This is the kind the kind of naive, pseudo-contrarian, "it's all America's fault" sh!t that Abbie Hoffman/Jane Fonda types would have written in the 60s. How did this childish nonsense ever make it back into American thought?
History has shown that your neo-con interventionist foreign policy is a complete and utter disaster.
You idiots will never learn.
Al Qaeda is effectively running Syria now thanks to idiots like yourself .
Well done!
The opposite of your pro-Russia, appeasing, blame-America-first garbage is not "neo-con." Your stupid penchant of putting a label on everything and declaring victory never works. There are endless ways to protect and defend America and confront its sworn enemies without (1) appeasing them or (2) doing whatever the fvck you think "neo-con" is.
Appeasing America's enemies has been an utter disaster of a foreign policy in the past. It still is. It always will be. You idiot appeasers will never learn.
----------------------------
One funny thing about these Russia-lovers' resort to "neo-con" label is that they seem to forget that "neo-con" was a derogatory term that LIBERALS came up with for people who wanted to aggressively fight Islamic terrorism. Are all these appeasing MAG@s so uninformed and stupid that they don't even know what they think they are against?
History has shown that your neo-con interventionist foreign policy is a complete and utter disaster.
You idiots will never learn.
Al Qaeda is effectively running Syria now thanks to idiots like yourself .
Well done!
The opposite of your pro-Russia, appeasing, blame-America-first garbage is not "neo-con." Your stupid penchant of putting a label on everything and declaring victory never works. There are endless ways to protect and defend America and confront its sworn enemies without (1) appeasing them or (2) doing whatever the fvck you think "neo-con" is.
Appeasing America's enemies has been an utter disaster of a foreign policy in the past. It still is. It always will be. You idiot appeasers will never learn.
----------------------------
One funny thing about these Russia-lovers' resort to "neo-con" label is that they seem to forget that "neo-con" was a derogatory term that LIBERALS came up with for people who wanted to aggressively fight Islamic terrorism. Are all these appeasing MAG@s so uninformed and stupid that they don't even know what they think they are against?
It's baffling that you leftist idiots have absolutely no problem with Liz Cheney campaigning with Harris and Dick Cheney openly endorsing the Democrats....
I know exactly who the neo-cons are. You clearly still have no idea.
Russia cannot arm itself. It has relied heavily on drones from Iran and recently had to start buying shells and missiles from North Korea.
The Russian government will be overthrown if the economy collapses. One pensioners and veterans stop getting their benefit checks, it won't be long before people take to the street to bring down Putin. The last mass protest in Russia was when Putin proposed reforms to the pension system (i.e. cuts).
It can do a much better job of it than the west can. They aren't rationing artillery shells Ukraine is.
Who exactly do you think is going to take over after your fantasy overthrow happens??
Putin is one of the more pro-western people in Russian politics. The people that will replace him will take an even harder line on Ukraine.
Russia was rationing shells in the Spring of 2023 as Putin's prediction of a short military campaign did not come to fruition and Russian production had not been able to catch up to demand. And given the slow pace of Russia's advances, it is pretty clear that Russia does not have the artillery that it wants and has to rely on meat waves to gain any ground, which has caused Russia to have to source warm bodies from North Korea and Yemen to supplement its dwindling reserves.
If (and when) Putin's government falls, it will probably be the end of the Russian federation. Chechnya and Dagestan will go to war with each other (that may happen regardless of the status of the central government). There is already a successionist movement in Siberia. They have long gotten the short end of the stick as they have most of Russia's oil and gas production, but the central government hoards the wealth and blows it on the war in Ukraine and pensions for fat Russians living in nice western cities. There are a long list of ethnic groups that are ready to split from Russia. The Kamyks and Kubans in the Caucuses have long wanted independence from Russia. The Bashkir, Chuvash and Tartars in the Volga region are among a number of ethnic groups that want independence. Putin could not even fight back against a rag tag group of rebels in Syria as Russian forces are severely depleted and over extended in Ukraine. If any of the Republics or ethnic groups therein decide to secede, there will be no real military response from the central government. A post-Putin Russia will splinter into a dozen new independent nations who will not want to have anything to do with Russian imperialism. The very western part of Russia (basically St. Petersburg to Moscow to Rostov on Don) will all that will be left of Mother Russia. And that region will not have the resources to continue the war if all the oil rich regions secede.
