All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

We're definitely not doing so in our official words,

I'm responding to your claims that we've been "telling" Ukraine those 3 things.
That's incorrect, indeed it's a "lie", a work of propaganda.

I've read your subsequent discussion with a fan, so I don't want to repeat it, but you indeed implied that Russia doesn't have the problem of running out of munitions...

You're smarter than this. Your being willfully obtuse if you don't see the message the Biden admin is sending to Zelensky.
Based on his response, saying they'll win in '23, Z gets it.
You & DocB are the purveyors of the Nuland school of neocon regime change propaganda.

I would not have posted the article about China's production capacity if I thought Russia didn't have a problem.
Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Perhaps I'm not "smarter than this". The Biden admin are definitely not saying or telling or sending a message that we don't want them to push Russia out, are unwilling to help them do so, and they only have '23 to do so. Nope, it's very clear (at least to me) that the Biden team actually means what we're saying publicly. We're united with our NATO allies, we're increasing the military capabilities at a steady pace as we see the usage of those capabilities being most meaningful, and we're not going to stop this support just because there are partisans who would profit from failure.

That said, I'd be surprised if we aren't closely communicating and monitoring the usage of these weapons, this financial aid, and how and where they're used...there's definitely sensitivity to giving excuses to the naysayers.

Personally I think we have been and remain overly cautious about what we release and when, but I'm not privy to everything, including things like the supposed "pro-Ukrainian" group sabotage of the pipeline (which may be Russian propaganda)...being careful may be justified. I DO know that we don't have, shouldn't have, full transparency of these deliberations.

As to Zelensky, he seems to be very much aware of US politics, and the importance of maintaining bi-partisan support, and yet the "anti-Biden, pro-Putin" machine is on full, ugly display. Savvy guy, he wants to get the tools to end this without risking more of such as we go into a Presidential election process. His country's sovereignty, his countryman's lives and freedom, is at stake. Kudos to Z for being on the ball.

I didn't argue with you about Russia's production capacity, but I do agree that you appear to be prematurely convinced that Russia will be resupplied just fine by China...that's far from definite, indeed I suspect it's recently become much less likely.

I dunno, and really don't care, what you have against Nuland, etc, etc, I don't subscribe to any such supposed ideology, but I do find appeasement to be historically proven to be a terrible strategic error in the face of known totalitarian aggressors and it's appalling to see otherwise well informed Americans pushing this Russian propaganda without questioning it...

[PizzaSnake]

We're definitely not doing so in our official words,

I'm responding to your claims that we've been "telling" Ukraine those 3 things.
That's incorrect, indeed it's a "lie", a work of propaganda.

I've read your subsequent discussion with a fan, so I don't want to repeat it, but you indeed implied that Russia doesn't have the problem of running out of munitions...

You're smarter than this. Your being willfully obtuse if you don't see the message the Biden admin is sending to Zelensky.
Based on his response, saying they'll win in '23, Z gets it.
You & DocB are the purveyors of the Nuland school of neocon regime change propaganda.

I would not have posted the article about China's production capacity if I thought Russia didn't have a problem.
Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Perhaps I'm not "smarter than this". The Biden admin are definitely not saying or telling or sending a message that we don't want them to push Russia out, are unwilling to help them do so, and they only have '23 to do so. Nope, it's very clear (at least to me) that the Biden team actually means what we're saying publicly. We're united with our NATO allies, we're increasing the military capabilities at a steady pace as we see the usage of those capabilities being most meaningful, and we're not going to stop this support just because there are partisans who would profit from failure.

That said, I'd be surprised if we aren't closely communicating and monitoring the usage of these weapons, this financial aid, and how and where they're used...there's definitely sensitivity to giving excuses to the naysayers.

Personally I think we have been and remain overly cautious about what we release and when, but I'm not privy to everything, including things like the supposed "pro-Ukrainian" group sabotage of the pipeline (which may be Russian propaganda)...being careful may be justified. I DO know that we don't have, shouldn't have, full transparency of these deliberations.

As to Zelensky, he seems to be very much aware of US politics, and the importance of maintaining bi-partisan support, and yet the "anti-Biden, pro-Putin" machine is on full, ugly display. Savvy guy, he wants to get the tools to end this without risking more of such as we go into a Presidential election process. His country's sovereignty, his countryman's lives and freedom, is at stake. Kudos to Z for being on the ball.

I didn't argue with you about Russia's production capacity, but I do agree that you appear to be prematurely convinced that Russia will be resupplied just fine by China...that's far from definite, indeed I suspect it's recently become much less likely.

