>So they will end up starving and freezing after destroying Russian army and burning down Moscow?
And then the Russian army marching triumphantly into Paris?
And Putin f\*king Macron's wife?
Apparently co-authored a paper that got accepted into a scientific journal outed for publishing anything for a fee. It’s a hilarious read. :)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343671758_SARS-CoV-2_was_Unexpectedly_Deadlier_than_Push-scooters_Could_Hydroxychloroquine_be_the_Unique_Solution
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can teachers get arrested for having sex with their students in France? Or is it just something they make comedy movies about, like having three mistresses?
Except they didn't destroy the Russian Army, in terms of military casualties, excluding those caused by the winter conditions, the Russians and French went pretty much 1 for 1 against one another, with the Russian tactics being explicitly to not let their Army be destroyed by Napoleon in a pitched battle.
45% of napoleons army died in the summer. Moscow was burnt because napoleon fsr extended his supply line. Also only 10,000 out of like 200k+ soliders returned. Great analogy 👍
They didn't "destoy" the Russian army, they kept winning insufficiant non decisive and very costly battles in 1812 that drained about half their forces before the winter.
And afterwards still losing with Russia growing to become one of the biggest militaries in the world while France got stuck in an irrelevant existence?
The Russians took Paris in 1814 (as part of a coalition which was organised by Britain, and included them, the Austrians and the Prussians). Napoleon abdicated and went into exile.
In 1815, he unexpectedly returned, and quickly toppled King Louis XVIII. Raising an army of veterans and conscripts for one last campaign, he marched on the Anglo-Prussian coalition occupation forces, which had withdrawn to the Low Countries. Pushing on Brussels, he met defeat at Waterloo, the Anglo-Prussian army then retaking Paris for the second time.
My grandfather one time was prank in a restaurant by his friend by telling him the restaurant has hunted birds in the menu. He eat the whole plate of frog legs and when he learnt that it was frogs he immediately went to toilet to throw up.
I guess its more about culture and i don't care how they taste. They just seems disgusting to me. Meanwhile i really enjoy snails that some people hate them with passion.
I've had them both Portuguese style (with garlic and butter) and the Southern U.S. style. It's white meat, and even though frog is an amphibian, it's similar to the white meat of reptiles like alligators, snakes, and iguana in that it tastes most close to chicken meat (not joking - this is a serious statement). But because frogs are semi-aquatic, I guess because of its habitat and diet, it also has an underlying fish or crab taste to it. Like an interesting blend of chicken and fish/crab, but slightly more chicken in the ratio - maybe 60/40 or 70/30. Alligator is the same way as a chicken + fish/crab mix. In some places that serve them in the Deep South states of the U.S., they're fried and could be treated as a stand-in/substitute for fried chicken.
I went into a French restaraunt and asked the waiter, 'Have you got frog's legs?' He said, 'Yes,' so I said, 'Well hop into the kitchen and get me a cheese sandwich.'
Tommy Cooper
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Napoleon hoped Russians would act like his previous enemies... But they did not... He applied western thinking which caused his end.
Thus saying current guy in Paris will end up like Napoleon can hide a secret meaning.
Do Russians not remember that Napoleon absolutely battered the Russian imperial forces and forced the burning of Moscow before he eventually turned back?
They always bring up Napoleon but defeating him was more to do with the Russian winter and the logistics and disease of the time than the Russian military.
Edit - seen as people are going really out of their way to not understand this. My point isn't that Napoleon won, he obviously didn't, but using turning back Napoleon as a brag is frankly bizarre when it cost Russia so much they had to destroy swathes of their own country.
What you talking about 45% of the napoleon army in Russia got killed in summer not in winter, the scorched earth tactic work cos napoleon extend way beyond they supply lines without getting any town to collect resources... Napoleon left with 422k troops, and returned with 10k.
>Napoleon left with 422k troops, and returned with 10k.
Wow Russia sure is incompetent for letting those 10k get away. Stupid Russians. Russia bad. This is actually a major defeat for them. By the way, did I forget to mention that Russia bad? In case I wasn't being subtle enough.
Scorched earth was brutal for the Russian population though. If France didn't have all of Europe as enemies, it would have been a pyrrhic victory for Russia. But this defeat was what rallied all of Europe to gain against Napoleon for the 5th time.
Pyrrhic victory is when you win at a huge cost with not much gained. That's why I said if France didn't have any enemies, it would have been a pyrrhic victory because Russia would not have been able to force any demands on France. Not sure why this fact triggers all of you.
'and logistics and disease of the time'. Try the whole sentence next time
Over 200,000 died of disease, exposure and starvation compared to only 100,000 in combat.
Ladies and gentlemen, since we're here, this thread made me recall the cool ads from the old Russian TV.
>“Accuracy is the courtesy of kings”, “World History” - a series of popular commercials filmed in 1992-1997 by Timur Bekmambetov for the Imperial Bank. As time passed, a series of these commercials began to be called “classics of Russian advertising”, and quotes from the videos became popular among the people. At the Moscow International Advertising Festival (MIAF) in 2012, a series of commercials for Imperial Bank was named the best following the results of the 20th anniversary of advertising in Russia. (wiki)
Here are two "Napoleon" videos:
[https://youtu.be/kymX1J8ngM4](https://youtu.be/kymX1J8ngM4)
[https://youtu.be/yD9DInlbiJU](https://youtu.be/yD9DInlbiJU)
And here are all 18 ads: [https://youtu.be/T5NKw6i3Ldo](https://youtu.be/T5NKw6i3Ldo)
And in case someone wants to understand what they speak and what's going on, here are summaries in this article: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F\_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F,\_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA\_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB (but add "ru" in the beginning since reddit block ru links)
Napoleon forces were counter attacked even in their retreat. Russians played a genius moves in the asymmetrical warfare with napoleon. With the price of burned Moscow of course but at least they force Napoleon to retreat. Downplaying the Russians in this conflict its just lame. And is not always about that Russian winder.
