Russia - worrying?

[gringo]

It proves that 9/11 has not caused the numbers of death claimed. In fact the death rate in Afghanistan actually fell soon after 9/11.

To find an already volatile region with impoverished populations where the life expectancy is low then claim 9/11 caused lots of indirect/direct deaths there after when the death rate shows no such thing, shows the author of that BS you posted in grossly attributing ordinary and non related deaths to the 9/11 attacks.

If you look at the Iraq chart. The death rate went up during the Iraq/Iran war thus we can infer that conflict caused many deaths. If the claims you posted about post 9/11 deaths was accurate, it would be reflected in the data, yet it is not. Because it is not true.

  It proves nothing of the sort because it is a measure which doesn't account for any variables, of which there are many. It also only represented 2/5 of the countries in the wars mentioned. Also it was rhetorical as you should have easily inferred.

      What do you imagine that your death rate link proves? It is a non answer. So be more clear, David. Can you give an estimate of post 9/11 deaths caused by NATO/US/UK "military interventions". If what I printed and linked is "bullshit", then what is your estimate of civilian death caused by NATO at al?

    It is the second bolded part that is the question you will give no answer to. If the above numbers are bullshit-then you must have a number yourself, in order to know that? You can't call bullshit and offer nothing in return. It is all you ever have. How many civilian deaths caused by NATO/US/UK interventions since 9/11?
   

[David1819]

Russian state TV shows mutiny leader Prigozhin's 'palace' in move to discredit him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6oHtTfMNuI

[gringo]

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/

   As you seem to be struggling to give an estimate of civilian deaths caused by NATO/US/UK interventions, I thought I would give you a little help, David. A couple of links above that give estimates, but only for Iraq. A starter for ten for you. From the above, a conservative estimate of 200,000 violent civilian deaths, from Iraq alone. Now how about Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria. What do you estimate the civilian death toll from these interventions to be?
   Your failure to even acknowledge or admit to massive violent civilian deaths at the hands of NATO is evidence enough that you are incapable of honest discussion. The "non-violent" deaths caused by sanctions, disease as a result of NATO wars etc are not included in these figures. You are simply a cheerleader for all things NATO(even going so far as waving a flag) and lack any objectivity. You have a ridiculously comic view of the world between the NATO good guys fighting the comically evil Tyrants and Dictators. Like a Hollywood script of a Marvel story. You never answer difficult questions and simply avoid or distract. You have no confidence in your own world view. It is based on emotion, not facts.

   
   
     
   
   

[David1819]

Interesting article as day 500 of the "10 day special military operation" nears.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/6/2179504/-Ukraine-Update-Russia-doesn-t-have-a-backup-plan-when-it-runs-out-of-artillery

[David1819]

Using 70 year old tanks on the modern battlefield

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/18/the-russians-packed-a-robotic-t-55-tank-with-explosives-and-rolled-it-toward-ukrainian-lines/

[gringo]

    Russia are running out of artillery        It is and has always been self evident which side suffers from shortages. The acknowledged firing rate of each side makes this clear. You really are just wilfully blind to reality, David.

    Let's examine your claim in some more detail  The article that you linked to estimated (we are not told how) that Russia produces 20,000 shells per month or 240,000 annually. For a more accurate appraisal of Russian shell production-Try this, that well known Russian disinformation spreader, "The Washington Post".

https://archive.is/sUoS4

     According to US intel (I could link you to many official assessments by different state intel agencies) the estimate you believe is wrong by an order of magnitude, according to US intel and, well, everybody else. That is to say, RO37 from Daily Kos estimates a figure 10 times less than the figure that everybody else estimates.
     2.5 million shells annually. Some estimates (Bulgarian intel for example) place this as high a 3.5 million. Nobody believes that it is 240,000, except you and that bloke from Daily Kos. Although I doubt that he does really believe it.
    The 240,000 figure is however, the amount of shells that the US produce annually. This is a matter of record and beyond dispute. Don't you know how to interrogate any article that you read? Do you just take every claim at face value, as long as it confirms what you want to believe?
    The above numbers are beyond dispute. You are gullible.

[gringo]

    Russia are running out of artillery        it is and has always been self evident which side suffers from shortages. The acknowledged firing rate of each side makes this clear. You really are just wilfully blind to reality, David.

    Let's examine your claim in some more detail  The article that you linked to estimated (we are not told how) that Russia produces 20,000 shells per month or 240,000 annually. For a more accurate appraisal of Russian shell production-Try this, that well known Russian disinformation spreader, "The Washington Post".

https://archive.is/sUoS4

     According to US intel (I could link you to many official assessments by different state intel agencies) the estimate you believe is wrong by an order of magnitude, according to US intel and, well, everybody else. That is RO37 from Daily Kos estimates a figure 10 times less than the figure that everybody else estimates.
     2.5 million shells annually. Some estimates (Bulgarian intel for example) place this as high a 3.5 million. Nobody believes that it is 240,000, except you and that bloke from Daily Kos. Although I doubt that he does really believe it.
]    The 240,000 figure is however, the amount of shells that the US produce annually. this is a matter of record and beyond dispute. Don't you know how to interrogate any article that you read. Do you just take every claim at face value, as long as it confirms what you want to believe?
    The above numbers are beyond dispute. You are gullible.

