Why Are We in Ukraine?

915,208 Views | 9815 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by Redbrickbear
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

The_barBEARian said:




Really tough day for you and this Richard fellow.
Tough is when it sinks in that this took a year and a half to plan and it didn't change a thing on the battlefield. That it qualifies as a major Ukrainian accomplishment tells you everything you need to know.
Believe it or not, if you look at it narrowly, I agree with you.

But I don't look at it that way.

Ukraine is not going to win this war directly. Its best hope is to end the war on decent terms.

To do that, battlefield "success" is only a part of it. Ukraine must also:

- maintain military morale.
- keep Ukrainians engaged and positive.
- plant seeds of doubt in Russians and Russian leaders.
- show leaders and people of supporting countries that they competing.

This truly historic op helps in all of these areas. And, again, if I were a betting man, I'd bet a good chunk of money that more is coming.
Morale and the rest is important if you have a strategy for winning. Otherwise you're just postponing the inevitable. The fundamentals have never been there for Ukraine. It might be different if they were actually willing to negotiate, but look at what they consider "decent terms." Full Russian withdrawal, reparations, and regime change in Moscow? It's everything they've failed to win on the battlefield, and then some. Why would Putin agree?

The only explanation is that Zelensky is back to his perennial strategy of trying to drag us deeper into the war, possibly with the help of some in the United States. This is the second major provocation in recent days (following the drone attack on Putin's helicopter) that Trump may or may not have been aware of. Either possibility is troubling.
Both sides have presented unreasonable offers. That's how bargaining works. I'm sure both have considerable room to move. No idea how much. Russia is still demanding all the nutty things it demanded prior to the invasion. Ukraine still grasping to Crimea and NATO, but I think Zelensky knows both are gone.

I've seen no reports of Ukraine demanding Russian regime change.

I think you're overthinking it. Zelensky's goal is a continued stalemate with the occasional small victory, hoping that leads to a deal that maintains Ukraine's sovereignty and most of the east.

There was no attack on Putin's helicopter. Of course, I would not mind if there was . . . .
Putin's helicopter was reportedly targeted by drones on May 20 in the Kursk region.

Ukraine has from the beginning demanded that Putin face a war crimes tribunal, which implies regime change.

The strategic question isn't whether you find Russia's position reasonable. It's whether you can give them an incentive to abandon it. This attack won't accomplish that. Note also that Ukraine has revised its estimate of Russia's losses from 40 planes to 12. After studying satellite images, Western analysts quoted by Reuters said only that "several" appeared to have been damaged or destroyed.
So, Ukraine's call for an international war crime tribunal to examine Putin's conduct is an "implied" call for regime change in direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

Lol. There is that trademark spin we've all come to know and love. You're a hoot.
There's been very little in terms of direct negotiation with Ukraine. The US and Russia are the principal parties to the conflict, and they both increasingly see Zelensky as an obstacle.
And yet, there's been no demand by Ukraine that Putin step down in any of the negotiations. You're just wholesale making **** up at this point.
If anyone's making stuff up, it's those who say Russia has always demanded regime change in Kiev. I made a similar point to yours--what kind of sense would it have made for Putin to make such a demand while negotiating in 2022? Of course the difference is that Putin wasn't calling for Zelensky's arrest at the time. Absurd as it is, that's exactly the kind of thing Zelensky does. Maybe you should take it up with him. It's almost as if he's not serious about negotiations and just wants a ceasefire to reconstitute his forces.
Well, let's use your logic for a moment. You allege that Ukraine is calling for regime change because it wants Putin to be prosecuted. We know that since the beginning of this war, Russia has attempted to assassinate Zelensky literally dozens of times. Does that not qualify as a demand for regime change, using the logic you've employed regarding war crimes prosecution?
The Russians could take out Zelensky any time they wanted.


They've tried for over 3 years
Not really.
There's some pretty well-documented failed assassination attempts. Are you arguing they were half-hearted?

Russia could win the war pretty quickly with the use of nukes as well. There's a reason they haven't used them.

