this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
188 points (98.5% liked)

World News

32318 readers
880 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 "

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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 NATO 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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 https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You already shared that. Its from the first article.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So if you click the link to the primary source for that article...

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3737446/us-commander-in-europe-says-russia-is-a-chronic-threat-to-world/

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nice word salad, where does it contradict the fact that Russian army is now bigger than it was before the war started?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

https://www.politico.eu/article/top-nato-commander-christopher-cavoli-russian-offensive-war-in-ukraine/

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."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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%.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

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.