solely on ratios from past wars?

You're ignoring russia's inability to control airspace and the impact of drones and as usual, you didn't provide any links to back up your statements.

The Newsweek article used russian estimates of Ukrainian equipment losses and Ukrainian estimates of russian equipment losses. Not perfect but at least they didn't pull it out of their asshole like MAQA yahoos do.

Yahoo didn't write the article. I've tried to explain to you that they're an aggregator but you're too smitten with putin to get it. They write some of their own stuff but a lot of it is pulled from other sites. That article was from the CBC and written by someone who has been boots on the ground in Afghanistan. It also seems pretty balanced giving russia credit for rebounding faster than expected. You would know that if you had actually read it and not dismissed it out of hand. Maybe you shouldn't accuse others of things that you're guilty of.

Yes, historical values are more accurate than W media estimating. Remember how Russia was out of missiles. Out of artillery? You choose to accept this same media's estimated death count, just like you accepted the missiles and artillery lies.

And do your own research. I shouldn't have to educate you on everything.

[houndawg]

You don't believe any source that you don't agree with unless they have access to the battlefields and are able to count every single dead body? And you want me to believe your estimates based solely on ratios from past wars?

You're ignoring russia's inability to control airspace and the impact of drones and as usual, you didn't provide any links to back up your statements.

The Newsweek article used russian estimates of Ukrainian equipment losses and Ukrainian estimates of russian equipment losses. Not perfect but at least they didn't pull it out of their asshole like MAQA yahoos do.

Yahoo didn't write the article. I've tried to explain to you that they're an aggregator but you're too smitten with putin to get it. They write some of their own stuff but a lot of it is pulled from other sites. That article was from the CBC and written by someone who has been boots on the ground in Afghanistan. It also seems pretty balanced giving russia credit for rebounding faster than expected. You would know that if you had actually read it and not dismissed it out of hand. Maybe you shouldn't accuse others of things that you're guilty of.

Yes, historical values are more accurate than W media estimating. Remember how Russia was out of missiles. Out of artillery? You choose to accept this same media's estimated death count, just like you accepted the missiles and artillery lies.

And do your own research. I shouldn't have to educate you on everything.

Peevish and bitter is such an unfortunate combination in one so young.

[Caribbean Hen]

60 billion buys Ukraine several more months

And guarantees more deaths and destruction for Hunter to rebuild for Daddy some day

No end or solution in sight

[SeattleGriz]

Yes, historical values are more accurate than W media estimating. Remember how Russia was out of missiles. Out of artillery? You choose to accept this same media's estimated death count, just like you accepted the missiles and artillery lies.

And do your own research. I shouldn't have to educate you on everything.

Peevish and bitter is such an unfortunate combination in one so young.

Your mom is peevish!

[UNI88]

60 billion buys Ukraine several more months

And guarantees more deaths and destruction for Hunter to rebuild for Daddy some day

No end or solution in sight

Tell me - what do you think the end results will be of:
- The US continuing to send aid to Ukraine?
- The US stops sending aid to Ukraine?

Will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why?

[Caribbean Hen]

60 billion buys Ukraine several more months

And guarantees more deaths and destruction for Hunter to rebuild for Daddy some day

No end or solution in sight

Tell me - what do you think the end results will be of:
- The US continuing to send aid to Ukraine?
- The US stops sending aid to Ukraine?

Will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why?

Tell me this

When we say we’re giving 60 billion to the Ukraine, how is that money delivered? Do they actually send cash over there or are they just going into the Central Bank computer and sliding a few decimals?

[SeattleGriz]

Tell me - what do you think the end results will be of:
- The US continuing to send aid to Ukraine?
- The US stops sending aid to Ukraine?

Will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why?

Tell me this

When we say we’re giving 60 billion to the Ukraine, how is that money delivered? Do they actually send cash over there or are they just going into the Central Bank computer and sliding a few decimals?

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

They both love to paint themselves into corners with unfounded statements and then try to change the subject.

[UNI88]

Tell me this

When we say we’re giving 60 billion to the Ukraine, how is that money delivered? Do they actually send cash over there or are they just going into the Central Bank computer and sliding a few decimals?

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

They both love to paint themselves into corners with unfounded statements and then try to change the subject.

I asked my question first. Why don't you and CH answer it and then I'll answer CH's question.

Tell me - what do you think the end results will be of:
- The US continuing to send aid to Ukraine?
- The US stops sending aid to Ukraine?

Will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why.

[Skjellyfetti]

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

Rossiya 1 is state owned propaganda.

[SeattleGriz]

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

Rossiya 1 is state owned propaganda.

Oh my Lord. This is what you have to resort to? No.

[SeattleGriz]

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

They both love to paint themselves into corners with unfounded statements and then try to change the subject.

I asked my question first. Why don't you and CH answer it and then I'll answer CH's question.

Tell me - what do you think the end results will be of:
- The US continuing to send aid to Ukraine?
- The US stops sending aid to Ukraine?

Will there be less death and destruction if the US stops sending aid? If yes, explain why.

I've seen this trick before. You'll never reveal your thinking. There's always a catch with you. Someone has to do something first and then you never uphold your end of the bargain.

[houndawg]

Tell me this

When we say we’re giving 60 billion to the Ukraine, how is that money delivered? Do they actually send cash over there or are they just going into the Central Bank computer and sliding a few decimals?

He'll answer that about as quickly as Klamala answers who in the Russian government said Ukraine would be a three day war, meaning never.

They both love to paint themselves into corners with unfounded statements and then try to change the subject.

Now now, you know very well they were expecting a walkover, you're just being pissy about the metronomic regularity of the all the bitch slaps you're taking and acting out a la BDMBFK. Gotta be a site record, I swear....