Scott75

Says the guy who hasn't linked to a single source of his own in this entire debate I've had with you.

How much of his hour long video on the subject of the 1:1 ratio did you watch?

You notice how even in a lot of his videos on game, he references historians? He's clearly a fan of history, as the name of his channel suggests. And as you yourself seem to be tacitly admitting, once the war in Ukraine started, he focused a lot of attention on it. He's also done a lot of research, which I think is evidence if you watch his videos on the war in Ukraine as well.

This dude is some YouTuber "historian" commentator who, before the war, spent his time criticizing video games. I went all the way back to HistoryLegend's very first video, around 5 years ago- it was about the World War I Battle of Vimy Ridge. Here to be precise: Now, I acknowledge that occassionally, the HistoryLegend channel has talked about a video game or 2, but I see nothing wrong with that- I myself play an online game called World of Warcraft. The bottom line is that this man has a solid track record of coming out with videos regarding the Ukraine war that I've found to be quite solid.

You're the one who started with generalities, saying my sources were, and I quote, "garbage". I simply asked you to justify your assertion, which, ofcourse, you never did.

There you go, making yet another unsubstantiated assertion. Anyway, for the audience, I found an hour long video from someone who took the time to see what the Ukrainian/Russian loss ratio really is. He came to the conclusion that it's close to 1:1. Honestly, I've only seen the start and the end of the video at this point, but I've found that this guy has done some great videos in the past and so I tend to trust him on that alone- that being said, I imagine that the video probably goes some way to explaining his evidence in more detail as well...

This one: That was a part of our current general discussion about generalizations… not a good example. I think it's a great example of how you insult people's sources without providing a shred of evidence that there's anything wrong with them. Which source? You'll note that I said "insult people's sources", not "insult a person's source". You were insulting my sources generally. I haven't insulted your sources, but ofcourse, I haven't seen you cite any articles at all in our discussion, so there's nothing to insult, or praise for that matter. Anyone can insult someone else's sources and call it a day. Coming up with actual evidence for one's position, that takes some actual effort.

I think it's a great example of how you insult people's sources without providing a shred of evidence that there's anything wrong with them. Linking to credentialed and well known journalists is a hell of a lot better than just believing what some anonymous poster online says, but hey, you want to think that everyone should just treat anonymous your anonymous word as gospel, that's your choice to make.

This one: Anyone can say that. What's harder to do is actually providing evidence that your claims are true.

Which one?. You didn't specify. That's the thing with your posts generally- vague statements, backed by nothing.

You asserting that my sources are "garbage".

Just because you link to some [insult removed] For a moment, I thought you might actually post an article or 2 that actually backed one of the various assertions that you've made here. Alas, it seems you opted for simply making more unsubstantiated assertions.

This thread is almost 100 pages now. Are you saying you have read them all to sit here accusing me of never using an article? Fair enough, I have indeed not read all 100 pages. Why don't you demonstrate that you do more than just posit unsubstantiated assertions and cite some articles to back up your assertions?

Yes, but if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means point to the articles that you've cited.

Can't speak for Xi personally, but here's China's response: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/01/china-iran-condemns-00806183