Comments by "R Johansen" (@rjohansen9486) on "Zelensky Writes Long Letter After Being Lectured By Trump, Vance; Makes This Offer To US | Ukraine" video.

@wl3984 "Only proved that he was a fool after wasting our tax money". What are you trying to say??
4
"focus on our own problems". You're not capable of doing two (or more) things at a time??
2
@ApolloThyrteen I see you put " on ally and that is correct. There are no troops from the West on the ground in Ukraine, because they're not a member of the military alliance. And they have not said they should do so either, so why you are complaining is a mystery. What actions are you calling for?
2
@tylermac70 Well, it was a 60iq post! ; )
1
@ "they can think whatever they want. I guarantee if they’re leaders send any troops to Ukraine they’ll be begging Trump to assist within weeks." What does this even mean?!? What are you trying to say?
1
@ApolloThyrteen Peacekeepers isn't the same as troops in a war, you should know that! "I’m wondering what “we stand with you” is actually doing to bring peace." It's a signal to bullies that their behavior isn't going to succeed. "It’s funny to say they are not part of the military alliance while sending weapons of war." Perhaps funny to you (maybe you aren't the brightest bulb), but this is very normal. It means supporting another country's right to defend itself. "Supplying weapons is an act of war is it not?" No it's not! Why do you think ru SS ia hasn't attacked a NATO country if that was the case?? "All the while sending money in the form of loans. Loans they cannot afford to pay back." Less than a third of the money is loan. And with low interests and long repayment period. "just pointing out the inconsistencies in logic." Maybe there's something wrong with your logic? But you have a point. This is my personal thought: If NATO got involved in the first month of the war, it would have ended quickly (but sadly, it is just how these thing work). They wouldn't even had to send ground troops, but planes only. NATO is far superiour to ru SS ia.
1
@ApolloThyrteen What are you babbling about?! You're the one who is talking about sending peacekeepers before a ceasefire, not me! " accusation that NATO was using Ukraine as a way to get weapons close to ru SS ia". It is exactly that, an ACCUSATION! A ru SS ian one, which has nothing to do with reality. There was never any plan to deploy offensive weapons in Ukraine. Again, just a ru SS ian talking point. Why do you think there are no such weapons in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, that has been NATO members for many years? "I’m not the brightest buIb". In that you are correct! ; )
1
@ApolloThyrteen "Discussing sending peacekeepers when there is no ceasefire is stupid." No one has said that, except you! "What kind of genius would rather keep funding a war instead of pushing for a cease fire?" Pu tIer! "how many more soldiers will Ukraine send?" As many as it takes to push the in vade rs out of their country! "... a deal is struck ...." Between the aggressor and the U.S, and at the expense of a free democratic Ukraine (which the US guaranteed would not happen in the Budapest Agreement? And a deal that enriches the US, i.e. war profiteers? Is that what "the land of the free" has become?!
1
@JCP_323 No, the numbers are more like U.S 35-40 % (but so far only 30%) and Europe 60-65% financial support for Ukraine. But why did Trump have to I ie about how much the US have given? The US has NOT given 500 bn, not even 350 bn, so why I ie about it? They numbers are between 119 and 175 bn USD, depending on how you do the math (but only $83.4 billion has been sent). And of that total, 75 bn is given to US companies. Only 35 bn is budget support for Ukraine. 69 bn is military support. That means Ukraine has received 76 bn (35 bn budget support and 41 bn as weapons) The U.S has given 0,3 % of their GDP (0,5 when all that is promised is received) Estonia has given 2,5 % Denmark 2,5 % Lithuania 1,8% Norway 1,7 % On top of that, the actual value of the weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine by the USA is about 60% lower than they were priced because the price was for new stock. Much of the military equipment and ammunition sent to Ukraine is old and of limited combat effectiveness because it came from aging US stockpiles, some of the ammunition is expired, and a majority of the equipment isn't even used by the US military anymore (and therefore has an effective value of $0 to the USA). Normally, this stock would have to be disposed of, but giving it to Ukraine means there are effectively no disposal expenses. Furthermore, much of the funding for Ukraine is being spent in the USA, such as employing US workers to manufacture the replacement equipment and supplies for refilling US stockpiles.
1
@TwaunaPower-qc8ei Zelensky? Did he get an apology from Trump and Vance also?
1