Youtube comments of UzuMaki NaRuto (@UzumakiNaruto_).
-
1100
-
454
-
332
-
221
-
155
-
146
-
138
-
118
-
92
-
90
-
86
-
80
-
80
-
77
-
77
-
74
-
73
-
69
-
57
-
53
-
52
-
50
-
49
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
@conayinka
There's been many states past and present with a homogeneous black African makeup that gave been successful. Nubia had advanced civilization before Egypt, and is likely where Egyptian society sprouted from.
When you say some African nations were 'advanced' you really mean they were advanced relative to their neighbors in their region and NOT relative to other nations around the world. Its why when they did eventually come into contact with the rest of the world that Africans quickly found out that weren't very advanced at all compared to other parts of the world.
European civilization comes from the Romans who got it from the Greeks who got it from the near East. Europeans greatest strength has nothing to do with mental capacity, it's simply the limitless cultural diffusion that the Mediterranean sea provides to their societies, and then the relative ease it can be spread past that because of how easily accessible the rest of Europe is.
Disagree. It has EVERYTHING to do with mental capacity. When you come into contact with other people and nations, yes there can be trade and an exchange of ideas, inventions, knowledge etc., but here's the thing. You have to have the brains and the desire to learn and get educated and soak up all that knowledge and then take it and make use of it. That requires mental capacity and it requires hard work.
For example several centuries ago lets say a foreigner just showed up in your village by the ocean one day on a great sailing ship and gave you the complete plans on how to build a ship exactly like theirs so that you too could sail the seas like them.
Well that's great isn't it? You don't even have to draw up your own plans on how to build such a ship when the plans have been given to you and all you have to do is follow those plans and that's it. But that's the thing, you have to be INTELLIGENT ENOUGH to figure out what those plans mean and then how to put them to use properly every step of the way so that eventually you end up with a ship that's similar to what that foreigner who gave you the plans had.
The point is if you don't have the mental capacity and desire to learn, then those plans are completely meaningless to you where they would be gold to other more intelligent people who could decipher what those plans mean, follow the design and directions and build a ship from those plans.
So far as we've seen, we've rarely if ever seen Africans being able to learn and become educated to a high degree on a large scale the way much of the rest of the world has been able to do so. Sure there are a number of Africans who do become educated and go on to have great careers and such, but relatively speaking those are few and far in between.
Now compare it to Africa where there's a big fucking desert stopping cultural diffusion from occurring until camels began to be widely used.
Here's the thing. Aren't there a number of African communities who live by the oceans surrounding the African continent? Instead of going through the desert, why didn't they build ships and sail AROUND the desert and trade and exchange information with other civilizations like many other people did at the time?
This is what many communities and nations did that eventually led to trade with others that increased prosperity so why didn't Africans do more of this when they often already lived by the ocean? Even if they weren't capable of building larger ships that could sail entire oceans to other continents, they could've still build smaller ships and boats that could traverse coastal waters all around them to explore and make contact with other people and trade and gain knowledge that they could then bring back home and analyze and learn and eventually become more advanced.
So yes a desert was an obstacle, but it was an obstacle that could be overcome if you had the desire to overcome it. So why didn't Africans do this on a large scale and become more advanced?
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@KingKong11730
Strangely, Chinese can't seem to do well in any organized team sports but tend to excel in individual or single partner sports. And it's not for lack of interest either, basketball is China's most watched/favorite sport. Maybe more people play table tennis but that's not a team sport and some wouldn't even call it a sport per se.
Ping pong absolutely IS a sport, but that's another discussion. 😄 Also while basketball is widely played, I don't know if its more popular than soccer or ping pong though.
As for China not doing as well in team sports, well I guess it depends. If we're talking about sports like soccer or basketball, I think a part of that comes from genetics. Some demographics of people are simply built better for different sports. Chinese people simply having tall people isn't enough to turn them into the next Shaq or LeBron because they simply don't have that kind of body type coupled with raw basketball athleticism that they and many other black males do. Heck no other demographic of NBA players other than black players have that kind of athleticism on a large scale.
Similarly when it comes to soccer and a number of other team sports, no matter how big some Chinese or Asians are, they're still often smaller in size and/or stature then many non-Asians are. In the history of the World Cup only South Korea has ever made it to the top 4 when it played on its home soil, otherwise no Asian team has gone that far since.
This doesn't mean they can't win against non-Asian teams, but its usually a surprise when they do beat a top world team rather than seeing it as a normal occurrence. So maybe changing the way they play or train might help somewhat, but it can never overcome the genetic component involved.
It's just in the culture. Chinese kids/students are repeatedly drilled hard on repetition and memorization over and over. Creative endeavors are almost completely neglected. The result is that you get kids who are very proficient students and can get good grades, but can't innovate on new ideas or creative endeavors. So you get kids who will get into top schools, but they will almost all become obedient employees and very few will try to create a start up.
I think this has changed dramatically in the past 10-20 years. Chinese people aren't just good at copying, they're also good at taking something and making it better.
The smartphone industry is a perfect example of that. Even just 10-15 years ago, the phones that came out of China were looked at as being cheap, inferior alternatives to Samsung, Apple and other brands. Nowadays Chinese phone makers are leading the field in hardware and are steadily improving on the software side as well. The cameras on Chinese phones are consistently as good if not superior to Samsung and Apple these days and they're leading the pack when it comes to foldable phones.
Huawei was just on the cusp of possibly becoming the next big global smartphone brand in the world until the US started slapping sanctions on them. Their P series and Mate phones that took great photos at the time and if the US hadn't stunted their global growth, I think its quite possible that they would be in the same conversation as Samsung and Apple as a global phone provider. Now they're still hugely popular in China and many Asian countries, but without that full global reach.
Almost all major Chinese startups were joint ventures with a Western, usually American company.
Well that's not surprise considering that China was lagging far behind technologically just a few decades ago. Learning from the west and putting those lessons into practice is what made them the nation that they are today and now they've gone beyond just imitating and are now innovating. People didn't believe China could produce their own chips and now they've shown that they can. Sure they're not near TSMC (which started with some technology transfer from a Phillips partnership), but they're not that far off either and Chinese chips are now good enough that outside of speedtests and extreme use you probably couldn't tell the difference between a Chinese chip and a Qualcomm one.
Going back to China not being as good in team sports, I just think at least a decent amount of that has to do with genetics and relative smaller stature which is also the reason why most every other Asian country isn't doing that great in team sports when they compete against the world's best.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@schibleh531
Are you seriously going to compare Afghanistan, a country that has been at since the days of the soviet union, a country that never had a chance to actually recover and rebuild its infrastructure, with Ukraine, a peaceful, prosperous European country?
Afghanistan has never been able to progress and improve because the people are too tribal and divided and uneducated. How can a nation get better when your people are always fighting each other and looking out for their own interests and sabotage any progress made?
The only thing I have to say about this is you don't know enough about the situation in afghanistan. It's easier to repeat the "they surrendered" headline but the situation was more complicated than that. Dig into it if you feel like it.
No it really is as simple as the Afghans being giant cowards and surrendering. They were too afraid to even point a gun at their enemies and pull the trigger even though they had plenty of equipment and weapons and had tens of thousands of soldiers. The Taliban literally just drove into town and took over everything without firing a bullet.
Even if they didn't want to fight for the Afghan government, why not fight for your own family, friends and your land? They couldn't even do that.
By the way, the Taliban were afghani as well. So, this "afghanis are weak and hopeless" doesn't make sense because they managed to defeat both the US and the soviets, then take back their whole country.
The Taliban didn't defeat anyone. They won by being like cockroaches and surviving everything the US and the Russians threw at them and not surrendering. When your vastly inferior to your enemy that's probably the only strategy you have left which is to outlast your opponent until they tire of fighting.
The only way you can beat an enemy like that is to not care about collateral damage and wage total war where you bomb and launch attacks again them until they no longer exist civilian casualties be damned.
So yeah the Taliban 'won' by taking huge casualties, doing insane things like suicide bombing their enemies and never surrendering. That doesn't mean they were great fighters or something though.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@bravewarrior1218
Myanmar is a very diverse country with many ethnic groups, each with their own history, culture, and identity. However, the state has failed to recognize and respect this diversity, and has often tried to impose a dominant ethnic identity on the rest of the population. This has led to resentment, discrimination, and marginalization of ethnic minorities, who have taken up arms to defend their rights and autonomy.
If people want Myanmar to remain a united country, then all those tribes/ethnic groups need to give up some of their culture and identity and look at the big picture where you're apart of a larger country that you should be helping to make better and more prosperous rather than only worrying improving your own group's well being.
Look at China where for centuries different ethnic groups/factions/warlords etc. only cared about themselves and wanted only for their groups to be in power and prospering. Nothing good came of that and China remained divided, weak and poor. It wasn't until the Communists came along and finally united the country by force did it then go on the path to becoming the strong, prosperous nation that it is today. Sure there's still plenty of problems in China, but the country's people are no longer fighting each other and tearing the nation apart from within and the standard of living for everyone has gone up at least to some degree if not by alot.
That's the way Myanmar should be progressing where people need to put aside their tribal differences and work together towards a better nation. Get rid of the current government and put in charge people who can actually manage and run a country and have everyone work together. Otherwise you'll just end up like the former Yugoslavia.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@rog69
I said the aircraft were on par, not who has more of what that’s a different argument lmao. Soviet fighters were plenty capable in the tasks they were given. Longer range? What for, to get shot down by AD?
I said that Soviet fighter aircraft got better as the war went along, but they were NEVER as good as the best western fighters like the Mustang. Also you must be very uninformed to think that fighter range makes no difference. The Germans knew they lost the air war in western Europe right when they started seeing long range allied fighters escorting their bomber force all the way to their target and back because it meant German fighters could no longer do heavy damage to bomber formations like they use to.
Also you don't mention that longer range means you can fly deep into enemy territory and attack ground targets when previously you weren't able to reach. And you also don't mention that longer range doesn't mean just flying further, it also means you can stay longer in the air to support your ground forces or protect the airspace for longer periods of time. Why do you think the Germans lost the Battle of Britain? In part it was because the German BF109 had relative short range and often could only fight over British airspace for about 20 mins before they had to return to base. Imagine if the BF109 had the same range as the Mustang? It would've been able to stay and fight for probably the whole bombing raid instead of leaving before they ran out of fuel to return home.
* Yes sure naval logistics more complicated, but land are just as hard across massive distance that soviets covered in mostly desolate land destroyed by the war of attrition. U are acting like they had all the roads and rail already laid out before them as they advanced. D-day? The army that landed there was tiny compared to any soviet one lmao it’s the largest ever because no one else needed to do it so no point of reference.*
Naval logistics is VASTLY more complicated. With ground logistics you just load your stuff on trucks and trains and drive it to the front. With naval logistics you have to first build the vast number of transport ships, then make sure all the supplies you make are well packed, can fit onto the ship with maximum efficiency and then make sure they're able to survive a trip overseas that can often take weeks to get to their destination. That's ALOT more resource intensive and needs much more organization than simple land logistics.
With regards to D-Day its not just the number of men landed that mattered, its how much planning and resources that were needed to land them on defended enemy beaches. You needed specialized landing craft to assault the beaches and land reserve forces after. You needed to plan for the landing of airborne forces in support of those beach landings. Then you needed to plan for the MASSIVE amount of logistics to be transported across the channel to feed and supply that huge army you landed to keep them moving forward on a daily basis. These are things that the Soviets could NEVER do in WWII and couldn't even do now in 2024.
If soviets needed, they could do it just as easily, and same for the airborne ops. The only thing allies (read US) had better is a massive industrial capacity, then again only because they were safe from any damage and destruction unlike soviet IMC, plus they had all the workers needed unlike soviets.
How could the Soviets do any of the operations that the allies did when they never had a large air transport or amphibious fleet during the entire war? The Soviets barely experimented with airborne operations before they practically abandoned it entirely because they never had the technology or resources to build the kind of aircraft that the allies had. Amphibious landing vehicles? Nothing significant at all.
This isn't just about industrial capacity, but also the technological/mechanical/scientific knowledge that's required to build advanced weapons that the Soviets weren't able to do.
The red army was massive, had serious firepower and was battle hardened. It would easily decimate the allies who would realize western front was a joke compared. Soviets would only have to roll over west Germany, finish of France and Spain and allies would have no more foothold in Europe.
The Soviet army was large, but SO WHAT? All the allies had to do was launch 1000 bomber raids day and night against Soviet logistical targets behind their lines the same as they did against the Germans and it would be game over. You can't fight when you have no fuel, food and other supplies for your army and there's no way the Soviets could defend against an allied strategic bomber campaign just like the Germans were unable to stop them.
Seriously people like you just don't seem to understand how difficult it was for the allies to plan and execute many of the operations that they did and how hard it was for them to bring together so many resources to be able to supply their armies across entire oceans on foreign lands compared to the Soviets who only had to fight in their own backyard for most of the war.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@stupidburp
Nope, they now are over 10% of the total force up from 0% just a couple of years ago. It takes time to make the shift but Ukrainian women are standing up. Some of the earliest volunteers were assigned as snipers and their main complaint at the time was that the uniforms made for men didn't fit very well, but otherwise they were doing fine.
Sure there are Ukrainian women serving with their military, but outside of those few snipers, almost none of them are actually fighting on the frontlines as soldiers. I've only ever seen them on the frontlines as medics or in some other support role. There's been a few videos that I've seen during the war where they showed Ukrainian women in uniform laying dead on the battlefield, but never was it during combat.
So if more women are joining the Ukrainian army to help that's a good thing, but none of them should ever be a frontline soldier because they'll never be able to handle it when even plenty of men can't handle it.
Many are also assigned as small drone operators working at the front just a bit behind the contact lines.
That's the best place for women who choose to serve to be. Behind the frontlines in support of frontline soldiers. If people are honest then they'll acknowledge that women aren't suited for frontline combat units because outside of a tiny few exceptions, women aren't physically, mentally and emotionally capable enough to operate long term on the frontlines of a battlefield. The one big exception to this is combat pilots or serving on a combat vessel where you can be on the 'frontlines' without physically having to fight the enemy in close quarters.
And really outside of being perceived as not being the 'equal' to men, I really don't know why any woman would ever desire to be a frontline soldier when they should be thanking their lucky stars that they can usually avoid all the horrors of war that men have to deal with where even if they survive a conflict, many will have to deal with PTSD for the rest of their lives.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@brightlight7217
Let's say you have good intentions, ask yourself, why didn't your poeple that controlled Africa only used it to their advantage. Keep in mind, if colonization was about mutual living, it wouldn't be no independence. But westerners like to oppress, dominate, dehumanize, the list goes on.
Victors usually if not almost always take advantage of the defeated. This isn't a western trait, its a HUMAN trait. Do you seriously believe that before westerners came to Africa that everyone living there were all peaceful and got along happily with no conflict? Of course not. Africans just fought amongst each other for land and resources or they fought arabs and others.
Humans are almost always in conflict over something.
I'm not saying colonization is nothing but good, but as much harm it did to some groups of people it also helped civilize much of the world much more quickly than they otherwise would have been able to. Without the Europeans and now the rest of the world literally dragging Africa forward, most African nations would still be stuck in the stone ages living in mudhuts and hunting with spears and bows.
If you say colonization or being defeated by foreign powers is bad, just look at Japan. In the 19th century they were far behind in development in comparison to western nations and guess what? They took advantage of western knowledge, inventions, engineering skills etc. and they caught up pretty well to the west by WWII.
Then after the war after their country had been devastated and millions of their people died, they could've easily descended into being a poor country and forever blaming westerners for destroying their country, but guess what? They picked themselves up and took the help that was offered to them and look at them now where they've surpassed the vast majority of the world including many western countries in development and advancement and created a society that's productive and extremely peaceful and safe.
The same thing could happen with African countries if they wanted to. You don't forget the past, but you put it behind you and have your people come work together for a better future. All the knowledge and education is there for Africans to take advantage of that required centuries of discovery and development by people from around the world and all they have to do to get it is to pick up a book and learn.
Any African country could do something similar to what Japan did if they're willing to work hard and unite to create a better nation and going back to what I said earlier it wouldn't be such a bad idea to let westerners govern African countries until they're ready to govern themselves. As I said you need to get THE RIGHT PEOPLE who genuinely want to help improve African countries to lead the way and not people who are looking to exploit these countries with their power, but there's no reason why African countries can't rapidly be civilized and modernized if they really wanted to.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@c.b.3234
Crime comes from poverty. The US prison system isn't designed to rehabilitate it's designed to create even harder criminals. Ex-cons have the least opportunity of anyone.
I think people like you simply don't understand that many, MANY criminals are simply not fit for civilized society no matter how hard you try to rehab them. Many people bring up places like Norway and how they rehab their criminals and I bet you a million dollars right now that if you sent America's most hardcore and dangerous criminals to Norway for rehabilitation using their methods, the Norwegians would quickly realize that they need to keep most of them locked up forever.
The fantasy that everyone can be saved doesn't agree with reality where many of these criminals are such horrid human beings that they can NEVER be released into public again if you want to keep innocent people safe. Better to just execute them than to waste any more of earth's resources keeping them alive any longer.
Of course a city like Gary is not going to spontaneously turn around because it doesn't even have the infrastructure to support a population - it has little to no grocery stores, schools, and shopping, not to mention the actual city infrastructure itself - meanwhile every neighboring city to the east, west, and south of Gary have all of those things.
Places like Gary don't have all that infrastructure because anytime anyone tries to build and maintain such things, the people there quickly plunder and destroy it. You could pour a trillion dollars into Gary and build that city up to be new and having everything people need to live a decent life there and then come back in 5 years and see most of it looted and destroyed because that's what most of those people do.
On the otherhand you could remove the entire population of Gary and replace them with Japanese people and come back in 5 years and see how quickly it has grown simply because some people in the world can adapt to whatever environment they're given and find a way to improve and make things better by working together towards a common goal.
Now it just suffers from the after effects of what I already explained and its entrenched bad reputation from people like you that make up Amerikkka.
The bad reputation that America has mostly comes from the demographic that can't settle anywhere on the planet in any significant numbers without bringing huge amounts of crime, violence and other problems with them. As I said China is the only exception to this rule where a large black population is mostly peaceful and non-violent because they know the Chinese don't tolerate their bad behaviors like they do in the west. That's why most of them stay in line there and don't cause much trouble.
Of course Gary is predominately black because that's what the historical conditions mandated. Where the fuck else were 20th century black people going to live?
As someone else said Gary CAN become a good place to live if the people living there want to work towards that goal. Unfortunately few people there right now want to do that and instead prefer to let things turn to utter crap. It doesn't matter if you move them all to Beverly Hills and give them all mansions, they'll still turn that area into crap with high crime rates. On the otherhand if you bring a decent, peaceful hardworking population to a place like Gary or Detroit or East St. Louis, they'll turn those places into safe communities that others want to move to.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Sneedmire
But there comes a point where you can no longer wage a war in the sense of offenses and counter offenses. According to the info presented, Ukraine's standing reserve force has been exhausted, meaning conscripts are going to make up the majority of fighting force outside of Eastern Ukraine, where the regular army is still standing.
The Ukrainian army's continued ability to fight isn't going to be whether or not they have enough soldiers, but whether or not they can keep their forces supplied. The amount of troops that Ukraine has available is as large if not larger than the number of Russian soldiers that are attacking them.
Unless they start taking massive losses, the Ukrainian army doesn't seem like they're going to be destroyed anytime soon. I'd feel differently if the Russians had complete air dominance in the skies and could bomb the crap out of the Ukrainians anytime, anywhere but that doesn't seem to be the case right now.
The main thing that the Ukrainians have to worry about is mostly keeping their forces supplied and armed. The west seem to have no issue with sending unlimited resources to Ukraine to continue the fight and as long as they can get those supplies to their forces then its going to be difficult if not near impossible for the Russians to break them short of nuking them or something.
There comes a point where you have to surrender or your making things worst for your people. They can suppress how the war is going in Eastern Ukraine and make "liberating" villages where the Russians withdrew seem like major victories, but eventually, reality will shift.
The reality has already shifted in that unless the Russians pour more men and resources into the war, Ukraine is likely going to be able to hold. Who knows maybe its still possible that Ukrainian forces in the east get surrounded and destroyed or maybe the entire Ukrainian army could fall, but what seemed like a certainty is becoming increasingly less likely as the war goes on.
Unless the Russians can get their logistics in order so that they can support a sustained attack and also have near complete control in the air, I don't know how how they'll be able to successfully launch another major attack in Ukraine without taking heavy losses.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lubu2960
It's a price that's 100% worth paying. Your comparison doesn't make sense, there's no "burning half your house down". It is wrong and xenophobic though.
Please explain to me how exactly is 'the price worth paying' without using the same tired argument that if you don't help the people of the world then you're a racist/xenophobe/discriminatory etc.?
What exactly would a nation lose that's so important from not importing hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees into their country each and every year?
There's no hypocrisy, it is the job of the state to find them houses and build them and create big national welfare systems to help them integrate, not the job of the individual and even there there are many who do.
Its up to a country to HELP ITS OWN POPULATION and NOT the entire population of the world. Is this really that difficult for you to understand? We should be finding housing, building infrastructure, having a proper healthcare system etc. FOR A COUNTRY'S OWN POPULATION and NOT the world's population.
Why do people like you always advocate for a nation to do something that you would never do in your own life? If you think enforcing a nation's border to keep illegals out is wrong, then why do you have any locks on the doors to your home? By your logic you should always keep your doors unlocked because that would make better neighbors right? Obviously you don't do that because even if you live in a safe community you probably still don't want people wandering into your home randomly in the middle of the night.
So if in your own personal life you enforce some kind of border security with locking your doors to your home or your car to keep people out, then why are you against countries doing the same? Also do you not take into account that nations have plenty of problems of their own that they need to deal with first? Many western countries are dealing with housing issues, having the ability to provide enough healthcare, education, jobs etc. to its current population. So in what world does it make sense to you that the solution to all these problems is to ADD TO THEM by bringing in hundreds of thousands of new people into your nation every single year? I mean seriously ARE YOU INSANE?!?
It would be like you saying you can comfortably afford to support having two kids with your wife, but then you say screw it lets get it up to 10 kids because you've always wanted to have a huge family. Well guess what? You just went from being able to provide a nice life for two kids to providing a much worse life for 10 kids and that makes you a shit parent.
The same goes for nations where they should prioritize their own population first, try and fix most of the problems that that country is dealing with and afterwards have that population decide whether they want to bring in more people into their country or not and in what numbers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielarchambeault-may5162
American trucks made the war go quicker, but they by no means made the win. Again, the first American supplies didn't get there until 43, and German defeat was inevitable by that point. They still had trains, horses, all the captured German, Romanian and Italian transportation, and their own two feet.
Trucks and other allied vehicles literally helped transform many divisions of Soviet infantry from being slow marching soldiers to becoming mechanized soldiers and it also helped keep them supplied in a way that horses and other vehicles never could. Rail only gets you to an area of operation, but trucks do the hard work of hauling supplies, men and weapons to the frontlines.
It was the Red Air Force that knocked the Luftwaffe out of the war to the point were they weren't anything more than a minor nuisance at best, so it couldn't have been too bad.
You mention a couple of planes that were decent and say the Soviet airforce was better than the allies? Cmon dude. Nothing in the Soviet arsenal could match the Mustang in performance and range. The bombing campaign was won when the first Mustangs with drop tanks could fly to Berlin and back escorting bombers all the way. The Russians had nothing like that in their inventory.
Also the Soviets had neither a strategic bomber force or a strategic airlift force and they had neither the resources or technology to develop such capabilities.
But if you haven't noticed, there's not a lot of Ocean between Moscow and Berlin. Soviet naval doctrine was strictly coastal defense at the time, and it did that job admirably. It decimated Axis shipping from Sweden and Finnland. The Red Navy was twice as strong as the Kreigsmarine, and the Nazi's paid it a huge compliment but not even bothering engaging with it.
That's the point. The Soviet navy was decent for what it was created for, but it could never match the allied navy that dominated the world's oceans and could deploy armies across the globe to fight wherever it needed to.
The US navy in the pacific with its carrier power could decimate the entire Soviet navy on its own without breaking a sweat.
Better soldiers is probably a matter of opinion, but after Kursk Red Army infantry performed head and shoulders above the Allies. And as for equipment, there's no question the Soviets had better stuff than the Americans.
Allied troops were most definitely better on the whole no question. They received far more training before they shipped overseas to fight which is something many if not most Soviet soldiers didn't have before they were sent to the frontlines. As for equipment its not even close. Every allied soldier that went into combat especially later in the war was well equipped and supplied which is something that can't be said for Soviet troops.
Also one thing I didn't mention before was the medical support that the allied troops received that the Soviets could never come close to. Between immediate first aid and being able to often evacuate wounded soldiers to field hospitals quickly to operate on them, hundreds of thousands of troops that would otherwise have died were saved. The same can't be said for Soviet troops and the poor support they received.
They had spies in German high command, and the Lucy spy ring. I'm not sure what more one could ask for.
A few spies doesn't come close to equaling the vast intelligence network that the allies had developed during the war. Not even close. We're talking about strategic and tactical intelligence that the Soviets could never hope to match.
From Baration onward, Soviet logistics was as good or better than anyone elses. Not to mention, the western Allies never had the problem of supplying 12 million troops, 3-4 million at a time.
You're talking about the Soviets being able to support a land army with huge help from ALLIED VEHICLES mind you and trying to compare the massive logistical network and capabilities that the allies possessed? Cmon dude.
The industrial hub for supplies and equipment for the allies was in North America. They had to ship countless tons of supplies daily ACROSS OCEANS and then once they arrived in Europe to move those supplies and men from the shores to the frontlines. They also did the same in the Pacific at the same time.
The Soviets could NEVER hope to create such a capability and to maintain such a complex logistical operation across much of the planet the way the allies did. Supplying millions of men by shipping supplies by rail and roads to the frontlines is easy in comparison.
Also the allies' massive logistical advantage allowed them to launch numerous amphibious and airborne operations that the Soviets could only ever dream of doing. Even the much more advanced Germans didn't have such capabilities even if they had the know how to launch such operations. Because flying divisions of men behind enemy lines, dropping them off and then keeping them supplied is a massive logistical operation. The same with amphibious operations.
These kinds of operations required specialized vehicles, complex planning and having the necessary supplies to keep those troops fighting. All of these things that the Soviets could never develop and implement on a large scale the way the allies could.
If you went down the list of all the major operations launched by the Soviets and the allies during WWII you would easily see that every single operation that the Soviets launched could also be done by the allies and probably done better and with fewer casualties. If you looked down the list of allied operations, the Soviets wouldn't be able to do many if not most of them because they lacked the resources, technology and general know how in planning and launching such complex operations.
3
-
@Arinisonfire
The only areas the USSR were significantly behind the allies in was air force and naval power, everything else was comparable or in some cases, like man power, artillery and tanks, superior.
There's pretty much only a few weapons that the Soviets were on par or better than the allies and even that's often debatable. For example if we're talking about tanks, the late war allied tanks were getting better and powerful and were comparable to Soviet tanks, but OK for the sake of argument lets give that category to the Soviets.
How many other areas can you point to that the Soviets were unquestionably superior to the allies? Not very many.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the Soviets had bad logistics or bad equipment or that their soldiers weren't as well trained because none of that is true. A big part of why the Soviets beat the Germans is because of superior logistics and they were very much on par with the allies in regards to technology and equipment too.
A huge reason why the Soviets had better logistics as the war went on was because of allied vehicles being sent to the USSR during the war that turned many of their infantry divisions into motorized units and it also helped them move supplies and weapons around vastly more easily than the Germans ever could while using horses in much of their army.
If you have a couple of minutes I invite you to read this article that shows how much the US Studebaker truck contributed to the Soviet army to which they had no comparable vehicle in their arsenal that could do what the Studebaker could do.
https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet
The average Soviet soldier would also be more experienced and battle hardened than US or British soldiers.
Sure the Soviet soldiers that actually could survive for a while would be more experienced, but there's a reason why the Soviets suffered millions of troop casualties during the war because they usually didn't properly train them before throwing them to the wolves.
With the allies, all soldiers received a decent amount of training before sending them to the frontlines. Also you don't mention that allied soldiers had a VASTLY superior medical system behind their troops that could treat the wounded quickly and save many of their lives unlike the Soviets where getting a severe wound is likely death.
Its funny how the more things change the more they stay the same with the Russians where in WWII they sent undertrained men to the front and didn't have very good medical support to treat the wounded and now in 2022 in Ukraine nothing has changed and they're also sending many recently mobilized troops to the front with little training, crap equipment and relatively poor ability to treat them properly if they get wounded.
The air advantage would have been the allies big trump card, but it wouldn't take away from the fact that they would NEED to fight a long, bloody, war of attrition on the ground at the same time.
That's kind of the whole point of having a powerful airforce and gaining air superiority so that YOU DON'T have to fight a long, bloody war of attrition. The Soviets could dig massive Kursk like defenses to try and stop the allies, but what use would they be when allied fighters could destroy every single vehicle that's close to the Soviet front and send their strategic bomber force behind their lines to destroy their logistics, command and control centers and every single remotely important target they could find?
Also how can there be a 'war of attrition' when the allies could airborne drop several divisions of men with their equipment behind enemy lines the way they did during D-Day and Market Garden? How can there be a long drawn out fight when they could launch amphibious attacks in any number of places along the coastline of the vast USSR?
These are all capabilities that the allies possessed and could use over and over again that the Soviets couldn't even accomplish ONCE during the entire war.
Really though, why the allies would lose this war simply comes down to morale and public support.
Who knows maybe you're right on this one. That the people in the west would be tired of war and wouldn't want to fight another against the Soviets so soon after WWII. That's off the battlefield though. On the battlefield the allies would beat the Soviets no question because they were that vastly superior to the Red Army.
Again look to present day in Ukraine where even western trained and equipped troops are beating the supposed mighty Russian army to the point that they're resorting to the old school numbers game by calling up hundreds of thousands of recruits to try and stop from losing everything they gained in Ukraine.
Always found it hilarious that early in the war the pro-Russian folks kept saying the Russian army could easily beat NATO forces and now they can't even beat NATO trained Ukrainian troops.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mark-fr5pu
You have a clear misunderstanding of russia in late world war 2, ammuntion shortages and logistical problems were all sorted out, on account of russia becoming a full fledged total war time economy similar in caliber to the US.
Soviet production even at full wartime footing could NEVER hope to match even US wartime production let alone all the western allied production. The US alone had tons of resources and people at their disposal to pump out endless supplies for their own armies as well as their allies. Also they were hugely more technologically advanced and efficient when it came to mass production of everything from tanks to aircraft to food the troops.