    From the article above;

        Last year, the Ukrainian army was blasting through 180,000 artillery shell rounds per month. Before the war, U.S. production stood at 14,500 shells per month, and E.U. production was around the same. The United States has been faster to respond to depleting stockpiles, boosting domestic production to 20,000 rounds a month and investing in new capacity to eventually increase that to 90,000 rounds per month.
[ In race to arm Ukraine, U.S. faces cracks in its manufacturing might ]
But Ukraine is still expending 90,000 to 140,000 rounds a month, according to Watling, while the newly announced E.U. investments in production could take one to two years to come online, despite a call by Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for the internal market, to move into “war economy mode.”
“You don’t have to be a great military analyst to realize that European countries making major investments into artillery production 13 months into the war are a little bit late,” said Michael Kofman, director of the Russia Studies program at the Center for Naval Analyses. “What’s important is the U.S. has already significantly increased its artillery production. But there’s greater capacity in Europe. It is incumbent upon them to leverage their defense industries and to spend the money.”
Others argue that the recent E.U. announcements are still an important message to Russia. “Russia is betting on the fact it can wait out Western resolve. A months-long time frame sends the signal that solidarity holds and support will continue,” said a senior E.U diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity to brief the press. “The numbers [of shells] don’t have practical meaning. It’s that it is sustained.
“It sends the message to the Kremlin that, 'No matter what you think, our policy is set for longer,'” the diplomat continued.
Signs are emerging of a parallel effort in Russia to increase production, despite Western sanctions. Data recently published on Russia’s federal treasury website showed Moscow spent 2 trillion rubles ($26 billion) on defense in January and February alone, a 282 percent increase over the same period in 2021, Reuters reported on Monday. Russia is on course to produce 2.5 million artillery shell rounds this year, up from 1.7 million rounds before the war, Watling said.
In response to an E.U. pledge to supply Ukraine with 1 million artillery shells over the next twelve months, Russian President Vladimir Putin retorted in March that Moscow would produce three times as many shells over the same period.
“Russia has the capacity to mobilize its own economy in support of the armed forces and control its own destiny in a way that Ukraine can’t,” said Barrons. “The critical weakness” for Ukraine “is its reliance on Western inventory and industry.”


      You literally believe the opposite of the truth. It is widely and generally acknowledged that Russian shell production is way in excess of the capacity of the entirety of NATO. Everyone knows this 

[gringo]

Using 70 year old tanks on the modern battlefield

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/06/18/the-russians-packed-a-robotic-t-55-tank-with-explosives-and-rolled-it-toward-ukrainian-lines/

    You will find zero evidence of Russia using these old tanks as Main Battle Tanks . It is just part of the idiotic, "Russia running out of everything", propaganda. Incredibly you still haven't seen through the bullshit yet and are part of the ever dwindling minority to believe NATO propaganda.
    The old tanks are being used as very effective protected and buried in extra artillery guns (I already told you this) and also improvised for stunts such as loading with explosives and sent to Ukrainian trenches, as above. Where are the pictures or footage of Russia using these 70 year old tanks as MBT's.
    Since you brought up shell stocks and production, what do you think of the US sending cluster munitions? The reason given is that they have no other stocks to give so are now breaking their own laws in sending banned cluster weapons. But you reckon that Russia are running out and can't keep up.

[gringo]

Interesting article as day 500 of the "10 day special military operation" nears.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/6/2179504/-Ukraine-Update-Russia-doesn-t-have-a-backup-plan-when-it-runs-out-of-artillery

    Where is your "10 day special military operation" quote from? Which Russian official stated this? or have you invented it?

[gringo]

   Do you stand by the shell production figure you gave earlier, David, in order to "prove" your contention that Russia are running out of shells? Apart from the no name anonymous hack in Daily Kos, is there any supporting evidence for your claim that Russia only produce 20,000 shells per month. This in contrast to the abundance of evidence that puts this figure as ten times, at least, greater.  The entire article is based on this provably false contention. Garbage in, Garbage out.
   It is also acknowledged that the shell production of the entirety of NATO is about 10 times less than Russia alone. This isn't a contentious point to anyone except you. If the conclusions of the article are based on such demonstrably false figures, it is entirely without merit and unworthy of consideration.
    How many shells do you think are produced annually by Russia?
    Are you sticking with 200,000?
    Then do NATO.
    Then explain to us how Russia will run out of shells.
   
