A picture of one tank of unspecified time in some location at some particular moment in time is proof positive that the 10+ Bradleys destroyed "lived". I can with as much evidence say that the Russians evacuated it and were cleaning it up to install it in front of the American embassy.
I mean, I could have linked to a news article, but all of them were shitting their pants and screaming how the end is neigh because they dont understand how to military. Because they news doesnt actually care as much as you think they do.
How interesting, could you tell me why the news would be "shitting [its] pants" due to what it views as Ukrainian defeats?
We call that "Operational Security" here in the West, but knowing how Eastoids fight their wars I wouldnt expect them to understand.
'Scuse me Sir, I'm a MIDDLE-Eastoid. Though we're not good at war either, we tend to lose them in six days. The Taliban which kicked the ass of the Americans are not Middle Easterners, after all.
Or do you forget that there was also not much about Kherson until there were Ukrainians marching in the streets
Did they take it by force? No. The Russian command just decided to retreat to more defensible borders. How does this redeem the not very impressive results of your 'counteroffensive'?
If I were you, I'd have said: "see, the Ukrainians sent thousands to die in a feint against Kherson, and after the Russian felt safe, they struck into Kharkov oblast". That would have made more sense than whatever this is.
Not so much Biden is tough. Just Putin is even weaker.
This is your mind on war propaganda. No disrespect.
I know, right? Now imagine how much more powerful we would be if we stopped doing deliberately retarded shit because we felt like it.
Maybe you'd have managed to beat the Taliban, instead of being utterly humiliated by guys wearing sandals, after spending trillions and thousands of lives.
But hey, at leaast Raytheon won, like it's winning the War of the Reconquest now.
Looks at the things the Soviets did to them over the course of 50 years.
It has nothing at all to do with "the things the Soviets did" and everything with simple balance of power. Russia could have been the most benevolent regional hegemon, and they'd have done the same thing.
Gee, I wonder why they all wanted to go join the "Fuck Russia" club
Huh, so you admit that NATO is the "fuck Russia club" and that expanding NATO is an act of aggression directed against the Russians. Thus, Russia is completely in the right to resist it as it is doing.
Correct. When you are weak, then the terms are dictated to you whether you like it or not. Especially when you are so weak you get wailed on by someone with one hand behind their back.
It didn't take much for your to rip off the mask of "we hate invasions!!!!" and "RUSSHER STARTED A WAR" and to admit that all your actions are just power plays. That someone victimized himself by the US regime would be such a fanatical, warmongering supporter of its expansion abroad is quite odd, but we all have our flaws.
And then it formalized it, expanded to eat the entire known world, and continued to live for over 1,000 years. Sounds like a good deal to me.
I respect that. You openly want to plunder the entire world, rather than hiding behind liberal pieties that your own regime routinely violates. What bothers me is that the constant lying on the part of the Americans about what they are doing. They go around killing millions of people, and then feign outrage over war and invasions. You just openly want to kill millions of people for your own profit (or so you think), which has been historically what empires have done, and is therefore worthy of respect quite aside from being commendable honesty.
Especially since I consider a Woke American Empire superior to anything China or Russia would offer me (I can at least get rid of the Woke and get new elites,
A picture of one tank of unspecified time in some location at some particular moment in time is proof positive that the 10+ Bradleys destroyed "lived".
I never said all of them lived. Just that not all of them were fully destroyed.
'Scuse me Sir, I'm a MIDDLE-Eastoid.
Having not known that information before: Suddenly lots of things make a lot more sense.
so you admit that NATO is the "fuck Russia club"
Anyone who said otherwise was lying, and I am not one of them.
expanding NATO is an act of aggression directed against the Russians.
THIS however, is untrue. NATO expanding is NATO expanding. It is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. If Russia wants to take that as a threat, that says more about their attitude than it does NATO's. Even when the US was doing things against Cuba, we were not that paranoid.
It didn't take much for your to rip off the mask of "we hate invasions!!!!" and "RUSSHER STARTED A WAR"
Dont misunderstand. If Russia invaded and won in 3 days, I would have condemned it while still saying "What choice did Ukraine have." That Russia didnt steamroll Ukraine and left them with a chance of fighting back is why they very much should dig in their heels and keep fighting for what they can, because they have the power to do it. And Russia's own true weakness (once the face of "strength" was ripped away) is what allowed it to happen.
