Do they peruse these programs online or do they come in the post?
I believe Belarus is the place to go for a good deal on nuclear weapons. Comes flat packed with a BOGOF deal as half don’t work.
Do they peruse these programs online or do they come in the post?
The bridge is built in segments, it won't just fall down, if you knock one segment out it's pretty easy to repair. Also everytime Ukraine has attacked the bridge a few days later Russia does a massive attack on their infrastructure in response.
We have given arms, ammo and vehicles, but we were slow doing so, not enough so far, and not quick enough given the way Russia throw numbers at them."ashamed"? what do you expect the west to do? the whole world has given them ammo, arms, and vehicles over the past couple of years. Theres not really much else the west can do unless they are prepared to escalate the war into a WW3 scenario .
Nope, NATO's mission is to ensure peace and prosperity of it's members.It’s really not. NATO is to ensure peace and prosperity globally and deter nations from perusing programs of weapons of mass destruction.
First of all, assuming support from the west, Ukraine believes it can win. So there’s one path.My point I made earlier and a year ago and longer.....if the powers that be knows a compromise is the end result then both sides are completely and utterly morally bankrupt at all the people that now and will cease to exist.
If they fell victory was possible then thsts fair enough....but I haven't heard of many paths to this…
Nope, NATO's mission is to ensure peace and prosperity of its members.
It’s really not. NATO is to ensure peace and prosperity globally and deter nations from perusing programs of weapons of mass destruction.
Initial reports following the blast said that repair works would not be completed until July 2023. This week Russia deputy prime minister Marat Khusnullin has said: “Despite the terrorist attack, traffic was restored over the bridge in 57 days. Under normal conditions, it would take about a year to do such work.
I know you don't like facts.
Lets have a little quiz...
So hit it every month and it would be functioning how often?
I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.
I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.
First of all, assuming support from the west, Ukraine believes it can win. So there’s one path.
Secondly, and as everyone keeps pointing out: Russia can’t be trusted to keep to any agreement. They’re openly saying all of Ukraine belongs to Russia.
I’m not British but their predicament during ww2 was far more precarious - your assessment, using your logic, is that their leadership was also utterly morally bankrupt for fighting on?
I’ll tell you what though, it takes a certain kind of character to give equivalent scorn to both countries leadership as being morally bankrupt when one side initiated the full invasion, killed god knows how many, flattened dozens of villages, towns and cities pretty much out of existence, kidnapped thousands of children and committed a plethora of war crimes.
The other side is defended itself, admirably too and didn’t flee when things looked bleakest.
At which point should this morally bankrupt government have effectively surrendered, ceding their territory and abandoning their citizens? Before or after they took back pretty much all the land north of Kyiv? Before or after they regained pretty much all the land around Kharkiv? Or before or after they took back Kherson? If you could clear that up that would be great.
I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.
"ashamed"? what do you expect the west to do? the whole world has given them ammo, arms, and vehicles over the past couple of years.
Theres not really much else the west can do unless they are prepared to escalate the war into a WW3 scenario .
I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?
Mind numbing drivel.I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.
I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?
There’s some pretty cool hidden fortifications. Like the fortifications next to horse guards parade in London. There’s loads of these structures all over the UK. We were going to fight to the end.That's a big word soup for saying very little. Your first sentence answers the question and which my previous answer had agreed with. If the leadership believe they can win then grind it out, fine!
My point was that if they recognise at some point that they cannot achieve their stated victory then not negotiating is immoral. Not sure why that's hard to understand. I'm not implying there was previously or even if now that point was reached.
I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?
Jerry is up to something. He's been awfully quiet for 80 years.I'm sure that even the brits had a surrender plan if the German swines had taken over England?
What about the other times that Russia attacked civilian infrastructure? Which is pretty much every day or other day cince the beginning of the special operation?I'm not sure if you're aware, probably not, but the bridge is actually civilian infrastructure - attacking civilian infrastructure is against the geneva convention. It's not a legitimate military target, which is why everytime they've done that Russia has responded in kind. Then people have complained Russia have attacked civilian infrastructure after 2 days earlier they were cheering about the bridge being hit, which primarily supports the 2 million civilian population who live in Crimea. Presumably some of which are basically also Ukrainians.