DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The economy……

I don't think you understand how No Fly Zones work. Link

A lot of NATO aircraft and support personnel patrol them.

I think you are the one conflating things. I didn't say the second part was Zelensky asking us for troops. It was illustrating the need for troops.

I'm not sure you understand what a big number of troops that is. The US military gets about 100,000 "troops" through boot camps in a year. We spend a ridiculous amount on the infrastructure that allows us to do so. If Ukraine could ready troops at the rate that we do, it would take them 5 years to produce the number they want.

I'm also not sure you understand how long it takes to get green troops up to speed. Most don't just go through "boot camp." There are all kinds of additional training. Even after all the training, actual combat is a different animal.

Yes, 18 year olds straight from boot camp I'd still consider kids. I assume most people that served for any amount of time would. Don't get me wrong, they grow up quick in combat. That or they don't grow up at all. Dumping 500,000 fresh boots into combat is a recipe for disaster.

Frankly, I don't think Zelensky knows what the heck he is doing. It's almost like the country is being run by a comedian and a guy that once played a fictional president on TV.

Same for Putin.

China is our enemy

Russia is our enemy

Yet as long as he has had military equipment to fight with, this comedian has put the right people in charge to defend Ukraine quite well for two years now against a super power.

And BTW- you are using peace time numbers in regards to the U.S. training and sending troops into war zones. 2,709,918 troops served in Vietnam. From 1964 to 1965 troop levels increased from 23,300 to 184,300. And that wasn't even a war where our nation was being attacked on its own soil. Are you actually trying to say we wouldn't churn out troops much faster if we were being attacked on our own soil? And maybe you should look at how quickly we built up troop strength during WW2.

I suggest you look at FDR's state of emergency declaration and just how quickly we raised our troop stength.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/us-involvement-in-wwii-how-the-military-grew/

And so far, casualties have been much higher on the Russian side than the Ukranian side so that comedian must be doing something right. If you can still find them, ask some Vietnam or WW2 veterans about how quickly they went from boot camp to the war zone.

If it was the right person, why did Zelensky fire them?

No, I'm not trying to make the BS straw man arguments that you are trying to to deflect with. Yes, we could produce troops faster, but we have not quite 300 million more people and are one of the most militarized nations on Earth. 39% of global military spending is by the US. The next closest country is China at 13%.



Ukraine is spending about 1/20 of what we are and they are at full war time spending. They also lack our more efficient military apparatus.

Invoking Viet Nam vets and how quickly they were shipped off would seem to support me more than you. The US didn't win that war. Perhaps if they'd been properly trained things would have turned out differently. (Though perhaps not.) And that's no knock on their service and sacrifice. It's much more a comment on civilians and most politicians having little idea of the realities of war. The defender generally has the advantage in combat, especially logistically.

Unfortunately, Putin doesn't really worry about popular support and advantages can't always overcome overwhelming numbers.

I have no idea why you think that matters. The training of troops doesn't have anything to do with how big your arsenal is. It isn't dependent on how much you're spending on jet fighters, tanks and other arms. It has to do if you can train troops quickly or not. And no, your point was that we didn't train troops that fast. My point is when you're at war, especially when under attack on your own soil, you can prepare them faster and must do so. And BTW- We trained and deployed troops much faster for WW2. Which we did win.

When given the proper equipment to fight against Russia, they already have a proven track record they can do so. I also have no idea what that has to do with helping arm them in order to help keep Russia off the doorstep of our NATO allies.

We didn't fight WW2 alone.

Ukraine shouldn't have to fight alone either.

Ukraine has not asked for foreign troops to be involved. Making excuses why not doing everything you want is a reason not to do anything is helping Putin. And it's rather empty sounding rhetoric.

I'm guessing it's more likely that Zelensky was told not to request troops publicly if he wanted any aid at all than that he doesn't want them. Our politicians are afraid of escalation and don't want the public backlash of being seen to say no. Alas, you know best with your great military and political experience. We'll see how it works out. Likely not well, I'd guess.

I think adversary is a better term if you are not actively at war. But both forms of government they have ARE our enemy.

I'm not so sure that the forms are the issue. Heck our government is our enemy any more. I think it's more a question of the people within the apparatus.

I'm glad you have guesses about what you want to think is going on.

I'm glad that you're glad.

You do realize that things you have decided to make up in your head is the same thing people do to base what they "think and feel" as being factual with nothing to actually base it on don't you? That's how so many people have sold themselves on conspiracy theories because they align with what they want to believe. I don't see why you would consider something like that as anything relevant in a discussion based on factual information. And it sounds a little far fetched.

