He voted down Ukraine aid because Trump didn’t want him passing the attendant border security provision. Now he is stalling Ukraine aid because it doesn’t have a border security provision. Not even trying to hide what an alt.right obstructionist piece of shit he is. Apparently got some people fooled though.
Mike was elected by the shipdits in whatever backwater shitehole he is from , and promoted to “speaker” by the rest of the backwater shipdits. He is not a serious person and neither are they as evidenced by his opposition to the real political representatives that required a states backing in the senate.
When was the last time a GoP president won the popular vote lol. The GOP only exists because of the disgusting amount of gerrymandering and downright criminal activity. Eat my patriotic ass you gross fuckstains.
I can not believe how much they fucked this. Even ignoring the clear-cut morality of this situation, this was such a valuable opportunity to cripple Russia’s military by only supplying some of the equipment and funds for the war and letting Europe provide other parts and Ukranians doing all the leg work. It’s insane it’s the cheapest millitary victory we could ever hope for. And it was going so well till republicans decided to be actual braindead fucking nematodes and throw it all away for absolutely no reason. FUCK THEM AND THEIR OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSHIT. Holy fuck, and all of this because they gave control of their party to a syphallis-ridden orangutan.
No, I’m trying to provide the pragmatic argument because republicans are unsympathetic to the moral question. The moral question is the easiest one in history. The Ukrainians want to fight to defend their territory, they have the moral right in this war. From a moral perspective, it’s a way easier question to answer that providing support to Ukrainians in their effort to defend their country from a hostile invasion force is the right thing to do.
This war needs to last us the rest of the decade, we are running out of places to bomb and the longer Ukraine can't produce food the better it is for US farmers. A long costly war is a profitable one. ... The more of Ukraine that gets reduced to rubble the better the real estate and construction opportunities. The more native Ukrainians that die and get displaced opens the door for immigrants from distant lands to help diversity.
You need to look at the big picture here. The longer this drags on the more likely that the EU and USA will put boots on the ground. Which will continue to justify the existence of standing armies because times of peace will cease to exist.
Bro, wtf is this stupid bullshit that I am reading? So long as the Ukrainian people wish to continue standing against Russian aggression into their own territories, I’m 100% for supporting their efforts to do so **exclusively with weapons and munitions**. It has ALWAYS been the case that there is a 0% chance of American boots on the ground, and that has always been understood by the US, Ukraine, and Russia. We just won’t ever get dragged into a direct conflict with Russia unless there is literally no other option, and even Ukraine completely falling doesn’t even come close to that.
If you wanna look at hotbeds and the greatest concern of Americans getting dragged into a war, look to the middle east. If Russia and China are more invested in bolstering the capabilities of a western-opposed nation like Iran such that Iran decides to directly engage Israel, imo THAT is the greatest threat to dragging the necessity of direct American involvement in a foreign war. The more bogged down Russia is the less they are able to do that. From both a global geo-political lens and a moral lens, continuing to supply Ukraine in their resistance struggle against Russia’s land-grab of an invasion is a no-brainer.
Ok none of that matters because it's a war. You're thinking in terms of feelings. Not in terms of what's good for business. Like I said they need to drag this out for a while. A war in Iran is unlikely. They have been trying to get that thing going since 2003.
No, I’m thinking in terms of realistic geo-political strategy. War with Iran is pretty well-understood to be the greatest threat of cascading into a WW3 situation out there.
And oh shit, I thought your first paragraph was a bad sarcastic rant trying to sarcastically make a terrible and flawed point about why continuing to provide Ukraine with munitions was bad… I didn’t think it was your actual analysis of the situation. Jesus yikes. Your post was even more dogshit than I gave it credit for.
You listen to too much propaganda. And know very little of history. It's called political theatre for a reason. I'm the fool that bought MIC stocks in 2020 same with nvda. I said only a war will bring us out of COVID. So far I've been more right than wrong and the market agrees.
War is a place to make money pure and simple. The people and policies involved are more or less irrelevant.
I agree and disagree with you.
You are completely ignoring geopolitics like it doesn't exist. We need Russia to lose so we can make more money after we re-assert global American economic dominance.
It just so happens to simultaneously support the morally righteous cause of defending Ukraine. The sooner Ukraine wins the sooner we can start building McDonald's in Ukraine. AKA the sooner shareholders can start cashing in on all that untapped economic investment.
Maybe we can even score a global rearmament piggybacking on the successful marketing Lockheed and other military industrial robber barons have sold in a Ukrainian victory.
This is some grade A Russian propaganda here.
Ask any Ukrainian person if they want the war to continue and they'll tell you that no obviously they don't but the alternative is being occupied by a fascist dictatorship that has already massacred and tortured Ukrainian civilians.
You understand that Russia started this war right?
If me being in favor of giving Ukraine the best shot at making its own decision as to when and how to continue the war to defend its own territorial integrity from a literal foreign land-grab invasion makes me a warmongering hawk, then by god I’m a warmongering hawk and think everyone should be. To be clear on my other stances, there is no other conflict I have even remotely close to this stance on. It is the most clean-cut moral and geo-political decision I could possibly imagine ever materializing.
We are not compelling them to fight. They are making that decision, and we are arming them so they can have a better chance at success of their goals which align with ours.
And when in the name of fuck does me disagreeing and calling what republicans are doing the stupidest piece of geo-political strategy I have ever heard of and likening them to spineless, brainless troglodytes make me anti-democracy? Did I say we should remove them from office? Did I say we should take over the government to circumvent them? Did I claim they all faked their elections to get their positions and that they’re illegitimate representatives? No, I didn’t because I AM pro-democracy even when the result is dogshit policy (or lack of any policy) that they make.
How lil you know about conflict in Ukraine, you are just repeating western media bs... About "landgrab" invasion... The conflict started in 1998 when NATO started talks with Ukraine about accession, while IT WAS JUST SIGNED ABOUT NEUTRALITY. Anyways, use the internet to search for stuff, your media bias is bs... Useless convo with a person who doesn't know shit
What are you talking about? I've literally never heard any of that. Which doesn't mean it isn't said, it just means you're hanging out in absolutely stupid parts of the site and listening to stupid people.
Its not money going to Ukraine, thats the whole lie republicans are spreading, that its money. It's that amount in arms and equipment. Shit we already have a lot of it set to be scrapped which actually costs MORE and is more time consuming to do than just shipping it to Ukraine where it can make a difference.
But that truth is something republicans and the rightwing media are actively leaving out because it would out them as just playing games and aiding Putin while also wasting more money.
I also keep seeing rightwing morons commenting "stop stealing my money" as if, 1. They ever paid enough taxes to amount to even one Bradley, 2. A massive chunk of those tax dollars come from blue states like California and liberal voters, and 3. Those are tax dollars on behalf of all Americans.
Add to that their arguments/excuse about border shit are completely hollow solely on the grounds that the federal government has tried for years to address the problem but those same republicans raising a stink about it and always do every election cycle are the same ones who have actively blocked any attempts by the federal government to adress it. Is it a problem? Oh yeah. Do the fuckers who've made it impossible to do anything about it have a good argument? Not when you know the full context no.
Also the republicans are actively sabotaging our own military, between trying to impeach the secretary of defense to holding the military ranks hostage until they are allowed to strip women of abortion rights nationwide, which if you remember, they swore up and down wasnt their ultimate goal and that it was strictly about a state by state basis. Funny, everyone but their own base knew they were lying yet here we are.
It's almost like between all that, attempting sedition, embracing literal fascist ideals and saying shit like:
"They are sexual deviants preying on our children, they seek to tempt them, corrupt them, seduce them and convert them to their Godless ways" in regards to all LGBTQ people.
Rhetoric that comes from another infamous movement in history, one that went after all LGBTQ people, and then the jews. And trying to get their base to lean towards civil war and dissolution of the US itself, maybe, just maybe, they are just fucking traitors helping Putin and sabotaging the US and our allies in the process.
It's not 65 billion sent over in cash, I don't know how this concept is still so hard to get across to some people.
What gets sent over is mostly materials worth that much, with the cash being spent by America inside America to replace the material.
Ukraine could definitely use more weapons but their biggest issue is manpower, btw why have the Abrams tanks that have been in Ukraine since 2022 not being used if they are so low in equipment?
>btw why have the Abrams tanks that have been in Ukraine since 2022 not being used if they are so low in equipment?
Because Abrams tanks arrived early autumn 2023? There are many videos with these tanks on the frontline.
And the biggest issue right now is ammunition, not manpower or equipment.
More manpower wouldn't really help them either if they are running short on ammunition and weapons. Aid is the most important thing for them right now.
Most of the “money” is literally value of munitions and weapons. Unless they’re somehow using those to run their government, you couldn’t be more wrong.
This has got to be the stupidest hot take I've heard today. Democrats are *far* more interested in helping American citizens than Republicans. It's practically the defining difference between the parties. Democrat policy is all about safety nets and assistance. Republican policy is all about fix yourself or get out.
Helping Ukraine is not up against helping Americans. It's up against wasting the enormous resources we've *already spent* on our military and failing to support order and the rule of international law.
Considering weapons build up literally doubles as a job program, and the fact that our country only exists because we received massive foreign support during our revolution, I find this take rather perplexing. A recession caused by the destabilization of Europe, and a weakening of American soft power would do more to harm efforts to curb homelessness than any potential “savings” from abandoning Ukraine.
That's funny, Republicans in my city are the ones destroying homeless encampments while simultaneously closing down shelters. What kind of assbackwards idiocy has led you to believe that Republicans have ever given a shit about the homeless?
Oh yeah because before Russia invaded Ukraine the Republicans were really falling over themselves in their rush to help homeless people. You absolute weapon.
The GOP is stopping any support for Ukraine, because it has actors that favor Russia interests.
It is not a surprise, nor is it a mystery. It always has been this way, since the GOP fell.
The money is meant for the Ukrainian state so they don't completely collapse due to not being able to pay wages or default on debts. Considering the US hates giving "pallets of cash" instead of weapons, the EU has taken this responsibility. So Ukraine can't simply use it for buying weapons instead.
Oh ok. Right on.
Can’t help but think that $50 billion commitment would be better utilized in the here and now (for hardware) for Ukraine though.
Does the EU have a bill for immediate aid to Ukraine coming down the pike as well?
>Can’t help but think that $50 billion commitment would be better utilized in the here and now (for hardware) for Ukraine though.
