I honestly just wouldn't listen to anything on CNN, they're kinda terrible.
I will say that I re-watched the CNN video that I thought indicated that figure so I could post it but it wasn't that specific video that I thought. The language CNN along with a former US General and former Ukraine Ambassador used was "staggering losses"
I will try find the analysis video if I can as I have consumed a lot of this content in the last few days.
I also think 40k seems extremely high but I do think given the challenges Ukraine is facing, the KIA and WIA is also very high, perhaps not 40k but probably a lot more than people are willing to admit.
I really hope Ukraine can break through on this front but it's a touch challenge. I also agree that CNN is mostly garbage these days and has been for a few years without a doubt.
The Following User Says Thank You to curves2000 For This Useful Post:
Winter and spring allowed Russia to dig in extensively. The weather in Ukraine is unsuitable for major operations until late May.
We didn't provide any until 2023, war had been going on for almost a year by the time they started arriving. Missed opportunity in 2022 for something similar to the Kharkiv offensive.
I always find your posts have a "I'm only asking questions" vibe to them.
Just my opinion but they just seem "off".
IMO this, is because of things like the bolded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
I will say that I re-watched the CNN video that I thought indicated that figure
Quote:
Originally Posted by curves2000
I recall seeing a CNN interview with former Google CEO Eric Schmit saying he was stunned at
You're framing your statements oppositionally for some reason, Curves. No one here is trying to cross examine you. You can just say "I rewatched the CNN Video and I what I said was wrong". Saying "I will say" indicates that you are withholding further information for some unknown (nefarious?) purpose. Same with phrasing it as "I recall seeing" as you immediately position yourself as a potentially unreliable narrator.
Not trying to pick, but something I have noted as well. I don't think it's intentional either, but I think the way you frame things sounds peculiar sometimes.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
We didn't provide any until 2023, war had been going on for almost a year by the time they started arriving. Missed opportunity in 2022 for something similar to the Kharkiv offensive.
We’ve gone over this before. Some countries have laws against providing arms to parties engaged in wars, and those laws had to be changed. Many surplus armaments they did have were mothballed with missing parts and took months to get into working condition. Then there’s the fact that it can take months to train up on them (ie 12 weeks to train up on the tanks the US and UK provided). And again, campaigning season in Ukraine ends in October. There’s just no way major heavy arms systems were going to arrive in large numbers 2-3 months after the invasion.
This narrative that the West has held back on providing arms to Ukraine is fake news. We’ve been witnessing the largest and fastest arms buildup in Europe - and probably the world - since WW2.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 08-10-2023 at 09:03 AM.
We’ve gone over this before. Some countries have laws against providing arms to parties engaged in wars, and those laws had to be changed. Many surplus armaments they did have were mothballed with missing parts and took months to get into working condition. Then there’s the fact that it can take months to train up on them (ie 12 weeks to train up on the tanks the US and UK provided). And again, campaigning season in Ukraine ends in October. There’s just no way major heavy arms systems were going to arrive in large numbers 2-3 months after the invasion.
This narrative that the West has held back on providing arms to Ukraine is fake news. We’ve been witnessing the largest and fastest arms buildup in Europe - and probably the world - since WW2.
It's not fake news at all, places like Germany dithering on tanks for months on end have assuredly cost lives. The same country who by all accounts was ready to cut and run on day one of the invasion.
We're still debating longer range missile systems that could hit staging points further in the rear. Where are the jets or training that could have been taking place over the last 18 months?
The west gets a passing grade for providing weapons, but its a C at best.
It's not fake news at all, places like Germany dithering on tanks for months on end have assuredly cost lives. The same country who by all accounts was ready to cut and run on day one of the invasion.
We're still debating longer range missile systems that could hit staging points further in the rear. Where are the jets or training that could have been taking place over the last 18 months?
The west gets a passing grade for providing weapons, but its a C at best.
Speaking in terms of historical comparisons, it's more like an A. This stuff just doesn't happen that fast.
Considering the numbers involved and the unprecedented nature of the situation, the support has been more than fine.
Sure, it could have been better, but I'd give it a B- so far.
Btw, when speaking of Germany, it's worth noting that while Germany was slow to promise military help, the amount of financial aid they've given has been massive, and on top of that, once promises have been made, Germans have been relatively fast in actually getting the promised hardware to Ukraine, which is not something you can say for every country.
I guess it's very German. Bureaucratic in making decisions, effective in making stuff happen once decisions have been made.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Speaking in terms of historical comparisons, it's more like an A. This stuff just doesn't happen that fast.
Considering the numbers involved and the unprecedented nature of the situation, the support has been more than fine.
Sure, it could have been better, but I'd give it a B- so far.
Btw, when speaking of Germany, it's worth noting that while Germany was slow to promise military help, the amount of financial aid they've given has been massive, and on top of that, once promises have been made, Germans have been relatively fast in actually getting the promised hardware to Ukraine, which is not something you can say for every country.
I guess it's very German. Bureaucratic in making decisions, effective in making stuff happen once decisions have been made.
The other thing Germany has done is reduce their dependence on Russian gas. I can't remember the details on how much of that was forced and how much was voluntary, but not being under Russia's thumb has likely freed up their ability to help Ukraine.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BloodFetish For This Useful Post:
The other thing Germany has done is reduce their dependence on Russian gas. I can't remember the details on how much of that was forced and how much was voluntary, but not being under Russia's thumb has likely freed up their ability to help Ukraine.