I think you're conflating your thought process with mine. You want to believe that Ukraine can win with just material support.

I very much would rather not believe that they can't win without more than material support.

It definitely doesn't seem like you've been in the military if you think what I've written is far fetched. I've been at the "pointy end" of "big stick diplomacy." I've first hand experience with things that have been misrepresented in the media.

Maybe, you are right and Zelensky doesn't want US troops. If so, it's likely because he thinks he'd have a hard time getting them to leave afterwards rather than he thinks he can win on his own. He might have something there, if so. Or it could just be pride.

Unfortunately, the longer this conflict goes on, the more it favors Russia without outside involvement. Russia is bringing in conscripts from wherever it can find them. Ukraine needs all the help it can get.

I'm basing my opinion of what I have seen. First I've never said I think Ukraine can beat Russia. What I have maintained is that as long as they've been supplied with the weapons to effectively defend themselves they've done a great job to this point. Since I'm not one to predict the future based on things that have this far indicated otherwise, I'm not going to predict they'll fail at defending themselves against Russia if given the weapons to do so since they have thus far done quite well at that.

And I have no idea what "the media" has to do with this. Zelenskyy hasn't asked for troops. Unless you feel the media should just make up facts claiming he has there's nothing more to report about that.

I can see that once again it's more your conjecture than facts that you keep basing things on. You seem to differ with the leader of Ukraine on what Ukraine does and doesn't need. But that's often been our government's way of handling things around the globe. They seem to know what everybody else needs and should do. And of course if they don't do what they tell them, we won't help then at all. It seems you may be thinking more like our government does than you would like to admit without realizing it.

Well you know, just throwing money at problems never fixes a lost cause. Pretty much his words from other issues. Gotta give him credit, he’s consistent.

Let me put things a different way. Have you ever worked 12 hours days, 7 days a week for months at a time? Have you done it for two years? Have you done it in the rain and snow while enemy artillery was dropping around you?

I don't think you understand the human/emotional/physical toll. Russia keeps sending in fresh bodies. Putin doesn't care how many of them die. The defenders are getting worn down. It doesn't matter how much equipment you send if the people that have to use it break down.

reuters link

Which is why Zelenskyy plans to add 500k troops. Russia has lost an estimated 315k soldiers so I think they are replacing the bodies lost.

U.S. intelligence assesses Ukraine war has cost Russia 315,000 casualties -source

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-in...sia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/

I have an idea. Our discussion isn't really about the economy. It's about the war in Ukraine. If you don't mind I think it would be better served if we continued this line of discussion in the Ukraine war thread.

There is another thing to consider... the propaganda that only 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed is not helpful.

People were able to get data points from funeral announcements and WIA to get a better estimate of how many Ukrainian soldiers have died through October, last year. It's not good....
https://asiatimes.com/2023/12/exclusive-150000-ukraine-soldiers-killed-in-action-through-october/

You're citing a source from Hong Kong while warning people about propaganda?

Do you really think that one of the best KDR's in war comes from Ukraine with basically no military, tactical history, training, or equipment with a KDR of 1:10?!? LOL...

Vietnam War US 1:3

WW2 was basically1:1

WW1 was basically 1:2


I would bet money that the real Ukraine numbers are 1:2 or 1:1

What a disgusting Trump opinion. Is that blank after Bull for the rhetoric you espouse Dawg?

If something doesn't fit your beliefs and their narrative or you just don't understand something, scream Trump. You've been indoctrinated well.

The underscore must have come from an unconscious need to separate myself from other "Dawgs" that have thoughts that are too jumbled for them to actually make sense and don't have room for any ideas that aren't their own.

Which part of what I wrote do you find so objectionable? Has Trump been advocating for sending troops against Russia? I admittedly have no idea what Trump is saying these days.

Honestly, I don't really want to send troops. But, if we're just going to send equipment and have Ukraine stick to conventional war on their own, the long term outcome looks bleak. Arms manufacturers will be fat and happy for awhile if this travesty keeps dragging on, I guess.

So you are reinforcing that you trust a media source from China? Why am I not surprised?

Yeah, that must be it. Nobody but you in your wisdom can understand what you post. Is this how you feel about everyone who disagrees with you?

No, just the ones that throw out Trump (or libtard) or straw man arguments instead of trying to have an actual discussion.

Sadly, that's quite a few people in this forum.