Also don't forget that not only was the US able to produce all these supplies, they were able to send all these supplies to anywhere in the world which is something the Soviets could never hope to match.
America would find trouble supplying so many troops overseas in such large offensives, one must realize that america would face a lot of new logistcal problems that would hinder their momentum.
Not true at all. The US supplied its own armies as well as its allies on two major fronts in Europe and the Pacific. The main problem of supplying their troops wasn't the lack of resources and supplies, but rather the lack of ports where ships could dock and unload and have trucks move those supplies to the front. Once major ports like Antwerp fell into allied hands these supply issues were largely solved.
USSR would be prepared defesnivley and offensivley for such large fronts unlike the US and British You must only look no further than operation Bagration 1944. One must also consider that Russia’s tanks and offensive doctrine was superior to the US who at the time had few heavy tanks, the entire US offensive would be cut short by their lack of heavy vehicles and over reliance on air support.
The thing is unlike fighting the Germans, the western allies would have air superiority that would help stop any Soviet attacks and would help destroy any Soviet defenses. Also they would have a heavy bomber force that could pound Soviet logistics and supply lines in a manner that the Germans could never do.
Seriously what defense would the Soviets have against 1000 bomber raids escorted by fighters hitting their supply dumps, factories etc.?
Russia fielded heavy tanks like the IS2 and soon the IS3 that were impervious frontally to all american fielded tanks. Another point not mentioned in the vid is Russia’s considerable advantage in artillery, they were experts in combing artillery and heavy tanks to perform breakthroughs.
The allies were starting to bring newer tanks to the fight just before WWII ended and they would've ramped up production of these newer tanks if they knew they'd still have to fight the Soviets. Also any advantages the Soviets had on the ground would be mostly if not completely negated by allied air superiority.
The same way that German forces had much difficulty in moving around the battlefield in the west with allied fighters dominating the airspace above them, that would happen to the Soviets as well.
The bottom line is western allied armies were much better armed, much better supplied and much better led which is a big reason why they suffered far fewer casualties than the Soviets. If you placed the western allies on the Eastern Front to fight the bulk of the German army on the same Russian battlefields, there's ZERO CHANCE that they would lose 9 million soldiers killed like the Soviets did.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If memory serves, I read a story about several doctors sterilising native-Canadian women without their consent, just in the last couple of years too. It’s incredibly fucked up to hear that these things are still occurring in a wealthy, western country. That being said, this shouldn’t be happening anywhere, let alone Canada.
I seriously doubt this has happened at any kind of scale and is simply just isolated cases. Also it doesn't seemed to have stopped native people from having babies since they have the highest birthrates in the entire country even beating immigrant birthrates.
Violence against women is turning into an epidemic worldwide. More likely, it’s always been a profound and deeply-engrained issue, but it sadly hasn’t been receiving the attention that it deserves.
This has been a native and certain groups of minority issue much more than it is for other groups of people. Its almost like when you bring in 3rd world people, they're not immediately going to be letting go of their 3rd world behaviors and this goes for crime and violence and other general bad behaviors that make Canada a worse country to live in.
There’s literal genocide occurring in Sudan, and how often have we actually heard anything about that in the ‘mainstream media’?
Sudan doesn't get much attention because this is just Africans doing African things. Namely almost every single predominately African nation has major problems and most are in some sort of conflict whether it be with other nations or with themselves. Most of Africa is just a massive tire fire that has been messed up for centuries and very little if anything will ever change on that continent because you have an entire race of people who aren't very bright, but are very violent and they can't ever stop fighting each other long enough to start working together to build something better for themselves.
These same people behave the same way wherever they go especially in western nations where even given a great opportunity to build a better life for themselves they instead choose violence and crime and seem hellbent to wreck our nations and turn it into the same shitholes that they turned their homelands into.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cruiser6260
we don't know that theory of creating diversion is incorrect on the initial incursion. It's classic military strategy to dummy attack and draw forces. Actually advancing in is a bit different. Key points though, There was no battle for Kiev attempting to take the city and no sustained seige, which would be humanitarian disaster anyway. Did it in fact draw a lot of ukr forces to Kiev, if it did then it's not an unreasonable theory.
Saying the Kiev front was a diversion is merely pro-Russian folks trying to explain away the disaster that was the drive to Kiev was. Diversionary attacks ARE NOT meant to destroy your own forces in the process and if that's what happens then you're doing it VERY wrong.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you don't throw significant numbers of your best troops flying in on helicopters supported by aircraft to try and capture two major airfields just outside of Kiev so that you can fly in thousands more men to open up a forward front and then having tens of thousands of troops racing to link up with them and do all that as a diversion.
You do all that because you have the real intention of trying to take the capital of a nation because historically in war that's ALWAYS been an important objective. Just look at both Chechen wars where the Russians both times made Grozny their primary objective. The Russians did not expect major resistance from the Ukrainians which is why they believed they could occupy major government and military installations in Kiev quickly and take control of the city.
People think you need hundreds of thousands of soldiers to take a major city yet all you have to do is look at Kherson where it was taken at the beginning of the war with barely a fight from the people living there.
People who keep saying this attack was all a diversion are just trying to explain why the Russians took huge casualties and were then forced to retreat and why it was worth it rather than acknowledging the disaster that it really was.
On NATO not wanting direct war with RUS, that's been true since about 1949. In a conventional war, the Pentagon's wargaming shows they can not win a war against Rus in Europe or in the Pacific against China, definitely not both.
There may have been a time during the 1950s, 60s and 70s where the USSR was indeed very strong and NATO definitely didn't want to go to war with them, however that time has LONG PASSED. Even if the USSR existed today, NATO would be more than able to beat them in a head to head conventional war. With the breakup of the USSR there is ZERO CHANCE that Russia could ever beat NATO on its own. The US alone could destroy Russian forces completely in a land war.
The only reason NATO doesn't want to go war with Russia now is because they don't want Russia potentially using nukes when they're getting their asses beat on the battlefield. If Russia didn't have nukes, almost 100% probably a no fly zone over Ukraine would've been implemented by NATO from the beginning of the invasion and perhaps even turns into attacking Russian ground forces if they cross a certain line and don't turn back.
I'll say they're both right on the himars. Not enough have been supplied to make a decisive difference, but you can't say they haven't made any difference at all. On the last round table Dima was saying Rus has a system with the same capability just a lot more. He also suggested lira not underestimate ukr.
Absolutely disagree. HIMARS and later on other MLRS systems have made a MASSIVE difference in this war. Before HIMARS arrived Russia was firing off huge amounts of artillery and missile barrages everyday. That has been drastically reduced now because HIMARS/MLRS systems have made it impossible for the Russians to place large amounts of ammunition close to the front without it getting destroyed quickly.
How many videos of huge ammo dumps did we see go up in a big fireworks display before the Russians finally got their head out of their asses and pulled their dumps farther back and break them down into smaller ammo dumps so that a hit doesn't destroy huge amounts of ammo and supplies?
HIMARS/MLRS would not be such a great strategic weapon with such a major impact if the rockets they were launching weren't so pinpoint accurate and had a decent range. If the Ukrainians were given ATACMS, you could kiss Russian logistics and command centers bye bye and they would be in even worse shape than they are now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardwolf8024
yes i think they have better tanks than we do. I do not think the M4 is a good match for the T-34/85, and it's certainly not a match for IS-1s or IS-3s. Yes we have M26 Pershings, but not that many of them yet. They also have hundreds of Su-85, Su-100, Su/Isu-122, and Su/ISu-152 heavy assault guns.
Warning long post!!
I think the western allied ability to have communications between units and different branches of the military to launch combined arms attacks is far superior to the USSR's ability to do the same in WWII. The same goes for intelligence gathering and analysis.
Also lets not forget that yet again you need to talk about logistics and how FAR superior the allies were in that branch of the military and it isn't even close. And all this doesn't even include the allied airforce which would more than compensate for any Russian superiority in tank quality. Just look at what they did to the Germans and their tanks during the Normandy invasion and beyond.
No, I didn't forget the B-29. It has great range, but flying into Soviet air defenses will be alot tougher than flying into Japanese ones. The Japanese were short on trained/experienced pilots and aircrew, as were the Germans, but the Soviets are not. The Soviets might not train their pilots as well as ours, but they have as much combat experience as ours do.
The Germans spent immense resources on air defense over a much smaller area and they still weren't able to stop the allied bombing campaign that went on day and night. I don't see Russian air defense being that much better than the Germans and probably they'd be lucky to be on par with them. Ask yourself if the Germans couldn't stop masses of B-17s and Lancasters from raining bombs on them non-stop, what hope do the Russians have of stopping B-29s who have even longer range and a bigger bombload?
You have to remember that air defense in WWII is vastly worse than air defense in present day. In WWII you send up fighters to intercept and you use AA guns to try and hit a plane which was difficult to do. I don't see how the Russians could hit enough allied aircraft to make a difference with WWII AA technology when the Germans never came close to doing it.
In every category allied aircraft and pilots were superior and there's zero chance that the Soviet air force would survive for long in the skies before they lose control of their airspace much like the Germans did.
Both supply lines are vulnerable. They can't do much about our transoceanic convoys, but they can bomb roads, railways, and rail yards just like we can do to them. Their troops are less lavishly equipped then ours, so they don't need as much as ours do. They would have to repair those things in Eastern Europe, but we would have to do the same in France. They have no qualms about drafting civilian labor at gunpoint. We won't do that.
How would the Soviets bomb allied logistics when the allied airforce would have near complete control of the air? The allied airforce could put up a permanent combat air patrol over their ground forces and it would be suicide for the Soviets to even try and penetrate it. Also the Russians barely had many bombers that were considered 'heavy' and they were vastly outdated and inferior to what the allies possessed. Again it would be suicide to try and fly those anywhere near allied forces to try and bomb them.
Just consider that the US production of B-17 bombers ALONE was several times more in number than ALL Soviet heavy bomber production in WWII. There is no way the Soviets could ever hope to counter this and much like the Germans their cities and factories would be constantly bombed into kingdom come especially with B-29s that could drop more bombs per flight.
Yes, we have massive naval superiority. Absolutely. But where would we land? In the Barents? Fighting them in the arctic sounds like a nightmare. In the Black Sea? Not unless the Turks let us go through the Dardenelles and the Bosporus. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. if the Turks say No, what are we going to do? Try to force it? Ever hear of the Gallipoli Campaign, in WW1?
The point of having a massive navy is to be able to land wherever the allies want. If I were in charge I'd just land anywhere in the Barents sea where a port existed and use them to bring supplies in to support the continuing allied advance.
In the south this is 1945 and onwards and not 1918. If the allied navy wanted to sail into the Black Sea it would do so with or without Turkey's permission because there's nothing they could do to stop us. They could then launch an assault against the Caucasus oil fields and the Soviets would be forced to respond which would further weaken their forces in central Europe much like it did to the Germans who were fighting in North Africa and then Italy rather than deploying those forces to the east.
The bottom line is any advantages that the Soviets had with their land army would be vastly wiped out by all the advantages that the allies had in practically everything else you could think of.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@edwardmatalka
The Ukrainian assault reminded me of the German thrust in the so-called Battle of the Bulge: no aircover, low fuel, moderate levels of ammo, and little manpower. I don’t believe the Ukrainians can maintain an effective counterattack. Militarily, this doesn’t amount to all that much.
The direction of the Ukrainian attack is towards major road and rail networks and if they can capture a place like Kupyansk, that significantly affects the ability of the Russians to move men, supplies and equipment around the battlefield. Regaining territory is nice, but if they can continue to take back major road and rail hubs then that will hurt the Russians far more since they rely so much on rail.
Between that and the Ukrainians continuing to hit Russian supply lines, its going to be difficult for Russian forces to get around and launch successful ground attacks especially when they're in range of Ukrainian artillery which has proven to be pretty accurate.
And while the Ukrainians don't have much in airpower, as we've seen neither do the Russians who have been very careful with their aircraft rather than having them being able to gain air superiority over Ukrainian skies so they too have been attacking in the Donbas with little air support and relying mostly on artillery and missile strikes.
Politically, the EU and U.S. neocons can use this offensive to silence critics and push for escalation.
I don't get this idea that Ukraine has to show success on the offensive to give confidence to western countries to keep supporting them. By now if countries are in then they're in and if they're out then they're out. War is usually a marathon and there's going to be successes and setbacks and it makes no sense to reduce support just because of a few setbacks.
Maybe if the UA forces were completely collapsing and in full retreat then sure it might make sense to stop sending in more equipment and supplies but this isn't the case and won't ever be the case as long as the west provides support to the Ukrainians who seem more than willing to fight for as long as it takes to get Russian forces out of their nation.
The USA faced this issue during the Civil War, our bloodiest conflict, actually a War of Secession. Putin needs to understand that it’s time to take the gloves off.
If he could 'take the gloves off' wouldn't Putin already have done so and called for mobilization already? Seems like he really doesn't want to do that because it would be a clear admission that he was wrong and miscalculated and that the 'special operation' isn't going well. A supposed relatively quick and small operation that now requires the men and resources of most of Russia? Who knows maybe that's the line that pushes Russian people into finally going against Putin and wanting him gone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kuruptzZz
Well guess what? Seoul is certainly no crime-free haven these days. According to the site "statista", there were over 35,000 arrests for violent crimes in 2021. Even if this is not as bad as toronto, it's certainly nothing like the "1/1000th" lie you're trying to push.
I did some more research and from what I've read Seoul is definitely more violent than a place like Tokyo, HOWEVER even if its not 1000x better than Toronto its certainly at least 100x better than Toronto.
Here's something that you left out. Seoul has a population of 10 MILLION compared to almost 3 million in Toronto. You say there were 35,000 violent crimes or arrest for violent crimes in Seoul, but Toronto has almost the same amount if not more WITH 3 TIMES LESS POPULATION than Seoul.
Also as far as I can tell Seoul have NEVER IN ITS HISTORY averaged 100 shootings in a single year let alone average more than 300+ shootings every year like Toronto has recently. And Seoul definitely hasn't had several hundred stabbings in a single year like Toronto does annually. Also other crimes Seoul doesn't have to deal with in huge numbers is armed car jackings, robberies, violent assaults, swarming attacks, huge amounts of scams and fraud schemes etc.
This is why the claim that Toronto is a 'safe city' is complete BS. Sure its safer than many other cities in the world, but its pretty damn far from being as safe as most modern asian cities. Any city that's averaging a stabbing and/or shooting a day IS NOT a very safe city. We've simply accepted this to be the norm and that we're not as bad as the US for now.
I wonder why you've neglected to mention places like philippines, cambodia, malaysia, vietnam
Outside of the Philippines I would say the other 3 countries in most parts is safer than Toronto. And guess what? I don't think any of them have a city where they're averaging a shooting a day there.
technically asian countries like bangladesh, afghanistan...obviously because they don't fit into your claims!
When I say Asian countries I'm talking about East and Southeast Asian countries. And also I was talking about MODERN asian cities, but if you look at the entire region even the majority of less modern asian cities are more safer than Toronto. You ask me why I don't talk about all asian cities its because its pretty difficult if not impossible to find any asian city that the level of shootings and stabbings that Toronto/GTA has. If you can find an asian city the size of Toronto/GTA that averages a shooting/stabbing a day then please post it here. I'd really like to see it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@XandateOfHeaven
A wealthy elite which has no interest in providing education for the majority (like all third world elites) is not going to turn it's country into a first world country.
Lets be realistic here. We're talking about African people and outside of some pockets that are the exception, many if not the vast majority of people of Sub-Saharan Africa don't exactly have a burning, passionate desire to educate themselves to a high level even if they were given every opportunity to do so.
All you have to do is look at African people who move to western countries and see that despite coming to live in a modern, civilized nation where basic education at least up to highschool level is largely free and available to everyone, African students STILL do much worse than everyone else including most every other minority group who goes to school in western countries.
There are minorities from every corner of the world living in many western nations and most do at least decently well in getting their children educated to a reasonable degree if not to a very high degree. The exception is African children where there are some that become very well educated, but guess what? The majority DO NOT achieve high education levels despite given every chance to do so.
So please stop trying to make it sound like it was the lack of opportunity that was holding back African Rhodesians or Africans in general from becoming educated, well read people who could go on to learn high level knowledge and skills that could be used to find highly paid and highly skilled jobs that could help build their countries while improving their own standards of living.
My friend, China has been behind the West for centuries at this point. The 19th century to essentially the mid 2000s saw China ripped apart by countless civil wars, warlordism, rampant drug addiction, and the economic self-destruction of the Mao years. It was only by an unprecedented economic miracle that China was able to catch up to Eastern Europe in the last 20 years. China was poorer than most of Africa in the 1970s.
That's right for many centuries the Chinese were far behind western nations in advancement and development whether it be because of domestic or foreign reasons that you listed. However despite being behind the west for so long, they STILL had a percentage of Chinese people who were educated enough to design and build things like the Great Wall or the Forbidden City and many thousands of advanced buildings through the centuries that still exist today around their nation. They STILL were educated enough to develop and implement a common language that all Chinese people could understand and could communicate with each other no matter which part of the country they were born in etc.
You just proved that despite all the hardships and all the internal and external strife that has plagued the Chinese people for centuries that it NEVER completely stopped them from continuing to progress forward and improving their nation and the quality of life of their people. You just showed that it was HIGH WORK ETHIC and the desire to achieve is the reason why China was able to catch up to the west while most Africans LACK that same desire and high work ethic to achieve which is why even at China's worst they were still more advanced and developed than most other African countries and much of it they did on their own, while African nations needed the outside world to build practically everything modern for them just like they do in 2025.
Funny that you state that it wasn't the great work ethic of Chinese and many other asian people that allowed them to succeed and yet you proved EXACTLY THAT by observing that despite so many obstacles being thrown at them, they persevered and worked hard towards success rather than simply saying 'the history of my people was horrible and therefore we can never move beyond that past to achieve something better in the future. Lets just give up and wallow in pity forever'.
2
-
@XandateOfHeaven
Ooof, yap yap yap yap. Zimbabwe has massively improved literacy from the Rhodesian years from 70% to 90%. Just as China has made large improvements, so to has Africa. The whole narrative that Africa has not improved at all is not based in fact.
When you say Zimbabwe has 'massively' improved literacy you're just talking about BASIC LITERACY. In terms of university students, in 2018 there was only about 93,000 Zimbabweans attending university. 93,000 out of 17 MILLION people which is 0.005% of the population. So while its nice that general literacy is up, its pretty clear that the overall higher education levels of Zimbabwe is still very low.
Also I'm pretty sure the standards of education at Zimbabwe's universities aren't anywhere on par with the vast majority of western or Chinese universities.
So yes African nations are 'improving', but they're improving at a VERY SLOW rate and mostly with massive foreign help. Why not have the courage to acknowledge this basic fact?
Oh no sir, I will not type "African immigrant education attainment US" into google for you. This is your problem, you refuse to do even basic research, even in an era where it would only take ten seconds.
I did numerous times in the past and just now and guess what? None of the data that I see proves your point. You're literally talking about a relatively small number of African immigrants doing well in the US and trying to portray those people as being the norm for the majority of African immigrants in the US which is absolutely wrong. There's no indication AT ALL that the nearly 5 million black immigrants currently living in the US are mostly doing very well especially when nearly 30% of those black immigrants come from Jamaica and Haiti and we know just how great Jamaicans and Haitians do in school right? 🤣😂😅🤣😂
Also you don't mention that many African immigrants who are successful in the US probably come from well off families who can afford to send their kids to the US for schooling and to live there and I seriously doubt that your average African refugee or asylum seeker is doing great in the US or any western nation that they fled to.
The fact is that you don't want to ever acknowledge because it probably hurts too much is that if the world ever decided to simply pick up and leave Africa entirely and say 'You're on your own, goodluck Africans' that most if not all African nations would rapidly decline and collapse without foreign aid, foreign skills, foreign technology etc. because many if not most African nations are always unstable for one reason or another and there's not enough educated and peaceful Africans to fix all the problems they have in their countries which is why they constantly rely on the people of the world to fix problems for them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Zalis116
Sometimes locations do create slum conditions, as with NYC's 5 Points neighborhood -- it was on the site of a filled-in lake, which led to buildings sinking, methane leaks, poor drainage, and diseases stemming from standing water and mosquitoes.
The condition of an area might create slum conditions, but it doesn't create violent and criminal people. You can live in poverty and NOT turn to violence and crime and turn your neighborhoods into dangerous places to live in addition to being poor. All you have to do is look at the countless poor areas all across Asia where hundreds of millions of people live in far, FAR worse poverty and squalor than anyone in any western city does outside of the homeless and you'll see that poverty didn't make all those people turn to violence and crime.
Rather than turning to crime, the vast majority of those people simply want a job that can support their families and makes enough money so that their children can get a proper education. And yet in the west certain demographics of people have education, decent housing and other social services handed to them on a silver platter and still they find a way to screw things up and be largely unable to lift themselves out of poverty and crime.
My point is that these perceptions and fears, whether they were true or not, played a major role in the development patterns of US cities and freeways, and that their absence explains why things turned out differently in Europe and other more racially-homogeneous places
The thing is in most cases these fears WERE TRUE and the statistics have shown this to be fact. No one like living around violent and criminal people and when your area turns to crap where your family and property is no longer safe, then you leave. Its interesting to me that there's only one or two groups of people who consistently ruin places that they populate in large numbers and then cry about racism when others decide to leave for someplace safer. Well if you don't want people leaving then its simple. STOP BEING SO VIOLENT AND CRIMINAL.
We have people from all corners of the earth living in the US, Canada and other western nations and its ALWAYS the same couple of groups who have the most problems living peacefully in any country that they settle in significant numbers.
Also with regards to many US cities and how they grew to have so much sprawl while the car certainly aided in that, the real reason is that it all comes down to the huge amounts of space available in North America in comparison to Europe and elsewhere. When you have vast amounts of land to build on, people aren't going to be mindful of not wasting it by building with more density rather than just plowing over new areas of land to build on.
Imagine if the US mainland wasn't one single country, but instead where each state was its own individual nation, I guarantee you that almost every one of these new nations would be high density because they're FORCED to be. When you no longer have tons of space to waste, you conserve what you have.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@burnburn645
NO its not "the same as" those cities, thats such a wild exaggeration lol.
I'm not saying that Toronto is anywhere near as bad as any major US city when it comes to crime and violence, but how can we not be worried when we're legitimately headed in that direction rather than having crime rates go down??
Things were NEVER this bad even 15-20 years ago let alone 20+ years ago. I'm not saying the 80s and 90s in the GTA were crime free times in this city, but we certainly didn't have this many shootings, stabbings and violent crimes happening all around our city and even into our suburbs. Places like Pickering, Oshawa, Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan etc. were not very violent 20-30 years ago and now with changing demographics in those places the violence and crime rates have also gone up.
So yes you're right its an exaggeration to compare Toronto with any American city when it comes to crime and violence, but guess what? With our ever increasing demographic change with not so nice people being imported here in ever larger numbers, we're headed in the wrong direction. Maybe our leaders should consider growing some balls and stop bringing in so many of these people into our nation while holding those groups of people accountable for what their kids do and get these crime and violence problems under control before its too late.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@palmshoot
You're moving the goal posts by injecting the irrelevant metrics, like population, and I'm not playing along.
So you ignore that the Seychelles weren't massively helped by the French and British who had occupied them for many years? That what the Seychelles is today is all from their own work and not from any outside influence? OK.
Also population DOES matter. You can't possibly tell me that running a tiny nation is the same or as difficult as running a country that has a population of millions if not tens of millions. Cmon now. Everything is magnified by orders of magnitude from managing the economy, to social services and infrastructure to crime and violence etc.
If that's the ONLY example that you can point out of a 'successful' African nation then that's pretty sad because its so small and even then its only moderately successful.
Nearly every African country has been colonized by Europeans, but that's because the latter are invasive. It is telling, though, that Jamaica, who is richer than Kosovo and Ukraine (per capita) and has a population in the millions, is seeking independence from the UK.
Why don't you acknowledge that as much harm that the Europeans and other nations of the world caused to African countries, they're also the main reason every Sub-Saharan African nation isn't still stuck in the stone ages? I mean seriously do you really believe that if the entire world stayed out of Africa all these centuries years and allowed African nations to develop on their own that they would all become modern, civilized and advanced nations in 2023? Please.
This isn't Hollywood where these countries would all become Wakandas. This is reality where they would still be living now the same as they had thousands of years ago with little if any development. The reason any African nation is even mildly modern today is because the world literally gave them all their development on a silver platter and it allowed them to skip centuries of development and discovery that they would've had to do on their own. Yet STILL they find a way to screw things up and have extreme issues with living peacefully with each other and becoming modern, civilized nations.
As for Jamaica, a huge portion of their economy is from tourism. Namely earning money from doing nothing but being lucky enough to be located in a part of the world with great weather that people like visiting. Also lets not mention that for a small population they have a murder rate that's near the highest in the world and is like 40-50 times higher than a nation like Canada who has 14 times larger population than them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Uhh except the victim's laptop, a jacket, calculator, ruler and purse with ID? Also why not mention Williams' criminal record in the past BEFORE this murder?
'The jury heard testimony detailing a residential burglary in 1997, armed robberies of both a doughnut shop and a Burger King in 1998, and a threat to kill a corrections officer at the St. Louis City Workhouse in 1999. The State also introduced certified copies of Williams's sixteen convictions: second degree burglary and stealing over $150 in 1988; second degree assault in 1988; second degree burglary in 1988; two counts each of second degree burglary and stealing over $150 in 1991; first degree robbery, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon in 2000; and first degree robbery, armed criminal action, stealing a motor vehicle, and two counts of false imprisonment in 2000'
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JokersAce0
Ukraine isn't winning. The Russians aren't objectively winning either but they have still taken a massive amount of territory.
The Russians took a significant amount of territory because of sheer numbers and the amount of armored vehicles they had to move forward with. Also the Russians had the most success in the south because increasingly it looks like they had inside help there.
The fact is the initial Russian invasion because of their ineptness and stupidity cost them ALOT of needless troop and armored vehicle losses that are now coming back to bite them in the asses. Think about it. They went from attacking on three fronts to now barely being able to launch a significant attack in one region. They went from moving many kilometers a day to barely crawling forward even with heavy artillery and missile support.
Once again, you are overestimating the potential for allied aircraft to deplete Soviet forces. WW2 close air support was not as effective as you are alluding. Just because they are the ORIGIN of modern day attack aircraft now, doesn't mean they were truly effective back then. A long term strategic bombing campaign woulnd't hold the tide back.
Do you even do any research before making such comments? Here's an article that details US close air support from the Normandy invasion and beyond and how in just a couple of months they refined the system of how air support could be provided to frontline troops from being inefficient to a much more smooth and efficient operation. If you have the time, try reading it as its very imformative.
https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=cmh
Also you're WRONG and Allied strategic bombing played a significant part in degrading Germany's ability to continue their wartime production and you're lying to yourself if you believe otherwise. The goal of strategic bombing isn't to completely destroy every factory and kill every person, its to disrupt and damage a nation's ability to keep their production levels up. The Germans had no answer to such a bomber force and neither did the Russians.
The Allies literally only faced one true large offensive and that was the Bulge, with drained and depleted Germans and they did not have fund. Have fun with being completely outnumbered 2 to 1 by the Soviets. The Brits did a study on who would win, they determined the allies would lose thanks to being massively outnumbered by the superior Soviet forces and ground equipment.
Again the very fact that you only talk about the amount of men and equipment that the Soviets had available to fight with and never mentioning the logistical requirements needed to keep that army supplied and fighting shows how little you know as to how a modern army functions.
The larger an army, the more resources it needs on a daily basis to keep it fighting and you NEVER mention how the Russians could ever accomplish that when they have the allied airforce bombing the crap out of their logistics on a daily basis. Allied aircraft and pilots were so far superior that it wasn't even close and once the allies swept the Soviets from the air, they would be vulnerable to constant air attack that would destroy the Soviet army's ability to effectively fight.
Air superiority has been a vital objective that gives the side who gains it a MASSIVE battle winning advantage and its been that way since WWII. The Soviets would never have the ability to beat the allies in the air and that would put them at a huge disadvantage that they could never recover from.
The Soviets still used mechanized logistics and you are really acting like they wouldn't have been making the supply rounds even though they had done so for the entire war to the point of inventing new fields of advanced mathematics to do so, compared to Germans using horsies and slaves.
You do realize a big reason why the Soviets had mechanized logistics was because the allies sent them SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND vehicles including 200,000 or so trucks that were far superior to anything that the Soviets had.
https://www.rbth.com/history/333156-how-us-studebaker-became-soviet
The “Studery” (as Soviet soldiers called them) were built for a load of 2,500 kg, yet it was not uncommon for them to carry up to four tons. On the highway, the powerful all-wheel-drive truck could reach a top speed of 70 km/h, and its 150-liter tank was enough for 400 km. The main workhorses of the Red Army, the ZIS-5 and the GAZ-AA, could not compete with their foreign counterpart. “The Studebaker was better, of course,” recalls Lieutenant Pavel Gurevich of the 6th Separate Guards Mortar Battalion: “The ZIS was two-axle and stalled if the road was bad. But the Studebaker was an all-terrain vehicle, both front and rear-wheel drive. Plus it was more maneuverable. In the swamps of Karelia, the Studebakers arrived not a moment too soon.”
So the US gave Soviets a truck that was VASTLY superior to anything that they could produce on their own, but hey lets forget that that played a large part in helping the Soviet army become more mobile and pretend that the Russians did everything on their own. OK.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jonathanviera1589
1. Kanem Bornu, Kingdom of Kongo, Great Zimbabwe, the Somalian Sultanates, kingdom of Kanem, Kingdom of Kush, Swahili Coast, Ethiopian Empire, Wolo Empire, Kingdom of Luba, Mutapa, Hausaland, Ghana Empire, Mali Empire and Songhai Empire.
Pretty much everyone you mentioned here were at best regional powers that were the biggest players in their own backyard. None of these African civilizations were very significant on the world stage and none of them accomplished anything that was hugely significant to the world that is still talked about to this day.
The Romans created roads, aqueducts and many other structures that still exist to this day. They created one of the world's greatest civilizations and had an eternal impact on the course of human history. I'm looking at any of the African empires you listed and none of them had any kind of impact that's anywhere near what the Romans had on humanity.
