Literally fuck off comparing this to a war in Africa. African wars are 95% either pop starvation or cruelties against civilians. Their casualty numbers mean nothing.
>don't worry, mom said russia got enough tanks at home
Yeah....
T-54's and T-34's....if you scrape 10 layers of rust off....and replace all the gaskets...and replace all the wiring that was sold for vodka and krokodil....and lube every part....and find new batteries and sparkplugs...mayve superglue some fake "ERA" on it....then, maybe, maybe, with luck, it'll be in tip top shape....
to be blown to bits by all the Javelins the Yooks have on standby.
Amazing that this is a picture of literal corruption in the flesh, who would be responsible for selling the ceramic plate or whatever and who are they even selling it to?
Ironically no, the T-34s were almost all sold off by the 1970s. Russia had to import several from Cambodia or Laos a few years ago for their Victory Day parades because all of the ones still left in Russia are irreparably fucked. Interestingly enough, they still have some "modernized" T-55s and PT-76s in storage, mainly because their naval infantry units still used them until recently.
This is unironically in Ukraine, it's an old photo of a collection of T-64BVs, T-64Bs, T-64As and T-80s.
That said, Russians nowadays ain't much better, at least the ukros only kept a few hundred in semi-active reserve instead of this these last years.
Cold war artillery shells with no no compounds that were never disposed of are not WMD's you horrible caricature of a man.
No wonder the world hates your warmongering ass.
False. A large number of chemical weapons (mostly ancient artillery shells) we discovered. The wmds based on the intel sauce watching The Rock were never recovered.
Nope. But then US definitions are so nebulous that a pressure cooker with black powder sometimes counts as wmds. If you were old enough to remember the build up to Iraq war, zoomer, you’d know that a few, rusted, useless artillery shells were not what was promised.
>UN:"atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which might have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above."
Find me one definition of WMD that excludes chemical weapons
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>US Military > Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties >high order of destruction >or causing mass casualties
Yeah. Unusable scrap doesn’t cut it. Why do you plebbitors do this?
No. Nearly all oryx seethe is cope.
Sometimes a Russian shill posts something like that to try and discredit but it's very quickly noticed and taken down in minutes, but so far most if not all are vetted before then.
The Russian shill fears the open source intelligence.
>muh disinfo
no one believes censorship is done in good faith fashion
if people say something that's wrong, and you could prove them wrong, you'd do it publicly to delegitimize their position
whenever you delete stuff you're giving it credibility.
you'd think you'd learn that lesson after so many examples
I don't hang out here a lot and your jargon has a learning curve to it
who is copelord? Lira?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>1. i'm not oryx
wtf is an oryx
why do you gays speak in this indescipherable web is retarded slang that only you gays understand >2. i'm not going to do your job of looking up the original video to prove whether he miscounted something
I don't want you to do that >the shitty youtuber video you posted proves no such thing since there's no evidence anyone started their count of destroyed tanks at the arbitrary point where he paused before going on to show two of the tanks getting destroyed
that's fine, trust Globohomo, I don't care.
the video isn't about pointing out a specific instance, its a common repeated tactic.
? the footage he's playing itself seems to show the tanks getting abandoned and/or destroyed kek, his argument is that the crew survived so it's not a loss or something
>please please don't watch it, assume I'm not lying
lololol
no he mocks how NATO copers pause video, count "dead" or "damaged" tanks but then you can just unpause the video the damaged tanks are much less
Of the 4 tanks shown, only one was actually damaged.
its just an example, no need to get your panties in a knot
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
and once he presses play, at least two of the tanks run into mines right away and we never see what became of the rest so what the hell was the point of pausing it before that
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>at least two of the tanks run into mines right
just 1
why would you say "at least" when you're watching a video
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
he seems to skip the explosion but according to his narration another tank seems to get damaged and abandoned at 13:50 and looking at how far those two got it doesn't instill faith in the rest going much further
>so what the hell was the point of pausing it before that
to mock you gays and demonstrate your tactics
so any specific example of oryx using those "tactics"?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>so any specific example of oryx using those "tactics"?
