0·
3 days agowho blames Ukraine for being invaded
- 8 Posts
- 91 Comments
Joined 11 days ago
Cake day: March 5th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I won’t give my own opinion on this (I will only get downvoted to oblivion and many already know my opinion). What I will say is, was this not obvious?
Not only do they NOT have a deficit, they had the third largest suplus.
Huh? Your source literally shows that America has a trade surplus with Australia and that Australia runs a significant trade deficit with the US.
If you actually care to look at it, you noticed that US exports more to Australia than they import, that is why
Trade Imbalance (USD Billion) = 17.7
Because exports to Australia (33.6)
Is larger than imports from Australia (15.9)
So 33.6-15.9 is 17.7
The U.S. goods trade surplus with Australia was $17.9 billion in 2024, a 1.6 percent increase ($279.7 million) over 2023.
Nice, you yourself even admit that US has a trade surplus with Australia. LOL
Do you not know what: “Australia has a trade deficit with the US” means?
It means America has a trade surplus with Australia aka Australia imports more from America than they export to America or in other words America exports to Australia more than they import from Australia thus America have a trade surplus with Australia and Australia has a trade deficit with America.
Yeah no.
Again, Australia has a trade deficit with the US and what America pays for Australian steel and aluminum makes up just a tiny fraction of Australia’s GDP but on the other hand, Australia import far more from the US than they export.
Meaning people would just look at the increased inflation that retaliation would cause and say that is why you should vote the other side.
Australia has no bargaining chip unlike Canada nor is it as intertwined with American economy like Canada is (whom can actually damage American economy because for example, Canada exports oil and electricity to US).
And it’s not like Australians are just taking punches from America as, “Aussies have vowed to boycott American goods”.
Problem is that Australia has a trade deficit with the US and with an election in a couple of months, retaliating only means the right wing opposition has a greater chance of winning and the right wing opposition wants to give rare mineral deposits to America.
Do you see why this is a problem?
Edit: And I am just called a troll because I don’t want Australian MAGA, LOL.
Retaliate by destroying your own economy and gaining Sweet FA out of it? I’d be more willing to agree if you can actually show me how retaliating with own tariffs would disadvantage Trump in any way. No, it is just bait to get Australia to commit to harming their own economy so Trump can buy everything up.
Eh, if Australia retaliated with their own tariffs then all that would happen is that Australia’s economy would be damaged more compared to if they had not which only benefits Trump. It is just bait to get Australia to commit to harming their own economy. Australia doesn’t really have much sway in America’s economy as far as I know.
Good, if the children want their food then they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and actually work for it.
The rich meanwhile, worked hard for their tax cuts!
/s
Great Leader Kim Jong Un more or less had a split with Trump after the failure to make a deal.
DPRK Today no longer talks about Trump being wise.
Great Leader Kim Jong Un’s beautiful sister even blamed Trump recently for stepping up military provocations.
KCNA denounced Trump’s proposal to takeover Gaza stating its slaughter and robbery.
After the American election, Comrade Kim Jong Un vowed to implement the toughest anti-U.S. policy
So no, the Great Leader is not going to join this ‘circlejerk’, relationship with America is not good and will remain so until Trump fixes the relationship.
Europe can’t even produce their own ballistic missiles which have been a game changer in Ukraine as shown by the effectiveness of ATACMS and Iskander-M. And Russia has been massively out producing Europe in terms of air-launched cruise missiles so don’t bring up Storm Shadow (Kh-101 is longer range than Storm Shadow anyways) or other similar weapon systems.
Russia produced more T-90Ms (a very good tank mind you) last year than the amount of tanks the entire German military has. Production was 20-30 per month last year but this has likely since doubled. Losses for T-90Ms have been low as per Oryx with production massively outpacing losses (one to two months of production last year was enough to replace yearly T-90M losses).
Even T-72B3 has a superior fire control system than the forty year old system used on the Leopard 2A6.
