|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
posted October 16, 2023 06:02 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Noone claimed they "INVADED" in 2014.
Wikipedia
In February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 16, 2023 06:23 PM |
|
|
@JJ
What I said wasnt only about safety concerns per se.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2023 08:06 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
JollyJoker said:
Noone claimed they "INVADED" in 2014.
Wikipedia
In February and March 2014, Russia invaded the Crimean Peninsula, part of Ukraine, and then annexed it.
You mean it's no invasion when the INITIAL force actually inading consisty only of 200 special forces and a couple of gunships?
What is it, then, if it's NOT an invasion? A friendly visit?
How many body snatchers would be necessary for an invasion (you know, invasion of the body snatchers, or eben "the invaders"? Is a special operation with special forces who sneak in not in invsion?
Is your understanding of language so muc diferent from mine?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted October 16, 2023 08:31 PM |
|
|
|
Russians took Crimea.. Not Ukrainians.. And Ukraine's own country.. So Ukraine must to take illicit flag i.e. country back.. But Russia got mad.. Not hard to understand..
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 16, 2023 08:48 PM |
|
|
Okay artu.
artu said:
Look, Ben80 is obviously strongly opinionated against the West to the point of losing objectivity. But he clearly isnt a bot, his replies arent algorithmical. And not everything he says is propaganda.
I answered that-
Quote:
After the Cold War, USA did remain the sole super power which led it to enhance its military complex and zone of influence more and more, to the point Russia percieved it as an existential threat. It happens to all the empires. They overgrow, then their proxies dismantle because the center tries to overreach. And after the Cold War, Russia did try to remain in good terms with the West, that is also true. But that can not happen if USA cant face the fact that Russia is not this completely torn out, weak country from the 1990’s. What’s happening is basically a redistribution of the balance of power over a region whether we like it or not. Saying USA also did this and that, overthrowing pro-Russian governments in its neighbors etc is not whataboutism because international politics and that balance of power and influance are all interlinked. They are all pieces of the same political ecosystem.
But that didn't happen. The US didn't overthrow governments, not in the non-USSR states, like Hungary, Poland, and not in the Baltic countries either. The plain fact is that "the West", and in Europe that's the EC, has more to offer than Russia. That they open to the West is clear and they have been fed up with Russia is at least understandable. Russia, on the other hand, had a direct hand in one or another conflict, say, Georgia. That doesn't mean what the US did was great, especially in Iraq. But we talk of a military invasion of a European country in 2022, and as I said a couple of times now, no one was interested in a conflict with Russia, which should be obvious when looking at the West's reaction to 2014. The US have been concentrating on China.
Quote:
One thing is certain, Ukraine isnt important enough for NATO to go “all in”
They COULDN'T go all in, obviously. Ukraine is no NATO member, and NATO is a DEFENSE pact for protection of their MEMBERS. That's why they all want in.
Quote:
and it is important enough and historically tied to Russia, for it to keep pressing.
Err, what? What is wrong with normal relations to independent countries? Russia hasn't special rights, because and whether they consider something important or not doesn't give them any privileges to invade and destroy.
Quote:
Putin is not Hitler, he is not this complete lunatic who will keep on invading more and more countries.
Hitler wasn't either. The only thing he ever wanted was RUSSIA to the Ural and the resources of the Caucasus. So he started with Poland, but then Britain and France didn't balk, and so Russia had to wait. And then it still had to wait longer because Italy had bitten too big a piece with Yugoslavia and Greece.
Quote:
So think of it like this, after WW1 France insists that Germany should pay and be crushed completely despite USA and UK suggesting a more balanced approach. France insists and what does that lead to, another conflict in 20 years. Because Germany is a major player in Europe, it will eventually break the shell if the shell is designed too small for it, which is what exactly happened. Now try to imagine what would have happened if they only invaded Austria and then stopped, it is speculative of course but this is kind of similar to the situation we are in.
I have no idea what you want to construct here. The question that is regularly asked isn't what if Hitler had stopped with Austria, because that wasn't the plan. The plan was RUSSIA, and Austria was just one step. Then came Munich - and the Czechoslovakia IN SPITE OF Munich.
