|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 21 Apr 13:39
As Churchill said, "you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing - After they have tried everything else".
With this mammoth package of assistance now passing through congress, together with the help already promised and given from European nations, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia and the UK then maybe the candle of freedom burning in Kyiv won`t be snuffed out so easily. Of course it still relies on Ukrainian men, displaying a bravery few of us have, in their thousands bleeding and dying on the battlefield.
Post Edited (Sun 21 Apr 13:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Sun 21 Apr 14:56
Would have been as well just sending Nato in and ending the conflict quicker than this 🙄 just delaying the inevitable really!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Sun 21 Apr 16:40
Apologies, I don`t often get involved in this forum but I`m sure I read (somewhere) that the USA had already given Ukraine help to the tune of 70 or 80 odd billion since the war started .
So is this 61 billion really going to make much difference?
Or am I simplifying it too much ?
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 22 Apr 05:03
Ukraine is genuinely fecked. It has lost the war, and pumping more money into it is pointless, verging on sadistic. It just encourages the continued slaughter of poor, under-trained Ukrainian conscripts, adding to 10,000 civilians already dead and 20,000 injured. Granted, Ukraine is not quite the mincemeat factory of Gaza, but what has occurred there is disgusting and shameful.
Let`s not kid ourselves that this money is bound for Ukraine. It will directly feed the American military-industrial complex, for most of that money stays within the US. The remainder will go to fund a corrupt Ukrainian government and help those running it purchase tasty property in Florida or California for their eventual escape. Again, the bulk of that money will return to the States.
If you have been to America in recent years, you would quickly appreciate the folly of this "generosity". Look around, and you see that much of the country is falling apart. America`s infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is a testament to neglect. Many of the main airports look like relics of the 1960s, and public transport is shocking—the railways are awful, and the roads and bridges are often in poor condition.
But infrastructure is just the tip of the iceberg. Walk down any city street, and you`ll encounter another facet of social neglect: the homeless, people living in cars, and tent cities—evidence of America`s inadequate social support systems. Then, there are the healthcare and education systems. Medical bills bankrupt families, and education costs put higher learning out of reach for countless Americans.
Yet, US politicians refuse to tackle these issues head-on, instead diverting their public`s attention to immigration and foreign wars, and above all, despising the opposition party, which is identical in almost every way. It is truly Orwellian.
Ironically, a proportion of the money that reaches the Ukrainian government will help fund government-subsidised pensions, education, and medical services—all of which the US taxpayers who provide the cash do not themselves receive as entitlements.
The US national debt is $34 trillion, growing by a trillion every 100 days.
I have been meaning to see the new movie Civil War. Frankly, a civil war in America may well be in the offing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Mon 22 Apr 11:07
Oz, you seriously need to stop getting your propaganda from convicted paedophile Scott Ritter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 22 Apr 12:48
It`s important to note that my sources of information are not limited to a single individual. I make a conscious effort to gather insights from various directions, allowing me to form my own, well-rounded conclusions.
It is blindingly apparent that events in Ukraine are pointing to one outcome: victory for Russia. This dash for cash is the West`s last throw of the dice, but the politicians know the truth. The game is up.
This pedo nonsense with Scott Ritter needs to be thrown out the window and the real story told, but I am not the man to do it. If need be, do a Wiki search to get closer to the facts of that matter.
On the subject of sources, recognise for a moment that I am situated 12,000 miles away from you on the other side of the world; politically and culturally, we come to this from very different perspectives.
When I watch UK or American TV, I am repeatedly amazed at how distorted they seem. I am not talking about bias here; I am talking about factual errors, left, right, and centre. Get outside the NATO bubble, and you will find very different viewpoints from those you are being fed.
You are deliberately being misled, and your media is obscuring the truth from you. For instance, were you aware that the IMF has produced a report that effectively says all those sanctions imposed on Russia have been for naught?
The IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook, published last Tuesday, that Russia is expected to grow 3.2% in 2024, exceeding the forecast growth rates for the U.S. (2.7%), the U.K. (0.5%), Germany (0.2%), and France (0.7%).
How bloody embarrassing is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Mon 22 Apr 15:55
Quote:
OzPar, Mon 22 Apr 12:48
It`s important to note that my sources of information are not limited to a single individual. I make a conscious effort to gather insights from various directions, allowing me to form my own, well-rounded conclusions.
It is blindingly apparent that events in Ukraine are pointing to one outcome: victory for Russia. This dash for cash is the West`s last throw of the dice, but the politicians know the truth. The game is up.
This pedo nonsense with Scott Ritter needs to be thrown out the window and the real story told, but I am not the man to do it. If need be, do a Wiki search to get closer to the facts of that matter.
On the subject of sources, recognise for a moment that I am situated 12,000 miles away from you on the other side of the world; politically and culturally, we come to this from very different perspectives.
When I watch UK or American TV, I am repeatedly amazed at how distorted they seem. I am not talking about bias here; I am talking about factual errors, left, right, and centre. Get outside the NATO bubble, and you will find very different viewpoints from those you are being fed.
You are deliberately being misled, and your media is obscuring the truth from you. For instance, were you aware that the IMF has produced a report that effectively says all those sanctions imposed on Russia have been for naught?
The IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook, published last Tuesday, that Russia is expected to grow 3.2% in 2024, exceeding the forecast growth rates for the U.S. (2.7%), the U.K. (0.5%), Germany (0.2%), and France (0.7%).
How bloody embarrassing is that?
A nation going balls to the wall industry to stockpile their military will obviously grow faster than nations not at war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 23 Apr 01:13
Yes, but... sanctions???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Tue 23 Apr 08:03
I remember listening to a podcast about North Korea and the impact sanctions had…
Basically, they went from purchasing weapons from one group of people, let’s say ’respectable’ groups - to suddenly being courted by a whole different group of people, much more nefarious, who had a lot ‘more’ to offer
They reckoned that sanctions actually sped up their weapons programme
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 23 Apr 12:25
I`m glad it wasn`t Oz making the US`s spending decisions in 1940 or we`d be having this conversation in German.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 23 Apr 14:25
61bn dollars, it`s a lot of money to give away to another country, especially when America has so many issues with poverty at home. I guess a lot of that money ends up in the hands of American arms producers. Really, the rest of the world should be trying to broker a peaceful resolution, there isn`t going to be a happy end to this by adding more arms to a war of atricion.
No profit in peace though
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 23 Apr 16:48
I think it`s something like a third of it is essentially credit that Ukraine can spend on arms produced in the US.
Would be great if a quick and peaceful resolution could be found but when Russia has bombed hospitals, power stations and civilian apartment blocks and then waiting a couple of hours and bombing some targets again so that the rescue workers then become casualties I don`t see peace being on their agenda.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Tue 23 Apr 20:40
Wait, this is still going on? We were assured months ago on these pages that the war was over and Ukraine had lost. It’s almost like that those impartial sources were in fact totally incorrect 🤔
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 29 Apr 11:30
I`m glad it wasn`t Oz making the US`s spending decisions in 1940 or we`d be having this conversation in German.
===
Sadly, we are still paying the heavy price of getting the Americans to give us a hand. Britain finally paid Lend-lease in 2006, but there was a range of commitments linked to it that will forever hold the UK to America`s ankle. But if the truth be told, it was the Russians that kicked the Germans` ass and effectively won WW2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Mon 29 Apr 11:32
Certainly played a huge role in it anyway in terms of lives lost. Mind you they were allies for the first two years of the second world war.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsfan
Date: Mon 29 Apr 11:54
Quote:
OzPar, Mon 29 Apr 11:30
I`m glad it wasn`t Oz making the US`s spending decisions in 1940 or we`d be having this conversation in German.
