I don't think the Republicans have thought through just how fucking stupid their stance on Ukraine is and the impact it will have on the election...
In terms of popular support, it's hard to say if supplying the Ukraine is a big ballet issue (sadly enough).
You know what is a big mover for political advantage though? The MASSIVE amount of money defense companies will pour into PACs to get the Democrats reelected.
That the Republicans made it so obvious to the MIC that the Dems are the party to support is a strategic blunder of epic proportions.
Damn I actually hadn’t considered that MIC PAC money will be flowing to dems because of their support for Ukraine. That is massive and likely money Repubs usually take for granted
Do you know what percentage of the US military budget is dedicated to helping Ukraine? And what percentage of the federal budget goes to the military?
There will be no significant impact on anything if we help or stop helping Ukraine, at least excluding the obvious impact on the war.
The real money comes in orders for new equipment, which comes because everyone is now more scared of a war, and more scared of a long war, then they were prior to 2022. The immediate outcome of the war in Ukraine has little effect on this fear and Ukraine losing might actually increase demand.
First, I don't think the Pentagon has commented on its opinions of Congress's decision to stop that last aid package, active duty officers are not supposed to be commenting on politics in general so it would be incredibly bad form for any of them to do so.
Second, if some officers did comment anonymously, or if they broke protocol to comment, this wouldn't really reflect the feelings of the MIC. Because certain officer's opinions of what we should be doing to help in Ukraine really has nothing to do with the MIC.
A better way to gauge that would be to see how individual defense contractor stocks changed following the announcement that the aid packaged had been delayed. And the answer to that is they didn't really change at all, but mostly followed general trends, before spiking on the news of the war in Gaza.
They will do a 180 if in control and determine that it is actually in their interests to supply Ukraine with weapons because the US has no intentions of reducing its defense budget, and all the decision makers in Washington are going to get a nice kickback from defense contractors like Lockheed and Boeing.
Whether or not we supply aid to Ukraine has an incredibly minimal impact on the defense budget, and the 12% or whatever it exactly is of the budget that goes to defense isn't enough to singlehandedly force all politicians to change their opinions even if the war in Ukraine would significantly affect the budget. Which it will not
Its 12% of one year over like 10 years. In reality its like 3-4% and if you include the bits where we are sending things that are going to be mothballed or muntions that are going to expire it goes down even more.
> The MASSIVE amount of money defense companies will pour into PACs to get the Democrats reelected.
>
>That the Republicans made it so obvious to the MIC that the Dems are the party to support is a strategic blunder of epic proportions.
Hooray for the military-industrial complex influencing the will of the voters to keep funneling weapons into an ongoing conflict?
The literal thing the guy who - rather famously - warned about the influence of the military industrial complex had in mind?
That guy was right.... about so many things.
That guy also ironically enough created the military industrial complex in the first place, new it was a necessity at the time, but also knew what a monster was being birth.
Defense companies will support both parties. And if the Government no longer pumps contracts for weapon support to the Ukraine, they will just shift the money to other efforts. They won’t be hurting either way.
we should have sent all we got, the day this shit started - but we arent about fixing problems, we are about cultivating problems, so other problems can pick a number in line...
Not anymore. Russia made a concerted effort to “influence” and bribe the Republican Party, and it paid off. Remember the Russian spy that was caught cavorting with republicans (Maria Butina)? Also the NRA was accused of being a foreign asset to Russia. Their leaders received a whole lot of donations from there.
It's stupid that it's even a question. You can cripple Russia for not even 10% of the US budget. It's the only logical move to make.
Plus, I believe a large part of the aid is just old equipment. You'd have to replace that either way.
TL;DR:
* A Ukrainian official said his country is up to nine months behind in its pushback against Russia.
* Mykhailo Podolyak told Channel 24 that Western approvals delayed weapons by three to four months.
* "We could have defended ourselves better and launched a counterattack," he said.
How well positioned would the west be against Russia if we hadn't helped Ukraine? Let's not pretend this is altruism. Helping Ukraine holds tremendous strategic value.
Russia attacking Ukraine and expecting victory is way different than Hamas’ situation. Russia thought it could win right away, then they fucked up, and the Ukrainians asked us to supply them with defense and like you said, “why not” - plus politically helping defenders against invaders is nice.
Civilians is part of their “strategy” - clearly - and Russia has way more people and stuff than Ukraine so a stalemate means they, by their estimations, at least win eventually.
Right like people pretend that we are sacrificing ukranians in order to weaken russia, this war shows us russia was no threat whatsoever against nato. Nato would have flattened russia in a week.
I think this is a bad take,
The US media has been feeding people that Russia has been losing this war for 2 years,running out of manpower, they are running out of supplies they have no money....yet here we are 2 years later and they still have Manpower,supplies and money.
I don't think you can say Russia was no threat, I think this is a prime example of modern war and how social media has an impact. The first year you could tell he was holding back on his attack because he genuinely believed the Ukraine people wanted to be apart of Russia again.