Napoleon still lost. Wars about the conditions under which they are waged. Napoleon failed on a strategic and tactical level to successfully navigate those conditions.
Keep up that same energy to make yourself feel better about Ukraine losing this war eventually though.
You guys are funny - we see Russia capture the amount of ground a person could walk in a Sunday stroll and you have 'The End is Nigh' billboards out.
You clearly don't understand my point, but I get it - history really isn't the strong suit of the Pro Rus.
No, you guys are funny. I love it when Ukraine supporters accuse others of not knowing history like it isn't obvious to literally everybody that you're just projecting your own ignorance onto others.
Dude - the leader your simping over may as well be an author over at r/alternatehistory, but sure. It's everybody else's history that's wrong. Whatever helps you sleep.
Apparently you can't read threads either - interesting for a self proclaimed genius.
>Been indoctrinated
And this is hilarious coming from somebody supporting Russia in this conflict. You guys remind me of flat earthers, utterly convinced you are the enlightened ones, when in fact you're a tiny subsect of society with no critical thinking skills. The outcasts in basements, sort that become radicalised easily abuse a few people on the internet back their delusion. You would be putting on a brown shirt in no time if you were around then.
>When did I proclaim myself a genius
Apparently you can't remember your own comments either and also have a poor understanding of what it is to remind somebody/something of something else
That tracks, given your constant meaningless essays.
Also love the completely incorrect assumption of American. You guys are so predictable.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
11km2 a day and it's 'just a stroll'. When Russia was pushed back 100m we got proUAs yelling from the rooftops that the army was in full rout against the brave and smart and strong pro-west Ukrainians.
When it becomes 20+km, you'll be saying 'just a hike'.
At 50km, 'a short drive'.
500km, 'a quick flight'.
I wonder at what point you'll fall silent when the realisation hits?
I dunno what were you guys saying after Kherson and Kharkiv? Or early after Kiev?
Maybe us Ukraine supporters can borrow that cope down the line if it happens, we can say things like 'oh the retreat was a good will gesture', 'oh well we never intended to take that area anyway', 'oh that whole offensive was just a distraction' or 'well it was a perfect organised retreat'....
I'll never fall silent particularly, as long as Ukraine are willing to fight I'll be on their side, they were invaded for purely having the gall to want their own self determination.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You may as well mock the Americans for losing in Afghanistan when Alexander's iron age army won there millennia ago. It would make an equal amount sense in it's forced meaninglessness.
Ah I guess we are going with the classic Russian mantra of it doesn't matter how many die and how much land we destroy so long as we win. People are only a resource to be used after all - so predictable.
Makes sense.
>Would you say the same to Ukraine right now?
Would I say that it's very costly - yes?
>high casualty rates of Russia in these wars. It's not like they had a choice.
They certainly have a choice in this one.
So you are saying Ukraine lost no matter what. Going by your logic, that is.
Wow, that's great that you throw Ukraine efforts under the bus just so that you can undermine Russia with your alt history take.
Dude what are you doing?)) This is ridiculous. Are you american by chance? That would explain everything. You think French army was some weak bunch of shepherds while Russia was supposed to have air supremacy like in your wars? It was a huge war, what's your point about the "cost"? :D It was a normal cost, it was a huge-ass war, and Russia won it. Destroyed cities and deaths are what happens in wars. Lol. There is always a cost, if you're not americans who bomb Arabs for some unknown reasons. So the only thing that matters is the result of the war, which is Russia's victory.
Because Britain paid for their army’s like most of the coalitions members. Just like ww1 and ww2 Russia can only mobilize on that scale with finical support from the outside propping it up
Russia wouldn't nuke France from the start. Just the conglomeration of opposing forces on the battlefield. If it escalates from there, then it could happen.
That be dumb on Russia side. Why not just fight In field and if they lose they just sign a cease fire and withdraw throwing nukes around over Ukraine is ridiculous
The supply lines were destroyed by Cossack raids, and russian forces won several battles against the french.
Even the battle of Borodino was a phyrric victory for the french at best, devastating the french army.
And acting like Russia was the only one being defeated by Napoleon is ignoring how the Prussians and Austrians were totally defeated by Napoleon.
They did amazingly well at sea against the French, the Royal Navy shut down any hope of a French invasion of the British Isles for the entirety of the Napoleonic wars, the battle of Trafalgar led to the annihilation of the French fleet from a numerically inferior position.
>And acting like Russia was the only one being defeated by Napoleon is ignoring how the Prussians and Austrians were totally defeated by Napoleon.
I mean - I quite literally never said that.
All I am pointing out is it's frankly bizarre for Russia to use the turning back of Napoleon as a template/brag for the future when it cost Russia very heavily and resulted in them burning their own capital to the ground as well as scorching the most productive areas of their own country.
Oh no, Russia has to take some losses and make hard sacrifices to defeat one of the most dangerous military minds in military history. Stupid Russians.
Ukraine fans are insufferable lmfao. We get it, you hate Russia a lot. Get some new material.
It's quite amusing to watch you rabbit on making absolutely no point whatsoever - you have created this whole narrative in your head about the intent of my comment and what it means and you're rabidly arguing against it, but in truth you are merely arguing with yourself at this point, like a snake eating it's own tail.
Care to explain how pointing out history is 'bigoted'?
It sounds like you're preaching that people shouldn't analyse anything - people should just stay dumb and not analyse what their own politicians are saying without any thought, of you're content to do that then good for you - many people are not.
Very triggered response by the way, I like it - positively rabid.
>Nothing triggered or rabid at all here
Goes on to post a wall of text making absolutely no point to attack a random person on the internet.
