The old days when politicians had scandales like having a pregnant girlfriend.
Never said we could do anything about that directly (maybe indirectly by sending money). I just said we shouldn't ignore the problem and downvote the post.
Don't get me wrong. Of course send everything we have to them, Taurus, F-16, billions of dollars. Damn, hit Putin in his Kreml with drones. We should have sent the equipment way earlier when they said they would need it and not months later. (Fuck you, Olaf Scholz.) If we would have done it earlier, we now wouldn't talk about how to Ukraine needs more soldiers. Still send the weapons anyway. But now we talk about the need for soldiers and we can't ignore it when Ukraine simply doesn't have enough soldiers to handle all their weapons and fight back the Russian army on some parts of the front. And that they need more soldiers and have to mobilize is what have I heard a few times in the last weeks.
Of course it isn't the only criteria. Nevertheless Ukraine needs more soldiers, superior equipment doesn't help you to win a war if there's no one to use it or to few to use all of it.
I don't quite understand the downvotes. Ukraine needs more soldiers, doesn't it? Russia has no regulations whom to send in battle and how many. Ignoring the problem does not make it better.
50.3%, that's clooooose.
Oh nooooo! How dare youuuuuu!
Yeah...
OH. Laaaaaaaaaast Christmas.
Valentine's Day?
Oh, NN November?
view more: next ›
Sauce?