challenging because bakhmut has become challenging because bakhmut has become a symbol, but only from a military become a symbol, but only from a military point of view, but from the paint military point of view, but from the point of military point of view, but from the point of view of the other people. it as point of view of the other people. it as a point of view of the other people. it as a symbol of resilience, a symbol it as a symbol of resilience, a symbol of it as a symbol of resilience, a symbol of determination of ukrainians, but only the armed forces ukrainians, but only the armed forces but ukrainians, but only the armed forces but overall ukrainians, to withstand forces but overall ukrainians, to withstand the russian aggression. and i withstand the russian aggression. and i am withstand the russian aggression. and i am not a military person, i cannot and i am not a military person, i cannotjudge on a military perspective, whether or not it is good p
you know, i come from the world of reason. that s what conservatives do, right? does a policy work or because it not? has it been tried in the past, and what were the results? so in the world of reason, i look for, you know, spread sheet type results. here are the inputs, give me the outputtings. so you re trying to tell me the military strategists and a lot of these political folks, you re trying to tell me that you have less than a thousand troops in the region to prevent the, quote, reconstitution of isis while you just abandoned afghanistan and billions of dollars of military equipment, while you were there to supposedly prevent the reconstitution of al-qaeda. can everybody just digest that for a minute and explain to me in what world that makes sense? so you abandoned an entire country after a decade of war, probably a trillion dollars in net assets given there over time and and opportunity costs, right in countless deaths. you forfeit the whole country. you give them one of the w
the foreign ministry said they ve always respected how micronesia chooses its on development. david panuelo also revealed he had considered switching diplomatic recognition to taipei. his term in office is set to expire in just a couple of months. he s been the president since 2019, and this is not the first time he s spoken out before on china s growing influence. the context of this letter is increasing fears from regional powers about exactly that, military strategists see the pacific islands location as this key connector between the u.s. territory of guam and australia and both the u.s. and australia are concerned about china s more asse assertive, increasingly assertive and aggressive posture in the south china sea as it s been extending its reach further west into pacific waters including towards micro nesia. the island nations themselves, they don t want to be upon this greater power struggle. china has become a key trading partner for their economies, and
question but the blowback he s now getting this week is really extraordinary. - people in his own military- are standing up and questioning him and it s starting to l unleash more and more. that s when you start to feel like maybe he is not - his iron grip is not so solid. the problem is as all military strategists have said give your enemy an exit. he has no exit strategy. i can t see what he can do other than utterly humiliating himself. i can t see a way out. it was fascinating, too, joe biden almost saying that in public. saying they were trying to work out what would be the exit strategy. the ukrainian will not give up territory afterj what they ve gone through. i think you re right i what are they giving? it s utter humiliation. but right now, he s being i humiliated and the evidence suggests that the troops i are ill trained, ill equipped and demoralised. you can t win a war, no matter how many more forced conscripts you throw at it.