GAC06 said:
You claimed Ukraine had "weeks maybe". Now you're claiming you never thought that. It's pretty clear one of those statements is a lie. However that's not the point, I'd like you to analyze your information sources that led you to make such a claim. What led you to claim Ukraine had "weeks maybe"?
Well let's go back to that then, since you also are now accusing me of lying about my past statements.
Per Teslag's lies based on my 1/4 post;
Of course, what he has not done is q
uote the rest of the post (because it destroys a repeated lie): as I have heard so often "check the links."
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ukraine is considering no alternative to securing stalled U.S. military assistance for its war against Russia and is confident the U.S. Congress will give its approval to release the aid, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Wednesday.
"We don't have a plan B. We are confident in plan A," Kuleba told CNN in an interview.
Further, they face increasingly long odds, as it frankly becomes a numbers game quickly now;
Quote:
Quote:
The military and economic balance in war has shifted strongly against Ukraine, and it is very hard to see how this tendency can now be reversed. There is still time for Ukraine to win a qualified victory against Russia; but only if the United States commits itself strongly to a compromise peace.
Russia's population is at least four times that of Ukraine, and its GDP is 14 times greater. Western attempts to cripple Russia through economic sanctions have failed. The Russian economy grew by around three percent in 2023, as a result of increased energy exports to non-Western countries and a massive and successful effort to invest in military industrial production. Ukraine is making desperate attempts to boost its own military production, but from a far lower industrial base coupled with an acute shortage of skilled labor.
The Biden administration is therefore correct to warn that without continued and massive U.S. military aid to Ukraine, Russia will quickly win. It is however equally clear that U.S. aid still less at the levels sustained to date cannot be guaranteed even in the medium term. Partly due to the new U.S. commitment to Israel created by the Gaza war and the threat of it spreading, the United States is also failing adequately to replenish Ukraine's dwindling stocks of air-defense missiles, which are crucially important both on the battlefield and in the protection of Ukrainian infrastructure and industry. Both the United States and Europe are failing to meet their targets for increased production of artillery shells, which Russia is firing at some three to five times the Ukrainian rate.
And even if the West could vastly increase its military production (highly doubtful given the pressure on Western budgets, supply chain problems, and skilled labor shortages), we cannot provide Ukraine with more soldiers. Ukrainian manpower shortages are becoming increasingly acute, and are leading to increasingly draconian conscription measures and bitter disputeswithin the Ukrainian government over how to enforce conscription, which is faltering in the face of growing public resistance.
Following the failure of last year's Ukrainian counteroffensive, the Biden administration and the Ukrainian government and military have all shifted to a defensive strategy, including trying to fortify Ukraine's long northern border with Russia and Belarus. This region has been quiet since Moscow withdrew its troops in the spring for 2022, after the failure of its initial invasion from the north. However, Russia's growing advantage in numbers means that at some point in future, its army may be able to attack again along this front.
While smart, and even if successful in the short term, a strategy of standing indefinitely on the defensive has two colossal disadvantages for Ukraine. Politically, it brings with it the obvious implication that Russia will go on holding the areas it now controls. This being so, more and more Ukrainians and Westerners will obviously begin to call for a compromise peace. The danger is that if we leave this too long, the balance will have shifted so decisively against Ukraine that Russia will have few incentives left to compromise.
No matter what the swamp (and mouthpieces in the propaganda press) says in the interim, no one is going to be excited to vote for a bill in the House sending billions to get Ukrainians/Russians killed as election season approaches.
And I know no one likes these 'inconvenient truths' (aka 'conspiracy theories') but this Biden proxy war on behalf of his paymasters (CCP-WEF) is, yes, related to compromising information about his family and many others; the ISW (MI6), CIA, Mossad etc. are all intricately involved with this conflict, and the others involving Iran etc:
That last bit I bolded here. Glad to have been proven correct, in some ways, but sad in others.
I have no idea what information sources you think I should study so that I don't reach what conclusions. It was, again, Kuleba (Ukraine foreign minister) who was cited, claiming ludicrously that Ukraine is fighting for nato and the prosperity of the American people (first link in the 1/4 post by me);
Quote:
Ukraine is considering no alternative to securing stalled U.S. military assistance for its war against Russia and is confident the U.S. Congress will give its approval to release the aid, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Wednesday.
"We don't have a plan B. We are confident in plan A," Kuleba told CNN in an interview.
"Ukraine will always fight with the resources given to it. And...what is given to Ukraine is not charity. It's an investment in the protection of NATO and in the protection of the prosperity of the American people," he said.
Are you arguing we should not trust Ukrainians to tell the truth about the war, and what sources should we trust/consider? What specific statement/post/link I made above makes me in your view a liar?