===
Sadly, we are still paying the heavy price of getting the Americans to give us a hand. Britain finally paid Lend-lease in 2006, but there was a range of commitments linked to it that will forever hold the UK to America`s ankle. But if the truth be told, it was the Russians that kicked the Germans` ass and effectively won WW2.
Yeah, the Soviets did most of the work in Europe, but if it wasn`t for the Americans you`d probably never have moved to what would have been a part of the Japanese Empire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The universe is ruled by chance and indifference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 29 Apr 12:08
I`m not expert but WW2 felt like a few wars going on around the same time. It started off being about central and eastern Europe but then the Russians were involved and finally the Americans and Japanese.
I`ll be honest that I`m still unclear on why Russia invaded Ukraine. What have they gained here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parboiled
Date: Mon 29 Apr 12:17
Britain fought the Nazis longer than anyone else.
The Russians were initially their allies and USA only joined in when Hitler declared war on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 29 Apr 12:23
Yeah, the Soviets did most of the work in Europe, but if it wasn`t for the Americans, you`d probably never have moved to what would have been a part of the Japanese Empire.
===
Australia`s contribution to Europe during WW2 was significant, with approximately a million servicemen being deployed. Their role should not be underestimated. Additionally, the support of America during the Coral Sea Battle was a turning point in history, as it led to the destruction of the Japanese fleet. On land, the Australians demonstrated their resilience by successfully repelling the Japanese in Papua New Guinea.
Having the bulk of our troops on the other side of the world left Australia vulnerable, but there was always a doubt that the Japanese would have had the ability to take over this massive continent. Australia is too big and too hostile.
I doubt my neighbours would be speaking Japanese.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 30 Apr 04:33
A lot of the theory around who won the Second World War is quite interesting tbh.
I`m more of the thought that the Germans lost the war through several instances of poor decision making. There were two critical turning points: First was the decision to halt attacks on the RAF Airfields and instead bomb London. The Second was the change in command at the Battle of Stalingrad, whereby the new commander left a pincer movement open which allowed the Russians to ressuply and regroup when the Germans were on the edge of winning. Most critically though, Germany refused to adopt the production line on ideological grounds. German fighter aircraft were far better technologically than pretty much anything the Allies had, but they simply didn`t have the numbers of FW190s or Me262s to deal with with the P51s, P47s, Spitfires, YAKs and even the later Tempests. The other issue was the failure to produce a proper heavy bomber comparable to even the B17s or B24s, let alone the Lancaster. The same could be said about the quality of the German Panzer and Tiger tanks vs the Shermans. Had these issues been addressed, they very likely could have beaten Britain and finished off the Soviets and I think its often underestimated just how close the Germans came to victory.
The Russians definitely made up more in terms of casualties and in truth probably lost far more soldiers than they needed to because of their poor tactics and direction.
In the Pacific, the war really began with Japan`s ventures into China in the early 30s, much of which was due to trade restrictions such as the oil embargos, which were crippling because Japan has hee haw in terms of natural resources. Japan needed to modernise but had no way to do it without creating an Empire. Chang Kai Shek was more interested in fighting the Communists than the Japanese during the civil war which galvanised support for Mao and the Whites held the cities while the reds held the countryside and eventually this led to the current situation where the Whites fled to Taiwan and the Reds took control of the mainland. The Soviets only really got into the pacific conflict toward the end when they fought in Korea. The US did much of the work in the pacific to beat Japan, but Australia did play a prominent role as Oz said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 30 Apr 05:23
As for the current Ukraine situation, I genuinely can`t understand why Oz seemingly wants Russia to win. Turning a blind eye to blatant military aggression is an extremely dangerous precedent to set. All this will do is embolden Putin and encourage Xi to take a pop at Taiwan which will basically destroy the electronics industry worldwide and also invoke a war between the US (maybe the Quad) and China.
As for reading multiple News sources, it`s very clear that a lot of the narratives Oz is stating are coming from the Kremlin via Tass. It`s fine to consider the Russian narrative, but there is certainly very little factuality of what comes out of Russian media.
