You say, every small country should all just let their bigger neighbours get control over them without a fight, because “tHiS wAr Is aLrEAdy LoST”?
I literally did not say that. In fact nothing of what you’ve put in quotation marks is a quotation of mine. Truly you have a beautiful mind. I very much doubt you really care about other nations territorial integrity, in the way your argument seems to suggest, as I doubt you’re making the same arguments when America or other nato aligned nations invade other countries.
Regarding Russian military successes and failures, I think there have been heavy losses on both sides, and major humiliations on both sides. However given that Russia controls nearly a fifth of Ukraines territory and that number is going up not down, I’d suggest that they’re doing ok in terms of land gains. Which isn’t even the main objective of Russia in this moment who have pivoted to a war of attrition, which they will certainly win.
So back to my previous point, what do you think is going to happen? And given the inevitable conclusion, why do you want to promote the war in which you will be sending thousands of Ukrainians (and indeed Russians) to a futile death?
No invasion is never good, not from IS not from russia not from china not from Israel not from germany and not from korea (both sides) as examples
I don’t really pick general sides, but with an invasion, for me, it is clear that the invading party is generally the bad guy
There was nearly no loss nor gains of Landmasses within Ukrine for over a year now, but since Ukrine got their fighter jets, they took some Russia land, apparently.
To try predict the future, I think Ukraine’s Plan to get more and more of Russia land in order to trade all lands back as they were before war, may work, given the NATO (especially US) keeps on giving the weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.
Ahh yes, history always begins on the day of the invasion. The western allies were wrong to invade France on D-Day as being the invader is always bad. There is never any preceding events that may give light to the motives of the attacker. For good or for bad. Libs ‘consider world events not just on in-the-moment vibes’ challenge: impossible.
There being no losses or gains in Ukraine is because Russia has changed its tactics, they’re now grinding it out until Ukraine collapses totally due to lack of material and manpower, not going for territorial gains. Despite this they’re still making strategically important gains in Ukraine. You know Russia has reclaimed a quarter of that land in Kursk back already don’t you? Also that it is a tiny region of land they claimed in the first place, 300 down from 400 square miles. Your vision of the future where Ukraine takes huge swaths of Russia and trades for occupied Ukrainian lands is never going to happen.
I literally did not say that. In fact nothing of what you’ve put in quotation marks is a quotation of mine. Truly you have a beautiful mind. I very much doubt you really care about other nations territorial integrity, in the way your argument seems to suggest, as I doubt you’re making the same arguments when America or other nato aligned nations invade other countries.
Regarding Russian military successes and failures, I think there have been heavy losses on both sides, and major humiliations on both sides. However given that Russia controls nearly a fifth of Ukraines territory and that number is going up not down, I’d suggest that they’re doing ok in terms of land gains. Which isn’t even the main objective of Russia in this moment who have pivoted to a war of attrition, which they will certainly win.
So back to my previous point, what do you think is going to happen? And given the inevitable conclusion, why do you want to promote the war in which you will be sending thousands of Ukrainians (and indeed Russians) to a futile death?
No invasion is never good, not from IS not from russia not from china not from Israel not from germany and not from korea (both sides) as examples
I don’t really pick general sides, but with an invasion, for me, it is clear that the invading party is generally the bad guy
There was nearly no loss nor gains of Landmasses within Ukrine for over a year now, but since Ukrine got their fighter jets, they took some Russia land, apparently.
To try predict the future, I think Ukraine’s Plan to get more and more of Russia land in order to trade all lands back as they were before war, may work, given the NATO (especially US) keeps on giving the weapons and ammunition to Ukraine.
Ahh yes, history always begins on the day of the invasion. The western allies were wrong to invade France on D-Day as being the invader is always bad. There is never any preceding events that may give light to the motives of the attacker. For good or for bad. Libs ‘consider world events not just on in-the-moment vibes’ challenge: impossible.
There being no losses or gains in Ukraine is because Russia has changed its tactics, they’re now grinding it out until Ukraine collapses totally due to lack of material and manpower, not going for territorial gains. Despite this they’re still making strategically important gains in Ukraine. You know Russia has reclaimed a quarter of that land in Kursk back already don’t you? Also that it is a tiny region of land they claimed in the first place, 300 down from 400 square miles. Your vision of the future where Ukraine takes huge swaths of Russia and trades for occupied Ukrainian lands is never going to happen.