I think the best way to put it would be like an athlete being the best at an event in their own country and then going to the Olympics and competing against the best athletes in the world in that same event and then finding out that there's a huge difference between being the best in your nation and being the best in the world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@godfreydebouillon8807
I just disagree with so much of what you said. The videos I saw were CLEARLY tanks, and though I fully admit I cannot distinguish various tanks by mere sight recognition, the Russian claim is that they were Leopard 2s, the Western media claim (unanimously) is that it was "farm equipment", and to support their assertion they present the single most difficult video to discern what it is being destroyed, while refusing to present any other video (again this cherry picking is unanimous)
I have no doubt that the Ukrainians are losing men and equipment as their offensive is starting up just now and anyone who says otherwise is simply being dishonest. On the otherhand if there really was a loss of a Leopard or a Bradley it would be shown on every Telegram and news media outlet out there right away.
There are drones flying around the battlefield almost 24/7 and you don't think that one of those drones wouldn't have taken a video or photo of a western tank loss when it happens? Cmon now. We've already seen some French AMX 10 RCs either knocked out or abandoned so its not like you can hide equipment losses when they happen.
However, General Zaluzhny himself gave an interview, to The Economist, that Alexander read word for word, and he ALSO stated that the Kherson offensive was largely a failure, that the losses were enormous for the little gained, and that defending it was costly. Russia CHOSE to leave, they were not driven away. Ukraine was shelling the very dam that was just destroyed, and the Russian lines were right downstream.
Can you link me to this Economist interview that you're talking about? I'd really like to read it. As for the Russians leaving that's just plain coping and putting a positive spin on a bad situation. If the Russians didn't want to keep Kherson city they wouldn't have moved in VDV forces and equipment to reinforce the area to try and stop the Ukrainians from taking it. Putin annexed the region just a few weeks before and you're telling me that he would just give back one of the few major cities that his army has taken during this entire war without a fight? Please.
The fact is the Ukrainians degraded Russian logistics to the point that they could no longer properly supply their forces in that area and after being cut off by land and and with the Dnipro at their backs their only option was retreat or face destruction. So yes the Russians made the correct decision to retreat, but don't make it sound like they WANTED to retreat rather than being forced to. That would be as delusional as saying the Russians willingly retreated from the Kiev front rather than being forced to after being placed in a difficult position where they could no longer advance forward and were having major problems with keeping their forces supplied on that front.
You fully admit that Western media universally claimed, with absolute certainty, over a year ago, that Russia was at the very end of their supplies of artillery, rockets, missiles and ammo, correct?
No one with a sane rational mind would look at the data and say that the Russians were 'running out' of weapons and ammunition. However anyone with a sane rational mind would also look at the facts and acknowledge that the Russian army have taken massive losses to the point where they're reduced to using early Cold War equipment to continue the fight.
Can you ever imagine a world where the US army took so many tank losses in a war that they would be forced to pull out M60 tanks to bring to a 21st century battlefield to replace all their losses? It would NEVER HAPPEN and yet here we're seeing this exact thing happening with the Russian army. How INSANE is that? A supposed modern 21st century army losing so many armored vehicles that they're forced to pull out tanks from the mid-20th century and you see nothing concerning with that? Really?
Do you understand what a MAJOR problem it is to assert that the 2nd most powerful military on earth, with by far the most munitions stockpiles "is all out of ammo" and then it's proven that claim was literally made-up?
Again there's a difference between 'running out' and running low. Remember last summer when the Russians were firing up to 60,000 artillery shells a day and how people like Alexander were saying how Russia's overwhelming firepower couldn't be matched? Well where's that 60k shells a day now? Even during the entire campaign of trying to capture Bakhmut that they clearly badly wanted why didn't they expend more shells to support the attacks and reduce their own losses other than the fact that they couldn't?
Look at all the Iskander and other precision guided missiles the Russians fired at the beginning of the war. They haven't been able to fire anywhere near that many ever since. Only short spurts of these weapons that are their most modern and effective ones and I seriously doubt the Russians are holding back.
The fact is the Russians will NEVER completely run out of ammunition, but its clear that they certainly don't have the reserves of ammunition as they use to have which is why they've been forced to significantly reduce their artillery and missile usage even when they need it most now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Uchyiamada
Hold on, you realize they're at war with whole NATO, not just Ukraine right? If it was Ukraine only it'd probably be over at this point. And it's not just weapon delieviers, they have lots of troops on the ground, just that it's still inofficial. Biden himself admitted to parts of it not long ago (if you don't believe Russian sources).
If Russia was truly at war with NATO then Russia would've gotten curb stomped long ago. Right now they're only at war with western logistics and intelligence that are keeping Ukraine supplied. And yes of course if Ukraine was fighting on its own it would've lost because its a much smaller country with a much smaller military than Russia.
Even if the Ukrainian army had the will to fight on they would quickly run out of equipment, supplies and ammunition to do so because their defense spending isn't anywhere near that of Russia's.
Also if you actually believe that NATO troops are in Ukraine fighting for them then you need to find better news sources that aren't so crazy stupid. We know there are former soldiers from western armies that are fighting in the foreign legion in Ukraine, but actual NATO soldiers who are currently in service with their country's military fighting there? Yeah I find that hard to believe.
Hypothetically even if what you said were actually true, then what does it say for the Russian army that they're so inferior that NATO troops can completely stop the Russians from making anymore significant gains and have been able to even push them back in recent months? Supposed NATO troops without all their modern tanks and other armored vehicles, without their vastly superior airforce and artillery and all other advanced equipment that they don't have access to and they're STILL fighting the Russian army to a standstill.
Imagine if these supposed NATO troops had all their modern equipment with them? They would've destroyed the Russian forces and kicked them out of Ukraine including the Crimea LONG AGO.
Putin himself mentioned in one of his speeches that Russia's existence is at stake here, so if anything I gather they'd be very careful and methodical about advancing
Russia would NEVER be invaded by the west because they have no desire to do so. Who would want to invade that POS country when western countries are busy with their own problems? Only in Putin's insane mind would he believe NATO countries had any desire to militarily invade Russia.
Also the Russians HAVE NOT been careful with their men which is why so many of them have died to this useless war and why they're calling up so many more men to be used as cannon fodder to continue the conflict. At least Ukrainian men who are called up for service can get proper training and equipment from NATO countries so that when they join the war they'll be better prepared to fight it.
The more things change the more they stay the same for Russia when it comes to fighting wars. Their answer to everything is to throw more men and equipment at the problem and hope it eventually overwhelms the enemy. If they can't win on tactics and strategy, they'll try and win it with sheer numbers.
As for your tank/equipment comment I see tons of videos of tanks, missiles etc being transported from Uralzavod (or whatever it's called) by train to the front. You really ought to visit that Bitchute channel to see it yourself.
I've seen videos of the Russians transporting equipment to the front too and most of it has been tanks, armored vehicles and alot of other equipment from the Cold War era. If you can post links here that show the Russians transporting modern equipment to the battlefield then please show me as I'm genuinely interested to see them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jl-lq5en
It depends on what both sides do and are willing to do. If Russia is willing to commit more soldiers and equipment to the fight in Ukraine then they may be able to take more territory though not huge amounts. If they're not able to then we'll probably have a stalemate for a while with small to moderate gains and losses in territory on both sides. Russia wins some land, Ukraine wins some land back, but more or less the frontlines don't move too much either way.
On the other side if Ukraine is able to receive more training from NATO for its new troops and have them become a decent fighting force that can replace losses and be capable of offensive fighting and if this force can be properly equipped with western weapons, then there's a good chance for Ukraine to launch larger counter offensives that can take back significant parts of their country.
At this point who knows how many Ukrainian troops are getting trained and what they'll be armed with, but most definitely they're getting replacements eventually.
The bottom line is at the very least Russia has a serious equipment problem right now when it comes to things like tanks, other armored vehicles and aircraft. Things like these can't be replaced overnight especially when we're talking about aircraft. Russia is now reduced to using 1960s era tanks to replace their losses in Ukraine which is pretty insane. Could you ever imagine the US taking so many Abrams tank losses that they're reduced to bringing back M60s to use as replacements? That would never happen.
The Russians started off the invasion using old equipment and they're now forced to use even older equipment because they have no choice and little ability to build more modern tanks, other weapon systems and aircraft in a timely manner. Russia can replace many of its troop losses even if those troops might not be very good, but every tank, armored vehicle, artillery piece, helicopter, jet fighter etc. that they lose is very hard if not possible to replace unless they dig up old equipment and/or take equipment from their other units in other parts of the country. Either way its going to be very difficult for Russia to launch further large offensives in Ukraine and they'd be really fortunate if they're even able to hold everything they've gained up to now which we'll see if that doesn't change in the coming months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eugenekrabs869
Keep telling yourself this lie, 80% of german forces fought on the eastern front. 80%, you think taking down the kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, and Italy mattered, sure it did, not a majority of the war, if the Wehrmacht succeeded nothing else would matter, so the soviets won the war, the allies contributed heavily but without the soviets there would be no hope of victory without britain or america it would be a bloodier longer war, but one germany still could not win.
Disagree. Its actually the opposite. Without the western allies, the Soviets would not completely lose the war, but they also would not win either. The USSR is so huge in landmass that the Germans obviously could never conquer the entirety of the USSR, but they would've likely kicked the Soviets out of most if not all of Eastern Europe and perhaps up to losing Moscow if not more.
The Soviets would retreat eastwards into the interior and eastern Asia Russia and from there it would remain to be seen if they could fight back and regain their lost territory. The western allies on the otherhand would have to fight a much longer and more costly war, but they could've won it without the Soviets. Why? Because of America's MASSIVE and technologically advanced industrial base and with US and their allies' combined manpower.
I think people who argue that the Soviets did 'the bulk of the work' always look at the number of troops at the front and how many were killed without remembering all the huge logistical, technical and other support systems that are required to keep millions of soldiers in the field functioning and fighting.
A major reason why the Germans lost was because they didn't have the industrial base and proper logistical systems in place to support their huge armies. If the German forces had the same industrial resources as the US did, they would've beaten the Soviets out of Eastern Europe if not more instead of losing the entire war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@subtle0savage
Regarding this current engagement, Ukraine has launched a series of major attacks with no discernable goal in mind (of military consequence). If they had succeeded, or nearly succeeded, in capturing/controlling an objective (as in Germanys advance in to the Ardennes during the 'Battle of the Bulge' to cut Allied ground forces in two and control the port of Antwerp), then this current assault could be labelled as a 'Penetration of the center'. Ukraine's goal seems primarily to gain significant stretches of land held by a weak enemy to boost moral, which has negligible strategic value and in point of fact demonstrates they are weak
The overall Ukrainian goal is of course to take back all or as much land that they've lost in this war. The thing is I believe that they're flexible in going about doing that.
This is just my own speculation, but I think when they announced the offensive on Kherson 1-2 months ago they wanted to see what the Russian reaction would be. The Ukrainians know that the Russians can't be strong everywhere along the front and so perhaps they were looking to see what the Russians would do.
When the Russians saw that the Ukrainians were actually gathering to attack in the Kherson area they moved in reinforcements to help with repelling the attack. The thing is this became a pick your poison situation for the Russians. If they move troops to Kherson to reinforce that area, then those reserves won't be available for other parts of the front. If they don't move troops to Kherson then it will be an easier attack when the UA forces go on the offensive.
The Russians chose to reinforce Kherson, the Ukrainians saw the opportunity to attack in the Kharkiv area when they saw that it wasn't heavily defended. So between good planning and good intelligence supplied by the west, they were able to take advantage of an opportunity that became available and because there were few reserves available, the breakthrough became much larger than if the Russians had any reserves to stop the offensive from moving so deep so fast.
So while this successful attack and retaking of large areas of land is certainly a good morale booster, it also shows that the Ukrainians are capable of outsmarting the Russians as well as being capable of launching larger offensives and exploiting opportunities when they emerge.
You'll ignore the some 80,000 Ukraine casualties to date. You'll look the other way when Russia demonstrates it can strike anywhere, anytime, clear across Ukraine, whenever it chooses.
Can you provide a legitimate source that shows that the UA forces have taken 80,000 casualties? Also ever since the Kiev retreat, the Russians have barely attacked anywhere but the Donbas region because that was all they were capable of. Imagine starting off the war attacking on 3 fronts with armored forces rolling into Ukraine and then after being forced to retreat from Kiev, they lost so much armor that they no longer had the ability to launch any further large scale mobile operations since and its why they were reduced to fighting WWI style and moving forward in a slow crawl in their Donbas offensive.
What took the Russians several months to gain they gave it back in a matter of days. And here's my prediction. The Russians aren't going to be launching any kind of major counterattack anytime soon and if they do eventually go back to the offensive its going to be another slow hard slog forward unless they throw much more men and equipment into the fight.
PS: I give Alexander credit for being such a good spin artist that he could make such a bad situation sound like a minor setback. Putin should definitely give this man a big fat bonus check for defending every Russian mistake so hard and always trying to turn it into a positive.
1
-
@subtle0savage
Frankly my estimate of 80,000 was erring on the side of conservative caution. The number of casualties, given the amount of devastation observed of military formations, anecdotal comments by captured Ukrainian soldiers, the lethality of Russian weapons, is likely in the 120-150,000 range.
I don't doubt that the Ukrainians have taken significant casualties during this war so far, but I doubt the 80,000 number let alone higher until you or anyone else can provide an official legitimate source that can prove this to be true.
On the otherside I don't necessarily trust the super high Russian casualty estimates that have been put out there by some, but I don't doubt that they've definitely taken more casualties than the Ukrainians have.
What we know for certain is that 40,000 soldiers would never, by any military around the world, be construed as enough to seize and hold a well-defended city the size of Kiev. Personally I think Russia was primarily attempting a bluff, a gamble that if it was pulled off, would save an enormous amount of deaths and cost.
When will people give up this excuse and accept that Russia's attack towards Kiev was a failed assault and they paid for it dearly? Look at every single coup/overthrow attempt of a government and tell me when have you EVER needed to conquer the entire city and its population to successfully get rid of a government or leader and take control of the city and gain power?
Look at one of the more recent coups in Myanmar in 2021 where the military there simply arrested all the politicians who were in charge at the time and then installed their own government in its place. Did the military need to send tens of thousands of soldiers out in the city to keep the capital's 900,000+ population under control? Not really and that same military government is still in charge today.
So I don't get this insistence that you need tens of thousands of troops to take over a capital when all you really need to do is capture, kill or make the existing government flee and then take over important government and news media buildings and perhaps some military installations and that's about it.
Personally I think Russia was primarily attempting a bluff, a gamble that if it was pulled off, would save an enormous amount of deaths and cost.
Completely unnecessary. You could've just put those same 40k soldiers at the Belarus border and sat them there the whole time and accomplished the same objective of forcing the Ukrainians to put tens of thousands of troops to face you without losing a single soldier or tank. If the Russians did that, they would now have a large fresh armored reserve to work with instead of a badly beaten and depleted one that needed to be refitted.
Regarding the goal of Ukraine being to take back all of the land it's lost... that is a pipe dream. It has been losing ground consistently since the beginning of the war--and that when it was strongest.
Disagree. While the Ukrainians have lost some good units during the war, they're also gaining new ones who have now had combat experience and are getting better by the day. Also ever increasing amounts of UA soldiers are being trained by NATO advisors which means they'll come out being good troops unlike the untrained, substandard soldiers that Russia are increasingly turning to.
And we didn't even talk about the Ukrainians getting massive equipment upgrades from western countries that they didn't have at the beginning of the invasion. Just the addition of HIMARS/MLRS systems have made a HUGE difference to the war with their ability to hit vital targets far behind Russian lines. If only they had them at the beginning of the war, things would be vastly different by now especially with that 40km column that HIMARS would've turned to dust.
As an addendum, Russia has barely used its actual forces in Ukraine. Most of the fighting has been done by the Wagner group, the Donbass militias and the Chechens under Kadyrov.
That's what Alexander told you and if you want to believe it that's up to you. He just doesn't want this debacle and embarrassment of a performance to be put on the Russian army so just blame it on the militia. If you can show me other sources that prove that Russian troops haven't been doing as much fighting as we know they are, then please post it here. Otherwise its just another 'fact' that Alexander has pulled out of his ass to try and explain away the losses and defeats as not being Russian army losses and defeats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antyspi4466
This is a war between NATO and Russia, for key strategic areas that are vital for Russia, for NATO gaining a foothold to threaten further vital Russian interests, as well as Russia´s status as a great power and regime change in Moscow.
Russia hasn't been a 'great power' for a very long time and no one would threaten Russia if they didn't threaten others first.
Russia can never back down, as a defeat threatens the very existence of the Russian state. If Russia has to mobilize 10 million men and lead a total war effort, so be it. It can rely on China´s support in that matter, which understands that if Russia gets defeated, exhausted, geostrategically neutered and perhaps even becomes a Western colony like in the early 90´s, Beijing will be the next on Washington´s menu.
That's the problem that Russia created for themselves. They believed invading and taking over Ukraine would be a relative easy operation that would take a few weeks at most and they completely miscalculated and have jumped into the biggest shitstorm that they could ever dream of and now they're stuck.
I hope China is watching and sees how stupid using military force without much thought can place your nation into a giant hole that you don't want to be in and instead find other non-military means to solve issues that you might have with other nations.
So yes, we will most likely see the escalation into WW III and a direct conflict between Russia and NATO, but not because Kiev gets showered with weapons and because of battlefield successes, but because Ukraine is losing and can´t get sufficiently re-equipped. Even temporary Ukrainian successes would just delay the inevitable, as it would force Moscow to double down and increase its war effort to the point where it can break Ukraine´s forces - which brings us again to a NATO intervention.
What is Russia going to double down with if it keeps losing men and equipment at the rate they're going at? They're going to fight with ever increasingly less trained and capable men armed with ever increasingly older equipment. Goodluck to the Russians when Ukraine is going in the opposite direction where more and more NATO is becoming more willing to send ever more modern western equipment to help Ukrainians push back the Russians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yuri-z2y
This is what I found:
A poll released by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology, with data gathered from 8–16 April, 41.1% of people in Donetsk were for decentralisation of Ukraine with powers transferred to regions, while letting it remain a unified state, 38.4% for changing Ukraine into federation, 27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation , and only 10.6% supported current unitary structure without changes
Another poll, taken by the Donetsk Institute for Social Research and Political Analysis, found that 18.6% of those polled in the region opposed changes to the government structure, 47% favoured federalisation, or at least more economic independence from Kyiv, 27% wanted to join Russia in some form, and 5% wanted to become an independent state.
According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Centre from 5–23 April, 18% of eastern Ukrainians were in favour of secession, while 70% wished to remain part of a united Ukraine.
So where's the part where the majority of people living in the Donbas wanted to become completely independent from Ukraine or even were in favor of joining Russia??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincentvega6932
' i aware of other parties and why they dont get represented. I think Ranked Choice Voting would serve us best. Nearly nothing would change but the people's choice would be more accurate and it would allow development of other parties.'
Maybe it will help a tiny bit, but overall its almost always going to be the same big parties taking turns running nations.
'The BLM craziness was bound to happen at one point. Police are out of control and low income neighborhoods are harassed continuously to make many, small arrests. Yes some a bit bigger but mostly dumb arrests and i know rich areas with a ton of drugs moving around but they dont get pulled over for nothing, illegally searched (probably) and arrested the same. '
Lets be real. When police and people in general have to deal with violent, criminal and crazy people on a daily basis, you're going to develop biases towards them. That's human nature and not just police doing it.
Blacks, the media, politicians, SJWs and most people in general LOVE to frame this as a race/ethinicity issue when its ALWAYS mostly been about A BEHAVIOR ISSUE. Namely whether you're a cop or the average person, no one likes being around and dealing with violent, dangerous and poorly behaved people.
If asian people were as consistently violent and criminal as blacks were, then we'd be talking about 'anti-asian racism' and how they were mistreated by cops and society when really people would only be disliking asians FOR THEIR BAD AND VIOLENT BEHAVIORS.
Pretend in another timeline, black people were just as peaceful and hardworking and low crime as asian people. Do you honestly believe that people would still dislike black people and treat them like they were dangerous out of control savages? Of course not. People would treat blacks exactly the same as everyone else, but of course black people haven't been peaceful and non-violent for a long time, but instead of owning up to their mistakes and trying to change their violent and destructive behaviors, they instead choose to blame everyone but themselves for all their failings and all our leaders and society in general join in on these lies just to avoid being called racist and bigoted.
I bet you a million dollars right now that alot of what black people perceive as racism towards them is mostly police and non-black people treating many black people and particularly black males for what they are. Violent savages that can't control themselves and as a result they harm themselves as well as everyone who has to suffer living around them.
Black people cry racism because behaviors CAN BE CHANGED if they put work into it, but they obviously don't want to do that and would rather simply use the race card anytime someone criticises them because they refuse to take any responsibility for their own actions. Far too many black people are literally grown up children that non-black people have to constantly coddle and baby in order for them to not explode in anger even more often.
If western society had any courage they would be doing the exact opposite and cracking down on bad black behavior like China has been doing which is why even though there are hundreds of thousands of blacks living in China, the Chinese don't have many violence and crime issues with them. Because blacks in China know that if they get out of control that their behaviors WILL NOT BE TOLERATED and they'll be quickly dealt with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Go-ah-oold
Japan is an amazing country if you have enough money to never work, ever. As soon as you want to make a living, it gets very difficult. Either you get a high paying job, then you live in Tokyo, and all your salary gets gobbled up by the every day expenses. The other alternative is that you live in the countryside, where it is cheap, but your salary will also be crap, so, you will still struggle to get by.
This isn't very different from many places in the world where trying to find an affordable place to live is difficult even with a decent paying job. In Toronto or Vancouver you probably need at least two people making pretty good money to have even a hope in hell of buying a home anywhere near downtown. In Toronto even many suburban areas have become very pricy and too costly for people to even think about buying a home for themselves.
The difference is that in Japan other than the higher costs of living and working too much, they don't have to deal with all the daily shootings, stabbings, robberies, random assaults etc. that people living in Toronto have to deal with. The Toronto that I grew up with is long gone and will never return and its become a shell of its former self when it was a great place to live and have fun in.
Our politicians have bent the knee to the SJW crowd which means many problems that need to be fixed will NEVER be fixed and the majority population who are much less vocal and militant will have to suffer in silence because if you criticise the wrong people and/or issue you're putting your life and career on the line which most people understandably don't want to do.
So yeah being able to find a way to live in Japan long term might be difficult, but if you can do it then it would be a great place to live because they don't have a fraction of the problems that many western countries have when they're not being ruled by the woke crowd and being overrun with immigrants.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rahim1969
Northeast Philadelphia once a haven for blue collar working class whites began to see an influx of African American and Hispanic Home Owners and neighborhoods like Tacony and Frankford were hit hard by this influx of poor or fixed income citizens and people started to sell there homes at a staggering rate this is a product of fear and a perceived devaluing of property.
Lets be real this is a product of FACTS though. Namely when violent and dangerous people move into an area, people usually don't move out because they don't like certain people for their race/ethnicity. Some people might feel that way, but the vast majority probably do it if the people moving in are making your neighborhoods more dangerous to live in. No one wants to live in a crime ridden area where you always have to be afraid to even walk out of your home and always watching your back lest you become a victim of crime.
The proof of this is still happening in those very neighborhoods where crime has increased. This has a direct relation on the crime because you are making it increasingly difficult for people to stay in the neighborhoods they were born. So as you move more wealthy people into a gentrified neighborhood that has not stabilized yet it is the perfect breeding ground for crime
The thing is if an area is bad and dangerous, why would you want to keep it that way instead of making it better? Sure it affects the people already living there, but what can you do? Let the area remain as it is forever? That results in places like Detroit and Baltimore where you have large portions of the city that are too dangerous and crime ridden to live in.
Maybe its wrong, but if you ever want to fix things perhaps we should move these dangerous people out and let them keep being violent far away from decent people who can rebuild an area and make it a better place to live in. I'm sure plenty of people will call it racist, but if you let them run wild without doing anything about these people you're just making your city worse and forcing innocent people to needlessly suffer and even die because a small portion of people can't get their shit together and live in a modern society in a relatively civilized manner.
Philly is very unique in the design and layout of this city being one of first large cities in America and we have had our share of issues but all in all be it Black or White, Hispanic or Asian our city has been one of the greatest throughout America's History. The very birth of a nation was founded here in Philadelphia. Neither New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC which are larger cities have so rich a history as Philadelphia.
I agree that Philly has a great history, but its just sad that its being ruined by such high crime rates. I just looked up the number of murders in Philly and HOLY SMOKES ITS CRAZY!! Nearly 250 murders so far in 2022?!?!! WOW.
I live in Toronto and things are definitely getting worse here in terms of violence, crime and murder, but it completely pales in comparison to Philly. I really don't know how I could live in Philly when I'm already more than concerned with the amount of crime and violence happening in Toronto these days.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Synchro Metanom
You're mistaking the commission of a crime with getting caught for a crime. And if you think what you're saying takes the stink off of the fact that you called for ethnic cleansing of black Canadians, you're delusional.
It was a hypothetical scenario to illustrate just how much crime and violence and general chaos black people in Canada have caused and are still causing and it will NEVER END just like it will never end in every single country that they populate in any significant numbers.
We know this to be true, but we will NEVER do anything about it because we have too many people like you who will call any measure that tries to hold these people accountable for their behaviors as being racist. So here we are as a society stuck with a couple of demographics of people who can't raise their kids properly to be decent human beings with morals and compassion for their fellow man and also can't build and live in peaceful, safe communities that are able to thrive and become successful.
It seems to me that "people like you" should be forced to live with "these people" so you can learn to see people as people instead of as race.
That's hilarious because for lefties/progressives/SJWs they see NOTHING BUT RACE and groups and tribes. Many years ago we use to hear these same people say 'We aren't white, black, yellow, brown, red etc. we are the HUMAN RACE'. Today these very people can't stop talking about people without mentioning race in the conversation.
I guess now its very beneficial to be black, native, LGBT etc. so its why they make such a big deal about it to get ahead. Its always funny to me that people who are clearly biracial no longer want to identify as such because its much more profitable to be considered fully black or fully apart of another minority group than say you're biracial.
Black Canadians have been with us from the beginning of our nation. They are not represented by newer immigrants that come from undeveloped and war torn countries, who have serious issues with authority.
Absolutely not true. Black Canadians as well as black immigrants that have arrived here over the decades all have crime and violence problems, just at different percentages perhaps. Black people no matter where they come from have ALWAYS had issues with people of authority and following rules and laws. Why do you think that pretty much every single predominately black populated nation on the planet are giant shitholes with maybe a few small exceptions?
I've worked with some amazing people who happened to be black. Some of the best I've known. I've also known some of the oldest black bloodlines in Canada. Good people.
Of course there are SOME good black people who are hard working, peaceful and simply want to live in a safe society where they aren't harmed just like everyone else, but you'd have to be insane not to admit that there is a far too large of a percentage of black people and especially black males who are NOT like that.
And THAT'S where the problem lies. Too high a percentage of black people in Canada who are violent, criminal and generally causing trouble to an otherwise mostly peaceful society even when they have an opportunity to build a good life for themselves that millions of other people would die to have the same chance at.
Compare that to the tens of thousands of Ukrainians who have fled their country because of war to Canada and how so many of them have ALREADY found jobs and are getting their kids into school so that they don't miss out on having their children get a proper education even as their nation is getting torn apart. And they're doing this WITHOUT screwing up their new homes by committing tons of crime and violence towards the nation and its people who so graciously took them in in their time of need.
Gee what a HARD DECISION TO MAKE between allowing Ukrainians to come settle in your country or to allow black people to settle in your country. I truly can't decide! 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosszografov614
It isn't Kherson. That's the province name. It's Kherson city they talk about so misleadingly in western media. Furthermore, it isn't even the city proper, just the left bank, which would be of no military help to Zelensky..as his troops will be stuck exposed there in the open, with all bridges destroyed and in a heavily mined area
I guess we'll find out in the coming days just how much the Russians have given back to the Ukrainians in their retreat and what they'll be doing afterwards.
Liman was taken back 5-6 weeks ago..but as it's usual to expect, western media hasn't reported on the Russian gaining back the Northern East.. except a small captions on some western news services, saying: Liman under Russian control.
Please show me a legitimate news source says that Lyman was retaken by the Russians? If you have a link please post it here.
Western media is full of propaganda and misinformation, and the Russian side doesn't comment much, as a traditional rule by the military.. all that, leaves knowledge in a state of confusion.
Are you saying Russian media is 100% accurate and honest in what it reports? 😂🤣😅😂😂🤣
Look even if you don't trust either side's media, you can still do your own research on the internet and also see what's actually happening on the battlefield to get at least a half decent accurate picture.
Like for example many pro-Russian hacks like Alexander still push the lie that the Russians haven't taken high casualties and yet if you look at the actions of the Russian government where they've called for mobilization as well as finding as many troops as they can from everywhere that they can, it certainly doesn't seem like the Russians have taken only light casualties going by the measures they've taken.
This isn't very different than the Russian invasion of Chechnya where they launched a poorly planned and poorly executed assault into that country and took significant casualties and tried to cover it up. Then mostly by being a vastly larger army with much more equipment did the Russians finally win through brute force.
The same is happening now in this war except that Ukrainian being a much larger country with a much bigger population is able to fight back effectively with western help. This time around Putin had bitten off more than he could chew and he's paying for it bigtime now.
It's clearer to us, that with each day Zelensky's troops have run out of steam, weapons and energy. We can't see any advances..it all looks grey, cold and gloomy on the Zelensky's side
Again if what you say is true then we'll soon see it on the battlefield where the Ukrainians will have taken so many casualties that they will be unable to launch further major offensives against the Russians. So far that hasn't proven to be true when people like Alexander kept insisting that the Russians were winning with their small advances in the Donbas. Then when the Ukrainian offensives began he said they were minor gains and that the Russians would hold and probably take back what they lost with counterattacks.
Then when that didn't happen and the Ukrainians kept moving forward, he claimed that they were taking heavy casualties for their advances and said that the Kherson offensive was still a failure. Then when the Ukrainians started making advances in the Kherson front he said they were minor gains at heavy cost and that the Russians would hold. And now we see that was false too and that the Russians chose to retreat now rather have another Kharkiv happen where the Russians ran and retreated in disarray.
So we'll see in the next few weeks and longer as to what will happen and then see if Alexander, you and all the other pro-Russian hacks will be right or will you all be wrong once again like almost every other time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LostAndHangry
So, how did the native Americans lose their countries? Outsiders came, they didn't assimilate, they kept coming and eventually out numbered the native population. From that perspective, diversity is a bad thing and you can apply that logic anywhere, to Japan for example.
First thing is that native people aren't native to North America, they just arrived to the North American continent first from Europe and Asia via the landbridge. So they're 'foreigners' to NA too.