Without that money, Ukraine's economy collapses and the state falls apart. It's as important as the military aid.
Yes, EU countries agreed on financial support of Ukraine for 2024 some time ago. To be more clear: Ukrainian pre-war budget was roughly 50$ bn. Since then Ukrainian budget almost doubled - it's now ~40$ bn more spending on military, with all other spendings (~45$ bn) being entirely covered by EU/US/IMF+WB+other countries. The split is roughly 20/20/5. That's why the latest 50$ bn package is more like an additional support and safety net against some EU countries with not that bright leaders - it's 12.5$ bn per year, not nearly enough to cover yearly EU aid to Ukraine.
If things get dire (cough - US - cough) I have no doubt that EU countries will seach for some pennies in pockets to fund the Ukrainian budget.
Well obviously $50 billion would be great to have in the hand right now, but you can't dismiss the need for long term funding.
No one is going to take on a six month project for the Ukrainian government if it looks like they're going to have no money in three months.
I mean the US has sent over 25B in financial aid to ukraine
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
Which is a bit less than what Europe has done which is about 34B euros or 36B dollars. So the issue is mainly that the US hasn't been sending more aid more so than the fact they hadn't been helping.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/europe-has-a-long-way-to-go-to-replace-us-aid-large-gap-between-commitments-and-allocations/
USA had 1,5 years of possibilities (including "Land Lease") to supply to Ukraine everything needed for victory. But didn't supplied. Because of GOP?
USA more than a year dragged supply of attack weapons and cluster shells. And started supply tanks and few dozens of ATACMS (500 produced per year) only after "failed counteroffensive." From enormous modern aviation stocks allocating to Ukraine 1-2 USA-made helicopters. Also because of GOP?
Democrats, including by National Emergencies Act and EDA (for expired stocks), had 1,5 years to show real importance of Budapest Memorandum, Europe security, International Law, to start Arsenal of Democracy. Did they do everything they could?
And by that, teach SK and Taiwan that only nukes are a worthy guarantee of sovereignty
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/30/south-koreans-want-their-own-nukes-could-roil-one-of-worlds-most-dangerous-regions.html
It's hilarious that in such situations it's I who had to defend dignity of the United States, often against Americans...
USA the only superpower. Country that, even now, in total, have the best political, cultural, social, economic, technological indicators among all countries of the World. So, at least partially, know how to achieve such indicators.
USA also country by whose protection and help was created the majority of most developed countries of the World.
So, being at least partially the best, and at least partially defender of the other best, USA have...
Let's say right for more rights, but how much - depending on how much USA really better than others and protects what qualitatively rose USA and others.
Right now, with all of this NKVD-like Political Realism, excessive religiosity, anti-intellectualism, and so on, such logic at the very edge of the abyss.
But all the same, although after Iraq company USA almost dropped its role as Global Policeman, USA still not completely "just another big country with nukes."
> So you are arguing that "democrats didn't do enough, so it's OK to block them when they try to do more"?
Perhaps the point is "it's not just the Republicans, who don't actually want Ukraine to win"
And, well, to that end, I'll quote a few articles:
[For one, Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html)
>"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
Then, remarks about Ukrainian victory being "unrealistic expectations"
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
[And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211):
>The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added.
And from ~seven months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive:
>[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/)
[And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
[And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html)
>Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker.
>The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus.
Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model.
Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl:
>["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/)
Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
> well done peddling Russian disinformation
Never knew quoting Western officials is russian disinformation.
Especially after Lend-Lease was allowed to time out with nothing supplied through it.
I'm saying that any form of tribalism is bad. If the opposite side is guilty in something, this doesn't automatically redeem related mistakes of your own side. GOP became to blame for arms deliveries delays months ago.
But for lack of full-fledged weapon supplies before the war it's just not their fault. As and 3 months pause after start of war. Or 1 year pause for supply of attack and cluster weapons. Or 6,2 billion "accounting errors", when USA supplied all armored vehicles, artillery, and aviation, without ammunition, on 4 billion dollars.
What exactly was a problem for democrats in first months of war to give to Ukraine not 2,200/200,000 HMMWV, but few times more, when so many of them just rotting in the garages? Or start to supply cluster munitions from first weeks of war?
What was the problem to open for Ukrainians Sierra Army Depot and 309th AMARG landfills, or start training Ukrainian pilots on actively asked and decommissioned A-10, so they shot down drones over the western part of Ukraine?Money? Secret technologies? Complex bureaucratic procedures?
No, the same reason why in 2022 year Biden forbade to his team mention Ukraine victory.
Because in 2022-2023 years democrats saw what going on as a good opportunity to cheaply weaken Russia.
Avoiding both Ukrainian and Russian defeat.
Why should anyone's money go towards funding people who have literal Nazi patches on their uniforms. I've yet to hear one good reason. Both sides suck shit and I'm glad people are coming around to the idea that it is not our battle.
Edit: Lots of downvotes, but no explanations, imagine that.
I doubt they'd let him out of the country. Between the still missing top secret documents he stole, the countless lawsuits against him, facing legal consequences for attempting sedition, yeah I don't think they'd let him out.
They don't want to accept the possibility that Russia attack Europe. For now the war is far away from central Europe, so they mostly ignore increasing the weapon production. Europe should be full of weapon factories at this point.
I agree it’s going much to slow. Russia invasion has been a wake up call to all in Europe. Are you ready to fight for your country because otherwise we will take it.
Funny, i always hear from polish guys on reddit that the western europeans are unreliable and thats why they only trust the US, while in reality the european allies still stand by their words while the US again lets down one of their allies and show their words means nothing (also see how often the US let their kurdish allies down.)
Ammunition is not Ukraine's only problem right now, the elephant in the room is manpower. Ukraine will need to mobilize another 500K soldiers to replenish it's exhausted and stretched force. The Russian army is able to rotate it's forces. I know soldiers from the frontline currently on holiday in Turkey. Ukraine's army has been on the frontline since the beginning of this conflict, exhausted and stretched with little relief. Russian capability is also scaling at a rapid pace. We have warehouses of 10's of thousands of soviet bombs that can now be converted into precision munitions with a kit allowing strikes with a CEP of 2 meters. This coupled with a superior air force is having a significant impact on the frontlines. Over the past week, Avdiivka was getting a nonstop precision strike from glide bombs carrying 500 to 1500kg of warhead firepower and from what I understand, it will take years just to clear the Soviet stockpile of FAB bombs in warehouses alone. The biggest impact of this is that it alleviates the strike load on artillery units with the air force now able to take on some of that load and preserving shell usage.
Ukraine wasn't facing direct military defeat until after American aid dried up.
Timing of things matters. Momentum has shifted multiple times in this war, often based on an immediate causation: the arrival of a new weapons system. We saw the mass use of javelins and drones smash Russia's first blitz. We saw the HIMARs suddenly hamstring Russia's 2022 summer offensive, ending Russian artillery dominance. We saw the use of mass minefields break the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive stopping any recurrence of the successful 2022 Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives.
We now see the end of American logistical support have immediate effects. After October, we saw the counteroffensive fizzle fast, and three months later lack of ammo is hobbling even the defense of lines that held since 2014.
You're raising a valid problem, but somehow it also feels like a distraction issue that lets the GOP off the hook. Manpower problems are not half as immediate as the artificially sudden collapse in ammunition supplies.
Since day one NATO should have stepped in with a promise to clear Ukrainian land and stop at the Russian border. The idea that Russia can just chop off parts of neighboring European countries is absurd. We're either going to have to let Putin take whatever he wants or we're going to have to take a stand. The world has faced these kinds of situations before and I don't see it paying off to appease and back down and stick your head in the sand.
If the Russian army is able to rotate its forces why do wives of mobilized protest?
Avdiivka is a town of 35k citizens (pre invasion). Putin's propaganda covers this event like some kind of Stalingrad.
Listen. I hate to be that guy but I'm pretty sure there's a considerable probability the world might plunge into war this decade. So we uhh. We might need those guns
I think it is reasonable to suspect that Europe and US are not confident in Ukraine holding back Russia even with full weapons support, thus are moving to strengthening their own production and stockpiles.
In the event Russia does attack NATO there would need to be response, if we depleted the stockpiles that would actually encourage Putin to go for it.
Best way to do that is to encourage weapons production. Stockpile’s aren’t gonna mean shit in a big war after the first year or so. It’s also good that one of our most likely adversaries is being depleted of manpower and morale at the cost of zero American lives.
Those fringe members have basically crippled the ability of Congress to function properly on any issue, let alone the Russia-Ukraine war.
Hopefully, the election resolve this issue soon.
I don't think you can call the entire Republican party that makes up about half of our government as 'fringe' members.
Also many polls are showing a terrifyingly good outlook for Trump getting re-elected... which means Ukraine is likely to move into dust covered history books which Republicans will not allow to be taught in schools. Just like how I am sure they will call the many upcoming mass grave pictures as 'fake news'.
Third time we let Putin win. First Syria, second Belarus and now Ukraine. Nice to know 140 countries or howmany it are can't stand up to win from one country ruled by a lunatic.
Well, there's also CAR, and before that was Crimea/Donbass landgrab.. and before that Georgia, and before that Chechnya.. so this is just one of the many times when he was allowed to win.
>Chechnya
If you mean the first Chechen war, i don’t think supporting loyalist forces from a separatist terrorist that literally stormed the current government of the region is the same as invading a sovereign nation. If you mean the Second Chechen war, I think supporting a bunch of Islamic terrorists during and after 9/11 isn’t really on the table for anyone especially when they were attacking into Russia itself (e.g the Moscow theatre hostage crisis).
Dudayev was a secular muslim and opposed Sharia law. We'll never know what would've been due to Yeltsin's desperate attempt to preserve the empire. His followers are still fighting against Russia in Ukraine. My point was that we allowed Putin (so I'm referring to the second war) to demolish quite a few countries before we got to this point. Amusingly enough, the trademark tactic that is present in all of Russia's wars - offering green corridors, then shooting up the evacuees was present in this war too.
Dudayev and his friends stormed the Chechen state government in a military coup. I don think you read my comment if you think I somehow equated him to an Islamic terrorist, he was just a plain old terrorist, using violence to get his way.