The West had their Munich already, more or less, leaving Crimea at rest and in Russian hands. Austria is long past, we are at least in Czechoslovakia an there are those fearing that Ukraine might be Poland already. It could have been Poland if they had taken Kyev in the same time the Germans needed for Poland then.
With what I read from your construct, they should have just given Germany Russia (because that's what they wanted and that's what was important to them).
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 12:02 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Annexed? Crimea voted to leave Ukraine, then voted to join Russia.
We've been over this, Sal.
Crimea cannot vote on that matter.
A referendum like that cannot take place at all because it is illegal (unconstitutional).
Article 2, Ukrainian Constitution:
"The sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory.
Ukraine is a unitary state.
The territory of Ukraine within its present border is indivisible and inviolable."
Even if people voted in their basements, it would still be illegal (again: see Catalonia). An illegal vote, as per definition, has no legal meaning, it's worthless.
The fact that such a referendum took place means one thing: that Ukraine lost control and constitution could not be upheld.
And why did Ukraine lose control?
Because there were Russian Soldats all around backing the "referendum" with AK-47s.
So it's not only illegal, but also impossible to properly supervise, therefore, biased/inconclusive.
TL: DR:
That "referendum" is worthless.
Crimea has been annexed.
if that is too abstract for you, then perhaps this will be easier to understand:
- you cannot declare that your house secedes from France and becomes Germany.
- your neighbours cannot vote that the street you live at secedes from France and becomes Germany.
- your city cannot randomly decide to leave France and join Germany.
- your entire region cannot do it either.
All of that is because an individual, or a group of individuals (even a very big one) cannot randomly, on their own, decide upon a new law and immediately enforce it.
Law creation (especially complex and international) has to follow an established process defined by constitution.
What you propose has no place within a legal system that has been backed by the majority (or elected minority representing the majority) as the only proper way to establish and abolish laws in your country.
You say people of your city, street or whatever have a say - well, they are still minority compared to the majority of French people that agreed upon a law system that strictly prohibits secession.
Obviously, the same applies to Ukraine.
Or, if that STILL doesn't convince you:
Can we take a referendum to beat you up, steal your stuff and burn your house?
Since constitution obviously means nothing to you - why not?
Does it have to be entire France? Or maybe 5000 people is enough to decide and make it legal? or 50? or maybe just one? Who's to decide when it's not established within the bounds of law? And who's going to count when nobody cares for objective, unbiased vote counting?
If Crimea can ignore the bounds of law that has been set, why can't Crimea - or any other region for the matter - vote for other things? Like taking Sal's stuff and breaking his arms? if this is what people want, then it surely should be legal, right?
And since there's no set participation rate and votes are counted by dudes with AK-47s, perhaps I can take an AK-47 and decide by myself that it's OK to rob you?
Me and my five mates, we voted you lose your house today, bud.
Your loss.
See what I mean? What you actually present as the ultimate argument for "people have decided, therefore it's legal" is just another Pandora's box leading to complete anarchy. If there's no "rules for setting rules", let's just set them right here, right now, oh and you should also shut up and comply, since WE HELD A REFERENDUM DUDE, WE HAVE THE RIGHT.
This is madness. Not Sparta, pure madness. Like I said at the very beginning of this long and pointless "discussion", laws exist for a reason. We, as society, have created them for a reason. And the reason is that without laws, we're back to the jungle, where strong take what is their, ahem, biological right. And such a world sucks.
And if you don't think it sucks, then prepare to be subdued by my fists. And robbed afterwards. Just don't complain I took what's rightfully mine, lol.
After all, you promote this social darwinism on international level. "Sovereignty means nothing". Let's try that darwinism on you, with a personal approach, shall we?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 02:22 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:25, 17 Oct 2023.
|
@JJ
Ok, you are completely off now.
When I talk about going all in, I am not talking about the technicality of being a NATO member, USA (or Europe) wont risk an all out war with Russia just for the sake of Ukraine and Russia made it clear that they wont let Ukraine be an overreaching USA’s political playground anymore. They are willing to risk more because it is their background geographically and historically. This has nothing to do with privilege, you have two opposing powers and one has more chips in the game. I’m not talking about what’s right or wrong here but I must add as a side note, living in a country that has been subjected to coups, attempted coups and political intervention supported by the U.S.A., I can tell you, although they are not as brutal as a Russian invasion, they are no picnic either.