It can do a much better job of it than the west can. They aren't rationing artillery shells Ukraine is.
Who exactly do you think is going to take over after your fantasy overthrow happens??
Putin is one of the more pro-western people in Russian politics. The people that will replace him will take an even harder line on Ukraine.
Russia was rationing shells in the Spring of 2023 as Putin's prediction of a short military campaign did not come to fruition and Russian production had not been able to catch up to demand. And given the slow pace of Russia's advances, it is pretty clear that Russia does not have the artillery that it wants and has to rely on meat waves to gain any ground, which has caused Russia to have to source warm bodies from North Korea and Yemen to supplement its dwindling reserves.
If (and when) Putin's government falls, it will probably be the end of the Russian federation. Chechnya and Dagestan will go to war with each other (that may happen regardless of the status of the central government). There is already a successionist movement in Siberia. They have long gotten the short end of the stick as they have most of Russia's oil and gas production, but the central government hoards the wealth and blows it on the war in Ukraine and pensions for fat Russians living in nice western cities. There are a long list of ethnic groups that are ready to split from Russia. The Kamyks and Kubans in the Caucuses have long wanted independence from Russia. The Bashkir, Chuvash and Tartars in the Volga region are among a number of ethnic groups that want independence. Putin could not even fight back against a rag tag group of rebels in Syria as Russian forces are severely depleted and over extended in Ukraine. If any of the Republics or ethnic groups therein decide to secede, there will be no real military response from the central government. A post-Putin Russia will splinter into a dozen new independent nations who will not want to have anything to do with Russian imperialism. The very western part of Russia (basically St. Petersburg to Moscow to Rostov on Don) will all that will be left of Mother Russia. And that region will not have the resources to continue the war if all the oil rich regions secede.
You really need to stop reading nothing but propaganda.
Russia hasn't even mobilized yet. They have millions more men than Ukraine they just haven't felt the need to call them up yet.
There's like 117 million ethnic Russians in Russia. The oil comes mainly from the Urals and Siberia which are heavily ethnic Russian.
The natural gas is mainly in heavily ethnic Russian regions as well.
The opposite of your pro-Russia, appeasing, blame-America-first garbage is not "neo-con." Your stupid penchant of putting a label on everything and declaring victory never works. There are endless ways to protect and defend America and confront its sworn enemies without (1) appeasing them or (2) doing whatever the fvck you think "neo-con" is.
Appeasing America's enemies has been an utter disaster of a foreign policy in the past. It still is. It always will be. You idiot appeasers will never learn.
----------------------------
One funny thing about these Russia-lovers' resort to "neo-con" label is that they seem to forget that "neo-con" was a derogatory term that LIBERALS came up with for people who wanted to aggressively fight Islamic terrorism. Are all these appeasing MAG@s so uninformed and stupid that they don't even know what they think they are against?
It's baffling that you leftist idiots have absolutely no problem with Liz Cheney campaigning with Harris and Dick Cheney openly endorsing the Democrats....
^^^^^^
What's the best label we could slap on this mumbling, irrelevant response? "deflection"? "goalposts"? "manic"? "confusion"? "wires crossed"? "desperate"? "Huh?" "WTF?"?
It's baffling that you leftist idiots have absolutely no problem with Liz Cheney campaigning with Harris and Dick Cheney openly endorsing the Democrats....
^^^^^^
What's the best label we could slap on this mumbling, irrelevant response? "deflection"? "goalposts"? "manic"? "confusion"? "wires crossed"? "desperate"? "Huh?" "WTF?"?
I honestly think you're too stupid to understand what's happening here.
Neo-con in the modern sense refers to the hawkish interventionists like John Bolton, Victoria Nuland, George Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Dick Cheney.
The only person on that list that didn't endorse Harris is the dead one and he's from Arizona so there's a very strong chance he still voted for her anyway.
The neo-cons are all Democrats now. The forever war morons are all on your side now.
The left that used to be anti-war is now demanding that we send every penny we can find to Ukraine until the last Ukrainian is dead. Then you idiots can pretend you did all you could to save Ukraine.
If you idiots cared half as much about Ukraine as you pretend to online you'd already have gone to Ukraine and enlisted.
They won't respond to your question because they have no good response. Americans are so propogandized they are incapable of seeing anything from a Russian perspective.
YOU haven't responded to his question either, Bozzof. You're scared to try. Go on, man. Do it.
