nekandroUkraine to Protect Its F-16 Fighter Fleet by Basing Planes ‘in Other Countries’
While I think that’s dope it does feel like it gives Russia valid cause to strike them in host countries and kind of feels like a deliberate provocation to do so?
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆Russia already stated that they will do precisely that, so this moves us one step closer to a nuclear holocaust. Hope it was worth it.
Russia has stated many things they will do, but haven’t then actually done. Why would this time be different? …wikipedia.org/…/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian…
Pretty much none of those were actually stated by Russia. The trend has been that it’s the west that make up these red lines, then crosses them and says, see nothing happened. Last I checked, the actual red line Russia set out was Ukraine joining NATO, and when that red line was ignored the war started. This notion that you can just keep pushing a nuclear superpower and nothing bad will happen is imbecilic beyond belief.
There are sources given for the claims. If they are inaccurate you should remove the sources, and the claim itself if there are no good sources supporting it anymore.
If you bother reading the sources, then you’ll see that these aren’t primary sources of anything the Russian government said. These are articles and interpretations by western analysts and think tanks. Feel free to link statements from the Russian government though.
Again, if a source is incorrect, feel free to remove it.
Again, provide primary sources for your claims.
I already have sources. If you don’t believe them, it’s up to you to show that, not me to provode you with endless sources that you anyway will reject for some reason.
Do you understand the concept of a primary source?
then feel free to provide some
I’m happy with the current ones, thanks.
You did not provide any primary sources, so evidently you don’t understand what a primary source is. Good chat.
M0oP0oWhere are your primary sources?
Does that also mean you don’t understand what they are?
See this does not work the way you think it does.
I’m not the one making the claim. I’m saying that I have not seen any official Russian statement to this effect. However, if you have a source for one then please show it.
See this does not work the way you think it does.
You are the one claiming the given sources are incorrect. You are the one making a claim, and you are the one the burden of proof falls on.
You are really hurting the Russian case here. They do their best to act all tough and intimidating, and here all you come with is crying about not liking the provided sources. You’re making them look even worse then they already do.
I said that you failed to provide primary sources to support your claims.
Yes, and then what? Are you somehow suggesting that only primary sources can be used as sources? I’ve never heard anyine take that position before.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
I’m suggesting that when you say Russian red lines have been crossed without consequences, you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are. I see this is a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
The source is incorrect because the red lines claimed in the source haven’t actually been articulated by Russia, and none of the links in your source actually trace back to statements from Russia. So, claiming Russian red lines have been crossed when there is zero actual evidence these were Russian red lines is nonsensical.
you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are.
I actually don’t. I need to provide some source_. If you are unhappy with that source it’s up to you to show that it is a bad source, and why.
I’ve already explained to you why your source is misleading, and that the red lines your sources list trace back to western statements as opposed to Russian ones. It’s not about feels, it’s about you making an objectively false statement.
You literally haven’t explained it. Your argument seems to be that secondary sources are per definition invalid, which you certainly are allowed to feel, but it is a very niche opinion to have.
I literally have repeatedly, the fact that you keep repeating this says all we need to know about your intellectual integrity. Bye.
Oh its so much funnier then that, They then provide non primary sources while demanding everyone else “Proves” them wrong only with primary sources. This is a joke at this point.
The two sources [email protected] provided are nato.int for a NATO statement, a primary source, and the Wikipedia page for burden of proof, a concept that doesn’t have a primary source. In this thread [email protected] has a perfect track record of using 100% (1) primary source, and 0% (0) secondary sources.
They did and some of us watched it live (we are told) on russian state TV in 2022,2023 and just last month. Please provide primary sources that contradict what I witnessed.
still waiting for that official statement bud, should be really easy to find since you obviously wouldn’t make things up
Wrong person, you want @[email protected]
But yes, if you want to have a official statement watch the victory day parade speech putin made.
Again, feel free to link to the part of the parade where Putin says what you two are claiming he said. Should be really easy to do since it’s publicly available.
Should be, go nuts look it up.
I can’t look up what does not exist. There is no such statement, you made it up and now you’re asking me to prove a negative.
politico.eu/…/putin-threaten-arm-west-enemy-with-…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyanPIR-898
aljazeera.com/…/how-real-is-putins-threat-to-nuke…
armscontrol.org/…/putin-calls-reservists-renews-n…
reuters.com/…/putin-warns-west-russia-will-strike…
nypost.com/…/putin-threatens-preemptive-nuclear-s…
cbc.ca/…/putin-ukraine-nato-nuclear-weapons-1.636…
inquirer.com/…/victory-day-putin-zelensky-ukraine…
washingtonpost.com/…/putin-russia-state-union-spe…
Oh yeah, that is how that must work for you every statement you make is true and anyone else needs to provide proof otherwise, and it does not count if you don’t agree.