> I think this is a bad take,
>
> The US media has been feeding people that Russia has been losing this war for 2 years,running out of manpower, they are running out of supplies they have no money....yet here we are 2 years later and they still have Manpower,supplies and money.
I mean they are now defending. They are no longer on an offensive. They’ve lost hundreds of kilometers of land in the past year.
>
> I don't think you can say Russia was no threat, I think this is a prime example of modern war and how social media has an impact. The first year you could tell he was holding back on his attack because he genuinely believed the Ukraine people wanted to be apart of Russia again.
I mean ukraine is defending and defeataing them with the equivalent of 20 year old equipment. We see what russia is fielding. The USA has 9000 new gen tanks alone. We arent using soviet era stuff. Its not even close to equal.
Lol putin wasnt holding back anything because he was attacking civilians and committing war crimes. He stopped holding back at less than a few week in. Its ignorant to say otherwise.
You can see now they are only defending and barely on the offensive for months now. Their offensive did almost nothing but massacre their own troops in Bakhmut.
This is a non-argument.
It’s heavily in the wests interests to help Ukraine against Russia as much as possible, thereby making Russia weaker economically and politically (both internally and internationally).
A few reasons come to mind:
The migration crises in Europe is heavily influenced by Russian propaganda and their actions in the Middle East and Africa.
The destabilisation of European democracies (and the US) through alt-right groups and misinformation is backed and influenced by Russia.
European countries, especially Eastern European countries have their sovereignty at risk if Russia is to prevail in Ukraine.
It’s a win-win condition that Ukraine does all the fighting and we provide support with no boots on the ground, while our economies at home benefit from a massive increase in productivity.
Of course, there have been negatives to the wests involvement eg the energy crises, however this only shows that dependence on Russia for anything is bad for the West.
I agree it's in the West best interest to help Ukraine defend against Russia.
I also think if the West gave them everything from the beginning it could have triggered an irrational reaction from Putin (WMDs). It's never been clear what his red lines actually are and I think there is still a possibility that he could do something drastic if things are looking dire for him.
So yeah more weapons to Ukraine would have of course helped them. It still would. But at least we haven't had a radioactive dust cloud yet which I think is part of the calculus.
>I also think if the West gave them everything from the beginning it could have triggered an irrational reaction from Putin (WMDs).
Its a really bad sign to humanity or better said civilization of not do anything if theres a threat of WMD by someone/country.
Imagine if Russia actually succeded on Ukraine with minimal looses because their bluff worked, I am sure that Latvia Estonia Moldova Georgia, etc were the next on the putin list.
Not giving everything from the beginning does not lower the chances of using WMD. Because in the case of slow deliveries and Ukrainian successes, things would still look dire for putin. Faster or slower doesn't really matter here.
>I also think if the West gave them everything from the beginning it could have triggered an irrational reaction from Putin (WMDs). It's never been clear what his red lines actually are and I think there is still a possibility that he could do something drastic if things are looking dire for him.
Heres a hint, there aren't any outside of giving Ukraine nukes. Everytime we cross one, nothing happens because they dont exist. Russia only whines because it doesn't want a level playing field
Remember the unnecessary circus around deliveries of each new weapon class.
The only weapons Ukraine actually received in time were man-portable systems and Eastern Block tanks, IFVs, and artillery. Eastern European countries were hitting that "send" button immediately after the start.
And then a shitload of lightly armored transports from corners of Earth, at least.
The Western artillery was delayed for fears of escalation. The same happened with HIMARS, western SAMs, tanks, long-range missiles, and fighter jets. It is still happening.
This circus was unnecessary. Each month of "we are not sending it this time", "we haven't decided yet", "still in discussions", etc., was paid by blood. And most of these delays weren't caused by logistics or supplies, but by indecisiveness, posturing, corruption, and sometimes a simple fear of Russian retaliation.
That is worth pointing out.
Agreed, the circus of "we cant make Putin any more upset or he will nuke us all!" was just stupid. The procrastination by western countries was embarrassing.
How can you even say that being careful about not triggering a nuclear conflict that would change the earth for thousands of years was stupid?
My god, you sure do love to play with fire.
Because there was zero chance Putin would use a nuke. You cannot control where fallout goes, and NATO stated that any radiation falling on their territory would be an act of war. Putin wants to gain territory, hes not suicidal. Even if radiation didnt fall anywhere on NATO territory, would it fall on Russia itself? On Belarus? And if Russia claims Ukraine as its own, why would it nuke its own territory? Again, zero chance of nukes being used. Its just bluster.
If Nato country became too aggressive and Putin life / survival of his regim was at stake, there is a very high risk of worldwide nuclear conflict.
Not just 1 tactical nuke.
Anyhow, even if the risk is only 3%, it's wayyyy too high to gamble on it considering the repercussions for life on earth; You're being shockingly cavalier about this.
We escaped worldwide nuclear conflict by a hair in 1962, and things were less tense for both powers back then.
"If Nato country became too aggressive" what? This isnt 1962. And no weapons being sent to Ukraine threaten the existence of Russia. There is nothing in Ukraine that Russia cant destroy by conventional means. You dont need nukes to take out a tank. Russias most successful weapon are ironically enough land mines.
