Comments by "" (@ericp1139) on "Why Ukraine can't provide a clear strategy to Mike Johnson" video.

  1. Not just sounding, but actually reasonable. And this is coming from someone that hates the guy. In what other realm is it totally okay to ask for billions of dollars of funding with no plan?
    7
  2.  @angrydoggy9170  then no money. With $66 billion, we expect more than “just trust me, bro.”
    4
  3.  @josephgonzalez_  yes
    2
  4.  @davidhowse884  I didn’t agree with Trump either. And yes, there were plans in WW2, and thank god for the Soviets.
    2
  5. Nobody wants to invest in the losing team.
    2
  6. More like, the GOP isn’t getting any of the Ukraine slush fund (10% for the Big Guy). If they were getting invite pie, they be angry at Biden for not requesting more money.
    1
  7. NATO/Ukraine doesn’t even have a clear definition of what “winning” is. Never mind any cogent strategy. Absolutely reasonable for responsible people to ask what their money is going to. There was $66 billion earmarked for Ukraine, so they knew exactly how much they had to work with and to draw up a strategy proposal for that amount. You are intentionally obfuscating the issue.
    1
  8. Ukraine signed away their sovereignty on 2014 to become a US proxy. They made their fate.
    1
  9.  @bloodgout  neither do you or this guy on youtube.
    1
  10.  @DucatiKozak  and who helped defeated the Nazis at the end.
    1
  11.  @nunyabusiness863  so Ukraine is just a jobs program?
    1
  12.  @veronicamaine3813  Without the Soviets tying up the Nazis on the Eastern Front, the Western Allies had no chance of winning.
    1
  13.  @arcticwulf5796  so it’s a jobs program? And no, you don’t understand, cash is given to prop up the Ukrainian economy. You can look up the 60 Minutes segment “How US tax dollars are being spent, tracked in Ukraine.”
    1
  14.  @mariomario-dy1kc  if it wasn’t for the Soviets, the Western Front stood no chance.
    1
  15.  @mariomario-dy1kc  are you a Banderist?
    1
  16.  @mariomario-dy1kc  avoiding my question?
    1
  17.  @mariomario-dy1kc  where did I do that?
    1
  18.  @Kirgoss  selling product to someone is not investing in them. Ukraine relies heavily on charity.
    1
  19.  @Johnny-bm7ry  Ukraine lost 20% of its most valuable territory. They didn’t hold back squat. Russia just isn’t in a hurry to make a bigger push yet.
    1
  20.  @Johnny-bm7ry  yup, Russia withdrew from Kharkiv, because they didn’t have have manpower at the time to defend it. Ukraine has never defeated a Russian defense (as can be seen when the AFU was defeated in the Spring offensive). Kherson was evacuated because the AFU was shooting HIMARS at the Kakovkha dam, which threatened to strand the Russians on the other side of the river, so Gen. Surovikin was vindicated. And Russia’s has solidified its ownership of 20% of Ukraine.
    1
  21.  @Kirgoss  Ukraine relies on the West to financially keep their economy afloat. The West constantly speaks of Ukraine in terms of an “investment.” If I buy a Nike shoe, I am not investing in Nike, I am buying their product. Russia might purchase material, but it is not a beggar nation like Ukraine.
    1
  22.  @Kirgoss  you still seem to fail to grasp the concept of buying goods vs investing. Until we get over this basic understanding, no sense into getting into essays. Buying a Nike shoe is purchasing a good in a transaction. An investment would be like buying stock in the Nike company and becoming a shareholder.
    1
  23. More like, impossible to provide any information at all. What is the money going towards? This video is trying to muddy up the concept of “strategy” to trick Americans to keep writing blank checks to the most corrupt nation in Europe.
    1