The UK practically sent their entire stockpile of SPGs to Ukraine thus have gutted their military to nil and Poland thrown half of their stockpile of SPGs to Ukraine for example. Russia is producing more artillery shells than the entirety of Europe combined according to pro-Ukraine sources. People forget that tanks are not the only weapon that armies have. Almost every European country has complained about massive shortages of ammunition due to it all being given to Ukraine. France stated they could only fight Russia for a few weeks before running out of ammo. Other European countries have stated similar things.
Most of Russian Armed Forces aren’t even in Ukraine, majority of forces in Ukraine are from irregular volunteer formations recruited from regions across Russia.
Hence why casualties amongst Russian professionals are low:
Motorized Rifles: 6,457
VDV: 3,257
Naval Infantry: 1,305
Tank Crew: 1,806
Artillery: 851
Special Forces: 736
Engineering: 291
Navy: 291
VVS: 265
Other: 957
Total: 16,216
Source: MediaZona
For comparison:
US losses from 2003-2005 mainly against insurgents: 5175
Source: Defense Casualty Analysis System
Edit: In comparison, Russia had just annihilated tens of thousands of Ukraine’s troops from the most elite units at Kursk oblast (up to over 100K or about a quarter of Ukrainian combat strength) and this might be the reason for the reports that state that few troops could defend Sumy. We know that these are the most elite units as they had an unusually high amount of western equipment including Patriots which are typically reserved to defend cities in the western parts of Ukraine. Ukraine has recently ordered the evacuation of multiple regions in Sumy.
With their nonexistent stocks of ammunition and SPGs (they already sent most of it to Ukraine)?
How unfortunate, I hope the arms stop flowing again.
US still thinks it’s your fault, Zelenskyy.
Apparently, Barack Obama is to blame.
Lol.
plan for a new attack
Russia has been drilling and preparing troops for a river crossing alongside bringing in additional supplies likely in preparation to cross the Dnieper and they had captured land near the Kherson bridge.
Without the Ukrainian attacks on say Russian command posts in Kherson Oblast like what happened on March 5, these preparations would likely be easier.
Alternatively, a Russian FAB strike in Kherson allegedly took down a headquarters for Ukrainian drone operators and with a ceasefire, this can be repaired or whatever.
TLDR: Russia would likely also use ceasefire to prepare for further operations assuming they accept it.
He also was caught lying multiple times including towards a victim during the more recent fire.
What does one expect from someone who set their own state on fire?
Believe what you want.
There is actually some proof that Trump is planning to invade Mexico. Of course it doesn’t mean he will.
Trump sent in elements of 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade, and additional support units which includes elements of 82nd ABN DIV, 101st ABN DIV, 4th ID, and 10th Mountain Brigade to the southern border over a week ago.
These are combat troops unlike the troop deployments to Mexico under first Trump presidency which were civil affairs and engineers.
Additional units albeit National Guard are being prepared to be deployed such as the 36th ID, 1st Squadron, and 124th CAV REG.
Indeed, as Critical Magazine states:
“Invading Mexico to wipe out the cartels would effectively jettison everything America learned from our mistakes in the War on Terror. It would be costly, both in lives and treasure. It would be deeply unpopular — and it would fail.”
“For starters, the cartels are not mere gangs. The cartels effectively control chunks of Mexico and are in many ways ingrained into society there. They are not a separate external growth which can be lasered off with a well-aimed cruise missile: the infection has spread throughout the body. Wiping out the cartels would require our soldiers going door to door, house to house, waging war. This is not to even mention the massive cost of such an attack. A Harvard study found that the total cost of the Iraq War was about $3 trillion; we have no reason to think Mexico would be cheaper.”
As some guy on the internet stated:
“There are mountains in Mexico as tough as Afghanistan. Mexicans taking to the hills, like the Afghans, would give the US a constant headache until the Americans are thrown out. Remember, like the US, Mexico started as an insurgency. Every. Single. Mexican conflict has been asymmetrical guerilla warfare (heck, that’s what the drug war is in the first place, that’s why it’s so hard - now we’ve just multiplied the problem by sending the entire Mexican Army packing to the forests and mountains). That’s what Mexico knows best. And that’s a nightmare scenario for the US.”