No. of Recommendations: 3
But those complications weren't relevant to the point at hand.
Oh? Not relevant? Having the French Navy basically handle a lot of fighting when the Colonial Navy was off doing other things isn't relevant?
Even though they gave us dudes, we never had enough dudes or guns or money to drive the British out.
With French help we defeated them on the battlefield. They couldn't reinforce and couldn't hold the colonies because they were down to garrisoning 3 cities (Boston, New York and Charleston, IIRC). That's not "holding" the colonies when other major cities like Philadelphia aren't under your control.
The Brits left because their situation was untenable *and* they had other things going on.
It's not relevant that the French contributed troops, because they never contributed sufficient troops for the Americans to end the war the way you insist the Ukrainians have to win the war.
LOL. The pivotal battle where Washington defeated Cornwallis was decided because the French Navy drove off the Royal Navy, ending any hope of resupply and trapping the Brit army where it was.
The American path to victory and the Ukrainian path to victory are exactly the same - outlast the British/Russian forces until the other country decides it's not worth fighting any more, and not to try to dislodge their military physically from the theater.
Wow. No.
NATO.
Where is NATO engaging the Russians on their own?
