• M0oP0o@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      The first one is from Thu April 27, 2023 more then a year ago. And does not state what you think it does. I mean it ends with: "“[A]ccording to the modeling that we’ve very carefully done with them, the Ukrainians are in a good position,” he said. “They have some weaknesses that I prefer not to talk about in public … But we are confident — in terms of their surprise and things like that. of course, we’ve worked on all that with them.” "

      The second one is literally called “The Attritional Art of War” and is trying to sell russia losing men and equipment as a good thing, basically as practice for when they go up against the west “for real”. This is not saying they are stronger.

      The third one is about russia replacing losses faster with new troops. Oh and the whole statement is from a US general trying to get congress to release money with the dire warring that Ukraine could lose if they don’t. And even after all that the statement is: "The overall message I would give you is [Russia’s military has] grown back to what they were before,” not stronger.

      The forth one is about how with russia’s managed economy they have been able to ramp up shell production faster then any other nation (no shit) and now are set to make 3,000,000 shells a year. This does not say they are “stronger” then before since russia has used about 10,000 shells a day on average (according to the western estimates) making a short fall of about 650000 shells a year.

      The fifth one is about the IMF upgrading its forecast, really?

      The last one is neat but does not back your claims up. It even says things like: "The Russian Armed Forces’ inability to realise the Kremlin’s imperialist ambitions in Ukraine within the initially planned timeframe in early 2022, coupled with the resilient Ukrainian resistance to the invasion, has led to significant losses for Russia not only in terms of personnel but also in military equipment. The need to compensate for equipment losses and to produce the required artillery ammunition[1] to sustain the conflict in Ukraine has posed a serious challenge to the Russian military-industrial complex "

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        So, just to sum up. Russia is producing more weapons ammunition than NATO, has a bigger army than before the war that’s actually seen real combat unlike any NATO army, and Russian economy is growing. You wrote a whole giant rant that doesn’t actually contradict anything I said or what the sources I linked say.

        • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Rant? I read everyone of your sources (none that where primary) and could not find where anyone claimed russia is stronger then they where in 2021. Yes they are producing more shells then any one NATO nation but as their deal with north Korea shows it is not enough to maintain the level of shelling they want to do. The russian economy is in tatters (according to russains) so yeah it should grow, that would be what most would think would happen. They have seen combat yes, but by that rational so has Ukraine.

          I mean just from the navel losses alone russia has taken a beating. The tank losses massively outstrip production (highest production numbers I found was 1500/year vs 4400/year losses). I just don’t get how they are somehow stronger then before this 3 day special operation. I am not even saying they are out of the fight but come on.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s a recent source that very plainly states that Russian military is bigger than it was before the war started. Since you’re saying it says what I already shared, you finally admit to having been lying earlier. Thank you for your honesty.

                • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  So if you click the link to the primary source for that article…

                  https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3737446/us-commander-in-europe-says-russia-is-a-chronic-threat-to-world/

                  You will see such gems like: “Our allies are stepping up. But they require, and they hope for, our continued leadership and example. By upholding our commitment to Ukraine and by demonstrating steadfast cohesion with the NATO alliance, we provide a clear deterrent to our adversaries. Should that deterrence fail, U.S. Eucom — alongside our allies — is ready to fight and win.”

                  Or

                  "Russia poses “a chronic threat” to the world and further aid to Ukraine to repulse the Russian invasion of that country is crucial, said Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the commander of U.S. European Command. "

                  You know since this was on April 10th before the US voted to send more military aid and this whole article is from the general talking to congress about the “russian threat” if Ukraine does not get more shells… Context is key. But hey they said the number of front like troops went up, that must mean that russia is more powerful then before right? Since that is all we base our military on right? Standing army size is really the modern measuring stick for national power, right? Its not like anything has changed since the great war.