-
30
-
Lollys Master wrote:
agip wrote:
Europe is not being passive.
many eu nations are giving more aid than the us, proportionately
Which EU countries are giving more military aid than the US proportionately? Either way, proportionately might be the wrong way to measure things here, because if Vatican would send one helmet to Ukraine, it wouldn't be a significant help anyway.
Estonia
latvia
poland
norway
lithuania
GB
40 -
Lollys Master wrote:
HowToTellLollyIsLying? wrote:
If you don't accept RU wars per se, then how do you accept them?
The same ways you accept US wars per se.
Poor little Lolly. Can't actually answer a simple question. Let me answer on your behalf. Lolly accepts Russian wars whole-heartedly, like a nauseating hypocrite.
40 -
Lollys Master wrote:
HowToTellLollyIsLying? wrote:
But, you don't condemn Russian wars either.
Countries that Lolly wants sanctioned (partial list) because they have troops deployed overseas. I'm not sure this is going to work as well as Lolly envisions.
- United States
- Egypt
- Ghana
- Pakistan
- China
- Russia
- Honduras
- Nigeria
- Brazil
- Malaysia
- Bangladesh
- Rwanda
- Morocco
- Zambia
- Nepal
- Burundi
- Mauritania
- Chad
- France
- Guinea
- Togo
- Germany
- Senegal
- South Africa
- Tanzania
- Uruguay
- Malawi
- Indonesia
- India
- Ireland
- Fiji
- Czech Republic
- Bhutan
- Netherlands
- Argentina
- United Kingdom
- Hungary
- Slovakia
- Austria
- Serbia
- Norway
- Italy
- Spain
- Namibia
- Turkey
- Finland
- Moldova
- Romania
- Ethiopia
- Mongolia
- Korea
- Philippines
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- New Zealand
I said active troops, therefore troops in combat, as the only thing that matters to anyone with a brain is if people are being killed or not. Here you go, your list gets shorter.
This is the (partial) list of countries that have troops actively deployed (not just stationed) in another country. Looks like a lot of countries are going to be sanctioned.
20 -
Unkle Carmine is a proven liar. wrote:
carmine9 wrote:
The US already did that in 2014
Yet another lie.
JUst because people don't like the truth does not mean that the truth is a lie
03 -
Polling at a Russian military draft appears to indicate low Russian support for annexing Ukraine.
30 -
agip wrote:
Yup, a prime military tactic is to send giant columns aimed at a foreign capital. just to scare them. And then let it sit while being picked apart by defenders. Only to retreat in utter defeat.
/sarcasm.you are departing logic and factdom on this issue. And it doesn’t matter. The goal was to take over the entire nation by intimidation or at the point of a gun. And you wish they had succeeded, just to give the usa a bloody nose and say ‘I told you so.’
Like I said previously, I disagree with Russian methods, as they're outdated and very rough. US does it much more smoothely and slick - supporting the opposition to overthrow a democratically elected president is the way to go in the 21st century.
It seems so strange to me, that many think Russia can't take Ukraine by force. If Putin was this brutal, land stealing and blood-thristy dictator, as the Wester media is trying to paint him to be, he could have destroyed Ukraine within days with the help of the missiles and jets, but it's obviously not the goal here.
Like Putin has been saying for years now, this is a de-nazification process and measures to make Ukraine unable to join NATO.
To repeat myself once again, I disagree with his methods, yet, I understand what he's doing and see the logic behind it.
18 -
You are a f***ing moron if you believe Putin’s goal is to denazify Ukraine!
101 -
carmine9 wrote:
Unkle Carmine is a proven liar. wrote:
Yet another lie.
JUst because people don't like the truth does not mean that the truth is a lie
In this case, it's a lie.
40 -
HowToTellLollyIsLying? wrote:
Lollys Master wrote:
The same ways you accept US wars per se.
Poor little Lolly. Can't actually answer a simple question. Let me answer on your behalf. Lolly accepts Russian wars whole-heartedly, like a nauseating hypocrite.
Here you go, reverting to insults, when the answer is a bit too much for your IQ to handle.
How did you accept US invasion of Iraq? Did you do something about it? Did you protest? Did you storm the capitol? Did you call for sanctions or reparations?
But now you're crying wolf. Who's the hypocrite here?
I will call for prosecution of Russian war crimes once prosecution of American war crimes begins. For the millionth time - either condemnation of all war crimes, or free-for-all.
14 -
HowToTellLollyIsLying? wrote:
Lollys Master wrote:
I said active troops, therefore troops in combat, as the only thing that matters to anyone with a brain is if people are being killed or not. Here you go, your list gets shorter.
This is the (partial) list of countries that have troops actively deployed (not just stationed) in another country. Looks like a lot of countries are going to be sanctioned.
Time for another coffee for you, your comprehention abilities seem to weaken again.
Focus.
You surely understand the difference between "peace-keeping" troops that have never fired a bullet and the "schock and awe" invasion of Iraq, that killed 8000 civilians within 2 months.
