18,000 Russians dead in Ukraine War .

Watching the latest footage from the areas the brave Russian army fled from with the streets littered by destroyed tanks and vehicles leads me to believe the actual number is closer to the 18,000 than the 'official' Russian military figures.

Unless of course the Ukrainians are spray painting V's and Z's on their own destroyed armor that was never there to try and trick everyone since we don't have all that drone footage of the Russian tanks getting lit up like a May Day celebration.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


We didn't think that technology was worthwhile and still don't, but we have long been working on and demonstrating stuff far more advanced and without the massive inherent weakness of the dagger.

Namely, that 4000 degree fireball flying through the sky.

So why are they spending billions on developing it now? Why did the conduct a recent missile test in March?

Why are they now teaming up with other nations in a defence pact to further develop them? If they dont think it’s worthwhile?

Why are all these defence experts and military officials saying they need more funding and they need to close the gap???

Are they lying? Or are you lying?

We aren't 'developing' anything like the simple dagger toy, for the same reason we were never interested in it.

Who mentioned dagger in those articles? No one.

So why are you bringing up Dagger? What has that got to do with anything?

Yet again, you bring up pointless remarks because you can’t handle the truth that America BEHIND aka LAGGING in tech. Not that we need you too admit it, your defence officials already have. Several times.

Do you really believe any of that drivel?

USA is BEHIND LAGGING against Russia in hypersonic missile tech.

Admit it, where you said they werent behind on Any tech.

Grow some testicular fortitude and admit it.

Boy are you determined.

We demonstrated things like the dagger decades ago and immediately saw it's weakness so didn't deploy any.

We aren't behind on any military tech, not by a long shot.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


We didn't think that technology was worthwhile and still don't, but we have long been working on and demonstrating stuff far more advanced and without the massive inherent weakness of the dagger.

Namely, that 4000 degree fireball flying through the sky.

So why are they spending billions on developing it now? Why did the conduct a recent missile test in March?

Why are they now teaming up with other nations in a defence pact to further develop them? If they dont think it’s worthwhile?

Why are all these defence experts and military officials saying they need more funding and they need to close the gap???

Are they lying? Or are you lying?

We aren't 'developing' anything like the simple dagger toy, for the same reason we were never interested in it.

Who mentioned dagger in those articles? No one.

So why are you bringing up Dagger? What has that got to do with anything?

Yet again, you bring up pointless remarks because you can’t handle the truth that America BEHIND aka LAGGING in tech. Not that we need you too admit it, your defence officials already have. Several times.

Do you really believe any of that drivel?

USA is BEHIND LAGGING against Russia in hypersonic missile tech.

Admit it, where you said they werent behind on Any tech.

Grow some testicular fortitude and admit it.

Boy are you determined.

We demonstrated things like the dagger decades ago and immediately saw it's weakness so didn't deploy any.

We aren't behind on any military tech, not by a long shot.

“ America is lagging behind its international competitors in a technology race with far-reaching military and diplomatic implications. Hypersonic weapons are one of six emerging technologies the Pentagon believes could dictate the outcomes of future conflicts, but as America’s competitors continue to field new hypersonic missiles… the U.S.’ own efforts continue to rack up failures.”

Lagging behind

Source: www.sandboxx.us...

How the US fell behind on hypersonic tech

Source: youtu.be...

Stop mentioning Dagger. Start pronouncing ZIRCON

ZER-CON

Thats the hypersonic missile you refuse to acknowledge yet it exists and has been acknowledged by the USA

Putin now paying $400 @ week for volunteer fighters.

asia.nikkei.com...

Maybe these are the ones who are killing random civilians?

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


We didn't think that technology was worthwhile and still don't, but we have long been working on and demonstrating stuff far more advanced and without the massive inherent weakness of the dagger.

Namely, that 4000 degree fireball flying through the sky.

So why are they spending billions on developing it now? Why did the conduct a recent missile test in March?

Why are they now teaming up with other nations in a defence pact to further develop them? If they dont think it’s worthwhile?

Why are all these defence experts and military officials saying they need more funding and they need to close the gap???

Are they lying? Or are you lying?

We aren't 'developing' anything like the simple dagger toy, for the same reason we were never interested in it.