Personally, I would criticise the European NATO countries for not mobilising their industry to produce the required ammunition for the Ukrainians. That said, Estonia and Czech have found 1Mn and 1.5Mn 155mm shells respectively which they plan to purchase and send to Ukraine. Frankly, the Western European countries missed an opportunity to listen to the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet block countries who had been warning about the threat of Russia for years. Germany in particular needs to do some proper soul searching and realise that "leading Europe" also includes being a military power.
The first thing that will happen will be that efforts will be made to stabilise the line. The Ukrainians have performed something of a miracle to hold what they have over the last few months while the Republicans failed to put their big boy pants on. They still have the advantage at Sea and have largely neutralised the Russian Black Sea Fleet and Russia simply doesn`t have the capabilities in the air, otherwise they`d have been able to do much more to neautralise the convoys of military gear coming in from Poland and elsewhere. Giving the Ukranians Air Power is vital going forward if there is to be a move from positional warfare and proper use of NATO combined-arms warfare.
At this stage, I have to praise Macron for actually taking the initiative and calling out Putin. I think its far more likely that we will see NATO troops in Ukraine in support roles and potentially guarding the Belarussian border along with a No-fly zone. There simply is no excuse for not putting this in place after the action that was taken during the Iran drone attack on Israel.
Outside of the battle on the ground it appears that there are still efforts ongoing to use Russian sovereign assets to pay for weapons for the Ukrainians. It also appears that the US is considering sanctions on China for supplying tooling equipment to the Russians which is helping military production. I would hope the EU would follow suit with this as this would really turn the screw on Xi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 1 May 05:52
As for the current Ukraine situation, I genuinely can`t understand why Oz seemingly wants Russia to win. Turning a blind eye to blatant military aggression is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
===
Oh dear, HJ, where do we start? I want to clarify that I do not want Russia to win. However, I believe it`s important to address the perception that I am turning a blind eye to military aggression.
We have been down this road several times before, HJ. It is like arguing that the conflict in the Middle East started on October 7. You know very well that Russia was provoked into action in Ukraine. NATO`s efforts to bring Ukraine into play were a red rag to the bull. We don’t have to go through all those events and issues again. They should be taken as read.
===
As for reading multiple News sources, it`s very clear that a lot of the narratives Oz is stating are coming from the Kremlin via Tass. It`s fine to consider the Russian narrative, but there is certainly very little factuality of what comes out of Russian media.
===
This is not the case. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Western narrative – or at least, the NATO narrative - is distorted and, in large part, completely untrue. For two years, we were fed the line that Ukraine was winning, and it is fair to say that they were for a while. The Russians were slow to adjust to the new form of warfare that used unmanned drones, and they took a hell of a beating in the Black Sea and on the front lines.
The Russians` nadir came when Prigozhin led his private army, the Wagner Group, up the freeway towards Moscow. Whatever Putin said to Prigozhin that night proved to be the turning point in the conflict. Since then, things have pretty much all gone Putin’s way.
Don’t be fooled by this new injection of money. As I said at the beginning of this thread, it’s a sleight of hand by politicians to redistribute public money around the States, with a small proportion being used to fund what is left of a corrupt government in Kyiv.
We’ve seen all this before. Remember Afghanistan? Who was the Afghani leader straight out of Hollywood central casting? Hamid Karzai. Anointed by the USA to act as a puppet for the USA. And when the time was right, dumped by the USA.
Here’s Ukraine, with its leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, literally right out of central casting—an actor who played the president becoming the president. Right now, the USA is fattening his pockets in preparation for a swift and stealthy escape. But his days as the darling of the West are fast running out.
Putin has said he would never kill the leader of another nation while in office. However, on May 20, Zelenskyy’s period in office officially ends. He has cancelled elections due to the ongoing war, but that is not going to stop Putin from sending in an assassination squad if he wants to. For as far as Putin is concerned, Zelenskyy will then be an illegitimate leader.
