Putin = Nero?


Two apparent experts make the case. It is a pretty good one – IMO.

10 thoughts on “Putin = Nero?

  1. Casualties and matériel losses are astounding, even if off by half. Even so, the war started with partial control of the Donbas and Crimea. And after 14 months, or 8 years if you consider Putin’s early adventures in Ukraine, and incredible losses, the situation has barely changed.

    Russia had a long term lease for its base at Sevastopol before the various invasions. I think they will lose that after the dust clears.

    Ukraine is fighting for its very survival. Putin is not and it shows.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “the situation has barely changed”

      A number of significant changes have occurred. Ukraine today has no viable economy and it has far less ability to fight the war than it started with. Russia, in contrast, has mobilized sufficiently to deter a NATO incursion that might be needed to reinforce or replace the Ukrainian army.


  2. I don’t think The Hill paints an accurate picture.

    For example: “The highest cost is in lives. In February, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense estimated Moscow by then had ‘suffered’ more than 200,000 casualties, including as many as 60,000 dead.”

    One wonders where MoD’s numbers come from. Russian casualty numbers from other sources, including the U.S. Joint Chiefs, are very different:


    Also, The Hill doesn’t cite Ukraine’s casualty numbers for comparison. Doug MacGregor continues to repeat his estimate that Ukraine to date has losses of at least 250,000 dead. A reasonable multiplier would equate that number to 750,000 irretrievable casualties total.

    Similar distortions apply to The Hill’s description of the Russian economy. Russia itself has reported that it is in a recession, but that’s not the same as being in economic collapse. The Hill is only guessing that Russia’s ability to continue to fight is severely degraded.


    1. The Hill piece states categorically that the opinions are those of the authors and not necessarily that of The Hill. Yet, The Hill finds them legitimate enough to include them on their page. Did you even see who the authors were? Did you look into their bona fides before commenting about what they wrote? (An economist who studies and knows international business and economics and an Army intelligence officer who specialized in that region) Probably not because you won’t even do that for your own sources. I’ve had to do it for you several times and even with all of the evidence showing how untrustworthy your sources are, you continue to tout them as gospel.

      YOUR site is from mid-December. The MOD’s numbers are three months later.

      MacGregor, Putin’s American Mouthpiece, couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it, yet you continue to post his bullshit as some “proof”.

      The two people who wrote The Hill piece linked to several pieces of evidence throughout the article backing their assertions.

      But you go ahead and believe your source, singularly. It must be nice and cozy in your silo.

      Your idea of “distortions” are jut facts you don’t like because it makes you and your sources look foolish.


      1. RE: “Your idea of ‘distortions’ are jut facts you don’t like because it makes you and your sources look foolish.”

        You should read my comments more carefully. Maybe this will help:

        ASSERTION: The article in The Hill paints an inaccurate picture.


        • The Russian casualty numbers given are substantially different from numbers other sources cite (BBC, U.S. Joint Chiefs)
        • No Ukrainian casualty numbers are given for comparison.

        • Russia’s economic recession is real, but not necessarily relevant to its ability to wage war.

        It doesn’t matter that The Hill’s authors have bona fides. The assertion and substantiation still apply.


        1. Don’t lecture me.

          Assertion: You use bullshit and live in a silo of information and refuse to accept anyone else facts.

          Substantiation: Douglas MacGregor and others that you use as sources have been shown to be nothing but pro-Putin, isolationist dolts who are anti-Democracy, and anti-globalists. In the 21st Century, globalism is a key to economic survival. And isolationism, as shown in previous attempts, is the road to destruction and downfall.


          1. RE: “Douglas MacGregor and others that you use as sources have been shown to be nothing but pro-Putin, isolationist dolts who are anti-Democracy, and anti-globalists.”



          2. Bull? Really? I have called out your sources for what they are. You have never been able to effectively defend them as reliable or anything resembling reliable.

            And once again you have failed to effectively defend them or your use usage of them as reliable sources.

            Enjoy your Friday Eve.


          3. RE: “I have called out your sources for what they are. ”

            You think you have, but your opinion doesn’t count. Not once have you substantiated your opinion of MacGregor, for example.


          4. Bull!

            I have substantiated my opinion several times. You just don’t like the fact that your BOY is in Putin’s back pocket. I provided more than enough substantiation on more than one occasion, you just disregard it. Or say something silly, like “Bull”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s