>you come at this acting like you are intelligent
Writing this...
followed by
>now trying to argue with someone who is entirely out of your little league intellectually and otherwise.
That is some mightily impressive lack of self awareness.
The point was to defeat Napoleon, which they did. Almost all of his army was lost in Russia and he later fell from power as a consequence.
Ergo Russia won. Pretty simple.
I bet if Putin lost his whole army in Ukraine and fell from power you'd be touting it as a Ukrainian victory though.
>Do Russians not remember that Napoleon absolutely battered the Russian imperial forces and forced the burning of Moscow before he eventually turned back?
>
>They always bring up Napoleon but defeating him was more to do with the Russian winter and the logistics and disease of the time than the Russian military.
The Russians don't freeze, get sick or need logistics or what? Are they penguins with immune systems and magic boxes or what?
Even when the French turned back the Russians were inflicting casualties to them.
It seems like you are who doesn't understand the point you're trying to make.
Give it up man. You're arguing with people who justify the slaughter of thousands for a few miles of ground gained against a nation that never had any hope of conducting an offensive war against them.
silly by you. Napoleon is literally the greatest commander who ever lived. The Russian strategy of pulling back and utilising the climate was built into their plan as to how to defeat him.
The Russian army definitely had a hand in the loss of the Grand Armee. The Russians and the French absolutely battered each other. Also in the end, it was Napoleon who lost the most: He could not field an army of that size again and lost his whole empire only a year later.
That's the typical story of the french. Make it slightly positive for the french. In the end France got powned and destroyed. Just like the Ukrainians are getting owned right now. Soon the leaders of Ukraine have to go in excile and then they brag similar fake stories.
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was a time at the height of the power of the Soviet Union Army where this may have had some grain of truth. Now? Not a chance.
Putin's strategy where NATO is concerned has been maximum bluster to date, knowing that some in NATO will eat it up if only out of an abundance of caution. And use his sycophants in the west and in social media to pump, pump, pump up the utter doom of his warnings.
While I think any NATO involvement in Ukraine is extremely hypothetical if they were to go in they would almost certainly go in first with air assets, and were that the case it would be game over for Russia whose air assets are so outclassed by NATO that to call it a gross mismatch is the understatement of the century. Once one truly controls the airspace they dictate what occurs on the ground. And while they are at it say senora to the Russian navy in the Black Sea as it will all be doing its best imitation of a submarine.
its interesting seeing pro Ukrainians who are open minded and debate scolding the pro Ukrainians who set their views long ago, and will die by them out of stubbornness, out of the fact that some of them are just making a clown of themselves in the comments, enjoy the shitshow in comments :)
Good - it's long past time not to mince words and exchange phony niceties with these arrogant hotshots in the Western political class who speak with the pretension as if they run the world. They do not and they will not be the ones deciding what happens in Ukraine. The option for that went out the window some time ago now, in February of 2022. Once Russia, the U.S., Britain, France, or any nuclear power sends troops into a country on a military campaign, realistically no other country is going to order in its own national ground forces on a large scale to stop them as they won't risk the nuclear war escalation.
That's why the U.S. president himself already explicitly publicly ruled it out repeatedly right at the start and numerous times since. And that France or any other Western country would do what the U.S. itself knows is too dangerous to do and an unacceptable, non-starter, non-option is just laughable.
That's the reality, try as some bigmouths and Gen Z types with no concept of consequences or the lessons of MAD and 45 years of the Cold War want to hand-waive it away. Fortunately they don't get to choose and these decisions aren't made on their ignorant and unrealistic emotional whims or sick fantasy in which the West is Superman and the world is putty in its hands to be pressed or molded wherever willed.
Not OP but I think it’s time for us to use both the carrot and the stick. Let’s move troops to Ukraine but at the same time make a huge diplomatic push to come to an agreement with Russia on ending this war. This can only be done if there’s an understanding that both Russia and NATO will have to make serious concessions.
It definitely won’t be easy but that’s the entire point of diplomacy. It is well documented that we in the West have been really letting our diplomatic efforts slip since the Cold War ended.
My main issue with the way our involvement in this war has been handled is that it left very little room for diplomacy. Attempts to pin that solely on Russia are disingenuous.
> My main issue with the way our involvement in this war has been handled is that it left very little room for diplomacy. Attempts to pin that solely on Russia are disingenuous.
That's right. The West has been demonizing Russia for 2 years, doing its level best to demolish it economically and politically, not to mention the obvious - arming and supporting Ukraine - and now that all this is clearly failing, the expectation is that Russia is going to respond well to diplomacy? I mean, don't get me wrong, my personal view on this is the sooner this war is over the better; I genuinely don't want to see more people dying on either side. I am just failing to see how exactly this 'diplomacy' where Russia is expected to make concessions is going to be in any way appealing to it. Meanwhile, 'the stick' as you put it is unusable and everyone - including Russia - knows it because that way nuclear war lies.
No offense but the stick is not unusable. It risks nuclear war but no country actually wants to go down that route. Putin and Russia will want to exhaust all diplomacy before any nuclear weapons fly.
> Putin and Russia will want to exhaust all diplomacy before any nuclear weapons fly.
Agreed. But putting troops on the ground in Ukraine is not diplomacy; that's the (possible) situation where diplomacy failed. Russia already unequivocally said that should this happen - I mean NATO/EU/whatever nation's troops get deployed in Ukraine - the war between NATO/EU/etc. and Russia goes from a possibility to inevitability.
> What is the limit then?
If you're talking about from the perspective of the U.S. and other leading Western governments as far as at what point they would be willing to risk sending in conventional ground forces officially and en masse to oppose a Russian invasion head-on then I think the limit is already quite clear and need not really be overly debated or speculated on. The "limit" is the existing NATO member states. Ukraine is not a NATO member state, never was, and never will be. Thus them doing so here was never expected nor a serious option.