Second why do native people believe they own EVERYTHING just because they arrived to NA first? NA is a huge continent and native people populated only tiny portions of it and yet they somehow feel like this means they have a right to call EVERYTHING theirs? How does that make sense?
Third if foreigners who are vastly more advanced arrive to NA why would they adapt themselves to more primitive people rather than the reverse? In general the more advanced people either conquers or converts the less advanced people. This has been going on since the beginning of human existence whether we like it or not so its no surprise that native people were relatively easily overwhelmed.
I believe in assimilation and making sure that my duty is to be a net positive to the host country. In a country where you have negative population growth due to lack of children, immigration is the only way to ensure you don't get an inverted population pyramid where 1 child has to take care of both parents and 4 grandparents. As long as people coming in respect the culture, the laws, share common value, assimilate, I'm fine with it. If they commit crimes, they should be jailed and then kicked out.
I agree with you that people who come here should integrate, but these days we don't require it anymore because its considered 'racist' to want someone to speak English and to learn and respect Canadian laws and values.
However I disagree about the need to bring more people into Canada or any other western nation for the sake of maintaining population growth. In fact if you believe climate change is real then you can't also want population growth because obviously humans are big polluters and resource users and you can't claim to fight climate change while simultaneously accept hundreds of thousands of new polluters into your country every year. This is why our current government are such hypocrites with the carbon tax on Canadians, but at the same time bringing in a million new people every year to contribute to our pollution problems.
The last thing is what's wrong with having NO population growth or even a decrease in population? Increasing population may give your economy a short term boost, but it produces many long term problems that we're seeing now that we have to deal with in Canada.
Imagine if we just let our population stay relatively stable or even decline abit? You say we need more people to take care of the elderly, well ask yourself what happens when these people eventually grow old? Well obviously you need EVEN MORE people to take care of the larger elderly population that you brought in and then you need yet another larger young population to take of the previous generation that grew old and so on.
Do you not see that you're creating an ever worse pyramid death spiral where there's no end in sight? Why not just bite the bullet and let the current large senior population pass on and NOT massively increase population so that the next generation of seniors will be smaller. This means that while in the short term Canadians might have to pay more to take care of this large senior population, in the future they will have to pay less because the senior population didn't expand and you don't have to continually increase spending money on taking care of an ever growing senior population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XandateOfHeaven
This narrative that Rhodesia was a modern state and economy is a lie based on Rhodesian propaganda which only showed the lives of wealthy English landowners, which ignoring the 90% of the population which was poor.
It is possible for a nation to be considered civilized, modern and advanced and still have regions and groups of people living in it that are poor and are struggling.
Just look at the US where its the most economically powerful nation on earth and yet there's still tens of millions of people who are still living in poverty or at least below middle class standards. The thing is that in the US much like in most every other western nation, its almost always the same demographics of people that are struggling financially and socially.
The reality is that Rhodesia in 1979 was poorer than Zimbabwe is today, and it's people were less literate and lived shorter lives. Calling Rhodesia civilized is like saying Brazil is civilized because a few wealthy people in Rio have comfortable lives, while ignoring the vast slums.
Rhodesia in 1979 might be 'poorer' overall than present day Zimbabwe, but you don't mention the fact that its extremely likely that if white Rhodesians were still in charge today, Rhodesia would likely be far more prosperous overall and much more wealthy and better off than present day Zimbabwe.
Why? Because white Rhodesians would be continually working towards bettering and improving their nation unlike the leaders of Zimbabwe that stole from its people and squandered its money and managed the country poorly to what it is present day. So the people living in present day Rhodesia would likely be far more better off than those living in present day Zimbabwe, even including the black population.
I live in Canada and its the same thing here. The country and its people are generally doing OK and for some very well, HOWEVER despite living in a modern, civilized nation its ALWAYS been native and black people who are doing the absolute worst overall in this country. If Canada wasn't still run and maintained mostly by people of European heritage, it wouldn't be the nation it is today, it would be a wreck.
Africans and native people despite being given the same opportunities to prosper and succeed as every other demographic of people living here, STILL consistently fail in lifting themselves up even after decades of help. Its like they want everything handed to them on a silver platter forever.
I think that would be the case of a present day Rhodesia where its not the white Rhodesians who are preventing African Rhodesians from improving and bettering themselves, but rather many of them having little to no desire to put in the work to do so much like black and native people in Canada. The opportunity is there for them, they just choose not to take it and instead make more destructive life choices than everyone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@l0ndon429
Boston simply moved their traffic from above ground to below it with the massive tunnels they've built for vehicles. Go look up the Big Dig and see for yourself what that project was all about.
'Los Angeles 2030 has a clear vision of reducing emissions and encouraging active transport. San Francisco has taken moves to pedestrianise major roads. '
Goodluck to LA in trying to hit those emission goals. If they can do it good for them, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
'Austin has a $7 billion plan to create a complete and comprehensive with a new light rail, new electric bike fleet, expanded bus services, all electric bus fleet and new and expanded commuter lines, and so much more. '
Its one thing to create all those things, its quite another to convince people to give up their cars to use all those bikes, buses etc. if its not convenient for them to do so. I'm sure people living in downtown Austin will likely adopt to using those things more, but people living in the suburbs? I doubt they'll switch over anytime soon.
'And yes, some cities have continued to build more highways and worse, but the general trend is very clear. Things are changing, they’re not ‘the ways things will always be’ as you describe.'
The trend is people who live in the city core and around those areas will use transit and other means of transportation more while everyone else will continue to drive if they can afford to because it will likely remain the most convenient form of transportation for decades to come.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waynzignordics
Nato soldiers, active or inactive, comprise the entirety of the IL army responsible for the territorial recovery in Kharkiv. Their command structure is comprised of active Nato commanders. Does that fact make you uncomfortable?
I never disagreed that in terms of intelligence and assistance in command and planning etc. that NATO has greatly helped the UA forces. I just dispute that actual NATO soldiers who are actively serving within their own forces are fighting on the ground in Ukraine. As far as I've read pretty much all western volunteers fighting right now are not currently serving in their own country's armies.
Nato didn't "become involved" after Russia invaded, it's been involved since before 2014. Nato has been equipping, training, or financing AFU for nearly a decade.
Unfortunately for Ukraine it wasn't at the pace needed otherwise they should have a much larger NATO trained and equipped force ready at the beginning of the invasion to push back the Russians. Still there was enough that it made a significant enough difference that the Russian invasion was eventually slowed down and now mostly stopped.
Russia invaded Ukraine after the AFU began amassing troops on the Donbas border in preparation of an invasion into the region. The Donbas republics asked Russia for help, and she did so under the UN Charter rules.
Donbas is still apart of Ukraine and this was an internal matter that Russia didn't have to interfere with, but they did anyways. There wouldn't be fighting if some people in Donbas didn't form militias and try to gain independence by force and then when they started losing Russia intervened to help.
Also while many people in the Donbas did want independence or least more autonomy, from what I've read I don't think most residence living there wanted to do it by force and having their people dying and infrastructure destroyed.
The initial move on Kiev had the goal of fixing AFU troops in the north-west and preventing them from reinforcing the Donbas region. It worked so well Russia took more land than they could hold with their limited troop numbers, namely Kharkiv. The hope was Ukraine's government would capitulate like in 2014 in Crimea, and ALMOST DID, until Boris Johnson told Zelenskyy no, Biden backed up Boris, and Zelenskyy became the face of the greatest propaganda project the world has ever seen. Congrats for buying into it.
This makes no sense. You don't waste a significant portion of your troops and equipment in a 'feint' when its completely unnecessary to do so. As I've said elsewhere the Russians could've accomplished the same objective of forcing the Ukrainians to keep forces near Kiev and surrounding areas by simply having their 40k or so troops stay on the Belarus border and do nothing else.
Just sit that Russian force on the border and keep it there and do nothing else and they don't lose equipment and men that's badly needed now. And this doesn't even include all the logistical resources that were wasted supporting that attack that could've been transferred to support the eastern and southern fronts that lost alot of heavy equipment because many Russian vehicles ran out of fuel or broke down and were then abandoned.
Russia hasn't "pushed all their chips in." They haven't fully mobilized. They're fighting a SMO (by legal definition), and appear intent on keeping it that way.
What I'm saying is that the Russians have nearly used up as much of their forces and equipment as they can short of fully mobilizing which is why the talk of mobilization has ramped up so much in recent weeks. If the Russians were winning comfortably there wouldn't be any talk about mobilization at all and the reason why they haven't done it is because it would be open admission that they're failing badly in Ukraine and that short of throwing much more into the fight they're now not only not going to accomplish their goals, but they might lose much of what they've gained.
The Russians believed that what forces they gathered at the beginning of the invasion would be enough and they grossly miscalculated and now they're paying the price.
Russia doesn't want all of Ukraine, it wants everything east of the Dniper river, and the entire southern border through Odessa. Kiev can keep the rest (although Poland is gonna take back Lvov, watch).
If this was the case then they shouldn't have attacked towards Kiev which was a complete waste of forces and supplies. I think the Russians believed that even with NATO help since 2014 that having seen the Ukrainians fight previously in the Donbas and Crimea, they didn't think that UA forces would be a match for them or that they would even have the will to fight.
With those assumptions the Russians invaded thinking that the UA forces wouldn't put up much of a fight and those units that did resist would quickly be overwhelmed. After the UA forces collapse, Zelensky would have no choice but to flee the country or be captured.
This is why the Kiev attack happened otherwise it wouldn't ever have happened.
Do yourself a favor a listen to at least ONE source of news that isn't funded by Nato's propaganda money. It'll keep you from being so naive about current events.
I look at numerous sources from both sides because unlike the pro-Russian hacks of the Duran and others like them, I care more about facts and knowing what's actually happening in the ground in real life than I care about blindly supporting one side and completely discounting all information that doesn't say my side is winning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ub210
I understand your point. From the Russian side, also understand that Ukrainian was doing everything it could to wipe out the opposition over the last 8 years, especially in the Donbas.
You do understand that it was the Russians who supplied weapons to the Donbas militia and then they sent troops to help them too. This is despite the fact that very few people living in the Donbas who wanted more autonomy from Ukraine NEVER VOTED to separate from Ukraine by force. That was Putin trying to provoke a situation so that they would have justification to attack and that's exactly what happened.
*If they continue to progress and more territories vote to seek protection from the Kiev govt under the RF, what then? We're not going to support a 10-year war that has decimated Ukraine, NATO stores, and may
further erode Ukrainian territory, are we?*
That's makes no sense. Russians invade an area and Ukrainians flee the region. They then hold elections where everyone who would vote against them have already left and they 'win' the election and claim that that region wants to leave Ukraine? How much of a joke of an election can you hold that no one would ever recognize if they had half a brain?
You're pretty much ethnically cleansing an area so that all opposition against you is gone and then claiming the territory as yours.
Surely, the west sees this? The US military has made it clear that they do not want to get involved. This is clearly overreach by the US State Dept and agencies under it.
If NATO and the US didn't want to get involved, they wouldn't have supported Ukraine for this long and be slowly but surely expanding their support. Sure it would've been great to see NATO step up with tanks and other armored vehicles from the beginning, but the fact that the US and Germany are willing to send Bradleys and Marders now and the UK is willing to send a few Challenger tanks as well is a great start from even a few months ago when such donations were out of the question.
So yes NATO won't put boots on the ground, but they're also not going to let Ukraine fall after being committed to helping them for so long.
When they start respecting each other, we'll get somewhere with nogotiations. If not, with time, respective western govts will be replaced with people who are able to make the tough decisions that will lead to peace.
How can you negotiate with a tyrant like Putin who's already made it clear that he's not willing to budge on much of anything? Giving in to his demands only emboldens him to do it again to Ukraine or other countries in the future. Unless Putin drastically changes his mind, the only way to force him to change his mind is to beat his army to a pulp on the battlefield or else have the Russian people say enough and enough and rise up against him which seems very unlikely.
An uneasy peace is worse than no peace at all as you can see with North and South Korea where even though they're not fighting each other there's a neverending uneasiness between them where violence could break out at anytime. The only long term solution for Ukraine is to join NATO and be under their protection. The Baltic states prove that NATO protection works because without joining, they would've been taken over and fallen back under Russian control long ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jay64j
Yes, this can be an aspect of Russian war, but you describe it out of context, like a western propaganda rag. There is strategy underlying the action. Western ways, now also forced on Ukraine, are often with far less strategy, bigger bombs, more death to civilians.
I don't know if you've been following the war since the beginning, but I have and I can tell you it isn't 'western propaganda' at all to say that the Russians have been throwing troops and equipment away recklessly since the beginning of the conflict and things still haven't changed now.
From the first days of the war when the Russians were taking significant casualties as well as having many of their men abandoning their vehicles because of poor logistics and often running out of fuel, so many people thought that this was actually part of the plan to send their low grade units to soak up Ukrainian supplies before the real units went in.
Now we see that this is the actual state of the Russian army and while things have improved since the early days of the war, the Russians are still throwing away men and equipment with very little care as long as they achieve their objectives. If you disagree then please tell me what you believe the Russian strategy is these days?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackbird309
Okay, but where are the encirclements? Russians preserving their forces in a successful retreat is not a desired outcome when Ukraine is unfortunately losing so much in this offensive, leaving them vulnerable when mobilization units come.
In war its often difficult to complete a full encirclement where the enemy is completely cut off and surrounded, but if you can threaten encirclement and force the enemy to retreat that's effective as well. In Izyum and elsewhere the Russians left behind alot of supplies and equipment so even if you don't get enemy troops you can at least get some of their equipment.
And with regards to the mobilizing troops, it remains to be seen how well they will do at the frontlines or if they're going to be used behind lines. Having more bodies isn't always a good thing unless they're well trained and equipped to fight and help, otherwise you simply increase the pressure on your logistics with relative little benefit other than having warm bodies to take a bullet for you.
The Russians have already shown to have major difficulties supporting even a couple of hundred thousand troops and now during mobilization it doesn't even look like they have enough supplies to properly equip those new recruits. So lets see what happens in the coming weeks when they have 300,000 new men that they need to support in the field and how they will do it.
Ukraine hasn't retaken much land either, 30km in Kherson is less than a 20 minute drive. The media talks big numbers, but if you pay attention, the military support they've been receiving is less and less.
Are you kidding? The Ukrainians have taken back a fair amount of territory and more importantly taken back towns that have important road and rail networks which of course are vital to moving troops and supplies. Its funny how during the past several months with Russia's Donbas offensive when they were plodding their way forward making modest gains, the pro-Russian folks were saying the Russians were doing great. But somehow when the Ukrainians are taking back alot of what they lost in just a few weeks its seen as no big deal? OK. 🙄🙄🙄
Lets just put it this way. If it were the Russians who were making this amount of gains and it were the Ukrainians retreating and giving up all this territory, all the pro-Russian hacks like the Duran would be jumping for joy and jizzing all over themselves seeing the advances of Russian forces and would be saying the UA forces are on the verge of collapse and that it was nearing the end for them and so on.
The offensive is not sustainable and will ultimately leave them vulnerable when mobilized units come?
You make it sound like the Ukrainians also don't have more NATO trained and equipped reinforcements coming onto the battlefield in the coming weeks and months too. I'll take them over whatever reinforcements are bringing any day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EdwarkDiyaz
China did not use all its strength in 1950, because the Chinese Volunteer Army invested only one million troops in the Korean battlefield, and the United Nations Army invested about one million troops in the Korean battlefield. China also did not use all its strength in 1950.
The UN army DID NOT have one million troops on the frontlines in Korea EVER. There may have been one million troops rotating into and out of the frontlines during the war, but if the UN army actually had one million soldiers on the frontlines all together at the same time, the Chinese would have likely been pushed back to their own borders.
With that many soldiers and with enough firepower supporting them, there's no reason the UN forces couldn't launch another Inchon amphibious assault that could've beaten the Chinese the same way it defeated the North Koreans.
Also all China had was manpower and some artillery, but what else did they have? No airpower other than the Russians, very few tanks and vehicles to move their forces and zero navy. This is why the Chinese lost 4-5 times or even more troops than all UN forces combined.
This is not because the United States can stop China now, but because China wants to wait for greater advantages. After all, confrontation between major powers is not a child's play. China must ensure unification. Taiwan has a higher chance of winning in dealing with decoupling from the West
I really believe that the Chinese government no matter how much they want Taiwan back, isn't ever stupid enough to actually try and make that come true. I don't think and I hope the Chinese government is smart enough to understand that possibly gaining back an island nation isn't worth all the massive economic damage that it would do it itself.
Russian trade with the world outside of natural resources is relatively minimal. Chinese trade with the world is insanely huge. Any full scale sanctions would be devastating to the Chinese economy when their economy relies so much on other nations buying their products.
To me the best course for China would to be to continue what they're doing now which is continuing to improve their own nation and the standard of living for all Chinese people. A war with the west would set them back massively and Taiwan is not a prize that's worth all the pain and suffering that Chinese people would receive as a result of Chinese aggression towards Taiwan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sea_yung
though i do agree that in this day and age, black people are treated as if they're "off limits" to criticism, i think it is valid to a certain extent. as the video describes, blacks have historically been subjected to various racist practices that have unfortunately put them in such a position to commit crimes.
I disagree. This is just taking agency away from black people for all the violence, crime and general bad behavior that they exhibit on a daily basis and making excuses for them. In Canada we do this not only for black people, but also for native people as well and we should STOP doing so because its treating these groups of people as if they were children that have no control or awareness as to their actions and words and so we should excuse their poor behaviors as a result.
We would NEVER do this for white people and most anyone else and yet its perfectly fine to do so for black and native people here where I am and its just insane. And the sad thing is that we allow this to happen not just in the US and Canada, but pretty much in every western country. Anytime they behave poorly there will ALWAYS be people to defend those behaviors when they would NEVER do it for most other people doing the same thing.
Also with regards to 'racist practices' that make black people become violent and dangerous, that's UTTER BULLCRAP and its just another excuse to justify their crappy and violent behaviors. In Canada black people were never enslaved or had any kind of Jim Crow laws pushed onto them. I'm not saying that blacks in Canada never faced any racism or something, but what they faced is basically minor in comparison to what blacks faced in many other parts of the world. In fact so little have happened to black Canadians, they need to grift off of what has happened to black people in the US and elsewhere in the world to make themselves out to be bigger victims than they really are.
the way you compare unreliable cars with violent demographics is pretty much saying that these people groups are inherently violent
The comparison I was making had less to do with cars themselves and more to do with the company and the leadership in charge of making those cars. Namely if a company puts out an unreliable and/or dangerous car, then you can demand that they fix things or simply stop buying their product.
The thing is you can't do that with black people. If they're violent and criminal and you try and hold them accountable for their actions, they call you racist and anti-black. On the otherhand you can't ban them from stores because they keep robbing you and you can't arm yourselves against them because if you fight back and injure or even kill them, well you're in deep shit for possibly committing not only murder but a 'hate crime' as well.
So the public is pretty much screwed when living with black people. You're not allowed to demand that they change and shape up and you can't avoid them completely because they're everywhere and you can't stop them from going to the same places that you go to.
If you own a store good luck to you because even if you hire security, they usually won't do anything to stop shoplifters because not only can the guards get injured, but also if the guards injure the criminal then the guard and store are possibly held liable and can be sued. Liquor and many other big box stores literally allow thieves to walk out with stuff and not even bother trying to stop them because its simply not worth it these days.
The point is with a product or service if its crappy you simply stop buying and the company has to either change or lose customers and money and potentially go bankrupt. With black people you can't hold them similarly accountable and demand that they change because 'that's racist' and yet you can't stay away from them or ban them from places because that too is racist. So people are just stuck with living with these violent and criminal people and they have to do so in silence for fear of backlash for even the most mild of criticism towards them which is just plain wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XandateOfHeaven
First of all, your whole narrative that Africa does not desire education is bellied by the fact modern Zimbabwe spends significantly more on education as a percentage of GDP. Robert Mugabe, tyrant though he was, was in fact more educated than Ian Smith. This is very typical of you, arguing with feelings and not with facts.
You do realize that spending DOES NOT equal results right? Spending on education is only a part of the equation. The other is students who have a desire to work hard and learn what the teaches teach them.
If spending alone raises education levels then where are all the highly educated Zimbabweans? Why are we not hearing about an explosion of highly educated Zimbabweans helping to build their own nation by leaps and bounds? How come we're not hearing about Zimbabweans doing very well everywhere else in the world?
Let's go back to China. Your assertion that China having a small educated elite as evidence of their cultural superiority doesn't really make sense. Firstly because China just as illiterate as Africa just a few decades ago. Secondly, because Africa also has an educated elite.
Yes the Chinese had low education rates decades ago, but they were actually able to raise the overall education level of the majority of their population and the proof is in their rapid rise in their economy and overall standards of living and what they've been able to accomplish in the past 20-30 years.
You CANNOT accomplish all this with only a small number of 'Chinese elites' being highly educated with everyone else being only moderately educated. You need a very large educated workforce to accomplish that and for those that aren't as highly educated, they're still very hard working people who are willing to take on most any job.
Heck the BBC just came out with an article talking about high youth unemployment among highly educated Chinese graduates.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8nlpy2n1lo
'China is churning out millions of university graduates every year but, in some fields, there just aren't enough jobs for them. Many university graduates who've found it hard to get work in their area of selected study are now doing jobs well below what they're qualified for, leading to criticism from family and friends.'
You can also see this with Chinese people around the world. Can you name me a single country that has a significant number of Chinese immigrants where most are living in poverty and are struggling to do well? The answer is no. In EVERY SINGLE NATION the Chinese population is doing well if not very well as immigrants to those countries.
Now lets look at the other side of the coin at African people. Where do you see Africans achieving this kind of levels of education in any African nation? The answer is ZERO which is why no African nation has been able to improve its nation the way China has been able to. No African nation has increased the level of education of its people the way China has been able to which is why no African nation has been able to achieve even a tiny fraction of growth and success that China has been able to in the past 20-30 years.
African immigrants to the United States perform better than immigrants from China. So your whole narrative that Africans can not succeed outside of Africa is plainly false.
Who's talk with their feelings over the facts now? I've heard this BS 'fact' for years now and everytime I looked for proof of this, I've only been able to find that its only very small specific groups of Africans like small numbers of Nigerians in the US and other western countries who are doing very well, while the vast majority of African immigrants clearly ARE NOT very educated and they're doing very poorly while committing high rates of crime and violence everywhere they go.
And this is despite the fact that when these Africans move to western nations, they're being given access to western schools the same as every other person is whether they're an immigrant or not and guess what? A vast number of them are doing much worse than every other immigrant group and it ain't even close.
So yeah when I say many if not most Africans have little desire to get themselves educated and to find highly skilled jobs, the proof is everywhere when outside of a few exceptions, the vast majority of African immigrants are still doing the worst compared to most every other demographic of people while still committing the highest rates of crime and violence out of everyone else.
If you believe this to be false, then please post links that show this to be wrong and that the majority of Africans are doing great as immigrants to other nations because they're certainly not doing great in their own nations.
1
-
@XandateOfHeaven
Education improvement is incremental, as China's example has proven. Literacy must be addressed first, then tertiary education. Again, China's literacy rate was less than most of Africa now in the 80s, and their tertiary education attainment is only 17% now according to the OECD which is WAY below Western Standards, which are usually around double this.
China fell behind the west in literacy and advancement in the 19th and 20th centuries in large part because of internal and external conflicts and then it practically slowed advancement to a crawl for a decade during the Cultural Revolution that killed a couple of million people or more.
One thing you completely didn't mention is that China has existed for thousands of years and that the Chinese were among the most educated and advanced in the early centuries when many other parts of the world were still fairly if not very primitive. If the Chinese never had highly educated people then the Great Wall of China would or the Forbidden City among many other ancient structures and buildings could never have been designed and built centuries ago the same way the Romans were highly advanced and educated during ancient times to accomplish what they did.
The point is China was once advanced, but through many conflicts and much turmoil fell behind during the industrial age, but with hard work and insane dedication they have become a world economic power. When has any nation in Africa accomplished anything like the Chinese did in the past or in recent history? Never. Not a single African nation on the entire continent has been able to galvanize their populations to work together towards greater things for their nations.
You again have this agenda driven double standard for Africa. Most cultures with the exception of Iraq, China and Mexico learned about technology through contact with other cultures. Europe did not natively develop agriculture or writing. Similarly China after falling behind the West developed largely through trade in technology.
There is no double standards, there's only facts. Of course there is exchange of knowledge and skills and there's trade happening between nations so that everyone benefits and everyone grows. The point that you seem to not want to acknowledge is that nations have been trying for decades to do the same with African nations, but the problem is Africans don't care enough to learn and do the same things that other nations have to become successful.
African people have for many decades have always had the opportunity to learn from foreigners who were much more advanced than they were, but they almost never took that opportunity on a large scale even to this day. Even in western nations you don't see many Africans outside of the few groups mentioned earlier having much desire to learn and instead are far more interested in other things like crime and violence.
Second, you know China was able to use Western technology without being colonized, and yet you justify colonization of Africa on the basis that it introduced technology to Africa.
Dude do you know any Chinese history? The Mongols literally conquered all of China and Kublai Khan became the first Mongol Emperor of China. How is that not colonization???!?!? What about the Portuguese having control and ruling Macau for 440 YEARS?? Or Britain ruling Hong Kong for 156 YEARS? That's not being colonized? LOL. Russia to this day still holds territory that was historically owned by the Chinese.
The point you don't want to acknowledge is that we're living in the 21st century where the internet is widespread and anyone can learn almost anything if they have the desire and drive to do so. Africans right now have more knowledge held in their hands with their phones than all of humanity has had even just 20 years ago. You would think that with this easy access to knowledge that Africans would be advancing much more quickly in the past couple of decades, but no they're still as stagnant as ever.
Africans have been handed EVERYTHING to them on a silver platter and they still can't progress and improve in any significant way without direct foreign help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SpeCifiC0507
Those who thought Russia was going to take the entirety of Ukraine in less than 6 months are absolute buffoons, nothing more or less. No one outside of the Western media has said that Russia was going to take Ukraine in that time span. You said it yourself, you fell for that idea because at the heart of it, it's a ridiculous notion to even think because no Military on this planet outside of conducting a full scale invasion would be able to take all of Ukraine in 6 months.
ALMOST EVERYONE believed that the Russians were going to overwhelm and destroy the Ukrainian armed forces within a few weeks at most. Find me ANYONE whether it be official intelligence services or Youtube armchair quarterbacks that are pro-Russian or pro-Ukraine that thought that the Ukrainian army had a chance at survival for more than a month or two? You'd be lucky to find even a couple that predicted that when the invasion began and the Russians were rolling into Ukraine on 3 fronts.
Almost everyone was sure that the Russians were unstoppable and that Ukrainian defeat was inevitable and if you can find me anyone who thought otherwise before the invasion started or just after then please post it here because they are almost non-existent.
Also you're 100% WRONG in that there is a military on the planet that would take Ukraine completely with relative ease and that's the US armed forces. You've already gotten a taste as to what some of the most advanced US weapons systems are capable of against the Russians. Now imagine them being used against the Ukrainians but by order of magnitudes more in numbers.
If a few dozen HIMARS/MLRS systems can already make a significant impact against the Russians, imagine the US putting HUNDREDS of those systems into the field against the UA forces. Imagine the might of the US airforce gaining air dominance over much of Ukraine from day 1. Imagine the US launching thousands of precision guided munitions against key Ukrainian installations and military targets?
It would be shock and awe 2.0 but with even better weapons than were used in Iraq. The way that the war has unfolded now is because the Russian forces are far inferior and less well trained and coordinated. They don't have a 750 billion annual budget that buys you the best in military hardware that greatly increases your combat power and capability.
Ukraine is massive in scale and scope, incredibly large and dense urban areas and these areas hold tunnel systems under them too that were created back in WW2. Additionally to that, Ukraine has had over 8 years to dig in and make defenses and they sure did, they're even viewable on Google maps.
The problem with your argument is that you're talking as if you were a WWI general as if all these elaborate defenses mattered. The Germans with their armored forces quickly overcame the mighty Maginot line and every other static defensive system by bypassing the strongest parts and surrounding them afterwards.
If the US were fighting these defenses they would simply Blitzkrieg the hell out of them and render them completely useless. The reason why the Russians aren't doing the same is because they lost a large portion of their armored forces in the early phases of the war and now don't have much capability to launch large scale armored attacks anymore otherwise they would've done it already.
Russia has committed less than 1/3rd of their Military, 150k. Between Russian forces, DPR/LPR forces, the Chechans and the Wagner PMC group there is approximately 230-250k total forces. Ukraine has a standing active Military of 1 million, to put it into perspective, the 150k forces Russia allocated would not have been able to take Kiev alone as Kiev would be heavily defended for obvious reasons
If you mean Ukraine has 1 million people serving in their military that might make sense, but they sure as hell don't have 1 million soldiers at least not right now and definitely not all trained and ready to go.
Also Russia's doctrine is largely artillery based, but they also possess a "deep battle" doctrine, which is exactly what they enacted when they feint attacked Kharkov/Kiev, but was able to March into Kherson and much of Eastern Ukraine relatively unmatched.
The Kiev front only became a 'feint' when they took significant losses and it became a complete disaster and they were forced to retreat. No one thought it was a feint when the Russians were marching ever closer to Kiev at the time.
They think this is happening because Putin is gearing up to war with the West, which only really have battle experience fighting Jihads/goat herders in caves and mudhuts, wearing sandals and flip flops. Ukraine is a modern Military with very similar equipment to Russia, so no Toyota Hilux's with homemade mortar launchers on the back or IED's strapped to children or dogs.
The Russians would get completely curb stomped by the US alone. Talking about them taking on all of NATO would be a joke. If the Russians didn't have nukes the west wouldn't be afraid of a 2nd rate army who's biggest advantage is its size.
Russia is doing quite well despite gimping itself, they're nearing their overall objective completion and if Zelensky keeps making these strange open handed threats about taking back everything, Russia will likely move onward from their primary objective and start taking other areas too.
Russia is doing well in implementing their plan B after massively failing plan A which was to bring Ukraine back into Russian control and making it another Belarus. The Ukrainians have already won because no matter what happens in the future Ukraine will still survive as a nation not under Russian rule. Its unlikely that they will regain everything that was lost pre-invasion, but Ukraine will still exist and that's the main thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@43110clyde
The sad thing is, all sorts of crimes are committed by all races. Differs from region to region.
You might believe this to be true, but the reality is NO this is NOT TRUE AT ALL. There's a HUGE MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between people of all races/ethnicities committing crime and having some race/ethnic groups committing far, FAR more crime and violence than other groups of people.
