Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.

I’m not defending what she says here but I wanted to check and it was said before the war started. Don’t agree with what she is saying at all, wouldn’t have agreed then and don’t agree with it now. But posting it without context (the Tweeter, not you) makes it seem as though she is saying it now after almost a year of war. She may well still believe it but it’s a bit of a stretch to link it to what Starmer said today.
 
I’m not defending what she says here but I wanted to check and it was said before the war started. Don’t agree with what she is saying at all, wouldn’t have agreed then and don’t agree with it now. But posting it without context (the Tweeter, not you) makes it seem as though she is saying it now after almost a year of war. She may well still believe it but it’s a bit of a stretch to link it to what Starmer said today.

Once an idiot always an idiot…not you,her…..
 
I’m not defending what she says here but I wanted to check and it was said before the war started. Don’t agree with what she is saying at all, wouldn’t have agreed then and don’t agree with it now. But posting it without context (the Tweeter, not you) makes it seem as though she is saying it now after almost a year of war. She may well still believe it but it’s a bit of a stretch to link it to what Starmer said today.
I personally think thats just as damning. When people confidently proclaim lies to be true, they get found out when actual things happen. Often they anticipate they can say whatever they want with no consequences because theres enough ambiguity that nobody knows what would happen for sure. But then sometimes, like in this case, it does, and reveals those who are arrogantly the most incompetent, the most insane, or most evil among us. Regardless, none of those are fit for public office and they get found out when they did NOT expect to be.
 
I personally think thats just as damning. When people confidently proclaim lies to be true, they get found out when actual things happen. Often they anticipate they can say whatever they want with no consequences because theres enough ambiguity that nobody knows what would happen for sure. But then sometimes, like in this case, it does, and reveals those who are arrogantly the most incompetent, the most insane, or most evil among us. Regardless, none of those are fit for public office and they get found out when they did NOT expect to be.
My post wasn’t about what she said. As I said I don’t agree with what she said then and if she said it now I wouldn’t agree with it still. My point was you can’t apply what she said over a year ago to what Starmer said today. If she said it today and he didn’t deal with it and disown her view I would call him out for that. Or if he was presented with that video today and he defended it I would be equally annoyed.
 
My post wasn’t about what she said. As I said I don’t agree with what she said then and if she said it now I wouldn’t agree with it still. My point was you can’t apply what she said over a year ago to what Starmer said today. If she said it today and he didn’t deal with it and disown her view I would call him out for that. Or if he was presented with that video today and he defended it I would be equally annoyed.
Sorry, yeah, you cant quite equivalate them, but part of my point is that it doesnt necessarily make it better that once shes badly proven wrong she changes(and never apologizes for) her previously (and probably purposeful) extreme view. It means shes never held accountable. On that note I almost respect someone more who at least is willing to be consistent and honest with their bad views. If she apoligized and noted she was wrong on her very confident view thats fine, but thats almost never seen.
 
Actually more like the trenches in first WW. horrific.
The mass use of artillery is akin to WWI, with some reports suggesting that Russia has at peak times been expending between 40,000 and 50,000 shells per day.

While this isn't a consistent number, it really does question how long Russia can sustain its use of shells and unguided rockets, let alone their PGMs.

They're going to have to up their own production and continue to rely on other nations, but will they be able to meet demand and, importantly, can Russia pay?

If they throw troops into front assaults without cover, their attrition rate (dead, missing or wounded) will continue to be immense and at some point they'll crumble.

We're already seeing the frequency in which Russia uses air or ground launched missiles decrease (larger periods between strikes) and the volume has dwindled.

Russia may have to ask itself should it continue to deplete its dwindling stocks or be more cautious with their use, as they'll need to think long term.

They're going to have to up production in tanks, APCs, weapons and now artillery to ensure they're prepared for another conflict, and that'll cost a lot.

People may say they'll look to China, which they may, but I think there'll be some caution in Beijing as their own arsenal was for long periods built on Russian design.

Seeing it get annihilated in Ukraine may make them keep things back if they're ever going to use it against Taiwan; alternatively, the US and Taiwan will feel happier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top