“Russia has unleashed senseless destruction and genocidal violence on Ukraine in an attempt to reoccupy the former colony”. It’s not senseless since they have explained the reasons at length, albeit their adversaries refused to listen. And it’s not genocidal either since the goal is not to exterminate Ukrainian people. The goal is to prevent a NATO giant air carrier on its borders. The war will continue until those that don’t want to listen will start listening. Perhaps war must come to their countries for them to do so.
> The goal is to prevent a NATO giant air carrier on its borders.
If their goal is to prevent Germany, Poland, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Alaska from existing and being (part of, in the last case) NATO members, well, invading Ukraine seems a rather improbable route to achieving that.
All they’ve managed so far is to make that worse by adding Finland to the mix, and increasing NATO deployments to the existing eastern flank members, and increasing defense expenditures across NATO.
> It’s not senseless since they have explained the reasons at length, albeit their adversaries refused to listen.
Ah yes the Russians are telling the truth this time guys, I promise, they are totally not lying about why they are invading Ukraine.
> The goal is to prevent a NATO giant air carrier on its borders.
Finland joining NATO kinda makes this a reality no?.
> The war will continue until those that don’t want to listen will start listening.
This 3 day war has already lasted over a year, and with losses so high by Russia that they are fielding T62's against Ukraine.
I don't think Russia can afford to wage this war for many more years, unless they start fielding those parade T34's but I don't think that will go so well.
Also why should anyone listen to Russia? there border with NATO just increased massively, and yet I don't see them doing anything about that.
> Perhaps war must come to their countries for them to do so.
Perhaps Russia should focus on trying to capture a city thats 250KM from their border before they threaten countries they aren't literally on their doorstep with war.
> "Much of the Russian military has not been affected negatively by this conflict" [1]
That's not even what he says, quote it properly.
"Much of the Russian military has not be been affected negatively by this conflict, one of those forces is their undersea forces".
Which is 100% true, they haven't lost a single submarine in this entire conflict.
Im not sure what your point is, is it that Russias military is so corrupted and rotting that they have to use T62's without even having significant losses?.
Because we have pictures and videos of Russians losing at least 1190 tanks in this conflict alone.
> What are the Ukrainian losses by the way? Is it above 300k already, as claimed by one of the presidential candidates? [1]
Your appeal to authority is noted and quite admirable but I don't think Robert Kennedy Junior has better estimates than the American intelligence community.
The American intelligence leaks the other week put the losses as.
Russia - 35.5k-43.5k KIA
Ukraine - 16k-17.5k KIA
significant losses for both countries, but no where near the meth induced fever dream of 300k.
> Which is 100% true, they haven't lost a single submarine in this entire conflict.
You're deliberately omitting the fact that he says "Much of the Russian military" and "one of those" in a single sentence and presume that he only speaks about submarines, whereas much of the military is still much of it, including submarines.
> The American intelligence leaks the other week put the losses as.
What period of time are these numbers for?
> Im not sure what your point is, is it that Russias military is so corrupted and rotting that they have to use T62's without even having significant losses?.
The mentioned leak data also suggest Ukraine would likely exhaust their air defense systems by the end of May [1]. Do you trust this intelligence estimate as well as the KIA numbers?
> You're deliberately omitting the fact that he says "Much of the Russian military" and "one of those" in a single sentence and presume that he only speaks about submarines, whereas much of the military is still much of it, including submarines.
Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.
But the ground forces has been completely destroyed they have lost some many vehicles, including tanks that they have started using tanks that they don't even produce anymore.
I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.
> What period of time are these numbers for?
Upto march this year, as it says on the document if you read it.
> The mentioned leak data also suggest Ukraine would likely exhaust their air defense systems by the end of May [1]. Do you trust this intelligence estimate as well as the KIA numbers?
Yes, which is why the west needed to and has been focusing on supplying Ukraine with air defence, which they have been doing.
> Parts of it are fine, the Air Forces are likely fine too.
He didn't say parts of it, he said much of their military.
> But the ground forces has been completely destroyed
You've mentioned 35.5k-43.5k KIA losses for Russia up to March this year. Are you suggesting that these numbers comprise the complete ground forces?
> I like how you never answered my question of why Russia is using T62's if its ground forces aren't being devastated?.
I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all. If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time? Is it the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?
> I thought that was a loaded question you weren't expecting answers for. Is there anything in T62 that make it, in your opinion, unworthy on the battlefield? It's another piece of useful artillery equipment after all.
But it's not being used as artillery its being used as tank. Indirect fire its not a bad idea but as a tank its going to melt in the face of anything at or never then a T64.
> If the things you say are true and they no longer produce it, why not using the existing stockpile that had been taking space and maintenance effort at past peace time?
Well for one its crew is different to anything the Russian forces use now because it doesn't have a auto loader, its a cannon is too weak to really take on anything newer then it.
> Is that the only model of tanks they've been using since, well, the time you claim their ground forces were completely destroyed?
No but T55's have been spotted getting moved around so theres hope yet.
