Russia - threadbanned users in OP

From History net

'British-supplied tanks made up 30 to 40 percent of the entire heavy and medium tank strength of Soviet forces before Moscow at the beginning of December 1941, and certainly made up a significant proportion of tanks available as reinforcements at this critical point in the fighting.'

Furthermore,

Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion. "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs.

The war in Afghanistan went on for 10 years.

And Russia lost.

Ukraine are much better armed and trained.

Your post contradicts itself. Why should a long war favour Russia. You cannot explain.

Really obvious the way you assign moral agency only to Ukraine and throw in digs at Zelensky. Yet have no words on Putin and how many lives he is wasting on this 'bit of land'. It is Ukrainian land.

Russia wanted all of Ukraine. Or did you miss that bit?

And he puts himself in the line of fire. Unlike Krapzinc.

I really have no interest in your pretend concern for my heating bills. You were making claims about gas prices in Germany and after I showed you evidence your claims are lies you simply try to deny saying them with a claim your phrasing of the lies meant something else. My main heating is with a wood burning stove with local Irish grown timber. On all fronts you are making no sense in your feeble attempts to imply putin's efforts to blackmail Europe with russia's previous role in energy suppies is anything but a complete failure just like his efforts to destroy Ukraine.

The pro orc faction are adamant the Ukraine should negotiate with these rapist savages.

A farmer in Tipperary with 5 acres can probably produce an abundant harvest of potatoes or rhubarb or vegetables.

PMSL, you really understand Irish agriculture alright. My grandparents grew rhubarb in the back garden of their 1930's council house in Tipperary but there aren't too many farmers growing rhubarb in the county for anything other than a few homemade tarts.

With every post your story shifts.

Earlier you appeared to say they were paying 4 times for lng imports now than before.

At one point rhubarb was mentioned, or our electricity bills but you still could not provide the source or exact detail.

Accordingly no one has any idea what you are trying to say or the truth of it.

Multiple posters have asked you to provide evidence to support your claim and you refuse to do so.

You can state it all you want, without evidence it has no standing and is highly dubious.

The irony of pulling €350k per year for talking shíte whilst complaining about the widening gap between rich and poor seems to be lost on the bould Antonio.

SPR has a number of faults to be sure, but I've never found the above to be one of them. It's (yet another) story about a special behind-the-lines mission, not The History of of the Battle for Normandy. The action takes place in on an American invasion beach, and later in the American sector, with American troops. There is no reason why any British or any other troops should have been portrayed. The British and Canadian beaches were further east, as were the British parachute landing areas. The Brits were pushing towards Caen, the Americans towards St. Lo and Cherbourg. Do people really imagine that platoons of British squaddies would have been fighting alongside American ones? The only place that might have happened (theoretically) was at the junction of the boundaries of different corps and army level formations (traditionally a weak spot and one exploited by Napoleon in Belgium in 1815, for example).

Later in 1944 Brits and Yanks would have been likely to encounter each other in rear areas such as Paris or Brussels, on en route between there and the front, but in Normandy during the summer of 1944 the rear area was the beach, and each nation had its own.

A good answer to that criticism would be "Which scenes are the British and Russians missing from?"

‘Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.’

"..Zelensky is the wrong man for the job."😮

He and the Ukrainian people have made ignoring this war so uncomfortable that nations far removed from Europe have been compelled to help.

He has rewritten the book on how to lead in the event of a war and how important communication is.

He's asked for and gotten modern weaponry all the way up to America's most advanced tank.

And I'm guessing that countries like Taiwan are taking careful notes of his every move.

I'd like to see your suggestions for who you think is a better man/woman for the job?

They are/were the political wing of the INLA. Insignificant now yes, but in their day they were a dangerous bunch of murdering filth.

Surely someone better? You think that, the Ukrainians apparently don't. And as you are appear completely ignorant of Ukrainian politics and unable to present a case for any alternative, your claim has no merit or foundation. By someone 'better', this appears to be synonymous to you with, someone better at giving in to Russia.

You are just repeating obvious Russian propaganda cues here. The dig about him being a comedian. Would a doctor or teacher or accountant or county councillor be any better background at leading a country fighting for its survival in wartime? The people who throw out the dig never explain.

So it is pretty obvious pro-Russian propaganda when you throw digs at Zelensky for being a comedian and throwing away his men's lives... Yet absolutely zero comment on Putin's conduct.

There's documented evidence of Russia executing and torturing civilians. That is the peace Russia has in mind. The peace of the grave.

Ukrainians prefer to die fighting to liberate their country, and they are killing far more of the invaders than they are losing.