Who mentioned dagger in those articles? No one.

So why are you bringing up Dagger? What has that got to do with anything?

Yet again, you bring up pointless remarks because you can’t handle the truth that America BEHIND aka LAGGING in tech. Not that we need you too admit it, your defence officials already have. Several times.

Do you really believe any of that drivel?

USA is BEHIND LAGGING against Russia in hypersonic missile tech.

Admit it, where you said they werent behind on Any tech.

Grow some testicular fortitude and admit it.

Boy are you determined.

We demonstrated things like the dagger decades ago and immediately saw it's weakness so didn't deploy any.

We aren't behind on any military tech, not by a long shot.

“ America is lagging behind its international competitors in a technology race with far-reaching military and diplomatic implications. Hypersonic weapons are one of six emerging technologies the Pentagon believes could dictate the outcomes of future conflicts, but as America’s competitors continue to field new hypersonic missiles… the U.S.’ own efforts continue to rack up failures.”

Lagging behind

Source: www.sandboxx.us...

How the US fell behind on hypersonic tech

Source: youtu.be...

Stop mentioning Dagger. Start pronouncing ZIRCON

ZER-CON

Thats the hypersonic missile you refuse to acknowledge yet it exists and has been acknowledged by the USA

We also have demonstrated tech far beyond zircon.

Start with x43 experiments for example.

Russia has demonstrated nothing in the way of new tech so far.

a reply to: PatriotGames4u

It is new tech. It’s just that you are very confused on the matter and the technicals have gone way over your head. You’re not able to comprehend the distinctions between all the random bits of technology you cite.

To clear it up, sure USA have developed manmade objects that travel at hypersonic speeds.
ICBMs reenter our atmosphere at hypersonic speedss

Space shuttles can reach hypersonic speeds on reentry too. Loads of things can go that fast.

Meaningless. Absolutely meaningless.

So what is it that Russia have done? That USA have not managed to develop yet. Who are still developing something.

Zircon - 1000KM range
Guided cruise missile using a variety of methods
Can make course changes in flight to evade all defences.
Can be ship launched.
Mach 8 - 9 speed


Last I checked USA never tested anything comparable, in terms of guidance, or ship launched, or with the same range or the ability to make course changes in flight when guided towards a target several hundreds of kilometers away.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Not that we did publicly anyway.

No need, a 4000 degree fireball that flies a little faster isn't very threatening and we still aren't interested in that.

news.sky.com...

Putins Spokesman Dmitry Peakov on video:

We have significant losses of troops and it's a huge tragedy for us.

Some truth finally starting to come out?

originally posted by: PassiveSeeker
news.sky.com...

Putins Spokesman Dmitry Peakov on video:

We have significant losses of troops and it's a huge tragedy for us.

Some truth finally starting to come out?

Couldn't hide it forever.

a reply to: PassiveSeeker

Hopefully this leads to an end to the conflict.

The old Russian tactic of "throw bodies at them" is on full display.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101

That documentary I mentioned where Pilot remark on the manoeuvrability of the F-117 being the same as any fighter they flew previously:

youtu.be...

Timestamp 25:40 minutes

It actually needs like 5 flight computers to keep it flying. Its rudder flight control surfaces is the V tail bending, so I find it truly hard to believe it can have the same degree of response time and capabilities of actual flight controls. The engines are non-afterburner that the two together are rated about the same as one F110, so not super powerful and that is also a big part of dog fighting. Its about the size of an F-15 but with the power of the lighter/smaller one engine F-16, and zero afterburner which is huge.

The actual ops for them is to maintain level flight as any maneuver increases their radar pattern a good deal. The game they would play is hoping the radar just got a quick blip of them and then gone. If they maneuver at all it is not good and would end up badly. The one shot down could have been due to the pilot manuring at the wrong time, so who knows.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
I'm a rational person that doesn't want a nuclear exchange, like all rational people.

So I agree, but what we are talking about is not us launching first. Do you agree that it is the US and NATO's position not to ever first launch? So now we have one man...one man on the planet that is saying if we get militarily involved in Ukraine he will use nukes...

He has also threaten Poland and Finland, so lets say he takes Ukraine then focuses on the other old USSR satellite countries using the same line. What do we do? What would we be willing to do then that we would not do now to stop him in Ukraine?

