Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2

The breakdown of Russian infrastructure is spreading fast with winter. Oof that will take decades to fix. Russia was still fixing damage caused by the Soviet collapse in 2009. And in less important oblasts they wrote it off completely and told the native republics to figure it out themselves.
 
Bacle said:


And here we see why anyone thinking Putin is open to any negotiation besides "We keep everything we want, and Ukraine must be weak enough for us to conquer next go around, or effectively a vassal state with legal means for Russia to control Ukraine's internal affairs." is a farce.

So anyone who think negotiations are realistic for either sides is delusional about this situation.
Click to expand...

Putin was always like that.It is USA fault,that they do not send F.16 and Abrams 6 month after invasion/time for training/ instead of old missiles and ammo.

War would end till now,if they did so.

@Typhonis , Sralin get killed becouse he started next purge,but do not fired those who would be next victims.So they,suprise,suprise,purged him first.

Putin would not start purge,so his friends would not kill him.
 
Marduk said:
Yes, i know you are a fan of twisting quotes as much as Russian propagandists themselves, but sorry, i refuse to participate in your stupid game attempt.

Show what you have, fuck off if it's shit, it probably is though, so i will not encourage it.
However, the numbers given are surprisingly coincidental with Ukrainian mobilization plans to allow rotation of troops, as the guy speaks for context for few minutes before the timestamp you have given, with the plan to demobilize those who served for 18 months, which would add up with the need to mobilize 500k as replacement troops.
He states that he wants Zelensky to reveal the casualty figures, but that would kinda be besides the point if he had them himself and was revealing them in the very public video.

Also both your India source and vatnik source claimed the 500k is casualties, not mobilized, so nice of you to throw your sources under the bus for the sake of a more defensible word twist.
Click to expand...

There was no throwing of sources under the best, I was quoting him exactly as presented. ABC News says the same:

However, anecdotal evidence of mounting Ukrainian casualties in the war was reinforced by claims made on Ukrainian television this weekend by the country's former prosecutor general.​
​
Yuriy Lutsenko claimed that around 30,000 Ukrainian troops are now being killed or badly wounded per month and that the total casualty toll for wounded and killed in the war is around 500,000.​
​
The Ukrainian government is soon expected to announce a fresh wave of military mobilization, and Lutsenko argued that casualty figures should now be published in order to convey the seriousness of the situation to the Ukrainian public. He said it would help explain why a large number of fresh recruits are needed.​
​
However, you will recall I asked you what your burden of proof is. What do I need to present for you to concede I am correct on this? I offered a high ranking, currently serving Ukrainian official and you didn't respond either way, so the ball is in your court. What is the burden of proof you hold on this topic?
 
British, Polish, Finnish, Belgian, German and I believe Dutch officials in the last several months have all said Europe needs to be prepared for the possibility of conflict with Russia over the next few years. The German military's planning for this eventuality has leaked and is rather stunning, as it reveals they expect Ukraine to collapse this year:



This follows ISW some weeks ago saying the possibility of Russian victory was high, and the resulting negative implications of that for NATO:

 
Last edited:
Its honestly surprising that Ukraine has lasted as long as it has that said, Russia will try but they cant beat nato, the shear economy and numbers on the other side combined with all of Russia issues means their fucked in a conventional war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Cherico said:
Its honestly surprising that Ukraine has lasted as long as it has that said, Russia will try but they cant beat nato, the shear economy and numbers on the other side combined with all of Russia issues means their fucked in a conventional war.
Click to expand...

I'm rather skeptical they're going to actually do it, but if they did, the time is ripe.

NATO doesn't have an active war economy going and has emptied it's stock to aid Ukraine; RUSI in 2022 said the UK only had enough ammo for a week and Germany only has enough for two days. The bloc as a whole has failed to meet the increased defense spending pledges made in 2022, with even Poland cancelling it's military expansion plans with their deal with South Korea also falling through. Russia has went full war economy and the 2006-2016 boomlet will start entering military age soon, which gives the Russians a manpower edge over the Europeans.

With the U.S. distracted in the Middle East and Pacific, too....
 