About the WW2 anology, yes, Russia was “Lebensraum” but Hitler did plan an all out war, he was willing to fight the Soviets from the start, he even said if Europe cant get that, he will first attack Europe and then Russia. I was referring to the perspective of the Allies. When Austria was invaded, they said ok, we’ll let that one slide, then Czechoslovakia got invaded and again they werent willing to go all in, it was only after the invasion of Poland they realized Hitler wasn't going to stop and it was inevitably another world war. I’m saying Putin wont do the same, he will stop at his “Austria.” Of course, one can argue “that’s what they thought with Hitler too, see?” But that’s what I mean when I say he is not a complete lunatic like Hitler, he is not willing to start an all out war either.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 09:11 AM |
|
|
@ doomforge
Nice post, mate. 
@ artu
I'm off now? Lol.
You are on very, very thin ice here. First of all, Turkey is a NATO member. Ukraine is not. Secondly, I have to repeat myself here. The trouble with Ukraine is definitely not a trouble Russia has or had with the US. Before 2014, still with the Yanukovych government, Ukraine wanted to join EU, everything was prepared, but Putin "convinced" him otherwise, so that Yanukovych didn't sign the Association Agreement, instead Russia presenting an alternative with them and Belarus as partners. Which led to the "revolution" and new elections, the annexation of Crimea and the permanent "sitting war" with Russia and the Ukraine.
You are wrong insofar that we are not talking about Russia here, but about PUTIN and what HE wants, because Russia is big enough, as it is. RUSSIA is just a very rich country that doesn't want anything. It's PUTIN, not Russia, and it makes no sense to take his position and claim RUSSIA had more chips in it or anything. I completely disagree with that notion and I don't understand your position here.
Then, Hitler. I don't think you really grasp what actually went on there. Hitler wanted Russia. He wanted an alliance with Britain, since he considered them "fellow aryans" and even admired them and their "empire". The trouble with his plan - which was always getting Russia to the Urals and the Caucasus, build a couple of SS-frontier castles to guard from the "subhumans" left in Siberia, get a plethora of blond babies and make aryans great again - was Poland, which was in the way, and the problem here was, Poland had treaties with England and France, guaranteeing that those two would enter any war anyone would declare on Poland. After Austria and Czechoslovakia Hitler didn't believe that they'd honor those treaties, but they did, and the end result was that Germany couldn't attack Russia in 1940. Obviously, Austria is understandable from the allies side, and there are parallels to Crimea. The West has basically accepted that, like the allies accepted Austria, but the process of annexation is practically the same. If, after Munich, the allies had reacted sterner and firmer with Czechoslovakia, it's questionable whether Poland would have happened the way it did (keep in mind that Russia could occupy half of Poland under the guise of making sure Germany didn't get it). If Austria is the Crimea, then the attack on Ukraine in 2022 is Chechoslovakia and the West doesn't fold, but supports Ukraine.
We have no knowledge of what would have happened if the "special operation" would have been a success. I'm quite sure that Putin would have been in a position of strength after that - if the West didn't do anything in Ukraine, they wouldn't do anything with the other former USSR republic states either, and there may have been new negotiations about disarming Poland, the Baltics and so on. We don't know. What we know is that Putin is stuck and the interesting question is what would Russia do after Putin.
I'm sure that are very wrong in terms of the Hitler Putin comparison. Everyone thinks Hitler was a lunatic (and Putin isn't), but was Hitler REALLY a lunatic? Or is it just that his immense SUCCESS with everything he did and the fact that no one actually opposed him in any meaningful way led to him becoming megalomaniacal? He doesn't seem to be alone on that front, because, let's face it, being able to let the whole known world dance to your pipe and win everything you start is something very hard to live with and keep "normal" (look at extremely successful businessmen). Putin isn't different. He's stubborn as a mule (that's what is said about him), which also means he isn't flexible. You don't know what he wants.