But again, this doesn't change the point - Russia has tried for years to kill Zelensky.
They are actually rather poorly documented. A few attempts have been claimed, and one Ukrainian official said simply that he "believed" there had been a dozen or more. The best known attempt was carried out by Ukrainian military officers with alleged ties to Russia, but we only have Ukraine's word for that. An attempt by Ukraine's military makes plenty of sense given widespread discontent with Zelensky's leadership. Putin on the other hand has plenty for which to thank Zelensky. His unwavering stubbornness and tendency to reinforce failure have stymied negotiations, but they've also greatly helped Russia on the battlefield. Anyway, the bottom line is that Zelensky spends most of his time in a bunker in Kyiv with little or no air defense at this point. If Putin really wanted him gone, he'd be buried alive tomorrow.


Nothing but Russian propaganda BS from the lying traitor.
Bear8084
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

Sam Lowry said:

sombear said:

The_barBEARian said:




Really tough day for you and this Richard fellow.
Tough is when it sinks in that this took a year and a half to plan and it didn't change a thing on the battlefield. That it qualifies as a major Ukrainian accomplishment tells you everything you need to know.
Believe it or not, if you look at it narrowly, I agree with you.

But I don't look at it that way.

Ukraine is not going to win this war directly. Its best hope is to end the war on decent terms.

To do that, battlefield "success" is only a part of it. Ukraine must also:

- maintain military morale.
- keep Ukrainians engaged and positive.
- plant seeds of doubt in Russians and Russian leaders.
- show leaders and people of supporting countries that they competing.

This truly historic op helps in all of these areas. And, again, if I were a betting man, I'd bet a good chunk of money that more is coming.
Morale and the rest is important if you have a strategy for winning. Otherwise you're just postponing the inevitable. The fundamentals have never been there for Ukraine. It might be different if they were actually willing to negotiate, but look at what they consider "decent terms." Full Russian withdrawal, reparations, and regime change in Moscow? It's everything they've failed to win on the battlefield, and then some. Why would Putin agree?

The only explanation is that Zelensky is back to his perennial strategy of trying to drag us deeper into the war, possibly with the help of some in the United States. This is the second major provocation in recent days (following the drone attack on Putin's helicopter) that Trump may or may not have been aware of. Either possibility is troubling.
Both sides have presented unreasonable offers. That's how bargaining works. I'm sure both have considerable room to move. No idea how much. Russia is still demanding all the nutty things it demanded prior to the invasion. Ukraine still grasping to Crimea and NATO, but I think Zelensky knows both are gone.

I've seen no reports of Ukraine demanding Russian regime change.

I think you're overthinking it. Zelensky's goal is a continued stalemate with the occasional small victory, hoping that leads to a deal that maintains Ukraine's sovereignty and most of the east.

There was no attack on Putin's helicopter. Of course, I would not mind if there was . . . .
Putin's helicopter was reportedly targeted by drones on May 20 in the Kursk region.

Ukraine has from the beginning demanded that Putin face a war crimes tribunal, which implies regime change.

The strategic question isn't whether you find Russia's position reasonable. It's whether you can give them an incentive to abandon it. This attack won't accomplish that. Note also that Ukraine has revised its estimate of Russia's losses from 40 planes to 12. After studying satellite images, Western analysts quoted by Reuters said only that "several" appeared to have been damaged or destroyed.
So, Ukraine's call for an international war crime tribunal to examine Putin's conduct is an "implied" call for regime change in direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

Lol. There is that trademark spin we've all come to know and love. You're a hoot.
There's been very little in terms of direct negotiation with Ukraine. The US and Russia are the principal parties to the conflict, and they both increasingly see Zelensky as an obstacle.
And yet, there's been no demand by Ukraine that Putin step down in any of the negotiations. You're just wholesale making **** up at this point.
If anyone's making stuff up, it's those who say Russia has always demanded regime change in Kiev. I made a similar point to yours--what kind of sense would it have made for Putin to make such a demand while negotiating in 2022? Of course the difference is that Putin wasn't calling for Zelensky's arrest at the time. Absurd as it is, that's exactly the kind of thing Zelensky does. Maybe you should take it up with him. It's almost as if he's not serious about negotiations and just wants a ceasefire to reconstitute his forces.
Well, let's use your logic for a moment. You allege that Ukraine is calling for regime change because it wants Putin to be prosecuted. We know that since the beginning of this war, Russia has attempted to assassinate Zelensky literally dozens of times. Does that not qualify as a demand for regime change, using the logic you've employed regarding war crimes prosecution?
The Russians could take out Zelensky any time they wanted.


