Put...in....a spotlight on the situation

Compare how much he's spent compared to how much the West has spent. It's not that Russia can't defeat Ukraine it's that the west can't repel Russia.

You seem to be under the impression that abandoning Kyiv and withdrawing from most of the northeast was something Russia did on purpose or because they chose to?

How many nations are supporting Ukraine? Now they need tanks. What happened to their own two thousand? 100+ billion and it's still not enough to take Russia? But yeah, Russia is losing and definitely not turning it into a slogging, costly quagmire bleeding the West dry. Didn't this play out before during the cold war in the middle east?

...... You think it's the WEST that will be bled dry??????

hahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahaha hahaha

No. Not at all. If 12 HIMARS trucks were enough to shred the entire Russian advance and that's what you call bleeding us dry? You've not understood at all.

If it's that easy, why do they need yet more equipment? Slaughtering Russians left and right, stealing their tanks with farmers and ghost of kyieving their fighters because Ukraine is kicking Russians ass.... Yet they need billions and equipment. That what you're telling me?

Because it's working. When something works, you do it some more.

All Russia has to do is go home and the tanks become overpriced paperweights.

Never heard of calling for backup when you're not only winning but dominating your enemy.

Saturation...look it up.

Hahahaha okay

The need for saturation implies, again, Ukraine is loosing. One side is hoping to just overwhelm the other side with numbers.

I think you mean phyrric victory.

Nope.

Aye, I can tell you've never heard of it. I can tell you get your military strategic information from the exact people who are losing right now.

When you're winning, the LAST thing you want to do is to stop doing the thing that you've been doing to win. That's how you get people who won the battles but lose the war and that's happened a LOT of times throughout history.

What might interest you more, though, is that if you're LOSING a war, the last thing you want to do is keep doing the thing that has been making you lose!

If you're argument requires a personal attack, it's weak. That being said, the argument "When you're winning, the LAST thing you want to do is to stop doing the thing that you've been doing to win." Is undermined by the fact this isn't a steady support it's an escalating support.

"What might interest you more, though, is that if you're LOSING a war, the last thing you want to do is keep doing the thing that has been making you lose!" Which brings me back to my earlier comment "How many nations are supporting Ukraine? Now they need tanks. What happened to their own two thousand? 100+ billion and it's still not enough to take Russia? But yeah, Russia is losing and definitely not turning it into a slogging, costly quagmire bleeding the West dry. Didn't this play out before during the cold war in the middle east?"

The propaganda on both sides is ridiculous.

You're claiming the sarcastic comment about calling for backup when winning was me admitting I had never heard of your answer before?
Okay this conversation is over

My argument actually doesn't require you to understand at all. Even if you NEVER understand why we're sending tanks to Ukraine even though Russia got its ass kicked, we're still going to.

You asked the question and you rejected the answer because you hadn't heard the answer before. THAT'S when I started commenting on where you get your information from. Which you interpreted as a personal attack - but maybe instead it's a question you should also be asking yourself?

At what point did I claim to have never heard that answer before?

Oh my God, you've forgotten what you've written already.

Well, the thread is up for you to reread until you realize what you said and when.

You're claiming the sarcastic comment about calling for backup when winning was me admitting I had never heard of your answer before?
Okay this conversation is over.