All the apologists want to say 'everyone commits crime' because they want to avoid the difficult conversation of a couple of groups of people commit far more crime and violence than everyone else PUT TOGETHER.
Also you say you want proof? All you have to do is watch the nightly news for like a month and see who consistently shows up on TV as the suspect in various violent crimes and murders and then comeback and tell me truthfully what you saw. I think you'll know the answer before you even try that experiment.
And lastly if you want even more proof, Toronto police started gathering raced based crime statistics last year and they had promised that they were going to release the data to the public at the end of the year. I was waiting FOREVER for that data to come out and guess what? To no ones surprise they changed their minds and DID NOT release that race based crime data.
Here's part of an article that explains this:
'The problem with the Toronto Police report released Wednesday concluding that Blacks, Indigenous people and other racial minorities are disproportionately targeted by police when it comes to use-of-force incidents and body searches, is that it looks at only half the issue.
It concludes the reason for this is systemic racism within the police force, for which Police Chief James Ramer publicly apologized and pledged to do better going forward, noting the study recommends 38 “action items” police will implement along with dozens of recommendations in other studies.
But what the report excludes are the crime rates in the various communities with which the police interact.
Logically that’s part of the equation because if they are higher in some communities than others, that will impact the frequency and type of their interactions with police.
However, it has been illegal for police forces in Ontario to gather or reveal this data for decades.
That was the result of a controversy that erupted in 1989 when then Toronto police superintendent Julian Fantino released statistics suggesting Blacks in one Toronto community were disproportionately involved in crime.'
1
-
@rngd0875
The race of criminals is irrelevant. Your skin tone or race is not what commits the crime, it is your character. It is not society's fault either, it is the fault of the individual committing the crime.
I absolutely agree that people should be judged by the content of their character and not their skin color, but what happens if for many people of a certain demographic, their character has been shown to be shitty, violent and criminal and you have decades of data to back that up. Then what?
Are you saying we show throw all that character data out the window and pretend that information never existed because it shows some people in a very bad light? That's essentially what black people wants everyone to do when they gave people the parameters to judge them by and when the results have been shown to be extremely bad they now change their minds and simply want you to not say anything and if you do say something then you're a racist POS for trying to hold them accountable for their actions.
That said, the reporting needs to keep to facts in order to protect the community. If it is a white man or black woman or trans Asian person, the reports must be clear so that people can identify the individual and protect themselves and their family. Race is only for identification, not a basis for crime or a causal effect.
Again I agree with you, but the problem is when one or two groups of people are responsible for the vast majority of crime and violence in the GTA and the statistics clearly show that, then what do you do? Well apparently black people would have you to not say anything and to ignore all the data gathered and if you don't you're a racist POS.
A criminal is a criminal regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, or gender confusion. We need to build communities that punish crime and deter criminal behavior and get some values and whole families to have healthy upbringings. We also need to slow immigration down and build infrastructure and integrate our communities, but that is a whole other thing.
Once again I agree, but the sad fact is more and more we're giving thugs and criminals from certain groups of people far more leeway and leniency than we would for other demographics of people. These people knowing that the punishment for their crimes will likely be a slap on the wrist, they get progressively more wilder and violent and still there's little push back against them until things really get shitty and we start looking like Chicago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@norman_5623
I don't doubt there are black people who are very intelligent and who have good jobs. What I do question is the AMOUNT of black people who are actually smart and are working in fields that require high levels of education while being peaceful and civil. Maybe where you live the percentage of black people who fit that bill is higher, but where I live and pretty much in the majority of places where blacks settle in significant numbers, this is NOT the case.
Maybe all those commercials, TV shows and movies that show black people as being smart, resourceful and peaceful have done its job in brainwashing many people to accept that as representing how the majority of black people are, but if we're being honest and are talking about actual reality, that is NOT the case and never has been.
I think Hollywood these days is portraying black people as what they WISHED they were like rather than what they really are. The 'ideal' black person if you will who's smart, hardworking, law abiding etc. Its like they're too afraid to portray black people in any kind of negative light for fear of backlash and the possibility of being cancelled. Don't get me wrong I wish the majority of black people were like what Hollywood portrays, but if you care about the truth then you know that its not true.
I live in Toronto which is one of the most diverse cities on the entire planet and we've already crossed the line of being a majority minority city and guess what? Despite only making up about 7% of the city's population, black people still commit the overwhelming majority of crime, violence and murders here and its not even close.
Think about it for a moment and realize that in Toronto and surrounding cities where 6.3+ million people live, 93% of non-black people can't even come close to committing the amount of shootings, stabbings and other violent crimes that a small 7% black population commits. This means that the 5.8+ MILLION non-black population here commits less crime and violence than the 450,000 or so black people who live here. This is the reality that this city and its suburbs are dealing with when it comes to black people that no one wants to acknowledge publicly because that would be deemed racist and discriminatory.
1
-
@WoodChoppa911
blaming the whole race is discriminatory. Crime mostly doesn't run in your blood, and definitely not by race. If you say that there are places which have many good black people, then maybe the problem is actually your city.
The thing is I DON'T blame ALL black people and I think people like you can't see the distinction between acknowledging the facts and thinking this means you're blaming or demonizing every single black person.
When the statistics show beyond any doubt that every year black people commit the most crime, violence and murder for their population size, how is that in any way, shape or form considered 'racist' to simply state what the facts show?
That shows that black people have a systemic crime and violence problem among their communities. Sure this doesn't show EVERY black community has these problems, but clearly many if not the majority do which is why black people with the money and means to choose where they live rarely if ever choose to live among their own kind.
And its quite funny that even BLM organizers who have grifted hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars off of their sham movement choose to buy homes in wealthy predominately white neighborhoods. That's how little confidence these people have in their own kind to not harm them or their property that they would choose to live with 'racist' white people who supposedly systemically discriminate against them.
You can't just blame a whole race just because of the ones committing the crimes, you should look at their background, a lot black people in north america and europe, even in african states, live in poverty because of colonization, slavery, and lastly long lasting discrimination.
Do you not see the obvious problem with your argument? If outside factors impact people so much as to cause them to go out and commit crime and violence then ask yourself why don't you see these same crime and violence issues cutting across ALL races/ethnicities who are poor and are living in poverty? We should be seeing at least SOME significant increases in crime and violence among poor asians, Indians, latinos etc. to prove that poverty to prove your point, but the fact is we don't see that.
In Toronto we have more poor people living here than the total population of black people with most of them being minorities from all across the world. Yet despite living in the EXACT SAME conditions and sharing the EXACT SAME schools, parks, stores and everything else with black people that they live side by side with, all these poor people DO NOT have the same crime and violence problems that black people do.
So answer me how can this be possible? That minorities can live in the same buildings as black people and share the exact same environment and not have their kids turn to crime and gangs and have them carrying guns and shooting people everyday? Clearly this isn't an environment issue as much as its a family issue where black people are piss poor parents to their kids and don't know how to raise them properly on a large scale. That's the main reason that sets black people apart from everyone else.
The cycle will continue unless you and everyone else understands that people aren't born a criminal and it's a systemic problem, not biological.
I NEVER said that black people are born a criminal, but its very clear that black people do an utter shit job of raising their kids to be decent human beings who have morals, compassion for their fellow man and to know how to make good life choices that keep them away from crime and violence. And its also true that black people have little to no interest in turning in all the thugs and criminals that live among them so that they're off the streets and are no longer a threat to the public.
These are all predominately black people problems which is why they're constantly being talked about. The problem is black people instead of acknowledging their issues and dealing with it head on and getting things fixed once and for all, they choose to lash out at anyone who would DARE call them out on their horrible behaviors. Sadly all our politicians, the justice system and the media would rather all be cowards and allow things to keep getting worse and worse than be brave and stand up and do something about these problems because to do so would likely lead to the end of their careers among accusations of being 'racist and intolerant'.
So they all pretend that all the problems that black people have are NOT of their own making and that its ALWAYS a variety of external factors that are causing black people to behave this way. Essentially they're treating black people like children who have absolutely no responsibility or agency for anything they say or do. Ask yourself what incentive would black people have to change their behaviors when most people and especially all our leaders are always going to bat for them and defending their actions no matter what they do?
Maybe there would be a chance that things would change if anyone had the balls to try and hold black people accountable for their behaviors just like they would hold any other race/ethnic group of people responsible for their behaviors. But doing that would be considered 'racist' as you and many others have plainly stated so instead we allow them to run wild and get away with every increasingly worse behaviors because no one has the balls to stop them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johntnet2466
You’re seriously delusional. Anywhere from a 5:1 to 7:1 kill ratio by the Russians, and Ukraine still has more than enough men to win? You really need to sell some of that stuff you’re smoking…should make a killing.
If you believe what you're saying then we should see the Russians turning the tide on the battlefield in the coming weeks when their new recruits get to Ukraine right?
On the otherhand if the Russians can't make any significant advances or they continue to get pushed back and lose ground then we'll know that what your saying was pure bullshit all along.
Remember that “general” Milley and his so-called casualty numbers? Got more news for you. Chinese military and diplomatic sources (keep in mind that China has friends on both sides, in both Ukraine and Russia) have reported an estimated 360k Ukrainian casualties, with over 126k dead. Russia is at 130k casualties, close to 12k dead.
I don't care what one general says about casualties. Find me at least a couple of legitimate credible sources that support the numbers you're saying and post it here? I'd genuinely like to see it.
Also you can believe whatever numbers that you want to believe, but the bottom line is if the Russians only have lost 12,000 troops to date in Ukraine, they would be doing much, MUCH better than they currently are.
I find it hard to believe how the Russian army can lose 20,000+ troops fighting the Chechen wars against a small Chechen army can lose LESS men fighting a much larger and better equipped Ukrainian army in an almost near full scale war.
You know what I think? I think when the Russians have clearly failed again and again on the battlefield against an opponent that they expected to destroy within a few days or weeks, they have no excuses left to fall back on other than to say that they didn't take many casualties in fighting this war.
Imagine telling the Russian people that A) the war in Ukraine has gone horribly wrong and B) that you have taken heavy losses in fighting this war. That would be the embarrassment of embarrassments to acknowledge the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wurzelbert84wucher5
This isn't an all out war, they don't want the civilian losses to be astronomical, that wouldn't be feasible, when they want to annex the area.
Well they have a funny way of showing that when they don't have any issues with flattening most of Mariupol and Sievierodonetsk to rubble to take those objectives and have killed thousands of civilians in the process.
The Russians overestimated the support and underestimated the resistance of Selenskis troops and the support of the west, but they adapted and since then they slowly conquer the destined territory.
That's the key point here. The Russians went to launching a blitzkrieg style invasion to being reduced to now slugging it out WWI style with massive artillery and missile strikes before moving forward little by little because they've lost so much of their armored forces.
Maybe if they had used their huge arty and missile advantage in the initial phases of the war, they might've preserved more of their armor and taken less losses, but I guess at that time they believed that the UA forces wouldn't fight or at least fight as hard as they did and that massed arty and missile strikes to destroy everything in front of them wasn't necessary.
In the early part of the invasion they might've tried to limit the amount of damage they were doing, but now it seems like they don't really care as much about that anymore and they'll do what it takes to accomplish their objectives.
I am not a Putin fan, and I think Alex and Alexander aren't either, but you live in the western propaganda dreamland, if you think Selensky has a chance to win this somehow.
How are Alex and Alexander not Putin fans when they constantly praise his speeches and nearly everything he does as being good moves? Go back through their videos from now until even before the invasion and see if you can find either of these two criticising Putin in any significant way? I doubt you'll be able to do so because they're so pro-Russian.
As for the Ukrainians 'winning' this war, they've already won by surviving the initial onslaught and preserving their nation. Sure they've lost significant parts of it, but even if they gain nothing back the rest of Ukraine will still live on which is the most important outcome.
Go back to the beginning of the invasion and see how many people thought the Ukrainians would last even a couple of weeks before falling to the mighty Russian army and yet they're still here fighting hard. I admit I fell into this category as well because I believed the Russians to be much more powerful and capable and I was wrong. They've shown to be a vastly inferior 2nd rate army that is only scary because of its size and the fact that they have nukes.
Take away the nukes and who knows maybe NATO forces might've entered Ukraine to stop the invasion from happening to begin with and all this destruction and death could've been avoided.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anceldesingano8687
while Kherson and Kharkiv aren’t minor but the overall of the War effort they may as well be since again they failed to destroy the Russia military units in those offensive of theres and the Ukrainians don’t even have that much bigger disadvantage than the Russians both of them have advantage and disadvantage
As I said while it would've been great to capture more Russian troops, they still lost significant numbers of troops and equipment in their retreat. That's not nothing and also the territory that the Ukrainians have taken back its not likely to fall to the Russians again because of their lack of combat power and competent troops led by competent leaders.
Kherson city and the areas retaken by the Ukrainians are going to probably remain in their hands indefinitely for the rest of this war and beyond. The same probably goes for all the other land retaken in other parts of Ukraine.
If the Russians took only moderate to light casualties escaping the Kherson area, if they ever decide to try and invade and retake that area its going to likely mean heavy losses for them now that the Ukrainians will be ready for any Russian attack in that area.
Even if they have Air superiority they armored spearhead will never going to work infantry based weaponry is bane to all vehicles especially tanks what they need is more infantry which they doing with 300k men after all air superiority is nothing more a factor in overall war this type of conflict is decided by artillery which the Russians have huge abundance off
This is where you're completely wrong. The reason why NATO and especially the US place so much priority in having the world's best airforce is because AIR SUPERIORITY IS EVERYTHING on the battlefield. Once you gain control of the air, you command the battlefield and can attack anything, anytime, anywhere.
What does it matter if you have 300k troops and 1,000 tanks when it can all get wiped out with airstrikes and guided missiles? You say artillery is important and I agree, but airpower is king and when you have air superiority you can bomb the hell out of artillery and missile systems and wipe them off the map. All you need to do is find these units with surveillance drones or perhaps special forces operating behind enemy lines identifying targets and calling it in and boom that target is gone.
Remember that 40km supply column that was headed to Kiev early in the war? The Ukrainians didn't have the weapons to destroy that juicy target. With NATO's airforce that entire column would've been completely wiped out along with most of the troops, tanks, IFVs etc that were on the front as well and it would've been a massive blow that the Russians might never have recovered from and may have ended the war right there. That's how important air superiority is.
Artillery and rocket systems have more importance in Ukraine right now because both sides don't have control of the air and hence neither can launch deep airstrikes into enemy territory without having a high chance of getting shot out of the skies.
Most of Ukraine equipment came from the west not the Russia equipment or else they be have logistics problems which they already have with different components that only belong to Russia factories case in point like MBT like T-80 and T-90 those tanks have different engine and different parts than the T-72 or the T-64 tanks that Ukraine have in abundance making them mostly rarely be
While its true that NATO countries have donated some tanks and armored vehicles to Ukraine, a vast number if not the majority have come from captured Russian equipment and you do remember that Ukraine was a big producer of armored vehicles for the USSR in years past don't you?
'Malyshev Factory - is a state-owned manufacturer of heavy equipment in Kharkiv, Ukraine. It was named after the Soviet politician Vyacheslav Malyshev. The factory is part of the State Concern UkrOboronProm (Ukrainian Defense Industry).
It produces diesel engines, farm machinery, coal mining, sugar refining, and wind farm equipment, but is best known for its production of Soviet tanks, including the BT tank series of fast tanks, the famous T-34 of the Second World War, the Cold War T-64 and T-80, and their modern Ukrainian successor, the T-84. The factory is closely associated with the Morozov Design Bureau (KMDB), designer of military armoured fighting vehicles and the Kharkov Engine Design Bureau (KEDB)[2] for engines. During 1958 it constructed "Kharkovchanka", an off-road vehicle which reached the South Pole the following year.
At its height during the Soviet era, the factory employed 60,000 of Kharkiv's 1.5 million inhabitants.'
As you can see the Ukrainians have plenty of people who can service captured Russian equipment when many of them were involved in building those vehicles many years earlier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What I mean is if a specific front of a certain area can deliver around 50,000 rounds of artillery ammunition in a day, without significant breakdown of hardware, then we can conclude that the very well oiled system of delivery that includes, logistics, organization among specialties (drones, surveillance, scouting, intelligence, air support etc.) and delegation of orders within the command system, lead to this big advantage of reversed attritional effect in Russia's favor.
Maybe Russian logistics have gotten better by now, but it certainly was a complete mess at the beginning of the war which is why they got their asses handed to them so hard when they couldn't keep their armored forces supplied and moving and as a result they had many of their vehicles be abandoned or broke down and they took far more losses than they should've.
Now its come back to bite them in the ass and they can no longer launch any large scale armored offensives like they did at the beginning of the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snagletoothscott3729
Thw Troops in Bakmut aren't pushing hard. most of time time not at all. They only push when their's an oppurtunity. So comparitevly their losses are few compared to the Ukrainian's ,wo are aconstantly shiffling troops in Bkamut to replace thier steady stream of losses as they keep trying to attack to push them out.
The Russians have been attacking Bakhmut for several months and they definitely ARE pushing hard. If you've watched any videos coming out of that battle you'll definitely see that the Russians don't care about their troop's lives with the way they keep throwing themselves at the Ukrainians.
18,000 dead Russians vs 390k dead Ukrainians. Those are the US numbers, by the way. That's not sustainable. At this point, Russian doesnt even need to push. All they need to do is stand their ground for a year and half and Ukraine won't have any troops left at all, as they keep throwiing them into the meatgrinder tat is the Russian Wall.
Can you please show me which US source says that the Russians have only lost 18,000 dead during this entire war so far? Can you link me a legitimate source that actually says this? I'd really like to see it.
If you truly believe that the Russians have only lost 18,000 men after all this time, then no wonder you think they're doing fine. Obviously though if you care about the facts this clearly isn't the case and the Russians have lost far, FAR more men than they've reported.
You don't go out and mobilize 300,000+ recruits just to replace 18,000 KIA and more importantly you wouldn't be rushing many of them to the front to try and stabilize things if you've taken so few casualties. You would instead take your time to train and equip your troops properly rather than calling them up and throwing to the wolves almost immediately.
Also if the Russians weren't taking heavy casualties then why do you think that Putin waited for so long and did everything possible to avoid calling for mobilization? During the entire war he tried recruiting men from everywhere to avoid mobilization within Russia and finally when the casualties were too much and the Ukrainian offensives were taking back territory, Putin had no choice but to concede that mobilization was necessary and unavoidable and so he did it.
On the other side if you also believe that the Ukrainians are taking such huge casualties, then in a few months we should be seeing older men and poorer quality Ukrainian troops on the battlefield that the Russians should easily defeat. Time will tell who's facts are actually true.
1
-
@snagletoothscott3729
18,000 is from a recent document, from the Center of War Studies, which is a think tank for the US military and intelligence agencies, as 18,000 dead....which would be about right at known rates.
Again please show me legitimate links that show reputable sources that claim that the Russians have only had 18,000 KIA during the entire war to date. I really want to read it and see how they count casualties to arrive at that extreme low number. Even if you don't believe Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties, there's ZERO CHANCE that the Russians have only suffered 18k dead after all these months of hard fighting.
Wagner pushed hard up into Bakmut, but once they got inside the far eastern suburbs they met stiff resistance. Wagner has since and for quite a while only done attacks of opportunity and probing, largely to keep the Ukraine fixed in Bakmut, while their forces continue to push hard to the north and the south to surround Bakmut. The Wagner forces in Bakmut are there primarily as a thorn, to keep the Ukrainians attacking and draining troops trying to push them out.
Well if these attacks are designed to drain Ukrainian troops its clearly not working when they're still pushing the Kherson and Kharkiv offensives. So either this means the Ukrainians has tons of troops to throw at various fronts and still be able to take large casualties and keep going or else it means the reports of them dying at high rates aren't completely true.
The call up wasn't just to replace loses. It largely because the Russians were severely overstretched. They called up enough to replace losess, to fill the gaps in the line, and to have enough left after that for more offensive to push futher into Ukraine.
If the Russians weren't desperate for more troops at the front then they wouldn't be pushing under trained and under armed troops to the front to be cannon fodder would they? The only reasons you would be doing that is either you've taken heavy casualties and need replacements ASAP to replace those losses and/or your troops are performing so poorly that you need to rely on numbers to try and stop the enemy advance.
On the otherhand if you believe the Ukrainians are taking such heavy casualties then ask yourself why they're not doing the same in rushing more soldiers to the front with little training and under equipped? If the Ukrainians are desperate to replace their supposed high casualties the ask yourself why do they have time to send their new recruits outside to NATO countries to have them spend several months to get properly trained and equipped before having them come back to be sent to the frontlines?
10,000 Ukrainians spent 2-3 months in the UK to be trained by the British and they recently returned to Ukraine to be sent to the front. Ask yourself if the Ukrainians are taking such huge losses why they're able to take the time to have their new recruits to be sent away for months to get trained instead of having them sent immediately to the front?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OrangeDiCapa
You sound like you're speaking from a place of ignorance. Homeless people don't want a 'nice little condo', they want and need a roof over their heads
Not true for many if not most homeless people AT ALL. Ask any 'homeless advocate' what they want for the homeless and EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT FAIL they ALL say they want 'affordable housing' which is pretty unrealistic when people with jobs often can't afford a decent place to live.
Also you do realize that the Canadian government spends an average of almost $130,000 PER YEAR PER HOMELESS PERSON right? And yet there are still plenty of homeless people living on the streets. This either means that the system is massively inefficient and/or corrupt or also many of these homeless don't want the help given to them or maybe its all of the above because there's no way you can spend 30 BILLION PER YEAR on the homeless problem and come up with such piss poor results year after year unless the system is messed up and/or the homeless are rejecting the help given to them.
So often in this city, people feel so comfortable dehumanizing and belittling homeless people, and instead of looking at the actual causes of homelessness and poverty, they blame the poor for managing their money incorrectly or some other form of bigotry. Homeless people are HUMANS and adequate, proper, and functioning shelter should be a human right.
If you're homeless in a major Canadian city its often by choice when there's so many services to get you off the streets and to help get you back on your feet. The problem is many of these people don't want help like all the drug addicts and alcoholics out there who only want to keep doing what they're doing until they die.
We should acknowledge that not everyone is worth saving and if they choose to be self-destructive then let them keeping doing it until they die. For those who actually want help and are receptive to people trying to help them, then concentrate on rehabbing those people and getting them back on their feet.
Just because they are not fortunate enough to afford their own place, does not by any means they deserve to be crammed into a concrete and cement warehouse. This 'prisoner island' mentality is sick and frankly disgusting, and you are trying your absolute hardest to blame the poor instead of the real problem you are willfully ignoring.
Its IDIOTS LIKE YOU that are the reason why nothing ever gets done in this country and problems take forever to fix. You make it sound like we're sending all the homeless to prison like facilities when what I mean is taking a warehouse or some other large building and turning it into a nice facility where people can have their own room and have access to food, clothing, washing facilities and social services long term and all under one roof.
Have you ever been to Pacific Mall in Markham or any major Chinese mall in Canada? They often take a large open space and divide it up into smaller booths with glass fronts where people can open businesses from. What I'm saying is that why couldn't you build a similar layout and use it to house homeless people in safety and in decent comfort?
Here's the inside of Pacific Mall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvJHCJ1zQ88
Look at the layout there and ask yourself why can't you instead of having businesses in those booths you have homeless people living in those stalls long term with a permanent address so that they can live in a safe and secure environment and have social services on site to help them get back on their feet. You could easily house several hundred homeless at least in a place like that in decent comfort and I'd say that looks pretty far from like living in a prison don't you?
If you make it a rule that anyone who's allowed to live there can't have any drug/alcohol/mental/emotional/violence problems and are simply people down on their luck that need a helping hand to get back on their feet, then there's no reason why such a facility can't be a great place to live when you take away all the dangerous elements.
1
-
1
-
@pacman3556
So you want the same thing except you want a sprawling warehouse instead a tower that can take up less of a footprint. But sure you can make arguments over towers also
Did you watch the video of how Pacific Mall looks like inside? Are you saying that's the kind of room that the homeless are being given in homeless shelters right now? I kinda doubt that.
What you consider a 'warehouse' is very different from what Pacific Mall looks like and what I'm proposing that the homeless be housed in something similar.
Also what you propose in building apartments/condos for homeless will take many years and cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. What I propose can be setup in a matter of months and cost relatively little in comparison. And another thing you don't mention is how do you patrol a 50 story building and keep bad people and their behaviors out of the building?
In my Pacific Mall style living facility security guards can easily patrol the area and keep out bad people and can spot many bad behaviors and criminal activities relatively easily. Also in the time it would take to build even one 'affordable housing' condo building, you could build a ton of the kind of facilities I'm talking about and get almost everyone off the streets and give them a room, food and the social services that they need.
You need to learn to read. We do do that. We do separate people
If we do separate people then we're not doing it well enough when there's still so many people living on the streets and a number of them constantly say they don't want to go to shelters because they feel unsafe and don't want their belongings stolen. Who knows maybe they're lying or something, but with all the money we're spending each year on the homeless, we should be getting much more value than what we're currently getting for all that money spent.
If the system were working well then there should be almost no one on the streets except for the hardcore idiots who don't want help in which case we should stop giving a damn about them and help those who want and are capable of being rehabbed.
So basically what you are saying is you are just a racist pile of dog $hit.
What a world we live in where saying you don't want to accept everyone from around the world into your country with virtually no limits is considered 'racist/xenophobic/discriminatory' etc.
How about this? What if a random homeless person came to your door and DEMANDED that you let him live in your home and help them get back on their feet? Would you say yes to that? Maybe you're nice and you give him some food, clothing and money, but would you welcome him into your home and let him live with you long term no problem? Of course not. You'd say you cannot do that and that you've helped him all you can and then send him on his way.
That's the LOGICAL thing to do and yet when we apply this common sense to stopping the world from demanding and pushing their way into Canada we have idiots like you crying racism. Talk about being a hypocrite where something that you would likely never do in your personal life, you want to be done on a country wide basis to allow a neverending flow of foreigners in or else we're racists if we say NO to such insanity.
If the govt built more low income buildings and removed the people from the condos into the buildings it would open up more supply available to people that want to buy a condo and the market for housing would correct itself without the need for govt intervention. Again it is simple economics. Create more supply and remove demand and prices will adjust until supply and demand equal each other.
Except what you're saying is incorrect and wouldn't happen in the real world because any new inventory freed up by moving people to newly built 'affordable housing', those freed up units would still go at a very high price. You say that lowering immigration levels is 'racist', so with hundreds of thousands of new people coming to Canada each year, they're still going to be competing for whatever housing is available with existing Canadians who are looking for a home now.
Imagine you have a leaking boat and you're frantically bailing water out of the boat trying to get all the water out. Well did it ever occur to you that it doesn't matter how much water you can bail out when you never fix the leak to stop more water from coming into the boat to begin with?
Its the same with trying to build enough housing for everyone where you'll NEVER build enough for everyone when you bring in hundreds of thousands of people in every year and can't ever hope to make supply equal demand.
This is why people like you don't make sense and should NEVER be given any power to decide things. You're pro mass immigration and yet you can't understand that even if Canada dropped immigration levels to zero tomorrow, we STILL would have huge housing issues, not enough healthcare to go around for everyone, not enough infrastructure to serve everyone properly etc.
Yet somehow by adding hundreds of thousands of more people to the country every year it will magical fix all these problems instead of massively putting even more pressure on those systems that can't even keep up now.
And this doesn't even include the environmental impact of trying to support so many new people each year. How is Canada suppose to fight that super serious issue of climate change when you're bringing in hundreds of thousands of new polluters into the country every year? More people consuming more resources, generating more garbage and producing more carbon emissions and then we have MORONS like Trudeau saying that Canadians need to 'do more' to fight the climate change problem??!? Yeah that's why Canada is so messed up and is going downhill so fast because this country is run by dumbass MORONS.
1
-
@pacman3556
yes I know about the Pacific Mall. It was not in this video. You can argue that the Pacific Mall is not a good use of land space either. So what? A tower takes up a much smaller footprint. And with the homeless problem in Toronto it is not very feasible to buy or appropriate that much land. There is not that much land in the downtown core. But as I already stated in my original comment if we have space to build 10 towers on a small parcel of land one of those towers could easily be used for homeless people. It would be more feasible. We both want the same thing...a place for homeless people but building something like the Pacific Mall downtown is not feasible.
What is this obsession with housing the homeless in the most expensive part of the city instead of building where there's space and land is cheaper? Also with my proposal there's already plenty of empty warehouses and businesses that you can buy and renovate right now and get into service within a few months. If you renovate things to the level of something close to Pacific Mall standards that would make it a very nice place to live long term for the homeless.
Also having a Pacific Mall type layout lends itself to having people gather and make connections rather than having high rises full of people doing their own thing and largely remaining isolated. And this doesn't even mention security which again is much easier to do when you're patrolling fewer levels with glass fronts that doesn't allow for people to hide everything that they're doing.
Trying to implement effective security in a high rise where everyone is behind closed doors is much more harder which is why there are a number of problem apartment and condo buildings that have constant issues. Homeless people need a helping hand, but they also need to be closely monitored until they can get back onto their feet and are able to be self-sufficient again.
because homlessness is a complex issue. There are various reasons why people are still on the street. Just one argument alone is the condition of the shelters. Again try looking it up and going into the Seaton house.....not far off from prison. I cannot even begin to describe the smell.
The issue of why people become homeless and live on the streets may be abit complex, but how to solve that problem is easy as long as the government provides the proper funding and resources which it seems to have and the homeless are willing to accept that help and want to improve their lives which it seems many DO NOT want to do.
Many homeless apparently don't want to live by any rules that shelters might have and hence they'd rather stay outdoors than take the help that's available to them. The same goes for drug/alcohol addicts many of whom don't want to get rehabbed and it doesn't help when we have 'safe injection sites' ready to save their asses if they overdose. People like these should be left to live with the consequences of their own decisions and if they die then they die.
The system is working. There are thousands of people with a roof over their head and food because of these shelters. Nobody has ever claimed that homelessness would magically disappear because of a shelter. It reduces the amount of people on the street. You are seeing things in absolutes- either all in or all out and nothing in between
Our system is working, but VERY inefficiently. The Canadian government is spending an average of almost $130,000 ON EACH HOMELSS PERSON PER YEAR. We should be getting much better results with that kind of funding on each homeless person in the country. This means that there's alot of wastage and/or corruption that so much money spent annually on the homeless issue isn't solving the problem in short order.
