Actually, my statement was as follows: Regardless, it sounds like we are on the same page on the big picture: Putin deservedly fucked himself invading Ukraine but he is a potent adversary against NATO. Am I correct on that?
Is there a difference between "Europe's 2nd best military" and "the second most powerful military force on the European continent"?
Yes, raw dollar spending is the best measure of strength.....No way could Ukraine spend 30% of their production on military to keep up with Russias 45 billion. They are spending as much as they can Why is Russia spending 45 Billion with an economy less then Texas is that a hint of plans to come
I have to read your posts.I stopped reading after you said Ukraine had the second most powerful military force on the European continent.In opinion based on that foundation isn't worth reading.
And we have a green light. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60544838 Ukraine conflict: Liz Truss backs people from UK who want to fight Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has said she supports individuals from the UK who might want to go to Ukraine to join an international force to fight. She told the BBC it was up to people to make their own decisions, but argued it was a battle "for democracy". She said Ukrainians were fighting for freedom, "not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe". Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged foreign nationals "to join the defence of security in Europe".
Indeed,which is why it made no sense to aid the argument that Ukraine had Europe's 2nd best military.No need to do that just to be against me.
I respect your posts and opinions. In general. It seems you are over emphasizing a point that is still reasonably debatable, without providing further support or clarification for your position. Anyway, I’m off to prepare for the open of Sunday’s session. Have a calendar spread that will be happy with a down open but a diagonal spread that would be stressed below 4240 on ES. Happy debating with you. Good night.