Boges

That's a deflection. Tate has said he thinks women are objects to own. That the type of person you'd like to hang with?

Do you need a refresher on all the times Trump has praised Putin in public?

If you're really an Alpha, you really don't have to keep reminding people you're an Alpha like Tate and his pathetic followers do.

If you're wondering if you're a good person or not, think to yourself. . . does Andrew Tate say things that I resonate with? If so you've answered your question, you're a shit person.

This is the cognitive paradox people create for themselves. No one is making you sell your pressure Dino Juice car. All automakers are making EVs or Hybrids their priority going forward. Current battery tech is not able to replace cars. But there are plenty of innovations that will certainly be ready by 2035. But people fret that they're having their cars taken from them NOW! They aren't. I don't know why anyone who's on the market for a new car and can charge them at home wouldn't consider an EV though. Think of where Battery tech was only 5 years ago? Now new EVs can charge in 20 minutes and go more than 400 kms on a charge. Think of where the tech will be in another 5 years. But the environmental costs of building batteries pale in comparison with the whole Crude Oil industry. For every image of a Cobalt or Lithium mine I could show you a picture of the Oil Sands or Off shore Oil rigs leaking oil into an Ocean.

Putin couldn't kill him every time he's tried so far. You seem confident that Putin just sacrificed the lives of tens of thousands of people and scores of valuable equipment just to accomplish he could have done without months of pointless conflict.

If the decision is made to move away from Fossil Fuels, this is an important way to do it. The bigger issues to tackle is our food system and shipping. But EVs are a tangible change because people can buy EVs now, and most people use cars. I think Solid State Batteries will but a game-changer.

Like? Battery Tech will constantly evolve. It's like it's engrained in Conservative psyche to find a way to fight all forms of innovation. Think of where EVs were 10 years ago to now. Imagine where they'll be in 10 years. Governments can't let the interests of Oil Companies dictate how they want to proceed in the long term.

He's targeting Civilian infrastructure. What would you call Zelensky if he ordered drone attacks on Moscow?

Well the video touches on the idea that Putin will use his demands to hold the west hostage? Is negotiating with the terrorist ever a good idea? You seem convinced that Putin will stop at the Donbas. Which is a huge loss for the viability of Ukraine as an independent nation. Folding to Russia because he has nukes would only embolden him. AND would encourage China to try to annex Taiwan.

Let's stay focused here. Putin could send missiles into Ukraine without costing his country a TON!!!! of military capital. His military ventures have amounted to very little. So why do it in the first place. He really thought he could march into Kiev and kill Zelensky. This video describes Putin's initial motives and his current options quite well. Putin's hope now is that the West tire of supporting Ukraine. Which I'm guessing you're doing as well. The consequences of that are not good for stability in the region.

Good move by the Feds to start mandating Automakers start offering EVs in 2 years. https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/canada-moves-to-mandate-electric-vehicle-sales-starting-in-2025-1.6203478?cid=sm%3Atrueanthem%3A{{campaignname}}%3Atwitterpost&taid=63a2f1c221994800011f8962&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Not because of an ill advised invasion but because of Terror Bombing. Something you seem gleeful about.

Well that was an all-time fail then eh?

Or at least a populace that doesn't want to fight for Zelensky. Boy was he wrong eh? Familiarize yourself with Occam's razor. What's the most plausible reason for trying to take Kiev?

So you're just suspending your belief in logic because you don't want to believe Putin tried to Annex the entire country. Is it so hard to believe he really thought the "Ukes" would greet his army as liberators and lay down their arms to return to Russia?

Why try that invasion in the first place? If the goal was destabilization, that wouldn't require actual boots on the ground in great numbers. Those tens of thousands of dead Russians would have come in handy defending the territory that, you say, was the whole purpose of this invasion in the first place.

What reasoning would have soldiers invade Ukraine from the North and surround it's capital city only to retreat some weeks later leaving their supplies?

If that was the goal, why not just implement terror bombing from the start? Instead they had columns of ill-prepared soldiers waiting outside the city. Until they realized they best retreat or they'd all be dead. And they left much of their Equipment for the Ukrainian solder. The initial goal was certainly to replace Zelensky with a Putin Puppet.

Well the initial strategy of the war was to take Kiev. They invaded from Belarus in the North and tried to siege the city but became sitting ducks and had to retreat. Their strategy now is a backup plan. They have no hope to annex Ukraine. I don't even think they have much hope of retaining Crimea.

Yeah but when they overthrow the Putin puppet and Putin starts annexing territory, people in the West start to care. Which is what happened. I'm not sure if you the Putin propaganda you consume lets you know real facts and stuff. Putin's goal was to install a puppet. That wasn't happening, even without NATO's help. Again believing sham elections. But you're not a Pro Putin apologist or anything LOL. Putin doesn't even have control of most of that territory anymore. And he's imported millions of Russians into Crimea, to make it Russian. Is that the type or international affairs you support?

It's exactly the same thing. You're trying to find ways to make Ukraine look like they had the invasion coming. Which is appalling and immoral. Because it's in their interest to not have a Client state of Putin next to Poland. And the war would not have been over. Ukraine's resolve is pretty strong. If they couldn't kick Russia out of most of the country like they have. They'd have made this a protracted urban conflict where Russia would have to deal with civilian insurgency.

The Sudetenland was a historically German part of Czechoslovakia. Just like Annexing Austria, his goal was to unify the German people, then went ahead and Annexed the entire country. Appeasers in the West let him have it and then he invaded Poland, then France, then the USSR. Putin annexed Crimea to unify Russian people then tried to annex all of Ukraine, With from NATO, he's failing miserably at doing that. If the West let him have Ukraine, could he take Moldova next, Romania? Lithuania? His goal has always been to unify the old USSR. If NATO refused to help, what's to stop him from threatening Nuclear War if he can't have Poland and East Germany back? You'd support that right? You don't even like NATO's Article 5. NATO and the EU understand lessons from history. You clearly don't because you're just towing the populist Conservative line that Putin is actually a Strong leader and the West should leave him to his goals. Again, I'm glad few leaders, that matter, are listening to you people.

Again you tip your hand at being a Pro Putin cronie. You really think Russia can conquer Ukraine? You're dreaming!

NATO's support of Ukraine is working. Russia is shown to be a complete mess internationally. Soon other client states will realize Putin is not to feared. But but Nukes! That fear plays right into the hand of Putin apologists. If the Nuke threat is always on the Table, then Putin should be able to do whatever he wants right? He's crazy enough to use them. That's a cowards way to conduct international affairs.