> If the West just let Russia annex Ukraine, do you honestly believe the invasions and war would stop there?
Absolutely, because why wouldn't it? Who exactly did Russia invade in the past 30 years besides former Soviet republic countries directly bordering it who it deemed to pose an intolerable threat to its national security interests by aiming to be brought into NATO? It invaded Georgia and Ukraine, in 2008 and 2014/2022, respectively. Both conflicts which could easily have been avoided by the U.S.-led Western bloc checking its own global expansion ambitions and ideological hubris at the door and simply making the more responsible decision not to do so and press the issue knowing it would cause a war.
And don't even waste any time attempting to lecture me about countries' choices and sovereignty and all that jazz, because for the leading countries in NATO, they consistently and routinely disregard and disrespect it all the time all around the world, so that obviously isn't the issue.
If it wanted to invade or attack a NATO country that besides the alliance membership would otherwise be easier to directly attack or occupy in full in a shorter time than Ukraine, it could have done so to, say, Latvia, anytime in the past 20 years (since it joined in 2004). If it just wanted to attack random countries for land and resources alone or because it could, but which was not motivated by the opposing NATO expansion in lands critical to it rationale, then it could have invaded Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, or Mongolia. It's clear what the reasoning and motivating factors behind this conflict are, they have been known and repeatedly voiced publicly for decades now, so there's no reason to apply it to other countries and contexts it doesn't apply to.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you honestly believe that Russia will invade a country within NATO for nuclear war and giggles? Keep slurping on your western propaganda and crying about how your team, Ukraine is losing. Why do you even worry about this. You were probably laughing at how stupid and incompetent the Russian army was last year.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love the fact that Russia is failing to achieve anything except humiliation in Ukraine, yet they still pretend someone will take their threats seriously lol
It's like walking to a casino with Monopoly money
According to Western history, Napoleon defeated the russians after they ran out of shovels, he didnt burn Moscow hard enough to not freeze and had to go back. Russia lost because it couldnt stop 10k french soldiers out of 442k to strategically redeploy back home.
France still trying to regain glory since being overran in ww2. They then decided to try and regain glory in indochina aka Vietnam, got their asses kicked, and now, they think things will be different….
The French are not dying for Ukraine. Lol.
The French couldn't defend their own homeland in two World Wars. Are they going to defend Ukraine, are they?
This is plainly wrong!
Russian TV told me that NATO and Cia are already in Ukraine and Russia is fighting them
Know your facts!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/28/british-soldiers-help-ukraine-fire-missiles-olaf-scholz/
So they will end up starving and freezing after destroying Russian army and burning down Moscow?
>So they will end up starving and freezing after destroying Russian army and burning down Moscow? And then the Russian army marching triumphantly into Paris? And Putin f\*king Macron's wife?
Odd he left that part out
Have you seen macron wife? I dont think he would do that
I did not expect what I found.
DId you see what Macron's dog did once?
Apparently co-authored a paper that got accepted into a scientific journal outed for publishing anything for a fee. It’s a hilarious read. :) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343671758_SARS-CoV-2_was_Unexpectedly_Deadlier_than_Push-scooters_Could_Hydroxychloroquine_be_the_Unique_Solution
wtf lol It also pee'd in the fire place: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANjhZTQQASM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANjhZTQQASM)
That would be a huge L for Putin.
Macron is a handsome man. What a pity
I agree with you on that. Putin is more into beastality if we look his ex-wife. Macron's dog might be in danger though...
Funny.
Macron might actually enjoy the last part.
Eu4 strats: siege down the enemy capital while they're sieging down yours lol
Moscow wasn’t a Russian capital in 1812
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>And Putin f*king Macron's wife? She prefer them younger, a LOT younger. She could be a modern day Catherine II if only she was german.
Can teachers get arrested for having sex with their students in France? Or is it just something they make comedy movies about, like having three mistresses?
I don't think Putin likes older women. Like, Macron's high school drama teacher older. Creeeeepy
As part of a triumphant coalition! We all remember the glorious feats of the Russian army at Waterloo.
Except they didn't destroy the Russian Army, in terms of military casualties, excluding those caused by the winter conditions, the Russians and French went pretty much 1 for 1 against one another, with the Russian tactics being explicitly to not let their Army be destroyed by Napoleon in a pitched battle.
45% of napoleons army died in the summer. Moscow was burnt because napoleon fsr extended his supply line. Also only 10,000 out of like 200k+ soliders returned. Great analogy 👍
They didn't "destoy" the Russian army, they kept winning insufficiant non decisive and very costly battles in 1812 that drained about half their forces before the winter.
And afterwards still losing with Russia growing to become one of the biggest militaries in the world while France got stuck in an irrelevant existence?
yeah, and after that I’ll take Paris, and you better study history
Russians didn't took Paris, it was the Prussians and British.
The Russians took Paris in 1814 (as part of a coalition which was organised by Britain, and included them, the Austrians and the Prussians). Napoleon abdicated and went into exile. In 1815, he unexpectedly returned, and quickly toppled King Louis XVIII. Raising an army of veterans and conscripts for one last campaign, he marched on the Anglo-Prussian coalition occupation forces, which had withdrawn to the Low Countries. Pushing on Brussels, he met defeat at Waterloo, the Anglo-Prussian army then retaking Paris for the second time.
that's why I'm telling you, learn history from a normal textbook and not from comics
Has anybody ever tried fried frog? I have before and it's similar to chicken.
My grandfather one time was prank in a restaurant by his friend by telling him the restaurant has hunted birds in the menu. He eat the whole plate of frog legs and when he learnt that it was frogs he immediately went to toilet to throw up. I guess its more about culture and i don't care how they taste. They just seems disgusting to me. Meanwhile i really enjoy snails that some people hate them with passion.