yeah right here >he seems to skip the explosion but according to his narration another tank seems to get damaged and abandoned at 13:50 and looking at how far those two got it doesn't instill faith in the rest going much further
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
1. i'm not oryx and 2. i'm not going to do your job of looking up the original video to prove whether he miscounted something
the shitty youtuber video you posted proves no such thing since there's no evidence anyone started their count of destroyed tanks at the arbitrary point where he paused before going on to show two of the tanks getting destroyed
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>1. i'm not oryx
wtf is an oryx
why do you gays speak in this indescipherable web is retarded slang that only you gays understand >2. i'm not going to do your job of looking up the original video to prove whether he miscounted something
I don't want you to do that >the shitty youtuber video you posted proves no such thing since there's no evidence anyone started their count of destroyed tanks at the arbitrary point where he paused before going on to show two of the tanks getting destroyed
that's fine, trust Globohomo, I don't care.
the video isn't about pointing out a specific instance, its a common repeated tactic.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the record of visually confirmed losses that this discussion started with
visually confirmed are 1825 tank losses, this is already quite much
>the video isn't about pointing out a specific instance, its a common repeated tactic.
any one example, preferably from oryx since they're the ones this whole discussion was about
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
rather than pretending that you need to disprove pro NATO stats, its really this easy, NATO has again and again lied about things small and large, as soon as one side lies a lot, they lose credibility
ANYTHING pro Nato should be assumed to be a lie until properly demonstrated
there's no reasons to take anything the pro NATO side says after the Ghost of Kiev
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
oryx isn't nato and yes, if you make an accusation of them pausing videos ahead of time to pretend intact tanks are losses you're going to have to prove it
i can't think of many nato lies either though >there's no reasons to take anything the pro NATO side says after the Ghost of Kiev
what about starting with "there will be no invasion"
even the ghost of kyiv was a logical conclusion from trusting russian claims of the ukr airforce being destroyed in the first hours of the invasion, if you took that as a true premise in the initial days then any ukrainian plane sighting after that had to be some kind of lone straggler's last stand
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>in the initial days then any ukrainian plane sighting after that had to be some kind of lone straggler's last stand
True. It only became utterly-beyond-belief after we learned just how incompetent the Russian Air Force was.
2 weeks ago
The sign is a subtle joke. The shop is cal...
I don't hang out here a lot and your jargon has a learning curve to it
who is copelord? Lira?
KWABOunderageB&B, FOAD
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Orchestra >Picrel
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>wtf is an oryx
The guy that is the main cataloger of visually confirmed losses? The one that everyone points to that you're arguing against right now? Why are you trying to argue a point about what someone else does when you don't have any idea who they even are?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I was criticizing the concept of "visually confirmed losses" generally
I don't follow cope-sources that count gas-tanks destroy and whose methodology is "trust me bro"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I was criticizing the concept of "visually confirmed losses" generally
Yeah which is almost sole done by oryx
>I don't follow cope-sources that count gas-tanks destroy and whose methodology is "trust me bro"
It's visually confirmed and is attached to an image database for it to be cross checked, it couldn't be soured any better other than actually going to Ukraine and finding the loss on question.
If you're going to criticize something you should actually look into it rather than just repeat whatever a random youtuber says.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>so what the hell was the point of pausing it before that
to mock you gays and demonstrate your tactics
You can call them "soft-skinned general purpose/ utility/logistical support vehicles" and "rotary-wing aviation assets" if the unnecessary specificity and awkward phrasing makes you feel better.
>if they're pumping pro-NATO stats, they're NATO
i'm waiting on you to prove they're pumping stats with a pro-nato bias >I hadn't even heard of Oryx until this thread, if you believe the side that told you about mug snake island that's you
kek like picrel? >who are you alleging said that? Russia has been trying to prevent this conflict since 2014
the kremlin and russhills swore there wouldnd't be an attack until the day the smo started even as western intelligence was calling the invasion
backing militant separatists, the green men and finally invasion were very conflict averse >it was. Ukraine never had any success with any its airforce at all, again what are you talking about?
they're flying to this day, however if you took russian lies about the destruction of ukro aviation and anti-air as true then any activity from those would've had to be some kind of lone anomaly (which it wasn't because the russian always lies)
>if the stats present a positive view from NATO's perspective, it's pro nato
What will you do when you realize reality presents these stats?
Oh fuck its a Pro-NATO reality
More seriously though, you're too much of a retard and a gay to realize this, but the core of "visual confirmations" of losses in this war come from Oryx, who also takes very seriously claims of mis-identifaction and audits existing counts regularly.
Pic related is a snapshot of a recent audit based on claims from vatnik telegram channels. If you have any such similar claims, forward them along.
But you wouldn't know this, nor would you do this, because you are a gay retard.
No (you)s for gays.