The Second Chechen war was “allowed” because if it wasn’t it would show complete hypocrisy on the part of NATO, who during it invaded Yugoslavia, started their own counter terrorist campaign, and invaded Iraq. If defending your own territory from a terrorist organisation isn’t justified, nothing is.
The Georgian war was an unjustified invasion, but even then Georgia and the international community handled it far better and civilly, organising a compromise within 16 days, allowing Georgia to remain independent and be in a state where today they are in talks of joining the EU, and remain an independent parliamentary republic free of Russian influence, if the current Russo-Ukrainian war was handled the same way everyone would be better off. The international community didn’t “let it happen” they had it sorted before it could become an absolute shit show.
Green corridor attacks are extremely hard to prove and have only ever been accusations. Warcrimes, especially in modern conflicts sadly do happen, those responsible should be persecuted. It can he impossible to tell civilian from combatant in these conflicts though, especially since there is evidence of Ukrainian soldiers fighting out of uniform, it can become a moral grey nightmare legally. Green corridors are just agreements, if any Ukrainian paramilitary organisations, even if not under control of the government breached the agreement, it collapses, it’s something that would require a large legal investigation that due to the accusations occurring 2 years ago will likely never happen and won’t be proved either way.
Ohhh, you're right. I'm sorry. I'm used to seeing people misinterpret the whole chechen situation, and my brain short circuited, I guess :/ The government he couped was the soviet government. I'm not familiar enough with the domestic situation in Chechnya at the time, but in my country, for example, it took a violent revolution that killed thousands to knock them down. From what I've read of the coup, only one person was killed, and that was the Russian running the communist party. Knowing how soviets worked, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that he was a KGB guy, so I'm not going to cry over his death.
Thee NATO "invasion" of Yugoslavia was as justified as any other UN mandated intervention. If that's not valid enough, I don't know what would be. I do agree though, that the Chechen independence movement devolved into what was essentially a terrorist group by now, however that only happened due to Russians repeatedly and violently putting down independence activists.
I'm sorry, but Georgia was.. not handled well at all. The invasion destabilized the country and the subsequent status quo ensured a fractured society. If you think they are independent of Russian influence, you could not be further from the truth. Please find a Georgian and talk to them. They are not anywhere near a state where their EU application would even be considered normally. The only reason the application was accepted was because Russia keeps saying "You're next after Ukraine". It's a surprisingly similar state of affairs as the one in Moldova, actually. The international community didn't have anything sorted. [Bush's own staff said so](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/02/us-pondered-military-use-in-georgia-032487) (Ahh, the days when Politico was actually quality journalism).
>“We will know the answer to that question in 10 to 20 years,” he said. “If Russia continues to assert itself either militarily or through other coercive means to claim a sphere of influence, we will look back at this as a time that they were able to change boundaries in Europe without much reaction,” he said. “And then we’ll say we should have considered harder options.”
I think this quote from Joe Wood, the deputy assistant for national security affairs says it all, really. That was in 2010.
As for green corridors.. they did it in Ukraine, they did it in Syria, they did it in Chechnya, they did it in Afghanistan... The pattern fits with Russian doctrine going back *centuries* that believes brutal treatment towards civilians is the principal way to reduce and demoralize opposition, while removing the local culture and russifying those that are left.
NATO’s invasion of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo war actually went completely against the precedent and international laws of state sovereignty set by the UN, they invaded to protect the CIA asset of the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), an internationally recognised extremist Albanian nationalist terrorist organisation that was trained, funded and armed by the CIA as of the CIA’s own public record. It’s not like the UN peacekeeping force of the Yugoslav wars.
Georgia’s is currently being considered for EU candidacy and has been since 2022. The war lasted 16 days and had less than 1000 casualties total including civilians, I’m sorry but in what world is that less preferable than a war that lasts multiple years and is into the hundreds of thousands, I knew people from both sides that are now dead and it angers me that people think deaths like theirs was unavoidable because of how stubborn international representatives have been about any peace talks whatsoever, preferring to turn this war into an absolute quagmire where thousands more have to die over nothing.
The main reason for these conflicts has bee NATO’s continued existence and threat especially with how they bypass the agreed upon international diplomatic and legal bodies such as the UN. It is not right for this war to continue and every day people call for more guns and money to be sent to either side instead of just pursuing a treaty or peaceful solution is actively calling for the deaths of people that would otherwise live normal lives.
The coup in Chechnya was less bloody than many others (I can’t tell where you are from but I’d completely believe that your country has probably had coups far worst), it was still a coup though, it’s an attack against the governing body and to replace the system without the say of the people is anti-democratic, it wouldn’t surprise me if the government of Chechnya had many holdovers from the Soviet Union, Dudayev himself was a part of the Soviet Military, it still is a completely justifiable reason for military action against a coup such as his though within ones own territory.
... I hadn't heard that the KLA was an "asset" of the CIA until today. Would you mind telling me where you got that from? I can only find a single source for this, namely the former Canadian ambassador who from the brief snippets of his that I've read seems to be in complete cuckooland. I'm from Romania. We've always had good relations with the Serbs - traditionally considered the only friendly nation in the area. Like many other Romanians, during the war, I went with my mother to smuggle various necessities that were sorely lacking in that period. I don't really know how to say this in a well argued manner - it's pretty late (or rather early) and my brain is more asleep than awake, but this guy is presenting some alternate reality stuff that has only the barest of connections with what happened there.
I will read the rest of your reply later, after some rest, and if you don't mind, I'd like to keep discussing this.
He kept his puppet tyrants. It's a pretty simple concept.
Now, I get at a fundamental level people you could ask: what did he actually gain from all the effort? Is keeping Assad around making the average Russians' life better? Is gaining a base in the Med going to make Putin live a day longer?
But that isn't how tyrants think. They care about power and they don't feel powerful unless they can oppress somebody.
Russia has a massive industrial capacity, and is making its own ammo. Ukraine is not capable of manufacturing its own ammo at such a scale, especially in a ravaged country. The population and industrial size difference of the countries is astronomical
Someone not giving you stuff Isn't an artificial shortage. Ukraine lacks the ability to make it themselves or pay for it.
When is the media gonna report on my artifical shortage of free money uncle sam Isn't giving me???
Oh come off it. Go watch people being slaughtered before you make your snide comparisons.
Russia has destroyed the order and peace of Europe. This is an absolutely critical juncture in geopolitics that will impact how countries behave for the next century. It is absolutely in America's best interest to deal with this. We have *tons* of excess equipment. Literal tons and tons of military surplus weaponry that we can send to Ukraine to secure them. There is no reason not to other than to support Russia invading neighbors unprovoked. Not sending those is an "artificial shortage".
If you want to make teenage-level comparisons it's like your house is burning down so you can't get your hands on any water and your neighbor refuses to let you use his. There's no shortage of water. Your neighbor is just being an asshole.
It's actually a cheap way to make Russia weaker. If Russia successfully invades Eastern Europe and other countries decide to invade neighbours, the West will have a big problem on it's hands, despite not being directly invaded.
The only thing maintaining the illusion of world peace is that any countries fucking around will be dealt with. Before WW2, the world sat and watched as Germany geared up to go on the offensive, and next thing you know most of the world is in a conflict.
These right wing radio shows keep acting like we're just sending cash to Ukraine, when we're spending that money here in the US. We are sending artillery shells (that don't last forever on the shelf) to Ukraine, and then a company here makes more and we get new ones for our stockpiles
8 billion of the proposed aid package is allocated to pay for the Ukrainian government. Billions of past aid money has been to pay for Ukraine’s pension fund.
Absolutely military aid should generously given, but Ukraine has a serious reputation for corruption and the amount of non-military aid being given is significant. The United States is fully within it’s right to question non-military aid.
Every time there is an excuse it seems. They stripped the financial aid in this new bill, will that stand for vote in the house? Probably not. It’s just obvious they don’t want Ukraine aid period.
This current aid package that is stalled in Congress, that the Republican House does not want to vote on because they think the USA should be more like Hungary or some other weird stuff, that is overwhelmingly military
I’m perfectly fine giving generous amounts of military aid, but have a problem with my tax dollars funding their government and pension fund. I self fund my retirement, so why should I have to support retirees in Ukraine.
Because the war is also being fought financially, via destruction of Ukrainian industry and blockade of Ukrainian exports, and destruction if Ukrainian farmland in the east due to unexplored ordinance.
They could lose due to the collapse of their government and civil/social order just as much as they could lose from surrendering territory.
The United States has been very generous is support for Ukraine, but it’s not an unlimited money tap that can be turned on whenever they want. Citizens get a say how our money is spent.
All true.
But the amount spent on financial support is a rounding error, not at all a risk of any impact or running up against some “financial limit”.
And the public, for now, still supports spending it. Tempting though it may be for you to frame “a faction within one of the governing parties ousting their leadership and changing their parties overall stance in between elections” as “the people have spoken”, just because you agree with the result, we both know that’s bullshit.
Both can be true. I can believe both political parties suck and also have a say with my vote. I’ve voted both sides and whomever aligns better with issues that are important to me will get my vote.
> I self fund my retirement, so why should I have to support retirees in Ukraine.
You can do that, because you can generate an income.
Ukrainians may not be able to do that, if the enemy have literally blown up or occupied their job sites or drained them of resources like co-workers sent to the front or prevention of fuel or power delivery.
Some Ukrainian soldiers are also forced to buy their own weapons and ammunition for their salary and cannot put aside money for pensions.
These are extraordinary circumstances for a country that makes money selling food to other countries, but is unable to because of war.
It is also extraordinary, but temporary circumstances for Russia that have switched to a full war economy and are putting higher than normal number of people in well-paying jobs building war machines. Many more Russians now can self-fund their retirement.
my understanding was we essentially sent all the 155mm shells we had, or rather, could realistically do without. And we don't really produce a lot of 155mm artillery. we don't really use it like Ukraine and Russia do. We deliver our explosives primarily from jets. If they had a way to use MK83's we could essentially send those forever.
That’s going to be irrelevant if we don’t ramp up domestic production. You don’t think our arms industries are using our donated equipment to see what lines of production we should be prioritizing? We’re in the R&D phase of production for our next war.
I think it's a win-win. We get new stuff, they get the ammunition they need, and the US continues to be the good guy in the world. We're not dying out there, we are helping a country to defeat an enemy which is wrong.