The much-vaunted Ukrainian offensive turned out to be a disaster, and four provinces in the east joined Crimea in being forever lost to Russia. The question now is, when will Ukraine surrender? The sooner, the better; if they don’t, four more provinces will disappear, and Ukraine’s wheat will not have access to Odessa port on the Black Sea.
Last week, 8,000 Ukrainian soldiers were lost, while the Russians added 100,000 newly trained recruits. Ukraine just does not have the numbers. This war should have ended months ago, but rest assured it will end soon.
As things stand, Zelenskyy would do well to get out of Dodge before May 20.
None of this information was sourced in Russia.
Post Edited (Wed 01 May 05:57)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 1 May 16:09
Oz, that last post really makes you look like the Marjorie Taylor-Green of dotnet.
As I said, literally everything you have said is a narrative that has originated in the Kremlin and is being circulated by the Russian state media and disinformation apparatus.
The narrative that "The US aid is pointless because the war is unwinnable for the Ukrainians" is one that appears in cycles when the Ukrainians appear to be struggling. It appeared in the beginning when we were hearing that the Ukrainians would "fold within days".
Do you honestly believe that the corruption in Ukraine is worse than in Russia? Claim this is whitabootery if you like, but if that is the case then you really need to do a bit more research and look at how Russia actually operates and ask the question why Russia doesn`t match the likes of Poland in terms or economic performance and development.
You`re certainly not stupid and have said that you have worked with media in the past. With that in mind, why are you doing a Sammer and peddling a narrative that you are likely quite aware comes from the Kremlin if you do not want the Russians to win?
As I`ve stated previously, the Ukrainian struggles on land are well documented and are really caused by the lack of air power as it severely hinders the ability to conduct combined arms operations. This has resulted in the use of more assault-type tactics which are more risky and it is thought that these are much of the reason that the Abrams tanks were withdrawn from the front line last week.
Basically, you`re taking the approach of "Oh, it failed" without actually looking into the detail - which is, unfortunately, the approach of many these days - and one of the reasons that the likes of Orban and Trump are able to get away with the lies that they spread.
You seem unable or unwilling to properly analyse the military situation. Quite a few sources are stating that the Ukrainian weapons supplies have been in trickles for about a year and that much of the promised aid has been slow or not arrived yet. If you think the Russians have the military superiority on land, then I would ask you why the Ukrainians have managed to largely hold the lines? Particularly when they`ve been rationing artillery munitions and are only able to fire about 1 round for every 10 from the Russians and this has been the case for a few months.This rather contradicts your notion that the Ukrainians aren`t up for the fight or that Russian "might" means that resistance is pointless.
Also, let`s see a source for that claim of 8,000 military deaths on the Ukrainian side last week. Searching key words "Ukraine War" "8000 Casualties" on Ground News brings up articles on Mariupol and pre-war articles on the conflict since 2015 but nothing dated April 2024. Those mentioned are also civilian casualties not military.
Are you at all familiar with the quality of the Russian military training? Particularly under the current circumstances?
The cla
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 1 May 16:09
The claims about Putin not wanting to kill Zelensky while he held an election mandate are simply deluded to the point of hilarity. How long do you think Putin has legitimately held power in Russia? Putin needed the war to move focus away from his corruption and this is a tactic that was used to cement his power in 2000 with Chechnya and then again in 2008 with Georgia when the Russian opposition was starting to gain momentum and uncovering systematic cronyism and corruption.
Make no mistake, when you claim that the "Western and NATO narrative is distorted and completely untrue" and that "Putin was provoked by NATO", you are simply cementing your status as another "Useful idiot".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 3 May 07:42
PART ONE
At its best, journalism is applied research; at its worst, it is propaganda. When producing a story, a journalist should aim to answer six fundamental questions: WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, HOW, and WHY. It is as simple as that, but these days, that last question, WHY, is often ignored. What is most concerning is that frequently, it is deliberately ignored, and inevitably, the result is propaganda.
