You'll be ok.Zelensky needs to chill out with this WW3 talk bullshyt he's getting a bit obnoxious.
You'll be ok.Zelensky needs to chill out with this WW3 talk bullshyt he's getting a bit obnoxious.
makes you wonder about the power of social media too. The messages spread way farther than it would have even 10 years ago and people all left. Its kinda wild.and thats more than the population of NYC. Imagine if the whole NYC just bounced. and its half the population of NY State. Like its really hard to phathom we just see what we see on TV but just think about how crazy it is that millions of people left one country in less than a month
Fam, you might need to source your claims because there is no leader that is at risk of anything domestically for not enforcing a NFZ. Gas prices, unemployment, inflation or crime are waaaay higher on their population's priority list.
I suggest watching this using 1.75x playback speed.
Currently in a dungeon of the Kremlin getting his balls shocked with a battery from a golf cart (and that's just for his sexual enjoyment)Ed Snowden really hasn't posted on twitter in nearly a month.
So much for the American government being so terrible but Russia being so good argument.
most of what you say here is true, but one key thing to note is: Putin doesn't really care about bombing civilians. If there's a chance they'll lose on an urban front, he has no issue with leveling residential blocks. you cant really compare the fight of the US mil in iraq to Russias invasion of the UkraineBut here's the thing. The eradication of Ukraine wasn't the casus belli, it was the "denazification and total takeover of ukraine".
It doesn't matter HOW MANY PEOPLE FLEE. If the Ukrainian government still stands...Putin didn't win. Ukraine isn't trying to totally decimate the Russian military apparatus and push on to kill Putin...which is why you don't hear of any artilary instillations, counter-offensives, or jockeying for land. Ukraine's objective here is simple. Survival.
As @Orbital-Fetus continues to illustrate, time is in the Ukrainians' favor. Why? The longer they stall the push to Kyiv, the more weapons and support they get from NATO, the more Putin gets pressured from the domestic issues, the more logistical problems his army has. etc. And @Liu Kang you're correct in saying Ukraine can't afford to lose men. But urban warfare has ALWAYS benefitted the small strike force. You see what insurgents did to the US military in Iraq. They too were outmanned/outgunned. Imagine if they had the support of a NATO in the wings....we wouldn't be talking about that conflict as a victory either.
Yes, Russia is winning LAND BATTLES. But they are not winning the war long term. America went into Afghanistan, took it over in two weeks and installed puppet governments in less than a year. Did that destroy the American economy? Was there BREAD on the shelves? Were millenials and Gen X leaving the country to go work in Canada? Nope.
War, traditionally, drains your country of resources only to replenish them with innovation and the spoils of conquered lands. Putin is getting neither of them and draning his country of resources and opportunity.
Tell me, what good is winning a war if your country falls apart to do it?
But here's the thing. The eradication of Ukraine wasn't the casus belli, it was the "denazification and total takeover of ukraine".
It doesn't matter HOW MANY PEOPLE FLEE. If the Ukrainian government still stands...Putin didn't win. Ukraine isn't trying to totally decimate the Russian military apparatus and push on to kill Putin...which is why you don't hear of any artilary instillations, counter-offensives, or jockeying for land. Ukraine's objective here is simple. Survival.
As @Orbital-Fetus continues to illustrate, time is in the Ukrainians' favor. Why? The longer they stall the push to Kyiv, the more weapons and support they get from NATO, the more Putin gets pressured from the domestic issues, the more logistical problems his army has. etc. And @Liu Kang you're correct in saying Ukraine can't afford to lose men. But urban warfare has ALWAYS benefitted the small strike force. You see what insurgents did to the US military in Iraq. They too were outmanned/outgunned. Imagine if they had the support of a NATO in the wings....we wouldn't be talking about that conflict as a victory either.
Yes, Russia is winning LAND BATTLES. But they are not winning the war long term. America went into Afghanistan, took it over in two weeks and installed puppet governments in less than a year. Did that destroy the American economy? Was there BREAD on the shelves? Were millenials and Gen X leaving the country to go work in Canada? Nope.
War, traditionally, drains your country of resources only to replenish them with innovation and the spoils of conquered lands. Putin is getting neither of them and draning his country of resources and opportunity.
Tell me, what good is winning a war if your country falls apart to do it?
I haven't heard of anything so farnothing came of Putin's demand to surrender Mariupol?
i think he is on the right track, even if slightly dramatic, which is why i have mentioned ww3 several times in here. this is the most dangerous time earth has been in since the height of the cold war.Zelensky needs to chill out with this WW3 talk bullshyt he's getting a bit obnoxious.
We are not going to aid Ukraine in any material way to avoid a greater conflict and the fact that you keep focusing on external support from the West proves that you know they can’t withstand a war with Russia on their own.
openly contradict yourself, brehs...
We are not aiding Ukraine in any material way Reality