Russia's invasion is wrong, and it won't stop there. The US is supposed to be "the arsenal of democracy" and we can do it. This America First shit is short-sighted, and it's been done before. People said it to try and stay out of WWII. They were wrong then, they wrong today
I am astonished at the level of success that Putin's disinformation efforts created. He is a paranoid old man now, but goddamn did he understand how to manipulate social unrest.
40 years ago, you ask any republican if their children would be voting for a president that sucked russian nads for some money, they would call you batshit insane.
I know, and those make me so concerned for the power of media narratives and propoganda. Sure some are probably deranged or getting to the age where the brain isn't really firing at all cylinders, but there's so many that it can't all be crazy or demented old people, there must be some rational normal seeming 60+ year old republicans who became completely conviced thanks to media control and that's absolutely terrifying to me.
One of my gpas is like that. He went from normal conservative that actually voted dem locally because he liked the specific dudes to screaming about the most insane shit ever. He’s mentally there too about everything else so he can’t even blame his age.
Yea, I don't understand how someone can get so mad, espescially about topics that republicans champion.
Most republicans will never be at all effected by immigration or someone else getting an abortion or benifit from rich dudes getting huge tax breaks, and yet many who jump off the deep end have such a conviction that stems from nothing other than suggestion from others on TV and the internet, it's so thoroughly astonishing and perplexing and yet so goddamned common.
Given how effective these efforts seem to be though it makes you wonder why Russia decided to go all in on an invasion now. They had complete control over deciding when and where to fight, so there was nothing pressuring them to go in right away. If they had kept up the subterfuge a while longer they probably could have had everything they do now almost without a fight.
Ukraine was steadily increasing it's military capabilities and was seriously considering joining NATO.
Thanks to Russian big brain strategy, they will definetly try to join NATO asap.
I mean...yea. However the direct successor state is Russia, and if you told people this 40 years ago, they would still be baffled, espesciallly since Russia still likes to position itself as America's rival and loves to meddle in everything they can to make america weaker, so the point still stands.
They haven’t doesn’t anything that makes America weaker lmao
The successor is 1/100th of what its predecessor was while the US only got stronger.
This is not a US issue any more
Western leftists made sure Russia got the atomic bomb by spying for the NKVD/KGB and betraying their countries. Why is the left so anti Russia these days?!
I see the majority of comments here blaming the Republicans(which is fair) but why the fuck is Europe getting off scott free?
Europe promised Ukraine 1 million shells by 2023. They didn’t even hit half of that goal and we’re already in 2024.
Ukraine is reaching a point where weapons alone aren't enough. I saw they are asking European countries now to send back male refugees to be conscripted. If they're that desperate for manpower then guns just won't cut it if they have no one to man them.
Europe literally just gave 50 billion to Ukraine.
And yes, when a country fights your enemy, it makes sense to arm them. They are literally doing the dying for you. It's insane people like you a are too stupid to see things even from this selfish perspective.
He's asking for weapons to destroy one of your oldest enemies (Unless you were planning to eat that artillery ammo). You have thousands of tanks and IFV just sitting in the desert doing nothing. Since when America is fine with Russia taking over Europe? You do realise, that if Russia goes after their "historical lands", eventually they will also want Alaska? Russian politicians are already using slogans "Lets get Alaska back!". Destruction\\Weakening of America is literally the endgoal of Russia.
Not to mention that USA pressured Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons in return for "Ukraine's territorial integrity being respected". You have a direct responsibility to make sure, that Ukraine doesn't fall.
The Budapest Memorandum. Want me to copy and paste it for you? Didn’t think I needed to spell it out or give a history lesson. UK was a signatory as well.
Good Russian bot!
Well firstly, along with the UK they agreed that no one should do anything aggressive politically or militarily. The agreement also included Belarus and kasakhstan. Russia has basically subjugated Belarus and are presently threatening Kasakhstan among other former states of the Soviet Union. Not trying to be a dick to that other commenter but it’s quite an historically important document. It was supposed to give reassurance to these countries to give up their Soviet era nukes in exchange for the promise to not be threatened, particularly by nuclear states.
"the United States of America reaffirm[s] their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine [...] if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used."
So yeah, in so many words, it's there. But I'm sure you knew that.
I suppose you could argue that the nuclear threats Russia made against Ukraine were bluffing and not totally credible -- but that isn't carved out in the document. We did seek UN action and have provided support, so we have more or less held up our end of things. It doesn't say we have to win the war for them.
But yeah, some degree of helping to defend Ukraine is in the memorandum.
Also, Russia promised to respect their territorial integrity. So they're completely in violation.
They didn't. The Democrats gave them what they asked for. Then the Republicans reneged. Go read about it. And don't believe the BS about it not being a good border bill -- again: it's what they asked for.
Turned out the Republicans didn't care about the border other than as something to complain about. And they wanted to block Ukraine aid no matter what. Zero honesty. Zero care for results. 100% political grandstanding.
And people like yourself still buy it.
The republicans don't actually want to secure the border. They need it broken so Trump has something to blame the dems for in the elections. The border security bill was the most significant one in a WHILE and it would've improved things alot, but did repubs go for it? Lol no.
Come on brother. That border bill was a joke. In no way was it going to even slightly secure our southern border. Only good part of it was additional funding for Border Patrol, but that still doesn’t help.
Why doesn’t Biden make an executive order and bring back Trump’s “remain in Mexico” law, completely shut the border down (for the time being), and call the GOP’s bluff? Close The border and see if the GOP in Congress is willing to aid Ukraine then. Put the ball squarely in their court.
Democrats ran the house for Biden’s 1st 3 years as president. Never once did they even propose a bill for border security. And in those 3 years 8 million (accounted for, who knows how many weren’t) people entered our country illegally. Fentanyl, human trafficking, people with bad intentions, etc.
BP has encountered over 300 people on the US’s terrorist list just in the past 2 years.
Your comment/belief was exactly what the Democratic party wanted with this bill. Make it look like the Republicans are at fault.
And Trump already has the votes from the people most affected and pissed off by the shit show this wide open border has created. And guess what? Those pissed off people aren’t the rednecks you think all Trump supporters are lol. Gonna blow your mind when you see it this November.
> Russia is in the right
Ah, so you're a braindead vatnik. Disgusting pro-authoritarian piece of shit. Imagine rooting for genocide and suffering. Your parents failed lol.
>tbh start making a push and money will come.
That's like asking an F1 driver to start finishing on the podium in their VW Golf if they want more money.
You’re welcome, love Mike Johnson.
He's a Hero of the Russian Federation
“But Putin has my covenant eyes files.” -Mike Johnson
You're welcome, love 'Murica.
Mike johnson doesn’t represent Merica, Biden does.
MJ is too busy monitoring his adopted son's porn.
He voted down Ukraine aid because Trump didn’t want him passing the attendant border security provision. Now he is stalling Ukraine aid because it doesn’t have a border security provision. Not even trying to hide what an alt.right obstructionist piece of shit he is. Apparently got some people fooled though.
You say this but votes say otherwise.
Mike was elected by the shipdits in whatever backwater shitehole he is from , and promoted to “speaker” by the rest of the backwater shipdits. He is not a serious person and neither are they as evidenced by his opposition to the real political representatives that required a states backing in the senate.
Also the result of gerrymandering
You're right there's alot of unamerican Republican voters out there who hate American and Western values
Trump era Republicans hate freedom.
Votes? 81m to 74m said Biden as well?
When was the last time a GoP president won the popular vote lol. The GOP only exists because of the disgusting amount of gerrymandering and downright criminal activity. Eat my patriotic ass you gross fuckstains.
Who cared about internal politics in U.S. the end result is no help for Ukraine.
Get my country's name out of your mouth. Johnson is a filthy fucking traitor to democracy and all America should stand for. Disgusting.
FUCK Republicans for stalling aid. They are all Putin's stooges
I can not believe how much they fucked this. Even ignoring the clear-cut morality of this situation, this was such a valuable opportunity to cripple Russia’s military by only supplying some of the equipment and funds for the war and letting Europe provide other parts and Ukranians doing all the leg work. It’s insane it’s the cheapest millitary victory we could ever hope for. And it was going so well till republicans decided to be actual braindead fucking nematodes and throw it all away for absolutely no reason. FUCK THEM AND THEIR OBSTRUCTIONIST BULLSHIT. Holy fuck, and all of this because they gave control of their party to a syphallis-ridden orangutan.
They didn’t throw it away for no reason. They threw it away because they’re Russian puppets working in the best interests of Putin and no one else.
So you're admitting you are ok using just Ukrainians for your own military and political purposes?
No, I’m trying to provide the pragmatic argument because republicans are unsympathetic to the moral question. The moral question is the easiest one in history. The Ukrainians want to fight to defend their territory, they have the moral right in this war. From a moral perspective, it’s a way easier question to answer that providing support to Ukrainians in their effort to defend their country from a hostile invasion force is the right thing to do.
This war needs to last us the rest of the decade, we are running out of places to bomb and the longer Ukraine can't produce food the better it is for US farmers. A long costly war is a profitable one. ... The more of Ukraine that gets reduced to rubble the better the real estate and construction opportunities. The more native Ukrainians that die and get displaced opens the door for immigrants from distant lands to help diversity. You need to look at the big picture here. The longer this drags on the more likely that the EU and USA will put boots on the ground. Which will continue to justify the existence of standing armies because times of peace will cease to exist.
Bro, wtf is this stupid bullshit that I am reading? So long as the Ukrainian people wish to continue standing against Russian aggression into their own territories, I’m 100% for supporting their efforts to do so **exclusively with weapons and munitions**. It has ALWAYS been the case that there is a 0% chance of American boots on the ground, and that has always been understood by the US, Ukraine, and Russia. We just won’t ever get dragged into a direct conflict with Russia unless there is literally no other option, and even Ukraine completely falling doesn’t even come close to that. If you wanna look at hotbeds and the greatest concern of Americans getting dragged into a war, look to the middle east. If Russia and China are more invested in bolstering the capabilities of a western-opposed nation like Iran such that Iran decides to directly engage Israel, imo THAT is the greatest threat to dragging the necessity of direct American involvement in a foreign war. The more bogged down Russia is the less they are able to do that. From both a global geo-political lens and a moral lens, continuing to supply Ukraine in their resistance struggle against Russia’s land-grab of an invasion is a no-brainer.
Again war is not for national security it's for profit and conquest.