This is why the system needs an overhaul and an audit to see where all this money is being spent and then have the system be reorganized to do things better and more efficiently with qualified and non-corrupt people in charge.
I never said that. I said the your reasoning on why we should lower immigration is racist. Your assumption is all immigrants are lazy, don't work and will end up in homeless shelters so we should not allow them in. That is racist. All immigrants are not lazy, unemployed and in homeless shelters.
Go back through my posts and please quote me where I said this? Where did I say all immigrants were lazy, don't work hard and end up in homeless shelters? Find me the quotes in my previous posts that state any of this and post it here please.
What I DID SAY if you bothered to read properly was that we already have plenty of issues that haven't been addressed like housing, enough healthcare and social services, infrastructure issues etc. that HAVE NOT been solved with our existing population so I was asking what kind of insane world do we live in that adding hundreds of thousands of more people to these unsolved problems every year make sense?
This is the kind of idiotic reasoning that I don't understand with some people where they think unchecked mass immigration of people into a country is awesome and yet they refuse to acknowledge all the downsides of doing such a thing. Its like you live in a fantasyland where every immigrant is super hard working and super peaceful and law abiding and that there's zero problems with trying to accommodate and integrate so many people into our country.
And as I've said NO ONE has the courage to tackle the issue of immigrants and certain groups of people causing the vast majority of crime and violence and other problems in our country because that would be considered 'racist' and 'xenophobic' etc. Why do you think we don't ever want to go public and gather and release race based crime statistics? Because it would show clearly that a couple of demographics of groups of non-white people are causing the vast majority of crime, violence and other problems in our nation which obviously would go against the narrative that 'diversity is our strength'.
And also you completely ignored the problem of increased resource usage, increased garbage output and increased carbon emissions that come with bringing in hundreds of thousands more people into Canada every year. Even if the existing Canadian population were able to stabilize or even lower their garbage and carbon emission output it would be completely negated by the hundreds of thousands of new people wiping out those gains and then adding to the problem and then we would have moron Trudeau saying 'Canadians need to do more' to stop climate change. Well its kind of hard to do when that dumbass keeps bringing in more people to pollute the nation.
that is a ironic hypocritical statement. I proposed a tall tower (40, 50 etc) tall tower that sits on a very small footprint. You are the one proposing massive warehouse style buildings that contribute to the urban sprawl and uses massive amounts of land
So just to be clear you think that having a 50 story building where hundreds of individual units each having their own bathrooms, kitchens and heating equipment is MORE efficient and is less wasteful than having a warehouse building with one large common kitchen to feed hundreds of people, one large common bathroom space to have everyone sharing and having one heating and cooling system for one structure? Really??!!?!? OK there.
we do fight climate change. Again you are seeing things in extremes. You see it as either all pollution or none. The topic of climate change is a complex topic and open for different interpretations.
This isn't about 'all or nothing', this is about COMMON SENSE. You can't hope to fight climate change, reduce resource usage and garbage output when you're bringing in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW PEOPLE into the country. Those people are going to be consuming goods, using energy and social services while outputting huge amounts of carbon emissions and garbage. This is FACT.
If our government cared so much about 'saving the environment' then it wouldn't be bringing in so many people to be contributing to the detriment of the environment. Most people in general aren't very mindful of reducing waste and their carbon footprint already and you want to fight climate change by bringing in MORE people who will also no care about reducing waste, resource usage and their carbon footprint? Yeah that makes TOTAL SENSE.
1
-
@pacman3556
We build housing for homeless people where the homeless people are located you dumb a$$. Not many homeless people in places like Vaughan or Pickering compared to downtown Toronto. Not many homeless people are going to get on a bus to go to the outer surrounding cities.
Are you for real? How can you build supposed 'affordable housing' in the most expensive parts of the city where you're getting the least bang for your buck?? Why would you not find places that are actually cheap to buy, build and renovate so that you can make better use of your money??
Why is it mandatory for homeless to be downtown when the point of renovating existing facilities is to place all the necessary services they need ON SITE so that they don't have to travel to get access to those services to begin with?
Why do homeless and their advocates have so much power as to be able to demand what they want and how they want it rather than adapting to what is given to them that can be just as effective if not more so, just that its different to what they asked for in how its delivered?
Most in areas not suitable to address the homeless needs. And they are private businesses that will rent to other businesses. Or located in industrial types of areas zoned for industrial uses.
There are PLENTY of places out in the suburbs that are more affordable and are suitable to be places for the homeless. Buy those places and renovate them and move the homeless in. Its funny how for people that are supposedly so down on their luck and want help that they're often so picky and choosy as to what help they'll accept.
We should stop letting these people and their supporters to dictate what they want and instead give them what they need even if its not completely perfect. The goal should be to get them off the streets and providing them with the necessary shelter, food and support to get back on their feet ASAP. It doesn't matter if it isn't exactly what they asked for, it should matter that they're getting the help that they need quickly and effectively.
by what standards are you basing that claim off of? Have you worked in homeless shelters? Have you done any research in shelters? Or my guess you are just running on pure emotions and what you feel?
Its not working well by the standards that we still see a ton of bums in our parks and under bridges making it their long term homes. By the standard of seeing drug addicts and alcoholics on the streets drinking and shooting up until they die. By the standards that we see violent and mentally ill people roaming our streets and causing harm to the general public.
I don't know how long you've lived in Toronto/GTA, but I've lived here a long time and things are much, MUCH worse now than they were 20-30 years ago.
The govt is inefficient and useless at everything. You can audit all you want but the govt will always try to cater to everyone's needs instead of what is really needed.
You need to do audits to find the source of the problems, but then afterwards you need to severely punish those involved to stop the wastage and to deter people in the future from doing the same. Right now we sure as hell don't punish anyone nearly enough even when the corruption and guilt is obvious.
Your comments imply this. You mention lots of immigrants which suggest they are the ones using shelters and low income housing. Or why else do you mention immigrants? If you agree that they come here and are productive members of our society and live in homes then what it your point?
Why don't you go look at all the places in the GTA with existing low income housing and see what the demographic breakdown is like? I'm sure you'll see a pattern, namely some groups of people use public/low income housing far more than other groups of people. The same goes for different groups of immigrants.
You know what your problem is and others like you have? That if you see facts that you don't like or align with your narrative that you'll then either find excuses to explain and justify those facts or else outright ignore them.
Immigrants is a great example of this. You talk about immigrants as ONE WHOLE GROUP because it makes the stats look better. If you had any courage you'd talk about immigrants separately by race/ethnic groups and monitor how each group is doing once they arrive in Canada and see if some groups of immigrants and refugees aren't doing much better than others in getting educated, getting jobs, adapting to Canadian culture, the amount of violence and crime each group is committing and so on.
Of course people like you don't want to do this because you know the statistics would skew heavily towards some groups of people being very hard working and successful and while committing very little crime and violence while other groups would be much less successful and commit huge amounts of crime and violence. Obviously we can't gather and publicly release statistics like that because it shows an ugly side of immigration and bringing in people from everywhere that individuals like you don't ever want to deal with and fix, because diversity is always our 'strength' with absolutely no downsides and we can't have Canadians seeing the facts and getting angry and wanting less immigrants can we? How ABSOLUTELY RACIST OF US to even DARE try and want to preserve our nation and not see it get worse.
We take in more immigrants because the people that are already in Canada are no longer having the same amount of children as people in the past did. It was called the "boomer" or "baby boom" generation for a reason. That generation had lots of kids to replace the old people that were dying. Today's generations are getting older and dying and younger generations are not replacing or having babies at the same rate.
Many Canadians aren't having kids because they don't have the time and money to have kids. The government and businesses wants educated people to take as little time off to have kids as humanly possible and to compensate for this by bringing in immigrants to be our baby factories instead. In fact do you know which group of people in Canada has the highest birthrate in the country? Native people. Gee I wonder why? It can't be that these people often don't work and receive plenty of government checks to support themselves with and have plenty of time on their hands to make babies can it? Even minorities can't breed as fast as native people these days because native people are supported by hundreds of millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars every single year and its not like they're busy improving their neighborhoods and getting themselves educated so that their communities can vastly improve over time.
However that is all irrelevant because A- immigrants are not a burden but provide productivity to our country (and you seem to agree or were your comments just racist remarks?). and B- the topic is low income housing not immigration
Not every immigrant that comes to Canada has money to burn. Many like the 40,000 Afghan refugees we're racist for not taking in fast enough come here with almost nothing and where do you think these people will be living? Some form of public housing for most of them to begin with I'm sure. Who's paying for that housing and all the rest of their needs? Our taxpayer money. What about all the medical services, spaces in our schools, spaces in various social programs etc? We're paying for that too.
Also you don't even mention that many of these people coming to Canada aren't exactly spring chickens and in the best of health. Many who come here are middle aged or even retired which means right away we'll have to support them with healthcare services and find spaces for them in long term care facilities. Namely they came here and contributed little to nothing while immediately soaking up valuable social services that we don't even have enough for our existing population, but I love how you leave all these downsides of immigration out.
And again all this doesn't even include the increased garbage and carbon emission output and increased resource usage which again you don't want to address because immigration is NOTHING BUT AWESOME!!
1
-
@pacman3556
We covered this you dumba$$. If 10 towers can fit on a small plot of land then one or two can easily be used as low cost housing. There are numerous places throughout the city that low cost housing is mixed in with condos. Half of Scarborough is like this
Are you blind to simply putting up towers and throwing the homeless in there? We've already done that with little oversight and its led to neighborhoods being more dangerous when you have the homeless/violent/mentally ill etc move in without extensive oversight and help.
If we're going to provide facilities for the homeless you need to build it in such a way that you can closely monitor the progress of the people you're trying to help rather than throwing them into high rises behind closed doors which is a recipe for disaster as we've already seen when we've placed them in hotels and apartments in a temporary manner.
Also you make it sound like the homeless are IMMOVABLE OBJECTS that cannot be moved around and need to be in the downtown core when you can move them elsewhere and probably provide them with just as good or even better support. You can place SOME of these people downtown, but most others should be moved elsewhere where they can be placed in newly renovated facilities that would cost a fraction of trying to build enough condos/apartments to house all the homeless in brand new buildings.
As I said before people like you are the reason why we take forever to get anything done when you can't think of other alternatives to help people than what YOU want.
We already covered this topic. We already do do audits. The govt has always been and always will be inefficient because they play to the emotions of people like you that don't understand topics instead of actually dealing with the topic.
So because some portion of the government is corrupt and inefficient we should never try and overhaul it and change the way things are done so that they're more efficient and less corrupt? OK.
No it isn't again you are just reacting on your angry little emotions because you don't really understand the topic
I have to ask again do you live in the GTA and if so for how long? Because if you've lived here for a long time then there's NO WAY you'd make such a uninformed and idiotic statement that crime and violence hasn't gone way up in the past 10 or so years compared to 30-40 years ago.
Just look at the number of shootings in Toronto:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto
Since the number of shootings started being recorded in 2003, between 2003 to 2015 ONLY 3 TIMES has Toronto gone over 300 shootings in that 13 years time span. Now look at the time between 2016 to 2021 and what do you see? 6 CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF NEAR OR ABOVE 400 SHOOTINGS including an all time record high of 495 in 2019 and we're coming close to another 400 shootings in 2022.
SIX STRAIGHT YEARS of 400+ shootings where before in Toronto we've NEVER hit 400 shootings EVEN ONCE in our history and you're saying crime is going DOWN? LOL 🤣😅😆😂🤣😅
And this is just statistics for shootings and doesn't include violent car jackings, violent robberies, the hundreds of stabbings, random assaults, and students getting shot, stabbed and even killed at or near schools etc.
And all this doesn't even include all the violent crime that has spread out to the other parts of the GTA and surrounding areas where before such crimes were rare.
Seriously get your head out of your ass and look at the statistics once in a while instead of staying in your warm, safe bubble and pretending that things aren't getting worse in the GTA and elsewhere in Canada.
Yes you are correct that is racist. Our nation was built by immigrants
Incorrect. The ENTIRE FOUNDATION of what Canada is today was created by mostly the English and the French. Native people who came over by land bridge from Asia many thousands of years ago did NOTHING to build the country we know today. Immigrants who came afterwards only build upon the foundation that was laid out for them by the founders of Canada.
Canada as we know it today doesn't exist if the English and French don't settle here and build the groundwork for the birth and growth of this country.
Also if you believe refusing mass immigration into one's country is 'racist' then you agree that Japan, South Korea and Israel are hugely racist nations right? Because during the peak of the 2015 migrant crisis none of these 3 countries chose to accept any migrants into their nations and have them settle there in large numbers as they did in Europe.
So why aren't hypocrites like you constantly criticising these 3 nations for being racist and xenophobic for refusing any significant amounts of migrants into their countries when Europe let in millions?
We covered that topic extensively you seem too dim witted to understand that many enviromental problems are world wide not contained to just the area that someone lives in. And I also covered local concerns also.
Except you NEVER addressed this issue AT ALL. Everytime I mention increased climate change emissions, garbage generation and resource usage by more immigrants brought to Canada your response has been 'Well they contribute to Canada's economy so its OK for them to pollute and add to the country's carbon and garbage output.' Also I'm NOT talking about the world, I'm talking about Canada specifically where Trudeau keeps saying 'we need to do more' and yet he keeps bringing in more people to contribute to the problem every year.
You have yet to state EVEN ONE POINT as to how Canada is suppose to reduce waste and emissions output while bringing in hundreds of thousands of people each year to increase that output. Please do so now as I'd genuinely like to hear it.
1
-
@pacman3556
Yes we can put homeless people in there however the topic is putting low income families in there. We currently put low income families in condos which reduces the supply of condos available to people that can afford to buy them. Putting low income families into low income buildings will create more supply. More supply creates lower prices.
Even if you moved every single low income family into supposed 'affordable housing', you're only getting a temporary bump in supply before its swallowed up by buyers and the neverending train of new immigrants/refugees arriving into the country.
Then we go back to having the same problem of not enough supply for all the demand that never stops. If you're bringing in several hundred thousand people into the country EVERY SINGLE YEAR, there's no way you're able to build the hundreds of thousands of new units of housing to accommodate them all before the next year's wave of hundreds of thousands of new immigrants/refugees arrive that also need housing which then have the next year's wave of immigrants crashing down on you etc. with the problem never being solved.
So you're solution is temporary and does nothing to fix the problem long term when you'll ALWAYS have more demand the ability to build enough supply to meet those needs.
Also going back to your other comment. if you believe that low income housing leads to more violence then why should the suburbs be "burdened" and expected to support it all. Let the downtown core have their share also. Why should it be a suburbs "problem"?
Low income housing in itself IS NOT leading to worse neighborhoods and higher crime rates. Its the KINDS OF PEOPLE who live in that low income housing that leads to more dangerous and violent neighborhoods. People like you can only cry 'racism' because you NEVER EVER want to address the problem that some groups of people are far more violent and criminal than other groups of people because that goes against your narrative that minorities are all peaceful and hardworking.
This is why you HAVE TO lump all immigrants together to make the stats look better. You don't want to look at each demographic of people individually and see the ugly truth that not every immigrant group is equally peaceful and non-criminal. Cowards like you will never address these problems because you'd have to acknowledge that unchecked mass immigration IS NOT a good idea and that in most cases certain minority groups are far more violent and criminal than the cauasian majority in this country.
You are a fu$cking idiot if that is what you took out of my comment. I clearly said we build shelters where the people are. The people move and live in downtown.
You keep saying we need to build shelters where the homeless are except you can't understand that PEOPLE ARE MOBILE AND CAN BE MOVED. You make it sound like its an absolute tragedy and abuse against homeless people to move them into the suburbs where its cheaper and more economical to house them there. You don't even have to build new shelters to house them when there's plenty of empty buildings that you can buy and renovate quickly and get them housed much quicker and more cheaply.
Why do we even bother building expensive transit if the goal isn't to connect the city together so that people can move more easily around from the suburbs and outer parts of the GTA to the older inner core of Toronto?
how are you coming to the conclusion the govt is corrupt? Sure there are examples like when the Liberal govt lied to us all and shut down a much needed power plant that cost us billions of dollars to please a few voters that show horrible poor decisions that waste our money (and reinforces point #6 above that the govt caters to self entitled pricks like you that act on emotion instead of facts) however what evidence do you have of corruption?
Are you a MORON? You're literally seeing right now Doug Ford opening up land in the Greenbelt area that's supposed to be protected from development and he's doing because he's received nice contributions from his developer buddies over the years and now he's repaying them for their support.
He should be prosecuted and thrown in jail for corruption and giving favors in exchange for money and yet he's still in power and will likely get his way and open up those lands for development eventually.
The point is its VERY HARD to prosecute and punish politicians properly because they will usually find a way to either get away scot free completely or just get a relative slap on the wrist even if they're caught and found guilty. Nothing will change until those who are caught are severely punished and that doesn't look like it will happen anytime soon.
It hasn't. It has remained relatively flat over the years. And as someone that lives in the city I can tell you that my neighborhood has actually gotten even safer. My neighborhood the gangs were broken up decades ago and it is all new families (including many many immigrant families), new condos and homes, new parks.
Now I know that you really don't give a damn about facts and simply choose to ignore every piece of data that goes against your narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto
Literally there in you face it says that before 2015 we NEVER EVEN HAD ONE YEAR where shootings came close to reaching 400 in a calendar year and then 2016 to present, we've been AT OR ABOVE 400 SHOOTINGS FOR 6 STRAIGHT YEARS with 2022 heading towards being the 7th.
In just the past couple of days since you last posted in several shootings across the GTA, one woman was murdered in cold blood working at her job at a gas station and several other people have been seriously injured after being shot. Toronto is averaging MORE THAN A SHOOTING A DAY where before 2014 we've NEVER done so and you're STILL saying 'everything is fine bro, its all in your head'?!? Really??!?!?!
You can't respond to these statistics which is why you outright ignore them. I get it bro when facts don't agree with your opinions just ignore it all and pretend they don't exist.
My God you are a fuc$cking idiot. We covered this topic extensively....try and follow along. We DON"T have mass immigration into our country you mo$ron. We have an entire system of laws, regulations etc that allow people into the country. We have an entire Immigration System and Policy.
How is it not mass immigration when Canada is trying to increase its population by more than 1% per year through immigrants/refugees? Heck there are some people who are even MORE INSANE and want Canada to reach 100 million people by 2100. That's 750,000 new people EVERY SINGLE YEAR.
How in the HELL Is that not MASS IMMIGRATION when that's the stated goal of our government and our standards are so high that we don't even care if they're disabled or elderly because it would be discriminatory to reject them for those reasons?
Because the topic is low income housing in Toronto you dumb fu$ck. These are three other nations that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I could probably educate your dumb a$$ on those three countries also but it is not the topic and they have nothing to do with low income housing in Toronto
This topic is more than just low income housing. You just don't want to talk about it because it would require you to explain why Japan and South Korea can say no to large numbers of immigrants and migrants and not be called racist all the time and yet when if some people in Canada want that we're nothing but racist, white nationalists/supremacists instead of acknowledging that many Canadians want less immigration for the same reasons the Japanese and South Koreans want less immigration.
I went point by point through your comment about two comments ago. Go back and reread. Again if you didn't let your fragile little emotions get in the way of things you would have read and understood my comments.
I went back and read EVERY SINGLE POST YOU MADE in our discussion and your only answer to one aspect of this problem is 'High rises are more efficient in housing people. We just need to build more and everything will be fine bro!' and 'Climate change is a world wide problem so we can't do anything about it in Canada bro'
You NEVER ONCE addressed how bringing in hundreds of thousands of new people into the country won't increase the amount of resource usage, the increased amounts of infrastructure and social service usage and the increased amounts of garbage and emissions output by all these new people that we keep bringing in year after year.
The fact is you can't explain how bringing in so many people doesn't negatively impact Canada and how much more waste and resource usage will be created with so many new people coming here every year and you choose to ignore the data and say 'you've already answered the question' when you never really did.
Climate change is a world problem, but Canada should be looking to reduce its own impact on the world by controlling what it can do within its own borders. Bringing in tons of new people into this country every year goes against fighting climate change and you can't come up with a reasonable LIE to explain otherwise which is why you simply ignore the question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@XandateOfHeaven
Agriculture existed in Africa, including Zimbabwe long before the arrival of Europeans. This is an undisputed fact. Saying that European colonization was benevolent bellies the fact that this was an extractive relationship, a conquest, and pillaging.
I never said that Africans never had any ability to farm. I'm saying they never had the ability to farm on a LARGE SCALE that could support many hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Most Africans were only able to farm and grow enough food for their own families and perhaps for their own villages or regions which allowed their populations to grow but only to a certain degree.
There's a reason why Africa's population absolutely exploded only after Europeans arrived in significant numbers in the 20th century, because they brought with them the knowledge and machinery to implement industrial scale food production that Africans had never seen before and that along with major improvements in medical care allowed the African population to grow on such a massive scale.
Saying that European colonization was benevolent bellies the fact that this was an extractive relationship, a conquest, and pillaging.
I never said that colonizing didn't have many negative and often destructive effects, I acknowledge that. On the otherhand YOU cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that colonization brought with it modern medicine, technology, engineering etc. that no African nation could ever hope to develop because they never had and never would ever reach that level of educational advancement to make those kinds of discoveries on their own.
The colonizers literally placed African nations in time machines and took them from the stone ages and advanced them centuries ahead in development and modernization that they otherwise would never achieve on their own. Everything modern today in Africa only exists because some foreigner from outside of Africa designed and built it for them. This is what you refuse to acknowledge that came with colonization. If Africans had any desire to advance themselves they would've learned from the foreigners and got themselves educated as to how these systems and infrastructure were built and maintained so that they could copy them in the future. That's what the Chinese, Japanese and South Koreans did which is why they're so modern today and have advanced so far in such a relatively short time period.
That's what Africans COULD HAVE DONE but were never able to do because most Africans had little desire to learn, create and build.
The Zimbabwean with their much longer life expectancy were not really reaping the benefits of advanced medical science when the Rhodesians were in charge.
100% WRONG. Take a look here:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ZWE/zimbabwe/life-expectancy
You can see during the time that Rhodesia existed that life expectancy in the country was slowly but steadily rising from an average of 55 years in 1965 to 60 in 1979 when it ceased to exist. Then look at the rollercoaster life expectancy in Zimbabwe from 1980 onwards. It rose to a high of 60 years in the late 1980s and then it took a MASSIVE DIVE in the early 90s down to 44 years and not recovering until the early 2010s. So Zimbabwe had a period of 20 years from the mid 90s until the 2010s where it had a LOWER life expectancy than Rhodesia ever had during its short existence.
Maybe try doing some basic research before making false claims next time?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lubu2960
Pretty easy, the native falling birthrate creates problem for the maintenance of the welfare state, all nations needs young workers, not to mention how they make the economy bigger. The reality is that some crimes are irrelevant to the broader economy.
The problem with your argument is that you're only making the issue worse in the long term. You can't have infinite growth to sustain this pyramid scheme. If you bring in a ton of immigrants to support the current social services well what do you think will happen when THOSE people grow old? Then you're forced to bring in EVEN MORE immigrants to support that previous wave of immigrants and on and on we go with ever increasing money required to keep everything running.
The real solution is to bite the bullet and NOT increase your population so that when the current baby boomer generation eventually passes on, you're left with a far smaller senior population that you have to support when the next generation grows old.
The only problem is that corporations and many politicians wouldn't like this because that would mean fewer consumers for products and services and a decline in the economy.
Wrong, it is the job of first world nations to take care of third world nations, they're richer and thus need to redistribute the wealth. One way to do it is to accept millions of third world citizens.
You're insane if you truly believe this. And if even if you seriously do believe this, why should western countries be responsible for supporting garbage human scum like the folks we're seeing in these riot videos? If you're going to force western nations to take in millions of immigrants then lets deport all the human trash we see here who don't deserve anything and bring in millions of Asians who would contribute to your country while NOT going out and destroying it at the drop of the hat.
Because a personal home isn't the same as a nation lmao, how hard is that to understand? A nation is public property, a home isn't. Not to mention, how many people in fact do offer their homes to refugees and the like.
A nation exists because of the people who built and maintain it. If you bring in too many shitty ass people to ruin things, that once nice, pretty and peaceful nation becomes the same POS craphole that these immigrants left and you've ruined everything for everyone.
Western issues are less relevant to billions in abject poverty. Western nations live in opulance compared to the rest of the world who lives with less than a dollar.
Do you see what the folks in these videos are doing? That's why their nations turned into giant shitholes that they felt the need to escape from. The stupid thing is that when they come to a modern, civilized country claiming that 'they're looking for a better life', they instead bring their same violent and criminal behaviors to their new homeland and destroy that country too rather than taking that clean slate and actually building a better life for themselves and their loved ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@surindernagi1406
this is evolving war, Nato support is like to a nato member, finance, arms ammunition, intelligence, plus pouring of covert forces, mercenaries, goal of nato was then openly declared. However general direction remains same.
The direction of this war is stalemate mostly at this point. The Russians might be able to make some advances here and there, but it will be long and grinding because of how much of their armored forces they threw away at the beginning of the war.
Maybe they'll replenish their tanks and armored vehicles and be able to launch more mobile attacks, but right now they're fighting the only way they're able to.
Also the analysts r not fortune tellers they make general assesmemts.
I'm not an 'analyst' and yet I was more accurate than most of these hacks because I actually look at the data and what's actually happening in Ukraine without letting bias get in the way much. Sure I'm hoping Ukraine can eventually defeat or at least end the war with a somewhat favorable outcome, but unlike these guys I don't have to push a narrative and I accept whatever the facts are saying rather than ignoring everything that doesn't support whatever the narrative is.
These guys can't be balanced in their opinions to save their lives maybe because they're being paid directly by Putin or something, but I still listen to them sometimes just to see what they're saying rather than just reading only pro-Ukrainian sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinaguilar7541
I believe you're basing this on unfactual media with its bias and enivitable under representation. I was in a highschool that contained 60% Africa Americans. At least to the friends, acquaintances, and overhearing, not one ever complained to me that it's the white man's fault.
How far back are we talking about when you say you were in highschool? Also maybe where you went to school they don't blame white people, but in recent years more than ever where I live in Toronto, almost EVERYTHING is being blamed on white people and particularly white men and its coming from not just black people, but from native, muslim, LGBT and women as well.
There almost isn't a day that goes by where someone isn't blaming something on white people and how horrible they are. It really is quite a sight to see how willingly white people largely accept getting beat up so much with relatively little push back and the few that actually do try and stand up, they're immediately beaten back down and told to shutup.
I have black neighbors on the right side and in front of me. From what I understand, they're pretty successful.
I never said that there aren't successful black people and I don't doubt there are many out there, but relatively speaking they're still vastly dwarfed by many not so successful and very violent and criminal black people which is why their crime rates are so high.
And another thing white people are the dominant ethnicity of the country, and thus have a undeniable advantage in pursuing a successful life. The laws and society were founded by white people and it is bias for them.
Here's the thing. I believe US and Canada as well are some of the most fair countries when it comes to treatment of minorities and if anything in many cases they bend over backwards to help them in favor of other Canadian people. Even if it isn't 100% perfectly equal, its pretty damn close and its why so many asian and Indian people who live in western countries become successful and self-sufficient and often even more successful than white people are.
The system is there for everyone to take advantage of and we live in largely peaceful countries even if certain people are hellbent on turning it into crapholes and what many people refuse to recognize is that some groups of people simply choose to work hard and get educated and make a life for themselves while other groups want practically everything handed to them on a silver platter and EVEN THEN THEY STILL COMPLAIN that its 'not enough'.
A prime example is the difference between Somali and Syrian refugees in Canada. Somali refugees have been in Canada for 30+ years and they're still at the bottom in progress and still are at the top in crime and violence and if anything they're getting even more violent these days. In contrast the 70,000 Syrian refugees that Canada took in since 2016 are progressing pretty decently and although some Syrians are doing better than others, the main thing is that the amount of crime and violence from them are extremely minimal.
Both groups came from war torn countries to a nation that welcomed them in and yet one group of refugees decided to bring the violent and criminal behaviors from their home country to their new country and have made things worse here. The other group is actively trying to get themselves educated, working and are seeking to cause as little crime and violence as possible and so far they have.
Both groups have the same opportunities to become successful in Canada and yet the Syrian refugees have probably accomplished more collectively in 6 years of living in Canada than the Somalis have in 30+ years and they've done it without all the crime and violence. One group chose to take advantage of the opportunities given to them in their new home and the other chose not to.
The point is even if you believe white people have the advantage in western countries, there's still plenty of opportunity for everyone else to become successful if they're willing to work hard at it and its why asian people are consistently at or near the top in success nearly everywhere they go and settle because all they want and ever asked for is the chance to improve their lives. In contrast we have blacks and native people here who demand everything be given to them and EVEN THEN with endless amounts of help and affirmative action they STILL end up at the bottom in terms of having their people become successful, mostly problem free and peaceful.
This isn't the problem of the government and the system not giving them enough help, this is a problem of some groups of people making extremely poor life choices and not willing to accept the consequences of those choices and even worse most people are more than willing to make neverending excuses for them rather than holding them accountable like we do for most other people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
I'm as serious as a heart attack. IF you can put down your Kool-Aid glass for a moment you might recall that from day 1 Russia said their goal was 1- de-militerize Ukraine and make it neutral. 2. De-Nazify Ukraine. 3- Protect the Donbass. They NEVER said anything about taking all of Ukraine or even taking major cities like Kiev, Kharcov, or Kherson.
Of course Putin never said it outright that taking all of Ukraine was his objective, but its plainly obvious that that was his number 1 plan when he launched a major attack from Belarus directly towards Kiev from the shortest distance possible between the Belarus border to the capital.
How is that apart of the 'Denazification' and 'demilitarization' of Ukraine when he could've done that anywhere else along the front. Heck he could've concentrated his forces in the east and south and completely ignored the western part of Ukraine and the result would've likely been much more successful and Donbas/Luhansk and the southern part of Ukraine maybe perhaps even to Odessa might've all been in Russian hands long ago.
Only reason to launch airborne attacks and a major attack against the capital is if you wanted to take it or at the very least get rid of Zelensky and his government. There's no other reason to attack along that front.
The reason for the annexations was two fold. 1- that makes those territories Russian ( which they traditionally are anyway ) and the citizens can now have dual citizenship if they so choose or they can be either Russian or Ukrainian if they choose.
You don't annex those territories unless you intend to keep those areas and as you said allow the use of mobilized troops in those places. This means that Putin absolutely went into Ukraine with the intention of taking territory and the destruction of UA forces is just a by product of fighting them and taking territory from Ukraine.
