Cost of Bakhmut ‘meat grinder’ battle on Russian army revealed

The Telegraph ^ | 7 March 2023 | Roland Oliphant

[MinorityRepublican]

Russia has lost an estimated five men for every Ukrainian soldier its forces have killed in the battle for Bakhmut, according to a Nato official.

Speaking to CNN on condition of anonymity, the official said that Nato intelligence showed that Russia’s losses in the assault on the eastern salt-mining town far outweighed Ukraine’s.

The official also said, however, that Ukraine’s losses defending the city were significant.

Russia’s use of costly wave attacks have prompted comparisons to the First World War and the commander of the mercenary forces leading the assault has described the battle as a “meat grinder” for Russian troops.

Russia has been assaulting Bakhut since August, in what has become the longest and costliest battle of the war.

[griffin]

You’re in la la land if you think the gay agenda is an isolated domestic issue. smh.

“we would have simply remained under the old Articles of Confederation”

Pure and utter bullsht. Systems change over time and adapt to needs. Pure BS.

anti-federalists became democrats eh? You can be a big government guy if you want. No skin off my nose. Sounds like you’re more of a democrat that Jefferson ever was.

Good day. Got no more time for this ignorance.

[BroJoeK]

griffin: "You’re in la la land if you think the gay agenda is an isolated domestic issue. smh."

I didn't say "isolated", I said it's a matter of convincing your neighbors to vote for their own moral values.
It is in no way comparable to Vlad invading and attempting to destroy Ukraine.

quoting BroJoeK: “we would have simply remained under the old Articles of Confederation”

griffin: "Pure and utter bullsht. Systems change over time and adapt to needs. Pure BS."

Why are you so confused & disoriented about this?
It's totally simple -- in 1787 the United States government was organized under the old Articles of Confederation.
In 1789 that government officially shut down and peacefully transferred over to the new US Constitution.

If the Constitution had failed in ratification, then the US would have remained under the old Articles until such future time as they were modified or replaced.
How can you be confused about that?

I'm simply saying that since nearly all the leaders of the Revolutionary War (Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hancock, Jay, Hamilton, Madison, etc.) supported the new Constitution, had it failed ratification, they would be unlikely to all agree on another, different plan.
So, if you wish to postulate that our Founders would indeed have produced a second (or third?), better constitution, then you must first ask, why would the original have failed?
Would it not be because different states distrusted each other so much they couldn't bear to live under a stronger central government?
In that case, how would they ever unanimously agree to modify the old Articles?

griffin: "anti-federalists became democrats eh?
You can be a big government guy if you want.
No skin off my nose.
Sounds like you’re more of a democrat that Jefferson ever was."

Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Federalist and he lead the new Democratic-Republican party, joined by most other anti-Federalists, eventually calling themselves "Democratics", today's Democrats.
Jefferson was typical of Democrats to this day in insisting on "strict construction" for his opponents, but then himself doing whatever he wished once in power.

Those are facts, and they mean that all your nonsense about how defeating the new 1787 Constitution would have made the United States a better place, just doesn't add up.

But it's refreshing to see you -- someone who claims to be "conservative"-- readily admitting you hate the US Constitution.
For most people, the word "conservative" means we support the Constitution, with amendments, as originally intended.

[griffin]