strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Thank you very much for the threaded version, now that "X" has gone weird for those without accounts.
Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)
- Thread starter ParadiseLost
- Start date
..and this has what to do what this topic of Gripen's going to Ukraine, besides just trying to throw shade back at Russia's enemies using a completely different topic?sweden is too busy being mass raped by the countless muslims they mass imported into the country to achieve anything.
Sweden: Rape Capital of the West
Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassedwww.gatestoneinstitute.org
And if you try to say anything about how islam has a rape culture you go to prison for "Denigration of ethnic groups".
Just another failed state in the process of genociding its white population.
mrttao
Well-known member
Are you stupid or just pretending?
You explicitly made predictions about sweden's future this century that have nothing to do with ukraine and barely anything to do with russia.
And I explicitly quoted those predictions which I was explicitly replying to.
you said that maybe sweden will grow into a serious military power this century.
I say that no, sweden will not grow into a serious military power this century. As they are genociding their own swede population and replacing it with muslim somalians.
This has absolutely jack and shit to do with russia and ukraine.
But it was YOU who started this tangent by making predictions about the future of sweden.
The world does not revolve around you and ukraine.
To dismiss sweden genociding its own native pop with "lol you are just casting stones because they are anti russian" is beyond tone deaf
3,remember 7th year war.
None of your claims have anything to do with the effectiveness and export-ability of the weapons systems which would help Sweden get more serious power, which is what I was getting at.
Instead, you chose to interpret it as a racial/demographic topic, and forced those subjects into the thread.
I also saw the Seven Years War probably has the best contendership as being a Global Conflict that is a precursor to the concept of a 'World War.' It was between peer opponents and had significant combat both in Europe as well as India and a bit less in South America and of course on the High Seas. And it was large amounts of combat beyond Europe, not just some random raids and skirmishes or random small engagements.
The various prior Wars of Succession in Europe didn't really scale to that level in the Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars were more intense, but far more localized around Europe and bits of the surrounding Mediterranean as well as a plethora of often small engagements on the High Seas.
I'm not sure if there's a 'Known World War' that could've existed prior to that in earlier times. I would agree with Marduk that the Punic Wars don't really count as a 'World War' even of the Old World. Carthage did have allies in Gaul and Spain and North Africa as mercenaries but... Persia was a superpower as well and not involved. Some of the Greek Sucessor States were minorly involved in some stages.
And stuff like Persia-Byzantines or Ottomans-Hapsburgs or Ottomans-Portugal or Portugal-Spain or later against the Netherlands just seems like more peer style conflicts or akin to the Cold War conflicts which I also wouldn't consider proper "World Wars." Not all global conflicts are World Wars since they don't approach that scale of global intensity IMHO. Leads to what I feel are dumb things like calling the Cold War World War III and then the War on Terror as World War IV and such nonsense which waters down terminology.
mrttao
Well-known member
1. You explicitly argued that it is sweden dropping its neutrality that would result in sweden becoming a military power. Implying that being non neutral will spur them towards militirizing.
If you meant the weapons exports should have been clearer, although that actually weakens your argument. Them dropping neutrality is a far better argument in favor of them becoming a military power.
2. it takes more than weapon's exports to become a serious power.
Sweden is not going to get a military industrial complex overnight.
And usa has a lot more going for it than just MIC. It has the best tech and 80 yeears as sole superpower. massively more pop and size, and massively bigger standing military.
3. you predicted a result.
when discussing that result I am not contractually obligated to only do so via your own points
it is perfectly valid to bring up different reasons as to why I think the result prediction is wrong.
In fact, so long as you are not lying (you weren't. you were telling the truth) then I MUST bring up different reasons if I want to contest your predicted result. As I am not contesting your facts about sweden dropping neutrality and arming ukraine.
I think,that if we count all mongol invasions made by Dzinghis khan,it could count as world war,too.
Certainly,if you add next few Khans.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
So you don't consider the French and Indian War part of the Seven Years War?
The War in North America and India make the Seven Years War the best contender for a World War before World Wars were even considered a thing.