I mean what sounds better to the public? That they invaded Ukraine to get rid of the evil nazi elements within the country or that they wanted to take Ukrainian land and perhaps even the entire country and bring it back into the Russian sphere of influence?
Once again try and put down the the Kool-Aid glass concerning losses. I will point to Reuters and The Washington Post and Bloomberg News. ALL western sources that favor Ukraine. They have reported that the differential in losses has been 7 Ukrops killed for every Russian. WHY do you think the Ukrainian Army which began with 600,000 troops has had to mobilize 8 times and Russia who started with 200,000 troops has only mobilized once? Russia is grinding the Ukrainian army into dust. THAT IS THEIR PLAN. DEMILITERIZE UKRAINE.
I find it interesting that all the pro-Russian hacks constantly say that western media is biased, unreliable and is just pro-Ukrainian propaganda, but somehow when casualties are mentioned, they're all of a sudden 100% reliable sources that cannot be disputed? OK. 🤣😂😅🤣😂😅
Seriously if the number of casualties was anywhere near as high as you believe they are, then the Ukrainian ability to launch anymore offensives in the future should be over and done with. Conversely if Russian casualties were so low then they should be able to launch much more larger and effective offensives than they have in the last few months.
The reality on the battlefield is that the things are the opposite of what you say. Namely the Russians haven't launched any major armored offensives ever since the Kiev retreat and even their Donbas offensive was relatively limited and involved mostly infantry because they lost so much of their armored forces.
On the otherhand the Ukrainians have been on the offensive since early September and they haven't stopped since and they've gained significant ground in those attacks. If the casualty rates are as high as you claim, then there shouldn't be anymore major Ukrainian offensives because they've lost so many men.
I don't doubt that the Ukrainians have taken significant casualties during this war, I just doubt that they've taken more casualties than the Russians and their allies and mercenaries have.
Regarding equipment. IF I can put an old but upgraded 1980's tank on the field by the thousands and use up what you have left, WHY should I put out my new and best?
The Russians didn't have many modern tanks to begin with which is why we didn't see many if any T-90s at the beginning of the invasion. Then they started losing tanks and other armored vehicles by the hundreds which is why they had to resort to bringing back Cold War era vehicles to fight with. Could you ever imagine the Americans losing so many Abrams tanks that they had to turn to bringing back M60 tanks into service to make up for their losses? That would NEVER happen.
Yet here we are seeing the Russians fighting with 1960s era tanks on the frontlines. And again the biggest indicator that the Russians have taken a major beating with regards to their armored vehicles is the fact that they haven't launched a major armored offensive since the Kiev retreat. If they weren't hurting so badly for armor they would've used much more in their Donbas attacks rather than resorting to exposing infantry to enemy fire.
Russia doesn't have to even pick up all their broken down tanks from the battlefield they have so many. Ukraine has to try and salvage those derelicts and make them workable again because all they have left is Russias leftovers.
That's kind of a huge problem that you don't seem to understand. The fact that the Russians are losing such large quantities of vehicles and then allowing the enemy to salvage many of those vehicles that were merely broken down or just abandoned and then having them be used against you on the battlefield and you don't see it as being a serious issue? Really??!?!
Its bad enough that the Russians lost those vehicles to begin with, but to have a significant portion of them be salvaged and turned against you is just plain stupidity and incompetence of the highest order.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Warning Long reply!
Once again you speculate without using any kind of common sense. Do you honestly think if Russia really wanted to completely level Kiev they would have any trouble doing it?
Putin didn't want to level Kiev, he wanted to TAKE IT. You could see from the very beginning of the war when the Russians invaded that they wanted to keep Ukraine largely intact and outside of a few accidental or intention strikes on civilian targets most of their missile attacks were aimed at military targets.
As the weeks went by and the fighting became harder and it became increasingly clear that they weren't going to take all of Ukraine, then that's when the Russians cared less and less about what they destroyed and recently they've been actively targeting civilian infrastructure likely as a form of punishment in response to their battlefield defeats.
All the facts point to Putin believing that this invasion would be short and sweet and that Ukrainian resistance would be relatively low and would collapse quickly as they did in 2014 in Crimea and later on in Donbas. He was dead wrong and now his army is paying for it and sadly the Ukrainians have to suffer too.
Regarding the annexed land let me ask you this question, what percentage of the people in those areas are Russian? Those people need Russias protection because the UkroNazis were murdering them. It was a genocide against those people only because they are Russian speaking Ukrainians.That's why they voted overwhelmingly to become part of Russia.
Please show me proof that before 2014 that Russians living in Ukraine were getting slaughtered and wiped out Rwanda style? I'd really like to see proof of this so please provide legitimate sources that show this was happening?
Also just saying that even though the Donbas region wanted more autonomy and independence, very few people living there actually wanted to separate from Ukraine let alone wanting to join Russia right?
https://www.iri.org/resources/ukraine-poll-majority-want-donbas-to-remain-in-ukraine/
"A combined 80 percent of Ukrainians nationwide and a combined 73 percent in the Donbas region believe that separatist-controlled areas of the Donbas should remain under Ukrainian control. Only six percent nationwide and four percent in the Donbas believe that these areas should either be separated from Ukraine or become part of Russia."
If the people of Donbas were so mistreated and needed help then why did the majority of them still want to remain as apart of Ukraine?
From time to time I sight western sources for the simple reason that if the Ukrainian propaganda press has to acknowledge that Ukraine losses are brutally higher when compared to Russian losses then maybe it might shake some sense into the fans of Ukraine.
If you include civilian casualties then sure I can believe Ukrainian casualties are higher than Russian losses, but if we're only talking about military losses then I highly doubt that the Ukrainians have lost more people than the Russian forces have.
In most cases the side that is fighting defensively usually takes less casualties and Ukraine for the first few months were on the defense and with the help of NATO weapons largely stopped all Russian advances from going too deeply into their territory except for in the southern region where the Russians made their deepest gains.
With how Russian armored and motorized units were getting mauled in the early parts of the war, there's very little chance that the Ukrainians took more losses than the Russians and you could see this in the decision making of Russia's leadership in abandoning the Kiev front when they realized that they took too many losses to be able to push any further forward and their logistical lines were too far stretched to be able to properly keep that front supplied. Hence they made the decision to leave that front and concentrate their forces more in the east and south.
During the Donbas offensive is when the Ukrainians started taking more casualties because the war was more static and it allowed the Russians to use their artillery and missile system advantage to cause more damage to UA forces. Having thousands of shells and hundreds of missiles fired at your static positions daily as well as more close quarter combat in several cities, its difficult to not take more casualties.
Then during the recent Ukrainian offensives, even though they're on the attack the number of casualties taken is probably still less than what UA forces were taking during the Donbas attacks, mostly because the Ukrainian troops taking part in the offensives were better trained and equipped and also the opposition they faced was relatively weak and ran when the Ukrainians started attacking in larger numbers in Kharkiv area.
The point is I think the UA took their highest losses during Russia's Donbas attacks and now they're somewhat lower thanks to the war becoming more mobile again in some areas and having better trained troops.
I have read the rest of your post and all I can say is wait and see. I don't know how long this war will last but I can assure you that when it does end and especially if it doesn't end soon Ukraine will be left a wasteland.
If Germany that was legitimately devastated after WWII and having lost millions of people can be rebuilt from all that ruble to become the mighty economic power that its become today, then Ukraine can definitely be rebuilt suffering much less devastation and population loss if western and other countries are willing to help them to rebuild.
What Ukraine needs most in order to be able to rebuild is stability, good leadership and a guarantee of safety from anymore foreign attacks. If hypothetically Ukraine is able to join the EU and NATO, then it will have gained that stability and guarantee of safety and there's no reason why other countries won't help Ukraine rebuild and become an even stronger and more stable country than before the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Ukraine agreed to stop shelling Donbass and to allow a referendum for autonomy to take place. France and Germany swore to make sure the Ukraine stayed true to the Minsk agreement. Ukraine broke their word and so did France and Germany. IF Minsk was enforced this would never have happened.
The thing is why don't you rewind things to much earlier and not mention that Russia in the beginning was supporting a relative small group of separatists in Donbas with arms and encouraging them to turn to violence when the vast majority of people living there didn't want to separate from Ukraine to begin with and certainly almost no one wanted violence.
If Russia stayed out of Ukrainian affairs then none of the events that happened afterwards would've happened to begin with. Ukraine should've been left to resolve its internal issues on its own, but Russia didn't want that and chose to stick their nose into their affairs and stir shit up and why not when they already have taken Crimea so why not keep going?
In reference to neo Nazi groups in Russia, those groups are purged with "extreme prejudice." Russia lost 27 million people to the Nazis in WWII. Russia doesn't tolerate Nazis. They all flee to Ukraine. Ukraine loves Nazis. As for the composer Wagner, He was and is a favorite of millions and I've NEVER heard a weaker apologetic than what you just offered.
The founder of Wagner group Dmitry Utkin is reported to be a fan of the Third Reich and there's a photo of him with tattoos of a Reichsadler eagle on his upper chest and the famous SS lightening bolts and SS rank tattoos around his neck. Hard to deny that he isn't a fan of the Nazis when he has symbols on his body from the most feared and fanatical units of the German army in WWII.
Once again your reading comprehension seems to need fine tuning, I didn't say UkroNazis had "concentration camps" I said "I'm sure if left unchecked Ukrainian Russians would have also started disappearing in the middle of the night." Here's a short list of names of Ukrainian people that UkroNazis DID "disappear" i.e. murder simply because they happened to support Russia or peace with Russia.
You've provided a list of people who are reported to be Russian sympathizers. When you say the Russians are mistreated and things might get worse if it goes unchecked, I thought you meant the average Russian citizen and it doesn't seem like that's the case. Namely your average Russian living in Ukraine isn't going to get randomly murdered or beaten or something.
The funny thing is Russia is famous for disappearing people and having many others mysteriously falling out of windows of tall buildings but who cares about those people right?
The problem is that the offspring of the many Ukrainians that joined HITLER and fought for the Nazis still live in Ukraine too. Not only live there, they are in the military and government. The same military and government that murders the Russian speaking offspring of those patriots that fought Hitler. THAT'S the problem. Ukraine needs to be DE-NAZIFIED.
Again provide me proof that the average Russian has anything to fear living in Ukraine? Also provide proof that the vast majority of the Ukrainian population are fans of Nazism? Seems like that's a tiny minority and again that's an issue that Russia has no business in sticking their noses in.
Communism was and is a vile and murderous system. Russia is NO LONGER COMMUNIST. Russia divorced itself from Communism and from the "Cold War." America is still fighting the cold war with Russia because America must feed it's Military Industrial Complex.
Russia might not be Communist, but it still keeps many communist symbols, traditions and ideals around. Also no one wants Russia as their enemy, it just wants Russia to stop doing dumb shit that causes instability in the world and instead pursue endeavors that promote economic growth and peace.
Russia has become a sad story in that it has so much potential, but because of the wrong kind of leaders being allowed to gain power and turning it down the wrong path it has advanced very little in the past several decades.
You look to China and they too could've easily gone down the same path as Russia has, but fortunately after the disaster of a leader that was Mao, they had Deng Xiaoping become their next leader and he guided the country to the most peace, unity and prosperity that China has seen in probably all its history. It makes me wonder if Russia had its own version of Deng Xiaoping running Russia if they wouldn't be more like China these days instead of the tire fire of a country that it has become.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Another long response.
I'm sure we will have opposing viewpoints of how and when this whole thing began. From my viewpoint America is the root cause of the problem NOT Russia. Not even Ukraine. America never stopped fighting the cold war. Russia did stop. Russia made every effort to become a friend to America and the EU. Russia even tried to join NATO and they were refused entry.
The US is responsible for alot of things, but this isn't one of them. And you must be joking to think that Russia ever wanted to be a friend of the west. Right after WWII things started turning cold between the western allies and the Russians and it certainly wasn't the west that wanted that.
Heck even before the war ended why do you think that so many Axis soldiers wanted to surrender to the allies rather than to the Soviets? Because they all knew that they would be treated decently by the west and they would be lucky to survive if they were taken in by the Soviets. So even people who were surrendering already knew how bad things would be if they were taken prisoner by the Soviets.
The short version of causes for this conflict is that Ukraine has been an economic train wreck for many decades.
Why do you think Ukraine and most every other nation in the USSR ended up having poor economies and a crappy standard of living? Because big brother Russia placed them into that position with their dumbass economic, social and political decisions. Even Russia themselves who was at the top of the pile and were the ones running things, for the average Russian their life wasn't very good under their own government's rule either.
The entire Soviet system of running things was corrupt, inefficient and largely a disaster and that spread to all the other nations within the USSR. Why do you think that when given the chance most every nation RAN from Russia's sphere of influence? People and nations don't run from things that they like and are beneficial to them and Russia was neither of those things.
The EU certainly has its share of problems, but in general the nations in that union became prosperous and the standard of living rose for the vast majority of people and its why countries are looking to get into the EU to this day and the UK probably wouldn't have even left if it was for the whole migrant crisis and perceived loss of self-determination.
The people of Donbass who supported that President and looked forward to improved economics then declared their region to be independent. The vote wasn't just about staying in or out of Ukraine. There were several options offered, but overall 65.5 % supported separation from Ukraine (source) wikipedia plus WAPO and Bloomberg.
If people in the Donbas actually wanted economic improvement then they would be dumb to look towards Russia instead of the west. Also I LOVE that you left out the part above the statistic that you quoted.
The poll did not claim to have scientific precision, but was carried out to get a basis from which to judge the outcome of the referendum, given that independent observers were not present to monitor it.
Also you left out these stats from the same link:
'A poll released by the Kiev Institute of Sociology, with data gathered from 8–16 April, 41.1% of people in Donetsk were for decentralisation of Ukraine with powers transferred to regions, while letting it remain a unified state, 38.4% for changing Ukraine into federation, *27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation*, and only 10.6% supported current unitary structure without changes.'
'Another poll, taken by the Donetsk Institute for Social Research and Political Analysis, found that 18.6% of those polled in the region opposed changes to the government structure, 47% favoured federalisation, or at least more economic independence from Kyiv, *27% wanted to join Russia in some form, and 5% wanted to become an independent state*'
'According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Centre from 5–23 April, 18% of eastern Ukrainians were in favour of secession, while 70% wished to remain part of a united Ukraine.'
So its clear that while many people living in the east wanted reforms and change, relatively few people even in the Donbas region actually wanted to leave Ukraine let alone to leave them to join Russia.
The list of names I provided were of journalists and elected Ukrainian officials who were "disappeared" by Ukraines SBU. As far as who's getting murdered. It has been documented that Ukraine has criminalized any citizen who even so much as accepted food and water from Russians. Jailed or killed for accepting humanitarian aid is quite cold.
You make it sound like many of these people weren't Russian sympathizers and weren't actively working towards subverting Ukraine and making it easier for the Russians to conquer them. Look at how Russia has dealt with people who tried to protest the war at the beginning of the invasion? Yet you criticise Ukraine for tracking down and arresting people who are trying to help in bringing on Ukraine's demise? OK.
Regarding any "left overs" in Russia from the Soviet era don't forget the sacrifice Soviet Russia made to defeat Nazism. I don't think you or I can fully understand the depth or length of the scar left from losing 27 million people. I heard it said that during WWII in America if everyone living east of the Mississippi River was killed it would be equal to Russias loss.
Losing 27 million people in WWII is largely because of Soviet incompetence and their complete lack of care for their own people and how little their leadership valued the lives of their own citizens. The kind of things that the Soviets did to their own people and their own troops, the west would NEVER do. Even those internment camps that the Japanese stayed at in the US during the war would be considered luxury resorts compared to how much the average Soviet citizen suffered from both the Axis powers as well as from their own leadership's decisions.
If the Western Allies had fought against the Germans on the Eastern front although their casualties would've been significantly higher, I seriously doubt that the allied armies would've taken the 10 million or so soldiers killed that the Soviets did during the entire war. No way no how.
The way the Russians do things in war hasn't ever changed. Its always been to get the job done no matter what the cost is. We saw it as recently during the Chechen wars and we're seeing it on an even larger scale in Ukraine right now.
Russia has retreated beyond its old borders even though its traditional borders always included Ukraine. On the contray America has advanced towards Russia after promising never to come closer than Germany. America has, is and always will destabalize the world.
Going back to my earlier point, the US and the west DID NOT advance towards Russia. I know it certainly looks that way from the Russian perspective, but it seems like Russians can't just accept that it wasn't the west COMING TOWARDS them, but rather it was Russia's former subjugated nations RUNNING AWAY from Russia as quickly as they could.
Imagine if you were the oldest of 6 brothers and growing up you constantly bullied and abused your younger siblings. Then when all your younger brothers finally turned 18 years they all moved away and never contacted you again. You might feel hurt that all your brothers left you and didn't want anything to do with you ever again, but why don't you remember that it was YOUR ABUSIVE BEHAVIORS that was what drove them away to begin with?
This is the same relationship that Russia had with most of the former countries that were apart of the USSR. Is it any wonder why when they finally had a chance to escape Russia's sphere of influence that many didn't immediately jump at the chance to do so?
As far as advancement in society don't forget Russia went through WWI, a revolution, Stalinism, WWII, The cold war, the fall of the Soviet Union, reconstruction and they are still one of the worlds most powerful and richest countries. Likewise Chinas history is one of struggle.
That's right both China and Russia have had hugely difficult histories with brutal leadership and governing that led to countless millions of deaths and plenty of poverty. The difference is that China finally got a proper leader into power who was able to direct their nation onto a path of peace, prosperity and increased unity and look where they are now. Russia on the otherhand has yet to have that kind of leadership and the Russian people are still suffering as a result to this day.
That's how important it is to have the right people in power to lead a country and China got lucky on that one and Russia didn't and they continue to have a long line of shit leaders who have little to no care about improving the lives of the average Russian and even worse a man like Putin who would take their nation into another major European war that's getting worse and worse for them.
I will make a sad prediction. Before 2050 America will become more like a third world nation but with nukes and Europe will resemble their past feudal era. Russia China and the BRICS allaince will be the big dog on the porch.
I can see China possibly rising to the very top as an economic power, but I don't ever see Russia joining them or being anywhere near their level as long as they have poor, corrupt and self-serving leadership. The US and Europe may or may not be in slight decline, but they'll be fine.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Yes America and the Soviet Union were eyeball to eyeball with an "iron curtain" in between, BUT that all supposidly ended in 1990. Russia desolved the Soviet Union. Russia withdrew back to Russia and let their former Warsaw Pact countries free to decide their own fate.
Cmon man. Russia DIDN'T WILLINGLY want the USSR/Warsaw Pact to end EVER. They saw that the USSR was collapsing and they had no way of stopping it and simply accepted the inevitable. If the USSR could keep the whole Warsaw Pact of nations together it would've done so indefinitely. I seriously doubt Russia ever wanted to give up the power and influence it had and its why they're fighting in Ukraine now to prevent them from moving towards the west.
Regarding axis soldiers surrendering to western allies.YES because axis soldiers didn't rape and murder Americans or Brits. They raped and murdered Russians and payback is indeed a bitch.
The vast majority of Axis troops weren't rapists and civilian killers and they knew that their chance of survival would be low and that they would suffer if they surrendered to the Soviets. Why would Axis soldiers expect decent treatment when the Russians didn't even treat their own troops and people well?
Also lets not pretend that Soviet troops also didn't have a long history of raping and pillaging its way westward in revenge to what happened to them. That's apart of war that every country has to deal with and the difference is how well a nation manages their soldiers to minimize these crimes and its clear that the Soviets weren't very good at that.
Regarding the former Soviet Union and the satellite countries and their economies what you don't get is we are talking about the FORMER Soviet Union. Russia hasn't been that since 1990. It's almost like you and America just can't get over the Soviet Union. You DO know that Russia forgave 68 billion in debts owed to the Soviet Union and Russia paid off every debt owed by the Soviet Union. Russia got over being the Soviet Union. Maybe YOU and the west should give that a try too.
When Ukraine and other countries have been apart of a corrupt and largely ineffective system for so long, its often difficult to change those systems unless you're lucky enough to have good leaders to help bring that country out of the past and into a better future. Unfortunately it seems Ukraine didn't have those kinds of leaders when it left the USSR which is why it didn't get much better for so many years.
The funny thing is when many Ukrainians were finally fed up with their previous Russian friendly governments and chose to take action, people like you are calling it unjust and how wrong it is for Ukrainians to overthrow a supposed democratically elected government that clearly wasn't working for them and they were tired of the same bullshit and wanted change.
AGAIN you miss the point because your prejudice demands that you do. REGARDLESS of how Russia lost 27 million people, the people of Russia despise WAR AND NAZIS because they lost 27 million people. What part of that don't you get? I swear you think of Russians like the KKK thinks of black people.
I get that the Soviets sacrificed in WWII and that's not in disputeT, but the sacrifice didn't have to be anywhere nearly as great as it was except for the fact that the Soviets were idiots for so long in how they ran their military and didn't give a damn about their soldiers and their people.
The sacrifice could've been much less if the Soviet leadership actually cared about the people they were ruling and valued their lives and took more care to preserve them, but as we see in the present day war in Ukraine, Russian leadership still doesn't give a shit about its people after all these decades.
Regarding former satellite countries running away and America not moving toward Russia. Why did they need to run? They were released, FREED by Russia from being in the Soviet Union. Russia said decide your own fate. Russia even forgave all debts owed to them by those countries and Russia made no moves against them
Again as I said above all these former countries of the USSR WERE NOT 'FREED', they were allowed to leave because Russia had no more ability to keep them under their rule. If Russia was powerful and wealthy enough do you seriously believe that they would ever want to breakup the USSR/East Bloc that they were the leader of out of the goodness of their own heart? LOL. Of course not. We would still have a USSR today if the Russians had the choice to do so and could hold things together.
And also YES many former USSR/East Bloc countries DID FLEE FOR THE WEST as soon as they could.
Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all applied to join the EU within 5 years of leaving the USSR. If that's not considered fleeing than I don't know what is. There are also a number of other former USSR countries who want to join the EU in the past and present, but they haven't met the qualifications at this time otherwise they'd be apart of the EU already.
All these countries willingly applied to join the EU and then eventually NATO. No one forced them to join these organizations. These countries wouldn't be fleeing Russia's sphere of influence if life under Russian rule wasn't so horrible for them. If the former USSR was as successful and prosperous as the EU post-WWII to present day do you really believe the majority of these countries would be leaving? Maybe a few might, but I doubt most would because why would you want to leave an organization that was treating you well and was bringing your country and people prosperity?
Of course that's never been the case and many of these countries who joined the EU post-USSR breakup have enjoyed more success and growth than they've ever had in the USSR and its why more countries continue to apply and want to join the EU.
Regarding China and Russia let me see if I got this right, you think the repressive Communist Chinese government is FAR superior to Russia?
Yes absolutely 100% China's government is 1 MILLION TIMES BETTER than every Russian government in the past few decades. Ever since Deng Xiaoping took control, he laid the foundation for China's future success and growth and they've been steadily improving their economy and the standard of living for their people ever since. Most Chinese people aren't fighting and demanding democracy because the current government is doing its job in providing for its citizens and raising their standard of living. Do you really believe that China's current government would still be standing if it were stuck with Russia's development level or worse in 2022? I seriously doubt it and the Chinese people would likely be up in arms as its done a number of times in its past.
Ask yourself what has any Russian government done for its people in the past several decades? Very little in comparison to what China's done for its people. So yes the Chinese government is VASTLY SUPERIOR to any Russian government.
As for the future let me remind you BRICS means Russia and China are partners. Their goal will be to eliminate America and the E.U. economically and it WILL happen.
I can guarantee this will NEVER happen, EU and the US will still be strong long term. China will be an economic power for many years to come, but its laughable to believe that Russia will be able to join them when they haven't done shit in the past 30+ years since the USSR fell.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Regarding the fall of the Soviet Union. haven't you continually said how barbaric and evil the Soviets were? WHY would they accept their fall as "inevitable?" Wouldn't a desparate evil regime like the Soviets just "push the button?"
What 'button' are you referring to that the Soviets could push that could save the USSR when it was about to fall apart? There was no saving it by that time.
Yes, Russia is trying to keep Ukraine from allowing NATO to be on Russias doorstep. What do you think America would do to Mexico if Mexico signed an agreement with Russia allowing Russia to put nukes along the Rio Grande?
This argument makes no sense. Back in the 60s and earlier when nuclear armed missiles had a much shorter range you had two choices. Either have bombers fly nuclear weapons close to or into enemy territory to drop the weapon on them or else have countries bordering your enemy to allow you to put nuclear missiles there to threaten them.
However ever since nuclear ballistic missiles were developed where you could hit almost any place on the planet from your own country or if you want mobility then nuclear ICBM submarines that can park along your enemy's coast and launch on them without them knowing until the missiles were in the air, the need to border your enemy to threaten them became obsolete.
So the Russians saying they're afraid of having NATO on their doorstep is meaningless when 1) NATO never has and never will have any intentions to invade Russia because its a defensive organization and 2) Modern warfare has progressed so much that you never have to border your enemy to threaten them.
Regarding axis troops surrendering you apparently don't understand a simple basic fact. The evil actions of a few invites retribution against all. Not all Germans were rapist and murders ( many were ) but all it takes is a few.
I understand that an eye for an eye is apart of war. If your enemy is brutal to you then you are probably going to be brutal to your enemy in return. However there is plenty of proof that the Russians were brutal to their own civilians and soldiers as well. What kind of leaders do you have to have that would have no problems with brutalizing your own people?? As if the people of USSR didn't already suffer enough from being invaded by the Germans, they also had to deal with the abuses and brutality from their own leaders.
About changes in government re-read what you wrote and apply it to Donbass. Ukraine is known to be a totally corrupt proxy state. Many western politicians have family members sitting on boards of Ukrainaian companies. Their job is to STEAL.
Again Ukraine and many other former Soviet nations are a product of the useless, inefficient and corrupt system that they've been ruled under for many decades. Often its difficult to change overnight from a way of doing things quickly and it takes time for that change to happen.
As I said I find it funny that you criticise Ukrainians for overthrowing a Russia friendly Ukrainian leader that wanted to continue the pattern of corruption and being a lackey to Russia instead of supporting their actions to push for a less corrupt and more accountable government that actually works for the people.
Russia had no other choice than to try and throw everyone they had at them to try and slow Germany down. It wasn't bad strategy it was their only choice. NOW Russia fights to preserve their forces and guys like you still say Russia doesn't know how to fight.
I'm not talking about the beginning of Barbarossa where the Russians were caught off guard and took huge losses. I'm talking about the middle and end of the war where the Soviets continued to throw their soldier's lives away by sending them into battle poorly trained and equipped and ordering them to throw themselves against the enemy regardless of how many casualties they took.
The Battle of Berlin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The war was already won and Germany was all but defeated and yet Stalin chose to order his troops to launch a full scale assault on Berlin to grab the glory of taking Germany's capital city and at the end of that battle the Soviets had lost 80,000 killed, 280,000 wounded and over 2000 tanks.
All those losses just to capture your enemy's capital and gain the glory of saying you conquered your enemy and who cares about all the Soviet lives lost who spilled their blood for Stalin to have his victory right? That's what I'm talking about when I say the Russians don't care about their own people.
By the way many of the countries you listed as EU members are equal war criminals with Nazi Germany and Ukraine.
Say whatever you want about all those countries, but the fact is when they were finally freed from Russian dominance they all quickly chose to join the EU and the west because they wanted a chance at peace, prosperity and freedom from oppression. No one ever forced them to apply to the EU and yet they all rushed to do so and a number of countries are still continuing to apply to join. Ask yourself when has any country jumped at the chance at joining the USSR/Warsaw Pact?
I believe Russia will defeat Ukraine by playing the long game. Just dig in and degrade Ukrainian infrastructure, degrade the Ukraine Army and wait. I read today that the Neatherlands is having second thoughts about helping Ukraine. Italy has said they're done.
Well I'm glad you finally admit that the Russians can't beat the Ukrainians on the battlefield and have to resort to terror bombing and destroying infrastructure to really hurt the Ukrainian people.
At the beginning of the war Russia kept much of that infrastructure intact because they believed Ukraine would be under their country in short order so why destroy everything when you need it to keep the country running after you take over? Now the Russians have 100% thrown in the towel on that plan and simply just want to hurt Ukraine as much as possible which is why blowing up infrastructure has become their top priority.
Ukraines BEST hope is to get rid of the cokehead of Kiev and ask Russia to sit down and talk for real. Otherwise Ukraine might as well go back to the dark ages.
No this means the opposite. Ukraine has almost no choice but to decisively defeat Russia on the battlefield or else there will never be long term peace and safety for the Ukrainian people. Ukraine's best choice is to try and take back everything they lost during the invasion and perhaps get back the Donbas as well. Crimea might be the only concession they could make where it either remains Russian or it becomes its own state or something. They should give nothing else though.
After there is some sort of agreement to end of the war, Ukraine HAS TO JOIN NATO and the EU. That's the only way they can ever guarantee long term peace and safety and not have Russia invade them ever again. Anything less means there will always be a chance Russia will do something stupid again against Ukraine.
Also another reason Ukraine needs to be apart of NATO and the EU is because with those guarantees of peace and stability of being protected by NATO nations, rebuilding would be much easier and quicker as companies don't have to be afraid of Russia possibly invading again in a few years or a decade later.
If Ukraine is able to join the EU/NATO I could see their economy and standard of living improving a significant amount in a relative short period of time.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
I'm trying to not be insulting, BUT try and concentrate.I said "if the Soviet Union was as evil as you claim they were and they were falling apart, wouldn't they just say F- it and "push the button?" That means wouldn't they just have started WWIII instead of saying OK lets go home and just be friends? I mean their evil right? Why not just say F it and blow up the world
The question is why would they start WWIII over the breakup of the USSR? Its not like losing control of other nations within the USSR is the end of the world for the Russians. Sure it hurts alot and its the final nail in their defeat with the Cold War, but Russia is still a major country that can survive on its own. So I don't know why they would start WWIII over the USSR breakup and possibly cause the total destruction of their own country.
IF Hitler had nukes when he was losing the war what do you think he would have done? Heck let's bring it more up to date, IF the cokehead of Kiev E-Lensky had Nukes what do you think he would do. ???
Of course Hitler would've used nukes if he had it because he was desparate and was losing the war and had nothing to lose. Russia has plenty to lose.
E-LENSKY ALREADY TRIED TO START WWIII BY BLAMING HIS POLISH MISSILE MISADVENTURE ON RUSSIA AND HOPING IT WOULD START A NUCLEAR WAR ENDING THE WORLD
Whether the missile was Ukraine's or not Russia is still to blame for launching massive missile strikes into Ukraine that they're trying to defend against and sooner or later accidents will happen. Its kind of surprising that something like this didn't happen earlier.
