How many have left the USA?
Looks like Ukrainians are done dying for “western values”.
The war has gone on for 3+ years, and it still has two participant nations, with “Ukraine’s allies and friends standing with it” nowhere in sight. No western soldiers dying, but Ukrainian soldiers dying, - it’s a demonstration of values too.
Other than that any real war treats fit men as a resource. Such a flight will happen in any country at war with conscription, when its population knows what war is.
A functional military doesn’t do superman shit, it doesn’t have irreplaceable heroes and it doesn’t use smarts. It’s a pipeline. Nobody wants to be fed to it if they can avoid that.
Most of all - those Europeans cheering how they “stand with Ukraine”. But they haven’t been taught to keep their fucking mouth shut about standing with anyone if they are writing comments and that someone is under bombs.
So I thought before 2020 that western values are “if we have the same idea of good, we die for you, you die for us”, even if I wasn’t sure if anyone really shares that, I thought the western public kinda remembers something of that.
Then war in Artsakh happened, and I understood all about western values, western ability to keep their word they chose to give, western honor and what will happen with all that. Just all thieves and cowards, who seem civilized by inertia from robbing half the world. The economic and demographic dynamics show that this won’t happen again.
Well, not only western, but in general, it turned out that for most Russians alliances matter nothing if the other side is some people who “disrespect them” - how nice, yes, so if I don’t like how a Russian talks, I have the right to not pay them for work or deny them, say, a floating jacket when they are drowning … ah, oops, it’s different, “too much honor for some kebab makers” - that was said by a person for all supposedly good in Russia, against Putin and such, about alliance obligations. These people don’t even understand that fulfilling obligations and being decent people is all about their own honor, and if something is “too much honor” for someone, you shouldn’t give your word.
So - for Ukrainians it was naturally easier to believe in some “western values” because the west was seemingly helping them, and saying many nice things.
But I think now they are done with that.
We’ll have a world where all the politics will function after Conrad von Wallenstein’s army, because to restore understanding of honor you should first impress with all the weight upon humanity, in practice and thoroughly, what role honor fulfills.
No model is absolutely precise, and no pyramid of modelling to avoid full cost will rid you of need for real feedback. That works for everything in history.
I expect there’s going to be a severe backlash against the west in Ukraine when the war is over and they realize they’ve just been cynically used as cannon fodder to right Russia.
There already is, it seems. Just people bombing them are not the west.
But yes, in the end result what Putin’s propaganda voices were saying turns out to be correct. Not in case of Ukraine during the war (that’s war propaganda, it’s always crazy), but before it.
I have a pet conspiracy theory, if you wish:
Either they are this inept or they don’t need Ukraine as an equal ally, and see it being weakened as a good outcome. I don’t think a group of nations still making up the world’s economic and technological leadership can be this inept. So Ukraine is seen as an enemy best weakened.
They can’t expect Ukraine to attack them, that would be crazy. Or to ally with their adversaries, it doesn’t have many options. Meaning there’s something brewing with the western nations preparing to piss off a loosely defined group of nations, including Ukraine. Piss off so significantly that weakening it is a good idea.
So the conspiracy theory would be that the west intends to start “WW3: Nuclear drone boogaloo” soon enough. Because their dictatorial, aggressive and in general very bad enemies are not hurrying with this, and are doing just fine winning economically. And the war must start and result in the victory of those most deserving, that is, those with the best global military logistics and the biggest nuclear arsenals.
I don’t think it’s just Ukraine actually. Here’s my take on the whole thing https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/the-us-pivot-to-asia-and-europes
That’s not bad, but might ignore the factors of madness and despair and plain arrogance. Sort of like WWII shouldn’t have started, and shouldn’t have prolonged once it started, and then there were plenty of points where it made sense to stop for all involved.
Many never did so in the first place, they became the LPR & DPR.
Turns out they never wanted to. They were just conscripted under threat of execution.
Why die for western values when you can just cross the border and have them? Why they didn’t cross the border to Belarus?
More Ukrainians have fled to Russia than anywhere else on earth
Actually, a fun fact is that by 2023 more Ukrainians left to Russia than any other country. https://unric.org/en/ukraine-over-6-million-refugees-spread-across-europe/
You greatly misinterpreted the data you’ve shown there though?
in what way?