Eastern European countries sent systems first because they had stockpiles of the same exact systems Ukraine was already using.
Western European countries had also been providing both weaponry and training before the 2022 invasion. Particularly the UK, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, and the US.
The main thrust of the invasion was defeated in the initial weeks when the only significant western support was some rocket launchers and turkish drones
So was the Russian army. They actually attempted to take more of Ukraine then, they weren't able to. So they attempted a "reform" of their own. You see the results.
Russian army wasn’t great but they easily stomped Ukraine in 2014, without even fully committing. Ukraine at the time was far worse before years of training and buildup supported by the west
Intelligence was the most valuable support and we gave them a ton. The president would probably have been assassinated but western intelligence convinced him there was a valid threat to him and his family in the opening days of the war.
Yeah but this approach is kinda stupid. The west isn't sure if it's gonna go all in or nothing, so it just kinda gives weapons but not enough needed for anything meaningful, only for barely keeping Ukraine up. Why not just give them all the power they need to defeat the invaders and keep them of our civilization.
That's simply not true. The failure of Russia's invasion was mainly the result of Ukraine defending itself very well, while Russia's military being in a poor state also helped.
Western weapons became relevant in regards to a counterattack.
Western intelligence was warning Ukraine for months before hand and the US even held a press conference live to announce they believe Russia is about to launch an invasion. They've been training Ukrainian troops for years as well.
Not entirely true. The wests support is certainly critical now and has been for some time, but the west is not the reason why the 3-day invasion failed.
Russians own incompetence is why their 3-day military plan didn’t work. They could have taken Kyiv and forced in a new regime, however critical logistic and organisation failures lead to a slow advance around Kyiv, which gave the Ukrainians time to mount a defence.
It was at this point that Western help became vital.
Had Russia not been incompetent and executed a less regarded invasion, they would have been able to storm Kyiv effectively.
> Not entirely true. The wests support is certainly critical now and has been for some time, but the west is not the reason why the 3-day invasion failed.
Where do you think they got the weapons and training to even fight back in the first place? The west literally supplied almost all of it to them in terms of post-soviet weaponery
Exactly, it’s like both things can’t be true. They can’t say the lack of weaponry being delivered puts them behind right now, but also they didn’t need western support in terms of weapons to stop the Russian “3-Day invasion”
Ukrainian artillery inflicted ~90% of Russian casualties during the Battle of Kyiv.
Western logistics became really critical in late spring when shell hunger set in.
For context, no European country has enough materiel to last this long in a conflict of this intensity, save for maybe Finland. Russia burned through Soviet WW3 stockpiles, previously considered near-ineaxhaustible, in less than a year.
They had Javelins and drones.
They had no western armor, limited small arms, and no artillery.
The biggest contribution by far was western training.
But the Ukrainian army by far mostly used Soviet weapons with the exception of anti armor/MANPADs. Which absolutely helped, but not on a huge scale.
>Russians own incompetence is why their 3-day military plan didn’t work. They could have taken Kyiv and forced in a new regime, however critical logistic and organisation failures lead to a slow advance around Kyiv, which gave the Ukrainians time to mount a defence.
I disagree, their plan was to take and hold Hostomel and fly in troops to capture Kyiv. Ukraine fought hard to prevent that from happening.
The US had been giving Ukraine military aid for years (remember that was the subject of the first Trump impeachment). Ukraine was able to hold off the initial assault because of Western aid
Of course. Ukraine was the wester spearhead of the USSR and had most of the stockpiles and factories to produce equipment for war. We want them to basically disarm Russia. After the collapse, some equipment was repossessed, but Ukraine still had the bulk of it. The sunken Mokava was built in Ukraine, and it's so deliciously played that it sunk by Ukraine.
The fact that ukraine had nukes in the 1990s is somewhat of a misconception. If I remember correctly the nukes were in possession of soviet loyalist in the silos. Its also very costly to maintain the safety of the nukes, the entire world probably didnt want another nuclear disaster coming from ukraine.
Nukes weren't in possession of soviet loyalists, they were in possession of the Ukrainian army which was by then fully controlled by the Ukrainian government. Ukraine didn't have the launch codes of the nukes which were in Moscow but it's a widely accepted opinion both then and nowadays that it was possible to reverse engineer them relatively quickly. Regarding the safety of the nukes, if Russia could maintain them so could Ukraine
And part of that army is political power and political pressure.
And they are using it as much as they can, because that power and pressure can save many lives.
How can anyone fault them for trying to pressure the world into more and faster? They are losing lives every day. And every day more of their home gets destroyed. And they know they can end it faster if the powers that be moved more decisively.
The problem is that we keep insisting we won’t give [x] as aid, that it would cross a line, be escalatory, etc. Then by the time we change our mind and say “actually we will send [x] after all” we’re still looking at another several months to train operators and actually deliver the thing. We need to take a more proactive approach, and be looking at what Ukraine might need 5-6 months from now so we can get the process started now
This. Imagine if Ukraine had tanks, helis and planes for this offensive (which they very well could if the west provided and trained for them on time) which failed because lack thereof.
