(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
In what way has the U.S. "paid dearly" for it? Also in no way is this hampering the U.S. ability to send military aide to Israel as much as I wish that were the case.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
The Top G posted:Nobody is gonna “win” this war, everyone involved paid dearly for it. If you are a geopolitical rival of russia and got to pay pennies on the dollar to have russia grind itself to dust and inspire most of the developed world to join in on crippling sanctions, yeah you win The issue at play is a lot of people want Ukraine to win too
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
Is there a consensus about how the Russian economy is doing now and in the medium-term?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11/08/media-us-congress-approves-bill-on-transfer-of-russias-frozen-assets-to-ukraine/quote:The House Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US Congress has approved a bill on using confiscated Russian assets to aid Ukraine, UkrInform writes. So a bill has been proposed to secure funding for Ukraine by confiscation of frozen Russian assets. Would be interesting to see if this makes it. Not many R's should be against this except the known suspects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there a consensus about how the Russian economy is doing now and in the medium-term? They do all sorts of things like crazy accurate industrial emissions rate tracking by satellite to analyze the economic fundamentals of the nation that made itself an economic pariah, got disentangled from its carefully curated energy supply traps in Europe, and evaporated the vast majority of its soft power in a span of months while also obliterating much of its own manpower and sparking brutally heavy brain drain Most conclude: its pretty rear end, even by their own standards
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 07:28
|
|
spankmeister posted:https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/11/08/media-us-congress-approves-bill-on-transfer-of-russias-frozen-assets-to-ukraine/ I understand that redirecting frozen assets is legally challenging; how is this resolved?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 07:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I understand that redirecting frozen assets is legally challenging; how is this resolved? I'm assuming by the time-honored legal principle of "lol what are you going to do about it"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 09:30
|
|
|
The Top G posted:2) “Allying with Western Europe”, meaning what exactly? If it’s “Joining NATO” obviously Ukraine hasn’t, and likely won’t. 2 - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_218847.htm. NATO certainly disagrees with you, as they are working to expedite the membership process, which is not a fast one in the best of cases and wouldn’t go forward while the conflict is on in any case. 3 - The US currently has two carrier battle groups supporting Israel and zero supporting Ukraine… the same number that was supporting Ukraine on October 6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 10:01
|
|
|
The Top G posted:2) “Allying with Western Europe”, meaning what exactly? If it’s “Joining NATO” obviously Ukraine hasn’t, and likely won’t. The "stop Ukraine from allying with Western Europe" can indeed be interpreted in several ways. In all of them, Russia has failed its objective. Obviously stopping Ukraine from allying "the West" serves a purpose, ie keeping them well within Russia's sphere of influence and ensuring that nobody intervenes if they go for another round of genocide. The idea is clearly to make Ukraine sort of a Belarus that is an outcast from the West and entirely dependent, politically and economically, from Russia. - Obviously,the fact that Ukraine has been fighting tooth and nail so far, with aid from the West, means this objective has failed. Russia cannot easily waltz in a military to kill uppity protestors nor to decapitate a regime that would refuse to play second fiddle to Russia. Furthermore the collective West, especially the EU and its population, has fully embrace Ukraine as "Europeans" in the broad sense of the word who deserve and need our help (with various levels of commitment across Member States). - Ukraine is poised to join the EU. Even without joining NATO, the EU has a mutual defence clause (never invoked, but to be honest, neither has NATO's ever been) and, importantly, it solidifies Ukraine as being "on of ours" to the Europeans. It is impossible to definitively tie Ukraine to Russia, economically speaking, when it is part of a single market with Germany and France. - Ukrainian public opinion has absolutely shifted against them ever wanting to consider themselves "Russians" or even "little Russians" under some pan-slavic brand of nationalism. Ukraine's national consciousness includes resistance against the Russia invader and oppressor. The days of pan-slavic nationalism in Ukraine are over, if they weren't already in 2014. I'm not sure how Russia has prevented Ukraine from allying with Western Europe in any meaningful sense of the word. As for your point 3), the USA could financially and militarily support both Israel and Ukraine if it wanted to (but Israel honestly does not need any military aid other than having America waving its big fleet around to dissuade any neighbours from intervening in the Gaza conflict). The only problem is that apparently Russia has kompromat on a bunch of US politicians and talking heads, who are all very loud and very stupid. Anyway, I doubt Europe's economic can be solved by dropping support for Ukraine, and as mentioned before, they are on track to have Ukraine joint he EU + investing (too late, and too little, IMHO, but still investing) in military materiel for Ukraine, especially sorely-needed artillery shell production. That's not behaviour by a union that intends to hang out Ukrainians to dry any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 10:30