Were they children being kidnapped by Russia for “re-education”? If so, seems pretty on-point
Do you really believe fewer than 200 children placed in foster care, most of whom have returned home now that the frontline has moved, have any significance on mass migration statistics?
Fewer than 200?
From the first line of the wikipedia entry:
During the Russo-Ukrainian War,[3] Russia has forcibly transferred almost 20,000 Ukrainian children to areas under its control, assigned them Russian citizenship, forcibly adopted them into Russian families, and created obstacles for their reunification with their parents and homeland.[7][8] The United Nations has stated that these deportations constitute war crimes.[8][9] The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for President of Russia Vladimir Putin[10] (who has explicitly supported the forced adoptions, including by enacting legislation to facilitate them)[1] and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova for their alleged involvement.[10]
Sure, you can find Ukrainian media saying almost all children have been abducted, abused and genocided by Russia but they’ve been saying they’re gonna collapse at the hand of a single pilot from week one so I’m gonna need actual evidence.
After years of accusations, Ukraine has produced a list of some 500 children, most of whom were with family in other parts of Europe.
Lol wikipedia is Ukrainian media? Didn’t the Kremlin themselves confirm the numbers?
🤡
Young men
There’s no need to feel down
I said young me- wait where is everyone going?
Young men, there’s no need to feel down
I say young men, they have all left the townI say young man, don’t be such a clown
you don’t
need
to
die
for
natoIt’s fun to B in the R
I C S
Go back! 100,000 landmines demand their legs! Go back! Feed the mines! FEED THE MINES!
two hundred thousand!
Tired: the children yearn for the mines
Wired: the mines yearn for more children
So what happens when Ukraine loses? Are we at war with Russia then?
In such a hypothetical scenario Ukraine becomes part of Russia, and nothing really changes for the rest of the world. Nobody has any obligations to rescue Ukraine. Sure, we can start a war to reclaim Ukraine’s territory, but we’re not going to. Likewise, Putin won’t attack Europe, because Russia can’t afford such a large-scale conflict. Especially one that would likely end with their loss.
Even when Russia gains all of the territory it ever needed to liberate, Ukraine will continue nazification and terrorism after ceasefire, because their western handlers are so desperate to distract from their worthlessness.
Ha. I’m not so sure they would lose.
They’re literally fighting to the last soldier; and the soldiers are either kidnapped into fighting for Ukraine, or fleeing (to Russia more than anywhere else). With or without US military aid, which has been greatly reduced, that’s not a winning combination.
Nobody knows, it’s a surprise!
Do people of Europe actually want war with Russia? Wasn’t there a whole scandal in Romania because of people explicitly not wanting to have war?
if war starts, I can only imagine it’ll be Vietnam/Ukraine all over again, except in proper EU territory this time
I do not want war but I also am not sure what will happen. I feels bad to just let Russia have Ukraine (if it covers to that). Because you know they will not stop there.
Edit: whoever downvoted me is delulu about Russia lmao
Because you know they will not stop there.
Why do you say that? Is this based in any parallel with the history leading up to the Ukraine war or just proximity?
We haven’t even started with the Baltics, baby-cakes
Moldova next because it’s not in NATO. Next Romania with Serbia and Hungary as ally. After that all old Yugoslavia. That can be like 2030 agenda. Many would say that Poland is next but they have big border with Russia, USA military bases and no value other than terrain and Russia have no problem with terrain. It’s easier and more profitable to go just south and gain access to the Mediterranean Sea. That opens up border with Africa with Middle East and cuts down Europe from south Oil and Gas sources.
god i wish they were bringing yugoslavia back
These people seriously think Russia is some prolific yet bumbling Empire, and NATO is the only benevolent force standing in the way of global russification. No evidence or basis in reality, just vibes. I really wish I had whatever they’re smoking.
NATO can’t field an actual war against Russia, NATO countries don’t have the industrial capacity to do so. NATO has big scary tools, but not many of them, and in a protracted war where the industrial power wins Russia would win out. It would be very bloody, long, and NATO would lose, so it’s unlikely that there will be all-out war.