And if you ever thought geopolitics was about anything other than power, someone was lying to you.
I respect that. You openly want to plunder the entire world, rather than hiding behind liberal pieties that your own regime routinely violates.
I wouldnt put it that way, especially since I would still see nations in a hypothetical American Empire being more liberal than they started (much like with the British). But yes, the last 4 years or so have taught me the problem was that we thought we could do empire different and be nice about it. Russia and China have dispelled that notion, while our so-called "allies" in Europe spit in our face.
Message received. Strength and power it is. I guess Rome was right after all.
I never said all of them lived. Just that not all of them were fully destroyed.
Not proven, but alright. I said they were wrecked.
Having not known that information before: Suddenly lots of things make a lot more sense.
Do tell.
Anyone who said otherwise was lying, and I am not one of them.
Yes, I can't doubt your honesty. Nor do you try to deceive yourself.
THIS however, is untrue. NATO expanding is NATO expanding. It is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one.
Pure rubbish. Destroying Yugoslavia and Libya was not 'defensive'. And as someone steeped in realism, you know full well of the defensive-offensive equivalence. Even if it were true that NATO is defensive, and that's obviously false, it would be viewed by Russia as offensive for a "fuck Russia" alliance to come up to its borders.
If Russia wants to take that as a threat, that says more about their attitude than it does NATO's. Even when the US was doing things against Cuba, we were not that paranoid.
What is this? You nearly destroyed the whole world over Cuba having Russian troops. And the Monroe Doctrine dictates the same.
If Russia invaded and won in 3 days, I would have condemned it while still saying "What choice did Ukraine have." That Russia didnt steamroll Ukraine and left them with a chance of fighting back is why they very much should dig in their heels and keep fighting for what they can, because they have the power to do it.
You have a strange understanding of power. You looked at France during World War I and thought: why not repeat that?
And if you ever thought geopolitics was about anything other than power, someone was lying to you.
Obviously it is, but the US keeps lying about it, and being hypocritical.
The Westoids eat it all up.
I wouldnt put it that way, especially since I would still see nations in a hypothetical American Empire being more liberal than they started (much like with the British).
Yeah, more BLM and transgenderism, which are the main exports of the American Empire. Which is why I don't like it.
Not to mention the deaths. Iraq may be more 'liberal' now, at what cost? Obviously, the cost to Iraqis was not even a consideration, as you fully understand.
Russia and China have dispelled that notion, while our so-called "allies" in Europe spit in our face.
What are you talking about? They're your puppets and would cut off their own arm if you commanded it.
Nothing bad. Just that now I have an idea of your biases and beliefs, so now I can at least look at the things you say and understand where you are coming from.
Same as you would with me being openly an American Nationalist.
Nothing bad. Just that now I have an idea of your biases and beliefs,
Not necessarily. People from any region disagree on every issue there is. In fact, some of the people I know who follow Western media are complete Westoids. It's a poison.
Same as you would with me being openly an American Nationalist.
Yeah, but that's an ideology. I'd say you're more of a Statist though, since what you advocate for is the aggrandizement of the American state rather than the nation.
You never responded to how NATO is 'defensive' when it destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya. I'm glad I managed to elicit some sort of response from you, and I'm careful to not make people with minority opinions feel unwelcome, but that really is something.
A picture of one tank of unspecified time in some location at some particular moment in time is proof positive that the 10+ Bradleys destroyed "lived". I can with as much evidence say that the Russians evacuated it and were cleaning it up to install it in front of the American embassy.
How interesting, could you tell me why the news would be "shitting [its] pants" due to what it views as Ukrainian defeats?
'Scuse me Sir, I'm a MIDDLE-Eastoid. Though we're not good at war either, we tend to lose them in six days. The Taliban which kicked the ass of the Americans are not Middle Easterners, after all.
Did they take it by force? No. The Russian command just decided to retreat to more defensible borders. How does this redeem the not very impressive results of your 'counteroffensive'?
If I were you, I'd have said: "see, the Ukrainians sent thousands to die in a feint against Kherson, and after the Russian felt safe, they struck into Kharkov oblast". That would have made more sense than whatever this is.
