4 ms·

It's really interesting: what are your estimations of Ukrainian losses? Of course, Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you faile

• red-iron-pine 2y ago
  There is no "you failed there" in this, I'm not in the US. I can read statistics though. The ad hominim + terrible karma and post history suggests that sedan_baklazhan is a shill. But I'll bite. Afghanistan was absolutely being funded and armed by Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan -- the Russians basically pushed as many angry Chechens to head there, both to hammer the US, but also to get them out of RUS and killed or captured. There was the infamous shipment of .50 cal sniper rifles from China to the AFG that only got stopped because Dutch intelligence decided to doublecheck a few trivial details. 20 years of such incidents. On the subject of being able to read OSINT tier speculations and statistics, credible-ish sources suggest that Ukraine has been taking 50% or less casualties -- at one point even as low as 1:6 as they were getting pushed out of Bakhmut. Still, I'd be willing to guess as high as 400k, maybe even 500k casualties. WIA to KIA ratio is probably better than the Russians, too, but nowhere near US numbers of 10%.
• mcphage 2y ago
  > Afghanistan wasn't being armed and funded by 50 countries - and yet you failed there.. Exactly—so now imagine how much worse it would have gone for the US had the Taliban been armed and funded by 50 countries. Of course, the Taliban were being armed and funded by other countries. But probably not 50.