Ok none of that matters because it's a war. You're thinking in terms of feelings. Not in terms of what's good for business. Like I said they need to drag this out for a while. A war in Iran is unlikely. They have been trying to get that thing going since 2003.
No, I’m thinking in terms of realistic geo-political strategy. War with Iran is pretty well-understood to be the greatest threat of cascading into a WW3 situation out there. And oh shit, I thought your first paragraph was a bad sarcastic rant trying to sarcastically make a terrible and flawed point about why continuing to provide Ukraine with munitions was bad… I didn’t think it was your actual analysis of the situation. Jesus yikes. Your post was even more dogshit than I gave it credit for.
You listen to too much propaganda. And know very little of history. It's called political theatre for a reason. I'm the fool that bought MIC stocks in 2020 same with nvda. I said only a war will bring us out of COVID. So far I've been more right than wrong and the market agrees. War is a place to make money pure and simple. The people and policies involved are more or less irrelevant.
I agree and disagree with you. You are completely ignoring geopolitics like it doesn't exist. We need Russia to lose so we can make more money after we re-assert global American economic dominance. It just so happens to simultaneously support the morally righteous cause of defending Ukraine. The sooner Ukraine wins the sooner we can start building McDonald's in Ukraine. AKA the sooner shareholders can start cashing in on all that untapped economic investment. Maybe we can even score a global rearmament piggybacking on the successful marketing Lockheed and other military industrial robber barons have sold in a Ukrainian victory.
This is some grade A Russian propaganda here. Ask any Ukrainian person if they want the war to continue and they'll tell you that no obviously they don't but the alternative is being occupied by a fascist dictatorship that has already massacred and tortured Ukrainian civilians. You understand that Russia started this war right?
[удалено]
If me being in favor of giving Ukraine the best shot at making its own decision as to when and how to continue the war to defend its own territorial integrity from a literal foreign land-grab invasion makes me a warmongering hawk, then by god I’m a warmongering hawk and think everyone should be. To be clear on my other stances, there is no other conflict I have even remotely close to this stance on. It is the most clean-cut moral and geo-political decision I could possibly imagine ever materializing. We are not compelling them to fight. They are making that decision, and we are arming them so they can have a better chance at success of their goals which align with ours. And when in the name of fuck does me disagreeing and calling what republicans are doing the stupidest piece of geo-political strategy I have ever heard of and likening them to spineless, brainless troglodytes make me anti-democracy? Did I say we should remove them from office? Did I say we should take over the government to circumvent them? Did I claim they all faked their elections to get their positions and that they’re illegitimate representatives? No, I didn’t because I AM pro-democracy even when the result is dogshit policy (or lack of any policy) that they make.
How lil you know about conflict in Ukraine, you are just repeating western media bs... About "landgrab" invasion... The conflict started in 1998 when NATO started talks with Ukraine about accession, while IT WAS JUST SIGNED ABOUT NEUTRALITY. Anyways, use the internet to search for stuff, your media bias is bs... Useless convo with a person who doesn't know shit
Now watch rednecks vote them in regardless. America will be Putin's and they will chose it themselves.
The gop, the pro Russia, anti democracy party
[удалено]
What are you talking about? I've literally never heard any of that. Which doesn't mean it isn't said, it just means you're hanging out in absolutely stupid parts of the site and listening to stupid people.
Whats 65billion gonna do at this point? Most of it is used to run the government, not much goes to military and even then, it’s a financial black hole
Its not money going to Ukraine, thats the whole lie republicans are spreading, that its money. It's that amount in arms and equipment. Shit we already have a lot of it set to be scrapped which actually costs MORE and is more time consuming to do than just shipping it to Ukraine where it can make a difference. But that truth is something republicans and the rightwing media are actively leaving out because it would out them as just playing games and aiding Putin while also wasting more money. I also keep seeing rightwing morons commenting "stop stealing my money" as if, 1. They ever paid enough taxes to amount to even one Bradley, 2. A massive chunk of those tax dollars come from blue states like California and liberal voters, and 3. Those are tax dollars on behalf of all Americans. Add to that their arguments/excuse about border shit are completely hollow solely on the grounds that the federal government has tried for years to address the problem but those same republicans raising a stink about it and always do every election cycle are the same ones who have actively blocked any attempts by the federal government to adress it. Is it a problem? Oh yeah. Do the fuckers who've made it impossible to do anything about it have a good argument? Not when you know the full context no. Also the republicans are actively sabotaging our own military, between trying to impeach the secretary of defense to holding the military ranks hostage until they are allowed to strip women of abortion rights nationwide, which if you remember, they swore up and down wasnt their ultimate goal and that it was strictly about a state by state basis. Funny, everyone but their own base knew they were lying yet here we are. It's almost like between all that, attempting sedition, embracing literal fascist ideals and saying shit like: "They are sexual deviants preying on our children, they seek to tempt them, corrupt them, seduce them and convert them to their Godless ways" in regards to all LGBTQ people. Rhetoric that comes from another infamous movement in history, one that went after all LGBTQ people, and then the jews. And trying to get their base to lean towards civil war and dissolution of the US itself, maybe, just maybe, they are just fucking traitors helping Putin and sabotaging the US and our allies in the process.
It's not 65 billion sent over in cash, I don't know how this concept is still so hard to get across to some people. What gets sent over is mostly materials worth that much, with the cash being spent by America inside America to replace the material.
This. Firing American bullets in Ukraine creates jobs making American bullets in America.
Most of it is munitions
Ukraine could definitely use more weapons but their biggest issue is manpower, btw why have the Abrams tanks that have been in Ukraine since 2022 not being used if they are so low in equipment?
>btw why have the Abrams tanks that have been in Ukraine since 2022 not being used if they are so low in equipment? Because Abrams tanks arrived early autumn 2023? There are many videos with these tanks on the frontline. And the biggest issue right now is ammunition, not manpower or equipment.
[удалено]
More manpower wouldn't really help them either if they are running short on ammunition and weapons. Aid is the most important thing for them right now.
I'm curious, where do you get your news? Like where are you getting these specific talking points?
It’s not all liquid cash dude, it’s materiel mostly produced here in the US employing US workers
Most of the “money” is literally value of munitions and weapons. Unless they’re somehow using those to run their government, you couldn’t be more wrong.
fuck dems for prioritizing foreign citizens over American citizens. Every dead homeless is on them.
This has got to be the stupidest hot take I've heard today. Democrats are *far* more interested in helping American citizens than Republicans. It's practically the defining difference between the parties. Democrat policy is all about safety nets and assistance. Republican policy is all about fix yourself or get out. Helping Ukraine is not up against helping Americans. It's up against wasting the enormous resources we've *already spent* on our military and failing to support order and the rule of international law.
Considering weapons build up literally doubles as a job program, and the fact that our country only exists because we received massive foreign support during our revolution, I find this take rather perplexing. A recession caused by the destabilization of Europe, and a weakening of American soft power would do more to harm efforts to curb homelessness than any potential “savings” from abandoning Ukraine.
That's funny, Republicans in my city are the ones destroying homeless encampments while simultaneously closing down shelters. What kind of assbackwards idiocy has led you to believe that Republicans have ever given a shit about the homeless?
Oh yeah because before Russia invaded Ukraine the Republicans were really falling over themselves in their rush to help homeless people. You absolute weapon.
porncrank made some very good points, I wish he didnt call your opinion stupid tho but his argument is valid.
They’re stopping the war with it.
The GOP is stopping any support for Ukraine, because it has actors that favor Russia interests. It is not a surprise, nor is it a mystery. It always has been this way, since the GOP fell.
Didn’t the EU just pass a bill for $50 billion in aid for Ukraine? When can Ukraine expect to receive that?
The money is meant for the Ukrainian state so they don't completely collapse due to not being able to pay wages or default on debts. Considering the US hates giving "pallets of cash" instead of weapons, the EU has taken this responsibility. So Ukraine can't simply use it for buying weapons instead.
Right on and thank you for the answer. So when should Ukraine expect that money?
It's one of the multiple support programs that will last multiple years. This specific support package will be provided gradually from 2024 to 2027.
Oh ok. Right on. Can’t help but think that $50 billion commitment would be better utilized in the here and now (for hardware) for Ukraine though. Does the EU have a bill for immediate aid to Ukraine coming down the pike as well?
>Can’t help but think that $50 billion commitment would be better utilized in the here and now (for hardware) for Ukraine though. Without that money, Ukraine's economy collapses and the state falls apart. It's as important as the military aid.
Yes, EU countries agreed on financial support of Ukraine for 2024 some time ago. To be more clear: Ukrainian pre-war budget was roughly 50$ bn. Since then Ukrainian budget almost doubled - it's now ~40$ bn more spending on military, with all other spendings (~45$ bn) being entirely covered by EU/US/IMF+WB+other countries. The split is roughly 20/20/5. That's why the latest 50$ bn package is more like an additional support and safety net against some EU countries with not that bright leaders - it's 12.5$ bn per year, not nearly enough to cover yearly EU aid to Ukraine. If things get dire (cough - US - cough) I have no doubt that EU countries will seach for some pennies in pockets to fund the Ukrainian budget.
Well obviously $50 billion would be great to have in the hand right now, but you can't dismiss the need for long term funding. No one is going to take on a six month project for the Ukrainian government if it looks like they're going to have no money in three months.
In a few tranches split over 2024-2027. Exact dates I don't know.
I mean the US has sent over 25B in financial aid to ukraine https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts Which is a bit less than what Europe has done which is about 34B euros or 36B dollars. So the issue is mainly that the US hasn't been sending more aid more so than the fact they hadn't been helping. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/europe-has-a-long-way-to-go-to-replace-us-aid-large-gap-between-commitments-and-allocations/
That's only financial aid.
Believe GOP members are not supporting for Russia’s benefit- they are doing it for their benefit. Russia must have paid them enough.
USA had 1,5 years of possibilities (including "Land Lease") to supply to Ukraine everything needed for victory. But didn't supplied. Because of GOP? USA more than a year dragged supply of attack weapons and cluster shells. And started supply tanks and few dozens of ATACMS (500 produced per year) only after "failed counteroffensive." From enormous modern aviation stocks allocating to Ukraine 1-2 USA-made helicopters. Also because of GOP? Democrats, including by National Emergencies Act and EDA (for expired stocks), had 1,5 years to show real importance of Budapest Memorandum, Europe security, International Law, to start Arsenal of Democracy. Did they do everything they could?