The only actual issue in a confrontation between NATO and Russia is that it’s a conflict between nuclear powers. Whatever the balance in conventional or drone warfare would turn out to be, the fact that either party could, if pushed to desperation, decide they have nothing to lose and might take a chance on the enemy’s retaliation strikes failing: That is the risk of open war between NATO and Russia.
No matter who you’re rooting for, we may all end up losing.
There’s more issue than just that it would be a war between nuclear powers, large-scale conventional warfare is still devastating for all involved groups, but the threat of nuclear war is massive, I agree.
With modern warfare, the only one that wins is the arms dealer, if he can escape the hell his products wreak
☝️
Russia can’t even beat ukraine.
Russia is literally fighting all of NATO here.
🤡
at least you know thy self
They are steadily achieving all of their stated objectives for the SMO. Russia isn’t trying to do a Marvel-style total destruction of Ukraine like you see in hollywood depictions of war.
Their goalposts have moved. Originally they attacked on all fronts including the capital and expected to topple Ukraine within a week.
Russia withdrew from Kyiv because they were fooled into thinking they got a peace deal.
Their goalposts haven’t moved, their strategy was to open with shock and awe and then push for protracted war, taking advantage of surprise. They didn’t expect to topple Ukraine in a week, that’s largely a misquote from the early 2010s.
“steadily” as in… they complete one every couple of years? How long until they’re done? 10-20-30 years? They started this in 2014 and 11 years later they’ve accomplished next to nothing beyond creating a pile of bodies.
If germany took this long to take poland it probably wouldn’t have been world war at all.
I heard something along the lines of: If a snail started crawling at the same time Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The snail would have crossed the polish border by now.
The SMO started in 2022. In 2014, after the western-backed Euromaidan coup, Crimea was annexed but then there were multiple attempts to resolve things peacefully, called the Minsk Agreements, which Kiev broke both times. In 2014, Donetsk and Luhansk seceded from the new far-right led Ukraine, fastforward to 2022 after a decade of fighting and Russia agrees to go in and resolve things by force.
Since 2022, Russia has steadily been gaining more and more territory, and has nearly completely taken the four oblasts they declared as their targets for annexation. Ukraine has slowly but steadily been losing ground, and NATO has proven to be incapable of matching Russian industrial output. Russia isn’t trying to do a Blitzkreig, they are going carefully to fully demillitarize Ukraine and prevent casualties on their own end. They have the industrial capacity to field a protracted war, so they are playing to their advantage.
Russia moved to take Crimea only after the Ukranian govt was couped by the USA, because there’s a Russian naval base on the Crimean peninsula
being surprised by this is like saying the USA wouldn’t invade South Korea (or any of the 100s of states with US bases) if their govt was couped by another government
as always, you’re more patient than I, comrade, I respect you immensely
Yep, when it comes to Russia liberals start thinking about their actions, past, present, and future, in terms of how evil they are, rather than as another country. It’s always too weak yet too strong, always capable of steering foreign elections and taking on all of Europe but also about to collapse, etc. It’s tiring, because after the dust settles the liberal cope will always be that NATO didn’t support Ukraine enough for them to win, which will always be an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
And thanks, I appreciate it comrade!
I read a few articles that said at russias current pace it would take them a hundred years to take Ukraine.
Russia stops at Zaporishia and Dniepro (and Donetsk) if Ukraine wants to keep losing. Kherson, Odessa, Karkiv if Ukraine really insists. They have other territories they are willing to trade to facilitate important liberations without having to destroy what they liberate. At any rate, the pace of Russian advance has increased in last year, and increased again in last months. It is far higher than the 3.5 year average of the SMO.
Because wars are famously always linear, especially battlefronts.
They aren’t trying to take Ukraine, though, and they can progress faster as frontlines are broken through. Pokrovsk, as an example, is currently encircled by Russian forces and will probably be abandoned by Kiev soon, or a large-scale siege will occur.
Whether you’re pro-Ukrainian or not, it’s important to recognize that Ukraine is steadily losing ground and has far less staying power in a protracted war than Russia does. Russia’s advancing slowly and basically forcing a long-term war, which works in their favor.
I think if NATO did go to war with Russia, it knows it has a much larger military and supposedly “better” equipment.