>my play is for the lurkers
You know the rest of us aren't making "plays" right? Like, we're not paid and don't really care who's winning, it's just that reality is clearly telling a story about the Russian military being dysfunctional and incompetent.
>Ukraine never had any success with any its airforce at all
That's because the Russians completely destroyed it all on the first day... and they've destroyed it again since then... several times.
>I don't care to convince a propagandist >you cannot convince a man of something his paycheck requires him to not understand. >I play for the lurkers
I'm just here to laugh at Russians and read the funny-type of schizo posting.
>i.e. depicting massive casualties on the Russian side.
visually confirmed, reality is what it is >The entire implication of Minsk was that if NATO didn't abide by their side of the agreement there would be a conflict.
nato? neither the separatists or the ua gov side were able to stop fighting following misk, however especially during zelensky's presidency the ceasefire violations and casualties were declining and the conflict was cooling down until the final separatist spergout that served as pretext to russia's invasion
Why are russian shills so stupid?
They are pulling 70 year old tin cans from storage. This alone is evidence enough russia ran out of modern equipment.
Very cool, now let's see Paul Allen's numbers
>0 slava ukraini losses
updoot or else you are a vatnik shill
Take my heckin updooterino! Slava Ukraini! Monkey man bad.
This tbh
But these numbers are still huge for a post WW2 conflict. This is like warfare in Africa
Literally fuck off comparing this to a war in Africa. African wars are 95% either pop starvation or cruelties against civilians. Their casualty numbers mean nothing.
don't worry, mom said russia got enough tanks at home
russian tanks at home
>don't worry, mom said russia got enough tanks at home
Yeah....
T-54's and T-34's....if you scrape 10 layers of rust off....and replace all the gaskets...and replace all the wiring that was sold for vodka and krokodil....and lube every part....and find new batteries and sparkplugs...mayve superglue some fake "ERA" on it....then, maybe, maybe, with luck, it'll be in tip top shape....
to be blown to bits by all the Javelins the Yooks have on standby.
>and lube every part
comrade conscriptovitch is lubed and ready
Amazing that this is a picture of literal corruption in the flesh, who would be responsible for selling the ceramic plate or whatever and who are they even selling it to?
>who are they even selling it to?
More like sold, years ago. Or never produced in the first place and just pocketed the money.
Ironically no, the T-34s were almost all sold off by the 1970s. Russia had to import several from Cambodia or Laos a few years ago for their Victory Day parades because all of the ones still left in Russia are irreparably fucked. Interestingly enough, they still have some "modernized" T-55s and PT-76s in storage, mainly because their naval infantry units still used them until recently.
This is unironically in Ukraine, it's an old photo of a collection of T-64BVs, T-64Bs, T-64As and T-80s.
That said, Russians nowadays ain't much better, at least the ukros only kept a few hundred in semi-active reserve instead of this these last years.
Waitaminute....
Are those the spare barrels for the tanks just left on the ground?
is that the same source as the Iraqi WMDs ?
trusting a Western source is like trusting a garden gnome
Reminder: we recovered a large number of WMD'a in Iraq, it's just that the nuclear program didn't exist.
Ok garden gnome
Well mein moron, if they didn't have, let's say, chemical weapons, why did Iraq order artillery that was designed to use Sarin and Mustard Gas?
garden gnomes don't like socialist dictators? Bases garden gnomes.
Cold war artillery shells with no no compounds that were never disposed of are not WMD's you horrible caricature of a man.
No wonder the world hates your warmongering ass.
>Chemical weapons aren't chemical weapons.
Yeah
Artillery shells =/= WMD
Sorry
False. A large number of chemical weapons (mostly ancient artillery shells) we discovered. The wmds based on the intel sauce watching The Rock were never recovered.
Isn't that what he just said?
Nope. You may be retarded. See your doctor.
Chemical weapons are wmds
Nope. But then US definitions are so nebulous that a pressure cooker with black powder sometimes counts as wmds. If you were old enough to remember the build up to Iraq war, zoomer, you’d know that a few, rusted, useless artillery shells were not what was promised.
>UN:"atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which might have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above."
Find me one definition of WMD that excludes chemical weapons
>US Military
> Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties
>high order of destruction
>or causing mass casualties
Yeah. Unusable scrap doesn’t cut it. Why do you plebbitors do this?
Ok, garden gnome
visually confirmed are 1825 tank losses, this is already quite much
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
>visually confirmed
i.e. we paused a video and pretended active tanks are destroyed
any example of them doing this
No. Nearly all oryx seethe is cope.
