Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

They're a mess because Russia did not calculate going to war against the United States, which is what essentially the battle in Ukraine has become. It's American intelligence, weapons, logistical support, and money that's driving the Russians back. Sure, it's Ukrainian soldiers who are benefitting from all this support and using it on the battlefield, but it's neither Ukraine nor Zelensky who's winning this war.

Sorry. You're losing badly to the "hohols".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

They're a mess because Russia did not calculate going to war against the United States, which is what essentially the battle in Ukraine has become. It's American intelligence, weapons, logistical support, and money that's driving the Russians back. Sure, it's Ukrainian soldiers who are benefitting from all this support and using it on the battlefield, but it's neither Ukraine nor Zelensky who's winning this war.

You do realize that you're saying the Russians were never prepared to take on the West, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ca52QhGr4

That all the billions of rubles spent on Russian spy networks, spy satellites, electronic warfare, high-tech gadgets, were unable to locate and target Ukrainian assets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK3vo8DZLbY

The Russian military is the Best in the World, remember?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ZKivBYQYM

It is absolutely Zelensky who is winning this war. The West isn't driving the logistics trucks to supply their front lines. The West isn't pulling the trigger on the tank gun, or rocket trigger. It's all Ukrainian.

Without the United States and Western allies, the Ukrainians wouldn’t have any logistics to transport or triggers to pull.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

They're a mess because Russia did not calculate going to war against the United States, which is what essentially the battle in Ukraine has become. It's American intelligence, weapons, logistical support, and money that's driving the Russians back. Sure, it's Ukrainian soldiers who are benefitting from all this support and using it on the battlefield, but it's neither Ukraine nor Zelensky who's winning this war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

They're a mess because Russia did not calculate going to war against the United States, which is what essentially the battle in Ukraine has become. It's American intelligence, weapons, logistical support, and money that's driving the Russians back. Sure, it's Ukrainian soldiers who are benefitting from all this support and using it on the battlefield, but it's neither Ukraine nor Zelensky who's winning this war.

You do realize that you're saying the Russians were never prepared to take on the West, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ca52QhGr4

That all the billions of rubles spent on Russian spy networks, spy satellites, electronic warfare, high-tech gadgets, were unable to locate and target Ukrainian assets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK3vo8DZLbY

The Russian military is the Best in the World, remember?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ZKivBYQYM

It is absolutely Zelensky who is winning this war. The West isn't driving the logistics trucks to supply their front lines. The West isn't pulling the trigger on the tank gun, or rocket trigger. It's all Ukrainian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

They're a mess because Russia did not calculate going to war against the United States, which is what essentially the battle in Ukraine has become. It's American intelligence, weapons, logistical support, and money that's driving the Russians back. Sure, it's Ukrainian soldiers who are benefitting from all this support and using it on the battlefield, but it's neither Ukraine nor Zelensky who's winning this war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

They're a mess because Russia did not calculate going to war against the United States, which is what essentially the battle in Ukraine has become. It's American intelligence, weapons, logistical support, and money that's driving the Russians back. Sure, it's Ukrainian soldiers who are benefitting from all this support and using it on the battlefield, but it's neither Ukraine nor Zelensky who's winning this war.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Also, not giving credit to the Ukrainian soldiers. Yes, the West is supplying arms, but Russia had tons of arms and soldiers, and they are a mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

I think you’re not giving enough credit to the role of excellent examples of Russian tactical failures like “not telling trainees they were going to war” and “lining all their trucks up on a road”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

Only in your eyes. Multiple commentators, including diplomats who served in the region, have stated very clearly that Putin sees NATO encroachment into Georgia and Ukraine as a red line, and will respond. It's not like it hasn't been said or warned about, for years. You may disagree that this is where the line should be, but that is where it is for him. His response was entirely predictable, and it is a fact that his government tried to get a commitment from NATO not to engage with Ukraine by diplomatic means. When he didn't get it by diplomatic means, he proceeded to non-diplomatic means.

Let's not talk about morality, that word sounds funny when said with an American accent.

I don’t have an American accent but have lived here for many years.

We run in international circles and everyone I know believes that Putin’s NATO rants were a pretext for an illegal land grab carried out with many unnecessary war crimes.

NATO is a military alliance not an attack dog.

Putin's NATO opposition is not news and it has been on record long before any land grabs. It sounds like you don't think anyone is entitled to dislike NATO.

Invading a neutral country because you dislike NATO doesn't actually make sense. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:Given that the ONLY reason for Ukraine's success on the battlefield is due to the financial and material support from the United States and other western Allies, what more does Zelensky want?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

Only in your eyes. Multiple commentators, including diplomats who served in the region, have stated very clearly that Putin sees NATO encroachment into Georgia and Ukraine as a red line, and will respond. It's not like it hasn't been said or warned about, for years. You may disagree that this is where the line should be, but that is where it is for him. His response was entirely predictable, and it is a fact that his government tried to get a commitment from NATO not to engage with Ukraine by diplomatic means. When he didn't get it by diplomatic means, he proceeded to non-diplomatic means.

Let's not talk about morality, that word sounds funny when said with an American accent.

I don’t have an American accent but have lived here for many years.

We run in international circles and everyone I know believes that Putin’s NATO rants were a pretext for an illegal land grab carried out with many unnecessary war crimes.

NATO is a military alliance not an attack dog.

Putin's NATO opposition is not news and it has been on record long before any land grabs. It sounds like you don't think anyone is entitled to dislike NATO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

Only in your eyes. Multiple commentators, including diplomats who served in the region, have stated very clearly that Putin sees NATO encroachment into Georgia and Ukraine as a red line, and will respond. It's not like it hasn't been said or warned about, for years. You may disagree that this is where the line should be, but that is where it is for him. His response was entirely predictable, and it is a fact that his government tried to get a commitment from NATO not to engage with Ukraine by diplomatic means. When he didn't get it by diplomatic means, he proceeded to non-diplomatic means.

Let's not talk about morality, that word sounds funny when said with an American accent.

I don’t have an American accent but have lived here for many years.


We run in international circles and everyone I know believes that Putin’s NATO rants were a pretext for an illegal land grab carried out with many unnecessary war crimes.

NATO is a military alliance not an attack dog.

Sorry Military defense alliance