I dunno, and really don't care, what you have against Nuland, etc, etc, I don't subscribe to any such supposed ideology, but I do find appeasement to be historically proven to be a terrible strategic error in the face of known totalitarian aggressors and it's appalling to see otherwise well informed Americans pushing this Russian propaganda without questioning it...

This.

Well said, sir.

[Farfromgeneva]

We're definitely not doing so in our official words,

I'm responding to your claims that we've been "telling" Ukraine those 3 things.
That's incorrect, indeed it's a "lie", a work of propaganda.

I've read your subsequent discussion with a fan, so I don't want to repeat it, but you indeed implied that Russia doesn't have the problem of running out of munitions...

You're smarter than this. Your being willfully obtuse if you don't see the message the Biden admin is sending to Zelensky.
Based on his response, saying they'll win in '23, Z gets it.
You & DocB are the purveyors of the Nuland school of neocon regime change propaganda.

I would not have posted the article about China's production capacity if I thought Russia didn't have a problem.
Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Perhaps I'm not "smarter than this". The Biden admin are definitely not saying or telling or sending a message that we don't want them to push Russia out, are unwilling to help them do so, and they only have '23 to do so. Nope, it's very clear (at least to me) that the Biden team actually means what we're saying publicly. We're united with our NATO allies, we're increasing the military capabilities at a steady pace as we see the usage of those capabilities being most meaningful, and we're not going to stop this support just because there are partisans who would profit from failure.

That said, I'd be surprised if we aren't closely communicating and monitoring the usage of these weapons, this financial aid, and how and where they're used...there's definitely sensitivity to giving excuses to the naysayers.

Personally I think we have been and remain overly cautious about what we release and when, but I'm not privy to everything, including things like the supposed "pro-Ukrainian" group sabotage of the pipeline (which may be Russian propaganda)...being careful may be justified. I DO know that we don't have, shouldn't have, full transparency of these deliberations.

As to Zelensky, he seems to be very much aware of US politics, and the importance of maintaining bi-partisan support, and yet the "anti-Biden, pro-Putin" machine is on full, ugly display. Savvy guy, he wants to get the tools to end this without risking more of such as we go into a Presidential election process. His country's sovereignty, his countryman's lives and freedom, is at stake. Kudos to Z for being on the ball.

I didn't argue with you about Russia's production capacity, but I do agree that you appear to be prematurely convinced that Russia will be resupplied just fine by China...that's far from definite, indeed I suspect it's recently become much less likely.

I dunno, and really don't care, what you have against Nuland, etc, etc, I don't subscribe to any such supposed ideology, but I do find appeasement to be historically proven to be a terrible strategic error in the face of known totalitarian aggressors and it's appalling to see otherwise well informed Americans pushing this Russian propaganda without questioning it...

Shouldn’t you be whining and crying that he’s put words in your mouth and misrepresenting you? Be petty and use words and terms you wouldn’t otherwise use incorrectly back at him because you either don’t understand or are completely behaving in bad faith?

Isn’t that the game framework hes set up?

[a fan]

I've said very little about deficit spending since our discussions years ago about sequester budget caps/military readiness & Simpson-Bowles.
I don't like deficit spending any more than you do, but I'm not obsessed with it like you are, constantly shouting into the storm.
That does not disqualify me, or anyone else, from objecting to specific spending on things we do not approve of, which is the standard you are imposingWhen you don't say a word about defense spending---and instead, beg for more and more and more spending for 15 years, and then suddenly start counting dollars for one single event when a Dem does the spending, yep, you have no standing. Plainly reaching around for something to complain about when you plainly don't care about spending....and instead, always cheer for more. . Sometimes I accept things that I cannot change. Until a Dem shows up. Then you clutch pearls. And you insist this is just a coincidence. It's a coincidence that for four years, you couldn't come up with a single thing that Trump did wrong. And when even Trump himself couldn't tell you what his foreign policies were? Old Salt was right there to support every single choice he made....four years, Old Salt doesn't see one single misstep worth calling out. So sure, tell us more about how Biden is handling this war wrong, and pretend like these are honest differences that have nothing to do with Party.

If you want to stop playing stupid partisan games, then just stop.You first. You did just that for years. Then minute Trump arrived, all that went out the window, and we're left with Petey. It's not team sports & you aren't the ref.Says the guy who's telling me what I can and can't post.
I'm happy to let you rant without comment, so long as you don't quote or troll me in the process.Right. You mock and hit and insult other posters...and then whine and complain when someone dares to give you what you serve up. Want my answer to that? The FBI tricks me into calling out your nonsense, that's my answer. So go blame your Deep State for my posts.

[a fan]

We're definitely not doing so in our official words,

I'm responding to your claims that we've been "telling" Ukraine those 3 things.
That's incorrect, indeed it's a "lie", a work of propaganda.