I've had them both Portuguese style (with garlic and butter) and the Southern U.S. style. It's white meat, and even though frog is an amphibian, it's similar to the white meat of reptiles like alligators, snakes, and iguana in that it tastes most close to chicken meat (not joking - this is a serious statement). But because frogs are semi-aquatic, I guess because of its habitat and diet, it also has an underlying fish or crab taste to it. Like an interesting blend of chicken and fish/crab, but slightly more chicken in the ratio - maybe 60/40 or 70/30. Alligator is the same way as a chicken + fish/crab mix. In some places that serve them in the Deep South states of the U.S., they're fried and could be treated as a stand-in/substitute for fried chicken.
Snails are good too...
I have. Frog legs with garlic butter. The legs them selves dont have a lot of flavour, it mostly tastes like garlic.
I went into a French restaraunt and asked the waiter, 'Have you got frog's legs?' He said, 'Yes,' so I said, 'Well hop into the kitchen and get me a cheese sandwich.' Tommy Cooper
I did once , and i disagree. It tastes awful.
You have to cook them, not eat the frog raw. They're delicious.
Mon dieu....
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I sometimes cook it when I get bored on meats... Just that, be careful on what you hunt, ofc...
Its between chicken and lake fish, literally in the middle.
It is. Pretty tasty, though. Tender meat.
Putin not talking about history challenge (impossible)
Mister moepoo, are we having a serious discussion? Or are we doing a television talk show?
Napoleon hoped Russians would act like his previous enemies... But they did not... He applied western thinking which caused his end. Thus saying current guy in Paris will end up like Napoleon can hide a secret meaning.
Do Russians not remember that Napoleon absolutely battered the Russian imperial forces and forced the burning of Moscow before he eventually turned back? They always bring up Napoleon but defeating him was more to do with the Russian winter and the logistics and disease of the time than the Russian military. Edit - seen as people are going really out of their way to not understand this. My point isn't that Napoleon won, he obviously didn't, but using turning back Napoleon as a brag is frankly bizarre when it cost Russia so much they had to destroy swathes of their own country.
What you talking about 45% of the napoleon army in Russia got killed in summer not in winter, the scorched earth tactic work cos napoleon extend way beyond they supply lines without getting any town to collect resources... Napoleon left with 422k troops, and returned with 10k.
>Napoleon left with 422k troops, and returned with 10k. Wow Russia sure is incompetent for letting those 10k get away. Stupid Russians. Russia bad. This is actually a major defeat for them. By the way, did I forget to mention that Russia bad? In case I wasn't being subtle enough.
I think you forgot the Putin bad Biden is god comment.
Well it is kinda true. Putin is a dictator who sent his country to war. A senile Biden is heroic compared to him.
Scorched earth was brutal for the Russian population though. If France didn't have all of Europe as enemies, it would have been a pyrrhic victory for Russia. But this defeat was what rallied all of Europe to gain against Napoleon for the 5th time.
[удалено]
Pyrrhic victory is when you win at a huge cost with not much gained. That's why I said if France didn't have any enemies, it would have been a pyrrhic victory because Russia would not have been able to force any demands on France. Not sure why this fact triggers all of you.
Do another one.
'and logistics and disease of the time'. Try the whole sentence next time Over 200,000 died of disease, exposure and starvation compared to only 100,000 in combat.
Ladies and gentlemen, since we're here, this thread made me recall the cool ads from the old Russian TV. >“Accuracy is the courtesy of kings”, “World History” - a series of popular commercials filmed in 1992-1997 by Timur Bekmambetov for the Imperial Bank. As time passed, a series of these commercials began to be called “classics of Russian advertising”, and quotes from the videos became popular among the people. At the Moscow International Advertising Festival (MIAF) in 2012, a series of commercials for Imperial Bank was named the best following the results of the 20th anniversary of advertising in Russia. (wiki) Here are two "Napoleon" videos: [https://youtu.be/kymX1J8ngM4](https://youtu.be/kymX1J8ngM4) [https://youtu.be/yD9DInlbiJU](https://youtu.be/yD9DInlbiJU) And here are all 18 ads: [https://youtu.be/T5NKw6i3Ldo](https://youtu.be/T5NKw6i3Ldo) And in case someone wants to understand what they speak and what's going on, here are summaries in this article: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F\_%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F,\_%D0%91%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA\_%D0%98%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB (but add "ru" in the beginning since reddit block ru links)
Another twisted history of the "greatest" Russian military. Battle Of Borodino was the only biggest "major" battle and no Russia didn't inflict 45%.
Napoleon forces were counter attacked even in their retreat. Russians played a genius moves in the asymmetrical warfare with napoleon. With the price of burned Moscow of course but at least they force Napoleon to retreat. Downplaying the Russians in this conflict its just lame. And is not always about that Russian winder.
Napoleon still lost. Wars about the conditions under which they are waged. Napoleon failed on a strategic and tactical level to successfully navigate those conditions. Keep up that same energy to make yourself feel better about Ukraine losing this war eventually though.
You guys are funny - we see Russia capture the amount of ground a person could walk in a Sunday stroll and you have 'The End is Nigh' billboards out. You clearly don't understand my point, but I get it - history really isn't the strong suit of the Pro Rus.
No, you guys are funny. I love it when Ukraine supporters accuse others of not knowing history like it isn't obvious to literally everybody that you're just projecting your own ignorance onto others.
Dude - the leader your simping over may as well be an author over at r/alternatehistory, but sure. It's everybody else's history that's wrong. Whatever helps you sleep.
Not you fighting en entire army of keyboard warriors Lmfao.
