comments (single view)
>fails to invade said sovereign nation and loses tens of thousands of men and billions in material
yes a sovereign nation that has received NATO training and equipment since 2014, as well as tens of billions of dollars of equipment since the start of the war, and yet their counteroffensive is still failing
>thinks invading a sovereign nation is good diplomacy
there is obviously a reason for this, it’s not like Putin got tired of having no wars and wanted to have some action!!! also this is just stupid, why don’t you talk about when the US invaded iraq and killed a million for weapons of mass destruction
Getting beat by some pocket change and random tech from the 80s rotting in a warehouse, lol. Also, remind me why Ukraine has been receiving funding since 2014 in the first place. Gotta love that whataboutism too.
wdym random tech from the 80s? it’s literally high quality equipment, why Ukraine has been receiving funding? to combat Russia
Let’s see… Challenger 2s are from 1986, Storm Shadows 1994, F-16s 1974, Leopard 2s 1979, Abrams are from 1980, Humvees 1983, Bradleys 1981, M113 1960, the list goes on and on, and only for around 6 percent of the US military budget. Also, I seemed to have forgotten, what happened with Ukraine and Russia in 2014? Didn’t Russia illegally annex territory or something? I really can’t remember!
“only 6 percent” :skull: pffft i mean if it was 7 i would understand, but it’s only 6!! and everything you just listed is still used and operated by the US, it’s not like its some old run down equipment, its new equipment, made this decade.
What happened when the US illegally invaded iraq!?!?!?!1?
Well obviously it’s not run-down, because Western designed armaments tend to do what they’re designed for. Yes, they’re still being manufactured, but what’s being sent to Ukraine isn’t stuff right off the assembly line. Iraq isn’t relevant to this discussion at all.