I've read your subsequent discussion with a fan, so I don't want to repeat it, but you indeed implied that Russia doesn't have the problem of running out of munitions...

You're smarter than this. Your being willfully obtuse if you don't see the message the Biden admin is sending to Zelensky.
Based on his response, saying they'll win in '23, Z gets it.
You & DocB are the purveyors of the Nuland school of neocon regime change propaganda.

I would not have posted the article about China's production capacity if I thought Russia didn't have a problem.
Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Perhaps I'm not "smarter than this". The Biden admin are definitely not saying or telling or sending a message that we don't want them to push Russia out, are unwilling to help them do so, and they only have '23 to do so. Nope, it's very clear (at least to me) that the Biden team actually means what we're saying publicly. We're united with our NATO allies, we're increasing the military capabilities at a steady pace as we see the usage of those capabilities being most meaningful, and we're not going to stop this support just because there are partisans who would profit from failure.

That said, I'd be surprised if we aren't closely communicating and monitoring the usage of these weapons, this financial aid, and how and where they're used...there's definitely sensitivity to giving excuses to the naysayers.

Personally I think we have been and remain overly cautious about what we release and when, but I'm not privy to everything, including things like the supposed "pro-Ukrainian" group sabotage of the pipeline (which may be Russian propaganda)...being careful may be justified. I DO know that we don't have, shouldn't have, full transparency of these deliberations.

As to Zelensky, he seems to be very much aware of US politics, and the importance of maintaining bi-partisan support, and yet the "anti-Biden, pro-Putin" machine is on full, ugly display. Savvy guy, he wants to get the tools to end this without risking more of such as we go into a Presidential election process. His country's sovereignty, his countryman's lives and freedom, is at stake. Kudos to Z for being on the ball.

I didn't argue with you about Russia's production capacity, but I do agree that you appear to be prematurely convinced that Russia will be resupplied just fine by China...that's far from definite, indeed I suspect it's recently become much less likely.

I dunno, and really don't care, what you have against Nuland, etc, etc, I don't subscribe to any such supposed ideology, but I do find appeasement to be historically proven to be a terrible strategic error in the face of known totalitarian aggressors and it's appalling to see otherwise well informed Americans pushing this Russian propaganda without questioning it...

Shouldn’t you be whining and crying that he’s put words in your mouth and misrepresenting you? Be petty and use words and terms you wouldn’t otherwise use incorrectly back at him because you either don’t understand or are completely behaving in bad faith?

Isn’t that the game framework hes set up?

Oh no, Old Salt!!! Everyone else has caught on to your nonsense!!! What now? Remember: everyone else is the problem, it can't possibly be you.

[a fan]

Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Buffalo bagels. Here's what you wrote:

I wonder if Russia (& China) have this problem ?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

You added in China. You know EXACTLY why you put China in there. You're gloating that Russia doesn't have this problem because China is giving them ammo.

Then when you're called out for it, you accuse two posters of creating a strawman.

Dont' like it? Don't claim that China is arming Russia like you did above, alleviating their ammo shortages. I'm sick of you playing this stupid "I didn't say that game".

Grow up, and own what you write.

[old salt]

I've said very little about deficit spending since our discussions years ago about sequester budget caps/military readiness & Simpson-Bowles.
I don't like deficit spending any more than you do, but I'm not obsessed with it like you are, constantly shouting into the storm.
That does not disqualify me, or anyone else, from objecting to specific spending on things we do not approve of, which is the standard you are imposingWhen you don't say a word about defense spending---and instead, beg for more and more and more spending for 15 years, and then suddenly start counting dollars for one single event when a Dem does the spending, yep, you have no standing. Plainly reaching around for something to complain about when you plainly don't care about spending....and instead, always cheer for more. . Sometimes I accept things that I cannot change. Until a Dem shows up. Then you clutch pearls. And you insist this is just a coincidence. It's a coincidence that for four years, you couldn't come up with a single thing that Trump did wrong. And when even Trump himself couldn't tell you what his foreign policies were? Old Salt was right there to support every single choice he made....four years, Old Salt doesn't see one single misstep worth calling out. So sure, tell us more about how Biden is handling this war wrong, and pretend like these are honest differences that have nothing to do with Party.

If you want to stop playing stupid partisan games, then just stop.You first. You did just that for years. Then minute Trump arrived, all that went out the window, and we're left with Petey. It's not team sports & you aren't the ref.Says the guy who's telling me what I can and can't post.
I'm happy to let you rant without comment, so long as you don't quote or troll me in the process.Right. You mock and hit and insult other posters...and then whine and complain when someone dares to give you what you serve up. Want my answer to that? The FBI tricks me into calling out your nonsense, that's my answer. So go blame your Deep State for my posts.