I think they’d try to end it really quickly and either totally devestate russia quickly or take out their industry.
But Israel-iran has showed that not even America has the ability to do an actual war against another industrial power
Operation Barbarossa 2: Surely this time it’ll be like Poland
I think if NATO did go to war with Russia, it knows it has a much larger military and supposedly “better” equipment.
I think they’d try to end it really quickly and either totally devestate russia quickly or take out their industry.
Okay wild fantasies aside, back here in the real world, what’s NATO supposed to actually do? If they try to ‘devastate’ Russia, as in attempt to turn it into Gaza, Russia will 100% nuke the offending countries seriously firing this kind of barrage against them. They’ve been reasonable against Ukraine because Ukraine has hardly been a threat (in fact most Russians would probably say too reasonable), but if a threat they’ve credibly been fearing for decades decided to pull out all the stops, so will they; NATO knows this which is why they weren’t officially in the war this whole time; the best time to be involved was literally day 1, the next best time was day 2, and so on and so forth.
The simple fact is when Ukraine falls, the war is over; you want a country that was willing to risk their safety to get involved in a conflict? You have Yemen, they showed what a country willing to get bombed is willing to do; Euro countries don’t want to get bombed; Let me say that again: Euro countries don’t. want. to. get. bombed. All these countries in Europe had their chance to show how far they were willing to oppose Russia, back when Ukraine had a lot more people to throw in the meat grinder; there’s a lot less Ukrainians now who can and will fight, and Euro forces would have to bear the brunt of the fighting, and if they were willing to do this, they would’ve done it far earlier. Europe. Is. Scared. They won’t join this fight.
When Ukraine falls, the war is over.
Oh yeah was between NATO and Russia is never happening anywhere outside the mashpiratory fantasies of European liberals
I love libs in this thread, some of them are like “Ukraine is winning” and some like “Russia will invade entire Europe”. They gained both takes by following the same propaganda.
By a shifting of rhetorical focus, and so forth
If they had to, then they would try shock and awe. Protracted war wouldn’t work out, whoever has industry holds the cards long-term. Russia would go for stall tactics, I would think.
20th C thinking.
- NATO countries would tool up fairly quickly on a war footing
- strategic advantage is no longer about tanks and artillery, it’s about the next few generations of drones
- dirty tricks haven’t even begun, really
- energy capacity is at this weird turning point of shifting production options and efficiencies, makes predictions harder
- Ukraine’s industrial capacity has changed to a war footing and they now export drones
- a non-democratic Ukraine would be a risk as big as oligarchy Russia
Ukraine is already not a democracy.
NATO countries have hollowed out their industry for the last century, instead preferring to outsource production and plunder the world. Further, ballistic munitions are still useful, as are drones. There’s no realistic scenario where NATO countries can mobilize to full wartime economies, not with industry as hollowed out as it is.
NATO strategy so far has been “hope Russians believe the lies we tell our people to support this war, and further believe that we have always loved Russians and wanted the best for them.” It’s the free world that would resort to absurdly unpopular fascist mandatory drafts instead of high military pay, because western corruption has always been excuses for oligarchist supremacist weapons profits. People don’t care until they are threatened with austerity and conscription.
It’s cute you think the military industrial complex is so weak, or that the near moritorium on long range ballistcs hasn’t been incredibly beneficial to Russia.
In reality, the second money starts pouring into a European war effort, all thoughts of AI will be gone, they’ll be pulling apart gpus for spare silicon for the war machine. That’s profit at an unbelievable scale.
Like this almost feels like cope…
The MIC runs on the profit motive, it’s far more expensive to develop comparable tools than compared to state-run industry, and the west has already holowed out its own industry.
Profit motive doesn’t equal capital investment. Watch how fast the machine moves when profit motive meets profit opportunity. I saw this hollowed out line repeated a whole bunch, your latest mantra?
“There is no industry in Bah Sing Se”
Unfortunately my recently rested and bathed friend, Russia is barely moving a war against a tiny nation getting scraps compared to even 1 day of munitions used killing Palestinians. It’s not even hard to debunk this one, you just sound silly.
Wow, you’re so wrong in this you’re actually getting negative in your hugbox, that’s wild. Guess you can’t win em all.
