Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

However badly the war has hurt Russia, it has hurt Ukraine more, and it's delightful to watch you not give a damn. Really clarifies things.

DP. We've already been given a taste of what Russia will do to Ukrainians. If Ukraine were to just roll over and let Russia barrel through, it would be even worse.

If you're posting from the DMV area, YOU personally have been given a taste of nothing but pixels on a screen.

So? That's all the taste I need to know that Ukrainians would be ground into dust if they surrender to Russia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

WTH. People hate Russia because they've got nukes and they threaten to use them.
And they bomb the daylight out of other countries (Syria, anyone?) Nice white washing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

And that is Ukraine's good luck. Actually, it's Ukraine's super good luck that it was Russia that attacked it. If it was attacked by, say, some obscure Eastern European state like Moldova or Montenegro, all it would get would be some phd types on PBS digging up twelfth century battles and historical details of things no one cares about. Also, this program would have the viewership of maybe twelve people, including family members of these phd types. And if it was, like Niger attacking Chad, well not a single white person would care. But since it is Russia, the country the West decided it will hate because it simply refuses to be led, Ukraine is getting pummeled, yes, but it's also getting tons of sympathy points, and once the war is over, it will get tons of aid. So, there is the silver lining. Just like it was Palestinians' good luck to be oppressed by Israel, and not, say, Yemen. Because Arabs oppressed by other Arabs get bubkes by way of Western attention or sympathy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Well I guess we’ll never know, since Russia really sucks at this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this from a US geopolitical perspective the answer is obvious that the US should keep supplying Ukraine. The benefits are big and costs are small. As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should keep supplying and slowly weakening Russia. It’s as simple as that. Russia can end the war by ending their invasion and leaving at any time.

This is only true if Ukrainian casualties are worth zero in your eyes, which may very well be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

However badly the war has hurt Russia, it has hurt Ukraine more, and it's delightful to watch you not give a damn. Really clarifies things.

DP. We've already been given a taste of what Russia will do to Ukrainians. If Ukraine were to just roll over and let Russia barrel through, it would be even worse.

If you're posting from the DMV area, YOU personally have been given a taste of nothing but pixels on a screen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this from a US geopolitical perspective the answer is obvious that the US should keep supplying Ukraine. The benefits are big and costs are small. As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should keep supplying and slowly weakening Russia. It’s as simple as that. Russia can end the war by ending their invasion and leaving at any time.

This is only true if Ukrainian casualties are worth zero in your eyes, which may very well be.

Anonymous wrote:Looking at this from a US geopolitical perspective the answer is obvious that the US should keep supplying Ukraine. The benefits are big and costs are small. As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting we should keep supplying and slowly weakening Russia. It’s as simple as that. Russia can end the war by ending their invasion and leaving at any time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Lol, Crimea and Donbass were occupied before the invasion.

Good on you quoting the "think tank" supported by the defense contractors as chapter and verse.

Are you claiming that Russia has not lost that territory or are you claiming they've secretly made gains recently? I'm a bit confused.

I am claiming that your source has an agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Lol, Crimea and Donbass were occupied before the invasion.

Good on you quoting the "think tank" supported by the defense contractors as chapter and verse.

Are you claiming that Russia has not lost that territory or are you claiming they've secretly made gains recently? I'm a bit confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to see Russian bled dry and right now, our policy and treasure is doing that. I think we're committed at this point and pulling back would only emboldened Putin. How much have we spent? $10+ billion? It's a small price to pay to see one of our biggest adversaries reduced to a third-rate power.

I mean… they’ve always been third rate. But it’s delightful to have it displayed for all the world to see.

A third rate army is sitting on 20% of Ukraine. It's hard to imagine what a second rate army would have been able to do, or, god forbid, a first-rate one!

Lol, Crimea and Donbass were occupied before the invasion.

Good on you quoting the "think tank" supported by the defense contractors as chapter and verse.