It's simple. Not all wars are worth fighting. Each one is different. My support for defense funding is to ensure we have the capability to fight, or preferably defer, the next war. I supported Trump's policies. I liked the officials he appointed & agreed with most of the decisions that came out of his admin. I can't say the same for the Obama-Biden admins, which are essentially one & the same. This is a political forum yet you attack posters whose political views don't align with yours, & you're as sarcastic & condescending as anyone, in your own style, my man. My "attacks" are counter attacks. I punch back. I return fire in the same form which I receive it. Trinity & I agreed on nothing politically, but we became good friends here, because we both kept our senses of humor, respected each other's opinion & didn't attack each other. I miss him & his rapier wit.

[old salt]

Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Buffalo bagels. Here's what you wrote:

I wonder if Russia (& China) have this problem ?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

You added in China. You know EXACTLY why you put China in there. You're gloating that Russia doesn't have this problem because China is giving them ammo.

Then when you're called out for it, you accuse two posters of creating a strawman.

Dont' like it? Don't claim that China is arming Russia like you did above, alleviating their ammo shortages. I'm sick of you playing this stupid "I didn't say that game".

Grow up, and own what you write.

Grow up & learn how to read. That is not a claim that China is arming Russia. It's pointing out that they have the capability to do so & would not face the same constraints the western allies do in arming their proxy.

[a fan]

It's simple. Not all wars are worth fighting. Each one is different. My support for defense funding is to ensure we have the capability to fight, or preferably defer, the next war.

That's all fine. I have no problem with that. And you have stated these objections.

What I have a problem with is when you throw out the lame excuse of money. And I wasn't the only one who mocked it.

I supported Trump's policies. I liked the officials he appointed & agreed with most of the decisions that came out of his admin.

You agreed with all of them. Which is extra ridiculous, because his "policies" were as rigid as water, and changed by the tweet. How many stories did you read about Trump's staff having to scramble to keep up with Trump's repeated about faces?

Yet you're STILL claiming you agreed with him to the point that you didn't levy one single major complaint about Trump for his entire term. This is patently absurd, and not honest.

And yet when Obama and Biden show up? Your criticism is non-stop, and flows like a river.

I can't say the same for the Obama-Biden admins, which are essentially one & the same. This is a political forum yet you attack posters whose political views don't align with yours, & you're as sarcastic & condescending as anyone, in your own style, my man.

I don't agree with pretty much ANYTHING cradle posts. Yet I've NEVER attacked him. Know why? Because he's not a hypocrite like you, where he has one set of rules for Dems, and one set of rules for Republicans.

My "attacks" are counter attacks. I punch back. I return fire in the same form which I receive it.

Same here. Yet you still complain about my postings, calling it "hectoring"...and then ten minutes later, you demand that I not have 'thin skin". You can't make up your mind as to how you want to be treated, so I'm back to returning your fire.

Trinity & I agreed on nothing politically, but we became good friends here, because we both kept our senses of humor, respected each other's opinion & didn't attack each other. I miss him & his rapier wit.

That USED to be you and I. And then Trump showed up....and out came the double standards from you. That's where I have the problems.

So for you? The Capitol riots were Nancy Pelosi's fault, and you're claiming the rioters didn't get a good defense. The Antifa Rioters who were jailed? Oh, that's all their fault, naturally. And got FANTASTIC defense attorneys.

What's more, you know you do this, and pretend you don't. It's your nonstop hypocrisy I'm responding to, my man. But I think it's cute that you think it's because you have different views than I do. Yeah, right. THAT'S the problem.

And Petey? Just as much of a hypocrite as you are. Do as I say, not as I do. Oh, and of course, one set of rules for Dems, and one set for Republicans.

When you stop making these stupid, hypocritical pronouncements? We'll get along just fine. Just as we did in the past, pre-Trump, when you had NO PROBLEM calling balls and strikes. And FFS we disagreed on EVERYTHING. Not a problem! I LEARNED from you views.

[a fan]

Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Buffalo bagels. Here's what you wrote:

I wonder if Russia (& China) have this problem ?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

You added in China. You know EXACTLY why you put China in there. You're gloating that Russia doesn't have this problem because China is giving them ammo.

Then when you're called out for it, you accuse two posters of creating a strawman.

Dont' like it? Don't claim that China is arming Russia like you did above, alleviating their ammo shortages. I'm sick of you playing this stupid "I didn't say that game".

Grow up, and own what you write.

Grow up & learn how to read. That is not a claim that China is arming Russia. It's pointing out that they have the capability to do so & would not face the same constraints the western allies do in arming their proxy.