Sometimes a Russian shill posts something like that to try and discredit but it's very quickly noticed and taken down in minutes, but so far most if not all are vetted before then.
The Russian shill fears the open source intelligence.
>muh disinfo
no one believes censorship is done in good faith fashion
if people say something that's wrong, and you could prove them wrong, you'd do it publicly to delegitimize their position
whenever you delete stuff you're giving it credibility.
you'd think you'd learn that lesson after so many examples
Removing information you know to be inaccurate from your own website is censorship?
History Legends talks about it around 12:55
>History Legends
just delete my comments moron you know you're going to do it eventually.
does he know the current whereabouts of copelord?
I don't hang out here a lot and your jargon has a learning curve to it
who is copelord? Lira?
lurk moar
? the footage he's playing itself seems to show the tanks getting abandoned and/or destroyed kek, his argument is that the crew survived so it's not a loss or something
>please please don't watch it, assume I'm not lying
lololol
no he mocks how NATO copers pause video, count "dead" or "damaged" tanks but then you can just unpause the video the damaged tanks are much less
Of the 4 tanks shown, only one was actually damaged.
its just an example, no need to get your panties in a knot
and once he presses play, at least two of the tanks run into mines right away and we never see what became of the rest so what the hell was the point of pausing it before that
>at least two of the tanks run into mines right
just 1
why would you say "at least" when you're watching a video
he seems to skip the explosion but according to his narration another tank seems to get damaged and abandoned at 13:50 and looking at how far those two got it doesn't instill faith in the rest going much further
so any specific example of oryx using those "tactics"?
>so any specific example of oryx using those "tactics"?
yeah right here
>he seems to skip the explosion but according to his narration another tank seems to get damaged and abandoned at 13:50 and looking at how far those two got it doesn't instill faith in the rest going much further
1. i'm not oryx and 2. i'm not going to do your job of looking up the original video to prove whether he miscounted something
the shitty youtuber video you posted proves no such thing since there's no evidence anyone started their count of destroyed tanks at the arbitrary point where he paused before going on to show two of the tanks getting destroyed
>1. i'm not oryx
wtf is an oryx
why do you gays speak in this indescipherable web is retarded slang that only you gays understand
>2. i'm not going to do your job of looking up the original video to prove whether he miscounted something
I don't want you to do that
>the shitty youtuber video you posted proves no such thing since there's no evidence anyone started their count of destroyed tanks at the arbitrary point where he paused before going on to show two of the tanks getting destroyed
that's fine, trust Globohomo, I don't care.
the video isn't about pointing out a specific instance, its a common repeated tactic.
the record of visually confirmed losses that this discussion started with
>the video isn't about pointing out a specific instance, its a common repeated tactic.
any one example, preferably from oryx since they're the ones this whole discussion was about
rather than pretending that you need to disprove pro NATO stats, its really this easy, NATO has again and again lied about things small and large, as soon as one side lies a lot, they lose credibility
ANYTHING pro Nato should be assumed to be a lie until properly demonstrated
there's no reasons to take anything the pro NATO side says after the Ghost of Kiev
oryx isn't nato and yes, if you make an accusation of them pausing videos ahead of time to pretend intact tanks are losses you're going to have to prove it
i can't think of many nato lies either though
>there's no reasons to take anything the pro NATO side says after the Ghost of Kiev
what about starting with "there will be no invasion"
even the ghost of kyiv was a logical conclusion from trusting russian claims of the ukr airforce being destroyed in the first hours of the invasion, if you took that as a true premise in the initial days then any ukrainian plane sighting after that had to be some kind of lone straggler's last stand
>in the initial days then any ukrainian plane sighting after that had to be some kind of lone straggler's last stand
True. It only became utterly-beyond-belief after we learned just how incompetent the Russian Air Force was.
KWABOunderageB&B, FOAD
>Orchestra
>Picrel
>wtf is an oryx
The guy that is the main cataloger of visually confirmed losses? The one that everyone points to that you're arguing against right now? Why are you trying to argue a point about what someone else does when you don't have any idea who they even are?
I was criticizing the concept of "visually confirmed losses" generally
I don't follow cope-sources that count gas-tanks destroy and whose methodology is "trust me bro"
>I was criticizing the concept of "visually confirmed losses" generally
Yeah which is almost sole done by oryx
>I don't follow cope-sources that count gas-tanks destroy and whose methodology is "trust me bro"
It's visually confirmed and is attached to an image database for it to be cross checked, it couldn't be soured any better other than actually going to Ukraine and finding the loss on question.