Here is a mental exercise for you:
YOU pick out countries from your list that should be sanctioned for war crimes and have troops engaging in combat abroad.
11 -
Lollys Master wrote:
agip wrote:
Yup, a prime military tactic is to send giant columns aimed at a foreign capital. just to scare them. And then let it sit while being picked apart by defenders. Only to retreat in utter defeat.
/sarcasm.you are departing logic and factdom on this issue. And it doesn’t matter. The goal was to take over the entire nation by intimidation or at the point of a gun. And you wish they had succeeded, just to give the usa a bloody nose and say ‘I told you so.’
Like I said previously, I disagree with Russian methods, as they're outdated and very rough. US does it much more smoothely and slick - supporting the opposition to overthrow a democratically elected president is the way to go in the 21st century.
It seems so strange to me, that many think Russia can't take Ukraine by force. If Putin was this brutal, land stealing and blood-thristy dictator, as the Wester media is trying to paint him to be, he could have destroyed Ukraine within days with the help of the missiles and jets, but it's obviously not the goal here.
Like Putin has been saying for years now, this is a de-nazification process and measures to make Ukraine unable to join NATO.
To repeat myself once again, I disagree with his methods, yet, I understand what he's doing and see the logic behind it.
DE NAZIFICATION???????? You can't really believe that. Tell me you don't believe that.
I can't believe anyone outside of RU borders actually believes that. If you believe that you are the damndest fool I've ever come across. You seem smart in most ways but DENAZIFICATION???????? Good lord. Steady, agip. Steady.And also, the RU armed forces have in fact proved so utterly incompetent that they cannot do the things you have described. They cannot control the skies. they tried. They lost.
20 -
Lollys Master wrote:
agip wrote:
Yup, a prime military tactic is to send giant columns aimed at a foreign capital. just to scare them. And then let it sit while being picked apart by defenders. Only to retreat in utter defeat.
/sarcasm.you are departing logic and factdom on this issue. And it doesn’t matter. The goal was to take over the entire nation by intimidation or at the point of a gun. And you wish they had succeeded, just to give the usa a bloody nose and say ‘I told you so.’
Like I said previously, I disagree with Russian methods, as they're outdated and very rough. US does it much more smoothely and slick - supporting the opposition to overthrow a democratically elected president is the way to go in the 21st century.
It seems so strange to me, that many think Russia can't take Ukraine by force. If Putin was this brutal, land stealing and blood-thristy dictator, as the Wester media is trying to paint him to be, he could have destroyed Ukraine within days with the help of the missiles and jets, but it's obviously not the goal here.
Like Putin has been saying for years now, this is a de-nazification process and measures to make Ukraine unable to join NATO.
To repeat myself once again, I disagree with his methods, yet, I understand what he's doing and see the logic behind it.
No. It's absolutely fantasy to believe that Putin was holding back or could "do better". Sure, he could nuke Ukraine and destroy it, but personally I believe it is unlikely that Putin will use nukes in Ukraine. The Russian military can't defeat Ukrainian forces using a mix of outdated and modern NATO technology. Imagine what would happen if the US decided to really participate in response to a Russian tactical nuke. Ukraine had under 100 aircraft at the start of the war. The US has over 5,000 combat aircraft. Ukraine had under 1000 tanks at the start of the war. The US has over 10,000. Ukraine has almost no longer range missile capabilities. The US has around 4,000 tomahawk cruise missiles. Putin knows this and can't risk direct conflict with the US or NATO. If Putin uses a tactical nuke, China isn't going to bail him out.
The Russian military is underfunded, undertrained, and has been pilfered by corrupt leaders for the last 30 years. The impacts are evident throughout the conflict in Ukraine, from the failed assault on Hostomel the first night (poor Russian intelligence, leaders being told what they want to hear, rather than the truth); the failure of the 70,000 soldiers of the 35th CAA to encircle Kyiv in the first week (poor logistics, necessity of sticking to roadways, general incompetence), to the rout in Kharkiv (outplayed by Ukrainian messaging, low morale).
Russia wouldn't be mobilizing 300,000 minorities as cannon fodder if things were going according to plan. Your inability to accept basic facts is disturbing; your parroting of Putin's claims of de-nazification when Putin has fostered neo-Nazi movement in Russia for the last 20 years is just pathetic and comical.
Your tired claims of hypocrisy lack substance and betray your lack of intellect. But keep supporting Russia if it makes mommy and daddy proud!
40 -
agip wrote:
it's not intellectually honest to condemn the UKR right to self-defense because a few thousands neo-nazis are fighting for them.
You should rethink that one.
I think that you are missing the Nazi angle here.
Russia's official stance is that any Ukrainian who identifies as a Ukrainian is a Nazi. That IS their official position.
As such, EVERY Ukrainian fighting against Russia is a Nazi by definition. And ALL Ukrainians can be slaughtered without any moral qualms. That is the official Russian stance.
20 -
HowToTellLollyIsLying? wrote:
Lollys Master wrote:
Like I said previously, I disagree with Russian methods, as they're outdated and very rough. US does it much more smoothely and slick - supporting the opposition to overthrow a democratically elected president is the way to go in the 21st century.