It's baffling that you leftist idiots have absolutely no problem with Liz Cheney campaigning with Harris and Dick Cheney openly endorsing the Democrats....
^^^^^^
What's the best label we could slap on this mumbling, irrelevant response? "deflection"? "goalposts"? "manic"? "confusion"? "wires crossed"? "desperate"? "Huh?" "WTF?"?
I think you are ignoring the point of view of the countries who have joined NATO. Poland, Czechia, etc were all occupied by the USSR from 1945-1989 (the Baltic states were annexed into the USSR). None of these countries had a positive experience of Communist rule, and do not want to be occupied by Russia again. They now feel vindicated in their decisions to join NATO, as Russia attacked countries that were not currently part of NATO.
From these countries’ perspectives, joining NATO is a reaction to Russian aggression, rather than the other way around.
If Russia started the Warsaw Pact back up and toppled the Canadian and Mexican governments and then Canada and Mexico and Cuba all wanted to join an anti-American military alliance what do you think the US would do?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you and others have posted that attempt at a rhetorical question many times. It's lame and ineffective.
First of all, it's a hypothetical, so it's of limited explanatory or argumentative value to begin with.
Second of all, it's a virtually impossible hypothetical, so it's of no value at all.
Third of all, it's an exaggerated, impossible hypothetical, with little or no analogy to anything happening in Ukraine or the real world, so it's beyond useless. It actually makes you look idiotic, although you probably won't ever realize why. (Hint: think Carmine)
Here's what ALL you nitwits who constantly resort to rhetorical questions should know - it's NEVER as effective as it sounds in your head. And here's what all you nitwits should do when you lapse into posting them -- YOU answer the question and then explain to us why your answer matters.
History has shown that your neo-con interventionist foreign policy is a complete and utter disaster.
You idiots will never learn.
Al Qaeda is effectively running Syria now thanks to idiots like yourself .
Well done!
The opposite of your pro-Russia, appeasing, blame-America-first garbage is not "neo-con." Your stupid penchant of putting a label on everything and declaring victory never works. There are endless ways to protect and defend America and confront its sworn enemies without (1) appeasing them or (2) doing whatever the fvck you think "neo-con" is.
Appeasing America's enemies has been an utter disaster of a foreign policy in the past. It still is. It always will be. You idiot appeasers will never learn.
----------------------------
One funny thing about these Russia-lovers' resort to "neo-con" label is that they seem to forget that "neo-con" was a derogatory term that LIBERALS came up with for people who wanted to aggressively fight Islamic terrorism. Are all these appeasing MAG@s so uninformed and stupid that they don't even know what they think they are against?
Since you're such pro-Ukrainian loudmouth who gets his panties in a dizzy if there's disagreement about this war, why don't go sign up & fight for the Ukrainian cause? I'm sure you're between the ages of 18-60, and being a runner, you're probably in great shape.
No doubt Zelensky would love having such passionate & emotional American fight right alongside his loyal troops. And I'm sure you could still post on this thread from the front lines. 😉
Meanwhile, this BS Congress has given - and continues to give - BILLIONS of taxpayer's money to Ukraine for military aid- a non-NATO member! 😡
The Defense Department announced a significant new security assistance package to ensure Ukraine has the tools it needs to prevail in its fight against Russian aggression.
The United States, our allies, and our partners worldwide are united in support of Ukraine in response to Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified war against Ukraine. We have not forgotten Russia’s earlier aggressi...
Russia was rationing shells in the Spring of 2023 as Putin's prediction of a short military campaign did not come to fruition and Russian production had not been able to catch up to demand. And given the slow pace of Russia's advances, it is pretty clear that Russia does not have the artillery that it wants and has to rely on meat waves to gain any ground, which has caused Russia to have to source warm bodies from North Korea and Yemen to supplement its dwindling reserves.
If (and when) Putin's government falls, it will probably be the end of the Russian federation. Chechnya and Dagestan will go to war with each other (that may happen regardless of the status of the central government). There is already a successionist movement in Siberia. They have long gotten the short end of the stick as they have most of Russia's oil and gas production, but the central government hoards the wealth and blows it on the war in Ukraine and pensions for fat Russians living in nice western cities. There are a long list of ethnic groups that are ready to split from Russia. The Kamyks and Kubans in the Caucuses have long wanted independence from Russia. The Bashkir, Chuvash and Tartars in the Volga region are among a number of ethnic groups that want independence. Putin could not even fight back against a rag tag group of rebels in Syria as Russian forces are severely depleted and over extended in Ukraine. If any of the Republics or ethnic groups therein decide to secede, there will be no real military response from the central government. A post-Putin Russia will splinter into a dozen new independent nations who will not want to have anything to do with Russian imperialism. The very western part of Russia (basically St. Petersburg to Moscow to Rostov on Don) will all that will be left of Mother Russia. And that region will not have the resources to continue the war if all the oil rich regions secede.