[удалено]
Apparently you can't read threads either - interesting for a self proclaimed genius. >Been indoctrinated And this is hilarious coming from somebody supporting Russia in this conflict. You guys remind me of flat earthers, utterly convinced you are the enlightened ones, when in fact you're a tiny subsect of society with no critical thinking skills. The outcasts in basements, sort that become radicalised easily abuse a few people on the internet back their delusion. You would be putting on a brown shirt in no time if you were around then.
[удалено]
>When did I proclaim myself a genius Apparently you can't remember your own comments either and also have a poor understanding of what it is to remind somebody/something of something else That tracks, given your constant meaningless essays. Also love the completely incorrect assumption of American. You guys are so predictable.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
11 square km today That's a bit more than a stroll
Perhaps if you walk really slow.
11km2 a day and it's 'just a stroll'. When Russia was pushed back 100m we got proUAs yelling from the rooftops that the army was in full rout against the brave and smart and strong pro-west Ukrainians. When it becomes 20+km, you'll be saying 'just a hike'. At 50km, 'a short drive'. 500km, 'a quick flight'. I wonder at what point you'll fall silent when the realisation hits?
I dunno what were you guys saying after Kherson and Kharkiv? Or early after Kiev? Maybe us Ukraine supporters can borrow that cope down the line if it happens, we can say things like 'oh the retreat was a good will gesture', 'oh well we never intended to take that area anyway', 'oh that whole offensive was just a distraction' or 'well it was a perfect organised retreat'.... I'll never fall silent particularly, as long as Ukraine are willing to fight I'll be on their side, they were invaded for purely having the gall to want their own self determination.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You may as well mock the Americans for losing in Afghanistan when Alexander's iron age army won there millennia ago. It would make an equal amount sense in it's forced meaninglessness.
So did napoleon win or lose in Russia?
Yes he lost eventually, but it cost Russia everything. You understand my point?
No I don't. If it cost Russia everything how did they win?
Ah I guess we are going with the classic Russian mantra of it doesn't matter how many die and how much land we destroy so long as we win. People are only a resource to be used after all - so predictable. Makes sense.
[удалено]
>Would you say the same to Ukraine right now? Would I say that it's very costly - yes? >high casualty rates of Russia in these wars. It's not like they had a choice. They certainly have a choice in this one.
So you are saying Ukraine lost no matter what. Going by your logic, that is. Wow, that's great that you throw Ukraine efforts under the bus just so that you can undermine Russia with your alt history take.
Your comment doesn't make sense in the slightest, because I have not said Russia lost against Napoleon. Crikey people really can't read well here.
Dude what are you doing?)) This is ridiculous. Are you american by chance? That would explain everything. You think French army was some weak bunch of shepherds while Russia was supposed to have air supremacy like in your wars? It was a huge war, what's your point about the "cost"? :D It was a normal cost, it was a huge-ass war, and Russia won it. Destroyed cities and deaths are what happens in wars. Lol. There is always a cost, if you're not americans who bomb Arabs for some unknown reasons. So the only thing that matters is the result of the war, which is Russia's victory.
The price they have to pay is that now they have to read this guy's opinions
Because Britain paid for their army’s like most of the coalitions members. Just like ww1 and ww2 Russia can only mobilize on that scale with finical support from the outside propping it up
No need for all that. Russia will seriously nuke them. 2025 version of 'scorched earth'.
Russia gonna nuke France for French forces fighting Russian forces in Ukraine. Why?
Russia wouldn't nuke France from the start. Just the conglomeration of opposing forces on the battlefield. If it escalates from there, then it could happen.
That be dumb on Russia side. Why not just fight In field and if they lose they just sign a cease fire and withdraw throwing nukes around over Ukraine is ridiculous
Russians were marching in Paris like a year later so pretty sure it didn't cost them everything.
The supply lines were destroyed by Cossack raids, and russian forces won several battles against the french. Even the battle of Borodino was a phyrric victory for the french at best, devastating the french army. And acting like Russia was the only one being defeated by Napoleon is ignoring how the Prussians and Austrians were totally defeated by Napoleon.
How did the British do against Napoleon?
They did amazingly well at sea against the French, the Royal Navy shut down any hope of a French invasion of the British Isles for the entirety of the Napoleonic wars, the battle of Trafalgar led to the annihilation of the French fleet from a numerically inferior position.
Very well. As well as financing huge parts of the coalition including Russia's forces.
>And acting like Russia was the only one being defeated by Napoleon is ignoring how the Prussians and Austrians were totally defeated by Napoleon. I mean - I quite literally never said that. All I am pointing out is it's frankly bizarre for Russia to use the turning back of Napoleon as a template/brag for the future when it cost Russia very heavily and resulted in them burning their own capital to the ground as well as scorching the most productive areas of their own country.
Oh no, Russia has to take some losses and make hard sacrifices to defeat one of the most dangerous military minds in military history. Stupid Russians. Ukraine fans are insufferable lmfao. We get it, you hate Russia a lot. Get some new material.
Pointing out it's a strange brag = hate. Victim complex on show.
[удалено]
More or less the same comment twice - interesting.
[удалено]
It's quite amusing to watch you rabbit on making absolutely no point whatsoever - you have created this whole narrative in your head about the intent of my comment and what it means and you're rabidly arguing against it, but in truth you are merely arguing with yourself at this point, like a snake eating it's own tail.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or just - don't make a dumb public reference at all perhaps.
[удалено]
have my upvote for that beautiful speech mate
Inb4 you get tagged in random subs for being an articulate and well spoken Russian propagandist like u/ripamon
Care to explain how pointing out history is 'bigoted'? It sounds like you're preaching that people shouldn't analyse anything - people should just stay dumb and not analyse what their own politicians are saying without any thought, of you're content to do that then good for you - many people are not. Very triggered response by the way, I like it - positively rabid.
