Posted on 07/25/2024 3:26:11 AM PDT by Jumper
I know we will win – and how’: Ukraine’s top general on turning the tables against Russia, an Interview with Col Gen Oleksandr Syrskyi
Syrskyi is Ukraine’s new commander-in-chief. Two and half years into Vladimir Putin’s full-scale onslaught, he acknowledges the Russians are much better resourced. They have more of everything: tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, soldiers. Their original 100,000-strong invasion force has grown to 520,000, he said, with a goal by the end of 2024 of 690,000 men. The figures for Ukraine have not been made public.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
You are an ass comrade
—A feint isn’t a trick.
You allocate enough resources to this to where the enemy MUST react to it, or else risk losing something even more important to him. In this case Kiev. If you look at how the Russians went in, it was entirely different than in the South and Eastern areas where they do intend to hold the ground.
Our arms deliveries were more than just massive, they were vital, “game changing” for Ukraine. This is surely not all inclusive (scroll down on the US and see what we alone have provided): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukraine_during_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War We supplied Ukraine not only with large amounts of weapons, we provided them key weapon systems that have a huge impact. For example, the Russians are a mechanized / armored force (MBTs, IFVs, APCs) and we in the first month of the war sent Ukraine 7,000 Javelin missiles and Command Launch Units: https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks (Those were sent to Ukraine in the first month!). This is likely a major contributing factor to why the Russians (a mechanized armored force) had a hard time in the beginning. Some of the systems we were providing to Ukraine were like the Stinger in Afghanistan, high impact.
Let me explain why something like a Javelin has a “high impact.” You have a single man operated weapon system. 2,500 meter range (far), tandem warhead (defeats ERA), top and dive attack (hits the weakest area of most armored vehicles), fire and forget (allows you to scoot after launch, no tracking required and increases your odds of survival), low signature (makes spotting you less likely), low back blast (allows you to employ it from smaller enclosed areas), high behind armor effect (doesn’t just punch a hole but messes things up if you get a penetration), >650mm RHA penetration (enough to where most of a MBT is vulnerable), a dual spectrum seeker (hard to jam), a very good thermal sight (can see really well and hard to hide from), and it’s all passive (no laser etc which could tell the enemy they are being engaged). If we were to face off with an enemy that has such a system, we too would get our @ss handed to us. The point being that today, the drone, advanced RPG and ATGM has a distinct advantage over armor and that is also why you saw the re-emergence of trench warfare. It was the machine-gun (Gatling gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun) which ended the frontal assault and started the era of trench warfare at the end of the US Civil War. It was the tank which ended trench warfare at the end of WWI. It is the modern anti-tank weapon and drone which is taking us back 100 years in tactics and putting us right back into trenches. Yes, certain weapon systems have a huge impact, and when we sent 7,000 Javelins in the first month and follow that up with another 3,000 later, that’s substantial.
—The reason why our sanctions are just not that effective against a country like Russia:
1.) They are a former world super power. As their economy developed, an emphasis was put on having domestic production in key industries and technologies for war. Most Euro economies are NOT diversified. They are kept alive by say three (3) key industries that account for most their GDP and they are dependent on the importation of key technologies since they domestically do not even have them. Germany for example is heavily reliant on automobiles, chemicals, and machine building and they flat out lack certain key enabling technologies (need imported) which if totally cut off from the rest of the world would cripple them. This is simply not the case with nations like the US and Russia which actually made it a point to prevent these dependencies from happening especially in military related technologies.
2.) Russia has something others need. Not want, but need. Energy and food keep the wheels turning and prevent people showing up with torches and pitchforks in the capital. Tulips from the Netherlands are nice, but they aren’t really needed. Energy and food are needed. If the EU decides to not buy Russian energy, that merely means others have an opportunity to make a good deal and buy gas and oil cheaper, i.e. China and India. Near all the loss in Europe and North America regards Russian energy was made up in increased sales to China and India. This does have a negative impact on Russia though, since even though they are selling nearly the same volume their profit margins are smaller. Example: https://www.fa-mag.com/img-cdn/Screenshot-2024-01-26-at-10.59.35-AM-c2.png
3.) Russia isn’t a bunch of cross-eyed idiots like we portray them. Our use of economic warfare is predictable both in that we will do it and what we will do. That said, Russia took actions years ago (2015 already) which to a large degree immunize them from this. For example, Russian bureaucrats and political figures were forbidden to hold any foreign assets (land and investments). The Russians went after NGO’s (often an oxymoron) and ensured those with ties to foreign Intel etc were removed: https://osce.usmission.gov/on-russias-law-on-undesirable-ngos-an-intentional-step-to-isolate-the-russian-people-from-the-world/ The point being, Russia knows what we do and they took action to mitigate some of the impact.
