The figure comes as part of a new set of polls that show former President Donald Trump narrowly leading Biden in 5 out of 6 crucial battleground states.
Erg that sucks... I've seen some posts about Russia's new offense but haven't had the chance to look into what's really happening. Guess I should find some time (not that my knowledge will change anything, of course).
While you might not agree with everything on our instance, the weekly news threads are pretty good at collating news and sources as things happen. It’s a decent thing to browse at least.
Much of that was because the US House of Representatives was sitting on its ass for the past how many months? There have been widespread reports of Ukraine rationing ammunition, effectively forcing them to cede ground. The recent passage of aid will start getting basic supplies in quickly. Don't write them off yet.
But at the same time, a lot of those deaths and shattered defensive lines were because of a lack of supplies. I'm not going to make any claims on how much, but when the Russians are firing 5 shells for every 1 shell the Ukrainians fire off, that changes things.
Oh yeah I certainly agree. It definitely matters a lot. I just don't the west has the industrial capacity currently to match that rate. Most of the arms were from deep, old, stockpiles, not fresh production. There'd need to be a pretty big reindustrialization push to get anywhere close.
From what I understand, the West has specialized more in precision ammunition, whereas Russia leans far more on dumb bombs. The industrial capacity is there, but the specific capacity needs adjusting. The West is seeing the first war in a long time involving a near-peer adversary running itself as a war economy, so this is also about getting production lines and supply chains up to the task. During WW2, the US was involved in production on the side of the allies via the Lend-Lease Act before it officially entered the war, so there was time for it to specialize. Not that I am in favor of a world war or escalation, but I don't think it's good to be a sitting duck.
Yeah, because short of escalating to WWIII the war was lost from the jump. Is being right about that for two years a bad thing? Is losing two years and a ton of casualties later worth anything?
The war in Ukraine is lost.
Funny, that's what you people said when Russia invaded two years ago.
No, I'm saying it because the front line is collapsing as we speak. I'm not a Putin-stan lol. I'd be persecuted in Russia.
Erg that sucks... I've seen some posts about Russia's new offense but haven't had the chance to look into what's really happening. Guess I should find some time (not that my knowledge will change anything, of course).
While you might not agree with everything on our instance, the weekly news threads are pretty good at collating news and sources as things happen. It’s a decent thing to browse at least.
https://hexbear.net/post/2526093
Much of that was because the US House of Representatives was sitting on its ass for the past how many months? There have been widespread reports of Ukraine rationing ammunition, effectively forcing them to cede ground. The recent passage of aid will start getting basic supplies in quickly. Don't write them off yet.
A bigger reason is that their manpower is depleted from so many dead. Not to mention various defensive lines not getting built.
But at the same time, a lot of those deaths and shattered defensive lines were because of a lack of supplies. I'm not going to make any claims on how much, but when the Russians are firing 5 shells for every 1 shell the Ukrainians fire off, that changes things.
Oh yeah I certainly agree. It definitely matters a lot. I just don't the west has the industrial capacity currently to match that rate. Most of the arms were from deep, old, stockpiles, not fresh production. There'd need to be a pretty big reindustrialization push to get anywhere close.
From what I understand, the West has specialized more in precision ammunition, whereas Russia leans far more on dumb bombs. The industrial capacity is there, but the specific capacity needs adjusting. The West is seeing the first war in a long time involving a near-peer adversary running itself as a war economy, so this is also about getting production lines and supply chains up to the task. During WW2, the US was involved in production on the side of the allies via the Lend-Lease Act before it officially entered the war, so there was time for it to specialize. Not that I am in favor of a world war or escalation, but I don't think it's good to be a sitting duck.
With all due respect, you don't understand shit.
If this war is purely dependent on the US supplying arms and funds to Ukraine, then it's a lost war or at best just a proxy war.
Yeah, because short of escalating to WWIII the war was lost from the jump. Is being right about that for two years a bad thing? Is losing two years and a ton of casualties later worth anything?
And we are still right.
No?