   

[David1819]

   Do you stand by the shell production figure you gave earlier, David, in order to "prove" your contention that Russia are running out of shells? Apart from the no name anonymous hack in Daily Kos, is there any supporting evidence for your claim that Russia only produce 20,000 shells per month. This in contrast to the abundance of evidence that puts this figure as ten times, at least, greater.  The entire article is based on this provably false contention. Garbage in, Garbage out.
   It is also acknowledged that the shell production of the entirety of NATO is about 10 times less than Russia alone. This isn't a contentious point to anyone except you. If the conclusions of the article are based on such demonstrably false figures, it is entirely without merit and unworthy of consideration.
    How many shells do you think are produced annually by Russia?
    Are you sticking with 200,000?
    Then do NATO.
    Then explain to us how Russia will run out of shells.
 
   

The amount of shells Russia produces in Tankie fantasy world is not relevant as its just a fantasy. Its no secret that Russia is having to purchase shells from North Korea now.

NATO doctrine does not put much emphasis on artillery like Russia does. It focuses on more precise and longer range weapons like guided surface to ground and guided air to ground missiles. To use antiquated artillery as a sole data-point in comparing NATO to Russia just shows how myopic you are.

[David1819]

Destruction of battery of Russian BM-27 Uragan 220 mm MLRS on the Zaporizhzhia front by AFU strikes.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/14u1iut/destruction_of_battery_of_russian_bm27_uragan_220/

[David1819]

Ukrainian M2 Bradley firing a TOW II at a Russian tank

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/14s1d3d/ukrainian_m2_bradley_firing_a_tow_ii_at_a_russian/

[gringo]

NATO doctrine does not put much emphasis on artillery like Russia does. It focuses on more precise and longer range weapons like guided surface to ground and guided air to ground missiles. To use antiquated artillery as a sole data-point in comparing NATO to Russia just shows how myopic you are.

    You raised  the subject of artillery and the "fact" that Russia were running low and only produced 240,000 shells annually. You have been shown to be wrong by a whole magnitude and now pretend that it is me who is "myopic". I have written often about Russia's superior tech in missile technology, air defence and electronic warfare. These are well known. The truth is that contrary to your bullshit, it is not even denied that Ukraine/NATO have run out of shells-in an artillery war that Russia have dragged them into. Strategies that are playing out in front of you just sail way over your head.
    The controversy over the cluster munitions now being sent is precisely because they have nothing more to send. What is NATO's next card to play? F16's, F35's - doesn't matter. Russia have lots of tech just waiting for the day that NATO escalate. It isn't disputed by impartial, serious military experts that Russia are way ahead of the US in game changing military technology.
    They have now emptied NATO/Ukraine stocks of shells bare whilst outfiring them 10 to 1 in a war that NATO weren't equipped to deal with. Much like Ali's famous "rope a dope", but with the added twist that Ali is raining down ten blows to one at the same time as exhausting his opponent.
    Read some Andrei Martyanov, David, he will clue you in to some of the military strategies and calculations that are always at play. Your concentration on the minutiae, such as storm shadows, himars, dumb stories about Russian generals or whatever(which have zero bearing on understanding the wider picture) is misplaced. It isn't important. Understanding complex matters requires asking critical questions and more than a 3 minute attention span.
    Running out of shells in an artillery war is "pretty important", David. Do you think, perhaps, this was already gamed out ahead by Russia? Like as a strategy(having done the maths?) Or do you think it just serendipitous?
    What do you think happens next?
    Questions, questions...
    What answers do Ukraine/NATO have to this quandary?

   

[gringo]

NATO doctrine does not put much emphasis on artillery like Russia does.

     Turns out that NATO should have put more emphasis on artillery. Russia knowing this have dragged them into exactly that and disarmed NATO/Ukraine at a way faster rate than they can replenish.
     The missile tech that you claim US concentrate on is mythical. From Politico, hardly Russian disinfo, quoting  US General from Space Force below;

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/20/hypersonic-technology-us-behind-china-russia-523130


HALIFAX, Nova Scotia — A top Space Force official admitted on Saturday that the U.S. has “catching up to do very quickly” to match Beijing’s hypersonic capability, one week after China successfully launched a missile that circled the globe before striking a target.

Russia also launched a hypersonic missile from a warship in the Arctic this week, underscoring how quickly Washington, D.C.’s two primary competitors are racing ahead in this technology.

“We’re not as advanced as the Chinese or the Russians in terms of hypersonic programs,” Gen. David Thompson, vice chief of space operations, said during his appearance at the Halifax International Security Forum.

     That is from 2021. Since then neither China nor Russia have stood still and US are still struggling to even field one hypersonic missile.