Russia was making big plans for Ukraine's nuclear power plants before its invasion fell apart

submitted by Site_rly_sux from news.yahoo.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]iamonlyoneman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

invasion fell apart

(but russia is still holding the ground they wanted to take, and did take succesfully)

[–]Site_rly_sux[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You don't know what they wanted. You have absolutely no idea, so don't pretend. You don't know whether they wanted to take ground, or demilitarise, or capture biolabs, or start a new world order, or add "the Great" to Putin, or push back NATO, or find the gayropean black magician cyborgs, or denazify, or what. So don't pretend like you alone have some magical view into Putin's decrepid head.

If we could go back in time one year and ask Putin if he'd trade 400k dead+wounded plus russia's entire international standing for lysychansk and the land bridge, I don't think hed say yes...

Then, the third obnoxious thing about your comment, is that it flies in the face of the article you're commenting under, which shows they absolutely did have plans for the nuclear sites which they don't hold - ergo, a failed invasion

[–]_Okio_ 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

is that it flies in the face of the article you're commenting under,

The article in question in a pro-NATO Anti-Russian propaganda hit-piece. Need say no more.
Incidentally, NATO losses thus far stand at ~ 213k personnel, Russian ~9-10k.

[–]Site_rly_sux[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How did you determine either of those incorrect statements? Let's go through your fact gathering skills because you've come to two wrong conclusions there. What evidence led you to decide those two things are true?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Site_rly_sux[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think I can give a pretty good accounting of that number. Here are two governments' estimates of casualties which I used to inform my post.

    Now, please, I will really enjoy my morning a lot more if you show me which laughably incredible information source you used for 213k dead NATO personnel.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/more-than-100000-russian-military-casualties-ukraine-top-us-general-2022-11-10/

    https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-defense-chief-releases-numbers-putin-russia-war-losses-ukraine-2022-12

    In addition

    1. I probably see ten unique russians die on r/combatfootage or similar each day. What percent of Ork killings do you think make it to Reddit? Multiply deaths by, what, 100?

    2. Where is russia's prewar army of 300k if you truly believe they have only a handful of casualties? Why did they mobilise if they still had their prewar army?