| FFS... you're getting confused by koube's botched formatting and making the same formatting mistake at the same time! He put the claims that don't pass his sniff test on the same line as his skeptical remarks about those claims, without any formatting to differentiate the two. > "- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates." The first sentence is the claim that doesn't pass his sniff test. The rest of that line is his explanation for why it doesn't pass his sniff test. It should be something like > - "Lancets are winning the war" > Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates. And > "- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today." Should be formatted like > - "Western weapons get less useful by the minute." > This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today. But then you made the same mistake right here: ">Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion." That should be formatted as > "Western weapons get less useful by the minute" > Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion. |
Ooof