|
|
|
I mean I think at this point it is, outside very improbable circumstances Russia "winning the war" where Ukraine out of no where collapse, unless you count a made up Putin goal he said he accomplished on some sort of ceasefire, I think if your counting on win as in "better off" that both losing is a very real possibility if the war goes on for 5-10 years and major international support dries up. Where Russia still ends up with a chunk more territory in Ukraine's East but ends up worse in pretty much all other ways. I mean all this going back to war often being very stupid and being generally very terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 12:27
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I'm assuming by the time-honored legal principle of "lol what are you going to do about it" All money is made up and based on some weird faith in it for value. Doing that without the proper rituals (people in suits yelling at each other) would people storing cash in the US (or any nation), no? Sort of like how you don’t buy bonds from China someone on this site said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 13:03
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:I mean I think at this point it is, outside very improbable circumstances Russia "winning the war" where Ukraine out of no where collapse, unless you count a made up Putin goal he said he accomplished on some sort of ceasefire, I think if your counting on win as in "better off" that both losing is a very real possibility if the war goes on for 5-10 years and major international support dries up. Where Russia still ends up with a chunk more territory in Ukraine's East but ends up worse in pretty much all other ways. Even if everything comes out Putin from now on, Russia "winning" the war now looks far worse than the US "winning" the Iraq War.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 13:04
|
|
|
From a purely cynical perspective, it's wrong to say there are not winners. Russia's geopolitical rivals have won big and continue to win big from the collosal weakening of the Russian war machine and soft-power apparatus. There's lots of little conflicts world wide that are likely to tip in a different direction now Russia can no longer commit as many resources to supporting one side. Anyone actually participating in the war though, yeah there's only different shades of losing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 13:13
|
|
|
Latest video from Anders Puck Nielsen talks about the current media climate re Ukraine, which right now is heavily affected by the situation in Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UluV9n2LtL4 To me it feels like there are two very different separate things, how the war is actually going on the ground in Ukraine and how it's being talked about in the (western) media; and damned if I know how close the latter perception is to the former actuality. There was Zaluzhnyi giving a rare interview where he seemed to be saying Ukraine needs more aid to properly win, which kinda also sounded like it'll be an eternal stalemate; not much progress has been made recently which reinforces this; and then Israel takes all of everyone's attention so this vague idea of stalemate remains. Personally I'm not too worried on Ukraine's behalf right now; but over winter things might change, if Russia manages to terrorise the civilian infra more effectively with missile & drone attacks, and as we go into next year hopefully Ukraine's ammo supplies (mainly 155 mm ammo I guess) will remain sufficient, though with EU production who knows if that will be sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's a fair point, which is why I took care to define victory in terms Russia itself set at the beginning of the invasion. see https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4028717&pagenumber=362&perpage=40&userid=0#post535807470 But this vagueness towards defining winning or losing plays a big role towards interpreting battlefield results. If everything short of a total Ukrainian military victory (total control of all territory, total destruction of any and all Russian forces in Ukraine, collapse of the Russian imperialist dreams) is a loss, then the results of the Ukrainian summer offensive are extremely concerning. The currently failing Russian Avdiivka offensive would actually support that as it shows Russia is nowhere near collapse. On the other hand, if Ukraine maintaining its independence is an Ukrainian victory, then the Avdiivka offensive shows that Russia is completely unable to threaten victory that through military means. They have lost hundreds of AFVs trying (and failing so far) to take a tiny sliver of fortified land. Ukraine has a lot more areas just as or even more fortified that Russia would have to take. And as the beginning of the war showed, just breaking through the frontline does not mean you are no longer threatened - it opens you to new threats. There is a reason Russia pulled back all the way around Kiev, Chernihiv, Sumy, Mikolaiv, etc. It wasn’t that they were facing well-entrenched Ukrainian mechanized forces backed by modern MLRS and artillery employing cluster ammo. The supposedly flagging support for Ukrainian continuation of its self-defense that people like MikeC like to point out at is something that is due to the reality of a longer, slugmatch of a war with advances on both sides measured in meters per day that we currently have making a quick Ukrainian military victory seem out of reach. It is not at all directed at abandoning the continued defense of Ukraine’s right to defend its continued existence. However, some people (mostly right-wing populists or left-wing anti-imperialists) seem to think that Russia would be willing to sign a white peace of some kind and that Ukraine is the side prolonging the war at great cost to itself in order to achieve a total victory. However, the simple fact of the matter is that Russia has so far shown zero inclination to accept anything short of an impossible total victory. Until that changes, Ukraine has no other option except to continuously strive to achieve a total victory itself. Because either Russia accepts that it can’t achieve total victory or is confronted with the physical reality that it has no realistic means with which to threaten Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
