You're such an expert on Russia that you have never heard of defenestration.

I said I didn't understand the sentences, not individual words. Ironic that your response is condescending despite your simple error.

I bet you haven't heard of any of these people either.

What about it?

I can only understand your point if you actually state it coherently. I would prefer not to guess.

When was the last time Russia officially released casualty figures? It hasn't since the very beginning of the war. And even then they were laughably inaccurate. Instead they have been saying that everything is going according to plan.

This is irrelevant to anything I've said. What is your logic, here? What do you think you are responding to?

UK, Economist, Ukraine. They all agree on this.

I asked for your best source. You listed two nation-states and the name of a magazine.

Again: show me your best source. You have a very specific claim. Where does it come from? There are numbers. Show me those numbers.

You didn't understand my answer.

No, I did understand it - as a deflection that avoided answering my question. Please try again in good faith.

Yes, it does. You said Russia can easily trade with the outside world. Going through middle-men in not easy, cheap or fast.

You are confused. What actually happened is that you asked me why Russia was using middlemen and I answeted that it is because they provide an easy way around financial restrictions. You are now trying to quibble about the meaning of "easy" and introducing quantities like expense and delay, but this does not actually address anything meaningful in my response. I think you have forgotten why you even asked the question. You even left out half of my original response, lol.

The financial reports of Uralvagonzavod. At least it gives and upper bound to the number of tanks they are able to produce.

Is that so? Can you show me these financials?

You have done nothing of the sort

Please try to be less contrarian and instead participate in good faith. It is an obvious truth that I have mostly been poking holes in your claims. This, combined with yiu not asking questions, is why you are now so frustrated that I've asked you for further backing for your always-multiplying claims and I haven't had to provide additional specifics on basically anything.

You have ignored the direct evidence I have provided

I have actually quoted and responded directly to everything you have said. Please do your best to be accurate in your statements.

instead kept stead arguing that you are correct while providing no evidence for it.

I have provided plenty of specifics comporting with my claims but my offer still stands for teaching you how to ask questions.

You are not comparing like for like. You are taking figures from a time period when Russian figures were even worse. [...]

It is countries comparable in different ways and it is within the last few years. It shows that the current inflation rate is within norms that make some people hand wring but nothing like an emergency. If we wanted to really dive in we would need to look at real wages. Again, you are objectively wrong that this is much worse. It is okay to admit when you are wrong about something.

For comparison, what is Argentina's current inflation rate?

The reason there wasn't is because USA was just about the only industrialized nation capable of mass producing things after WW2. [...]

Oh, so you know that the vague generalization you made is wrong? Glad we are in agreement, then.

The mental gymnastics you have to go through to keep your opinion without providing any evidence on full display.

No, that was an example of basic humility and then moving forward. The fact that it seems alien and wrong to you may explain why you keep choosing to die on absurd hills and multiply incorrect attempts at nitpicking. Ask yourself why you can't just say, "a 7% yearly inflation rate is in line with comparable countries in the last few years". Would it mean that PUTIN WINS!?

Just a few comments ago you were arguing that wages weren't rising and now they are.

No I wasn't.

I suggest you do the same.

The salient difference here is that I do that and you don't. Another trivial fact that you must, against all reason, dispute.

Which is it?

The two are not incompatible. I will wait for you to think about it and then tell me how you think that could be the case.

You have made specific claims that you have never proven or have been proven be factually incorrect.

Only one claim, actually, and it was just me forgetting the newer stats and instead recollecting of the ruble from last year. This is not comparable to 20-30 specious claims. It is also quite different in that I easily acknowledge a trivial error and move on while you (1) double down on every absurdity with new silly generalizations and guesswork and (2) seem to think that it is actually a bad thing to acknowledge a trivial error and move on.

Very revealing.

Even when I have repeatedly asked for proof you have not provided it.

You're just making things up, now. Show one (1) example of you repeatedly asking for proof and me not doing do.

Instead you have demanded that I do all the heavy lifting. Which I am no longer willing to do.

No, I've just asked you to back up claims. It's not my fault you have decided to make so many, and while clearly hastily Googling things. There would be fewer if you could acknowledge the obviously true things I say instead of trying to pick new fights about them.

Good day, sir.

Please avoid the use of gendered assumptions.