Thank you for confirming that you are unable to provide a specific quote that substantiates your claims.
Are you taking the piss mate??
The BBC.com is the UK government. They are not the Russian military. I’m confused why you thought they’d be. So no, they are not a primary source.
Politico.eu isn’t the Russian military either. Did you think they were part of the BBC maybe and since BBC is Russia, Politico would be Russia too? Anyway, they’re actually a German private business. They aren’t a primary source either obviously.
ABC News also isn’t the Russian military. Did you really think the Russian military controlled all the major Western news sites??
Aljazeera.com is also not the Russian state. They are the government of Qatar. It’s a completely different country. Not a primary source.
Armscontrol.org is not the Russian government. They’re a lobbying group in the USA. You need to scroll down to see where it says, but it’s on the page you linked, so it’s weird you didn’t notice. As a general tip, Russian government websites are on the .ru top-level-domain.
Reuters.com is the UK government again. They’re still not Russia and still not a primary source. Did you think the UK was part of Russia?
nypost.com isn’t a primary source either. The “ny” is short for “new york” which is a city in the USA. The USA and Russia are different countries.
cbc.ca is a Canadian thing, the .ca means Canada. If you thought Russia owned the UK maybe that’s where you went wrong, since The UK owned Canada at some point in the past, but actually Canada is a sovereign country now. They’re not part of the UK or of Russia.
inquirer.com is the website for the Philadelphia inquirer, it’s the same situation as the nytimes one, where it’s named after a city in the USA, because they are not Russian. The Russian military didn’t name themselves after a city in the USA. It’s really strange you would think they did.
Washington post is named after another city in the USA. “Washington”. Did you really think all of these outlets were the Russian military, or did you perhaps just not know what a primary source is?
Russia is well aware that if they use nuclear weapons it’s over for them, will the rest of the world fall too is another question.
Either way I truly don’t believe they will do it simply because that ends Russia in its current form, and I don’t think we should allow them to be an aggressor just because they have nukes. Russia needs to be stopped and their saber rattling should rightly be ignored.
Feel free to @ me if you die in a nuclear apocalypse to prove me wrong. Till then let’s keep enabling Ukraine to fight back and continue Russias massive embarrassment and degradation of power and capabilities.
This is the most unhinged thing I’ve read in a while. Also, what degradation are you talking about?
Pretty much every western news source now admits that Russia is stronger than at the start of the war, and that it’s massively outpacing the west in terms of weapons production.
Mind sharing some sources on that? Since it is a bit of a bold statement.
here are just a few recent ones
The first one is from Thu April 27, 2023 more then a year ago. And does not state what you think it does. I mean it ends with: "“[A]ccording to the modeling that we’ve very carefully done with them, the Ukrainians are in a good position,” he said. “They have some weaknesses that I prefer not to talk about in public … But we are confident — in terms of their surprise and things like that. of course, we’ve worked on all that with them.” "
The second one is literally called “The Attritional Art of War” and is trying to sell russia losing men and equipment as a good thing, basically as practice for when they go up against the west “for real”. This is not saying they are stronger.
The third one is about russia replacing losses faster with new troops. Oh and the whole statement is from a US general trying to get congress to release money with the dire warring that Ukraine could lose if they don’t. And even after all that the statement is: "The overall message I would give you is [Russia’s military has] grown back to what they were before,” not stronger.
The forth one is about how with russia’s managed economy they have been able to ramp up shell production faster then any other nation (no shit) and now are set to make 3,000,000 shells a year. This does not say they are “stronger” then before since russia has used about 10,000 shells a day on average (according to the western estimates) making a short fall of about 650000 shells a year.
The fifth one is about the IMF upgrading its forecast, really?