History Learner said:
There was no throwing of sources under the best, I was quoting him exactly as presented. ABC News says the same:

However, anecdotal evidence of mounting Ukrainian casualties in the war was reinforced by claims made on Ukrainian television this weekend by the country's former prosecutor general.
















Yuriy Lutsenko claimed that around 30,000 Ukrainian troops are now being killed or badly wounded per month and that the total casualty toll for wounded and killed in the war is around 500,000.
















The Ukrainian government is soon expected to announce a fresh wave of military mobilization, and Lutsenko argued that casualty figures should now be published in order to convey the seriousness of the situation to the Ukrainian public. He said it would help explain why a large number of fresh recruits are needed.
​
However, you will recall I asked you what your burden of proof is. What do I need to present for you to concede I am correct on this? I offered a high ranking, currently serving Ukrainian official and you didn't respond either way, so the ball is in your court. What is the burden of proof you hold on this topic?
Click to expand...
No, you offered a crappy computer autotranslation of a video with an official of unknown trustworthiness saying something.
I don't care for idiot journos falling for a RT ruse or bad translation.
I will accept sworn translation of the video as burden of proof for conceding that the official actually said what you claim he said.
 
Marduk said:
No, you offered a crappy computer autotranslation of a video with an official of unknown trustworthiness saying something.
I don't care for idiot journos falling for a RT ruse or bad translation.
I will accept sworn translation of the video as burden of proof for conceding that the official actually said what you claim he said.
Click to expand...

I actually linked to the original video and offered multiple translation services and, once you switched to the matter of trustworthiness of the source instead, I then explained the credentials of the official in question. I have now provided third party mainstream media quoting the official exactly as I presented.

How exactly may I provide this sworn translation to you? According to your link:

But what is it? Sworn translation is generally recognised as an officially accepted translation of a legal document or any document that needs to be accepted in a legal situation, such as birth certificates, academic certificates or declarations. Sworn translations are always needed when a translation is to be used for administration purposes or governmental requirements.​

Given it is a video interview and not a legal document, that presents an issue. Further, from your link:

There are no fixed regulations regarding sworn translations, as the requirements are dependent upon the country in which it will be used, and therefore regulations can change based on the location. That is why we can also refer to this type of translation as certified, public or official, depending on the process used for translating for the target country.​
​
Given they vary from country to country with no set standards, can you define what the standards are in Poland? Or do you want them by Ukrainian standards, given the official in question is from there?
 
History Learner said:
I actually linked to the original video and offered multiple translation services and, once you switched to the matter of trustworthiness of the source instead, I then explained the credentials of the official in question. I have now provided third party mainstream media quoting the official exactly as I presented.

How exactly may I provide this sworn translation to you? According to your link:

But what is it? Sworn translation is generally recognised as an officially accepted translation of a legal document or any document that needs to be accepted in a legal situation, such as birth certificates, academic certificates or declarations. Sworn translations are always needed when a translation is to be used for administration purposes or governmental requirements.​

Given it is a video interview and not a legal document, that presents an issue. Further, from your link:

There are no fixed regulations regarding sworn translations, as the requirements are dependent upon the country in which it will be used, and therefore regulations can change based on the location. That is why we can also refer to this type of translation as certified, public or official, depending on the process used for translating for the target country.
​
Given they vary from country to country with no set standards, can you define what the standards are in Poland? Or do you want them by Ukrainian standards, given the official in question is from there?
Click to expand...
The official used a complex and rare style of forming sentences that has no equivalent in English, and some people on internet translate it differently from machine translation services, which generally struggle with such things.
I don't know what Ukrainian standards for that are and let's be honest, neither do you.
US, UK or Polish will do.
And there are services like this that do offer translating videos.
 
Marduk said:
The official used a complex and rare style of forming sentences that has no equivalent in English, and some people on internet translate it differently from automatic services, which generally struggle with such things.
Click to expand...

You previously said you don't speak Ukrainian, so how would you know that?

Marduk said:
I don't know what Ukrainian standards for that are and let's be honest, neither do you.
US, UK or Polish will do.
And there are services like this that do offer translating videos.
Click to expand...

I don't, hence why I asked you; no need to be hostile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top