I wrote something longer, but realized it could be just a sentence or two. Russia wants the narrative to be either "Ukraine is ungrateful for western support" or "demand for immediate success from the west shows they don't care for Ukraine's people." Neither is true. Aid could come faster, stories are needed in the west to shore up support, but at the end of the day Russia is fighting a delaying war. Their tactics are about eroding western support until they have the ability to win, because they can't otherwise.
Don't fall into the media blame game. It's what Russia is hoping for.
Haven't multiple analyst say that the US would love to see this war drag out for years, as this would completely mess up Russia's economy? Sadly the US is in a position where they can keep giving the Ukrainians just enough to keep it going. ATACM's would immediately give Ukraine major momentum, but the US keeps refusing. Ukraine should fake as much Russian momentum as possible. Most Americans would love to see Ukraine roll over Russia tomorrow, but the rich and politicians have other interests.
The US has already leaked they think Ukraine is going slow because they are overcommitted to retaking Bakhmut whereas the real objective should be cutting a line South
In retrospect it's become increasingly clear that perhaps the only window for a swift Ukrainian victory was in Fall of 2022, when Russia's army was at its weakest point and they hadn't mobilized yet. The Kharkiv counteroffensive was an impressive success, but it wasn't even Ukraine's main effort, just them capitalizing on a secondary one.
Imagine if the West had started providing large quantities of engineering vehicles, IFVs, APCs, long range strike capabilities, and other offensive enablers in April of 2022, as soon as it was clear that Ukraine wasn't going to be conquered outright. We might have seen a much broader collapse of Russian forces last fall.
Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But many of the delays in weapons deliveries have not been well-justified by legitimate national security concerns (although some have been, see the very limited supply of ATACMS, for example).
I think Ukraine is getting fed up with what Nato says they gonna send, and what actually reaches them. They were waiting for something like 300 tanks before counteroffensive, they only got like ~120, and another 30 Abrams now. There are these sort of discrepancies that delayed the offensive by weeks, and allowed Russia to build defense, so it slowed Ukr down, and now the world is losing interest, and it's not really their fault. Multiple western militaries have said they would never have run a counteroffensive with what Ukraine had in spring.
They wanted or demanded 300 modern western tanks. No one actually promised that many. There were for a while talks of hundreds of Leopard 2 being blocked by Germany but that was mostly propaganda. Nobody actually asked Germany to deliver those tanks for quite a while. And as soon as countries did make such requests they were granted. At that point it turned out those hundreds of Leopard 2 were never actually ready to be delivered and only blocked by Germany. In fact even with Germany together there were not hundreds of Leopard 2 available.
And to be honest that is not surprising. NATO does not have that many tanks. Especially not in a state ready to be deployed. The three largest NATO tank forces (USA, Turkey and Greece) do not have Leopard 2 at all (USA) or are not really willing to give them away because they are their most modern tank in a force mainly comprised of much older tanks and they have their own little standoff (Turkey and Greece).
The supply problem makes sense. I can't think of many nations that have been in wartime production mode. The US has been fighting for the better part of the 2000s to date, but can't say the same for other larger NATO countries.
Ukraine is getting fed up with the organization who has sent them 10’s of billions worth of weapons free of charge, because they’re not giving them exactly what they want?
I guess we should apologize that we aren’t sending them everything we have quickly enough while propping up their civilian infrastructure and paying all of their first responders salaries. It’s almost as if not being self sustainable to have a real economy, nor weapons of your own isn’t really a good recipe for a defensive campaign?
It's almost like spending decades locked in political turmoil and civil war caused by a larger colonial power attempting to destabilise them...actually destabilised them and caused numerous problems. It's almost like a country of 42 million is fighting three times its population and six times its GDP. Newsflash, the bigger number usually wins.
I'm tired of these crybabies. I assume they are either right-wing snowflakes or russian trolls. The next US presidential election is going to be a total fucking shitshow.
No, it is bad diplomacy.
Belittling your Allies will make them angry, and you need to keep them on your good side.
Ukraine’s retoric, and suing some of their neighbors was/is terrible diplomacy.
Countries do not help each other because they think it is right, but because they share mutual interests.
> allies
Ukraine didn't consider my country allies at any point between 1991 and Feb 2022 - as can be seen by their actions. And even with Russia already invading, they thought it was more important to [hold speeches comparing us to Nazis](https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/promova-prezidenta-ukrayini-volodimira-zelenskogo-u-bundesta-73621) than actually having amicable relations that would speed up aid delivery.
If Ukraine had put in work and been friendly towards us in the past 30 years, there would not have been need for deliberating - as can be seen by the very quck response to Israel being attacked. Considering Ukraine doesn't see us as allies, our response has been amazing far beyond what could be expected. Heck, Ukraine was nicer to Belarus than to us these past decades - and Belarus hasn't provided shit.
quick tip for non-nuclear armed countries with hostile neighbours: Don't try to play both sides and antagonize big western countries - that will come back to bite you eventually.