Right. "That's not what I meant".

Here....I'll fix it for you:

I wonder if Russia will have this ammo shortage problem if China starts arming them?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

There you go. The sentence now ACTUALLY says what you're claiming it says. You don't get to blame other posters when your writing sucks. Of course, this requires an ounce of humility for you to own up to your lack of clarity. And we can't have that, right?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... in-ukraine

Nearly 1,200 Russian soldiers were recently killed in a single day around Bakhmut, according to Mark Milley, America’s top general, in an interview with Politico, a news website. “That’s Iwo Jima,” he reflected, referring to a brutal 36-day Pacific battle during the second world war. “That’s Shiloh”—a battle in the American civil war. A recently published paper offers a new assessment of the extraordinary losses Russia is facing in Ukraine (see chart).

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (csis), a think-tank in Washington, says that Russia is likely to have suffered 60,000 to 70,000 combat fatalities in the first year of its invasion, citing American and other Western officials, as well as public reports. Our chart depicts the central estimate in that range. Including those killed, wounded and missing, total casualty numbers swell to 200,000 to 250,000. Calculating such things is a highly uncertain business. But the csis tally is only a little higher than Western government estimates that draw on intelligence.

Stratospheric Russian casualties are unsurprising. Russia’s initial blitzkrieg in February 2022 failed, and the conflict has since turned into a war of attrition: huge volumes of shellfire continue to pound forces on each side. In its quest to capture the eastern city of Bakhmut, which is teetering, Russia sent waves of conscripts and prisoners to fight. They have been mown down in large numbers. For two weeks in late January and early February, as Russia intensified its attacks across eastern Ukraine, its casualties probably reached over 800 per day, killed and wounded, according to British defence intelligence.

This level of carnage far exceeds what Russia has faced in any of its modern conflicts. It lost 95 to 185 soldiers per month in Chechnya between 1999 and 2009 and 130 to 145 soldiers per month in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. In Ukraine it has seen 5,000 to 5,800 military deaths (including mercenaries) per month. The number of Russian soldiers killed in the past year probably exceeds the death toll in every other Russian and Soviet conflict since 1945, combined. Its casualties are dwarfed only by the second world war, in which the Soviet Union lost more than 8m men.

Russia’s severe losses forced it to conduct a mobilisation drive in September but it has largely frittered away those forces. It could launch another wave of mobilisation, though that would come with political risks. Already, two-thirds of Russians know someone who has been mobilised or is fighting in the war. Moreover, the troops killed in 2022 were many of Russia’s best young officers and most experienced soldiers. The men who replace them will have less training, discipline and skill. Nor will they have the same quality of equipment.

When American intelligence officials briefed Congress on Russian preparations for war last year, they suggested that 25,000 to 50,000 Ukrainian civilians might die. The true total has been considerably smaller: at least 8,000 confirmed civilian deaths, according to the UN. The officials also estimated that Russia would lose 3,000 to 10,000 military personnel—a range that reflected expectations of a relatively short conventional war. They could not have imagined that Russia would immolate an entire army in the space of a year.■

Biden is responsible for all of these Russian deaths….it’s shameful. Biden continues to drag out this conflict.

[old salt]

Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Buffalo bagels. Here's what you wrote:

I wonder if Russia (& China) have this problem ?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

You added in China. You know EXACTLY why you put China in there. You're gloating that Russia doesn't have this problem because China is giving them ammo.

Then when you're called out for it, you accuse two posters of creating a strawman.

Dont' like it? Don't claim that China is arming Russia like you did above, alleviating their ammo shortages. I'm sick of you playing this stupid "I didn't say that game".

Grow up, and own what you write.

Grow up & learn how to read. That is not a claim that China is arming Russia. It's pointing out that they have the capability to do so & would not face the same constraints the western allies do in arming their proxy.

Right. "That's not what I meant".

Here....I'll fix it for you:

I wonder if Russia will have this ammo shortage problem if China starts arming them?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

There you go. The sentence now ACTUALLY says what you're claiming it says. You don't get to blame other posters when your writing sucks. Of course, this requires an ounce of humility for you to own up to your lack of clarity. And we can't have that, right?

Wrong & dishonest again. The article was about respective production capacity, whether or not China chooses to arm Ukraine.

[a fan]

Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Buffalo bagels. Here's what you wrote:

I wonder if Russia (& China) have this problem ?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

You added in China. You know EXACTLY why you put China in there. You're gloating that Russia doesn't have this problem because China is giving them ammo.

Then when you're called out for it, you accuse two posters of creating a strawman.

Dont' like it? Don't claim that China is arming Russia like you did above, alleviating their ammo shortages. I'm sick of you playing this stupid "I didn't say that game".