jaete posted:Latest video from Anders Puck Nielsen talks about the current media climate re Ukraine, which right now is heavily affected by the situation in Israel: Any official Ukrainian spokesperson is going to be asking for more aid no matter how much they have; there's no such thing as enough in a war like this. Right now it does seem like a stalemate for the present but I'm curious about what's happening at the dnieper crossing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is there a consensus about how the Russian economy is doing now and in the medium-term? Today's economist.com briefing: quote:In 2022 hydrocarbons kept Russia’s economy on its feet. Despite sanctions imposed by Western countries after the invasion of Ukraine, the economy only contracted by 2%, less than almost anyone had predicted. Yet 2023 has brought further challenges. Lower oil prices—coupled with the G7’s “oil-price cap”, which restricts what buyers can pay for Russian exports—have dealt a heavy blow. Vladimir Putin’s decision to cut gas supplies to Europe has also hurt the economy. Medium term probably depends a lot on what happens to oil prices. If the world dips into recession and oil prices dive, they're going to be in trouble. If they stay at current levels the war is sustainable, although at the expense of cutting spending in other areas and creating substantial long term economic challenges whenever war spending eventually decreases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Any official Ukrainian spokesperson is going to be asking for more aid no matter how much they have; there's no such thing as enough in a war like this. There is very good reason to believe it is a stalemate. A traditional rule of thumb is that defence enjoys a 3:1 advantage over attack, if the opponents are equally matched in terms of skill and equipment. Russia might currently have inferior ground combat vehicles and is losing its quantitative advantage in artillery, but they still have superior:
The last point is important because not only because is Ukraine a smaller country with a smaller pool of reserves, but the remaining Russian navy and terror bombing are blockading Ukraine's economy. This doesn't mean restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity is impossible. It does however require NATO & friends to mobilize some of their economic and technological might in a way that hasn't been done since the end of the cold war. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
saratoga posted:Today's economist.com briefing: .... unfortunately that means their best buddy Iran has an additional strategic incentive to spike oil prices by escalating conflict in the Middle East. Not saying they will do that, that would also physically threaten Iran a good deal, but I could see Russia discussing the options they have together with this in mind. While the counteroffensive failed to achieve its goals this year, I still wouldn't call this a stalemate by any means. Russia is dumping men and tanks trying to take Avdiivka, which has on average been gaining them more ground there, and also rapidly depleting their resources. Ukraine is countering with a landing operation in Kherson which so far seems to be going well. Both of these are changing the strategic shape of the battlefield each day, which I'd say excludes the definition of a stalemate. The US needs to figure out if it wants to be a vaguely reliable ally to anyone for the foreseeable future and renew their support, or this definitely could become a stalemate in 2024. But it seems at the moment Ukraine has enough gas in the tank to keep things moving. Just not in the salient near Tokmak like everyone was expecting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:The US needs to figure out if it wants to be a vaguely reliable ally to anyone I don't think any other country can actually trust that it can, honestly. The foreign policy changes every couple of years depending on who gets voted into office, and landing on someone like Trump is just playing Numberwang with foreign policy. Heck, you'll even have different branches of the government performing their own independent foreign policy at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
Germany seems to continue to have trouble signing military procurement contracts. https://www.ft.com/content/95d47316-b357-4fc3-b25d-34645eef8abc quote:Germany is struggling to sign defence contracts because of uncertainty over the government’s commitment to future funding plans, chancellor Olaf Scholz has admitted, as he pledged to “guarantee” hitting Nato spending targets for the next decade and a half. I'm not really sure how this impacts the big guys like Rhienmetall, who are already have rosey projections about future production. I wonder if they will the same stumbling blocks like US production once they actually start gearing up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
I swear, Russian tanks could be rolling across the East German plain and Scholz would be saying, "Yes, but will we need this much defense spending in five years?" Not that my country is much better with one of two parties actively saying, "Actually totalitarianism is good also democracy is a terrible way to run a country."
