> It should be on the ground in Ukraine, but it can't because it is spent.
Should it? That's not a foregone conclusion. Your justification for why it "can't" is also quite debatable.
> Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable." Ironically, the "advanced" technology isn't advanced anymore: the weapons are out of date.
How so, can you expand on justification for this line of thinking?
> 50% of the population believe that the election was rigged.
Not true, but I agree with your overall idea about the extreme levels of division.
> how can it keep promises it made to Ukraine?
What promises? If you're referencing denuclearization in the Budapest Memorandum, my understanding that it was not an assurance of protection from third parties, only an assurance of non-aggression from each signatory. Meaning the US made no guarantee to protect Ukraine from Russia if Russia broke the pact, which they have. Do you have any reason for disagreeing with that assessment?
Should it? That's not a foregone conclusion. Your justification for why it "can't" is also quite debatable.
> Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable." Ironically, the "advanced" technology isn't advanced anymore: the weapons are out of date.
How so, can you expand on justification for this line of thinking?
> 50% of the population believe that the election was rigged.
Not true, but I agree with your overall idea about the extreme levels of division.
> how can it keep promises it made to Ukraine?
What promises? If you're referencing denuclearization in the Budapest Memorandum, my understanding that it was not an assurance of protection from third parties, only an assurance of non-aggression from each signatory. Meaning the US made no guarantee to protect Ukraine from Russia if Russia broke the pact, which they have. Do you have any reason for disagreeing with that assessment?