You really need to stop reading nothing but propaganda.
Russia hasn't even mobilized yet. They have millions more men than Ukraine they just haven't felt the need to call them up yet.
There's like 117 million ethnic Russians in Russia. The oil comes mainly from the Urals and Siberia which are heavily ethnic Russian.
The natural gas is mainly in heavily ethnic Russian regions as well.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah. Russia is sitting on all this military power, but couldn't do anything to save its man in the Middle East from a rag tag militia. And on that front, Russia is surely going to lose its bases in Syria. The airfield and port on Syria's coast are Russia's only access points to the Mediterranean Sea and air routes to Africa. That means Russia will not be able to supply its armed forces and PMCs in Africa once the Syrians kick Russia out of the country. But yeah. Putin could have kept Assad in Syria, but decided that he would just let him flee the country so Putin could then call up a million soldiers to re-invade and put Assad back in power. What a genius.
If Russia started the Warsaw Pact back up and toppled the Canadian and Mexican governments and then Canada and Mexico and Cuba all wanted to join an anti-American military alliance what do you think the US would do?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you and others have posted that attempt at a rhetorical question many times. It's lame and ineffective.
First of all, it's a hypothetical, so it's of limited explanatory or argumentative value to begin with.
Second of all, it's a virtually impossible hypothetical, so it's of no value at all.
Third of all, it's an exaggerated, impossible hypothetical, with little or no analogy to anything happening in Ukraine or the real world, so it's beyond useless. It actually makes you look idiotic, although you probably won't ever realize why. (Hint: think Carmine)
Here's what ALL you nitwits who constantly resort to rhetorical questions should know - it's NEVER as effective as it sounds in your head. And here's what all you nitwits should do when you lapse into posting them -- YOU answer the question and then explain to us why your answer matters.
Being incapable of dealing with hypotheticals is a trademark of stupid people...
It's the literal inverse of what's happening to Russia right now you ignorant moron.
If a child does something wrong a parent will ask "how would you feel if someone did that to you"?
The logic works on a 4 year old but naturally it's completely lost on idiots like you.
LOL!!!
In the early 60s the US decided to put nuclear weapons in Turkey. Turkey was a border state with the Soviet Union at the time. In response, the USSR decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba. The US made a provocation so the USSR made an equivalent provocation.
In response to this equivalent provocation the US threatened to end the world if the USSR didn't remove it's missiles.
If you think US wouldn't respond violently if Mexico and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact and Russia started putting advanced missile systems on the ground and training their militaries you're out of your goddamn mind.
You really need to stop reading nothing but propaganda.
Russia hasn't even mobilized yet. They have millions more men than Ukraine they just haven't felt the need to call them up yet.
There's like 117 million ethnic Russians in Russia. The oil comes mainly from the Urals and Siberia which are heavily ethnic Russian.
The natural gas is mainly in heavily ethnic Russian regions as well.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah. Russia is sitting on all this military power, but couldn't do anything to save its man in the Middle East from a rag tag militia. And on that front, Russia is surely going to lose its bases in Syria. The airfield and port on Syria's coast are Russia's only access points to the Mediterranean Sea and air routes to Africa. That means Russia will not be able to supply its armed forces and PMCs in Africa once the Syrians kick Russia out of the country. But yeah. Putin could have kept Assad in Syria, but decided that he would just let him flee the country so Putin could then call up a million soldiers to re-invade and put Assad back in power. What a genius.
My understanding is that the Russian navy bailed out of Tartus base a week ago, because they saw this coming. If they are still there, they are nuts. They would have significantly reduced ability to conduct ground operations at the base making it of limited (and very expensive) utility. There's also a relatively high likelihood that an errant Israeli, US or UK missile lands on them. Israel bombed the city of Tartus today, I believe. There's no way for Russian swabs in Tartus to order in Grubhub in these conditions.
You really need to stop reading nothing but propaganda.
