Donald Trump made clear that his personal grudge with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky hasn’t abated during a phone interview with NBC News.

Speaking with Meet the Press anchor Kristen Welker on Saturday, the president knocked Zelensky for offering assistance to the U.S. and Middle Eastern countries, the latter of which the Ukrainian president said on Friday were seeking his aid in sharing drone detection technology.

The “last person we need help from is Zelensky,” Trump told Welker.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -35 points 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    "Serious trouble" is holding the world's supposed second most powerful military to a gain of only 0.8% of Ukraine's territory after the initial invasion?

    "Serious trouble" is a 27:1 casualty ratio in Ukraine's favor, with over 1.2 million dead or wounded on Russia's side?

    If you believe that, I've got a bridge over the Volga to sell you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    The areas which were controlled by Russia at the time of the declaration of annexation amount to more than 90000 km²”.

    Internationally recognized area of Ukraine is 603628 km². Now learn to do the math, because “0.8%” is beyond delusional. The above figure grew since the declaration, too.

    27:1 casualty ratio in Ukraine's favor

    This is hilariously out of touch.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Serious trouble” is a 27:1 casualty ratio in Ukraine’s favor,

    Your other points are true. This, sadly, is not. The situation is at best 4:1, in bad sectors, 3:1. It also varies - wounded Russian soldiers tend to die of their wounds far more often than wounded Ukrainian soldiers.

    However, if it was 2.7:1, it was too pessimistic.

    Edit: link for people who keep downvoting without a clue. CSIS thinks the ratio is more pessimistic. They mention numbers like 2.1 : 1 and 2.5 : 1.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    You're probably the type of person to think the south was winning the civil war, until they didn't.

    Russia's long term strategy ends in failure. Every week that Ukraine still exists, they are one step closer to losing.

    Russia's equipment is finite, Ukraine's is not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'm with you until the last sentence. How is that true?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Supply lines and logistics.

    Ukraine's military equipment is a mix of NATO surplus gear (ample supplies of such gear in most NATO countries, or found on the global markets), homegrown drones/missiles (can be replaced), and various other equipment for sale in the western MIC.

    Russia's primary equipment is gear that was made in Russia or in former Eastern Bloc countries like Ukraine. Russia's equipment being finite comes from two things; they are burning through their vast Soviet surplus at a rate that is not sustainable, and their domestic and their domestic production of equipment cannot backfill those losses of the more modern equipment.

    A bunch of the lynchpin systems Russia relies on cannot even be manufactured anymore, so when radar systems are destroyed, the replacement of such equipment cannot be easily done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Where is China in your assessment?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    For now they're essentially off the table. They seem to be supplying equipment and components not actual military weapons systems like AAA or APVs or things like that.

    This absolutely can change in the future, but it's China's benefit to have a weaker Russia. So, they are making money but not directly helping Russia win. If that makes sense. At least that's what it looks like from my limited perspective.

  • source
  • parent