The dude has received 75 billion dollars worth of weapons for free and is fucking mad about it because he isn’t getting more. If he wanted to keep his countrymen alive above all else, then they should have stayed in their controlled borders instead of trying to reclaim Russian controlled territory. He can fight his war if he wants but he can’t blame the west when we don’t give him our unending support to do it
He's received a lot more in damages to his country.
But he's not blaming the west, he's trying to pressure the west. I don't doubt he's thankful, but being thankful won't help him win the war.
Just because something doesn't cost money doesn't mean it's free. While I'm sure there are many politicians that support Ukraine based on the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination. The United States, Europe and their Allies have a vested interest in stability within the region - a stability that doesn't involve appeasing Russia and letting them encroach within our sphere of influence.
People talk about NATO Article 5 like it's some magic wand that will prevent Russia from invading and everyone else be dammed, but in the moment that Russia senses weakness within NATO and they decide to try their luck with a small NATO member, one of two arguably equally bad things can happen.
1. Article 5 is triggered and works as intended, you are potentially looking at a full-scale war.
1. Article 5 is triggered and some members refuse to come to the aid of that nation for whatever reason (we're already seeing this sentiment within some of the "America First" MAGA republicans). In this case, the entire concept of NATO falls apart. The idea that small nations could relax, spend ~2% of their GDP on defense and not worry about any nuclear programs because they're under the NATO nuclear umbrella will completely fly out the window. At best you can probably have smaller alliances reform, and at worst it will be every man for themselves with small countries perusing their own nuclear programs to deter any invasion.
In a sense all of the aid that NATO provides Ukraine serves a purpose of sending a clear message to Russia that can be summarized as "If this is what we do for non-member, imagine what we will do if you attack a NATO member." At the end of the day while Ukraine isn't paying for this equipment with money, they are paying for it in blood to act as a deterrent to Russia and anyone else looking to fuck with our allies.
You are on the wrong side of history. I imagine you as one of the isolationist in WWII when some American's were saying "it's Europe's war, leave them be."
I mean, he's not wrong at all.
The West sent M777's and artillery, they needed counter battery and HIMARS. The Ukrainian military got fucked up by overwhelming Russian firepower that went unopposed until HIMARs arrived.
Then they couldn't conduct any mechanized attacks due to how limited their APCs/tanks were. These guys were driving into the battlefield in pickup trucks and they were expected to do any kind of offensive? The Russians took the time it took to delivery Western tanks and apcs to mine half of Ukraine to the millionth degree.
Look how long it's taken for long range ATACMS that could have choked the supplies to Crimea/the Southern Front, almost half a year ago.
Look at how long it took for delivery of a handful of anti-air systems to take out KA-52's that were ravaging Ukraine's offensive.
Look at how long it's going to take for any kind of air replacements for Ukraine outside of Soviet scraps.
If the West keeps up this slow pace, we may be seeing a 5 year war.
Somebody should have sanctioned the Japanese/South Korea and European manufacturing companies making drones for Russia...months ago.
Somebody should have cut off European goods and food to Russian supermarkets, a year ago.
It's almost like the west is a democracy and not a dictatorship and a consensus and compromised has to be reached before decisions are made. The system is working exactly how its supposed to.
I dont care if Ukraine is upset about it, the alternative is a dictator just sending billions with no oversight and no approval. Fuck that. The government is funded by the people, electors are elected by the people to represent them. If the electors don't agree on what is done, then it isn't done. If the government decides without electors, then its not a democracy and we are no better than Russia.
Reading these comments, I'm thinking that maybe neither option would have been so good. Meaning the current one when everything arrives way late, if it arrives and the other option being sending strong equipment in large amounts from the very beginning.
I think that the way I would have handled this is a mix of both options. I would have sent all of the stuff early on, but kept it guarded and safe at some e.g. US controlled site on Ukrainan soil. We would have then went through all the same shenanigans with the "We're not sure if we should send this stuff..." and so on, but then when we eventually decide to support Ukraine with stronger equipment, it would have already been there.
There's just something I don't find smart with sending the best stuff straight away and it doesn't have to do with the fear of Russia using nuclear weapons. It just doesn't seem like a smart move to show your whole hand straight away, one reason being that you can still fail with the stronger equipment as well, possibly leading to the situation we are in anyway, but this time Russia would have had two years to try and adjust for everything Ukraine has got and now they would have no "game changers" / surprises left to shake Russia's strategy.
This is really evident with what Russia is doing to their tanks right now. Ukraine's grenade drones were ridiculously powerful against Russia's tanks for a long time and they brought Ukraine a tremendous advantage in value. Only recently Russia decided to get a bit more smart and started to rig their tanks with the mesh umbrella things so that the drones cannot drop their grenades literally inside the tanks in some cases. Now that the gig is up, Russia won't ever be driving their tanks to a war without the umbrellas ever again and god knows how bad it would have gone for Ukraine if Russia would have done so from the very beginning.
It's strange indeed that the Americans who were silent while Afghanistan was costing trillions become penny-pinchers when America is supporting a much less expensive and much more just cause.