Russia is steadily achieving their aims, they don’t need to rapidly advance because they aren’t trying to take all of Ukraine. They have the industrial capacity to be steady and thorough. Ukraine is putting up a fight, but can’t actually last for much longer.
Secondly, regarding the profit motive, it will always result in less efficient investment. Industry is hollowed out, and can’t be built overnight. Missiles, drones, etc cost far more to produce in the US than in Russia for comparable results.
Putin RAN to a negotiating table when Trump hinted at Tomahawks being available to Ukraine.
Then immediately backed down when TACO.
Weren’t all these points equally valid when the West actively thrust Ukraine into war, too?
You’re assuming NATO instead maybe cares about the lives of non-Ukrainians in Europe, I wouldn’t rely on that. We are all meat for the MIC profit blender. Winning or losing the war is almost irrelevant, no citizen of the core is safe so long as their deaths might make line go up in the short term.
Ukraine is an attack dog for NATO, and porkie would love to send workers to war, but not if it hurts their bottom line. That’s why they’ve tried to use proxies like Ukraine.
Russia has had its ass kicked with western hand-me-downs. Once they roll out the real kit, the whole thing will be over within days.
You’ll be greeted as liberators?
Well, not YOU personally . . . Chickenhawks saying this crap never seem to make it to the front lines.
And by had its ass kicked you mean defeated everything NATO could throw at it for the past 3 years.
Russia is winning now, and hasn’t fielded the “real kit” either. NATO just does not have the productive capacity to field a long term war. I’m not sure why warmongers like yourself keep thinking there’s going to be a grand turning point, in a decade when we look back on this event I fear the warmongers will say they knew the outcome all along.
the warmongers will say they knew the outcome all along.
Ukraine war was instigated to eliminate nordstream and capture EU to US energy before renewables could take hold. Also sweet weapons profits. Absolutely the theater of it has a predetermined plot ending with Russia winning. The goal was to make that last 10+ years. Any end to any war is a defeat for US energy and weapons profits.
Why do you think NATO would need a long term war to deal with Russia?
There is nothing militarily nato can do. Even if different countries wanted to help more and actually fielded armies, it would be a stalemate. Only a political solution will work.
Because it can’t win a short-term war unless it goes nuclear, and then everyone loses.
And why can’t it win a short-term war?
Because it doesn’t have the power to take down an industrialized nuclear power like Russia in a short term war. I don’t see what you’re imagining here.
That’s a truck load of crap. If the real kit is old Soviet kit then you are right.
No, Russia has tools like Oreshnik that just don’t make sense to use against Ukraine at scale.
So russia just doesnt value the life of their solders or why dont they use the good kit to just win if they have it and its so good? Why are they fine with so many casualties?
why dont they use the good kit to just win
The good kit is nuclear annihilation of US bases in Germany/UK. Russia is accepting theater plot of winning slowly as its economy booms from military production increases. Russia is participating in global corruption by not acting decisively on NATO’s war against it.
Things like Oreshnik don’t make sense to use at scale against Ukraine, as an example, but would be valuable in fighting against NATO countries that are further away. Other tools like the stock of T90s they have are potentially being stockpiled for a later, large-scale offensive after wearing down Ukrainian troops and supplies, or for fighting against a NATO power.
An alternative is asking why the US doesn’t approach Yemen with aircraft carriers, and the answer is because of the economics of war. It’s far too much economic risk to bring your better tools out when cheaper tools are effective.
There’s also the fact that Ukraine publishes inflated numbers of casualties, the real casualty numbers aren’t as high as Kiev reports. I imagine Russia is underplaying it too, which means the real answer is likely somewhere in the middle.
Removed by mod
Not at all, and I don’t think ableism is a substitute for a point. I want the war to end, which means peace talks now and concessions from Ukraine.
Why should they concede anything. They’re a sovereign nation, and owe nothing. The war can end right now by Russia returning back whence it came.
Because they are losing the war. The world does not run on Marvel-logic, Russia isn’t going to stop until their stated goals are met.
Are you serious or joking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
NATO outpower russia 10-1, they would easily win a war against them which is why they are seeking one.
Trashcan for usa military - 10000$
Trashcan for russia military - 10$ maybe?