Grow up, and own what you write.

Grow up & learn how to read. That is not a claim that China is arming Russia. It's pointing out that they have the capability to do so & would not face the same constraints the western allies do in arming their proxy.

Right. "That's not what I meant".

Here....I'll fix it for you:

I wonder if Russia will have this ammo shortage problem if China starts arming them?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

There you go. The sentence now ACTUALLY says what you're claiming it says. You don't get to blame other posters when your writing sucks. Of course, this requires an ounce of humility for you to own up to your lack of clarity. And we can't have that, right?

Wrong & dishonest again. The article was about respective production capacity, whether or not China chooses to arm Ukraine.

Yep. That's what the article was about.

Wanna take a look at your post again, and tell me who it was that added "& China". Author of the article? Nope. Me? Nope. General Flynn?

Nope. YOU did. And you're wasting both of our time simply because you didn't really think about what you wrote....then lashed out at both MDLax and I for (horrors) actually reading what you wrote, and drawing a simple conclusion.

YOU are the one who wrote something you're NOW telling us that you didn't mean. Take a knee, and move on. it's not that big of a deal.

[old salt]

Like afan, you project your biases on what others actually post & erect strawmen to topple.

Buffalo bagels. Here's what you wrote:

I wonder if Russia (& China) have this problem ?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

You added in China. You know EXACTLY why you put China in there. You're gloating that Russia doesn't have this problem because China is giving them ammo.

Then when you're called out for it, you accuse two posters of creating a strawman.

Dont' like it? Don't claim that China is arming Russia like you did above, alleviating their ammo shortages. I'm sick of you playing this stupid "I didn't say that game".

Grow up, and own what you write.

Grow up & learn how to read. That is not a claim that China is arming Russia. It's pointing out that they have the capability to do so & would not face the same constraints the western allies do in arming their proxy.

Right. "That's not what I meant".

Here....I'll fix it for you:

I wonder if Russia will have this ammo shortage problem if China starts arming them?
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023 ... ys/383615/

There you go. The sentence now ACTUALLY says what you're claiming it says. You don't get to blame other posters when your writing sucks. Of course, this requires an ounce of humility for you to own up to your lack of clarity. And we can't have that, right?

Wrong & dishonest again. The article was about respective production capacity, whether or not China chooses to arm Ukraine.

Yep. That's what the article was about.

Wanna take a look at your post again, and tell me who it was that added "& China". Author of the article? Nope. Me? Nope. General Flynn?

Nope. YOU did. And you're wasting both of our time simply because you didn't really think about what you wrote....then lashed out at both MDLax and I for (horrors) actually reading what you wrote, and drawing a simple conclusion.

YOU are the one who wrote something you're NOW telling us that you didn't mean. Take a knee, and move on. it's not that big of a deal.

Sheesh ! you make my hair hurt. The article was about having sufficient machine tools to meet the demand for the 155mm shells that western artillery use & are being suppled to Ukraine. I'm making the point that Russia likely does not have that same problem, given the quantity of 152mm munitions they already produce for export & it's unlikely that China would have that problem given the amount of Soviet legacy weapons they still have. When you pinged me on it the first time, I even posted this WSJ article with details that make my point. I don't know if you read it or just choose to disregard it & willfully distort my position..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-we ... e-65ca4163

Any move by Beijing to help the Russian military could have a far-reaching impact, both in China’s relations with the West and on the battlefield because of Beijing’s capacity to help supply Russia with a pool of materiel, including the artillery shells that Russian fighting units are calling for.

“The main constraint on China’s supplying of such ammunition to Russia lies with the political will, not anything practical,” said Timothy Heath, a senior international-defense researcher at the Rand Corp., a U.S. think tank.

For years, China has been a weapons exporter to conflict-stricken regions around the world, from Africa to the Middle East. If Beijing opts to send weapons to Russia, much of what Moscow wants would likely be found from existing supplies or could be produced relatively quickly, security analysts say.

The reason is partly rooted in the countries’ relationship. In the early decades of the Chinese Communist Party’s rule, China relied on Soviet military know-how and exports that built the initial backbone of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

Many Chinese weapons, ranging from small arms to jet fighters and even aircraft carriers, are based on Soviet-era designs. In some cases, China has reverse-engineered Russian weapons, such as missile systems, to create similar items.

Russia provided 81% of China’s weapons imports by value during the five years through 2021, according to data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Even as China has developed more-indigenous weapons systems, it has continued to produce equipment descended from the Soviets. Some of the materiel serves the People’s Liberation Army, while much of it is destined for international markets. Such trade has helped China’s defense industrial base grow rapidly, generating large profits for companies such as China North Industries Group Corp., also known as Norinco.