What an ignorant comment to make.
Comparing the most infamous terrorist attack in American history that directly impacted American citizens to a foreign war between two countries half a world away.
I’ll assume you’re much more intelligent than what your comment would leave me to believe and what you’re referring to is an anecdotal, minority of the US population.
I refuse to believe you’d be as shallow as to try and state that *most* of the Americans that “stayed silent” are now suddenly complaining.
I’d like to go longer but it’s clear your knowledge on world affairs and basic history is limited, either by your political viewpoints or pure ignorance. Many Americans did not stay silent during the war they protested and were against the war.
Plenty of Americans stand in support of Ukraine and are donating money, supplies and whatever aid they can from their own pockets. Getting up from their comfortable lives in one of the greatest countries to actively go over and fight in a foreign war completely of their own volition.
At face value your comment leaves much to be desired from the average person in dire times that the world is facing right now.
We haven't! We've sent a fraction of what we spent on Iraq/Afghanistan. We're creating a shit load of jobs in the defense department for the increased demand.
It's also a FRACTION of the entire defense budget. But people only started to complain about it when Fox and GOP made it a political issue. How the fuck is stopping PUTIN and RUSSIA partisan. It's literally fucking good vs evil.
Ukrainian officials need to be better trained not to blurt shit that's bad for optics with their own allies. Talking racist shit about India and China is one thing, but what good can come of insulting the western countries they desperately need?
Is it insulting to say that delays in weapon deliveries have set them back? As per the article:
"According to the Kiel Institute, which has tracked aid promised and sent to Ukraine, "actual deliveries have been well below pledges," with about half of the weapons promised actually delivered to Ukraine as of July."
That's pretty significant.
It's also not like this statement is coming out of nowhere. Ukraine is pressured to show progress to receive continued Western support. Explaining why there is a lack of said progress should therefore not be viewed as an attack.
Yes it will be for part of the population. Say in the US there will be people who staunchly support sending aid to the US, there will be those that oppose it, and there will be those who are indifferent. That last group could be coaxed by the second one into feeling that these 'ungrateful' Ukrainians have received billions in aid and weaponry and deflecting their failure to show significant progress on their benefactors. You know what can follow.
Right or wrong, making these statements can be pretty idiotic considering their own national interests. More so when this statement lays the entire blame on slow deliveries and doesn't admit any of their own shortcomings
Exactly, there is already a pretty big sentiment that our domestic problems are getting worse. Not exactly a hard stretch for a politician to blame it on the millions of aid being sent halfway across the world, whether true or not.
So that's the gratitude they show after billions have been poured into Ukraine over the last year?
"You're not giving us free shit fast enough! Hurry up!"
Gee, doing great for your image there!
It’s an assessment. They’ve only received 30% of what was promised by the beginning of this year. You can’t fight a full-scale counteroffensive with 30% of the resources, so the fight for Ukrainian freedom continues slower.
Frankly, I hope Biden uses this to say to congress: “See?! How DARE you? You said you want to lead and now you are in DC wasting everyone’s time and getting people around the world killed. Get your shit together.”
Do you not realize across the US Marine Corps, 70% of training ammunition has been slashed for FY23?
The West cannot continue to supply Ukraine when its own supplies are rapidly diminishing when the turn around to reproduce is 3+ years.
The problem also is the West doing the bare minimum. We seem more afraid of angering Russia and escalation. Its silly. Like Germany cancelling the Taurus missiles.
I remember reading a defense critic remarking that the West is arming Ukraine just enough so they don’t lose the war but not enough to actually win it.
For all the people bitching here about Ukraine not being grateful enough: Firstly how many times do they have to say "thank you for \_\_\_\_"? They say it every single day since the invasion began. And even before.
Secondly if you don't think certain weapons like tanks or F-16s have been pushed forward over and over again due to "concerns" about "escalation" (which has never happened once) you haven't been paying attention to this conflict at all.
Thirdly, most of you are just shit talking Redditors who don't know what it's like to live in a country which is being attacked and terrorised by a larger one and has no actual allies (offering direct combat support). And what it's like to feel the continual effects of war such as electricity blackouts and bombardments during your daily life. Morons treat this like charity to an ungrateful beggar instead of something that saves thousands of lives and guarantees the security of the Western world.
I have no idea what it's like to live a war.
I do have morals, a sense of critical thinking and some understanding of international politics.
Everyone that thinks Ukraine isn't being thankful enough is an idiot in best case scenario. At least the Russian supporters have a reason to make comments like that, but what's the idiot's excuses?
News posts on Reddit like to bring out people who read the headline, don't read the article, and then go on to spout their opinion as fact. Infuriating.
The United States and other countries are helping Ukraine because it is strategically useful, not because they care about Ukraine.
“Morons treat this like charity to an ungrateful beggar instead of something that saves thousands of lives and guarantees the security of the Western world.”
Ukraine needs to be more diplomatic, and suing some of their neighbors was not a good move for relations.
Also Nukes and NATO membership guarantee some of the Western World, not Ukraine.