Pursuing clicks and views can sometimes overshadow the commitment to genuine inquiry in the current media landscape. The WHY behind a story is the key to understanding motives, context, and consequences. However, it is often pushed aside in favour of sensationalism or reinforcing preconceived narratives.
This is why I emphasise the merit of examining an issue from all points of the compass: to answer the question WHY, to establish context, the bedrock upon which accurate and insightful research is built.
When I read your critique of my comments on the war in Ukraine, I was taken by your observation that my remarks are simply a recycling of a Kremlin narrative rather than a balanced assessment of the situation from a neutral perspective. As an Australian, I have no skin in the game. Why would I wish to support Russia?
Just as what is happening in Gaza did not begin on October 7, the Ukraine situation did not start in February 2022.
For the sake of fairness, HJ, here`s the context as I see it:
In 1990, Gorbachev received assurances from the USA that NATO would not advance eastwards. However, under Clinton, three nations joined NATO. In 2007, under Bush Jr., seven more joined the group. At that point, Putin said, "Stop, no more". But in February 2014, the United States participated in a regime change operation overthrowing a Ukrainian president who wanted neutrality, Viktor Yanukovych. At that moment, Putin said you`re not getting our naval base in Crimea and took back Crimea because he was not going to let it fall into NATO hands.
The ethnic Russian part of the eastern Donbas was shocked at the Russophobic regime that had come into power with the US connivance, and it required two treaties, Minsk 1 and 2, to avert a civil war. The idea of the Minsk 2 agreement was that the eastern part of Ukraine, which is ethnically overwhelmingly Russian, would have autonomy within a federal Ukraine. However, the United States and the Ukrainian government opposed federalisation.
By the time Biden came in in 2021, the Minsk agreements had fallen apart, and the US was arming Ukraine to the teeth. Biden came in in full cold warrior mode, pledging he would expand NATO to Ukraine—that upset Putin. On December 17, 2021, Putin put on the table a draft US-Russia security agreement based on NATO not enlarging into Ukraine with missiles being pointed at Russia, but Biden rejected that.
(Continued...)
Post Edited (Fri 03 May 07:44)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 3 May 07:46
PART TWO
So, when applying this context to the current war, you could reasonably characterise it as occurring in the eighth year of a dispute that started with the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych and escalated when Biden refused to negotiate with Putin in December 2021.
Within a few days of the launch of Russia`s so-called "special military operation", in early March 2022, Zelensky went to the negotiating table with Turkish mediators. He reassured Russia that Ukraine could be neutral but would need security guarantees. They were making tremendous progress, according to insider accounts. But, as we all know, Boris Johnson, acting on behalf of Biden, stepped in to tell Zelensky, you don`t need to negotiate, you need to defeat Russia, you don`t need to accept neutrality, we`ve got your back.
And so, this bloodbath commenced. History will not be kind to Biden and Johnson.
Suppose you were to seek some actual context rather than rely on a mishmash of press releases from NATO officials and military hardware companies. In that case, you might pick up on reports from Reuters saying Ukraine is outnumbered, outgunned, and ground down by relentless Russian advances.
As the war progresses through its third year, the Ukrainian army is 30-40% smaller than it was. The rest have been killed, wounded, or signed off for various reasons, such as old age or illness. They are exhausted, and the army cannot recruit enough soldiers to fill the gaps. The 8,000 losses (not "casualties") I mentioned last week were not all deaths; they included many troops withdrawing of their own volition from the front lines. Morale is falling.
As you have acknowledged, Ukraine has an arms supply issue and does not have air superiority. The bulk of the money approved by the US Congress will go towards replenishing dwindling US stocks, not the Ukraine frontlines. Any sensible assessment of the situation points to this ugly game being over.
Context. It is all about context. From where I sit, given the vast and oh-so-unnecessary losses, any victory will very much be a pyrrhic victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 3 May 12:27
It`s like a battle of TLDR here currently
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 3 May 13:18
Alas, not all subjects lend themselves to brevity.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