World War, as we define it now, was basically set by the standards of the First -- it was the scale of it; from loss of life, to industrial capacity, to alliances, to total war itself engulfing the major countries involved.
The British Empire, however, basically fought several proto-World Wars beforehand (which were stepping stones to the inevitable actual First), given that we were fighting in several theatres simultaneously against the same foes -- Europe, India, Africa, North America, South America, and the seas themselves. The lack of true industrialization on every side was the only constraint that stopped a WW1-style war from happening centuries earlier.
Unfortunately for us, when mass industrialization became a thing, it was the last, necessary component for such a War to become a dark reality. The constraint was gone.
While the Punic Wars, for example, may have been considered such a conflict to Ancient Rome and Carthage and the like because their perception of the world was the Mediterranean, in reality it was no more than a regional war.
The British Empire, however, basically fought several proto-World Wars beforehand (which were stepping stones to the inevitable actual First), given that we were fighting in several theatres simultaneously against the same foes -- Europe, India, Africa, North America, South America, and the seas themselves. The lack of true industrialization on every side was the only constraint that stopped a WW1-style war from happening centuries earlier.
Unfortunately for us, when mass industrialization became a thing, it was the last, necessary component for such a War to become a dark reality. The constraint was gone.
While the Punic Wars, for example, may have been considered such a conflict to Ancient Rome and Carthage and the like because their perception of the world was the Mediterranean, in reality it was no more than a regional war.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Close to two hundred thousand men dead for Putin’s ego. Really boils the piss.
yeah and Ukraine is going to have to kill a lot more then that to get the russians to stop.
This is a country that is infamous for its ability to send wave after wave of men after a problem until it dies and Russia losing 120,000 men...um thats not enough. It took over a million combat losses to get russia to scream uncle during ww1. It took nearly half a million men dying to get them to cry uncle in the crimian war.
So yeah this war's going to be a long one and is no where near over.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Once the REAL numbers come out, ill wager we will see that Russias real losses are far less, and Ukraines real losses are far far more. In fact, in terms of casualties, ill bet this will be one of the most lopsided wars ever fought between 2 industrialised powers.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I suppose that’ll be whenever Kyiv actually falls. Any day now…Once the REAL numbers come out, ill wager we will see that Russias real losses are far less, and Ukraines real losses are far far more. In fact, in terms of casualties, ill bet this will be one of the most lopsided wars ever fought between 2 industrialised powers.
AnimalNoodles
Well-known member
Right after the current counteroffensive uses its nato training and super weapons to take Sevastopol. Or Mariupol. Or Tokmak. Or even makes it out of the grey zone.
Bakhmut Holds!
Last edited:
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
How is the comparative volume of artillery fire nowadays? For most of the conflict, Russia has been firing far more shells per day, but that can't go on forever. I see some recent stories that put Ukrainian usage at either 5 to 6,000 per day or closer to 8,000 per day, but I am having trouble finding recent numbers for Russia.
Of course that's a pretty crude metric even if we had exact numbers, but it's still worth considering.
Of course that's a pretty crude metric even if we had exact numbers, but it's still worth considering.
Considering the scale of Ukrainian and Russian operations over the last year, I'd say both sides actual killed / wounded are closer to half the numbers Kyiv / Moscow puts out about their opponent... and as things are going both sides can sustain this pace basically indefinitely (well, indefinitely for Ukraine so long as the US/NATO cash and weapons spigot remains open) even with their demographics being utter trash.Once the REAL numbers come out, ill wager we will see that Russias real losses are far less, and Ukraines real losses are far far more. In fact, in terms of casualties, ill bet this will be one of the most lopsided wars ever fought between 2 industrialised powers.
Neither side has shown the will and/or ability in 2023 to bear the losses that would come from a 'proper' offensive that would push through the trenches and mine fields, instead we're getting WW1 Western Front but make the front 10x longer and reduce the army sizes to 1/10th.
Not his ego,but his head.Moscov elites belive,rightly or not,that kgbstan without Ukraine is not superpower anymore.
And Putin is not tsar,but bigger mafia chief there.If he do not start war,somebody would remove him under pretext that he is weak.