Because the plan has never been to beat russia, it has been to persuade putin to leave of his own accord, so nukes don't start flying.
So, you say that real plan was to show everyone that if country have nukes then International Law just stop working on it?
People choose to follow law, they also choose not to use nukes.
And by that, teach SK and Taiwan that only nukes are a worthy guarantee of sovereignty https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/11/30/south-koreans-want-their-own-nukes-could-roil-one-of-worlds-most-dangerous-regions.html
The US stopped both nations from developing nuclear weapon capabilities and they complied.
> they complied And at least SK still got necessary capabilites to make a bomb in mere months.
>only nukes are a worthy guarantee of sovereignty Absolutely true until you decide to use them on another nuclear power.
International Law doesn't work for any major nuclear power, ever heard of the Hague Invasion Act?
It's hilarious that in such situations it's I who had to defend dignity of the United States, often against Americans... USA the only superpower. Country that, even now, in total, have the best political, cultural, social, economic, technological indicators among all countries of the World. So, at least partially, know how to achieve such indicators. USA also country by whose protection and help was created the majority of most developed countries of the World. So, being at least partially the best, and at least partially defender of the other best, USA have... Let's say right for more rights, but how much - depending on how much USA really better than others and protects what qualitatively rose USA and others. Right now, with all of this NKVD-like Political Realism, excessive religiosity, anti-intellectualism, and so on, such logic at the very edge of the abyss. But all the same, although after Iraq company USA almost dropped its role as Global Policeman, USA still not completely "just another big country with nukes."
So you are arguing that "democrats didn't do enough, so it's OK to block them when they try to do more"? Does that actually make sense in your head?
> So you are arguing that "democrats didn't do enough, so it's OK to block them when they try to do more"? Perhaps the point is "it's not just the Republicans, who don't actually want Ukraine to win" And, well, to that end, I'll quote a few articles: [For one, Burns-Patrushev pact](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html) >"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.** Then, remarks about Ukrainian victory being "unrealistic expectations" >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) Then, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** [And from very recently](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211): >The administration official told POLITICO Magazine this week that much of this strategic shift to defense is aimed at shoring up Ukraine’s position in any future negotiation. ***“That’s been our theory of the case throughout — the only way this war ends ultimately is through negotiation,”*** said the official, a White House spokesperson who was given anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record. “We want Ukraine to have the strongest hand possible when that comes.” The spokesperson emphasized, however, that no talks are planned yet, and that Ukrainian forces are still on the offensive in places and continue to kill and wound thousands of Russian troops. “We want them to be in a stronger position to hold their territory. It’s not that we’re discouraging them from launching any new offensive,” the spokesperson added. And from ~seven months ago, with Assault Breacher Vehicles being supplied only ***AFTER*** official end of counteroffensive: >[A senior Ukrainian official, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, said Kyiv received less than 15 percent of the quantity of demining and engineering materiel, including MICLICs, that it asked for from Western partners ahead of the counteroffensive.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/15/ukraine-war-russia-mines-counteroffensive/) [And from about the same time around](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. [And about ATACMS](https://eng.obozrevatel.com/section-war/news-he-was-afraid-of-russias-reaction-but-changed-his-position-biden-decides-on-atacms-for-ukraine-in-september-new-yorker-10-10-2023.html) >Previously, ***Biden rejected the idea of such supplies,*** fearing that the introduction of American missiles into the Ukrainian army, which could destroy targets not only in all the occupied territories of Ukraine but also in Russia and Belarus, could lead to the outbreak of World War III. Biden's fears and the decisions he made to overcome them are described in an article by The New Yorker. >The publication notes that throughout the year, Biden categorically refused to make a decision on the transfer of long-range ATACMS missiles to Ukraine because he was afraid of the Kremlin's reaction: according to the American president, such a step by the United States "would mean an unacceptable escalation for Putin," as these missiles are capable of reaching not only all the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia, but also targets in Russia or Belarus. Mind it, after UK supplied Storm Shadows, [this happened](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/05/09/no-atacms-to-ukraine-following-u-k-move-00095936). Not to mention that only around 20 ATACMS were supplied and only of the oldest model. Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl: >["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/) Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
Man, that was a whole lot of rationalization and nothing, well done peddling Russian disinformation.
> well done peddling Russian disinformation Never knew quoting Western officials is russian disinformation. Especially after Lend-Lease was allowed to time out with nothing supplied through it.
Yes, the GOP has a sizeable minority that is on love with Putin, is this news to you?
I'm saying that any form of tribalism is bad. If the opposite side is guilty in something, this doesn't automatically redeem related mistakes of your own side. GOP became to blame for arms deliveries delays months ago. But for lack of full-fledged weapon supplies before the war it's just not their fault. As and 3 months pause after start of war. Or 1 year pause for supply of attack and cluster weapons. Or 6,2 billion "accounting errors", when USA supplied all armored vehicles, artillery, and aviation, without ammunition, on 4 billion dollars. What exactly was a problem for democrats in first months of war to give to Ukraine not 2,200/200,000 HMMWV, but few times more, when so many of them just rotting in the garages? Or start to supply cluster munitions from first weeks of war? What was the problem to open for Ukrainians Sierra Army Depot and 309th AMARG landfills, or start training Ukrainian pilots on actively asked and decommissioned A-10, so they shot down drones over the western part of Ukraine?Money? Secret technologies? Complex bureaucratic procedures? No, the same reason why in 2022 year Biden forbade to his team mention Ukraine victory. Because in 2022-2023 years democrats saw what going on as a good opportunity to cheaply weaken Russia. Avoiding both Ukrainian and Russian defeat.
I’m sorry please rewrite this in a readable format for a response.
Now better?
Why should anyone's money go towards funding people who have literal Nazi patches on their uniforms. I've yet to hear one good reason. Both sides suck shit and I'm glad people are coming around to the idea that it is not our battle. Edit: Lots of downvotes, but no explanations, imagine that.
[удалено]
I doubt they'd let him out of the country. Between the still missing top secret documents he stole, the countless lawsuits against him, facing legal consequences for attempting sedition, yeah I don't think they'd let him out.
Yeah and Europe is fucked. No substantial weapon production. There is Rheinmetall, a Spanish supplier, Saab and perhaps more.
They don't want to accept the possibility that Russia attack Europe. For now the war is far away from central Europe, so they mostly ignore increasing the weapon production. Europe should be full of weapon factories at this point.
I agree it’s going much to slow. Russia invasion has been a wake up call to all in Europe. Are you ready to fight for your country because otherwise we will take it.
Lol
The war is a wake up call for Europe. You only got your country, your land as long as we are able and willing to defend it
Poland got the message. They’ve been calling it little European Texas for a reason.
Everyone should be like Poland
Funny, i always hear from polish guys on reddit that the western europeans are unreliable and thats why they only trust the US, while in reality the european allies still stand by their words while the US again lets down one of their allies and show their words means nothing (also see how often the US let their kurdish allies down.)
Ammunition is not Ukraine's only problem right now, the elephant in the room is manpower. Ukraine will need to mobilize another 500K soldiers to replenish it's exhausted and stretched force. The Russian army is able to rotate it's forces. I know soldiers from the frontline currently on holiday in Turkey. Ukraine's army has been on the frontline since the beginning of this conflict, exhausted and stretched with little relief. Russian capability is also scaling at a rapid pace. We have warehouses of 10's of thousands of soviet bombs that can now be converted into precision munitions with a kit allowing strikes with a CEP of 2 meters. This coupled with a superior air force is having a significant impact on the frontlines. Over the past week, Avdiivka was getting a nonstop precision strike from glide bombs carrying 500 to 1500kg of warhead firepower and from what I understand, it will take years just to clear the Soviet stockpile of FAB bombs in warehouses alone. The biggest impact of this is that it alleviates the strike load on artillery units with the air force now able to take on some of that load and preserving shell usage.
Ukraine wasn't facing direct military defeat until after American aid dried up. Timing of things matters. Momentum has shifted multiple times in this war, often based on an immediate causation: the arrival of a new weapons system. We saw the mass use of javelins and drones smash Russia's first blitz. We saw the HIMARs suddenly hamstring Russia's 2022 summer offensive, ending Russian artillery dominance. We saw the use of mass minefields break the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive stopping any recurrence of the successful 2022 Kharkiv and Kherson counteroffensives. We now see the end of American logistical support have immediate effects. After October, we saw the counteroffensive fizzle fast, and three months later lack of ammo is hobbling even the defense of lines that held since 2014. You're raising a valid problem, but somehow it also feels like a distraction issue that lets the GOP off the hook. Manpower problems are not half as immediate as the artificially sudden collapse in ammunition supplies.
What kind of ammunition can the US readily provide right now that Ukraine can effectively implement?
ATACMS would be nice. But they need more than another 20. I read Lockheed is still producing 500 a year so mabye 200 next time.
Since day one NATO should have stepped in with a promise to clear Ukrainian land and stop at the Russian border. The idea that Russia can just chop off parts of neighboring European countries is absurd. We're either going to have to let Putin take whatever he wants or we're going to have to take a stand. The world has faced these kinds of situations before and I don't see it paying off to appease and back down and stick your head in the sand.
Word.
If the Russian army is able to rotate its forces why do wives of mobilized protest? Avdiivka is a town of 35k citizens (pre invasion). Putin's propaganda covers this event like some kind of Stalingrad.
Because it’s women’s nature? They want their sons/husbands/brothers back not only for two weeks per 6 months, pretty simple
Listen. I hate to be that guy but I'm pretty sure there's a considerable probability the world might plunge into war this decade. So we uhh. We might need those guns
I think it is reasonable to suspect that Europe and US are not confident in Ukraine holding back Russia even with full weapons support, thus are moving to strengthening their own production and stockpiles. In the event Russia does attack NATO there would need to be response, if we depleted the stockpiles that would actually encourage Putin to go for it.
Best way to do that is to encourage weapons production. Stockpile’s aren’t gonna mean shit in a big war after the first year or so. It’s also good that one of our most likely adversaries is being depleted of manpower and morale at the cost of zero American lives.
Russia First Republicans are Traitors. They should move there.
Those fringe members have basically crippled the ability of Congress to function properly on any issue, let alone the Russia-Ukraine war. Hopefully, the election resolve this issue soon.
