Yeah it’s tough to find a compromise when Russia seems to go for the total victory or at least a settlement of gains and Ukraine hopes for a stalemate without border changes.
Russia has literally never intended to take and hold the whole of Ukraine. USA military intelligence has stated that this has been true since the beginning of the SMO. Your understanding of the world is inaccurate.
It looked a lot like a feint to anyone analyzing the facts after it failed: an ultrathin column, soldier given 3 days worth of supplies, zero follow up, zero contingency. It looks like a classic feint to me.
You deliberately misinterpreted the person who brought up total victory. The side insisting on total victory is Ukraine and the West. They are insisting that negotiations for peace can only occur after Russia is fully defeated and pushed out of Ukrainian territory. Some have gone so far as to say negotiations won’t start until Ukraine pushes Russia out of Crimea.
The West has given Ukraine more per year than Russia spends on its entire military, and Russia isn’t using its entire military in this conflict. Russia also hasn’t invaded Ukraine the way the US has invaded each of its failed quagmires. Russia is staying at the border. It’s a well known problem that Ukraine consists of vast wide open fields which are great for farming and impossible to defend. Russia has clearly demonstrated they have no intention of trying, so no one thinks Russia is going to suffer the same kind of defeat as the USA has. That’s just copium based on your refusal to research and understand the situation beyond news headlines.
The West has given Ukraine most of the good shit at this point. Name some wonder weapons that Ukraine doesn’t have.
??? Why would old collaborators (of which decidents were justly punished later) hurt “the tankie”?
Better mention banderites who ran off to the west where they were sucking up to CIA, MI6 and West German washed-nazi intelligence while murdering people left and right (in Germany, after war no less). it’s even in the wiki too.
Molotov-Ribbentrop is a great example of liberals not being able to think for themselves. Hitler literally wrote in Mein Kampf that his goal was to destroy the communist movement, occupy Russia, and enslave the Slavs. It is literally impossible for the Soviets to believe they could form an alliance, which means your conclusion that Molotov-Ribbentrop constitutes meaningful collaboration is incorrect.
If you study the history around it, the USSR wanted absolutely nothing to do with war after its revolution because it wanted to focus all of its efforts on building a new nation. The treaty was negotiated in attempt to delay armed conflict as much as possible and to take advantage of contradictions in capitalism/fascism to create that extra time.
Hey liberal, I’m a little fuzzy on dates. Did this happen before or after the Munich agreement? Before or after Stalin tried to ally with Britain and France against the Nazis?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The Ukrainians?
deleted by creator
This is one of the US’s partners in the war:
America loves Nazis, whether they’re Ukrainian Neonazis or Zionazis.
New Operation Gladio
The war is a classic example of fascist infighting
Fascists are nationalists. Fascists from different nations fighting each other isn’t really infighting, that’s just like, regular fighting.
Not something we should be fueling at any rate. Heaven forbid anyone asks about a peace plan that isn’t total victory, though.
Yeah it’s tough to find a compromise when Russia seems to go for the total victory or at least a settlement of gains and Ukraine hopes for a stalemate without border changes.
Russia has literally never intended to take and hold the whole of Ukraine. USA military intelligence has stated that this has been true since the beginning of the SMO. Your understanding of the world is inaccurate.
What was the Kyiv offensive about then?
It looked a lot like a feint to anyone analyzing the facts after it failed: an ultrathin column, soldier given 3 days worth of supplies, zero follow up, zero contingency. It looks like a classic feint to me.
I wasn’t the one bringing up total victory. I don’t know what level of invasion is their true intention, nor claim to know.
You deliberately misinterpreted the person who brought up total victory. The side insisting on total victory is Ukraine and the West. They are insisting that negotiations for peace can only occur after Russia is fully defeated and pushed out of Ukrainian territory. Some have gone so far as to say negotiations won’t start until Ukraine pushes Russia out of Crimea.
Ukraine hopes for total retreat from all claimed Ukrainian territory, not a mere stalemate. That’s hardly compromise.
That’s right and as long as US and western allies keep up with deliveries there is a chance for Ukraine to achieve its objectives.
Ideally leading to Russian collapse.
Before you get bent out of shape about it is in possible…
Recent history does demonstrate that invading country that faces a determined opposition will generally have to go home with their dicks tucked.
How long can Russia spin this shot at home esp as Ukraine is striking critical assets deep within Russia.
And the west hasn’t even given Ukraine the best shit and permission to use it as needed.
The West has given Ukraine more per year than Russia spends on its entire military, and Russia isn’t using its entire military in this conflict. Russia also hasn’t invaded Ukraine the way the US has invaded each of its failed quagmires. Russia is staying at the border. It’s a well known problem that Ukraine consists of vast wide open fields which are great for farming and impossible to defend. Russia has clearly demonstrated they have no intention of trying, so no one thinks Russia is going to suffer the same kind of defeat as the USA has. That’s just copium based on your refusal to research and understand the situation beyond news headlines.
The West has given Ukraine most of the good shit at this point. Name some wonder weapons that Ukraine doesn’t have.
Cool so you want a nuclear war.
Okay Brzezinski. Russia hardly faces a determined opposition: it faces a dwindling supply of forced conscripts.
Removed by mod
??? Why would old collaborators (of which decidents were justly punished later) hurt “the tankie”?
Better mention banderites who ran off to the west where they were sucking up to CIA, MI6 and West German washed-nazi intelligence while murdering people left and right (in Germany, after war no less). it’s even in the wiki too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
what about this one?
Molotov-Ribbentrop is a great example of liberals not being able to think for themselves. Hitler literally wrote in Mein Kampf that his goal was to destroy the communist movement, occupy Russia, and enslave the Slavs. It is literally impossible for the Soviets to believe they could form an alliance, which means your conclusion that Molotov-Ribbentrop constitutes meaningful collaboration is incorrect.
If you study the history around it, the USSR wanted absolutely nothing to do with war after its revolution because it wanted to focus all of its efforts on building a new nation. The treaty was negotiated in attempt to delay armed conflict as much as possible and to take advantage of contradictions in capitalism/fascism to create that extra time.
Enough to split up Poland tho haha
Cope harder boy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
Western powers collaboration with the Nazis (earlier) and the gifting of Czechoslovakia for Hitler to go east, conveniently forgotten
Fucker, I’m glad my country had one half protected by the soviets than have it all gifted to the fucking Nazis.
Hey liberal, I’m a little fuzzy on dates. Did this happen before or after the Munich agreement? Before or after Stalin tried to ally with Britain and France against the Nazis?
And he asked Poland for permission too!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod