yeah no shit and the coverage from the beginning of the invasion indicated that russia was doing way more than that.
because ukraine has shit for a military until the nato proxy war materiel rolls in, and maybe you don't provoke that if you don't expand the fucking front all the way west.
because ukraine has shit for a military until the nato proxy war materiel rolls in
Even before the conflict, Ukraine had the 2nd largest military in Europe (#1 being Russia). It was NATO trained since 2014. Ukraine inherited 30% of the Soviet war industry, they had massive munitions supplies. Nobody else in Europe would be able to stand up to Russia like they could, and that's before they received $110 billion in western military heavy arms. Russia has had to destroy 3 Ukrainian armies (Their original massive army, their 2nd army filled with Soviet systems from donations from Poland, Baltic Nations, post-soviet states, Turkish TB2s, and then their 3rd army of NATO German/American munitions is being destroyed currently). Ukraine has suffered likely hundreds of thousands of casualties and lost thousands of MLRS, tanks, drones, etc.
Again, I don't think you are understanding how war works and how committing to a conflict with a nation state involves going all-in and striking their re-supply lines and economic and transport infrastructure
When you decide to attack someone else in a fight, you don’t limit yourself to only touching their hands. You go right for the throat.
no shit and the coverage from the beginning of the invasion indicated [...]
If there's anything western leftists can learn from this war, if they weren't already aware, it's that whatever "coverage" they get from western media can be immediately discarded. Same goes for the opinions of people who believe that coverage.
NATO has been arming and training Ukraine since 2014. US Congress had to pass a law forbidding the army from training Azov troops. Obviously the Azov guys just got around this by being in a different battalion when the training was going on.
yeah no shit and the coverage from the beginning of the invasion indicated that russia was doing way more than that.
because ukraine has shit for a military until the nato proxy war materiel rolls in, and maybe you don't provoke that if you don't expand the fucking front all the way west.
Even before the conflict, Ukraine had the 2nd largest military in Europe (#1 being Russia). It was NATO trained since 2014. Ukraine inherited 30% of the Soviet war industry, they had massive munitions supplies. Nobody else in Europe would be able to stand up to Russia like they could, and that's before they received $110 billion in western military heavy arms. Russia has had to destroy 3 Ukrainian armies (Their original massive army, their 2nd army filled with Soviet systems from donations from Poland, Baltic Nations, post-soviet states, Turkish TB2s, and then their 3rd army of NATO German/American munitions is being destroyed currently). Ukraine has suffered likely hundreds of thousands of casualties and lost thousands of MLRS, tanks, drones, etc.
Again, I don't think you are understanding how war works and how committing to a conflict with a nation state involves going all-in and striking their re-supply lines and economic and transport infrastructure
When you decide to attack someone else in a fight, you don’t limit yourself to only touching their hands. You go right for the throat.
If there's anything western leftists can learn from this war, if they weren't already aware, it's that whatever "coverage" they get from western media can be immediately discarded. Same goes for the opinions of people who believe that coverage.
NATO has been arming and training Ukraine since 2014. US Congress had to pass a law forbidding the army from training Azov troops. Obviously the Azov guys just got around this by being in a different battalion when the training was going on.