Norinco is one of three state-owned Chinese companies that now rank among the top 10 global arms producers based on sales figures, below U.S. defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp., according to a 2020 report from SIPRI.

Norinco, a company with more than $60 billion in assets and 200,000 employees, has supplied weapons around the world. During the civil war in South Sudan that erupted in 2013, Norinco sent the government there millions of dollars’ worth of guns, grenade launchers and ammunition, a United Nations investigation found.

The Norinco deal included 20 million rounds of 7.62 mm rifle cartridges, according to invoices obtained in the investigation. That is the same cartridge design being used by some Russian forces in Ukraine today, according to an October disclosure by British military intelligence.

Chinese military exports are mostly low-tech, such as artillery and ammunition, and little has been destined for Russia in recent years. Almost two-thirds of China’s military exports by value went to Pakistan and Bangladesh in the five years through 2021, according to SIPRI.

However, Russia’s need for artillery shells makes China an ideal supplier because it has stocks of ammunition of the caliber sought by Moscow. Exactly how large China’s inventory might be hasn’t been publicly disclosed, but Chinese companies have the raw materials and manufacturing capacity to generate a large supply, said Mr. Heath of Rand Corp.

Stepped-up training between the Chinese and Russian militaries has helped to make the allies more familiar with any differences in each other’s weapons systems. Russia and China now hold around four to five major military exercises each year, and in some cases troops from one country are put under the command of the other nation.

China’s stockpiles of more-advanced weapons from Russia, such as jet fighters and missile systems, might also mean that Moscow could turn to Beijing to secure spare parts if it runs low on such items, said Alexander Korolev, an expert on China-Russia military ties at the University of New South Wales in Australia.

Dr. Korolev said that any move by China to provide military support to Russia for the war in Ukraine would be straightforward at the operational level because of the close ties between each side and the technological similarity of their weapons.

“It would be easier than what Ukraine gets from the West,” he said, referring to training required by Ukrainian forces on weapons systems supplied by the U.S. and European countries.

[a fan]

Sheesh ! you make my hair hurt. The article was about having sufficient machine tools to meet the demand for the 155mm shells that western artillery use & are being suppled to Ukraine. I'm making the point that Russia likely does not have that same problem, given the quantity of 152mm munitions they already produce for export & it's unlikely that China would have that problem given the amount of Soviet legacy weapons they still have. When you pinged me on it the first time, I even posted this WSJ article with details that make my point. I don't know if you read it or just choose to disregard it & willfully distort my position..

I read every word. I get all of that....and frankly? I appreciated the information.


But dude, why is this so hard to get? You wrote an unclear sentence. It's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world.

The ONLY reason we're going round and round is that you hit MDlax and I for building a straw man. Nope. We read what you wrote...and both came up with the same understanding from reading what you wrote.

Try: hey man, I'm sorry, I could have worded that differently.

Would it kill you to do that, or something?

Because this is like post #10 you and I have made over this silliness. You didn't write what you were thinking you wrote. It's just not that big of a deal. No strawmen. Just a poorly worded sentence. It's fine. Let's move on.

[old salt]

Sheesh ! you make my hair hurt. The article was about having sufficient machine tools to meet the demand for the 155mm shells that western artillery use & are being suppled to Ukraine. I'm making the point that Russia likely does not have that same problem, given the quantity of 152mm munitions they already produce for export & it's unlikely that China would have that problem given the amount of Soviet legacy weapons they still have. When you pinged me on it the first time, I even posted this WSJ article with details that make my point. I don't know if you read it or just choose to disregard it & willfully distort my position..

I read every word. I get all of that....and frankly? I appreciated the information.


But dude, why is this so hard to get? You wrote an unclear sentence. It's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world.

The ONLY reason we're going round and round is that you hit MDlax and I for building a straw man. Nope. We read what you wrote...and both came up with the same understanding from reading what you wrote.

Try: hey man, I'm sorry, I could have worded that differently.

Would it kill you to do that, or something?

Because this is like post #10 you and I have made over this silliness. You didn't write what you were thinking you wrote. It's just not that big of a deal. No strawmen. Just a poorly worded sentence. It's fine. Let's move on.

It was a rhetorical question. Did you get that ?

[a fan]

Sheesh ! you make my hair hurt. The article was about having sufficient machine tools to meet the demand for the 155mm shells that western artillery use & are being suppled to Ukraine. I'm making the point that Russia likely does not have that same problem, given the quantity of 152mm munitions they already produce for export & it's unlikely that China would have that problem given the amount of Soviet legacy weapons they still have. When you pinged me on it the first time, I even posted this WSJ article with details that make my point. I don't know if you read it or just choose to disregard it & willfully distort my position..

