Both countries are using young men as cannon fodder. One country used so many they actually ran out, and are now using old ones. One country is much smaller and has been guaranteed to lose since the beginning, but decided to go for it anyway instead of signing a deal.
Wouldn't it be simpler and more accurate to just say: Larger country is invading their neighbor and the smaller country is defending itself.
There are countless examples of a smaller country defeating a larger country. Where does your guarantee come from? BTW, Russia has a servere manpower shortage. Many factories are running way below capacity. This is due to their factoty workers being used as cannon fodder at the front. There are many sources of info covering this war. You may try others besides only reading vodka lables. Here is a news source that is probably new to most of you.
All countries smaller than Russia should just surrender to Putin and become part of the Russian empire, right? Why fight when it's so much easier to surrender? The Johnnyboy Doctrine is awesome, but I'd like to suggest one minor modification. In the rare case where two countries are evenly matched, the winner is determined by a coin flip. In this way we can rapidly - probably in the space of a few weeks - eliminate war forever and establish a single world government run by the strongest/luckiest of the former countries. barfo
Why flip a coin when you can send poor kids to die? The fact that the wacky and/or hilariously zany hypothetical you presented sarcastically on my behalf is actually infinitely less psychotic than what is really happening says alot.
You realize you're using the same argument that was used to support our involvement in the Vietnam war? It's madness. You people are so easily manipulated.
Do you realize that the money you spend at the grocery store is the same money that is used to engage in human trafficking?
No, it's not the same. johnnyboy was saying that Ukraine should just surrender because they are smaller/weaker. The similar argument for Vietnam would be that South Vietnam should have surrendered because they were smaller/weaker. That could be stated even if the USA didn't exist. barfo
Your belief that people should just give up on self-governance whenever challenged seems quite at odds with human psychology, and all of history. barfo
Strawman. Russia never wanted all of Ukraine, only the eastern, ethnically Russian areas and for NATO to not expand to their doorstep. Nothing was ever presented to suggest otherwise aside from people loudly reiterating western propaganda points with no basis.
A large % of Russians living in Ukraine are the result of a 19th century migration from Russia for jobs. Using your faulty claim. Mexico would be justified to invade the USA and take control of a large southern portion of our country. Does this make sense? My eye sight is fading, it is difficult for me to tell one letter from another.
Your response to me pointing out a strawman is to present and even more ridiculous false equivalency? Why not just address the things I actually said?
What if that large portion of the southern US was ethnically Mexican, being bombed by the northern states and also voted successfully in a referendum to join Mexico?
That of course isn't an accurate portrayal of the situation in Ukraine, but suppose it was actually true of the southern US. You would then think that Mexico should take a few US states, and the US should agree to that? barfo