Also lets be real. NATO wasn't going to respond to this minor incident with some massive retaliation strike on Russia or something. Unlike Russia, NATO will has the ability to show restraint and an incident would have to be much more major for NATO to react in any major way.
Russia on the otherhand has shown that its willing to use any excuse to start a fight with someone and even create an incident themselves and use it as a reason to start a conflict.
Now about NATO, YOU KNOW NATO was designed to defend Europe against the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact ( which it did ) AND their no longer is a Soviet Union and a Warsaw Pact, then WHY is their still a NATO? It's stated purpose is complete.
The Ukraine war has shown EXACTLY WHY NATO needs to continue to exist because Russia at anytime could start a conflict and for many countries that would mean defeat whether it be quick or long term. If Russia has no problem invading a large country like Ukraine with 43+ million people pre-war, then what's to stop Russia from invading and retaking much smaller nations like the Baltic states?
Heck if the Baltic states weren't apart of NATO they probably would've already been invaded and be back under Russian rule by now. Also look at how Russia already had plans to take Transnistria and perhaps Moldova as well. If NATO doesn't exist then who's stepping in to stop these takeovers?
A number of smaller countries are only remaining free from Russian influence because they're apart of the EU and NATO. Without being apart of them these countries would be screwed.
You still didn't answer the question I asked. I'll ask again. IF Mexico asked Russia to join in a defense treaty and Mexico said they would allow Russia to put nukes on the border of America. What do you think America would do?
I already answered your question. If this were the 1950/60s then this would be a major issue no doubt, but this ISN'T the 50/60s, this is 2022 and both the US and Russia can launch missiles from the comfort of their own country and turn each other into glass if they wanted to.
Also the US has about 17 nuclear ICBM subs that they could park all along Russia's coastline and nuke them to hell in a first strike if they really wanted to. If the US can do this secretly, why would they publicly put any nuclear weapons in Ukraine and unnecessary make Russia nervous and escalate things?
Now regarding your idea about how brutal the Soviets were to their own citizens and soldiers why don't you still hold Germany responsible for what Hitler did to his citizens and soldiers?
Here's the thing you're missing. Germany in WWII fought on the Eastern and Western fronts, in North Africa and then in Italy and also the Atlantic Ocean and the bomber war against Allied bombers. Despite them fighting on so many fronts they still only suffered about 5.3 million soldiers killed or about half what the Soviets lost. So no matter how brutal you believe Hitler and his commanders might've been to their soldiers, they still lost half the number of men that the Soviets lost in WWII despite fighting on so many fronts during the war.
So it seems to me that no matter how many sacrifices German soldiers made in WWII the German leadership still cared about their lives to a larger degree than the Russians did about their troops.
Also the other point you forget is that in 2022 if Germany were fighting a war today they WOULD NOT be needlessly sacrificing their soldiers and would be very careful in trying to minimize casualties. Russia in 2022 in Ukraine ARE STILL throwing away Russian lives in how carelessly they're using their troops. Germany has changed while Russia is still doing the same thing it did in WWII. That's the difference.
In regards to Russia not beating Ukraine on the battlefield they don't have to. Russia plays chess and Ukraine and the west play checkers. I will say again UKRAINE IS A BEGGAR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE GET TIRED OF BEGGARS. Russia knows they don't have to waste men in fights for territory. They just need to sit back, dig in and wait.
If that's what you want to believe then go ahead. The reality is that Russia can no longer launch large scale offensives especially if it involves tanks and other armored vehicles because they've lost far too many already.
All these new mobilized troops unless Russia trains and equips them properly, the only thing they will be good for at most is defensive duties and if you try and use them to attack then you're just asking for them to get slaughtered. It seems the Russians have figured this out which is why Wagner is doing much of the attacking right now.
The bottom line is of course Russia is PRAYING that they can last longer than the west is willing to support Ukraine. That's they're only chance for any kind of agreement that doesn't involve them being completely embarrassed. If NATO chooses to support Ukraine for many years if not forever then Russia can never win and Ukraine will only have to worry about how big their victory will be.
1
-
@paulmelonas7263
Of course the Soviet Union wouldn't use nukes and Russia won't use nukes either. The ONLY country that ever has used nukes is America. So no one should worry about Russians using nukes, but America has already proven they would commit a first strike. It's America the world needs to worry about.
US has only used nukes once during a world war. Not even sure why that matters in this discussion when they've never used nukes since and have only had its arsenal as a deterrence because it works. Heck if Ukraine had kept even a few nukes instead of giving them all up and had maintained them to be operational, Russia probably wouldn't have never invaded Ukraine to begin with.
Regarding locations of modern nuclear weapons if you were right America would have no nukes in Europe, but America does have them there so either you aren't right OR America has them there to provoke Russia. Which is it? Are you wrong OR is America provoking Russia?
I looked it up and it says that the US has about 100 tactical nukes in Europe. So while this isn't nothing, its a pretty small number compared to its 5,000+ nukes that the US has and they aren't ICBMs.
IF each mobilization drew only 10,000 guys and their total troop number is still about 650,000 that means Ukraine lost 80,000 guys. WESTERN sources including official Ukraine sources said Ukraine was losing about 300 guys a day. It's about day 267? 267 X 300 = 80,100. Those same western sources said the difference is about 7 ukrainians die for every 1 Russian.
Again I'm happy to be proven wrong and I keep saying I don't doubt that the Ukrainians have taken significant casualties, I just don't believe that they've taken as many as you say they have and I definitely think the Russians have taken far more based on how they're desperately recruiting and forcing anyone and everyone to fight for them.
The reason why I don't believe Ukrainian killed is as high as you say is because:
1) The Ukrainians troops are getting increasingly better trained and equipped thanks to NATO. Better trained troops means fewer casualties on the battlefield and if the Ukrainians can take the time to allow their recruits to be taken out of country to spend several weeks to be properly trained by NATO instructors then that to me means they aren't losing as many men as to be desperate enough to send untrained recruits directly to the front to be cannon fodder.
The same can't be said for the Russians who have sent at least a portion of their new recruits directly to the front to fight against the Ukrainians with substandard equipment. If you look at Ukrainian troops these past few months, most of them are pretty well equipped and look like western soldiers.
2) Ukrainians have better medical care for their wounded. Ukrainians are getting western medical supplies and first aid kits and they seem to be able to get many of their wounded to the proper places to get treated as quickly as possible. Also a number of Ukrainian troops have been sent to NATO hospitals to get long term treatment.
I really doubt the Russians have medical supplies and care that's comparable to what the west can provide and this means Russian casualties have much less of a chance of survival which means higher rates of death.
3) Ukrainian troops are better led and have better intelligence. NATO intelligence is giving Ukrainians great information on the Russians and that reduces casualties on the battlefield. Also Ukrainian troops have better leaders from the bottom up who have shown that they can adapt to the changing conditions on the frontlines and that means you can reduce casualties when you can make snap decisions on the battlefield without waiting for orders from senior officers.
This is apart of NATO training that teaches NCOs and officers that making your independent decisions on the battlefield is allowed and encouraged.
As far as Russian armor and other equipment if you put down the Kool-Aid and look you can find videos of long trainloads of brand new T80s and train loads of artilley leaving Russian factories and holding areas and heading for Donbass Kharcov, Luhansk and Kherson. Ukraine has to try and cobble together junk they pick up off the battlefield.
Except you're wrong. All those tanks that you're seeing that are heading to Ukraine are either tanks pulled from storage and have been refurbished to working condition or they're tanks taken from other units. They're 100% not new tanks that coming off the production lines.
You should read this article if you have the time:
https://www.raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/defensie/2156-one-way-ticket
'Therefore, after four months of war, it would take a minimum of 4 years to restore Russia’s armoured vehicle capacity to early 2022 levels, even with conservative estimates of combat losses. If the war continues, by the end of the year it will take 7−10 years of plant operations (and that’s leaving aside the effect of the embargo on industrial equipment and components, which can be estimated later).'
Its going to be hard for Russia to build new modern tanks when they need so many high tech parts from the west and elsewhere.
The ONLY question left is how long will the west put up with a beggar? If you open your eyes you will see NOT MUCH LONGER. Europe is broke and their warehouses are empty. This winter Europeans are going to be rioting and demanding new governments.
Again lets see what happens in the coming weeks and months. If you're right then we should see a Ukrainian collapse shortly and if you're not then we'll see this war continue and perhaps more Ukrainian advances and retaking more territory back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Before the internet, it was much easier for totalitarianism as they only had a one sided exchange of information to control. Someone watching tv or reading the newspaper could not have a response for all to see. Whereas with big tech, we all have a voice.'
I would say that while its good that we all have a voice, its also bad that we all have a voice. People all kinds of opinions and ideas USE TO be able to share them freely on the internet, but now when it comes to major platforms like Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc. it clearly has a massive leftist slant now and many people can no longer freely express their opinions without the possibility of backlash and consequences.
Also giving everyone a voice without being able to criticise and push back on many bad opinions and views because that would be seen as 'racist, bigoted, intolerant' etc. depending on who you challenge and criticise has allow a small number of radical people to gain far more influence and power than their numbers should have and the majority of people have to suffer because of it.
For example where I live in Toronto, on the basis of ONE MAN starting an online petition that gained 15,000 signatures, the city is now set to spend 6+ million of taxpayer money to change an historic street name here because the man the street is named after supposedly help delay the end of slavery in the British Empire.
Whether that's true or not, one man starting an online petition was enough to get our city's mayor and city council to overwhelmingly vote in favour of a name change so as to not offend a majority of Torontians who NEVER CARED about the name of that street until that idiot started that stupid campaign to change it. And they're doing all this without any public consultation from people who actually live in the city even when they're spending MILLIONS of taxpayer's money to do this.
That's how things can get out of control when you allow only certain groups of people, religions or people with certain politicial viewpoints to speak freely while censoring people with different views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Forza300team
racism is learned behavior
I agree with you here, but you know who taught people to dislike and have negative perceptions of black people? BLACK PEOPLE THEMSELVES. We live in an INSANE world today where if you're apart of certain demographics of people, all your bad behaviors will be excused and justified by other people. The same kind of behaviors that any other group of people would be criticised and held accountable for, there will be a neverending parade of people like YOU who will attempt to justify and explain why its OK for black people to behave the way that they do in a manner that you would NEVER EVER tolerate from other groups like white people.
The west is THE ONLY PLACE where victims of racism, violence and crime mostly from one or two demographics of people are ALWAYS the ones who are criticised for speaking up while the perpetrators are ALWAYS being protected from criticism and accountability for their actions and words.
Your comments above describes the sad outcome of redlining, segregation, poor education in those most marginalized communities
I'm an American who's lived in Canada for half my life now and guess what? Canada NEVER had so called 'redlining', segregation, poor education for blacks, Jim Crow laws, lynching of blacks etc. Basically EVERYTHING that you use to excuse the behaviors of black people in the US NEVER EXISTED in Canada and yet black people here are STILL the most violent group of people here and it isn't even close.
So please explain to me why black Canadians are just as violent, criminal and murderous as their counterparts in the US even though they have a vastly different history in Canada? Please explain why black immigrants who arrived to the US long after everything you mentioned are also so violent and criminal? What's the excuse for these newer black immigrants?
Also you know what's interesting? Somali refugees arrived in Canada in large numbers in the late 80s/early 90s and even after living in a wealthy, safe country as Canada for 30+ years they're now more violent and criminal than ever. Compare that to the 70,000 Syrian refugees who arrived in Canada in 2016 because of the civil war in their country and guess what? Most are getting educated, working in jobs and are slowly integrating into the country and they commit extremely low amounts of violence and crime.
Many Syrian refugees have accomplished more in their 6 years of settling in Canada than Somali refugees have accomplished in 30+ years of being here and they're doing it without all the crime and violence problems that the Somalis have.
So can you explain why one group of refugees fleeing a war torn country can go to a western country and can settle and integrate and cause relatively little crime and violence and yet another group of refugees fleeing a war torn country decides to bring all their bad behaviors to their new home and cause neverending crime and violence problems for the nation who graciously took them in?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kajuken Berli
Tanks are very useful but need to be accompanied by infantry for maximum effect.
This is true which is why the Russians failed so hard when their armored columns ran into significant Ukrainian defenses. With relatively little air support, poor logistics and not enough artillery support and their infantry and tanks not working together properly, they suffered heavy losses that they still haven't recovered from since.
As I've said before there hasn't been a major Russian armored offensive ever since they retreated from the Kiev front. That's how much of a beating they took because their forces couldn't work together properly and perhaps even more importantly their logistical support was a complete disaster.
Seriously its crazy to see how poor the logistics for the Russians are versus the US. Recently Wendover Productions made a couple of videos highlighting Russian vs US logistical support.
US logistics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIpPuJ_r8Xg
Russian logistics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w
The simple truth is that the US can fight anywhere in the world and support their forces properly while the Russians can barely fight beyond their own borders for more than a few weeks at best.
They didn't know how supportive the general population would be of the SMO so they had to minimise casualties
The truth of the matter was that Putin was counting on the Ukrainian forces to collapse quickly the same as they did during the Crimea situation and then later in the Donbas when they defeat Ukrainian forces relatively easily. Also they hoped the Ukrainian population would indeed welcome them or at least be neutral to them and not want to fight back. Both didn't happen and Putin and his generals' miscalculations have cost them dearly.
If a generous 200,000 allied troops could conquer the amount of land they did without a unified command and mow away the UA army while using constant artillery barrages to soften UA defences; imagine what 300,000 more Russian troops can achieve under unified command and a larger budget due to partial mobilisation.
The problem is the new recruits Russia are bringing in now are worse than their original force that they attacked with. On the otherhand thanks to increasing NATO help, new Ukrainian recruits are now getting NATO training and equipment in the UK and elsewhere from various NATO instructors who are ramping up the amount of troops they can train and equip so that they can get on the battlefield sooner.
If Russia's new recruits can even stabilize the lines and stop Ukraine from making anymore significant gains that would be considered a major victory already let alone talking about counter attacks and retaking what they've lost.
UA defences have been getting pounded for months, critical energy infrastructure has recently been targeted and UA troops, not having the luxury of rotation the Russians had, are pretty worn out. From a Russia perspective, now is when the real war is starting.
The Ukrainians ARE rotating their troops out for rest which is why we've been seeing numerous heartfelt reunion videos of Ukrainian service men and women returning home to their families.
In the coming months unless these new Russian troops are getting really good training and equipment, I don't see how they'll be able to stand up against ever increasing amounts of NATO trained and equipped Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lucapieralisi
Syria was not a full scale conflict? The war in Yemen was not a full scale conflict? The war in Ethiopia was not a full scale conflict? The war in Nagorno Karabakh was not a full scale conflicts? What were these, couple of skirmishes between couple of rag tag bands??? Why don't you tell these people that they weren't killing each other but just slapping each other cheeks.
None of the conflicts you mentioned are anywhere near the size and scale that's close to the war in Ukraine. Sure the conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Sudan etc. are deadly, but they're nowhere near as large and as deadly as it is in Ukraine.
This is the first war that has involved conventional forces at this scale for this length of time since WWII in Europe. The Russians and Ukrainians/NATO are throwing their industrial might against each other the likes we haven't seen since WWII. Thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, artillery systems etc. have been lost. Hundreds of thousands of men killed and wounded and many weapons that were meant to fight a third world war are being used here.
All the other conflicts going on in Africa, the Mideast and elsewhere might produce large numbers of casualties, but in terms of industrial scale and how much financing, men and equipment is being put onto the battlefield, all of them pale in size and scope compared to the Ukrainian war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomk3732
*Its not a belief - its clearly backed by facts on the ground.
Russian allies are moving forward, Ukraine is sending untrained conscripts to patch holes while Russians are turning these conscripts into meat.*
Please provide links to backup your claims that Ukraine is pushing untrained conscripts to the front to fight for them? I'd really like to read about it myself. So please post the links here if you have them.
Also if you truly believe this is happening, then what does it say about the Russian army that they can't even beat these garbage untrained troops and make some major gains in Ukraine? Even with more equipment and supposedly better trained troops how is it possible that the Russians are still doing so poorly against inferior Ukrainian conscripts?
And how many tanks Ukraine lost then??? Why is it so rare to see these tanks
Ukrainians didn't have many tanks to lose to begin with before the war. They're a much smaller army with much less equipment of all kinds which is why the Russians felt they could take all of Ukraine easily and quickly. They found out this wasn't the case very early in the war and now they're paying the price.
Why would fighting low intensity for Russia conflict be actually so bad? They are fighting in Ukraine, they are moving forward, their costs are minimized, winter is coming, Ukraine is devastated in like 10 different ways.
Its bad because it costs tons of money and resources to keep a large army in the field and fighting. Its much cheaper to finish a war quickly and to send many of your soldiers back home than it is to keep them fighting in the field and having them spend tons of ammo and supplies.
The Russians are doing it now because they have no choice. If they could they would've ended this war long ago.
Again, Ukraine lost the war. They cannot take any land back. They are slowly pushed back while their country has zero investment, millions that run away and possible huge food shortages coming not counting having freezing pp in winter. Without any chance of turning this around its madness to continue. Even if it takes Russia say 2 years to reach Dnieper river they still will get there. They can just fortify and enjoy having 50% of Ukraine. What you say to that - Ukrainian victory?
The Ukrainians have the will to fight and all they need is the equipment and the training to do so. As long as western countries are willing to keep Ukraine supplied and are helping them get better then they can't ever lose. Russia would have to throw much more forces into Ukraine to make major gains there, otherwise the Ukrainians can just wait until they get stronger and better trained before they launch a major offensive or if worst comes to worst they can be like the Taliban and outlast the Russians until they tire of losses and of war.
Even today Russia can simply stop. They can just liberate Donbass and stop. What is Ukraine going to do? Seriously - how many years they can keep fighting without moving forward while expense for Russia is minimal?
As I said above the expense for Russia IS NOT minimal as its very expensive to keep a army fighting in the field. This isn't going to turn into the Donbas fight the past 8 years where each side fires a few artillery shells against each other everyday. Its going to be continued large scale warfare until one side gives up and I really doubt the Ukrainians will give up as long as they receive support from around the world.
If I were the Ukrainians I would at most only give up the Donbas and Crimea areas in negotiations for peace and have the borders return to pre-war lines. That's it. Everything else must be given back to the Ukrainians or else the war goes on forever and I don't think the Russians can last forever especially with all the tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, fighter aircraft they've lost and all the advanced weapons they've used up like guided missiles. You can't build those things overnight and it gets even harder when the sanctions are in place that can hurt you long term.
1
-
@pite9
The idea that Russia would attack with the intent to collapse the government, without having a plan B is crazy talk. Putin would never agree to a plan like that. Putin is an incredibly thorough and responsible person. He's not someone who wouldn't cover his flanks, especially not for something this big, which will define his legacy. If you've paid attention to his actions and politics over the last 20 years you'd know this.
Well in this case he and his military staff were completely wrong. His plan was always to take all of Ukraine and getting rid of Zelensky and replacing him with a Lukashenko type of leader that would be his ally and do as he asked when needed.
If he and his staff didn't grossly overestimate the ability of Russian forces and severely underestimate the Ukrainians will and ability to resist he wouldn't be stuck in this mess right now.
The south did flip over to Russia. Russia destroyed Ukraine's main army during those first 2 weeks in the north. It's Ukraine's army that got crippled, not Russia's. Meanwhile they set up their positions in Donbass and encircled Mariupol. All of this happened very quickly before Ukraine got the chance to properly defend the south and Mariupol, or organize their northern forces properly. So all 3 fronts were very important and successful. The north could have went more smoothly and I'm sure they made some bad decisions along the way, but overall it wasn't a failure.
The south was definitely where the Russians saw the most success and from some reports I've read it might've been helped by some Ukrainian sympathizers although who knows how many and how effective they might've been, but definitely the UA forces weren't as prepared in the south as they should've been and that's where they lost the most territory.
Also even though Mariupol was a defeat and Ukraine lost some very good units in the fight, they did do their job in delaying Russians from further advancing towards Odessa and now that city is completely out of reach. The north however was a complete disaster and there's no sugar coating that one.
The idea that Kiev would back down and welcome Russia, like in Crimea is crazy. You clearly have no clue about the regional politics of Ukraine and where their political and cultural loyalties lies. Crimea was a russian state within Ukraine. Everybody with a basic understanding of Ukraine knew this, and we also knew that Kiev was staunchely anti-Russia, and most definately would go to war in the event of an invasion.
Who said anything about Ukrainians welcoming the invading Russians? The idea was to implement their own version of shock and awe in launching a quick attack into Kiev to either kill, capture or chase away Zelensky and his government. Imagine if that actually happened how different the war might've turned out?
With Zelensky staying in the country that perhaps changed the war significantly in that Ukrainian morale and will to fight was maintained if not boosted and just as importantly if not moreso it convinced western countries that sending more military aid to Ukraine made sense rather than it being wasted. If Zelensky flees or is killed, I question that the west would be so eager to pour so many resources into helping UA forces to continue the fight.
Who knows maybe even if Zelensky is removed the Ukrainian people might continue to fight, but how long can they do so if they're not supplied by the west? The point is the Russians threw a hail mary to try and make this invasion short and sweet and they failed and now they're stuck.
In fact I'm sure that if Zelensky had agreed to some deal early on, the US neocons would have made sure to remove him by any means necessary, replacing him with someone who was willing to fight against Russia. Ukraine was setup to play this part.
How could Ukraine 'play their part' if Russia didn't go insane and invade in the first place? No one wanted Russia to invade and yet they did it anyways and now they're paying the price. Hopefully that price will be so large that it will be many years before they can do something like this again and that you can't go rogue like this and not expect the world to react.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AmandaBuwalda
While you pay taxes, if you own your home, that is , goes to the services you receive, eg garbage pick up, recycling, street lights, and the ability to even buy land and own a home in a society, natives don’t get free money, what you may not realize, reserves are not funded by provincial governments, it’s federal government, and they aren’t given services, like city water, sewers and regular garbage pick up.
Native people don't get city services because THEY CHOOSE to often live in the middle of nowhere where its extremely difficult and costly to bring any services to their communities, yet they insist on living there away from everyone else anyways. This wouldn't be too bad except they have near zero ability to be self-sufficient and where their communities don't have constant issues from drug/alcohol addictions to high crime and violence rates.
If they had any common sense they would move closer to civilization near a major city so that their communities CAN get hooked up to water, sewage, electricity etc. at a much cheaper cost. Also they could receive hospital care and other social services much more easily as well. Instead many of them choose to isolate themselves in far off communities and then complain that they're not receiving enough help.
the reserves are basically federal run prisons, with very little resources, very little job opportunities available , with no transit systems , in the middle of nowhere.
No one is forcing native people to live on the reserves. They CHOOSE to live there which is why some 60% live OFF of reserves these days and those native people are generally doing better than those living on reserves although not all of course.
Also the reserves wouldn't be like 'federal run prisons' if they were capable of living peacefully among themselves and were productive citizens rather than choosing NOT to work OR get themselves educated properly. Give those reserves to the Japanese and they would turn those places into some of the most nicest and peaceful places in Canada that everyone would want to visit. Native people could do the same and make their communities into nice tourist spots and yet they don't have the ability to do so or in some cases they've become xenophobic and don't want any outsiders coming to their communities.
If you can’t get a job on a reserve, because there aren’t many, how do you buy a car to escape from hell?
Again maybe if they bothered to apply themselves and get properly educated, then perhaps they would be more employable and/or be more capable of starting their own businesses rather than getting into trouble. Maybe native people should spend less time getting angry and protesting everything under the sun and spend more time raising their kids properly and cleaning up their communities to be better, safer places to live.
1
-
@HeleneLouis-x7i
Criminals, whether they be white, black, yellow or red, need to be held accountable but don't make the mistake of lumping in all the rest of the First Nations people. Yes, we've had a horrific history at the hands of settlers and it's still an ongoing battle to be treated with at least a modicum of respect.
Lets be really honest here. I don't discount that a number of native people have faced abuse and hardship at the hands of Europeans in Canada and how many were mistreated. However the way native people talk about their history, you would think it was the same as how native people in the US were treated and how many of them were killed and harshly mistreated and that's obviously not true.
Reading through our history I don't think there has been any major conflict between Canadians and native people as they had in the US where natives and white people fought a number of battles resulting in many deaths. Seems like Canadians and natives solved most of their problems peacefully and with various agreements and treaties.
So while we can acknowledge that native people in Canada were mistreated in the past at times, lets not pretend it was anywhere near as bad as what happened to native people in the US. That's what I don't like about the current narrative from native people here where they try and milk the residential school issue as if their children were sent off to the gulags or something.
The fact is residential schools were similar to boarding schools where people from more remote parts of the country were brought to larger towns and cities to go to school to get educated. Plenty of white kids from small towns and villages also went to these kinds of schools many decades ago because it made more sense to do so.
Also with regards to seeing native people in a negative light, why can't we acknowledge that its more than 'a few native people' that are having serious problems in our country ranging from crime and violence to various addiction problems to being unable to build peaceful, safe and prosperous communities for themselves?
Instead of FORCING people to ignore all the statistics and videos of native people behaving poorly, how about getting native people to CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIORS so that over time people's perception of native people will change naturally on its own? If native people refuse to change how they behave so poorly in our society then you can't demand that people lie to themselves and pretend that you're all nice peaceful and non-criminal people when clearly you're not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pro Saboteur
Yes Canada is mostly a 2 party system because the NDP is far too left for the majority of Canadians. That and the fact that they often choose bad leaders to head their party is why they've always remained in third place. Their current leader is bad and they talk far too much about race, LGBT and other social justice issues and most of their policies involve massive spending. Plenty of people would love many of the things they propose, but most have enough common sense to realize that we can't afford most of what they want to implement.
Maybe if they pulled back from being such a SJW party with extreme leftist views I'd consider voting for them, but as they currently are I would never do so. I've voted for the Liberal party almost exclusively in all the elections I've voted, but even they are going too crazy for me to support anymore and now I really don't have a party that I really like and can get behind any longer.
'If democracy isn't the answer, then what is? It's not enough to say what you're against, tell me what you're for.'
I know alot of people won't like it, but I think some form of central governing wouldn't be a bad thing. If you could get the right people in who care more about serving the majority of people, building a strong nation and economy and who cares less about stupid social justice issues and pandering to small segments of the population constantly, I think that would work much better than what we currently have here.
Right now if you're not black, native, LGBT, female or a Quebecer you don't matter much in Canada. If you're a non Quebec cauasian or asian, your concerns pretty much take a backseat to the above listed groups. I guess that's what happens when you spend most of your time trying to build a decent life for yourself and your family and don't go out and protest and get angry over every little thing all the time and you end up getting ignored.
This is why I wish we had a government that would work for the betterment of the majority of the population rather than pander to and bend the knee all the time to the demands of the angry minority. Canada has the capacity to accomplish so much, but its constantly stuck in dealing with social justice crap and trying to appease every angry small group of people who hold back progress that would benefit the entire nation.
Say what you want about China and their human rights issues, but they wouldn't be the world power that they are today without a strong central government directing its nation and its people towards a common path. The most prosperous and productive times in the history of China has always been when it was united and ruled with a strong hand. Anytime China has had multiple leaders ruling pieces of their nation, its almost always been chaos and destruction.
People keep talking about the CCP needing to fall and democracy to be implemented in China, but I think if that happened the country would once again fall into chaos and disarray. I guess that would be good for the world who doesn't want China to be even more powerful, but it wouldn't be good for the Chinese though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ArmaDino22
It's funny how you make fun of the Soviets as if they were incapable of having a multi-front war, and yet the Allies, haven't established a proper military front in Europe until 1944. And yet at the same time ignoring how the Soviets seized Manchuria, a territory just as large as Europe in less than 1 month all the while supplying all their armies in Germany and all other the eastern front.
Did you read up on your history first? The Soviets PURPOSELY waited until the defeat of the Germans was complete before they attacked Manchuria precisely because they WANTED TO AVOID a two front war. The Soviets may have been able to fight on two fronts, but they didn't and chose to attack only after the Germans surrendered.
Also how is defeating the Japanese army seen as anything special when they were probably the weakest part of the Japanese Imperial Forces? Their navy always received the bulk of the funding and priority which made sense considering Japan was an island nation and the Japanese army was quite inferior in comparison. No doubt that the Japanese soldiers were brave almost to a fault, but have you ever seen the weapons and tanks they fought with? Most of it was already obsolete even before WWII began and they never were able to improve and build better tanks, artillery, machine guns, vehicles or even improve upon the rifles for their soldiers.
The Japanese army had no problems beating inferior opponents and outsmarting others or overcoming some enemies with their bravery, but once they hit a real opponent with superior firepower they got absolutely destroyed. That's what happened when they fought the Americans during their Pacific campaign and that's what happened when they fought the Soviets.
As for your 9 million Soviet casualties, realize that out of those 9 million, 3 of them died in German captivity(80% of which were starved in 1941-42). Another chunk died during Operation Barbarossa, as the Red Army was caught with their pants down. You take out these 2 factors, and the soviets didn't fair that much differently that the other powers(bar the US).
The 9 million military deaths may not even be the correct total number depending on who you include and what source you look at, but going with that number while a great number were lost in the initial phases of the war in the East, the Russians never stopped losing huge amounts of men throughout the war whether or not they had the superior numbers and/or superior firepower. Even in the final battle for Berlin IN JUST TWO WEEKS the Soviets lost 80,000+ dead/missing and 2000+ tanks/SPGs.
You would think that with the war already won that the Soviets would give a damn about their men and perhaps just lay siege to Berlin and take a slow approach to defeating the last of the Germans, but nope they just plowed on full steam and lost tens of thousands of men for no good reason at the end of the war other than wanting the honor of taking the Nazi capital.
The US and UK were primarily democracies which relied on popular support. It would be extremly hard to sell the public on a war with an ally that was bigged up for years.
I never mentioned whether or not fighting the Soviets after WWII would be politically viable or would be supported by the public. I'm just talking about whether or not the western allies would be able to take on the USSR and defeat them and push them back into their own territory if not more and the answer is 100% YES. Outside of potentially having better tanks, there's very little that the Soviets were better than the allies when it came to men, equipment and logistics.
Pretty much all of the major amphibious, airborne and airforce bombing campaigns that the allies launched are operations that the Soviets could NEVER hope to launch. They never had the organization, the logistics or the advanced enough equipment to ever be able to accomplish such massive operations and they would have very little hope of beating the allies in a post-WWII fight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1