Just when Sam couldn't look anymore stupid. Keep bending over for your pimp, we all know you love it.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Every politician who added to our debt by sending money to corrupt oligarchs in Ukraine should be in jail.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
ron.reagan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
Do you follow current events? This news broke about 5 minutes after the drones hit. Nobody is going to the tell US government anything they don't want to be on Truth Social
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
it's not necessary to take out the entire Russian strategic bomber fleet, just enough to make it impossible for them to adequately cover all missions at once. which is where they are now. This attack created a vulnerability they can only fix after the war concludes. And it did so with (highly) plausible deniability.

We are all safer today.
Thank you, Ukraine.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:


"(Russian imperialism) which of course has been a characteristic of Russian foreign policy for centuries...."

Where have we heard that before?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MOSCOW, July 1 (Reuters) - Russia has taken full control of Ukraine's eastern Luhansk region, more than three years after President Vladimir Putin ordered thousands of troops into Ukraine in February 2022, the Russian-backed head of the region told Russian state television.

Luhansk, which has an area of 26,700 square km (10,308 square miles), is the first Ukrainian region to fall fully under the established control of Russian forces since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At that rate, it'll take a couple of centuries for Russia to win.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?


Your imagination...
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Gracias
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Legacy media?
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
that's why I used the modifier "complicit"

There is a handful of media that has not been complicit. They are the ones that typically get their stories spiked.

LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

MOSCOW, July 1 (Reuters) - Russia has taken full control of Ukraine's eastern Luhansk region, more than three years after President Vladimir Putin ordered thousands of troops into Ukraine in February 2022, the Russian-backed head of the region told Russian state television.

Luhansk, which has an area of 26,700 square km (10,308 square miles), is the first Ukrainian region to fall fully under the established control of Russian forces since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.


Zelenskyy's fit at the White House looks even more foolish now.


Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
that's why I used the modifier "complicit"

There is a handful of media that has not been complicit. They are the ones that typically get their stories spiked.


Legacy media, as Assassin calls them, reflect a limited range of ideas mostly in keeping with those of the ruling class. Not necessarily wrong or conspiratorial ideas, just limited. They also have resources and journalistic standards that independent media often don't. Both have their place.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

At that rate, it'll take a couple of centuries for Russia to win.
You laughed when I said they'd have full control of the Donbas in 6-12 months. That's one oblast down, one to go.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
that's why I used the modifier "complicit"

There is a handful of media that has not been complicit. They are the ones that typically get their stories spiked.


Legacy media, as Assassin calls them, reflect a limited range of ideas mostly in keeping with those of the ruling class. Not necessarily wrong or conspiratorial ideas, just limited. They also have resources and journalistic standards that independent media often don't. Both have their place.


51 members of the intelligence community agree with you.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
that's why I used the modifier "complicit"

There is a handful of media that has not been complicit. They are the ones that typically get their stories spiked.


Legacy media, as Assassin calls them, reflect a limited range of ideas mostly in keeping with those of the ruling class. Not necessarily wrong or conspiratorial ideas, just limited. They also have resources and journalistic standards that independent media often don't. Both have their place.
Legacy Media suffers from this: https://www.mrc.org/george-soros-media-mogul
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

At that rate, it'll take a couple of centuries for Russia to win.
You laughed when I said they'd have full control of the Donbas in 6-12 months. That's one oblast down, one to go.
1% territorial gain every 2-3 months is progress, I'll give you that.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Legacy media mostly suffers from TDS. It's often severe and extreme. It's also laughable: Joy Reid, Jake Tapper, Joe Scarborough & Mikla, etc. Really, almost all of MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, WaPo, & the main networks. At least Fox still has a few sane personalities like Brett Baier, Greg Gutfeld, and Harris Faulkner.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Legacy media mostly suffers from TDS. It's often severe and extreme. It's also laughable: Joy Reid, Jake Tapper, Joe Scarborough & Mikla, etc. Really, almost all of MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, WaPo, & the main networks. At least Fox still has a few sane personalities like Brett Baier, Greg Gutfeld, and Harris Faulkner.
Don't forget Big Tyrus!!
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I listed the examples that cdd as me to mind. There are others in both lists.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