If you don't understand me, ask a question. You just did. Was it that hard?

Do you trust US media?

Can you discount the actual information in the report? Or do you just not like it and feel the need to try to attack the source as usual?

What information? That they claimed to have attended funerals to keep some kind of count? So it's your contention that you believe a Chinese journalist is in Ukraine following and attending all the funerals of Ukraine soldiers? Come on man, you're smarter than that. There are some U.S. media sources I trust but very few. The AP and Reuters are at the top of my list.

They didn't claim to attend the funerals. I look at it as more one of those data aggregators in Twitter. They're using ("stealing") other people's information, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

Read this article from Reuters then. link

Open your eyes. Ukraine is a mess. Ukraine isn't sharing their casualty numbers. (Why? Do they have something to hide?)

Read this article about Ukraine's military makeup. link

Ukraine is trotting out soldiers in their 60s. A country doesn't do that if you have able bodied recruits stepping up in numbers like they are looking for.

What I am saying is that Zelenskyy is full of crap and making things worse by saying they have only lost about 10% of their troops when the reality is they have lost closer to 25-40% of their active military.

Also, it's not that difficult to reference historical data

7 months ago US officials estimated that Ukraine had lost about 70,000 soldiers with 120,000 injured. (about 50% of their military)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html
Aug. 18, 2023
*Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths
*the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.
*Ukraine has around 500,000 troops, including active-duty, reserve, and paramilitary troops, according to analysts.

So now you've gone from 150k Ukranian soldiers killed to 70k killed and still you claim it's others spreading propaganda? It appears you have no real clue how many Ukranian soldiers have been killed yet keep blaming others for posting false statistics. You do realize there's an 80k man difference between the two claims, right? So which one is correct?

SMH there is a reason no one posts on this board anymore...

The reason being you also can not come up with any accurate number. To set the record straight I don't doubt that the number of 31k is incorrect. But the propaganda you indicate is directed towards Russia. There's no way that Zelenskyy would want Putin to know that more Ukranians have been killed. It's not to deceive us. Why would Zelenskyy want to telegraph to Putin how many Ukranian soldiers have been killed?

The problem is you seem to be indicating some other nefarious reason as to why Zelenskyy isn't being accurate in the deaths of his troops. And you also have no accurate way to know how many of them have been killed by posting numbers that can't be verified. I think it's time to remind you that it has been you predicting a recession for well over a year now that has never come to be.

I don't care if you or others post here. If you can't bring more to the table than you have thus far does it really matter?

Oh look, using sarcasm (as a straw man) to avoid actually addressing anything that I wrote.

Did you even read the article from the source that you said you trusted?

Or do you suddenly not trust it now that it doesn't support your position?

Did you actually finish reading the thread before you responded? Zelenskyy isn't going to tell Putin anything with any accuracy. Since you seem to think you understand all of this so well surely you can understand the rationale behind that I would think. And while what I posted in purple may have been intended as sarcasm, it seems to pretty accurately describe your position.

No one is saying that the reason for Zelensky "lying" is nefarious. People are simply saying that the numbers you were pointing to as evidence for your argument weren't accurate which you appear to be admitting here.

You're right that we don't have accurate numbers, so unfortunately we make inferences based on anecdotal evidence.

We can also make estimates based on historical precedent. The numbers being presented are so far outside of the standard deviation of casualty ratios of similar conflicts that they are hard to view as credible.

Where is the propaganda in what was written by the Asia Times? You've just admitted that Zelensky is likely using anti-Russian (/pro-Ukrainian) propaganda.

Hazarding guesses as to actual numbers, and clearly stating as much, isn't propaganda.

Yes, I did. I also noticed that you're avoiding answering my questions.

No, your purple is made up BS that you keep presenting as an opposing position to make yourself look right in comparison.

I've written that, if Ukraine is going to win this conflict as a conventional war, it's going to need outside personnel as well as material. I have clearly stated that widening of the conflict is a risk of that. It's not what I would do. It's a conditional statement.

Unfortunately, your position is we can't let Ukraine lose, but we can only help them in a way that will result in them losing.

The 150k number is no less propaganda than the Ukranian number.

super posted this....


Can you explain how it is not helpful to hide the true numbers from Putin?

Any time you perpetuate numbers without having any actual way to verify those numbers is a form of propaganda. Maybe you would prefer the term false information?

And if you want to site historical precedent you may wish to look at how many deaths took place in Iraq after our invasion compared to American troops. We can all be selective in which historical facts we include and which ones we leave out.