Russia hasn't even mobilized yet. They have millions more men than Ukraine they just haven't felt the need to call them up yet.
There's like 117 million ethnic Russians in Russia. The oil comes mainly from the Urals and Siberia which are heavily ethnic Russian.
The natural gas is mainly in heavily ethnic Russian regions as well.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah. Russia is sitting on all this military power, but couldn't do anything to save its man in the Middle East from a rag tag militia. And on that front, Russia is surely going to lose its bases in Syria. The airfield and port on Syria's coast are Russia's only access points to the Mediterranean Sea and air routes to Africa. That means Russia will not be able to supply its armed forces and PMCs in Africa once the Syrians kick Russia out of the country. But yeah. Putin could have kept Assad in Syria, but decided that he would just let him flee the country so Putin could then call up a million soldiers to re-invade and put Assad back in power. What a genius.
What makes you think the Syrians want to kick Russia out of the country?
Erdogan is the biggest backer of the HTS and Erdogan is closer to Putin than he is to anyone in the west.
I didn't say Russia was "sitting on all this military power" I said they haven't even mobilized yet and they haven't.
Manpower is a much bigger problem for Ukraine than it is for Russia. In a war of attrition Russia wins.
It's currently a war of attrition and nothing anywhere suggests that will change.
Your ego is about 50 sizes too big for you middling IQ.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you and others have posted that attempt at a rhetorical question many times. It's lame and ineffective.
First of all, it's a hypothetical, so it's of limited explanatory or argumentative value to begin with.
Second of all, it's a virtually impossible hypothetical, so it's of no value at all.
Third of all, it's an exaggerated, impossible hypothetical, with little or no analogy to anything happening in Ukraine or the real world, so it's beyond useless. It actually makes you look idiotic, although you probably won't ever realize why. (Hint: think Carmine)
Here's what ALL you nitwits who constantly resort to rhetorical questions should know - it's NEVER as effective as it sounds in your head. And here's what all you nitwits should do when you lapse into posting them -- YOU answer the question and then explain to us why your answer matters.
Being incapable of dealing with hypotheticals is a trademark of stupid people...
It's the literal inverse of what's happening to Russia right now you ignorant moron.
If a child does something wrong a parent will ask "how would you feel if someone did that to you"?
The logic works on a 4 year old but naturally it's completely lost on idiots like you.
LOL!!!
In the early 60s the US decided to put nuclear weapons in Turkey. Turkey was a border state with the Soviet Union at the time. In response, the USSR decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba. The US made a provocation so the USSR made an equivalent provocation.
In response to this equivalent provocation the US threatened to end the world if the USSR didn't remove it's missiles.
If you think US wouldn't respond violently if Mexico and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact and Russia started putting advanced missile systems on the ground and training their militaries you're out of your goddamn mind.
Again, YOU should answer your own stupid, utterly implausible hypothetical question, and THEN explain why that answer is relevant or matters at all to anyone concerned about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Here it is again, just so you don't conjure up new ones and confuse yourself even more: "If Russia started the Warsaw Pact back up and toppled the Canadian and Mexican governments and then Canada and Mexico and Cuba all wanted to join an anti-American military alliance what do you think the US would do?"
Being incapable of dealing with hypotheticals is a trademark of stupid people...
It's the literal inverse of what's happening to Russia right now you ignorant moron.
If a child does something wrong a parent will ask "how would you feel if someone did that to you"?
The logic works on a 4 year old but naturally it's completely lost on idiots like you.
LOL!!!
In the early 60s the US decided to put nuclear weapons in Turkey. Turkey was a border state with the Soviet Union at the time. In response, the USSR decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba. The US made a provocation so the USSR made an equivalent provocation.
In response to this equivalent provocation the US threatened to end the world if the USSR didn't remove it's missiles.
If you think US wouldn't respond violently if Mexico and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact and Russia started putting advanced missile systems on the ground and training their militaries you're out of your goddamn mind.
Again, YOU should answer your own stupid, utterly implausible hypothetical question, and THEN explain why that answer is relevant or matters at all to anyone concerned about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Here it is again, just so you don't conjure up new ones and confuse yourself even more: "If Russia started the Warsaw Pact back up and toppled the Canadian and Mexican governments and then Canada and Mexico and Cuba all wanted to join an anti-American military alliance what do you think the US would do?"
Proceed. Go on, I dare ya.