I am not saying our sanction have had no impact, but they surely did not have the impact some were hoping for. Near all the doomsday predictions of an imploding Ruble, shortages of basic staple products for Russians, hyper inflation, and whatever else did not come true.
—You are right, there is no Soviet Union nor Warsaw Pact. However, post Cold War there were some reforms, they do have a decent sized economy (especially manufacturing), and while they no longer lead a vast and powerful empire like in the Cold War, they are also no little twerp we can just push around like we are used to doing.
Russia initially relied on older stock, as their economy mobilizes more for war (they are far from fully mobilized at only 7% GDP) they will rely less on this old inventory:
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-is-pumping-out-weaponsbut-can-it-keep-it-up-ba30bb04
I hope our entirely non-propagandist state run information services like VOA don’t go back and edit their webpage. They should leave it for all to see how accurate they are: https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-russia-unrealistically-forecasts-producing-1-500-tanks-a-year-/7027673.html (fact checked! LOL)
Depending on how you look at it, Russia is either the worlds 7th or 9th largest manufacturing base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing And that is if we use USD to value the output, and don’t adjust for the elevated costs in Western nations which is near twice that of Russia. They are far smaller than us, but they do have a significant industrial and manufacturing base, unlike VOA and their fact-checked opinions Russia is able to pump out 1,500 new tanks a year, 3,000 new IFV’s and APC’s, they can increase their artillery shell production to >3 million shells a year for 152mm alone, they can manufacture modern advanced body armor and equip a growing military with such, they can increase their air dropped bomb production many fold...
—The economic implosion of the Soviet Union was brought about by many factors.
Russia has only mobilized partially both in their draft (limited use, most are contracts, recalled prior service, etc) and economically (7% GDP for war). Russia gets the concept of guns vs. butter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model They are doing a balanced approach. What folks ignore or where they want to pretend otherwise, is that one of the big reasons the Soviet Union imploded wasn’t just the inefficiency of communism, it was also the perpetual economic hemorrhaging by Russia in order to keep this Soviet Union together and also bring some of the more backward parts of this empire into the modern world. The Russians learned a lesson, and how that applies today is that they have ZERO interest in taking the nationalist areas of Ukraine. That would become a perpetual money and resource drain for them. You want to take those areas where a large percentage of the population are sympathetic to you and that does not include Kiev BTW. Almost as soon as the war started, it was obvious what the Russians were going for:
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*ulnLlBlFeXrFGQs6SxF2qA.jpeg
Deals with China, Iran, and North Korea are no different than us reaching back to our allies and other nations in war for NBC equipment (German), body armor for air crews (German), squad level communications equipment (UK), mortar fuses (German), etc. We also reach back to our allies in times of need. What is of greater concern in this respect is the level of cooperation between these nations: https://news.usni.org/2024/07/15/joint-chinese-russian-naval-drills-start-in-south-china-sea What is of real concern is that as Iran, China, North Korea and Russia deepen their military ties, you suddenly have Iran with Hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles. Worse yet, you have Iran supplying the Houthi with long range anti-ship missiles (allegedly domestically produced in Yemen, in a nation that can’t manufacture a car tire): https://english.news.cn/20220922/99cf7217468e40e8a13d768f85fb5141/c.html
throw
There is a lot to unpack here not sure I have the time but I will address a few
In this case Kiev. If you look at how the Russians went in, it was entirely different than in the South and Eastern areas where they do intend to hold the ground.
Whether or not they intended to take and hold Kiev I will leave that on the table,however I believe the goal of the drive to Kiev was to force a change in govt and the installation of a Russian friendly govt, they failed at that and the resulting withdrawal which was not a good look also resulted in Ukraine picking up lots of abandoned Russian equipment.
