I prefer facts over Brian conclusions.
Ok he presents facts but his conclusions are always Russia strong smart and winning.
CV,
Please re-read these two sentences and ask yourself if they complement or negate one another. In the first you've clearly said that you prefer facts and then, in the second, stated that Brian presents facts!!! What you mean of course is that you only like the facts that support your narrative - all other facts you ignore.
Facts are ignored and conclusions are always the same.
Now I'm really confused. Brian presents facts, but now - one sentence later - you're claiming he ignores facts! Perhaps you're saying he presents some facts and, like you, ignores other facts that don't support his narrative? If so, which facts?
If you like it stick with him, I prefer the logic of other commentators
I've presented reams of logic on this thread today alone - and you haven't picked up on one single piece of it, question it or challenge it - let alone present an alternative view that's backed by anything that makes any sense.
From the top . . .
1. If Ukraine has more weapons and ammo than the Russians - where's your evidence?
2. Explain how Russian casualties are twice as high as those suffered by Ukraine when the Russians have greater fire power and operate a deliberate policy of taking out the opposition while preserving their own kit and men - something Ukraine is unable to do?
3. If Ukraine has all the soldiers it needs, why is it preventing all men of fighting age from leaving the country and conscripting new recruits into super fast-track training? Self evidently, you'd only do that if your back is against the wall and you're forced to do it due to heavy losses.
4. Under the circumstances outlined in point 3. - how on earth can the Ukrainian training be better than Russia's? Keep in mind that the latter's recent mobilisation of 300k troops are reservists and have all received basic military training.
5. How do you explain the quote by Oleksei Reznikov in the graphic I posted on the previous page? Is he lying when he says this is NATO's war and that they (NATO) supply the weapons in return for Ukrainian blood?
6. If you ignore Ukraine's defence minister and Gen Zaluznhy because they don't come out with comments that support your narrative, at what point do you stop and think to yourself:
"Okay CV, maybe I need to rethink my position on this"? Is it when all Ukrainians are dead and Russia really has taken over the whole country?
7. By the same token, when will you acknowledge that a war of attrition isn't about territory - it's about who can stay in the game the longest and end up with the most kit and men? And once you acknowledge that, explain how Ukraine can achieve this without direct NATO intervention?
These are just the issues raised in one day on this thread, and you've completely failed even to make an attempt at addressing any of them - let alone come up with any plausible answers. Your entire narrative is in complete disarray. It's time to acknowledge you're at the end of the road - you're dead in the water. Do the right thing and join those of us demanding an end to the death and destruction and for the war to stop. Now!
Tim,.
southfront.org
www.nknews.org
nypost.com
www.businessinsider.com
www.unicef.org.uk