He has already shown his cards that his military is total crap right now. It really would not be much of a fight for the US who been in real war for the last 20 years. Our personnel and equipment is truly the best that has been real war harden and tested.

All he has now is his nuke threat, so what do you suggest?

Sorry for the delay. I was away for a few days and missed your post. I did want to give you the courtesy of a response though.

I don't think you're unable to point to it, that wasn't directed at you. I think many wouldn't have been able to. That just makes socks angry and I don't believe you're a sock.

The US is the only nation to have used nukes in a war and the threat of using them is obviously implied in any exchange we have if things get bad enough. Putin has stated he believes NATO expanding into Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia. Is it? I don't know, but looking at history I probably would if I was Russia. Understanding something isn't supporting it.

The US seems to be incredibly involved with Ukraine since it's not a war we're even in and the terms traitor, Russian propagandists, and anti-American seem to be easy on the lips of every channel. If you don't believe the press is a defacto arm of the State by now, I don't know what would convince you. Somebody is pulling the strings, maybe the same people that funded the media to apoplexy over COVID. For some reason Tulsi Gabbard was called a Russian propagandists for saying we should be calling a pause and making sure the biolabs are safe, but Hillary planted that seed a while back. She then had to explain biolabs aren't biological weapons. Of course, she left out that biolabs are absolutely the -precursor- to developing new bioweapons. Somehow that's left out of all the discussions. Kinda like enriching Uranium is the first step of building nukes and many don't want other countries doing it, even for power generation.

As for biolabs, Wuhan. The US is obviously involved with questionable bio research in foreign countries, including our enemies. There are many emails that show some really strange stuff was going on. I don't think we need to fund global biolabs and war efforts, especially not to further impose our will on the people of Ukraine. If you don't think we either installed or strongly supported getting Zelenskyy in I guess you would disagree. If we aren't funding them, great. It's mostly irrelevant to the Ukraine issue to me, but globally I don't think we need to be funding them.

After 6 years of lies from the press and specifically terrible vetting on Ukraine stories, I'm not buying anything any of them are selling. It tells me something when they ban opinions and voices, because I was a victim of it during COVID. It doesn't appear at all related to truth. Social media allowing hate speech against people because of a war we aren't even in? This is just COVID all over. I'm just not going to believe the press and it doesn't really have an impact on me except for wanting to avoid a nuclear exchange.

Make no mistake the west already dropped a nuke with the SWIFT sanctions. Unfortunately they dropped this bomb on the whole globe instead of their enemy and people will suffer for years because of it. I believe in spite of how incompetent our expert government economists seem they're fully aware of the larger impacts and they're part of the plan. We didn't need Russia, but Russia did need us. Now we've used that financial nuke and the entire dynamic has changed.

There are no good guys here. I just want the bad guys to do as little damage and cost as little money as possible.

It's ballsy for China to want full investigations of US biolabs after Wuhan, but China has always been ballsy at times. How does Zelenskyy have the balls to go on TV and say he needs my money though? I'm not the one that was in the Panama Papers, he was. How do they have the balls when their people are fleeing with millions? I want the best outcome for Ukrainian people. This doesn't involve 20 years of American proxy war, but does involve proceeding in the negotiations under their own power rather than my money backing his militias. NATO was off the table and that info was publicly withheld, unless that was also debunked. You can't tell me that provokation was the best for Ukrainian people and crowd sourcing war is the edge of a very steep precipice.

I don't believe our presence in Ukraine is entirely wholesome because I can find almost no evidence of our help not coming at enormous cost to both the safety of people living in the country involved and the wallets of US taxpayers. Several prominent Ukraine supports in DC have 100s of millions, they're free to send their money. I believe sending money and whatever private promises are being made only serves to stop an honest negotiation effort in a war that cannot result in a victory on the ground for either side. It will end in negotiations, a protracted proxy war degenerating into guerilla action, or a nuclear exchange. Of all options negotiations lead to the least human suffering.

Okay. I've been up 36 hours, my eyes are garbage, and I can't proof it again. Only sarcastic quips for me until some sleep. Hopefully it's not too disjointed and mostly error free.