Full disclosure, I spent almost 40 years in the military retiring in 2022. I did dozens of deployments during that time starting with desert shield/storm as well as many to the Middle East including iraq and Afghanistan. Several with AFSOC as well as border security missions on the southern border. I am quite aware of the capacities and capabilities of weapon systems.
There is a difference between “high impact “ and massive quantities.
The javelins, m-777 and himars systems had high impact but were not delivered in massive numbers. And the numbers and when are important.
The much anticipated Ukrainian counter offensive failed for many reasons one was abrams and Bradleys were delivered after the offensive was over, and atacms even later. And as to massive, 31 abrams and some 300 Bradley’s when we have thousands in stock is not massive nor are those numbers able to provide high impact, though they have had an impact
.) They are a former world super power. As their economy developed, an emphasis was put on having domestic production in key industries and technologies for war. Most Euro economies are NOT diversified.
I would disagree with you on this point
They do have a manufacturing base, but many of the key components to their military and hydrocarbon base came from the west. Optics is just one. Key components, technical abilities for hydro carbon industry are western. Side not if their manufacturing is so strong, why are there so many Chinese cars showing up in their cities, and afvs, golf carts and motorcycles showing up on the front lines?
As to manufacturing “new” tanks and apvs…
There is a large difference between reactivating old stock and producing new equipment.
As I understand new tank and apvs/ afvs are in the hundreds the rest are mostly Soviet legacy stocks, and though the numbers are great they are not infinite
Doomsday predictions and sanctions
Inflation is “reported” to be around 7-8 percent, I would guess much higher but let’s go with that. Still not good. Interest rates are now 20%, would you like to buy a house or car or get a loan for your business at 20%
The ruble is basically a non thing now and the yuan is effectively the currency of Russia. I wouldn’t say that is good
7% of GDP is Hugh and series, but add 1/3 of budget goes to war effort. Add to that manpower shortages due to many factors like declining demographics, high pay and bonuses offered for military service and loses on the battlefield and that does not bode well.
National wealth fund is being depleted, civilian infrastructure is being neglected, and damage to industrial capacity esp in the refining sector is happening
Deals with China, NK, Iran are no different….
I would disagree, the narrative at the beginning of the war was that Russia had all it needed. Equipment, manpower, ammunition…. The fact that they have gone to these nations for help as well as recruiting 1000s of mercs shows that to be false. As to all those nations needed to assist Ukraine, that is true, but Ukraine never claimed to be self sufficient.
As to taking only areas of “nationalistic “ importance. All those areas voted to leave Russia and Soviet Union, many of the large Russian populations were the result of “displacement “ of indigenous Ukrainians during the decades long “relationship” with soviet union( let’s be honest there was Russia and then there was the rest in Moscow’s view), but beyond that just a cursory watching of RT and others like medveded(sp?) shows their ambitions are greater than the 4 oblasts.
Sorry if not complete response or a bit disjointed, early and have to get to work. I also work off phone and not the easiest to post large content on a phone I can barely read 😂
Take care
Thank you
I supplied several links to where it clearly stated that the Russians are indeed making their 1,500 T90M production in 2024. The Russians are obviously economically smaller than us, but they are not some Middle East chump like we’re used to dealing with, neither economically, nor militarily. I’ll post the links again:
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-is-pumping-out-weaponsbut-can-it-keep-it-up-ba30bb04
***7,000 Javelin missiles in the opening of a war (delivered BEFORE January - February or in the first month of the war) is not insignificant.***
Another 3,000 followed. That is enough to where you can have saturation across a large area.
The Russians are a mechanized / armored force. Introduce a weapon like a Javelin, and you end up with a lot of burnt out hulks.
The significance or impact that Javelin had was reported on a little in the media, but quickly passed over by other stories.
As with Afghanistan in the 80s where Stinger played a significant role in the war, at one point averaging one Soviet helicopter per day, there are certain weapon systems which have a profound impact and when you flood someone with these...
