The War in the Ukraine

anzha

Senior Member
Registered Member
It would be a good idea to assume its going to be like the previous "aid" bill, in which only 40% of the money was actually for Ukraine and the rest was actually for the MIC to finance arms purchase for the rest of Europe

There's a good chunk of backfill in the bill:

The new measure includes $6 billion to arm and train Ukrainian forces, $8.7 billion to restore American stores of weapons shipped to Ukraine and $3.9 billion for U.S. forces deployed to the area.

There’s also $8.8 billion in economic support for Ukraine, $4 billion to help Ukraine and allies finance arms and equipment purchases and $900 million for housing, education and other help for Ukrainian refugees in the U.S.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

sequ

Captain
Registered Member
It would seem either I am pretty spot on or I am treading too close to propaganda. Either way, it makes me uncomfortable. I had said yesterday based on my own count the Russians had lost about 32 BTG and 12ish tank battalions. That's around 1/3 of the initial BTG the Russians started with. Along come the Brits with...

Britain says Russia has lost a third of its forces in Ukraine​


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

( I put in the title just in case Reuters changes it again. Many news websites seem to do that these days)

I doubt I had any input into the British press release. However, it does make me want to be doubly sure about my numbers and what I am counting, etc. The reason being we are always in danger of falling into the trap of believing those who agree with us only. Confirmation bias is an evil bit...ahem problem. The modern internet is tuned specifically to feed us what we want to see and hear so we will watch and click more for their revenue reasons. The bubble is real and dangerous.
Nah, it means you're right on track but you're too scared for the repercussions to admit that.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member
If Vietnam won over China it surely was a PATHETIC Victory.
Vietnam did well but to conclude China lost is far fetched.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

" To date, neither Hanoi nor Beijing has disclosed the exact details of the border agreement or a new official map. In a single interview with state media, a Vietnamese deputy foreign minister responsible for the negotiations downplayed Vietnam’s loss of major cultural landmarks, including the Ai Nam gate and the Ban Gioc waterfall.

He rejected accusations on blogs and overseas websites that his government ceded territory by arguing that the government managed to keep most of the Tuc Lam River bank - despite the fact that according to historical maps the entire area had once belonged to Vietnam.
"

US MSM brainwashing propaganda STRONK !!!
.
Anyone thought China lost to Vietnam in the 1979 war was delusional or on propaganda purpose. China achieved its strategic objectives with heavy costs. The Vietnamese army just won the war against the US after many years of guerrilla warfare, while China did not fight a war since 1962. And north Vietnam is not a place for PLA army corp scale infantry battles. And China never had occupation as its objective. So the result of that war was a "惨胜" from China's perspectives, with relatively inferior military equipments and battlefield experiences in that part of the world. Vietnam had the material backing of USSR but China was fighting on its own right after the Culture Revolution. I know better than 99.999% of human beings how ill-prepared China was for a major war back then.

If anyone wants to compare that war with the current war in Ukraine, Russia certainly has many advantages against Ukraine resistance than China vs Vietnam. Not even close.

And today, especially with this war into its 3rd month, it becomes so obvious that there is only one country that can be qualified as the peer of PLA. The Russian armed forces need lots of help before it can catch up with the 21st century revolution of military affairs.

Have a nice weekend.
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Thank you. The linked report was from iFeng.com website, which is not always credible, but at least they're not a fly-by-night website. It's hard to imagine they would do a forgery of Ambassador Gao and on such a topic. Due to the sensitivity of his previous role and the subject, it's also likely that he was under pressure to retract his comments.

In any case, I don't know. It could be either way.
I am thinking that it is CIF30 being the first lair. ifeng may be guilty of lying or guilty of irresponsible in checking fact.

If we look at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the archived ifeng article, it says the original is at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. This link is now 404.

The archived article has link to the CIF30 weibo account. See the bold CIF30 on the left of the screen dump below. This link is now dead both in archive and live weibo sayiing the content has been deleted by the author.
1652639475603.png

So everything is dead. My understanding is that CIF30 forged this article attributing to Ambassador Gao, then published it on their webo account. ifeng as unreliable as always published the forgery from CIF30 without talking to Gao. After Ambassador Gao's rebuttal and legal threat, CIF30 and ifeng removed their publication.

Remember, Ukrainian media also forged "Chinese diplomats supporting Ukrainian position of Crimea" not long ago. It is another evidence of a coordinated propaganda and misinformation campaign by the western regimes and their agents inside China and inside ifeng.
 
Top