Anyway, being prepared to attack everyone standing in your way for the one thing you really want isn't the same thing than wanting everything. Obviously Hitler didn't want France. He didn't want Switzerland. He accepted Sweden. He didn't want Yugoslavia either. If anything, Hitler has been the former, wanting Russia, defeat Bolchevism (part of the Jewish world conspiration) and be done with it. Hitler had no notion about "war at sea" - everything the industry did was centered around LAND WAR and sea DEFENSE. Rockets, yes, but no long range bombers, no troop transports, no aircraft carriers, no nothing. Hitler wanted a Greater German empire on Russian soil, period.
What Putin wants, we don't know. But a lot points to him wanting a Greater Russian empire "everywhere Russians are" - in the borders of 1988 or something like that. Which doesn't end with Ukraine if he's successful there.
Would it bother us? Probably in principle, simply, because you cannot trust someone like that.
Now, in theory you may argue, that all things considered, the Salomonic thing to do would have been if Ukraine had somehow been divided into an Eastern part leaning to Russia and a Western part leaning to the West and the EU - but you could argue the same for the USA, with the South and the North; it's theoretical. A lot of people must be prepared to let that happen first.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 09:58 AM |
|
|
Doomforge, you preach in the wind, bro.
I don't justify any of Russia actions, I look for gray zones, and there are tons of them. As you are on the extreme side, i.e. Russia must unconditionally fall, of course that won't talk to you, but in real life and politics, deflating a conflict can only be done by identifying the gray zones, otherwise there is no possible compromise.
Just to note, all your headlines and slogans, like Russia can't win a war alone, has small GDP, those are superficial analysis, like first link you found and you paste. Once you go deeper and understand the mechanics and the context, they reveal incorrect. Russia is a superpower with almost unlimited military and human potential and the west nobish strategy consisting into heavily underrating it lead to the dead end we are today. Once you realize the evidence, there is no other way than talking each other then attempt to end it by a negotiation.
About sovereignty, yes, it means nothing if it is constantly broken by the West, then they pretend to wake up when is Russia and start to patronize others. This is not whataboutism, rules are for everyone, once broken once, twice, 20 times, the concept in itself is obsolete. When West breaks them, there is always this constant narrative that it is for the good, for the democracy, for liberty, for blah blah how sweet we are, except the world doesn't buy it anymore because they got the trickery, seeing the ruins we leave. And that's why you have 80% of the world maintain both cordial relations and trading with Russia, not because they agree with what it did, but because they know we did much worse and are unworthy to trust.
That's it, and as long as Russia isn't isolated, and we failed at that, barking at them will return in our face.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 10:01 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:02, 17 Oct 2023.
|
@JJ
You are completely off about why I make the analogy, asking me if Russia has a privilege and so on…
Ukraine wanting to join EU has nothing to do with what I say. 20 years ago, Russia also wanted to join EU in the long run and it was mainly U.S. who had a problem with that, not Europe. U.S. basically continued its anti-Russian sentiment from the Cold War, maybe it was the old bureaucrats and a sunk in mind set, I dont know. Now, naturally, that doesnt give Russia the right to invade Ukraine, but it is important that U.S. kept underestimating them and tried to corner them in a political position of insignificance which is unnatural for Russia. (Like France did with Germany post WW1 ).
It would be a more detailed and accurate analogy to compare Austria to Crimea, Ukraine to the Czhecks and then state Putin wont take the Poland step, the last draw, you are right about that. But it doesnt basically change the core of the analogy. They wont step back because they are not as passive as NATO wants them to be. Is that just the stubbornness of Putin, well, if we are to trust the polls, majority of people support him but that type of public support changes according to which way the wind blows, so… But one thing is sure, Putin was not hasty to burn the bridges, he wanted to be allies for a long time. If you listen to his speech from the first day of the invasion, his argument is that they were the ones being cheated and he actually believes that. And there was indeed some backstabbing involved.
Turkey being a NATO member doesnt change the fact that USA supported coups, even organized them to a degree when they didnt like the government in power. The minute Turkey pioritizes its own interest in the region regarding the Kurdish conflict, war in Syria, Iraq etc, USA supports the ones Turkey is in conflict with if it fits its agenda. Being a NATO member doesnt mean USA sees you as an equal partner. The related part is, backdoor interventions such as overthrowing governments may not be as brutal as an invasion but they are still a violation of a state’s sovereignity if you are to build an argument on that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 10:38 AM |
|
|
You didn't mention even ONE point that explains why Putin attacked Ukraine - or, more correctly, what he hopes to GAIN. He feels, what? Betrayed? Rejected? Spurned? And then attacks Ukraine because? He's a little child and says, you don't want me to play with you, so I'll show you?
