"The staggering number of Russian military losses is likely to have significant demographic and economic consequences for Russia, with potential long-term impacts on the country's future. [...] 150,000 figure of Russian troops killed is around 10 times higher than that suffered by the Soviet army during the decade-long war it fought in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1989. For comparison, the U.S. military lost around 102,000 soldiers killed in all the wars it fought since the end of World War II, including 58,220 during the Vietnam War. [...] And Russia's losses show no signs of slowing. Moscow lost the most number of soldiers in a single day since the start of the full-scale invasion - 1,740 - on May 12 [...]. 'It all adds up to another demographic time bomb which I think is going to blow its way through Russia in the next 10-20 years.'"

The silver lining? Gonna be a lot of Russian mail order brides available over the next few years.

China must be salivating at the excellent bargains. Maybe make Putin throw in a couple Russian ladies with each discounted barrel of oil China buys.

First three words "According to Ukraine" [...] #9 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Did you read any of the other words showing that those numbers are generally in agreement with counts by the UK, US, and France?

Or are Putin's words the only ones you believe in?

That's not how proxy war works and that's not the real number[...] POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Are those half million dead and crippled Russians coming back? And the Russian men who ran for their lives from the country?

Yeah, our weapon systems will have to improve. As they always have. That's the way weapons work. Better to find out the flaws and fix them now than when we actually have to fight China and Russia in ten years.

They weren't flaws. Russia simply adapted. The point of having that gap before they can adapt is to destroy them wholesale. #29 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

You think the Chinese and Russia didn't already know they could defeat HIMARS with jammers? Counting on their incompetence as our defense strategy?

In any event, not really clear on what you're arguing for. Abandon Ukraine, so we can keep our weapon failures "secret," and let Russia reestablish the Soviet Union? Because there would be no costs with that?

Is this like George Costanza taking taxis and refusing to use his own car because he didn't want to give up a great parking spot?

This was empirically the case. It took them weeks to adapt. Now their jamming is very efficient.
Yeah, "weeks" of delay does not sound like a make it or break it strategy that will win us a future war against Russia or China. And now we have plenty of information on how to improve that weapons system to buy us more than a few weeks when we need it for our own defense.

What I'm saying clear, anybody quoting "It only cost us 3%" has no ------- idea what they're talking about.
#44 | Posted by sitzkrieg
OK, so let's say it's ten times that number? Still a bad price for wrecking Russia's military and speeding up its demographic collapse?

Or is that something you disapprove of? Because, come to think of it, I have yet to hear any answer from you on how you think we should proceed. Just complaints about costs for defending Ukraine. But not an outright admission that you favor letting Russia win and rebuild its empire.

We would have rolled Russia faster than the Nazis rolled Poland. Weeks matter. You keep digging yourself a deeper hole.
Sure, but you keep acting like Russia and China were unaware that jamming technology exists. Russia was unprepared for HIMARS in Ukraine because Ukraine didn't have HIMARS when all this started. That wouldn't have been the case if Russia or China pursued conflict with the US and NATO.

If you want to quote 3% and sound uninformed to people that follow this conflict, suit yourself. #52 | Posted by sitzkrieg
I've already played along with your numbers and said let's assume that it's ten times higher. And then I asked you if that was worth the price for crippling Russia militarily and demographically. But you didn't respond to that, instead going back to the 3% as if I didn't already agree that number should be ten times higher.

One thing consistent here is the irony of posting about this conflict. Whenever somebody says nonsense and I say it's nonsense, it's always the same response: "Putin lover". [... #53 | Posted by sitzkrieg
I didn't call you a Putin lover. I just asked if Russian defeat is something you want to see. Because you haven't posted anything recently that suggests you wish to see that result, even when presented with a direct question asking you.