Therefore we can conclude that russia has ~100x the military production of usa.
NATO doesn’t arm its soldiers with trashcans though
We can assume their weapons will have similar markup, maybe even more.
Don’t assume and look at the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren’t bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?
Like, the claim m352 is making is “the american military spends unreasonable amounts of money on weapons for no benefit, because of how much graft and how many middlepeople exist in the american weapon supply chain”.
And the evidence you use to counter this claim is “the US spends much, much more money on weapons than Russia”. And like, yeah, no kidding the US spends much more on its military than Russia does, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with m352’s claim.
So can you please draw the connection for me? How does your response here address the comment you’re responding to?
NATO outspends Russia 10-1. That doesn’t translate to actual firepower or sustained war capacity. Russian production is much cheaper for comparable quality.
If the same thing is 10 times cheaper i would argue that the quality is not comparable. USA alone outpower any other country in war capacity and assets, if you add the the rest of NATO countries it sound like a joke to claim russia could match them.
You’re confusing the monetary price with actual, qualitative results. The same widget costs more money to produce in the US than it would in Russia, Russia has lower labor costs and higher industrialization. There’s also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more. The fact that the west spends a lot is due to the millitary industrial complex. To equate capital investment across different economies is an error, you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.
Why do you think it cost 10 times more to produce it in the USA? How many american and european engineers do you know that works in russia for 10x cheaper salary?
Assuming what you say is true should we move to compare war assets? What’s the russian counterpart to hundreds of F22 and the b2?
There’s also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more.
USA has been using military drones for more than two decades
you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.
You are messing up things. That’s the price the consumer pays for medicines because of a monopoly
Cost of living is higher in the US, ergo wages are higher, ergo production costs more. This is true across all fields, plus the lack of industrialization means it’s more difficult to manufacture. Why are all of your goods made in China, Vietnam, etc?
Privatized industry also costs a lot more, especially the millitary industrial complex. I’m aware that the US has drones, I’m also aware that the drones of today are entirely different and far cheaper to produce.
Do you know about that thing called capitalism, where the engineers’ wages get stolen by the bourgies?
Russia produces 4x the amount of artillery shells as all of NATO. SU 35 is half the cost of F35, with better flight availability. Missile technology of Russia is far (at least 5 years) ahead of US. Drone technology is Russia, China, Ukraine only capable. Nuclear powered torpedo is undetected annihilation of any carrier fleet or port in the world. US military spending is just corruption for political cronies. Incompetent pursuit of higher tech they are incapable of implementing, but get paid for anyway.
Russia produces 4x the amount of artillery shells as all of NATO
Whatever USA is producing is 4x times more advanced than that.
SU 35 is half the cost of F35, with better flight availability.
Assuming we take for granted that a fourth generation plane is better than F35s, keep in mind that USA alone has more than 500 of these and hundreds of F22
Missile technology of Russia is far (at least 5 years) ahead of US
Russia technology is overall 10 years behind of US
Drone technology is Russia, China, Ukraine only capable.
USA started using military drones more than 20 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdix_(drone)
US military spending is just corruption for political cronies.
I’m sure there’s plenty of corruption and any cent spent on military and war is useless. by not acknowledging USA war assets i think you are downplaying how trillions of public money are being wasted.
Whatever USA is producing is 4x times more advanced than that.
They’re artillery shells.
Russia technology is overall 10 years behind of US
Way ahead in missiles. Hypersonics the US has failed at. new 14000km 15 hour range nuclear cruise missile. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-tested-new-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-top-general-says-2025-10-26/
USA started using military drones more than 20 years ago.
US still has crap that Ukraine has no use for. New generations test poorly.
Whatever USA is producing is 4x times more advanced than that.
X Doubt
This thread is legit pure standup comedy. Cowbee the one and only one who understands the military complex like no other. Here you go, welcome to my blocklist, you shant be missed.
Spending more doesn’t translate to actual industrial capacity. Why announce what you do?
.ml loser coping. NATO would have air superiority within hours and crush your balls. You’re using drones instead of artillery and anti tank missiles because you’re so broke.