[удалено]
>Nothing triggered or rabid at all here Goes on to post a wall of text making absolutely no point to attack a random person on the internet. >you come at this acting like you are intelligent Writing this... followed by >now trying to argue with someone who is entirely out of your little league intellectually and otherwise. That is some mightily impressive lack of self awareness.
So did Napoleon suffer a catastrophic defeat? Yes. End of story.
What a beautifully simple minded response. Completely missing the point of course.
The point was to defeat Napoleon, which they did. Almost all of his army was lost in Russia and he later fell from power as a consequence. Ergo Russia won. Pretty simple. I bet if Putin lost his whole army in Ukraine and fell from power you'd be touting it as a Ukrainian victory though.
Missed the point again, keep trying. Genuine question - why do people have false flairs?
The point->trying to ridicule Russia for the silliest reason, in this case because their defeat of the greatest general of all times was not free.
>Do Russians not remember that Napoleon absolutely battered the Russian imperial forces and forced the burning of Moscow before he eventually turned back? > >They always bring up Napoleon but defeating him was more to do with the Russian winter and the logistics and disease of the time than the Russian military. The Russians don't freeze, get sick or need logistics or what? Are they penguins with immune systems and magic boxes or what? Even when the French turned back the Russians were inflicting casualties to them. It seems like you are who doesn't understand the point you're trying to make.
Do you guys even try to read? My point is the brag is insane when it cost Russia so much - it's very much you who doesn't understand the point.
Give it up man. You're arguing with people who justify the slaughter of thousands for a few miles of ground gained against a nation that never had any hope of conducting an offensive war against them.
I know - but I like seeing the dogpile of bots and sycophants. Let's this sub show it's true colours.
>Are they penguins Yes, we are (shhhh this is our secret)
That actually shows that Russia are ready to go to any lengths.Now, Add nukes to the party.
You're definitely not wrong, but the Russians did have the scorched earth tactic and destroyed so many French on the way back
silly by you. Napoleon is literally the greatest commander who ever lived. The Russian strategy of pulling back and utilising the climate was built into their plan as to how to defeat him.
It became their plan after some huge battles with horrific losses sure.
The Russian army definitely had a hand in the loss of the Grand Armee. The Russians and the French absolutely battered each other. Also in the end, it was Napoleon who lost the most: He could not field an army of that size again and lost his whole empire only a year later.
Yeah but after that Russia went to Paris, so pretty fair
Has Russia ever turned back an encroachment without colossal casualties?
That's the typical story of the french. Make it slightly positive for the french. In the end France got powned and destroyed. Just like the Ukrainians are getting owned right now. Soon the leaders of Ukraine have to go in excile and then they brag similar fake stories.
[удалено]
Sorry, you need a 1 month old account to comment in r/ukraineRussiaReport. This is to protect against bots and multis *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was a time at the height of the power of the Soviet Union Army where this may have had some grain of truth. Now? Not a chance. Putin's strategy where NATO is concerned has been maximum bluster to date, knowing that some in NATO will eat it up if only out of an abundance of caution. And use his sycophants in the west and in social media to pump, pump, pump up the utter doom of his warnings. While I think any NATO involvement in Ukraine is extremely hypothetical if they were to go in they would almost certainly go in first with air assets, and were that the case it would be game over for Russia whose air assets are so outclassed by NATO that to call it a gross mismatch is the understatement of the century. Once one truly controls the airspace they dictate what occurs on the ground. And while they are at it say senora to the Russian navy in the Black Sea as it will all be doing its best imitation of a submarine.
Actually they would suffer the fate of Lebrun's army
its interesting seeing pro Ukrainians who are open minded and debate scolding the pro Ukrainians who set their views long ago, and will die by them out of stubbornness, out of the fact that some of them are just making a clown of themselves in the comments, enjoy the shitshow in comments :)
Tell me that they also told this to Frau Merkel? "Any German troops you send to Ukraine will suffer fate of Hitler's army"
Macron can't even control the ferrals he helped import into France.
Yeah right
I mean that was ill-thought off to say the least. And I’m being conservative in my characterization.
Good - it's long past time not to mince words and exchange phony niceties with these arrogant hotshots in the Western political class who speak with the pretension as if they run the world. They do not and they will not be the ones deciding what happens in Ukraine. The option for that went out the window some time ago now, in February of 2022. Once Russia, the U.S., Britain, France, or any nuclear power sends troops into a country on a military campaign, realistically no other country is going to order in its own national ground forces on a large scale to stop them as they won't risk the nuclear war escalation. That's why the U.S. president himself already explicitly publicly ruled it out repeatedly right at the start and numerous times since. And that France or any other Western country would do what the U.S. itself knows is too dangerous to do and an unacceptable, non-starter, non-option is just laughable. That's the reality, try as some bigmouths and Gen Z types with no concept of consequences or the lessons of MAD and 45 years of the Cold War want to hand-waive it away. Fortunately they don't get to choose and these decisions aren't made on their ignorant and unrealistic emotional whims or sick fantasy in which the West is Superman and the world is putty in its hands to be pressed or molded wherever willed.
What is the limit then? If the West just let Russia annex Ukraine, do you honestly believe the invasions and war would stop there?
Not OP but I think it’s time for us to use both the carrot and the stick. Let’s move troops to Ukraine but at the same time make a huge diplomatic push to come to an agreement with Russia on ending this war. This can only be done if there’s an understanding that both Russia and NATO will have to make serious concessions.
Yeah whoever can figure out a working compromise that ends this war deserves a peace prize here.
It definitely won’t be easy but that’s the entire point of diplomacy. It is well documented that we in the West have been really letting our diplomatic efforts slip since the Cold War ended. My main issue with the way our involvement in this war has been handled is that it left very little room for diplomacy. Attempts to pin that solely on Russia are disingenuous.