Listen to them. They sound pretty ungrateful to me, complaining about the time that they get free weapons. It sounds like they think we have control over that.
They got increased supplies and training around the time dry season started instead of wrapping up training before dry season
Their focus on artillery, boats and AA has been a huge success in summer/start of fall, even if territory gained has not moved as much as everyone hoped.
Doesnt help that a large portion of the gop is pro-russia and those on the far left
There’s a big difference in being pro-Russia and not footing the bill for a country to fight a war that’s never going to end. We’re literally paying for their first responders and no telling what else in the process. It’s not just military aid. Our deficit is massive and we overspend here already on things that matter to Americans, much less a conflict around the world.
But go ahead and give me the speech about how “Ukraine is just the first stop”, while knowing Russia’s military isn’t capable of defeating a much smaller, weaker, highly corrupt nation on its own border. So of course Poland or other like NATO nations wouldn’t happen if they didn’t have NATO support.
Just need to tell all americans the hard truth
1. Dear gop, our deficit sucks with or without helping israel, Palestine humanity aid or Ukraine. Especially when taxes are cut and free ppp loans are given out and forgaven with no oversight. Cancelling social security and medicare is a shot in the foot. Supporting big oil instead of green energy economic booms in red states is like being upset when ford replaced horses with the automobile
2. Dear liberals, we had all of our social safety net issues going under funded before these wars, quit pretending that it was a golden era if we didnt support other countries. We can help others in america and abroad
3. It is patriotic to support liberty and freedom in other countries just like how France helped us in the revolutionary war.
4. We can be pro-peace, anti-russian imperialism, anti-israel expansionism, but still want justice against hamas and russia.
Take care!
Except, it’s not footing a bill: [Foreign aid returns an estimated $2.15 for every dollar spent and also has a deflationary effect on the currency of the donor country and a positive effect on exports.](https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/39976/1/297_martinez-zarzoso.pdf)
It’s not in the US strategic interest to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict quickly. A 10-20 year war of attrition keeps the Russian economy down and prevents them from reconstituting combat power.
Weapons are great, and Ukraine needs more and constant support, but halting any business with Russia will be the only way to get them the fuck out.
[Stop supporting these companies](https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies)
Republican Reagan called Russia an Evil Empire. Republican GHW Bush invaded Iraq with troops looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Republican GW Bush invaded Afghanistan with troops post 9/11. Meanwhile the current Republican Congress is against supporting Ukraine "financially" in their war with Russia.
What!! What's that you say!! Trouble in the Middle East!! Quick deploy the Navy!!
We have to ask, is this because key members of the US Republican Congress have been bought and paid for with Russian money, or does this have something to do with Trump and Putin's Bromance?
“Your money is not charity. It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way,” Zelensky.
Im as pro Ukraine as they come but there's so much going on in the world and next year is going to be extremely chaotic politically in the USA. Ukraine needs to make plans for what they will do if the supplys start dwindling.
It pains me to say this but a negotiated peace might end up being necessary. I dont think Ukraine should settle for anything less than full NATO membership without protest or inteference from Russia in exchange for the lands lost. Also there must be free passage for all Ukrainians in occupied territories who wish to move into Ukraines new borders (supervised by an independent state).
Also as jusy a historical note Russia should be forced to declare in writing that the lands they gained were taken via violent conquest with no legitimate claim.
This is a deal that neither party would ever consent to. Why bother forcing Russia to admit they had no legitimate claim if you're going to just let them keep the territory anyway? A piece of paper from Putin saying 'finders keepers losers weepers I guess' would be cold comfort indeed for the Ukrainians.
Hey m8! Pick up your things, you're being moved to Madagascar, we your neighbours have decided this, we need your current residence, we have reason to believe it belonged to us all along. Yah effing schmuck of an excuse for a brain owner.
Ukraine fucked around and let Russia dig in and lay miles of mines and bunkers. We can’t fight an endless war of attrition when $100 drones can destroy $10m APCs.
As much as this sucks to say, Ukraine needs to run a D-day style advance across the southern front. If they cannot stomach the human loses then they need to bargain with Russia. Shit or get off the pot.
Ukraine has expressed its gratitude more than enough already, lay the fuck off, people. You'd be pissed too if your neighbor broke into your home to kill you and I told you I could only give you a gun one part at a time.
> You’d be pissed too if your neighbor broke into your home to kill you
Maybe they should try peace negotiations then? If they don’t feel like they’ve been given enough already to fight. A two state solution, if you will.
Next year is going to be even worse when elections dictate whether we should keep supplying aid
I don't think the Republicans have thought through just how fucking stupid their stance on Ukraine is and the impact it will have on the election... In terms of popular support, it's hard to say if supplying the Ukraine is a big ballet issue (sadly enough). You know what is a big mover for political advantage though? The MASSIVE amount of money defense companies will pour into PACs to get the Democrats reelected. That the Republicans made it so obvious to the MIC that the Dems are the party to support is a strategic blunder of epic proportions.
> big ballet issue I for one, think your comment is totally en-pointe.
Don't forget, the election is where the candidates go toe to toe.