I read every word. I get all of that....and frankly? I appreciated the information.


But dude, why is this so hard to get? You wrote an unclear sentence. It's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world.

The ONLY reason we're going round and round is that you hit MDlax and I for building a straw man. Nope. We read what you wrote...and both came up with the same understanding from reading what you wrote.

Try: hey man, I'm sorry, I could have worded that differently.

Would it kill you to do that, or something?

Because this is like post #10 you and I have made over this silliness. You didn't write what you were thinking you wrote. It's just not that big of a deal. No strawmen. Just a poorly worded sentence. It's fine. Let's move on.

It was a rhetorical question. Did you get that ?

Sure did!! And the answer you gave was: Russia (&China) don't have ammo problems like NATO and Ukraine do.

See? Just what I told you. You didn't say what you thought you said. You told us that China is arming Russia. There wasn't a qualifier like "China, if they start arming Russia". There was just Russia (& China).

Can we move on now? I know you're not wired to cop to this...so lets just walk away, eh?

[old salt]

Sheesh ! you make my hair hurt. The article was about having sufficient machine tools to meet the demand for the 155mm shells that western artillery use & are being suppled to Ukraine. I'm making the point that Russia likely does not have that same problem, given the quantity of 152mm munitions they already produce for export & it's unlikely that China would have that problem given the amount of Soviet legacy weapons they still have. When you pinged me on it the first time, I even posted this WSJ article with details that make my point. I don't know if you read it or just choose to disregard it & willfully distort my position..

I read every word. I get all of that....and frankly? I appreciated the information.


But dude, why is this so hard to get? You wrote an unclear sentence. It's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world.

The ONLY reason we're going round and round is that you hit MDlax and I for building a straw man. Nope. We read what you wrote...and both came up with the same understanding from reading what you wrote.

Try: hey man, I'm sorry, I could have worded that differently.

Would it kill you to do that, or something?

Because this is like post #10 you and I have made over this silliness. You didn't write what you were thinking you wrote. It's just not that big of a deal. No strawmen. Just a poorly worded sentence. It's fine. Let's move on.

It was a rhetorical question. Did you get that ?

Sure did!! And the answer you gave was: Russia (&China) don't have ammo problems like NATO and Ukraine do.

See? Just what I told you. You didn't say what you thought you said. You told us that China is arming Russia. There wasn't a qualifier like "China, if they start arming Russia". There was just Russia (& China).

Can we move on now? I know you're not wired to cop to this...so lets just walk away, eh?

I posted a rhetorical question because of the happy talk in this forum that Russia was going to run out of munitions too.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sheesh ! you make my hair hurt. The article was about having sufficient machine tools to meet the demand for the 155mm shells that western artillery use & are being suppled to Ukraine. I'm making the point that Russia likely does not have that same problem, given the quantity of 152mm munitions they already produce for export & it's unlikely that China would have that problem given the amount of Soviet legacy weapons they still have. When you pinged me on it the first time, I even posted this WSJ article with details that make my point. I don't know if you read it or just choose to disregard it & willfully distort my position..

I read every word. I get all of that....and frankly? I appreciated the information.


But dude, why is this so hard to get? You wrote an unclear sentence. It's not a big deal. It's not the end of the world.

The ONLY reason we're going round and round is that you hit MDlax and I for building a straw man. Nope. We read what you wrote...and both came up with the same understanding from reading what you wrote.

Try: hey man, I'm sorry, I could have worded that differently.

Would it kill you to do that, or something?

Because this is like post #10 you and I have made over this silliness. You didn't write what you were thinking you wrote. It's just not that big of a deal. No strawmen. Just a poorly worded sentence. It's fine. Let's move on.

It was a rhetorical question. Did you get that ?

Sure did!! And the answer you gave was: Russia (&China) don't have ammo problems like NATO and Ukraine do.

See? Just what I told you. You didn't say what you thought you said. You told us that China is arming Russia. There wasn't a qualifier like "China, if they start arming Russia". There was just Russia (& China).

Can we move on now? I know you're not wired to cop to this...so lets just walk away, eh?

I posted a rhetorical question because of the happy talk in this forum that Russia was going to run out of munitions too.

Who said they were going to run out of munitions? You are making that up.

[a fan]

I posted a rhetorical question because of the happy talk in this forum that Russia was going to run out of munitions too.

Oh, I know. It's one of the reasons I read what you wrote the way that I did. You were annoyed, I understood that. (And it's fine to be annoyed)

But China isn't arming them right now. And right now? Russia is having ammo problems, too.

We're good. Let's move on.