Russia-Ukraine War (continuing)

It's very simple. Give Ukraine more weapons. They are nowhere near receiving what they could. They've many more F16 and French fighter jets on the way. Possible Swedish too. You think 8 F16 would be a wonder weapon?

Ukraine have a manpower shortage because they haven't mobilised men under 26. It's by choice and can be rectified. You are quick to mention Ukraine losses but what about the humongous russian losses? The rate they lose APV's and tanks is completely unsustainable and are probably suffering from man power issues themselves hence the north Korean troops.

I wouldn't be too confident if I was Russia that I could keep this going. What will they use when they run out of huge numbers of tanks and APV's? People like you seem to desperately push the narrative that Ukraine can't win and must seek peace now.

Incidentally that's the Russian western propaganda tactic to try make people believe more military support is futile. It's almost as if Russia is desperate and fears Ukraine receiving increased support. Your camouflage is very thin.

What's your native language?

So Ukraine should march their armies into open plains and line up colonial style? Please stop being so utterly absurd.

When you're arguing "good guy Russia" is trying to avoid civilian casulties….I honestly don't know what to say.

Your common sense varies from cheerleading the American invasion of Afghanistan to peddling Kremlin propaganda on their genocidal war. You have a deeply disturbing outlook on the world.

Where do the weapons come from? The initial 2022-23 "rush" came primarily from ex-Warsaw pact countries providing their old/refurbished stocks of Soviet era weapons/vehicles/shells. NATO topped that up for the 2023 summer offensive with a hundreds of "western" weapons/vehicles/shells which ultimately were from the same design era (1980s).

That one-off rush is exhausted. All that is left is either monthly production (incredibly low - really Wizard of Oz type low) or stripping the standing military of NATO countries of their own active equipment.

The embarrassing reality is that NATO has pretended it has limitless supplies of military equipment, but Ukraine has tapped it out extremely quickly. There is no more weapons to give. To actually build up the industry to churn out the weapons on the scale you demand requires immense planning nobody in NATO has done yet.

As for mobilising men under 26, please - study Ukrainian demographics. It looks like an inverted pyramid. Ukrainian birth rates have fallen off massively since the end of the Soviet Union. There isn't millions and millions of 18 year olds ready to come online. Sending men in their 40s and 50s to die in trenches is cruel, but sending men between 18-25 simply spells the end of the Ukrainians as a people. Christ, I've encountered Ukrainian women who are relieved their 16 year old brother escaped to Ireland. You want to send him back to die in a trench, for what? NATO membership?

As for Russian losses, I accept this is the hardest part for you to process but pretty much everyone - including the Ukrainians - accepts that the Russians have massive advantages in manpower, firepower, air dominance, etc. How can the side with all those advantages be losing thousands of men every day? Its a big logical jump I know, but lets entertain the idea that the Ukrainian propaganda might be lying to you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75lxypz7wqo

Details reported of the conversation by phone between putin and Scholz where putin continues to demand that he deserves to be rewarded for sending his terrorists to attack Ukraine. He is quoted as saying "the current crisis was a direct result of Nato's years-long aggressive policy aimed at creating in Ukrainian territory an anti-Russian bridgehead”. What sort of deranged mentality sees the solution to an anti-russian bridgehead being found by murdering thousands of Ukrainians and making millions of them homeless?

The exchange rate of a currency is just one of several economic indicators of a country. A declining currency generally signals economic issues, lowered foreign confidence, and potential long-term challenges for a country. A weaker currency leads to higher inflation. Inflation reduces the standards of living for the countries citizens. Persistent inflation leads to civil unrest and loss of trust in the currency. A weak currency can be an indicator of low investor confidence in an economy, leading to loss of investments. On top of all this, this can be a sign of capital leaving a country, despite restrictions by a government like Putins.

The sanctions have restricted Russia's access to international financial markets and limited its ability to conduct business globally. Also, a ruble worth less means that Russia has less buying power of international products to feed its war machine. It will cost them more to buy their tactical golf-carts and drones from Ali-baba, for example.

As a general rule, you do not want your currency to drop in value. I havent even gone into the other indicators like the current interest rate.

Far behind the USA and China who are true super powers. But in a few aspects such as natural resources and military stockpiles I would say yes. But at the rate they're losing equipment you can scratch military super power in about 2 years.

Feel free to address the rest of my post.

No we haven't established anything. Do a bit of research and compare EU/USA military production across all metrics and you'll see Russia doesn't outproduce. Not even close.

Certain US figures estimated Ukraine would collapse after 3 day's. We're now at Day 1,000. IMO Ukraine will still have men in 2 years which will be year 5. By then I won't be classing Russia as a military super power anymore if their rate of losses continue.

Either you'll be right or I will. No point wasting time with your bad faith arguments, time will tell. I hope Ukraine prevail I'm sure you do too. Unless you still support your old "cringey" viewpoints as you put it. Which btw I agree with you on that self analysis.

Why did the Americans get involved in the northern Ireland peace process when it didn't involve them?

They were seen as a neutral 3rd party that had a sizeable diaspora from across the island and therefore a suitable intermediary.

Say what you want about NATO, but the two situations don't quite compare.

how Russia treats its “friendly allies”

At every turn Austria and Austrians been pro Russia, hard to feel sorry for em

That reply is not as ironclad and clever as we all know.

The option was/is always to pay a poster for the use of their username on boards just for propaganda. Payment could range for a password from a few lollipops to a couple of grand for a pro western value poster.

Where the embassy class it on their accounts though. Likely under propaganda purposes.

Birds of a feather.

The Russian strategy of bypassing strongly held towns and forcing their defenders to retreat by flanking them does promise to reduce the damage to civilians and their homes from here until the end of the conflict. I think everyone will welcome that.

You're funny! What a beautiful image: the Russians gaily sauntering through the countryside, leaving towns and villages unscathed because they don't want to cause civilian casualties. Sure why wouldn't you want to surrender to such a cheerful and considerate coloniser?

Could it have something to do with the fact that other Russians are lobbing huge glide bombs right into those same towns and villages with the objective of causing maximum damage to people and infrastructure (translation: wipe them off the map). And using their longer-range missiles to cause similar death and destruction in those parts of Ukraine that they haven't yet subdued.