So the sources you already sent about Russian increases in weapons production or about German relative difficulties, those are perfectly good. I wasn't saying you needed to prove that stuff again. I was saying, do you have an idea of how much total armaments NATO produces versus Russia? Total number of shells, total number of bullets, drones, things like that? You're right that dollars are a poor way of measuring it; they're just the best I could find.
Yes, I understand that Germany's economy is having some difficulties. The 0.4% number is from your source; I followed one of the links from the source you sent. I didn't pick it out to send to you; I just explored your source a little to try to find out, okay, what are we actually talking about quantitatively?
Regardless of Germany, the UK's Navy, all of that. Do you have an idea of what is the total armaments production, in a form that reflects it more accurately than dollars?
These are sales, not gifts. And they are valued at $106 million and $147 million respectively, around 1,000 times smaller than what's being proposed in the current aid package. And that was still a big deal with stories in the paper and all (the first story notes that it's the first time Biden did it).
And you think I'm drawing from the right wing playbook? Jesus Christ. You cannot concede a single point lost in the debate. You ask for sources on claims I've already sourced.
So, I do get why you think this; I think I was a little unclear. But no, I'm not trying to say you're wrong in the examples you're giving or need to send proof for the same examples again. I'm saying: If you're going to say Russia is outproducing the West in terms of weapons, what are the numbers you're claiming? For total Russian armaments produced vs. NATO armaments produced? Artillery shells or drones are a good metric if it's too complex to get a whole complete picture without falling back into measuring dollars.
You're also saying Russia's using them more effectively, which is a different discussion which is a lot more complex which I'll leave alone for right now.
Meanwhile, Russia has managed to burn through multiple waves of Ukraine's army, funded to the scale of the entire Russian military, with only a portion of its national force.
What happened in the north of the country?
are defeating Ukraine
burn through multiple waves of Ukraine's army
Let me ask you a question. If some middle eastern countries formed into a bloc, funded and armed by Russia, and NATO invaded that bloc, and then the invasion remained within 100 km of the border for 2 years, would you say that represented NATO "defeating" the mideast bloc? Because we were holding off multiple waves?
I honestly have not a ton of nationalistic feeling towards the US. I do have some, yes. Particularly what you're saying about the West being disorganized is true, although I'd much rather have that than a Russia-style "organization."
Mostly I just feel a lot for the people in Ukraine getting invaded, although the honest truth is, US troops have done the same to any number of small countries throughout the world. I'm not "proud" per se of the US if the West wins this fight, although I'll be happy if Ukrainians (and Russian conscripts, for that matter) stop dying. Mostly, I just look at the war the way I look at it, and I think Russia is the aggressor, and so I tend to be opposed to what they're doing in the same way I'm opposed to the US doing it when we're in the invader role.
You can't accuse me of crafting whatever narrative I want while simultaneously claiming I'm not contextualizing things. The narrative emerges from contextualizing things. If you think that just because the narrative is at odds with your beliefs then this means the evidence is being decontextualized, you might just have a bias that needs to be evaluated.
Oh, no doubt. The narrative arrives from details, and it's a lot more complex then just big numbers. But you get what I'm saying, that the truth doesn't come from sheer number of bullet points, but by testing your big conclusions against big objectively true things, right? That's why I keep coming back to things like "the invasion's gone on for 2 years and hasn't gone much of anywhere yet" and "NATO's industrial capacity is $X and Russia's is $Y." You can't just contextualize from details only, and then decide whatever you arrived at is true. Sometimes it will be, sometimes not. Surely that makes sense?