If you're going to criticize something you should actually look into it rather than just repeat whatever a random youtuber says.
>so what the hell was the point of pausing it before that
to mock you gays and demonstrate your tactics
this just in, i have fucked approximately 2,000 bitches (source: me)
>source: kyiv ""independent""
its like asking a pig about rocket science
original source is ukrainian mod
>vehicles and fuel tanks
>helicopters
these are such fucking garbage categories I unironically get a little upset every time I see them
You can call them "soft-skinned general purpose/ utility/logistical support vehicles" and "rotary-wing aviation assets" if the unnecessary specificity and awkward phrasing makes you feel better.
how long until russians fight with sticks and stones?
Ukraine has started using Turkish cluster ammo.
Source: just trust me, bro.
saved
>8 artillery systems
man i really hope someone is collating all of these, i want a full interactive google maps timeline at the end of the war
I know that we have to divide by two this numbers but what the fuck happened to go back to +1000 again?
>lurked the catalog for 5 minutes
oh...
>but what the fuck happened to go back to +1000 again?
Vuhledar and also Bakhmut.
gb2/gaia/
>gb2/gaia/
I have no idea what that means
Of course you don't, newfriend.
>if they're pumping pro-NATO stats, they're NATO
i'm waiting on you to prove they're pumping stats with a pro-nato bias
>I hadn't even heard of Oryx until this thread, if you believe the side that told you about mug snake island that's you
kek like picrel?
>who are you alleging said that? Russia has been trying to prevent this conflict since 2014
the kremlin and russhills swore there wouldnd't be an attack until the day the smo started even as western intelligence was calling the invasion
backing militant separatists, the green men and finally invasion were very conflict averse
>it was. Ukraine never had any success with any its airforce at all, again what are you talking about?
they're flying to this day, however if you took russian lies about the destruction of ukro aviation and anti-air as true then any activity from those would've had to be some kind of lone anomaly (which it wasn't because the russian always lies)
>if the stats present a positive view from NATO's perspective, it's pro nato
What will you do when you realize reality presents these stats?
Oh fuck its a Pro-NATO reality
More seriously though, you're too much of a retard and a gay to realize this, but the core of "visual confirmations" of losses in this war come from Oryx, who also takes very seriously claims of mis-identifaction and audits existing counts regularly.
Pic related is a snapshot of a recent audit based on claims from vatnik telegram channels. If you have any such similar claims, forward them along.
But you wouldn't know this, nor would you do this, because you are a gay retard.
No (you)s for gays.
>my play is for the lurkers
You know the rest of us aren't making "plays" right? Like, we're not paid and don't really care who's winning, it's just that reality is clearly telling a story about the Russian military being dysfunctional and incompetent.
>Ukraine never had any success with any its airforce at all
That's because the Russians completely destroyed it all on the first day... and they've destroyed it again since then... several times.
based and correct pilled
pic rel
>can't even define what he is against
>>can't even define what he is against
But it is russian state that enforces homosexuality with gay rapes
Stop watching porn
define globohomo
"Globohomo" means whatever "bad" is in their individual minds.
>if the stats present a positive view from NATO's perspective, it's pro nato
You don't believe in the existence of an objective reality, do you?
>I don't care to convince a propagandist
>you cannot convince a man of something his paycheck requires him to not understand.
>I play for the lurkers
I'm just here to laugh at Russians and read the funny-type of schizo posting.
>The surname "Rothschild" exists.
>This means something.
Boy, we sure do live in a society, don't we anon?
>i.e. depicting massive casualties on the Russian side.
visually confirmed, reality is what it is
>The entire implication of Minsk was that if NATO didn't abide by their side of the agreement there would be a conflict.
nato? neither the separatists or the ua gov side were able to stop fighting following misk, however especially during zelensky's presidency the ceasefire violations and casualties were declining and the conflict was cooling down until the final separatist spergout that served as pretext to russia's invasion
tons of deleted comments
chud jannies seething
Ooops
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/12/01/eu-commission-deletes-references-to-100000-ukrainian-combat-losses-in-presidents-speech/amp/
Why are russian shills so stupid?
They are pulling 70 year old tin cans from storage. This alone is evidence enough russia ran out of modern equipment.
teeeheeeheee*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~))