Comments by "" (@Princip666) on "Will Ukraine run out of troops before Russia?" video.

  1. Russia - had to increase the maximum size of the army to 1.5M because they otherwise wouldn't be able to legally hire all the volunteers. Ukraine - had to decrease mobilization age and performs exclusively forced conscription with results never reaching the goals. Now you tell me again who will run out of troops first. smh
    19
  2.  @galactic-guy  You think showing arbitrarily selected numbers and still upholding the myth of Russia having more losses is more or less neutral? Come on.
    7
  3. Putin had to increase the maximum size of the army to allow for all the new volunteers to be hired. Sorry to tear your puny argument to shreds.
    6
  4.  @4NT0N10MZC  "Russian economy is controlled by the government" - It isn't.
    5
  5.  @deadbeef-i8b  Hilarious. You should try stand up comedy.
    4
  6.  @4NT0N10MZC  You must be joking, that document is 10 years old and that section doesn't say anything at all about state ownership. What is wrong with you?
    4
  7.  @davout5775  You are confusing Russia with Ukraine apparently. Seek help.
    3
  8.  @davout5775  In other words, you have no evidence but you are doubling down on your lie. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
    3
  9. lol
    2
  10.  @davout5775  But Russia is not. And you presented zero evidence for it.
    2
  11.  @jacobthesettler7616  So money isn't a problem since they are totally dependent on foreign aid? You are funny.
    2
  12.  @michaela8676  Project Wartears for example.
    2
  13.  @victorlazari5708  No idea, but it definitely isn't Ukraine, as they wouldn't be able to continue functioning there.
    2
  14.  @galactic-guy  The facts are that Russia has strong advantage in all kinds of weapons and uses it regularly. There is no possible way for them to have more casualties. It does not compute to any reasonable person. How do you justify such numbers? How, according to you, are Ukrainians achieving such reality breaking results? I'm all ears.
    2
  15.  @galactic-guy  "you did claim that russia has fewer losses" - Where do I claim such a thing? "proves you simply do not have any" - So you want me to provide a source for a claim I did not make? "Russia has suffered more losses than Ukraine." - Only according to pro-UA sources. For example project Wartears estimates UA losses over 600k killed already. Such losses put the ratio at least 5:1 in Russian favor, which corresponds to the situation on the ground, where Russia has at least 5:1 artillery advantage. Not even talking about glide bombs. "Meanwhile no one can back up your statement." - What statement? You talk about claims and statements without EVER actually specifying anything. "This is not open to debate by the way, since this is visually confirmed." - Have you actually seen those "visually confirmed" losses? I guess not, because you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this otherwise. Russia losing three times more of everything is just another myth and a part of western propaganda. So far you utterly failed to explain how it's possible for UA to inflict such losses with inferior army. Which was my question in the first place. Remember? So get to it, stop evading.
    2
  16.  @jf7009  Ukraine may not be in NATO, but NATO is definitely in Ukraine. So once again, from NATO.
    2
  17. @joaquimbarbosa896 You are just listing all the NAFO talking points, none of it is true.
    1
  18. @joaquimbarbosa896 I have yet to see a single NK soldier in Russian army. There is literally ZERO evidence of ANY NK soldiers. Why are you lying?
    1
  19.  @davout5775  It isn't.
    1
  20. @pilky_boooi If you don't like the reality, it doesn't mean it's bs. And what's balbber?
    1
  21.  @galactic-guy  "Given that the allies had great superiority in everything" - That's just false equivalence. And I made no claims. Now answer my question or just disappear and take your shame with you.
    1
  22.  @galactic-guy  So you are unable to back up your argument with anything and you refuse to answer how it is possible for UA to inflict such losses with vastly inferior army. So you are trying to sidetrack instead with irrelevant babbling. Poor you.
    1
  23.  @galactic-guy  You seem to be quite confused, I did not make any claim. Are you feeling ok? Need medical assistance?
    1
  24.  @galactic-guy  Are you obtuse? Fox news is literally western MSM. And the most credible source for Russian losses is in the video - Mediazona. "Russia didn't loose as much as ukraine." - And here's what I actually wrote, if you ever bothered to actually read it: "The facts are that Russia has strong advantage in all kinds of weapons and uses it regularly. There is no possible way for them to have more casualties. It does not compute to any reasonable person. How do you justify such numbers?". Which literally means that I see no way for inferior army to inflict superior casualties. And you completely failed to present anything substantial. I also wrote about the advantage in all kinds of weapons and even hinted at it again with the artillery ratio, you never addressed that gaping hole in your narrative. So once again - and this is your last chance - how can the side with vastly superior firepower in a form of artillery, glide bombs and all sorts of missiles and drones suffer more casualties than the side which has hardly any artillery, glide bombs and just a few rockets and drones? Be specific. How exactly do they do it.
    1
  25.  @jf7009  From NATO.
    1
  26.  @ragingcamper3967  bruh you are lying. Is that being a good NAFO pawn? I guess it is. Edit: lmao
    1