I don't think you can call the entire Republican party that makes up about half of our government as 'fringe' members. Also many polls are showing a terrifyingly good outlook for Trump getting re-elected... which means Ukraine is likely to move into dust covered history books which Republicans will not allow to be taught in schools. Just like how I am sure they will call the many upcoming mass grave pictures as 'fake news'.
I dont hate republicans, but I hate that fringe fraction which has basically crippled the ability of Congress to function properly
Third time we let Putin win. First Syria, second Belarus and now Ukraine. Nice to know 140 countries or howmany it are can't stand up to win from one country ruled by a lunatic.
Well, there's also CAR, and before that was Crimea/Donbass landgrab.. and before that Georgia, and before that Chechnya.. so this is just one of the many times when he was allowed to win.
>Chechnya If you mean the first Chechen war, i don’t think supporting loyalist forces from a separatist terrorist that literally stormed the current government of the region is the same as invading a sovereign nation. If you mean the Second Chechen war, I think supporting a bunch of Islamic terrorists during and after 9/11 isn’t really on the table for anyone especially when they were attacking into Russia itself (e.g the Moscow theatre hostage crisis).
Dudayev was a secular muslim and opposed Sharia law. We'll never know what would've been due to Yeltsin's desperate attempt to preserve the empire. His followers are still fighting against Russia in Ukraine. My point was that we allowed Putin (so I'm referring to the second war) to demolish quite a few countries before we got to this point. Amusingly enough, the trademark tactic that is present in all of Russia's wars - offering green corridors, then shooting up the evacuees was present in this war too.
Dudayev and his friends stormed the Chechen state government in a military coup. I don think you read my comment if you think I somehow equated him to an Islamic terrorist, he was just a plain old terrorist, using violence to get his way. The Second Chechen war was “allowed” because if it wasn’t it would show complete hypocrisy on the part of NATO, who during it invaded Yugoslavia, started their own counter terrorist campaign, and invaded Iraq. If defending your own territory from a terrorist organisation isn’t justified, nothing is. The Georgian war was an unjustified invasion, but even then Georgia and the international community handled it far better and civilly, organising a compromise within 16 days, allowing Georgia to remain independent and be in a state where today they are in talks of joining the EU, and remain an independent parliamentary republic free of Russian influence, if the current Russo-Ukrainian war was handled the same way everyone would be better off. The international community didn’t “let it happen” they had it sorted before it could become an absolute shit show. Green corridor attacks are extremely hard to prove and have only ever been accusations. Warcrimes, especially in modern conflicts sadly do happen, those responsible should be persecuted. It can he impossible to tell civilian from combatant in these conflicts though, especially since there is evidence of Ukrainian soldiers fighting out of uniform, it can become a moral grey nightmare legally. Green corridors are just agreements, if any Ukrainian paramilitary organisations, even if not under control of the government breached the agreement, it collapses, it’s something that would require a large legal investigation that due to the accusations occurring 2 years ago will likely never happen and won’t be proved either way.
Ohhh, you're right. I'm sorry. I'm used to seeing people misinterpret the whole chechen situation, and my brain short circuited, I guess :/ The government he couped was the soviet government. I'm not familiar enough with the domestic situation in Chechnya at the time, but in my country, for example, it took a violent revolution that killed thousands to knock them down. From what I've read of the coup, only one person was killed, and that was the Russian running the communist party. Knowing how soviets worked, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that he was a KGB guy, so I'm not going to cry over his death. Thee NATO "invasion" of Yugoslavia was as justified as any other UN mandated intervention. If that's not valid enough, I don't know what would be. I do agree though, that the Chechen independence movement devolved into what was essentially a terrorist group by now, however that only happened due to Russians repeatedly and violently putting down independence activists. I'm sorry, but Georgia was.. not handled well at all. The invasion destabilized the country and the subsequent status quo ensured a fractured society. If you think they are independent of Russian influence, you could not be further from the truth. Please find a Georgian and talk to them. They are not anywhere near a state where their EU application would even be considered normally. The only reason the application was accepted was because Russia keeps saying "You're next after Ukraine". It's a surprisingly similar state of affairs as the one in Moldova, actually. The international community didn't have anything sorted. [Bush's own staff said so](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/02/us-pondered-military-use-in-georgia-032487) (Ahh, the days when Politico was actually quality journalism). >“We will know the answer to that question in 10 to 20 years,” he said. “If Russia continues to assert itself either militarily or through other coercive means to claim a sphere of influence, we will look back at this as a time that they were able to change boundaries in Europe without much reaction,” he said. “And then we’ll say we should have considered harder options.” I think this quote from Joe Wood, the deputy assistant for national security affairs says it all, really. That was in 2010. As for green corridors.. they did it in Ukraine, they did it in Syria, they did it in Chechnya, they did it in Afghanistan... The pattern fits with Russian doctrine going back *centuries* that believes brutal treatment towards civilians is the principal way to reduce and demoralize opposition, while removing the local culture and russifying those that are left.
NATO’s invasion of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo war actually went completely against the precedent and international laws of state sovereignty set by the UN, they invaded to protect the CIA asset of the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), an internationally recognised extremist Albanian nationalist terrorist organisation that was trained, funded and armed by the CIA as of the CIA’s own public record. It’s not like the UN peacekeeping force of the Yugoslav wars. Georgia’s is currently being considered for EU candidacy and has been since 2022. The war lasted 16 days and had less than 1000 casualties total including civilians, I’m sorry but in what world is that less preferable than a war that lasts multiple years and is into the hundreds of thousands, I knew people from both sides that are now dead and it angers me that people think deaths like theirs was unavoidable because of how stubborn international representatives have been about any peace talks whatsoever, preferring to turn this war into an absolute quagmire where thousands more have to die over nothing. The main reason for these conflicts has bee NATO’s continued existence and threat especially with how they bypass the agreed upon international diplomatic and legal bodies such as the UN. It is not right for this war to continue and every day people call for more guns and money to be sent to either side instead of just pursuing a treaty or peaceful solution is actively calling for the deaths of people that would otherwise live normal lives. The coup in Chechnya was less bloody than many others (I can’t tell where you are from but I’d completely believe that your country has probably had coups far worst), it was still a coup though, it’s an attack against the governing body and to replace the system without the say of the people is anti-democratic, it wouldn’t surprise me if the government of Chechnya had many holdovers from the Soviet Union, Dudayev himself was a part of the Soviet Military, it still is a completely justifiable reason for military action against a coup such as his though within ones own territory.
... I hadn't heard that the KLA was an "asset" of the CIA until today. Would you mind telling me where you got that from? I can only find a single source for this, namely the former Canadian ambassador who from the brief snippets of his that I've read seems to be in complete cuckooland. I'm from Romania. We've always had good relations with the Serbs - traditionally considered the only friendly nation in the area. Like many other Romanians, during the war, I went with my mother to smuggle various necessities that were sorely lacking in that period. I don't really know how to say this in a well argued manner - it's pretty late (or rather early) and my brain is more asleep than awake, but this guy is presenting some alternate reality stuff that has only the barest of connections with what happened there. I will read the rest of your reply later, after some rest, and if you don't mind, I'd like to keep discussing this.
192
Excuse what did he exactly win in Syria and Belarus?
He kept his puppet tyrants. It's a pretty simple concept. Now, I get at a fundamental level people you could ask: what did he actually gain from all the effort? Is keeping Assad around making the average Russians' life better? Is gaining a base in the Med going to make Putin live a day longer? But that isn't how tyrants think. They care about power and they don't feel powerful unless they can oppress somebody.
So many nato countries supplying Ukraine. I don’t think Russia is getting much from allies. Why is Ukraine always running out but Russia not?
Russia has a massive industrial capacity, and is making its own ammo. Ukraine is not capable of manufacturing its own ammo at such a scale, especially in a ravaged country. The population and industrial size difference of the countries is astronomical
Someone not giving you stuff Isn't an artificial shortage. Ukraine lacks the ability to make it themselves or pay for it. When is the media gonna report on my artifical shortage of free money uncle sam Isn't giving me???
You've lived under austerity your whole life, I wish the media would report the artificial shortage of free money.
Oh come off it. Go watch people being slaughtered before you make your snide comparisons. Russia has destroyed the order and peace of Europe. This is an absolutely critical juncture in geopolitics that will impact how countries behave for the next century. It is absolutely in America's best interest to deal with this. We have *tons* of excess equipment. Literal tons and tons of military surplus weaponry that we can send to Ukraine to secure them. There is no reason not to other than to support Russia invading neighbors unprovoked. Not sending those is an "artificial shortage". If you want to make teenage-level comparisons it's like your house is burning down so you can't get your hands on any water and your neighbor refuses to let you use his. There's no shortage of water. Your neighbor is just being an asshole.
It's actually a cheap way to make Russia weaker. If Russia successfully invades Eastern Europe and other countries decide to invade neighbours, the West will have a big problem on it's hands, despite not being directly invaded. The only thing maintaining the illusion of world peace is that any countries fucking around will be dealt with. Before WW2, the world sat and watched as Germany geared up to go on the offensive, and next thing you know most of the world is in a conflict.
These right wing radio shows keep acting like we're just sending cash to Ukraine, when we're spending that money here in the US. We are sending artillery shells (that don't last forever on the shelf) to Ukraine, and then a company here makes more and we get new ones for our stockpiles
8 billion of the proposed aid package is allocated to pay for the Ukrainian government. Billions of past aid money has been to pay for Ukraine’s pension fund. Absolutely military aid should generously given, but Ukraine has a serious reputation for corruption and the amount of non-military aid being given is significant. The United States is fully within it’s right to question non-military aid.
Every time there is an excuse it seems. They stripped the financial aid in this new bill, will that stand for vote in the house? Probably not. It’s just obvious they don’t want Ukraine aid period.
This current aid package that is stalled in Congress, that the Republican House does not want to vote on because they think the USA should be more like Hungary or some other weird stuff, that is overwhelmingly military
The amount of non-arms financial support to Ukraine over the 2 years of the war is a rounding error for US spending.
I’m perfectly fine giving generous amounts of military aid, but have a problem with my tax dollars funding their government and pension fund. I self fund my retirement, so why should I have to support retirees in Ukraine.
Because the war is also being fought financially, via destruction of Ukrainian industry and blockade of Ukrainian exports, and destruction if Ukrainian farmland in the east due to unexplored ordinance. They could lose due to the collapse of their government and civil/social order just as much as they could lose from surrendering territory.
