I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.
Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.
The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.
Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.
There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.
Factually what concludes this conflict?
There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.
Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined by the traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.
It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings, as it captures territory, instead of wiping out command structures and military supply lines, and defenses. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? 2 million reserves? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?
Independent perspective. This conflict stinks. It funds a proxy throwing its numbers into a grinder. As the other side captures territory. Until there is only wasteland. It has no logical conclusion until the other loses interest and claims defeat. It can last years. Look at that shithole Bakhmut.
Fun facts: three U.S. states have larger economies than Russia: California ($3.1 trillion), Texas ($1.78 trillion) and New York ($1.7 trillion). And California's GDP is more than twice the GDP of Russia. The Russian economy is twice the size of the little island of Taiwan.
The outcome of the Communist Civil War is fully dependent on the whims of the West.
Yes this war stinks of agenda. Much wider geopolitics. But your facts are irrelevant, on assumed GDP. Russia is almost exclusively a fully self service nation. Not many nations have those raw materials and natural resources and use them exclusively. Of course it relies on trade as well. But as an example the West relies on far more corporate supply chains. These trade into a monetary system crediting which currencies by using what markets and means of financial backing. Meanwhile the dynamic shifts, technology changes, becoming less reliant on which resources, as supply lines are rerouted, or markets trade away from which currencies .
However, aside from superficial notions of GDP. It of course comes down to production, bullets, troops, military equipment. Attrition. Wearing, dragging, depleting any numbers as wider geopolitics are adopted, by exhausting an enemy into surrender? Questionably how can Russia lose. How? Ukraine expelling every Russian from what it considers its border. Who made this border? It has Russian territory in it or claims of that territory. Directly hosting Crimea, a Russian nuclear base. Russia has nukes.
Instead all that funding is buying what. Attrition. Both sides are this? Which breaks accepting the others claims. As it becomes an otherwise wasteland of territorial capture. As far as Russian funding it isn't on the same field as current Ukrainian conscription and production towards, or has been fully attacked at home prior to this conflict, and gone into the same warmode. If it does, it still has nukes.
In the meantime geopolitics unfold as any risk increases of a wider conflict.
But as far as justifying any funding goes or any war efforts are those numbers factual? No, they rely on the attrition. The other side losing.
Simply looking at a map shows what. Of course a counter offensive might validate it?
However, aside from superficial notions of GDP. It of course comes down to production, bullets, troops, military equipment.
This is partially what I was trying to imply. The US military budget is close to Russia's entire gdp. A trillion dollars per year buys a lot of interesting R&D. If attrition indeed continues forever, Russia will collapse (yet again) before it gets close to defeating NATO.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't sent hardly anyone over into Russia to wreak mayhem is an indicator that the war is fake. A real Kievan would include taking the fight to the enemy, if only to move the crosshairs out of town and save his family's house from the bombs.
If I were Ivan I'd be setting truck bombs outside of hospitals churches and schools throughout Petersburg and Moscow.
Yes absolutely. But GDP becomes superficial in a war. A war it isn't fighting directly. It's simply funding and bankrolling another side off the backs of taxes, and inflation. On what kind of production. Which factories. Who is producing shells and rockets, equipment, those current stocks are being depleted. Western factories are now manufacturing where as an example? Did they even have the raw materials. Now what happens to the rising costs and increasing debts?
It's not the same as being directly involved in that war, because protocols start trimming away at other industry turning it into war production and conscription.
Not if it's not fighting. It's simply causing the prices to rise on any citizens. Meanwhile economics wobble.
Until production and the narrative starts becoming strained. It is feeding a battle of attrition. A battle which hasn't got the same dynamics, going into a proxy. A proxy without the same experience but it simply demands increasing funding.
Agreed the war can last for longer. Until a loss of interest, or concessions and terms or defeat, etc.
But what happens if Russia gets even more aggressive, and it starts targeting Kiev daily fully penetrating defenses, that demand more and more equipment, it being destroyed, quicker. What happens to Ukrainian morale if its supposed offensive of brand new equipment fails? What happens if Russia loses more territory?
Ultimately GDP is irrelevant in a conflict fought directly by other people..
Instead currently there are nothing but lies. When there are lies there is no conclusion. Both are still assuming the other's failures.
It's ironic.
Where is the truth in many of these reports being aired?
Example 100k Russians dead in 5 months. What territory acquired? How? Where? 15k Ukrainians dead last month in Bakhmut. Bullshit. Like all the rest of it. Speculation, estimates, propaganda, agenda. It's seemingly projecting right. It will keep raising those stakes until the other is defeated. Let's face it, at that rate will only escalate. Into you tell me?