That make would make him completely irrational and EXTREMELY dangerous, though.
Also - what about the growing dependence on China? The Russian Secretary of finance just stated, they get all their drones from China, currently. Russia is LOSING face and status currently, and rapidly so. It keeps up on China's and India's mercy which will come with a heavy price. Putin's course has been UNWISE - it's not good for Russia.
So. The attack only makes sense with the aim to reach all war goals within a reasonable time and within the limits of what Russia actually had deployed. Once that failed, keeping up the war hasn't been in Russia's best interest. Which means, Putin isn't acting in Russia's best interest - he's just stubborn.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 11:19 AM |
|
|
I think it foremostly attacked to make a statement, to declare that it wont let Ukraine turn into a complete proxy state, because that’s how it perceives the current regime, justly or not. And peace would certainly be about conditions regarding that. Basically, the Ukraine government and the Russian government seems to have a strict disagreement about what counts as Ukraine’s sovereignity.
Remember the American political analist who foresaw the invasion from years ago, saying “we are going to get Ukraine wrecked by making it think it is part of the West, but we will stand down when Russia attacks, we must persuade Ukraine to remain as a neutral country,” it is exactly what happened.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 12:11 PM |
|
|
I don't think that is true.
I think, the aim of the attack was to install a puppet regime in order to make peace with that and make the Ukraine minus Crimea and Donbas the new de-facto Ukraine which would also keep strong ties with Russia.
Didn't work. Was counter-productive.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 01:18 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Just to note, all your headlines and slogans, like Russia can't win a war alone, has small GDP, those are superficial analysis, like first link you found and you paste.
I never said Russia can't win a war vs. Ukraine. It can't win a conventional war with NATO, but that is pretty much obvious. They have an order of magnitude smaller army in every department (conventional) and there's a massive difference in air power, so there's nothing to discuss, pretty much. It's one fairly poor country vs. the combined strength of all West, including the world's biggest superpower aka US.
And GDP is just public data, do you have better sources?
Salamandre said:
Once you go deeper and understand the mechanics and the context, they reveal incorrect. Russia is a superpower with almost unlimited military and human potential and the west nobish strategy consisting into heavily underrating it lead to the dead end we are today. Once you realize the evidence, there is no other way than talking each other then attempt to end it by a negotiation.
Russia is a superpower? In what regard?
Unlimited miltary potential? What do you mean?
Unlimited human potential? They have ~140 mil pop and absolutely atrocious demographics, especially now that they killed so many young men in their stupid war. Combined NATO human potential is almost a BILLION people (~960 mil) and many NATO countries, starting with US, have good demography. So the gap will only widen in NATO's favor.
In Poland we have a saying "Russia is neither as strong, nor as weak as it seems" and I think it describes reality quite well.
Russia is never to be underestimated, but their glory days of USSR (a true superpower, which was reflected in GDP, industry potential and army size/strength) are long gone.
Salamandre said:
About sovereignty, yes, it means nothing if it is constantly broken by the West, then they pretend to wake up when is Russia and start to patronize others. This is not whataboutism, rules are for everyone, once broken once, twice, 20 times, the concept in itself is obsolete.
US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, so the concept of sovereignty is dead?
OK. Let's assume it is.
What do you propose then?
What should we do now?
Because, if sovereignty means nothing, than it's in our best interest to band together and supress Russia so that it cannot attack anyone again, right?
In other words, NATO.
Any other ideas?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 01:51 PM |
|
|
Doomforge said:
In Poland we have a saying "Russia is neither as strong, nor as weak as it seems" and I think it describes reality quite well.
This is the correct proverb. But if we multiply NATO's billion people and Russia's 140 million people by the share of those who are ready to take part in the war, then we will not get more fighters on the NATO side than Russia.
Doomforge said:
Because, if sovereignty means nothing, than it's in our best interest to band together and supress Russia so that it cannot attack anyone again, right?