I’m not Russian, for one, and for two, drone warfare is used by all current conflicts because its cheap and extremely effective. Russia still produces tanks and artillery. I don’t know why people get so bloodthirsty, outright war between Russia and NATO is the last thing anyone should want.
Because Russia would never survive without nuclear weapons or other massive atrocities.
Russia is a huge country, with 146 million people. Russia does have nukes, and does have a modern millitary with industrialized production outpacing NATO. Again, a war with NATO would be long and bloody, but likely would result in Russia winning or both sides losing. War with Russia should be the last thing anyone wants.
Israel couldn’t even beat Iran, and Israel has all of the fanciest tools NATO has. A war with Russia would be long, bloody, and benefit nobody.
”Modern military” is a stretch. They have handfuls of wunderwaffen but the bulk of their equipment is relatively ancient.
There’s a reason we don’t see their latest and greatest tanks and planes, because they don’t have any. The vast majority of tanks in Ukraine are older than the internet 😝
Both sides have sizable soviet stockpiles, but both Russia and NATO have been supplying modern arms and equipment.
Ah, and here we have it, the Lemmy “Anarchist” showing their true allegiance to the capitalist world order.
My daddy would totally beat up yours!
If the European nations brought their Iraq and Afghanistan forces to Ukraine, they’d probably retake it by years end.
If you could guarantee Russia wouldn’t lob nukes, they probably could make an incursion strike into Russia to capture Moscow fairly quick, especially if Russian forces were divided along the lines like with Kursk with diversionary tactics.
I think the goal is to wait everything out though hoping Russias economy will implode, or until time that everyone gets their military up to snuff. It seems like Poland was the only one preparing for the last 10 years mind. Poland absolutely does not want to return under Russian rule. None of them do! Which is why they all joined NATO.
I know how nato could ensure a win. Conscript every non-ukrainian with a ukraine flag in their social media username. Field the biggest reddit brigade ever. 1000000000 war-hungry liberals.
I wonder if in retrospect this will be considered “the straw that broke the camel’s back”?
Putting aside the jokes about “they don’t gain ground fast enough therefore I win”, Zelensky’s strategy of fighting with a slave army of kidnapped men was and still is quite sucessful - Russia liberates no more than tens of km2 a day.
But now, for whatever reason, he lets a good chunk of potential cannon fodder leave. Eventually running out of cannon fodder was always a ticking time bomb, and now it’s even worse…Russia liberates
lol
Libertarianfellowship.org? Didn’t know NAMBLA rebranded
The reason Russia liberates no more than tens of km2 a day is because Russia has the advantage at multiple levels and therefore can afford to move more slowly, risk fewer casualties, gather better intelligence, and maintain a sufficiently responsive position in the case of surprise.
It is not to Russia’s detriment that they move slow they are choosing it.
You’ve got your armies mixed up there.
Ah right, thanks for pointing out my mistake!
When talking about army of kidnapped slaves I of course meant the one from the country where busification (act of violently kidnapping someone to send them to the meatgrinder, obviously against their will) has become “the word of 2024” according to a dictionary organization from that same country.
Would you be so kind to help me to identify this country, pretty please?Russia. They conscripted. They also ran out of them so had to empty prisons and use them. And when that wasn’t enough, conscripted again. And also enlist from overseas, offering lavish pay to Africans and Pakistanis et al for engineering and analytics jobs in the army but were actually sent to the front lines (so they’d die and not have to continue paying them).
A marked difference from conscription in defence of the homeland wouldn’t you say?
🤦♂
🤦
Removed by mod
Thank you. Sometimes it feels like shouting into the wind!
But yea, two things can indeed be true.
When your country is under invasion and you have a legally mandated conscription … of course people will be scared and try to evade it.
But they try and hand wave over the fact that Russia also does it and much worse, especially when they don’t need to because they’re fighting an offensive war (badly).
America had the draft and so did Britain. Was that decried as abhorrent?
Two things can indeed be true. Like Russia invading Ukraine and Russia defending itself from NATO expansion in the bigger picture.
Or like the fact that Ukrainian people are the biggest victim of this war and Ukrainian government is a Yankee proxy that caused this war.
Ah the NATO expansion argument.
And yea Ukrainians are suffering, from Russia, who didn’t need to invade and genocide them.
Ifs, buts and what about