If Ukraine gets to the Crimea. It's nukes. I have no idea what those trench lines are for there. An excerise in stupidity. No debate, that line is crossed. If not used to defend its bases, Russia might as well disarm completely, and hibernate. If Ukraine captures another city. It's more attrition. Russia hasn't gone into full warmode, conscription and production.
Erratic claims. Completely paper thin. Biden and the many others funding need to justify the billions and billions being signed off on. They need to claim some kind of numbers to keep funding.
Truthfully there is no truth. It's very hard to independently gain information. Propaganda driven by agenda, by the other side losing, and it has wider geopolitical goals. But the other side restricted from providing any information. Until there is only morale boosts and propaganda driving strategy and agenda.
War against Russia, or war against a Nato proxy. Ukraine is in the middle.
Any Ukrainian causality numbers are logically absurd. Look at its conscription rate, tell me this age of conscripted male, female, teenager. Its population migration, of millions leaving due to war. Combined into a third of its nation, lost, or in heavy combat, while the rest withstands daily bombardment. What's that rate? Think of all that investment. The best it can do is hole up in Bakhmut? Tell me that tactic? Where it now is contained to what a couple km sq. Russia by the same structure hasn't even gone into full warmode.
Obviously there are Russian causalities. I'd imagine they are high, but nowhere near to Ukrainian above, simple probability. Let's suggest, there is an agenda of attrition. Does it particularly care. Because by the same tactics. It is dragging an opponent in and wearing down its reserves in order to claim victory.
What happens in any Counter Offensives, could decide how long any course lasts and what terms are bartered. Currently there is no immediate conclusion.
A very messy war. Russia has always been messy on that field, historically, losses. Ukraine look at that, probably worse.
No.
I think there are many reports hoping Russia loses. More are speculation and propaganda justifying funding.
Both sides Ukraine in particular are withstanding heavy causality rates.
The fact is Russia has gained integrating territory Ukraine has shed. How is Russia losing and losing what exactly? Troops, it's war. Less than Ukraine. Look at map.
Ukraine however are a bottomless pit relying on Russian loss.
There is no factual media until conclusion. One sided. State approved. Agenda. Both sides are using lies.
Factually what concludes this conflict?
There are other facts. This war is agenda driven. A battle of attrition seeking to draw drag and wear down the other side invested heavily. It isn't fought in the traditional methods. Risk of greater fallout, larger conflict. But it importantly plies agenda.
Traditionally Kiev would be dust. Baghdad effectively was, military and command structure. Instead of domination it captures territory. The rest of Ukraine hasn't been occupied, the border is active. It wilfully drags out because any objective isn't defined by the traditional sense. There is little air superiority. Anti aircraft, enemy flights still active while any military structures keep increasing numbers and resupplying.
It has wider objectives and they are a battle of attrition often in heavily urbanised environments and settings, as it captures territory, instead of wiping out command structures and military supply lines, and defenses. The country is also huge, the largest in Europe, excluding Russia. What was Ukraine troop count prior to this conflict? Millions? 2 million reserves? Not necessarily active. Until currently conscription is at what rate?
Independent perspective. This conflict stinks. It funds a proxy throwing its numbers into a grinder. As the other side captures territory. Until there is only wasteland. It has no logical conclusion until the other loses interest and claims defeat. It can last years. Look at that shithole Bakhmut.
The outcome of the Communist Civil War is fully dependent on the whims of the West.
Yes this war stinks of agenda. Much wider geopolitics. But your facts are irrelevant, on assumed GDP. Russia is almost exclusively a fully self service nation. Not many nations have those raw materials and natural resources and use them exclusively. Of course it relies on trade as well. But as an example the West relies on far more corporate supply chains. These trade into a monetary system crediting which currencies by using what markets and means of financial backing. Meanwhile the dynamic shifts, technology changes, becoming less reliant on which resources, as supply lines are rerouted, or markets trade away from which currencies .
However, aside from superficial notions of GDP. It of course comes down to production, bullets, troops, military equipment. Attrition. Wearing, dragging, depleting any numbers as wider geopolitics are adopted, by exhausting an enemy into surrender? Questionably how can Russia lose. How? Ukraine expelling every Russian from what it considers its border. Who made this border? It has Russian territory in it or claims of that territory. Directly hosting Crimea, a Russian nuclear base. Russia has nukes.
