-
Posts
9,014 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:
If what is being claimed is accurate then sure. I look at the validity of the claim, vs where it originated from.
I see. So logic works backwards for you. Rather than citation being used to help establish the accuracy of the claim, you do it in reverse.
You decide whether the claim is accurate first, and the "sources" that support it are thereby validated, regardless of how little credibility they have.
What a comfy worldview that must be. 🙄
- 1
-
1 hour ago, User said:
Trump did it. He got them to increase spending before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Just one article regarding this from 2019:
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/pressed-by-trump-over-defense-germany-says-can-pay-more-for-nato-running-costs-idUSKBN1WQ1YQ/Yes, but this was mostly lip-service. By the time Trump's term had ended, I think there were two countries outside of the US meeting the spending target.
That number is 13 now (not Canada, lol) and mostly a result of the Russia invasion.
1 hour ago, User said:The main point of my response was not to praise Trump for all he did for NATO, it was to merely point out that most of his ire and criticism for not just NATO, but for countries in general, is that they are taking advantage of American spending on our military to provide them peace and stability in the world and for NATO, they need to pay more $$$.
No argument there.
-
18 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said:
It has been suggested on a local news station that perhaps Chrystia Freeland will be eased out of her Finance position to be replaced by Mark Carney . . . deck chairs/Titanic ?
What I read was that Trudeau was trying to recruit Carney.
My guess (or hope?) is that Carney is smart enough not to board this rotten, sinking ship.
- 2
-
13 hours ago, User said:
Trump got NATO nations to spend more on defense. Almost all of his ire to NATO is that we spend more $$$ than they do. We hold up our end of the bargain, and they are not.
Trump made NATO stronger.Did Trump do it, or did the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
This is one of the few areas on which I agree with Trump (especially from the Canadian perspective), but I think you give him too much credit here.
-
11 hours ago, Perspektiv said:
RE "A link I must approve of, but never will."
Trolling 101. 🤡
Right...so in your mind, a Rumble video carries the same weight as validated and widely sources news.
I suppose claims made on Reddit are also valid for citation now? 🙄
- 1
-
14 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Warfare is like a game of chess, it is very difficult to guess what the enemy is going to do hour after hour, one can move troops around the board to gain advantages elsewhere, force the enemy to also move pieces around....
If we liken the Ukrainian war to a game of Chess, then Russia's strategy is to lose both knights and 3 pawns to take out 1 of the enemy's pawns, and "advance" 1 square on the board. The idea that there's some greater strategy at work here, and that the schwerpunkt will later become clear is a joke. These are meat assaults, because meat assaults are all the Russian military is capable of. We haven't seen this level of military incompetence and ineffectiveness probably since Santa Anna and the Alamo.
14 hours ago, Army Guy said:In Russia lives are cheap, and they have many of them, the question i have asked Why is russia using these tactics
Because Putin is desperate. Manpower is the only real advantage Russia has, and Putin hopes that he can convince gullible dupes in the West that this is a sustainable, war-winning tactic. Russia isn't China or India. They can't afford to lose to lose 1000 troops a day, and this big spring/summer offensive was meant to take advantage of the delays in western support, which has started arriving but still mostly to come.
"Advancing is advancing" though...battalions of dead Russian soldiers to capture a few square kilometers is apparently sound and war-winning military doctrine. 🙄
-
53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
There are a lot of threads that die after one post. Often they're just duplicates of opinions posted a millionteen times before.
Yes, a lot of them go nowhere, and he compulsively derails even his own threads with his fragile performances, but the derailing is the bigger issue. Unless you move to a different topic, you can't avoid him. He's always there. You can hardly have a discussion here without him puking all over the place, and he requires no particular dance partner. As soon as the first person disagrees with his 10-IQ reasoning, the performative jackassing begins, and the thread is no longer about anything but fragile Fox's ego.
-
26 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
Okay that's better. At least now we have something specific to talk about. Now let's put it into context.
If yesterday and the day before were "slow days" as you say, are we to assume that today was not? If we combine this with the past two days' gains, we're looking at an area equal to 2-3 average sized Canadian farms, taken after 3 days of fighting (and presumably ~3000 casualties), on a 1000 km war front.
What military doctrine teaches "advancing is advancing", and that losing entire battalions worth of soldiers is worth a single farmer's field? 🤔
- 1
-
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:
There's a Deep Woods OFF option called IGNORE, you know.
Normally I would, but he's like a malaria carrier. I can spare myself the direct effect of his belligerent stupidity, but not from infecting every other part of the forum I'd still see all of his topic spam. He'd still be derailing every thread he joins with his fragile blustering and desperate need for acknowledgement. His puke would still be everywhere, ignore feature or not.
- 1
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
Not many. Only the ones i make cry because they make stupid arguments
LOL.
You don't make anyone cry. The only thing that's notable about you on this forum is how much of a deadbeat loser you are. There are plenty of other people just as stupid as you here, but nobody has less going on in their life than you.
You're just a pest.
- 1
-
-
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:
MY claims was that Russian troops are gaining ground...and in some cases KM's a day...
Gaining ground, yes. KMs a day, definitely not. We're talking meters.
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:scroll down to the source map i provided ,Use the maps legend and it will say solid red line was the last Russia positions, Doted red line is advances russia has made in the last 24 hours, yellow shaded area are Russian gains not yet confirmed...you need to measure form the solid red line to the dotted red line, thats the distance in the last 24 hours....
YOU ARE READING IT WRONG. I already explained how this is WRONG, and I even showed you a screenshot, with the legend. HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. Either you're color blind, or you're bad at reading maps. You tell us.
This heroic success is about 200m, and it's one of only two such instances on the entire 1000km front line. This is the progress Russia is making daily, and all for the low-low cost of ~1000 casualties a day.
