You could argue that, if you were both woefully uninformed about who the aggressor is and laughably ignorant about how armed conflict works. You could.
Ukraine provoked said war for 8 years. Fully believing (or being led to believe) it would win.
it did ethnic cleansing in Donbas during that time and was preparing to finish the job when Russia brought the Hammer down
In a war the losing side has to make concessions to reach peace, not the winning side. Russia is winning that war, ergo Ukraine has to make concessions. In WW2 Japan surrendered unconditionally, it was not the Allies who made any concessions to Japan. When Prussia invaded Denmark, Denmark conceded Holstein to Prussia. Prussia did not concede anything to Denmark, it won that war. Did you per chance believe that Mexico turned over half of its territory to the USA because it was in a good mode or something? The US defeated Mexico in a war, Mexico had to make huge territorial concessions.
It is completely irrelevant who was the agressor in this regard. In other words: Why should I concede you something when I am in a position to take more? You have to concede something to prevent me from taking more.
5 generations of not knowing how peace making works. Something any grand strategy video game would’ve teached you. Or looking up any war in history. Loser makes concessions, how hard is this to get?
No problem! So when you win, you get to set the terms of the treaty. When you lose, you don’t. Surprised they didn’t go over this in war school, but whatev I’m happy to help
I fail to see what this has to do with Ukraine. You’re going to have to pull out your 2 dollar words. The war isn’t over until either one side is destroyed or they make peace. Until then there is no winner or loser.
The war isn’t over until either one side is destroyed or they make peace.
-Sentences spoken from a bunker in Berlin. You’re a decorated imperial veteran and you don’t understand the concept of “combat ineffective?” What were they even teaching you in war crimes school?
They’re doing their best, but someone keeps refusing a peace treaty🤔
One would argue that the aggressor should be making concessions not the victim, but it seems like you’ve already picked a side.
You could argue that, if you were both woefully uninformed about who the aggressor is and laughably ignorant about how armed conflict works. You could.
I’m just the most decorated veteran in my family with 5 generations of service, but sure teach me how armed conflict works.
5 generations of not knowing how peace making works. Something any grand strategy video game would’ve teached you. Or looking up any war in history. Loser makes concessions, how hard is this to get?
No problem! So when you win, you get to set the terms of the treaty. When you lose, you don’t. Surprised they didn’t go over this in war school, but whatev I’m happy to help
I fail to see what this has to do with Ukraine. You’re going to have to pull out your 2 dollar words. The war isn’t over until either one side is destroyed or they make peace. Until then there is no winner or loser.
No worries:
-Russia Win
-Ukraine Lose
-Winner get write rules
-Sentences spoken from a bunker in Berlin. You’re a decorated imperial veteran and you don’t understand the concept of “combat ineffective?” What were they even teaching you in war crimes school?
So you’re rooting for Russia. Got it. Have a good life.
Lol @ the spiteful sports team mentality. Yeah man i got two big RUSSIA foam fingers. Everyone is twelve now.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
He’ll yeah borther semper pie
Removed by mod
It’s an old leftbook meme making fun of guys like you but don’t let that get in the way of your corny qanon-ass conspiracies about Russian spies👍
Removed by mod