I have a family member who is quite high up in the German energy industry. One evening while visiting them this summer in their town we had quite an informative talk on how German's reliance on Russian gas came to be, how it developed during Merkel's reign, the Oligarch's very deep reach into the German energy industry, how post-invasion plans to turn off the tap came to be, how much Germany pivoted to get off, and who exactly was responsible for the Nordstream bombing (yes, it's who you think it was).
To put it bluntly, Germany got a ton of flack over the years for their reliance on Russian gas, and rightfully so. But it's nothing short of a miracle that they were able to pull this off in a calendar year. It pays to be a rich country, that's for sure.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
But it's nothing short of a miracle that they were able to pull this off in a calendar year. It pays to be a rich country, that's for sure.
Not only rich, but also has:
- decisive leadership willing to risk significant political capital on what's best for the future of the country
- no incumbent land disputes with indigenous peoples that seriously stall or defeat altogether massive infrastructure projects
- no long term consultation requirements prior to infrastructure development
Granted, we don't have the same impetus as freeing ourselves from the boot of Russia in Canada, but it is depressing to see the Germans build so much coastal infrastructure in a single year while we struggle to finish projects that are a-decade running.
I think its overly charitable to praise Germany for ending their Russian entanglements.
This is the same country that allowed Nord stream 1 to go ahead after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and a few years after razing Chechnya to the ground. Nord stream 2 was approved after the original invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the downing of MH17.
I don't know if it's so much praising them for getting off, as it is viewing it as pretty remarkable they were able to even do so. They were getting bitched at and got finger waggings for many years for sucking the russian teet. Merkel's appeasement policy was dead wrong and hindsight proves that. For that they deserve criticism for their greed and pure ignorance. But from an engineering perspective, it's pretty remarkable being able to pivot an entire country's energy infrastructure from a neighbor a few hundred kms away with entire gas infrastructure network already setup, to bending but not breaking in terms of an energy crises.
The company my relative works for had 3 Oligarchs who were board members and all of whom are under direct sanctions. The company owns a stake in the Nordstream projects and as soon as the bombing happened, literally the next day they had marching orders from these board members to immediately cease new exploration activities in certain countries they had opened new offices in. As in, if you won't get a gas supply from russia, you won't get it from anyone else. My relative was told to close shop, pack up and head home.
It's a deep deep rabbithole the relationship between Russia and Germany in terms of energy business. Nasty stuff.
Last edited by Huntingwhale; 08-11-2023 at 08:24 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
Imagine believing that the reason Russia invaded Ukraine had anything to do with the US. This propaganda only works if you believe the lie that Ukraine is not a self determining country. According to this Putin speak it's a helpless bunch of land between NATO and Russia. Do the people of Ukraine deserve a say in how they're governed or is that the right of Putin to decide? How is it America's fault Russia invaded a sovereign nation? To show how incredibly stupid that piece of Russian propaganda is, I'll go over these events one by one but show you how they've simply just removed the people of Ukraine from the equation to make it sound plausible:
In 2004 the US (and all democracies) supported the color revolution. This was not a US intervention but clearly a backlash against Russian led election interference. This was the people's response to what at the very least looked like a cooked election against the pro western parties.
In 2008 I guess the west should not have allowed the elected leaders of Ukraine to ask for NATO membership for fear of angering a dictator that was already threatening to take over Ukraine and Georgia. Is Ukraine not a country that deserves self determinace here???? I mean, why the hell do you think they wanted NATO membership? To prevent what we're seeing today...
In 2013 the people very clearly wanted to start the process to join the EU. Again, according to Yoho's guru they do not have that choice. That is for Putin to make apparently, will of the people be damned.
In 2014 the US (and the west) should not have backed the people's uprising against Russian pressure. The spark that set off Euromaidan was Yanukovych cancelling the EU accession in favour of Russian deals and loans. Yanukovich was sentenced for high treason for selling out his country. FFS, we have the receipts with Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, remember???? He remains the least popular president of all time in Ukraine. This was not a western operation but an uprising against Russian puppetry. Again, remove the will of the people and you can maybe fit it into this narrative.
2015-2022 Now Ukraine is accused of violent suppression and "shelling" the Donbas after Russian militias came in to "help" start a separatist movement. Polling from Ukraine showed no Oblast with more than 30% of the population wishing for a Russian Union, so I have a hard time believing it was so widespread there were so many ready to pick up arms. Again, the people have no agency, they are just a pawn to be dictated to by the West or Putin
2021-2022 the US should've signed Putin's blackmail. So after invading Ukraine in 2014 and after US intelligence knows Putin is going to invade Ukraine for the second time, NATO should sign Putin's ultimatum????? Ukraine was not in NATO at the time, no movement was being made in that regard, and Ukraine was openly frustrated that it looked like an empty promise. Suddenly Putin is amassing forces on the border in late 2021, why exactly??? Once again, Ukraine is just land between NATO and Russia for Putin to decide the fate of.
2022-now the west should ignore the Ukranian's desire not to have their people tortured like in the occupied territories and the US should sign away Ukraine's rights without their consent? I'm not sure why it's the US' role to negotiate with Russia here. Again, they invaded Ukraine, not the US. If there's to be a peace deal, Ukraine is signing it, not the US.
I know Yoho isn't going to respond like he hasn't for the last 100 trolling posts, but it needs to be rebutted
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 08-12-2023 at 10:21 PM.
The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