The Ukrainian counter offensive failed because it was ill advised. Like the Germans with the Battle of the Bulge, it would have made more sense to use these forces in a defense in depth vs. burning them up in a political theater where NOTHING was long term gained / accomplished. The Germans had provided the Ukrainians with Leo, the Brits with Challenger 2, and our 31 Abrams tanks was the smallest of the lot. They had equipment. We (the West) equipped about 4/5ths of all the forces involved in the Ukrainian counter offensive. Go to slide 20: https://www.newsweek.com/2023/05/05/read-leaked-secret-intelligence-documents-ukraine-vladimir-putin-1794656.html#slideshow/2222836 We equipped 4/5ths for 12 Brigades worth for the counter offensive! (((The true bigger issue here is that armor as we know it is dead.)))
Technology drives tactics, and today with the modern RPG, ATGM and drone, the concept of the MBT et al is questionable, in the form that we have it. The same thing which caused a disaster for the Russians when they entered Ukraine, played a major role why the Ukrainian counter offensive failed (zero learning curve), and why we right now should be worried and thinking about what to do, because this affects us as well.
However, our government and bureaucracy is inherently reactive. No action will be taken until we have a disaster of our own, even though the handwriting is on the wall today.
We are going to have to agree to disagree.
1500 new T-90m production, Russian gdp, Russian inflation, all come from where? Russia. Does that make it wrong, no, but let’s look at the battle field. Where is the evidence of this production T-55/T-62/T-80 turtle tanks?
Never said that javelins did not have an impact, not western supplied weapons, but I will stick with massive is not the right adjective
As too supplied tanks. The numbers certainly compared to the numbers you give Russia s credit for we’re still relatively small and many came after the offensive
If javelins were still as plentiful as you seem to indicate, I think you would see them used far more instead you see FPVs doing the heavy lifting
Attacks early on would have largely negated one of the biggest threats and that was helicopters. Have you noticed you don’t see a lot of than at the front now. Additionally removing the restriction on hitting Russian air fields in Russia with long range attacks would seriously degrade their newest large scale threat, glide bombs
And if we want to talk ww2 comparisons, sending a half dozen tanks instead of Kursk like waves also says something
I am sure we will disagree, but I think(not feel)that the Russian economy is far more weaker than you and others think.
One cannot spend 7% of gdp and 1/4 of budget on war and not have it effect other aspects of the economy
As the saying goes things happen slow till they don’t
If you are correct we should see waves of T-90s and bmps instead of golf carts and tracked garden sheds
We will see, good conversation
Russia is a nation, that while significantly weaker than the West, even with their allies, in all aspects: industrially, technologically, military man-power, population, number of military aged males available, total GDP, PPP, size of intel service, number of nukes, carriers, tanks (the West has a grand higher total)... is able to play this game tit for tat to include all the way through total nuclear annihilation of each other.
If you give Ukraine the ability to conduct deep strikes into Russia, Russia will (and is able to) conduct deep strikes into Europe. Now what?
Russia is not some inbred, illiterate, totally corrupt, culturally retarded, Middle East nation with highly limited military and economic means.
That is what we are used to dealing with: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya... These places cannot keep up with us and we can escalate things as we desire without concern for retaliation. NOT THE CASE WITH RUSSIA.
We send arms to Ukraine, they send arms to folks that want to kill us (Houtis, Iran, etc). We open the terrorism door (St Petersberg, Moscow twice), they open the terrorism door. We do the sabotage game, they do the sabotage game. We do deep strikes, they do deep strikes. How far do you want to take this?
Hint: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/russian-saboteurs-behind-arson-attackat-german-factory-c13b4ece Do you think that was possibly intended to send a message?
Why don't we just drop ICMBs on each other and get it over with (that way we don't waste the time with the slow creep in escalation): https://russianforces.org/missiles/
When we decided that we're going to F@#$ with Russia, we decided to mess with someone that has strategic, nuclear forces, the ability to play proxy war games, push back economically, has a robust intel service that has vast capabilities both within Russia and outside, is a doctrinal based military that rapidly adjusts/learns (the modifications to their tanks, tactics, fielding of new equipment specialized for the type of war they are fighting), has both an industrial base and some high tech... We decided to punch a kid on the nose that while smaller than us, is able to punch back and hurt us.
