it wasn’t pearl harbour 🤦♂️ it was tsushima battle
RaggaDruida on
There was an old estimate that russia had less than 10 functional A-50, and there are other 2 instances of A-50 being downed by Ukraine.
today05 on
i love how we get newer and newer trophies from that operation. it was really well executed, and again, shows how you can fight striking military targets without putting civilians in danger as collateral damage. meanwhile russia somehow only finds targets that are located around civilians. putler should go have a holiday on mars, and never come back.
Top-Ad4876 on
Kellogg has already messed himself and is shouting about increased risks. If Ukraine stops resisting and doesn’t strike back at the enemy’s critical targets, then, of course, there will be no “risk of escalation” for the US and NATO.
But in that case, the risk of Ukraine and its citizens being destroyed becomes one hundred percent—yet for the West, according to their logic, everything is “calm.”
In plain language:
— Don’t provoke the aggressor, and he won’t destroy you (which is historically a lie, since the aggressor always goes all the way until he meets resistance).
— “Risk” here is not about Ukraine, but about the West, which wants to stay on the sidelines and minimize its own threats, even if it means sacrificing Ukraine.
In fact, if you follow this logic, any victim should passively accept destruction, just to avoid angering the aggressor and not to complicate life for outside observers.
6 commenti
Oh no! Anyway…
it wasn’t pearl harbour 🤦♂️ it was tsushima battle
There was an old estimate that russia had less than 10 functional A-50, and there are other 2 instances of A-50 being downed by Ukraine.
i love how we get newer and newer trophies from that operation. it was really well executed, and again, shows how you can fight striking military targets without putting civilians in danger as collateral damage. meanwhile russia somehow only finds targets that are located around civilians. putler should go have a holiday on mars, and never come back.
Kellogg has already messed himself and is shouting about increased risks. If Ukraine stops resisting and doesn’t strike back at the enemy’s critical targets, then, of course, there will be no “risk of escalation” for the US and NATO.
But in that case, the risk of Ukraine and its citizens being destroyed becomes one hundred percent—yet for the West, according to their logic, everything is “calm.”
In plain language:
— Don’t provoke the aggressor, and he won’t destroy you (which is historically a lie, since the aggressor always goes all the way until he meets resistance).
— “Risk” here is not about Ukraine, but about the West, which wants to stay on the sidelines and minimize its own threats, even if it means sacrificing Ukraine.
In fact, if you follow this logic, any victim should passively accept destruction, just to avoid angering the aggressor and not to complicate life for outside observers.
– What a month hey ?
– Sir, it’s only been 4 days.