This is your mind on war propaganda. No disrespect.
Maybe you'd have managed to beat the Taliban, instead of being utterly humiliated by guys wearing sandals, after spending trillions and thousands of lives.
But hey, at leaast Raytheon won, like it's winning the War of the Reconquest now.
It has nothing at all to do with "the things the Soviets did" and everything with simple balance of power. Russia could have been the most benevolent regional hegemon, and they'd have done the same thing.
Huh, so you admit that NATO is the "fuck Russia club" and that expanding NATO is an act of aggression directed against the Russians. Thus, Russia is completely in the right to resist it as it is doing.
It didn't take much for your to rip off the mask of "we hate invasions!!!!" and "RUSSHER STARTED A WAR" and to admit that all your actions are just power plays. That someone victimized himself by the US regime would be such a fanatical, warmongering supporter of its expansion abroad is quite odd, but we all have our flaws.
I respect that. You openly want to plunder the entire world, rather than hiding behind liberal pieties that your own regime routinely violates. What bothers me is that the constant lying on the part of the Americans about what they are doing. They go around killing millions of people, and then feign outrage over war and invasions. You just openly want to kill millions of people for your own profit (or so you think), which has been historically what empires have done, and is therefore worthy of respect quite aside from being commendable honesty.
Optimistic.
I never said all of them lived. Just that not all of them were fully destroyed.
Having not known that information before: Suddenly lots of things make a lot more sense.
Anyone who said otherwise was lying, and I am not one of them.
THIS however, is untrue. NATO expanding is NATO expanding. It is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. If Russia wants to take that as a threat, that says more about their attitude than it does NATO's. Even when the US was doing things against Cuba, we were not that paranoid.
Dont misunderstand. If Russia invaded and won in 3 days, I would have condemned it while still saying "What choice did Ukraine have." That Russia didnt steamroll Ukraine and left them with a chance of fighting back is why they very much should dig in their heels and keep fighting for what they can, because they have the power to do it. And Russia's own true weakness (once the face of "strength" was ripped away) is what allowed it to happen.
And if you ever thought geopolitics was about anything other than power, someone was lying to you.
I wouldnt put it that way, especially since I would still see nations in a hypothetical American Empire being more liberal than they started (much like with the British). But yes, the last 4 years or so have taught me the problem was that we thought we could do empire different and be nice about it. Russia and China have dispelled that notion, while our so-called "allies" in Europe spit in our face.
Message received. Strength and power it is. I guess Rome was right after all.
Not proven, but alright. I said they were wrecked.
Do tell.
Yes, I can't doubt your honesty. Nor do you try to deceive yourself.
Pure rubbish. Destroying Yugoslavia and Libya was not 'defensive'. And as someone steeped in realism, you know full well of the defensive-offensive equivalence. Even if it were true that NATO is defensive, and that's obviously false, it would be viewed by Russia as offensive for a "fuck Russia" alliance to come up to its borders.
What is this? You nearly destroyed the whole world over Cuba having Russian troops. And the Monroe Doctrine dictates the same.
You have a strange understanding of power. You looked at France during World War I and thought: why not repeat that?
Obviously it is, but the US keeps lying about it, and being hypocritical.
The Westoids eat it all up.
Yeah, more BLM and transgenderism, which are the main exports of the American Empire. Which is why I don't like it.
Not to mention the deaths. Iraq may be more 'liberal' now, at what cost? Obviously, the cost to Iraqis was not even a consideration, as you fully understand.
What are you talking about? They're your puppets and would cut off their own arm if you commanded it.
Nothing bad. Just that now I have an idea of your biases and beliefs, so now I can at least look at the things you say and understand where you are coming from.
Same as you would with me being openly an American Nationalist.
Not necessarily. People from any region disagree on every issue there is. In fact, some of the people I know who follow Western media are complete Westoids. It's a poison.
Yeah, but that's an ideology. I'd say you're more of a Statist though, since what you advocate for is the aggrandizement of the American state rather than the nation.
You never responded to how NATO is 'defensive' when it destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya. I'm glad I managed to elicit some sort of response from you, and I'm careful to not make people with minority opinions feel unwelcome, but that really is something.