As we lose, and we did lose in Ukraine (We failed to achieve our political and military objectives and Russia accomplished theirs), there is the TEMPTATION by political and military leaders to escalate, in the hope of tuning things around. That would be a very short sighted and small picture thinking (someone that is thinking tactically and not strategically). That is literally the path to WWIII or a nuclear Armageddon.
*** As to Russia's economy. We surely have had an impact. The way it needs to be looked at is in terms of where Russia potentially would be, had we not sanctioned them. And retarding their industrial base, military industrial complex, will have an impact. Let me use another WWII example, some peace-nick types attempt to argue that our strategic bombing of Germany didn't have a profound impact because they still produced tanks, fighters and early on were increasing output despite bombings. However, actual analysis post war showed that in some key areas, we retarded Germany's military industrial complex by as much as 60% (in some key areas)! The point being, just because Russia is selling their oil and gas, their GDP is growing a little, they are building more tanks, artillery shells and drones, does not mean that the sanctions have not had an impact. Here is a good graphical representation of what is going on: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/sanctions-and-russias-war-figure1.png
However, as stated, because (1) Russia is selling something others need, (2) is a former world power and has a highly independent war industrial complex and diversified economy, (3) took actions early on to protect themselves from our economic pressure tools, the effectiveness of our sanctions are simply far less than what some folks here in the FR and our MSM dreamed up.
Not even our neighbors and NAFTA member, the Mexicans, are on board with our sanctions. When we talk about the “world” sanctioning Russia, when we talk about a world bank, etc. we are really talking about the Western world where the US is the hegemon: https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w960-q80/upload/ba/27/3d/the-western-world.png But the world is of course much larger than that and many nations are not playing along or they have exceptions (Japan), or are playing games and still conducting trade through a third party (EU getting Russian energy through India)...
—The Ruble has stayed fairly constant with the exception of a short lived spike (that's what our idiot MSM focused in on): https://g.co/kgs/SYXnZKj (look at the 5 year)
—Actual inflation in Russia is at about 7.5%: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276323/monthly-inflation-rate-in-russia/ or https://www.intellinews.com/annual-inflation-in-russia-remains-flat-at-7-58-at-the-end-of-february-314740/
—Unemployment is obviously extremely low since they need soldiers and the government is spending a lot for their war machine (some factories are operating 24/7): https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/unemployment-rate or https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/russia/unemployment/
—National debt has NOT exploded because Russia is controlling spending on the war (7% GDP - no total mobilization), while also making some cut backs elsewhere. They have taken a “balanced” approach, trying to manage a war without completely sinking their economy. Why do you think they made an economist the head of their military? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Belousov They are still selling oil, gas, and food so they have revenue (no serious debt issues): https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/government-debt-to-gdp
—Russia's GDP is growing: https://www.intellinews.com/russia-posts-accelerated-4-6-gdp-growth-in-january-314736/
While we have had an impact, the idea that Russia's economy is tanking is factually, verifiably, wrong. It's “wishful thinking” and not based on what is actually happening.
The fact that Russia and China are conducting trade in the Yuan, is actually a problem for us, not Russia. You have that all backwards! That is Russia and China sticking it to us. Since Saudi Arabia's use of the USD (on a 50 year agreement that is no longer in effect), almost all the worlds oil and gas trade is in the USD, which gives us a huge boost economically and some leverage around the world. When Russia and China decide to do all their trade in the Yuan, that's to weaken our position: https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/chinas-yuan-ousts-dollar-become-most-traded-currency-moscow-2023-2024-01-16/
In fact, Saudi Arabia is de-dollarizing and mixing other currencies into the mix. That is actually bad news for us.
*** This is a stupid war which has benefited only a very small minority (war industry) at the expense to everyone else.
You nor I or anyone else can provide a national security argument which required this move: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-president-zelenskiy-holding-talks-with-biden-adviser-says-2021-12-09/
There is no getting around the fact that it was NATO East expansion which caused this war, and that was our call.
Likewise, it's not possible to explain how this conflict has made the average American or European safer, the threat of war escalation, proxy conflicts, terrorism, and even nuclear war are greater now. This war has not made any American or European more free. This war has not made us or the Europeans more wealthy, quite the contrary, it is burning up wealth.