The last one is neat but does not back your claims up. It even says things like: "The Russian Armed Forces’ inability to realise the Kremlin’s imperialist ambitions in Ukraine within the initially planned timeframe in early 2022, coupled with the resilient Ukrainian resistance to the invasion, has led to significant losses for Russia not only in terms of personnel but also in military equipment. The need to compensate for equipment losses and to produce the required artillery ammunition[1] to sustain the conflict in Ukraine has posed a serious challenge to the Russian military-industrial complex "
So, just to sum up. Russia is producing more weapons ammunition than NATO, has a bigger army than before the war that’s actually seen real combat unlike any NATO army, and Russian economy is growing. You wrote a whole giant rant that doesn’t actually contradict anything I said or what the sources I linked say.
Rant? I read everyone of your sources (none that where primary) and could not find where anyone claimed russia is stronger then they where in 2021. Yes they are producing more shells then any one NATA nation but as their deal with north Korea shows it is not enough to maintain the level of shelling they want to do. The russian economy is in tatters (according to russains) so yeah it should grow, that would be what most would think would happen. They have seen combat yes, but by that rational so has Ukraine.
I mean just from the navel losses alone russia has taken a beating. The tank losses massively outstrip production (highest production numbers I found was 1500/year vs 4400/year losses). I just don’t get how they are somehow stronger then before this 3 day special operation. I am not even saying they are out of the fight but come on.
Enjoy living in your fantasy world while you can is all I can say. Oh and here’s another source you can ignore. It’s just the opinion of a US general, I’m sure you have a far better grasp on what’s happening businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-large…
You already shared that. Its from the first article.
It’s a recent source that very plainly states that Russian military is bigger than it was before the war started. Since you’re saying it says what I already shared, you finally admit to having been lying earlier. Thank you for your honesty.
So if you click the link to the primary source for that article…
defense.gov/…/us-commander-in-europe-says-russia-…
You will see such gems like: “Our allies are stepping up. But they require, and they hope for, our continued leadership and example. By upholding our commitment to Ukraine and by demonstrating steadfast cohesion with the NATO alliance, we provide a clear deterrent to our adversaries. Should that deterrence fail, U.S. Eucom — alongside our allies — is ready to fight and win.”
Or
"Russia poses “a chronic threat” to the world and further aid to Ukraine to repulse the Russian invasion of that country is crucial, said Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of U.S. European Command. "
You know since this was on April 10th before the US voted to send more military aid and this whole article is from the general talking to congress about the “russian threat” if Ukraine does not get more shells… Context is key. But hey they said the number of front like troops went up, that must mean that russia is more powerful then before right? Since that is all we base our military on right? Standing army size is really the modern measuring stick for national power, right? Its not like anything has changed since the great war.
Nice word salad, where does it contradict the fact that Russian army is now bigger than it was before the war started?
You are quoting a man named Christopher Cavoli.
If you look at some of the more recent things he has said on the war (since the US oked that aid package) you can see that he does not think russia is stronger and more so that Ukraine is in a better position.
politico.eu/…/top-nato-commander-christopher-cavo…
There are some fun quotes in there like: “He said Russia has managed to muster additional forces,“but the quality of the troops is lower than the troops they started the conflict with” due to the number of officers “that were killed in the beginning of the war” and so aren’t able to train newer soldiers.”
This has been the narrative that has been fed to the gullible segments of western population for the past two years. And if there was a shred of truth to it, then Russia would’ve collapsed a long time ago. The article doesn’t actually give any numbers, and just regurgitates nonsense. The article I linked gives specific figures, where Cavoli states that the size of Russian military has increased by 15%.
Yes, as stated as part of his speech to congress in order to get military aid to Ukraine. See how in your article no where does he state that the russian state is stronger or more capable then before the war? That is because he did not say that, he stated that russia remains a threat (and that is true) since they have conscripted more then expected for front line duty. And after Ukraine got the aid package he goes on the record in a few occasions to state the degradation of russian capability (you know like in the article I linked).
Like I get you want to cherry pick this but this is the same guy, If you want to show russia is stronger then before the war you might want to use someone who is not a US general in charge of convincing a congress to send more funds to a proxy war.
See how in your article no where does he state that the russian state is stronger or more capable then before the war?
Numerous other articles I linked state that, including the fact that both Russian economy and military industry have greatly expanded. It’s pretty obvious that Russian army couldn’t grow without that happening.
The only one doing cherry picking here is you. I provided numerous sources that all substantiate different aspects of the bigger picture. You on the other hand, found an article that regurgitates what you want to be true, which is at odds with all the available evidence.
It’s pretty clear that I’m not going to convince you of anything here, but good news is that reality has a way of asserting itself. So, you’ll have to start engaging with the real world before long. Best of luck to you.