No one is making Russia kill Ukrainians.
USA would have invaded Iraq with less obstacles (France) if NATO didn't exist.
"You're" means "You are" so "You are retarded".I'm a bit on the fence here. Obviously its correct to say your retarded, but on the flip side you frequently try to share it here. I'll let this comment pass as a possible truth.
Sounds like NATO is easily outplaying Russia.Its so weird how NATO fuck fuck games always result in other people dying. As a matter of fact, every Russian military intervention in last 20 years has its roots in countering some sort of NATO fuck fuck game where NATO tries to destabilize some country for personal gain whether its Syria, Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine or really anywhere else.
Sounds like NATO is easily outplaying Russia.
Yeah NATO is doing geopolitics and Russia has to resort to brute force because they can't do geopolitics.So you admit that Russian military actions are the consequence of NATO geopolitics which attempt to maintain Western hegemony.
I am glad that we acknowledged yet another truth that you have been dodging to admit for the past 18 months.
This rickshaw experiment has been great for you and your inadvertent honesty.
Yeah NATO is doing geopolitics and Russia has to resort to brute force because they can't do geopolitics.
The Russian method is what is killing Ukrainians and Russians. NATO citizens get to live in peace.
Maybe I need to define my words more carefully, but evaporating the Iraqi army in weeks with minimal casualties is different to a multi year attrition war where the entire population of both sides get conscripted.Tell me more about using brute force because you cant do geopolitics
View attachment 489714
What about the millions of citizens that NATO murders in its endless fuck fuck games? They dont get to live in peace?
Nah, I think you defined your words quite well. Especially considering that American invasion of Iraq alone resulted in 1+ million deadMaybe I need to define my words more carefully, but evaporating the Iraqi army in weeks with minimal casualties
is different to a multi year attrition war where the entire population of both sides get conscripted.
A botched occupation with 10s to 100s of casualties a year compared to trench warfare with 10,000s to 100,000s of casualties per year?Nah, I think you defined your words quite well. Especially considering that American invasion of Iraq alone resulted in 1+ million dead
multi year attrition war?
like 20 years in afghanistan?
or 13 years in syria?
or 10 years in yemen?
or 17 years in Iraq?
that kind of multi year attrition war?
Ukraine and Russia havent even finished year 2 for this to be a "multi year"
Buddy you dont get to a 1+ million dead in one country alone with 10s of casualties a year. Arent you a "Maths" teacher?A botched occupation with 10s to 100s of casualties a year compared to trench warfare with 10,000s to 100,000s of casualties per year?
How many Americans died per year in the Iraq occupation?Buddy you dont get to a 1+ million dead in one country alone with 10s of casualties a year. Arent you a "Maths" teacher?
How many Americans died per year in the Iraq occupation?
How many Russians are dying per year in Ukraine?
I was talking about jow the situations are not comparable and NATO is doing a better job protecting it's people.If there are less Americans dying in Iraq than Russians dying in Ukraine, does that mean that the fate of Iraqis that NATO invaded (because they are so gud at geopolitics!) was somehow better than fate of Ukrainians?
I was talking about jow the situations are not comparable and NATO is doing a better job protecting it's people.