Absolute bonkers
Laser
joined 5 months ago
No, I'm saying the documents do not sustain the claims. The documents go into supporting Ukraine, e.g. to help them defeat Russian fleet and gain maritime supremacy. However, there's no indication on what I've seen there akin to the claims that they want to "drag out the war as long as possible" and "prepare their own people to live in poverty" (not exact quotes because I'm on phone and I'm afraid to lose this text). These are the authors one-sided and tendentious interpretations of continued support, which by the structure of the article and the way he presents it he makes seem as if they were part of the documents. But they aren't.
UK supports Ukraine. That's a known fact. It'd be insane to believe there'd be no briefings on strategy (whether these came into effect isn't clear either).
Nobody claimed otherwise.
Neither alcohol nor tobacco are banned in Canada, and this is asking to put online gambling on the same level.
Alright, just ban dopamine /s
Your comment gives off serious "I am very smart" vibes
Military deployments aren't "meat grinders" for your own troops if they're well-equipped and trained. That's the whole point of western militaries.
War is shit. But as an ex-soldier: you know what you sign up for. I also expected it during my service, though it never happened.
It's like saying calling firefighters to rescue someone from a burning house is only acceptable if you ran into it first. It makes no sense.
The fact that this wasn't a three day operation is in large part sure to the US. But your portrayal of the facts makes no sense. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia). The US obliges because it does align with their interest. But in the end, all international help at scale is motivated by national interest.
Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.
Should a nation only fight with pre-agreed equipment that is at least of a certain age?
Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don't necessarily align with their interests.
Well, they for sure don't align with Russia's.
Like Chomsky says "we will fight them to the last Ukrainian"
Or was it North Korean?
How was Ukraine "destabilized" compared to other comparable ex-USSR states until 2014?
And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014
If a country being in US orbit is a reason for Russia to attack it, why didn't they attack Finland? Or the US directly in Alaska? What's the significance with Ukraine?
There's none other that Russia thought it was an easy target, breaking the Budapest Memorandum (and later other agreements). The same memorandum btw granted Ukraine non-military aid from the US and France, so the argument that this was somehow a dirty play makes no sense.
Who hates ChromeOS? Never heard someone say that
I don't know, but probably higher than doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Sheesh gramps get with the times