Should Trump share his secret way to end Russia’s war against Ukraine?

[worldlymrb]

Many of the tanks are either Russian made or they are versions of the T72. Those will be immediately put to use. The total is not 50 tanks as you suggested.

Total of 321 Heavy Tanks Promised to Ukraine - Ukraine Ambassador to France

Loading…

www.usnews.com

THE QUESTION REMAINS:

Will those 321, 500, 1,000 or whatever number of heavy tanks, going to be combat ready and deployed before Putin's offensive which is scheduled to be launched in 18 days?

 

[middleview]

Sucks for NATO/Ukraine that they did not negotiate with Putin that Ukraine joining NATO was off the table or not imminent which would have prevented the war in the first place.

And NO! Defending Ukraine's right to join NATO is still not worth a nuclear war.

Whether or not Putin thinks a nuclear war is a good idea is the problem. Russia is not threatened by Ukraine and Putin knows that.

He thought Ukraine would surrender a a week or so. He was wrong. He thought Ukrainians would welcome Russian troops. Wrong again. You think this is Ukraine's fault...or Nato's fault...or the US's fault. But who gave the order to invade Ukraine?

 

[middleview]

THE QUESTION REMAINS:

Will those 321, 500, 1,000 or whatever number of heavy tanks going to be combat ready and deployed before Putin's offensive which is scheduled to be launched in 18 days?

Putin call to give you the schedule? The T72s and PT-91 tanks from East block countries are going to be in country in days, not months. Leopards, Abrams, Challengers and the French AMX-10s may take longer.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yes.

Putting people in certain places to deter bombings…how is that not using them as human shields?

 

[PhilFish]

Putting people in certain places to deter bombings…how is that not using them as human shields?

It's rather bizarre this peculiarity of yours to never recollect what it is that I say. You'll have to go back and read. I said what I said.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Did you forget what the problem was? It was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Because they were becoming a completely owned subsidiary of NATO. This isn't rocket science - Trump was a NATO skeptic, and while he was POTUS Putin didn't invade Ukraine. Do. The. Math.

 

[PhilFish]

Because they were becoming a completely owned subsidiary of NATO. This isn't rocket science - Trump was a NATO skeptic, and while he was POTUS Putin didn't invade Ukraine. Do. The. Math.

They should be subjugated by Russia?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

They should be subjugated by Russia?

What difference does it make to the USA?

 

[EatTheRich]

Because they were becoming a completely owned subsidiary of NATO. This isn't rocket science - Trump was a NATO skeptic, and while he was POTUS Putin didn't invade Ukraine. Do. The. Math.

Because it was the steady accumulation of Russian power under Trump that gave Putin the wherewithal to invade for unrelated reasons.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

It's rather bizarre this peculiarity of yours to never recollect what it is that I say. You'll have to go back and read. I said what I said.

Here’s what you said:


Now, how is putting US troops in certain places to deter bombings not using them as human shields?

 

[PhilFish]

What difference does it make to the USA?

Here’s what you said:

View attachment 73896
Now, how is putting US troops in certain places to deter bombings not using them as human shields?

It would require bombs be lobbed at such troops which I think Russia would not dare

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

It would require bombs be lobbed at such troops which I think Russia would not dare

Which is the very essence of using people as human shields.

 

[PhilFish]

Which is the very essence of using people as human shields.

Nah. It'll come to you

Calling a bluff is what it is...

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Nah. It'll come to you

Calling a bluff is what it is...

As always when people are used as human shields, it may or may not work. The bomber may or may not drop bombs anyway. Which does not change the fact that the people were used as human shields. It’s undeniable. You should admit undeniable facts.

 

[PhilFish]

As always when people are used as human shields, it may or may not work. The bomber may or may not drop bombs anyway. Which does not change the fact that the people were used as human shields. It’s undeniable. You should admit undeniable facts.

Undeniable fact.... No one mentioned anything about human shields.
Is this another of your self declared debate victories that you've taken to whining about?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Undeniable fact.... No one mentioned anything about human shields.
Is this another of your self declared debate victories that you've taken to whining about?

As you know, I didn’t say you used the words human shields. But as I explained, that’s exactly what you propose. You’re just too dishonest to admit it.

And yes, this is yet another debate you lost.

 

[PhilFish]

As you know, I didn’t say you used the words human shields. But as I explained, that’s exactly what you propose. You’re just too dishonest to admit it.

And yes, this is yet another debate you lost.

What did we debate?

You use of the term human shield?

Nah that's not debate

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

What did we debate?

You use of the term human shield?

Nah that's not debate

You lost again.

You proposed using US troops as human shields. It’s undeniable. You should just admit it.

 

[PhilFish]

You lost again.

You proposed using US troops as human shields. It’s undeniable. You should just admit it.

Nah. Definitionally human shield are civilians or prisoners of war. I proposed neither.

Another so called victory of yours??? Lol

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Nah. Definitionally human shield are civilians or prisoners of war. I proposed neither.

Another so called victory of yours??? Lol

Definitionally? Whose definition precludes your proposed use of US soldiers as human shields?