Instead all that funding is buying what. Attrition. Both sides are this? Which breaks accepting the others claims. As it becomes an otherwise wasteland of territorial capture. As far as Russian funding it isn't on the same field as current Ukrainian conscription and production towards, or has been fully attacked at home prior to this conflict, and gone into the same warmode. If it does, it still has nukes.
In the meantime geopolitics unfold as any risk increases of a wider conflict.
But as far as justifying any funding goes or any war efforts are those numbers factual? No, they rely on the attrition. The other side losing.
Simply looking at a map shows what. Of course a counter offensive might validate it?
This is partially what I was trying to imply. The US military budget is close to Russia's entire gdp. A trillion dollars per year buys a lot of interesting R&D. If attrition indeed continues forever, Russia will collapse (yet again) before it gets close to defeating NATO.
The fact that Ukraine hasn't sent hardly anyone over into Russia to wreak mayhem is an indicator that the war is fake. A real Kievan would include taking the fight to the enemy, if only to move the crosshairs out of town and save his family's house from the bombs.
If I were Ivan I'd be setting truck bombs outside of hospitals churches and schools throughout Petersburg and Moscow.
Both sides want to see dead whites.
Yes absolutely. But GDP becomes superficial in a war. A war it isn't fighting directly. It's simply funding and bankrolling another side off the backs of taxes, and inflation. On what kind of production. Which factories. Who is producing shells and rockets, equipment, those current stocks are being depleted. Western factories are now manufacturing where as an example? Did they even have the raw materials. Now what happens to the rising costs and increasing debts?
It's not the same as being directly involved in that war, because protocols start trimming away at other industry turning it into war production and conscription.
Not if it's not fighting. It's simply causing the prices to rise on any citizens. Meanwhile economics wobble.
Until production and the narrative starts becoming strained. It is feeding a battle of attrition. A battle which hasn't got the same dynamics, going into a proxy. A proxy without the same experience but it simply demands increasing funding.
Agreed the war can last for longer. Until a loss of interest, or concessions and terms or defeat, etc.
But what happens if Russia gets even more aggressive, and it starts targeting Kiev daily fully penetrating defenses, that demand more and more equipment, it being destroyed, quicker. What happens to Ukrainian morale if its supposed offensive of brand new equipment fails? What happens if Russia loses more territory?
Ultimately GDP is irrelevant in a conflict fought directly by other people..
Instead currently there are nothing but lies. When there are lies there is no conclusion. Both are still assuming the other's failures.
It's ironic.
Where is the truth in many of these reports being aired?
Example 100k Russians dead in 5 months. What territory acquired? How? Where? 15k Ukrainians dead last month in Bakhmut. Bullshit. Like all the rest of it. Speculation, estimates, propaganda, agenda. It's seemingly projecting right. It will keep raising those stakes until the other is defeated. Let's face it, at that rate will only escalate. Into you tell me?
If Ukraine gets to the Crimea. It's nukes. I have no idea what those trench lines are for there. An excerise in stupidity. No debate, that line is crossed. If not used to defend its bases, Russia might as well disarm completely, and hibernate. If Ukraine captures another city. It's more attrition. Russia hasn't gone into full warmode, conscription and production.
Erratic claims. Completely paper thin. Biden and the many others funding need to justify the billions and billions being signed off on. They need to claim some kind of numbers to keep funding.
Truthfully there is no truth. It's very hard to independently gain information. Propaganda driven by agenda, by the other side losing, and it has wider geopolitical goals. But the other side restricted from providing any information. Until there is only morale boosts and propaganda driving strategy and agenda.
War against Russia, or war against a Nato proxy. Ukraine is in the middle.
Any Ukrainian causality numbers are logically absurd. Look at its conscription rate, tell me this age of conscripted male, female, teenager. Its population migration, of millions leaving due to war. Combined into a third of its nation, lost, or in heavy combat, while the rest withstands daily bombardment. What's that rate? Think of all that investment. The best it can do is hole up in Bakhmut? Tell me that tactic? Where it now is contained to what a couple km sq. Russia by the same structure hasn't even gone into full warmode.
Obviously there are Russian causalities. I'd imagine they are high, but nowhere near to Ukrainian above, simple probability. Let's suggest, there is an agenda of attrition. Does it particularly care. Because by the same tactics. It is dragging an opponent in and wearing down its reserves in order to claim victory.
What happens in any Counter Offensives, could decide how long any course lasts and what terms are bartered. Currently there is no immediate conclusion.
A very messy war. Russia has always been messy on that field, historically, losses. Ukraine look at that, probably worse.