D
Deleted member 221031
It’s a good start
20.000
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Sponsored Links
What you are saying is that land has nothing to do with winning or losing. Explain the following:
1. What constitutes a ukraine win
2. What constitutes a ukraine lose
3. What constitutes a russia win
4. What constitutes a russia lose
D
Deleted member 221031
You’ll do well to get a straight answer.
Going by his plumbing, I expect a bendy leaky answer.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,669
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
You really don't need to put words in my mouth.
Land isn't the be all and end all, I don't know why you are obsessed with it.
If Russia keep Crimea, amongst other places, but NATO wipe them out with a pre-emptive nuclear strike is that a win for Vlad? He would end up with more land?
If land grabber Vlad gets nuked, he loses. Is that acceptable? You wipe russia out and you get to live, is that right?
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 13,687
- Reaction score
- 1,082
- Country
I didn't realise there were so many pootin apologists
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,669
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe, maybe not.
My point being, it is far more complicated than more land=win.
Why is it far more complicated?
D
Deleted member 221031
This is the end, the end my friends.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,669
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
You keep going over old ground. Have a break...
It was a great strategic move by Finland, yes.
What is a great strategic move by Finland?
Defeating the Ruskies and joining NATO.
Sponsored Links