- 1
-
3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Oh you mean where i made a typo and you decided that was sufficent grounds to declare victory?
Wasn't a typo. You reasoned it out and everything! 🤣
Chalk it up as another example of you being a blustering buffoon. 👌
You're the biggest no-life loser this forum has ever seen, and it's not even close:
- 1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
Where do you get this crap from?
From Russian soldiers and deserters:
MSM FAKE NEWS right?
If it's not from Russia Today, or Tucker Carlson, it just ain't true in clownworld.
- 1
- 1
-
-
4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:
Russia has low morale, but highly motivated troops. Or at least, have shown more motivation than their enemy, in the more recent months.
This is what's funny. These soldiers are so motivated that Russian commanders employ blocking units behind their assaults that shoot their own retreating soldiers.
Russia has low morale, but highly motivated troops 😆...that's good shit.
- 1
-
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:
I don't think my reasoning is poor, nor my are my conclusions.
I suppose it's easy for you to feel that way when you just ignore and blow past any criticism of your reasoning, without even acknowledging it. Evidently, that's also what you seem to do when confronted with facts that contradict your chosen narrative. See below:
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:You've picked a region on the map that shows very little progress, without context of here and when this location is there is nothing to compare it to...i could do the same to make my point...
YOU picked that place on the map, and it's ironically the place where the Russians are making the most progress. Anywhere else, and the "gains" are even more underwhelming.
You cannot do the same to make your point, because what you're claiming is not real.
Now, instead of rambling off another useless 5 paragraph essay, nut up and show us a place where the Russians are advancing kilometers per day, as you've claimed.
Alternatively, you can save yourself some time and acknowledge that your misinformed on that.
- 1
-
16 minutes ago, User said:
You are still here hung up on the same two examples. That is all you got.
It is almost entirely behind closed doors things Trump is accused of saying or doing that can never be vetted as truthful or not.The obvious and public examples lends credibility to the ones behind closed doors. As you say, he's a circus clown that attacks people. He also has literally zero credibility, so it's fascinating to see people like you try to rationalize why you'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
The endless parade of critics he has from his former inner circle should raise questions for a reasonable mind, but instead:
16 minutes ago, User said:You want to believe what you want to believe.
I couldn't have said that better myself.
-
17 hours ago, athos said:
You are not even a citizen but a Subject Of His Majesty as such in the civilized world you are unemployable.
😀
You are not even a citizen, but a poor Russian mud-person, subject of a small, sad, murderous little clown:
Comrade, you need to work harder. You are not convincing anyone. You are not worth the potatoes the apparatchiks are paying you.
-
-
4 hours ago, Army Guy said:
I've gone back through all my posts that have sources attached, and i'm sorry i can not find where my conclusions have gone sideways from my sources...perhaps you can provide an examples so i can see where i'm or you are going wrong.
The whole point of a debate is to read what the other person is saying, and respond to that. You're not doing that. You're just full-quoting me and repeating yourself, without even acknowledging my arguments about your (IMO) poor reasoning.
As as an example of your bad conclusions, just refer to anything regarding these maps and the near-zero progress the Russians are making.
4 hours ago, Army Guy said:below is an updated map that shows Russian gains in the last 24 hours, marked with pink with doted border, , yellow areas are gains but unconfirmed, if you don't want to use this map source i'll find another. Until then the cities i pick are Around the bakhmut area, Chasir yar,lysychansk area, and Donetsk area...these are the areas Russia is currently concentrating on....
You're definitely not reading these right. Here's an example of "recent gains" in the last 24 hours. They barely ever show up on these maps, because they're hard to confirm in that short a time span.
As for Chasiv Yar, the place where Russia is concentrating hardest, here is the ACTUAL progress Russia is making, according to YOUR SOURCE.
In 65 days, the Russians have moved forward 2.7km. That's 41m a day, and this is where Russia is advancing the fastest, and concentrating the hardest. Sad Vlad is throwing away 1000+ of his worthless donkey soldiers daily, so the Russian army can advance the distance I walk to go have a beer across the street on my neighbor's porch.
At this pace, it will be two years before Russia reaches Kramatorsk, the closest city of any importance, and they'll lose over 600,000 more soldiers (4x the population of Kramatorsk itself). "Advancing is advancing" is utter bullshit, and I think you know that.
I've said it multiple times before, and you've ignored it over and over, but Russia runs out of manpower and equipment long before Ukraine runs out of land at this rate - and this is with US aid delays.
- 2
-
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:
What was the discussion ? that Russian gains are meaningless... in my view Thats not the case...if your going to narrow the scope of the discussion then describe the arcs of fire..
They're meters per day. I offered to review those maps with you and show you, because you keep referring to them but can't seem to read them properly....
Unsurprisingly, you ignored my offer, just like you avoided any of the other points I made. 🤷♂️
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Surely even Russian Trolls studied history. All I asked for was a source to confirm RFK actually said that.
Sure. I'm just telling you that you're not going to get any intelligent responses from him. He's literally a paid Russian troll, and he's been caught before copypasting the same garbage on other Western country's forums.
"Something something, Anglo-Khazarian Nazi something something..."
You can tell when he posts here that he's just copypasting trollfarm content, just because of the format of the text he uses.
Athos buddy, you need to work harder. Mother Russia is disappointed in your feeble efforts.
Ukraine Can't Win the War
in The Rest of the World
Posted
I really shouldn't have to explain how bad a comparison this is. An existential defensive battle for survival against a genocidal opponent is by its nature very different than a aggressive war of choice for the sake of a crooked leader's vanity.
Even so, the Soviet Union's human wave tactics were not war-winning or effective. They were clumsy mistakes in the early stages of the war, committed by bad/inexperienced officers that wasted finite manpower and resources, and accomplished little.