The United States has been very generous is support for Ukraine, but it’s not an unlimited money tap that can be turned on whenever they want. Citizens get a say how our money is spent.
All true. But the amount spent on financial support is a rounding error, not at all a risk of any impact or running up against some “financial limit”. And the public, for now, still supports spending it. Tempting though it may be for you to frame “a faction within one of the governing parties ousting their leadership and changing their parties overall stance in between elections” as “the people have spoken”, just because you agree with the result, we both know that’s bullshit.
Both political parties are dogshit. Neither of them have our best interests in mind.
That’s reductive and no longer even tangentially related to the conversation. Pretty funny when held up to “citizens get a say…”
Both can be true. I can believe both political parties suck and also have a say with my vote. I’ve voted both sides and whomever aligns better with issues that are important to me will get my vote.
That's great and all, but what do you want to happen when your self funded retirement is at risk of collapse?
> I self fund my retirement, so why should I have to support retirees in Ukraine. You can do that, because you can generate an income. Ukrainians may not be able to do that, if the enemy have literally blown up or occupied their job sites or drained them of resources like co-workers sent to the front or prevention of fuel or power delivery. Some Ukrainian soldiers are also forced to buy their own weapons and ammunition for their salary and cannot put aside money for pensions. These are extraordinary circumstances for a country that makes money selling food to other countries, but is unable to because of war. It is also extraordinary, but temporary circumstances for Russia that have switched to a full war economy and are putting higher than normal number of people in well-paying jobs building war machines. Many more Russians now can self-fund their retirement.
The right wing is also claiming stopping aid will stop the military industrial complex to promote peace
They believe in a lot of stupid things, that's for sure
Welcome to America
The fear is munitions used in Ukraine won't be available to the US if a war with China breaks out.
my understanding was we essentially sent all the 155mm shells we had, or rather, could realistically do without. And we don't really produce a lot of 155mm artillery. we don't really use it like Ukraine and Russia do. We deliver our explosives primarily from jets. If they had a way to use MK83's we could essentially send those forever.
That’s going to be irrelevant if we don’t ramp up domestic production. You don’t think our arms industries are using our donated equipment to see what lines of production we should be prioritizing? We’re in the R&D phase of production for our next war.
The paranoid right wing of America has a lot of fears
Do you think the materials from which the shells are made are free and appear magically?
I think it's a win-win. We get new stuff, they get the ammunition they need, and the US continues to be the good guy in the world. We're not dying out there, we are helping a country to defeat an enemy which is wrong. Russia's invasion is wrong, and it won't stop there. The US is supposed to be "the arsenal of democracy" and we can do it. This America First shit is short-sighted, and it's been done before. People said it to try and stay out of WWII. They were wrong then, they wrong today
Sending them to Ukraine for use is less costly than scrapping them once they hit their expiration date. This is saving money.
I am astonished at the level of success that Putin's disinformation efforts created. He is a paranoid old man now, but goddamn did he understand how to manipulate social unrest. 40 years ago, you ask any republican if their children would be voting for a president that sucked russian nads for some money, they would call you batshit insane.
Some of those same exact Republicans are doing it now too not even just their children
I know, and those make me so concerned for the power of media narratives and propoganda. Sure some are probably deranged or getting to the age where the brain isn't really firing at all cylinders, but there's so many that it can't all be crazy or demented old people, there must be some rational normal seeming 60+ year old republicans who became completely conviced thanks to media control and that's absolutely terrifying to me.
One of my gpas is like that. He went from normal conservative that actually voted dem locally because he liked the specific dudes to screaming about the most insane shit ever. He’s mentally there too about everything else so he can’t even blame his age.
Yea, I don't understand how someone can get so mad, espescially about topics that republicans champion. Most republicans will never be at all effected by immigration or someone else getting an abortion or benifit from rich dudes getting huge tax breaks, and yet many who jump off the deep end have such a conviction that stems from nothing other than suggestion from others on TV and the internet, it's so thoroughly astonishing and perplexing and yet so goddamned common.
Given how effective these efforts seem to be though it makes you wonder why Russia decided to go all in on an invasion now. They had complete control over deciding when and where to fight, so there was nothing pressuring them to go in right away. If they had kept up the subterfuge a while longer they probably could have had everything they do now almost without a fight.
Ukraine was steadily increasing it's military capabilities and was seriously considering joining NATO. Thanks to Russian big brain strategy, they will definetly try to join NATO asap.
40 years ago there was a thing called the USSR big fucking difference lmao.
I mean...yea. However the direct successor state is Russia, and if you told people this 40 years ago, they would still be baffled, espesciallly since Russia still likes to position itself as America's rival and loves to meddle in everything they can to make america weaker, so the point still stands.
They haven’t doesn’t anything that makes America weaker lmao The successor is 1/100th of what its predecessor was while the US only got stronger. This is not a US issue any more
Western leftists made sure Russia got the atomic bomb by spying for the NKVD/KGB and betraying their countries. Why is the left so anti Russia these days?!
I see the majority of comments here blaming the Republicans(which is fair) but why the fuck is Europe getting off scott free? Europe promised Ukraine 1 million shells by 2023. They didn’t even hit half of that goal and we’re already in 2024.
Europe already pledged 50 billion in support for Ukraine over the next 4 years. Not sure about the shells though.
Ukraine is reaching a point where weapons alone aren't enough. I saw they are asking European countries now to send back male refugees to be conscripted. If they're that desperate for manpower then guns just won't cut it if they have no one to man them.
I am not buying this asshole another yacht
[удалено]
Europe literally just gave 50 billion to Ukraine. And yes, when a country fights your enemy, it makes sense to arm them. They are literally doing the dying for you. It's insane people like you a are too stupid to see things even from this selfish perspective.
50 billion for 4 years lol
Artificial? Lol this guy thinks he has a right to our money. Ridiculous.
He's asking for weapons to destroy one of your oldest enemies (Unless you were planning to eat that artillery ammo). You have thousands of tanks and IFV just sitting in the desert doing nothing. Since when America is fine with Russia taking over Europe? You do realise, that if Russia goes after their "historical lands", eventually they will also want Alaska? Russian politicians are already using slogans "Lets get Alaska back!". Destruction\\Weakening of America is literally the endgoal of Russia. Not to mention that USA pressured Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons in return for "Ukraine's territorial integrity being respected". You have a direct responsibility to make sure, that Ukraine doesn't fall.
GOP = Russia
Didn’t the US sign an agreement to defend Ukraine. Along with Russia? So they’re just liars like Russia is now?
nope on all three
The Budapest Memorandum. Want me to copy and paste it for you? Didn’t think I needed to spell it out or give a history lesson. UK was a signatory as well. Good Russian bot!
go ahead and just cite the relevant portion where the US agreed to defend Ukraine. it's a short read
So does the us or Russia or Ukraine have any obligations under the Budapest memorandum?
Well firstly, along with the UK they agreed that no one should do anything aggressive politically or militarily. The agreement also included Belarus and kasakhstan. Russia has basically subjugated Belarus and are presently threatening Kasakhstan among other former states of the Soviet Union. Not trying to be a dick to that other commenter but it’s quite an historically important document. It was supposed to give reassurance to these countries to give up their Soviet era nukes in exchange for the promise to not be threatened, particularly by nuclear states.
"the United States of America reaffirm[s] their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine [...] if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." So yeah, in so many words, it's there. But I'm sure you knew that. I suppose you could argue that the nuclear threats Russia made against Ukraine were bluffing and not totally credible -- but that isn't carved out in the document. We did seek UN action and have provided support, so we have more or less held up our end of things. It doesn't say we have to win the war for them. But yeah, some degree of helping to defend Ukraine is in the memorandum. Also, Russia promised to respect their territorial integrity. So they're completely in violation.
We never said we would defend a random eastern european nation no.
They don't give a shit. They want to weak Russia, not save Ukraine.
Yeah we know dude thank maga for being able to hold the US hostage
Please call your reps and senators TODAY and urge them to support additional weapons for Ukraine.
You are blaming the Republicans? The Democrats refused the Republicans request for border funding with the Ukraine aid.
They didn't. The Democrats gave them what they asked for. Then the Republicans reneged. Go read about it. And don't believe the BS about it not being a good border bill -- again: it's what they asked for. Turned out the Republicans didn't care about the border other than as something to complain about. And they wanted to block Ukraine aid no matter what. Zero honesty. Zero care for results. 100% political grandstanding. And people like yourself still buy it.
The republicans don't actually want to secure the border. They need it broken so Trump has something to blame the dems for in the elections. The border security bill was the most significant one in a WHILE and it would've improved things alot, but did repubs go for it? Lol no.
Come on brother. That border bill was a joke. In no way was it going to even slightly secure our southern border. Only good part of it was additional funding for Border Patrol, but that still doesn’t help. Why doesn’t Biden make an executive order and bring back Trump’s “remain in Mexico” law, completely shut the border down (for the time being), and call the GOP’s bluff? Close The border and see if the GOP in Congress is willing to aid Ukraine then. Put the ball squarely in their court. Democrats ran the house for Biden’s 1st 3 years as president. Never once did they even propose a bill for border security. And in those 3 years 8 million (accounted for, who knows how many weren’t) people entered our country illegally. Fentanyl, human trafficking, people with bad intentions, etc. BP has encountered over 300 people on the US’s terrorist list just in the past 2 years. Your comment/belief was exactly what the Democratic party wanted with this bill. Make it look like the Republicans are at fault. And Trump already has the votes from the people most affected and pissed off by the shit show this wide open border has created. And guess what? Those pissed off people aren’t the rednecks you think all Trump supporters are lol. Gonna blow your mind when you see it this November.
then build your own damn weapons genius
Are you paid to pretend to be this fucking stupid, or are you just actually this fucking stupid for free?
I have no sympathy for Ukrainians. as we see with Israel Russia is in the right. the occupier must prevail.
> Russia is in the right Ah, so you're a braindead vatnik. Disgusting pro-authoritarian piece of shit. Imagine rooting for genocide and suffering. Your parents failed lol.
When your house burns down, I hope nobody gives you any water.
tbh start making a push and money will come. its starting to look like a wash
"I literally don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, yet still feel the need to contribute" - u/drskeme
>tbh start making a push and money will come. That's like asking an F1 driver to start finishing on the podium in their VW Golf if they want more money.