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:Russia is also closing in on the advantage Ukraine held in drones and combat engineering and despite all the jokes about Russia losing vessels to a country without a navy, Russia still has a navy while Ukraine doesn't. Since then Ukraine has severely attrited the Russian navy, is regularly attacking Russian ships all over the Black Sea, has reopened shipping lanes despite Russian attempts at stopping them, has lead to the relocation of numerous Russian ships to „safer“ areas, has retaken various islands and plattforms in the Black Sea, etc. And it has done all of this with comparatively tiny investments, tiny number of people, and using a lot of home-grown capabilities. The Russian Navy has basically been reduced to launching long range cruise missiles at Ukraine and otherwise staying as far away from Ukraine as possible in harbors protected by extensively expanded defenses. The Navy is basically the part where the Russian military has probably lost the largest proportional advantage over Ukraine. Orthanc6 posted:The US needs to figure out if it wants to be a vaguely reliable ally to anyone for the foreseeable future and renew their support, or this definitely could become a stalemate in 2024. But it seems at the moment Ukraine has enough gas in the tank to keep things moving. Just not in the salient near Tokmak like everyone was expecting. Luckily for Ukraine they aren’t 100% dependent on the US. Unluckily for Ukraine (and the world), the US has the largest economy, military, and MIC, so even smaller hiccups can have an outsized effect. WarpedLichen posted:Germany seems to continue to have trouble signing military procurement contracts. Expect a lot of back and forth and controversial public discussion about all of this. However, this is a good thing, as German politics is a lot more consensus based in comparison to the US. The worst part is when nothing is heard in public, as that means nothing is happening. That all said, there has been a good amount of movement in regards to military procurement since Pistorius took over as Minister of Defense in January. His predecessor did basically nothing, which basically meant a wasted year. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
That's the system working as designed. The conservatives put measures into the constitution that ensure the German state gets starved more and more as time goes on. As pension subsidies smother its budgets any current and future government gets paralised and is unable to react to crises without heavily cutting into social services (except pensions of course).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
Oh yes, I wanted to adress that part of the article as it is factually wrong. In 2009 the CDU and the SPD - with comparatively little opposition - changed the constitution so that federal states are not allowed to have a deficit and the federal government is limited to a deficit of 0.35% of GDP. Exceptions are allowed for special circumstances (like Corona). That is why there are thing like the special 100 billion Euro fund for rearming the Bundeswehr, as they don’t can help to work around that limit. Changing the constitution isn’t that difficult, but it does require a two thirds majority in both houses of the German state - basically a consensus of the political establishment. The revocation of the „debt brake“ has a lot of support, but not enough yet to meet that bar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:It’s extremely weird pointing out the Russian navy as a positive for them. To be crystal clear, I'm not saying the Russian black sea fleet is a good naval fighting force. I'm saying it is still a navy that can enforce a naval blockade of Ukraine.  As evidenced by the many ships headed to or from Russian Black sea ports, Ukraine cannot return the favour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:To be crystal clear, I'm not saying the Russian black sea fleet is a good naval fighting force. I'm saying it is still a navy that can enforce a naval blockade of Ukraine. Your map literally shows a ship just outside Odessa and at least one other heading that way. Checking marinetraffic, the ship outside Odessa is a tug, while the ship heading north is a grain carrier heading towards Odessa. Unsurprisingly, it last reported its position 17 hours ago. However, this still means that Russia is no longer capable of enforcing a total blockade of Ukraine. Despite the grain deal having ended in July, Ukraine has continued exporting grain. Granted, it isn’t open trade like before the war, but it is a far cry from the days Russian warships literally sailed in sight of the coast near Odessa. Further proof: https://twitter.com/OlKubrakov/status/1722565168222077098 quote:#Ukrainian_Corridor: vessel traffic continues both to and from the ports of Big Odesa. DTurtle fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:.... unfortunately that means their best buddy Iran has an additional strategic incentive to spike oil prices Oil is ~25% of their entire government's revenue and a matter of survival. Compared to that I don't think Russia's well being (to the extent that they even care who wins in Ukraine beyond how they can profit from it) is really a factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
Looks like Ukraine sank two more Russian ships https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-naval-ships-sank-black-exploding-sea-drones-ukraine-operation-2023-11
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
The story of the russian navy in this war is probably coming up on the point where it's really actually debatable if even having the navy there was more benefit than cost, because they keep having to sink all this manpower and money and defense tech into maybe not having these ships get blown to gently caress, and, well
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 07:53
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:The story of the russian navy in this war is probably coming up on the point where it's really actually debatable if even having the navy there was more benefit than cost, because they keep having to sink all this manpower and money and defense tech into maybe not having these ships get blown to gently caress, and, well Also it seems their trying to repair a bunch which, like the damage some of them got, and how much doing massive repairs on ships cost, particular when it comes to some of their expensive internal weapons/comms/what not tech, that's like not cheap. Not going to break the bank for Russia of course. But you know a bill you really wouldn't want to pay. Also with some of those systems, is there just some stuff they wouldn't be able to replace? I assume they can get a lot of stuff through Chinese back channels and what not, but that also comes with a big premium. While China may want Russia to win for all that multi-polar politics stuff, I can't recall them actually gifting Russia anything. Mostly their support as far as I've read seemed to be just allowing trading channels to be open and turning a blind eye to a lot of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
