Ukraine was never supposed to exist after a few weeks, let alone be in the fight 2 years later.

This is what pro Russians moving the goalposts looks like.

You're arguing semantics. So what if it's not 100% all military aid alone? It's still aid that's needed for survival. If this was truly a Russia vs Ukraine fight, this war would have been over during the Summer in 2022, but BoJo came with the assurances of bottomless support and here we are.

In a few years from now we'll be looking back on this war like we do on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. There will be a lot of folks trying to rationalize sending heavy weapons to literal Nazis, but they'll probably disavow their own previous support just like how we magically forget about arming Al Qaeda and ISIS.

In 10 years in we were always at war with east Asia fashion, 90% of the people that supported the war in Ukraine will do an about face and tell us how they've always been against the war. It's like talking about the Iraq war now, I swear I can't find a single person that will actually admit backing the Iraq war, even when we know for a fact there was a ton of them.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 13 2024 02:52pm

Perhaps the bolded part is actually a good thing?! The higher the social and political cost of moving to war footing, the less likely it becomes that unnecessary wars are being fought. As with all things in life, you gotta strike the right balance though. The West has probably gone too far in this direction and become so complacent and unprepared that it's unwilling to fight even worthwhile wars.





The bulk of the Western arms supplies for Ukraine didn't arrive before the summer of 2022. The failure of Russia's initial attack comes down to strategic failure and Ukraine being prepared. Also, who knows how Russia would do right now without Iranian drones and North Korean ammunition/shells. Likewise, just as the West is keeping Ukraine's state finances afloat, China is keeping the Russian economy afloat and takes a lot of sting out of the Western sanctions.

Pretending that Russia is doing it all by itself is plain wrong.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 13 2024 03:04pm

False.
Your claim was "hundreds of billions in armaments" that is incorrect. Your digging a deeper whole by not admitting your error.
What do you mean truly a Russia vs Ukraine fight? Are you just making up scenarios that fit your position? Just to play into that fantasy how many Shahed drones and North Korean munitions would that remove from the equation?

There is a literal difference between financial and military aid; Claiming that is semantical is ludicrous and desperate on your part.
A fraction of NATO spending has been sent to Ukraine.
Much of what has been sent or pledged has not even arrived or not been deployed to the frontlines.
How many Abrams have been in the frontlines? How many F-16s have been active in the Ukrainian air force?

The conclusion is that the Russian military has embarrassingly underperformed against an allegedly inferior military, with an exponential advantage in spending, size and resources.

Its not that deep. Military's can fail. The fact the war is still ongoing two years later is testament to that.

Lol yes, drones from Iran or a few plane loads of munitions from NK was the saving grace for Russia.

Mate, China is keeping the Russian economy afloat in a symbiotic way, being that they get to buy needed commodities and Russia gets Chinese money/products. It's the same as before the war, there's really no shift in China's policy. Same with India. It's not as if these two countries are putting their industrial capacity backing Russia and pledging tens of billions in aid just so the war can go on. It's a literal net positive for both India and China to continue to trade with Russia.





Hundreds of billions in value were provided to Ukraine, with the full weight of the western/NATO intelligence apparatus aiding Ukraine and they've hardly displaced a shovel wielding military more than a few miles since the counter. The dozens of NATO meetings, the dozens of surveillance drones flights in the black sea, the signing of a laundry list of military contracts and global collection of military aid by the collective west, but yes it's nothing. It's semantical because aggregate aid is what matters, which is significant. The west paying their military salaries or keeping their hospitals online has an impact you get that right?

They've underperformed because they are facing a collective of wealthy backers, a fact that you continually minimize yet focus on how poor Ukraine is. Dishonest and frankly kind of dumb.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 13 2024 03:30pm

Its like beating your head against a wall. Have your hill to die on, your not here for honest debate.

NATO hasn't even gotten out of first gear.

I did chuckle at you saying its dishonest to lay out the facts. And when faced with the facts your squirm and claim it is semantics.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 13 2024 03:35pm

I think the whole actual nazi thing will be a stinker that sets it apart. Nobody put out virtue signalling yard signs to declare support for sending weapons to those pro-democracy freedom loving sunni militias that became ISIS

You keep framing this war as one between purely Russia and Ukraine, continually discarding the mammoth size aid packages that Ukraine has received throughout, allowing this war to go on, so yeah you're dishonest.

The problem with NATO is many think that there's actually willing members that would actually step up to the plate if an all out war breaks out. Talk to the average 20 year old in the US, France, Germany and ask them if they are willing to go east to fight. That tells you all you need to know. Shit, most Euro countries have a hard time filling minimal ranks in times of absolute peace, let alone a real war. We're a generation of comfort and soft men.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 13 2024 04:03pm