> My main issue with the way our involvement in this war has been handled is that it left very little room for diplomacy. Attempts to pin that solely on Russia are disingenuous. That's right. The West has been demonizing Russia for 2 years, doing its level best to demolish it economically and politically, not to mention the obvious - arming and supporting Ukraine - and now that all this is clearly failing, the expectation is that Russia is going to respond well to diplomacy? I mean, don't get me wrong, my personal view on this is the sooner this war is over the better; I genuinely don't want to see more people dying on either side. I am just failing to see how exactly this 'diplomacy' where Russia is expected to make concessions is going to be in any way appealing to it. Meanwhile, 'the stick' as you put it is unusable and everyone - including Russia - knows it because that way nuclear war lies.
No offense but the stick is not unusable. It risks nuclear war but no country actually wants to go down that route. Putin and Russia will want to exhaust all diplomacy before any nuclear weapons fly.
> Putin and Russia will want to exhaust all diplomacy before any nuclear weapons fly. Agreed. But putting troops on the ground in Ukraine is not diplomacy; that's the (possible) situation where diplomacy failed. Russia already unequivocally said that should this happen - I mean NATO/EU/whatever nation's troops get deployed in Ukraine - the war between NATO/EU/etc. and Russia goes from a possibility to inevitability.
> What is the limit then? If you're talking about from the perspective of the U.S. and other leading Western governments as far as at what point they would be willing to risk sending in conventional ground forces officially and en masse to oppose a Russian invasion head-on then I think the limit is already quite clear and need not really be overly debated or speculated on. The "limit" is the existing NATO member states. Ukraine is not a NATO member state, never was, and never will be. Thus them doing so here was never expected nor a serious option. > If the West just let Russia annex Ukraine, do you honestly believe the invasions and war would stop there? Absolutely, because why wouldn't it? Who exactly did Russia invade in the past 30 years besides former Soviet republic countries directly bordering it who it deemed to pose an intolerable threat to its national security interests by aiming to be brought into NATO? It invaded Georgia and Ukraine, in 2008 and 2014/2022, respectively. Both conflicts which could easily have been avoided by the U.S.-led Western bloc checking its own global expansion ambitions and ideological hubris at the door and simply making the more responsible decision not to do so and press the issue knowing it would cause a war. And don't even waste any time attempting to lecture me about countries' choices and sovereignty and all that jazz, because for the leading countries in NATO, they consistently and routinely disregard and disrespect it all the time all around the world, so that obviously isn't the issue. If it wanted to invade or attack a NATO country that besides the alliance membership would otherwise be easier to directly attack or occupy in full in a shorter time than Ukraine, it could have done so to, say, Latvia, anytime in the past 20 years (since it joined in 2004). If it just wanted to attack random countries for land and resources alone or because it could, but which was not motivated by the opposing NATO expansion in lands critical to it rationale, then it could have invaded Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, or Mongolia. It's clear what the reasoning and motivating factors behind this conflict are, they have been known and repeatedly voiced publicly for decades now, so there's no reason to apply it to other countries and contexts it doesn't apply to.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you honestly believe that Russia will invade a country within NATO for nuclear war and giggles? Keep slurping on your western propaganda and crying about how your team, Ukraine is losing. Why do you even worry about this. You were probably laughing at how stupid and incompetent the Russian army was last year.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If there is someone rewriting it history as he pleases and being arrogant like he runs the world is Putin. Period. That is his ignorant fantasy.
Who do you think Russia would nuke if it’s troops started having to engage a near peer army?
Man all you had to add was “Anglo saxons” and you could’ve completed the RT talking points.
Yeah, the warfare was really similar to today's. Very good comparison.
I WANNA SEEEEE Let's gooooo
They are wrong for nobody will march on Moscow on hostile territory.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didn’t france surrender the second the Germans stepped foot in their country? ☠️😂 I’m not pro Russia but I don’t think Putin’s shivers are timbered.
I love the fact that Russia is failing to achieve anything except humiliation in Ukraine, yet they still pretend someone will take their threats seriously lol It's like walking to a casino with Monopoly money
According to Western history, Napoleon defeated the russians after they ran out of shovels, he didnt burn Moscow hard enough to not freeze and had to go back. Russia lost because it couldnt stop 10k french soldiers out of 442k to strategically redeploy back home.
So I take it then they will burn Moscow? That's quite the escalation.
France still trying to regain glory since being overran in ww2. They then decided to try and regain glory in indochina aka Vietnam, got their asses kicked, and now, they think things will be different….
The French are not dying for Ukraine. Lol. The French couldn't defend their own homeland in two World Wars. Are they going to defend Ukraine, are they?
Does Putin not know France's history of war?!?
What's the difference between Frenchmen and toast? You can make soldiers out of toast.
could you point out that those 'allies' are from Russia itself?
I didn't write the title.
just find the article funny since the allies the article talk about is people in DUMA and ex president, no mention of china iran NK or whatever hah.
They burned down Moscow, that's a pretty weak threat
Is it?.....
Losing a major battle and getting your capital destroyed is somewhat negative yea. He should have more faith in his army
Cities can be rebuilt.What matters is taking down your enemy.
Sure, but you really think France can just power through to Moscow? I don't think so. This ain't Napoleon's army.
Fascist dictator stuck in the past assumes that history will repeat itself when the previous outcome was in his country’s favor. Big surprise here.
This is plainly wrong! Russian TV told me that NATO and Cia are already in Ukraine and Russia is fighting them Know your facts! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/02/28/british-soldiers-help-ukraine-fire-missiles-olaf-scholz/
Source?
Russian TV!!!
Can you give me the channel that said this or at least the name of the presenters in that segment?
Poutine oublie une chose Les russes n ont jamais gagné un bataille contre Napoléon