At that rate, it'll take a couple of centuries for Russia to win.
You laughed when I said they'd have full control of the Donbas in 6-12 months. That's one oblast down, one to go.
I am sure you are happy!
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
that's why I used the modifier "complicit"

There is a handful of media that has not been complicit. They are the ones that typically get their stories spiked.


Legacy media, as Assassin calls them, reflect a limited range of ideas mostly in keeping with those of the ruling class. Not necessarily wrong or conspiratorial ideas, just limited. They also have resources and journalistic standards that independent media often don't. Both have their place.
That's an interesting defense of the major news organizations, whose journalists take an oath to be non-biased and non-partisan in their coverage. I would submit that when you are only providing a limited range of ideas, you're doing something wrong as a journalist.
Assassin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assassin said:


This is the point I was getting to before we got sidetracked. Very disturbing and dangerous if true.
In your opinion, who comprises the deep state today?
Aside from oligarchs, who aren't necessarily part of the state, my definition of the deep state ranges from basically innocuous bureaucratic institutions (or "permanent government") to more nefarious rogue intelligence agencies and the like. This is all pretty straightforward in my view. Arcane theories don't interest me much.
Complicit media?
Maybe in some cases. I don't see the media as monolithic.
that's why I used the modifier "complicit"

There is a handful of media that has not been complicit. They are the ones that typically get their stories spiked.


Legacy media, as Assassin calls them, reflect a limited range of ideas mostly in keeping with those of the ruling class. Not necessarily wrong or conspiratorial ideas, just limited. They also have resources and journalistic standards that independent media often don't. Both have their place.
That's an interesting defense of the major news organizations, whose journalists take an oath to be non-biased and non-partisan in their coverage. I would submit that when you are only providing a limited range of ideas, you're doing something wrong as a journalist.
Nice synopsis...
"An unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump Pauses Ukraine Arms Shipments, Prioritizing US Military Readiness

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/trump-pauses-ukraine-arms-shipments-prioritizing-us-military/

Russia Takes Full Control of Ukraine's Luhansk Region

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-07-01/russia-takes-full-control-of-ukraines-luhansk-region-russian-backed-official-says

Zelensky's Inner Circle Shed Light on 'Deluded' Leadership

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/zelenskys-inner-circle-shed-light-on-deluded-leadership/

Good news on the eastern front. Hopefully we are getting closer to the day that the Russians or maybe the Ukrainians themselves overthrow the fascist regeime in Kiev,
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

At that rate, it'll take a couple of centuries for Russia to win.
You laughed when I said they'd have full control of the Donbas in 6-12 months. That's one oblast down, one to go.
1% territorial gain every 2-3 months is progress, I'll give you that.


At that rate the fearsome Russian military we are all supposed to be scared of will be in Warsaw by 2050…and in Paris by the end of the century where they can then fight the local North African Muslims for control of France
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone checked on your local virtue signaler? At Wimbledon US blek vs Ukrainian in women's first round.
Black square or Ukrainian flag?!?
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

At that rate, it'll take a couple of centuries for Russia to win.
You laughed when I said they'd have full control of the Donbas in 6-12 months. That's one oblast down, one to go.
1% territorial gain every 2-3 months is progress, I'll give you that.


At that rate the fearsome Russian military we are all supposed to be scared of will be in Warsaw by 2050…and in Paris by the end of the century where they can then fight the local North African Muslims for control of France

they clearly think it is in their national interest to spend 1500 lives per day to grind forward in feet/yards per day. The wise policymaker would make them pay that price in full all the way across Ukraine rather than letting them move 600mi closer to Nato for nothing.
First Page Last Page
Page 272 of 281
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.