The counter argument is in the story. Russia has turned their economy into a military economy instead of a more capitalist one. That’s the only way around the effect of the sanctions, but also only sustainable as long as their wars last. They already have had to cut (in real dollars) things like education. And their increase in military spending is offset by the waste and fraud happening. Good article on it here. https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90753
I don’t think France was talking about us boots. I think he was talking about Europe. And if the west starts blowing shit up the war will become much more complicated. Boots will probably become necessary.
In terms of numbers of weapons NATO may have more than Russia. But if NATO entered into theatre they’d probably last two weeks. And they wouldn’t fare much better fighting Ukraine.
Russians getting bored with burning through Leopards, now burning Abrams … First M1 Abrams Tank Destroyed In Ukraine Shortly After Appearance On Battlefield | ZeroHedge
But you did say that, did you not ? What is crippling you is that you are allowing wishful shaping to shape a narrative.
I think the correct term is "burning Abram". As in one tank destroyed in close to a year. Russia is losing 2-3,000 tanks a year. Compared to ONE U.S. Abrams tank lost. Only a complete mental defective would believe that Ukraine is losing the tank battle when they destroy thousands as many Russian tanks as the Russians destroy of theirs. And Russia has only destroyed about a dozen Leopards, most of which occurred during the failed offensive. The tank battle is the least of the things that Ukraine needs to be worried about. You are a bigger comedian than Zelenskyy ever was.
We know the Kremlin shapes your narratives, so there's that. The amazing thing is that you cling to your Kremlin stories so tightly, desperately hoping that Russia can win this war. We've had this discussion before. I already admitted that my information was not correct (the article I quoted did not differentiate between casualties and fatalities), and I moved on. Yet a shallow-minded person who shall remain nameless keeps bringing it up, even though it adds no value to the discussion. Admitting my mistake and moving on does not cripple me in any way, shape or form. Certainly not like how your desperate clinging to Kremlin lies cripples you.
I use the same calculus for destroyed Russian tanks as twice as many dead Russian soldiers as inserted into theater to account for fevered imagination.
What does who’s paying me rubles have to do with you saying twice as many Russian dead as in theatre ?
Ukraine shot down two more Russian Su-34 fighter jets today. Russian jets are dropping like flies, unlike the once a year Abrams tank losses that Ukraine is dealing with. Air Force: Ukraine downs 2nd Russian Su-34 aircraft in single day
Macron is a stooge and now all of Europe are scrambling to set the record straight and clean up his mess. Macron did not help your cause, because Europe now look in disarray as they do their damndest to sweep Macron's words under the rug.
you scared bro? This is what the stupid republicans in congress have wrought. In the absence of us leadership Europe starting to show signs of panic.
that makes 9 of their best jets lost in the last two weeks. that is a lot of coin and a lot of expertise (pilots) and a lot of firepower
Russia running out of processed fuel Putin bans petrol exports as Russia runs on fumes (msn.com) The Kremlin has announced a six-month ban on petrol exports after Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries left Vladimir Putin’s regime scrambling to meet domestic demand. The ban, which comes into force on March 1, was confirmed by a spokesman for deputy prime minister Alexander Novak who said it would allow for “planned maintenance” of refineries. It follows attacks on Russian facilities by Ukrainian drones in recent months, which have harmed the country’s ability to refine crude oil into usable products such as petrol and diesel. Russia previously imposed a similar ban between September and November last year in order to tackle high domestic prices and shortages.
Historically, isolation has worked quite well for the USA. Even WW2. We didn't fight until we were forced to. Ended up losing fewer soldiers than we did in the Civil War, while becoming the world's most formidable economic and military superpower (by far) overnight. We took over the world by holding out until Pearl Harbor, while other countries had millions of soldiers and civilians killed and their cities bombed into oblivion. All the while we knew Japan was going to likely be a problem that had to be dealt with. Stark contrast with our approach currently. Even WW1 was shrewdly played by isolating until 1917, as we experienced a fraction of the carnage other allies had. The USA is unique in that we can afford a great measure of isolation due to being protected on both sides by huge oceans. With only two bordering nations for a country of this size, our inherent risk is quite minimal. Through all which happened in the 20th century, we never had cities bombed, we never had land occupied. We had more resources to fight the war once isolation was simply no longer a viable option.
Germany practicing for war vs. Russia … JUST IN - German frigate "Hessen" mistakenly fired at a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone over the Red Sea on Monday; both missiles malfunctioned and fell into the sea — BILD