Sounds like we got a lot of sore losers still bitching and whining every single day about anything and everything. If they spent half that time trying to understand why their side lost, they might not be staring down the barrel of continuing to lose for the foreseeable future.
He apparently said it in...wait for it...Russian. his native tongue
Right, let’s remonstrate Ukraine and stick up for the side composed of communist dictatorships that stated this war. When you can be on the side of Russia/North Korea/China, you just have to do it.
It’s dawned on me from reading your posts that you may actually be a well-functioning retard.
Had to make sure vance understood
You must be a recent college attendee. Sounds similar to my son's explanation of the political science professor he has.
1) If the US has to pony up the bill for every country that Russia invades, yes the US will go bankrupt before Russian soldiers reach our shores.
Didn't that country collapse about 35 years ago?
KGB still going strong with the same goal
Russia will run out of money and men way faster than us. Beauty of a proxy war.
Will they? Isn’t China filling those financial gaps? And when you say “us” you suggesting the US start sending US soldiers?
No I’m suggesting Russia is losing an entire generation of men and we haven’t had to spill a drop of American blood. Want to talk about America first? Seems like fantastic ROI.
No he isn't suggesting that
Russia will not run out of men faster than “us”. Unless you are suggesting we should send our forces to Ukraine to fight.
Do you understand his post? He is saying it is a proxy war and there is no US loses other than the US veterans who volunteered to fight for Ukraine's freedom.
How many men have we lost so far?
Is that the only option in war? The country with more soldiers wins? Then why in the world did Russia lose in Afghanistan if their soldiers are 100% expendable? Certainly they had a greater population than the Afghans. Yes, I get they are potentially brainwashed that losing to Ukraine is not an option, but one has to imagine there are other ways to win than to simply be the last man standing. If Russia loses 1 million men, you think there is 0% chance they revolt? 0% chance Putin realizes he is not wanted in Ukraine and he will face guerrilla war forever? 0% chance someone gets fed up and assassinates Putin? 0% chance the Russian soldier grow weary and quit? I'm sure there are other scenarios in which Ukraine can be successful from continued fighting.
I'm suggesting it might not matter. There are potentially infinite variables and scenarios. I said what if hundreds of thousands die and soldiers become weary of killing their Ukrainian brothers? What if someone assasinates Putin? What if Putin just dies? What if the population goes full Vietnam protest? Are the Russian soldiers really just Orcs that operate as piles of flesh to be blown to pieces inside a tank? I thought that was a just a derogatory insult.
Ok. In theory there could be an option of maintaining the status quo. I’m assuming that military intelligence would provide their best estimates of the probability of any of those things happening.
I guess my response would be who cares. Russia has proved they are as worthy as Mike Tyson in the ring. If we want to gloat of proxy war like it’s a US victory lap, How many people has China lost?