If you were a more intelligent person the Cuban Missile Crisis would answer that question for you.
Being incapable of dealing with hypotheticals is a trademark of stupid people...
It's the literal inverse of what's happening to Russia right now you ignorant moron.
If a child does something wrong a parent will ask "how would you feel if someone did that to you"?
The logic works on a 4 year old but naturally it's completely lost on idiots like you.
LOL!!!
In the early 60s the US decided to put nuclear weapons in Turkey. Turkey was a border state with the Soviet Union at the time. In response, the USSR decided to put nuclear missiles in Cuba. The US made a provocation so the USSR made an equivalent provocation.
In response to this equivalent provocation the US threatened to end the world if the USSR didn't remove it's missiles.
If you think US wouldn't respond violently if Mexico and Canada joined the Warsaw Pact and Russia started putting advanced missile systems on the ground and training their militaries you're out of your goddamn mind.
Again, YOU should answer your own stupid, utterly implausible hypothetical question, and THEN explain why that answer is relevant or matters at all to anyone concerned about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Here it is again, just so you don't conjure up new ones and confuse yourself even more: "If Russia started the Warsaw Pact back up and toppled the Canadian and Mexican governments and then Canada and Mexico and Cuba all wanted to join an anti-American military alliance what do you think the US would do?"
Proceed. Go on, I dare ya.
In it's history the US has invaded Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Panama, and just about every other country in the hemisphere...
But if China or Russia was putting weapons in Mexico or Canada and training their militaries to fight America we'd just shrug...
Yeah. Russia is sitting on all this military power, but couldn't do anything to save its man in the Middle East from a rag tag militia. And on that front, Russia is surely going to lose its bases in Syria. The airfield and port on Syria's coast are Russia's only access points to the Mediterranean Sea and air routes to Africa. That means Russia will not be able to supply its armed forces and PMCs in Africa once the Syrians kick Russia out of the country. But yeah. Putin could have kept Assad in Syria, but decided that he would just let him flee the country so Putin could then call up a million soldiers to re-invade and put Assad back in power. What a genius.
What makes you think the Syrians want to kick Russia out of the country?
Erdogan is the biggest backer of the HTS and Erdogan is closer to Putin than he is to anyone in the west.
I didn't say Russia was "sitting on all this military power" I said they haven't even mobilized yet and they haven't.
Manpower is a much bigger problem for Ukraine than it is for Russia. In a war of attrition Russia wins.
It's currently a war of attrition and nothing anywhere suggests that will change.
Your ego is about 50 sizes too big for you middling IQ.
Russia not having mobilized proves that the claim that they see this war as existential is a lie. It is not existential for Russia, but it is for Ukraine.
The goal for Ukraine, therefore, is not to defeat Russia by driving all the way to Moscow or something like that. It is to cause Russia to stop and go home. Sustaining the political will to conquer and occupy a hostile country is not easy (see Syria or Afghanistan).
To bring this back around to your Mexico question, the incoming Trump administration seems to want to conduct a series of special forces raids and drone strikes in Mexico. They think these strikes will defeat the Mexican drug cartels and reduce drug deaths (and possibly immigration, somehow) in the USA.
I think this is a terrible idea, both morally and practically.
I think striking Mexico will start a war, a war that the US will not have the political will to win. Much like I think Russia will eventually lose the political will to conquer Ukraine.
What makes you think the Syrians want to kick Russia out of the country?
Erdogan is the biggest backer of the HTS and Erdogan is closer to Putin than he is to anyone in the west.
I didn't say Russia was "sitting on all this military power" I said they haven't even mobilized yet and they haven't.
Manpower is a much bigger problem for Ukraine than it is for Russia. In a war of attrition Russia wins.
It's currently a war of attrition and nothing anywhere suggests that will change.
Your ego is about 50 sizes too big for you middling IQ.
Russia not having mobilized proves that the claim that they see this war as existential is a lie. It is not existential for Russia, but it is for Ukraine.
The goal for Ukraine, therefore, is not to defeat Russia by driving all the way to Moscow or something like that. It is to cause Russia to stop and go home. Sustaining the political will to conquer and occupy a hostile country is not easy (see Syria or Afghanistan).
So existential for Ukraine that they're kidnapping old men and mentally handicapped people off the streets rather than drafting men under 25....
Zelensky's goal was taking back all of Ukraine and Crimea. He's changed his tune lately because even the propaganda he's getting from the front is bad news.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