would probably serve Ukraine's interests better than their own if they started dropping serious cash on equipment replacements for the boats still allowed to be in the region, they aren't doing much of use anymore besides being giant liabilities they got to move around a lot above all the other poo poo we learned about the vaunted russian military and how broke down ratty it got, their navy ships sure feel like they stand alone as examples of how internally corroded the entire nation was
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
There was some twitter buzz about Ukraine not having build secondary defensive lines around Avdiivka and with geolocated footage of Russians in Stepove (not holding it) I'm beginning to fear that this is going to turn out like another Bakhmut. Russians seem intent on pushing no matter the cost. If I'm remembering right the supply roads are in lowlands and it won't require much more distance before it's a huge problem. Ukraine has an industrial area to mount a defense from so it shouldn't be easy for Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 09:52
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:That Ukraine is incapable of of imposing a naval blockade of Russia is completely irrelevant for discussing the state of the war. Although Russia is (mostly) cut off from the European market, it still has plenty of channels with which to fund the war (it runs a 15.9 B trade surplus). Combined with the political will to keep the war going despite the horrific cost gives Russia endurance Ukraine might not have (due to a 2.7 B trade deficit and an economy 70% of the prewar one). This is why I think General Zaluzhny is correct in being concerned that Ukraine can't afford a war of attrition. This is reflected in Ukraine prioritizing attacks on the Russian navy and forces in Crimea over the Eastern theatre.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:The story of the russian navy in this war is probably coming up on the point where it's really actually debatable if even having the navy there was more benefit than cost, because they keep having to sink all this manpower and money and defense tech into maybe not having these ships get blown to gently caress, and, well The Russian navy has been very useful for them in launching missiles on Ukrainian targets, providing air defense, transporting equipment, and blockading Ukrainian ports. Every ship sunk hurts the Russian ability to do these things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 10:15
|
|
|
EU Says Highly Unlikely It Will Meet Ammunition Pledge to Ukraine (paywall though) This was already known before I think. Frustrating for sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 12:00
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:Although Russia is (mostly) cut off from the European market, it still has plenty of channels with which to fund the war (it runs a 15.9 B trade surplus). Combined with the political will to keep the war going despite the horrific cost gives Russia endurance Ukraine might not have (due to a 2.7 B trade deficit and an economy 70% of the prewar one). So again: If we ever get to the situation where we are discussing Ukraine imposing a blockade on Russia then Russia is completely hosed. On the other side, we started the war with Russia imposing a total blockade on Ukraine and regularly steaming up and down the coast of Ukraine. We are now in a position where (a limited number of) normal cargo ships are semi-regularly sailing into Odessa loading cargo and exporting it and Russian navy ships are being regularly attacked, damaged and sunk throughout half or more of the Black Sea. And this despite Ukraine never having, and still not having a navy. The navy is probably among the areas where Russia has lost the greatest proportional advantage over Ukraine of any part of the military. Again, Russia has gone from complete and total supremacy to mostly hiding in heavily defended ports and only steaming out for short stints in larger groups for fear of destruction. How you can point out at that and seemingly view it as a positive for Russia is a complete mystery to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 12:52
|
|
|
Ex-Nato chief proposes Ukraine joins without Russian-occupied territories Interesting proposal - essentially creating a No Fly Zone over the majority of Ukraine, allowing the AFU to continue to push and retake their lost territories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 13:08
|
|
|
Jasper Tin Neck posted:Although Russia is (mostly) cut off from the European market, it still has plenty of channels with which to fund the war (it runs a 15.9 B trade surplus). Combined with the political will to keep the war going despite the horrific cost gives Russia endurance Ukraine might not have (due to a 2.7 B trade deficit and an economy 70% of the prewar one). Does Russia have the political will? Nevermind that a trade surplus/deficit really doesn't indicate much at all for the war, how does any of this favor your position at all? Like you've completely avoided touching the other points that you were revealed to be very obviously wrong about once someone called you out, so it doesn't seem like you are particularly confident in your position or points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:59 |
|
|
DTurtle posted:On the other side, we started the war with Russia imposing a total blockade on Ukraine and regularly steaming up and down the coast of Ukraine... To this point here's a wikipedia accurate list of Russia's current black sea navy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships The ones highlighted in yellow are the ones mostly "in repair". If you look at it, there is still a formidable navy and yet despite this... Ukraine managed to make all that not only not an asset, but to make it something that's doing no good and requiring resources to protect and repair. Hell of an achievement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2023 14:06
|
|