And here it is a personal matter for each country. Those who see a danger for themselves in the future (I suspect these are those who have already stained themselves with numerous crimes) - let them join those who want to defeat Russia.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 02:15 PM |
|
|
|
No.. Russia is a superpower! Not the Soviet Union meant to fall, think about Vietnam or today in Afghanistan went to lost, but USA didn't fall.. Superpower you take a lot of work to get superpower to fall.. It's German nazi got down.. Ok we believe in sanction, when Russia must lose from Ukraine.. True we don't know how to get a fall.. German nazi was an easy piece.. An old superpower version.. or Roman superpower in ancient time, etc Later on we learn a history book.. But we can destroy Russia.. It pay property i.e. city, etc also people.. Russia knows well, and they kept deterrent.. Because we can't know their mood.. Is healthy or Hitler every dreamed nuclear weapons.. Sanction? Yes over 200 years.. West spoke 100 years, I don't think so.. Remember superpower can't be alone.. USA has NATO.. and superpower has different version.. It's economic, military, politics or what..
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 03:58 PM |
|
|
Ghost said:
German nazi was an easy piece..
..
But we can destroy Russia..
Well, I was talking about European fascism. They do not regret their crimes during World War II, they only regret that they had too weak a leader (Germany).
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 04:06 PM |
|
|
Doomforge, because propaganda uses GDP as raw value, not in account for exchange rates and purchasing power parity, as it should.
Here is a detailed analysis , then the study in itself is HERE
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 06:53 PM |
|
|
Ben80 said:
This is the correct proverb. But if we multiply NATO's billion people and Russia's 140 million people by the share of those who are ready to take part in the war, then we will not get more fighters on the NATO side than Russia.
Are you sure about that?
Because US has 5500 active MBTs and up to 18 000 tanks in total. That's just US. Europe has another 5000.
I of course am aware that you don't win wars with just tanks, but it's an example of NATO's superiority of numbers. And that's just USA.
You may have plenty of people willing to get conscripted, but without heavy gear to operate, those people will be reduced to glorified small arms carriers.
Which are, of course, useful - but it has to be proportional. 100,000 conscripts will not balance out, let's say, 6000 abrams tanks.
Russia lost thousands of tanks already (among other gear) and I don't refer to Ukrainian claims here, but to Oryx website which documented every Russian loss with pictures so they are irrefutable.
Right now, Russia is actually way below even Europe with its armed force. It would take a decade for Russia to restore its army to pre-war state. And because of the Russian invasion, countries like Poland began buying arms. Poland plans to purchase up to 1000 K2 korean MBTs alone (link), and hundreds of HIMARS launchers, for instance. And that's just a single, fairly poor mid-European country.
I don't think Russia can currently match even European NATO countries. US seems completely out of Russian reach, and US is also arming up - c.a. 100 cutting edge B-21 stealth bombers are to be produced till 2040. Russia doesn't even have an equivalent plane, nor the tech and industrial capacity/know-how to produce one.
TL;DR Russia isn't weak and it would be foolish to claim so, but cannot match NATO right now.
Salamandre said:
Doomforge, because propaganda uses GDP as raw value, not in account for exchange rates and purchasing power parity, as it should.
GDP is meant to show the economic potential of a country to enable a metric for comparison. Purchasing power is important for ordinary people, not for international trade for instance.
GDP per capita is roughly meant to simulate population wealth, though of course there are better ways (such as the infamous big mac index which does show purchasing power parity).
All metrics have weak spots and can be imprecise, but it gives you something to use in discussions rather than personal opinions and anecdotal evidence.
Russia does have a unique advantage of having huge resource deposits, but let's be real. Have you ever been to Russia? It's a third world country, no offense to Russians. Outside of oligarchs, it's a pretty damn poor country. It also struggles with excessive corruption.
It is not a developed country at all. Outside of big 3 cities, it looks like something from 1970s at best. And worse, once you get to its wilder parts.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted October 17, 2023 07:15 PM |
|
|
No.. USA is a very OP than NATO.. So Russia is also OP.. But if Ukraine  I stopped following Russian army force, thus Putler.. No all army force is also propaganda! Ukraine is strong If I remember right that 21nd or 24nd OP in the world.. Oh USA and NATO.. Russia has 3rd OP in the world from allied China.. We hope Chinese sense sees Putler..
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