It seems so strange to me, that many think Russia can't take Ukraine by force. If Putin was this brutal, land stealing and blood-thristy dictator, as the Wester media is trying to paint him to be, he could have destroyed Ukraine within days with the help of the missiles and jets, but it's obviously not the goal here.
Like Putin has been saying for years now, this is a de-nazification process and measures to make Ukraine unable to join NATO.
To repeat myself once again, I disagree with his methods, yet, I understand what he's doing and see the logic behind it.
No. It's absolutely fantasy to believe that Putin was holding back or could "do better". Sure, he could nuke Ukraine and destroy it, but personally I believe it is unlikely that Putin will use nukes in Ukraine. The Russian military can't defeat Ukrainian forces using a mix of outdated and modern NATO technology. Imagine what would happen if the US decided to really participate in response to a Russian tactical nuke. Ukraine had under 100 aircraft at the start of the war. The US has over 5,000 combat aircraft. Ukraine had under 1000 tanks at the start of the war. The US has over 10,000. Ukraine has almost no longer range missile capabilities. The US has around 4,000 tomahawk cruise missiles. Putin knows this and can't risk direct conflict with the US or NATO. If Putin uses a tactical nuke, China isn't going to bail him out.
The Russian military is underfunded, undertrained, and has been pilfered by corrupt leaders for the last 30 years. The impacts are evident throughout the conflict in Ukraine, from the failed assault on Hostomel the first night (poor Russian intelligence, leaders being told what they want to hear, rather than the truth); the failure of the 70,000 soldiers of the 35th CAA to encircle Kyiv in the first week (poor logistics, necessity of sticking to roadways, general incompetence), to the rout in Kharkiv (outplayed by Ukrainian messaging, low morale).
Russia wouldn't be mobilizing 300,000 minorities as cannon fodder if things were going according to plan. Your inability to accept basic facts is disturbing; your parroting of Putin's claims of de-nazification when Putin has fostered neo-Nazi movement in Russia for the last 20 years is just pathetic and comical.
Your tired claims of hypocrisy lack substance and betray your lack of intellect. But keep supporting Russia if it makes mommy and daddy proud!
it is a fair question to ask why RU hasn't simply bombed central kiev into dust. I think the answer is that RU still plans to take over the entire country so having a central capital will be necessary for the puppet government to come.
But I do think when it comes down to it, RU will do a last-ditch battle of the bulge sort of thing and try to simply burn down kiev.
00 -
#7356
This post was removed.
-
agip wrote:
Estonia
latvia
poland
norway
lithuania
GB
Read what you post: "financial, humanitarian and military aid".
Most of the EU countries have provided humanitarian aid, that doesn't kill people.
Our topic was military aid. Weaponry.
So one more time, which EU countries have provided more military aid to Ukraine per capita than the US?
I literally live in Europe and follow closely what has been sent and can tell you, that Austria sending three trucks of Covid masks to Ukraine is not the kind of help the US has been sending.
01 -
Lollys Master wrote:
HowToTellLollyIsLying? wrote:
Poor little Lolly. Can't actually answer a simple question. Let me answer on your behalf. Lolly accepts Russian wars whole-heartedly, like a nauseating hypocrite.
I will call for prosecution of Russian war crimes once prosecution of American war crimes begins. For the millionth time - either condemnation of all war crimes, or free-for-all.
Once you start putting conditions on your condemnation of Russian war crimes, you're no longer condemning Russian war crimes. You're supporting them. But, your entire "whataboutism" argument was BS to begin with, so I guess it's not surprising.
40 -
#7359
This post was removed.
-
agip wrote:
Lollys Master wrote:
Like I said previously, I disagree with Russian methods, as they're outdated and very rough. US does it much more smoothely and slick - supporting the opposition to overthrow a democratically elected president is the way to go in the 21st century.
It seems so strange to me, that many think Russia can't take Ukraine by force. If Putin was this brutal, land stealing and blood-thristy dictator, as the Wester media is trying to paint him to be, he could have destroyed Ukraine within days with the help of the missiles and jets, but it's obviously not the goal here.
Like Putin has been saying for years now, this is a de-nazification process and measures to make Ukraine unable to join NATO.
To repeat myself once again, I disagree with his methods, yet, I understand what he's doing and see the logic behind it.
DE NAZIFICATION???????? You can't really believe that. Tell me you don't believe that.
I can't believe anyone outside of RU borders actually believes that. If you believe that you are the damndest fool I've ever come across. You seem smart in most ways but DENAZIFICATION???????? Good lord. Steady, agip. Steady.And also, the RU armed forces have in fact proved so utterly incompetent that they cannot do the things you have described. They cannot control the skies. they tried. They lost.
Yeah. Lolly sticks pretty close to the Putin party line. I assume it's because he lacks the ability to do any rigorous analysis on his own to make an informed decision about the war.
Let me summarize Putin's arguments:
US bad. Russia good.
And now let me summarize Lolly's arguments:
US bad. Russia good.
30