This war is a result of a policy failure.
This war is the consequence of poor risk management (Ukraine 2014 and Republic of Georgia 2008 should have told us the Russians are not joking) and no consideration to ROI (Ukraine already had almost everything you can want - even military cooperation, logistical support, intel...).
It was a predictable race into stupidity.
—Ukraine is a net loser
—The US is a net loser
—Europe is a net loser
—Russia is a net loser
As this war goes on, everyone only becomes a bigger loser. When you throw good money (and in this case lives) after bad ideas and simply waste more and more, with no true likely positive outcome, you are not only a loser, but also stupid (I mean it in general, not directed at anyone). Seriously, do you really believe Ukraine has a chance at turning things around?
Time to cut our losses: https://www.divedeeperdevelopment.com/blog/sunk-cost-fallacy Cutting your losses is not appeasement or quitting (the rhetorical comeback which is to be expected in such a scenario by those that want to stick with a failing plan). It's about minimizing the bad.
The Russian economy is growing now that they’re on a war footing. But their challenge is to adjust their economy back to consumer dominated and the Russians do not have that much experience with that due to their legacy with communism.
Okay, we are repeating things, we disagree
Time will tell
Can’t find the original in a reasonable amount of time, however, this article talks about the increase in shelling.
“Ukraine started shelling Russian-Ukrainians eight years before Russia went in. They actually bumped up the assault to one-thousand shells per day, in the weeks before the Russian invasion.”
...up with the source, you came up with the source mentioning:
* Russians shelling Ukrainian kindergarten,
* Russians faking “evidence” of Ukrainian shelling,
* Russians denying they are going to invade, 3 day before they actually invaded.
Your “original source” was most likely Sputink, Armstrong Economics, Dancing with Bears or one of many others KGB manufactured disinformation websites.
But he provided a link.
And it’s actually US government paid for, government managed, totally pro-war, pro-ukraine, and anti-russian VOA.
A fact is a fact. Even if it don’t fit your narrative or comes from someone you don’t like. If Xi from China were to say Biden is incoherent, suffering from dementia, is it not true just because Xi said it?
At least you didn’t use the word “propaganda” and pretend like throwing that around is an argument.
I directed you to a source which as i said was NOT my original source. This source, since it was an opposition source, I thought, would add validity to the claims. My mistake, there was no source you would have accepted.
“A fact is a fact. Even if it don’t fit your narrative or comes from someone you don’t like.”
You mean these fact ?
* Russians shelling Ukrainian kindergarten,
* Russians faking “evidence” of Ukrainian shelling,
* Russians denying they are going to invade, 3 day before they actually invaded.
Because that’s what his source is writing about. Apparently, you Peepers have moved from posting KGB manufactured garbage to posting credible sources but claiming they say something totally different than what they actually say, hoping that no one will bother to check it.
I have fully accepted your source. But it says something totally different than what you claimed.
Source timeline
1. Shelling picks up causing fears of greater conflict...
2. Donbas calls up conscripts
3. Russia calls up conscripts
Who has the fear... Donbas and Russia... Why? Because the Ukrainians are increasing shelling.
Russians have been massing their forces around Ukraine since March 2021. One needs to be retarded to believe that they prepared invasion within days because of alleged “shelling”.
Look at your own friggin source:
“They accuse Moscow of building up a pretext for launching an offensive on Ukraine. Kremlin officials deny this, with Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov and other Russian diplomats accusing Western leaders of “hysteria” and “alarmism.” “
Check the date. That was 3 days before they actually invaded. Kacaps are lying pigs. The same goes with “biolabs”, shelling etc. They are still operating the same KBG disinformation machinery only these days it's much easier to spread the lies thanks to internet.
Now I'm waiting for your original source about Ukes firing “one-thousand shells per day, in the weeks before the Russian invasion”.
There is no point talking to people like this.
There are no other perspectives or viewpoints that may have some validity.
And when all else fails, start throwing around emotional words and pretend that’s an argument.
Of course VOA is totally biased. But the idea that even they admit to the point you’re trying to make is noted. But not for someone with blinders on.
Agreed. I had a cutting response ready, but I never posted it. It’s just not worth it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
