- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.
Exact full quote from CNN:
“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063
By all third party accounts the Russian military is stronger than when the invasion began.
Where you get a 50% reduction in strength must be from the most fevered of dreams. The Nazis could not overthrow Russia with millions of men and hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
You think it will be done with 3% of our budget? Honestly? We couldn’t do it with 100% of our budget. We’d have to go to a war economy and devote 60% or more of the gdp.
By all third parties you must be excluding the institute of war and every western intelligence agency. That must be the reason you are pulling WWII tanks out of museums, emptying prisons for manpower, ect. Your BS may play well in your own country, comrade, but it's still BS.
Western intelligence agencies are party to the war…
Open a history book if you think beating Russia is easy. Dozens of leaders made the same mistake over and over.
The fact that you have to assume I’m Russian to believe this reveals your arrogance.
Yes yes the mighty Russians and their 3 day war...
We're not living in history but in reality. The reality is that although Ukraine have less troops, they are battle hardened. Russia uses cannon fodder and officers who blow up if they don't fall out of a window.
The Ukrainians vastly outnumbered the Russian forces in Ukraine at the beginning of this conflict. Easily 5 to 1.
That’s easily researchable and provable, spare me the sass.
Now it is roughly 1 to 1. You can see how that’s played out, with the Ukranian counter offensive accomplishing much less than expected.
Russias army started weak and is continuing to grow in strength, as they have in nearly every conflict they’ve been in over the last five centuries.
5 to 1 you say? Since Russia is commonly acknowledged having encircled Ukraine with more than 100,000 troops before their invasion, that would mean little old Ukraine put 500,000 troops in the field. There are very few places that can put half a million troops in the field. China of course, if pressed. And of course NATO
Take your BS to someone foolish enough to believe it
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/
Five seconds of googling you are a tiring sassy person
Sigh....putting up with your nonsense
What I see here is Russia with 830,900 active soldiers, which seems about right. Ukraine, on the other hand, shows 200,000, which is a bit of a high number as I've seen half that. Putin didn't send his whole army at the outset thinking it would be a lot easier than it was. He has now. Ukraine didn't have the equipment for all of its army at the outset but they are closer now. No 5 to 1, sorry.
Is history not real?
Do you mean the Institute for the Study of War? The one founded and run by Kimberly Kagan? She's the sister-in-law of Victoria Nuland who is the Acting Deputy Secretary of State.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1kjvOsXwAA1tVk?format=jpg&name=large