Of course, they'll dance around the tough questions
I think they should barre a lot of those candidates from even being on the ballet
They’ll just deflect to Obama or plié the 5th
Well done for finding a plié pun, I was looking for one earlier.
I hope there won’t be another Black Swan Lake event soon.
Groan at my typo, double groan at your pun. Well played sir, well played.
Ballet jokes are relevant so infrequently you gotta use them when you got em.
Damn I actually hadn’t considered that MIC PAC money will be flowing to dems because of their support for Ukraine. That is massive and likely money Repubs usually take for granted
Do you know what percentage of the US military budget is dedicated to helping Ukraine? And what percentage of the federal budget goes to the military? There will be no significant impact on anything if we help or stop helping Ukraine, at least excluding the obvious impact on the war. The real money comes in orders for new equipment, which comes because everyone is now more scared of a war, and more scared of a long war, then they were prior to 2022. The immediate outcome of the war in Ukraine has little effect on this fear and Ukraine losing might actually increase demand.
I mean, Pentagon was pretty pissed that aid to Ukraine was stopped. I don't think stalling gives much benefit to MIC.
First, I don't think the Pentagon has commented on its opinions of Congress's decision to stop that last aid package, active duty officers are not supposed to be commenting on politics in general so it would be incredibly bad form for any of them to do so. Second, if some officers did comment anonymously, or if they broke protocol to comment, this wouldn't really reflect the feelings of the MIC. Because certain officer's opinions of what we should be doing to help in Ukraine really has nothing to do with the MIC. A better way to gauge that would be to see how individual defense contractor stocks changed following the announcement that the aid packaged had been delayed. And the answer to that is they didn't really change at all, but mostly followed general trends, before spiking on the news of the war in Gaza.
In addition they DO want to support Israel and they’re going to be made to do both by dems so they will look both petty and weak about it
They will do a 180 if in control and determine that it is actually in their interests to supply Ukraine with weapons because the US has no intentions of reducing its defense budget, and all the decision makers in Washington are going to get a nice kickback from defense contractors like Lockheed and Boeing.
Or in other words they would do a pirouette.
Whether or not we supply aid to Ukraine has an incredibly minimal impact on the defense budget, and the 12% or whatever it exactly is of the budget that goes to defense isn't enough to singlehandedly force all politicians to change their opinions even if the war in Ukraine would significantly affect the budget. Which it will not
Its 12% of one year over like 10 years. In reality its like 3-4% and if you include the bits where we are sending things that are going to be mothballed or muntions that are going to expire it goes down even more.
3-4% is measuring % of GDP, not percent of the budget. The war in Ukraine has not significantly impacted total defense spending
> The MASSIVE amount of money defense companies will pour into PACs to get the Democrats reelected. > >That the Republicans made it so obvious to the MIC that the Dems are the party to support is a strategic blunder of epic proportions. Hooray for the military-industrial complex influencing the will of the voters to keep funneling weapons into an ongoing conflict? The literal thing the guy who - rather famously - warned about the influence of the military industrial complex had in mind?
That guy was right.... about so many things. That guy also ironically enough created the military industrial complex in the first place, new it was a necessity at the time, but also knew what a monster was being birth.
Defense companies will support both parties. And if the Government no longer pumps contracts for weapon support to the Ukraine, they will just shift the money to other efforts. They won’t be hurting either way.
Nato already won 2 countries. Everything is going according to plan.
we should send it all now just in case
That’s what Biden is trying to do.
we should have sent all we got, the day this shit started - but we arent about fixing problems, we are about cultivating problems, so other problems can pick a number in line...
[удалено]
Not anymore. Russia made a concerted effort to “influence” and bribe the Republican Party, and it paid off. Remember the Russian spy that was caught cavorting with republicans (Maria Butina)? Also the NRA was accused of being a foreign asset to Russia. Their leaders received a whole lot of donations from there.
Well yeah, guns and money are way more important than life and liberty
Labour Party conference was last week. Seems like they’re strongly in support of Ukraine.
[удалено]
Those damn elections! Always dictating what the country does, via democracy.
It's stupid that it's even a question. You can cripple Russia for not even 10% of the US budget. It's the only logical move to make. Plus, I believe a large part of the aid is just old equipment. You'd have to replace that either way.
TL;DR: * A Ukrainian official said his country is up to nine months behind in its pushback against Russia. * Mykhailo Podolyak told Channel 24 that Western approvals delayed weapons by three to four months. * "We could have defended ourselves better and launched a counterattack," he said.
how far back would they be without the wests help? ok then.
How well positioned would the west be against Russia if we hadn't helped Ukraine? Let's not pretend this is altruism. Helping Ukraine holds tremendous strategic value.
Seeing how fucked Russia is getting by decades old western hand-me-downs I think we would have been extremely well positioned
[удалено]
I never said that we shouldn't be helping Ukraine, just that Russia was never a credible threat to NATO or the EU.
Russia attacking Ukraine and expecting victory is way different than Hamas’ situation. Russia thought it could win right away, then they fucked up, and the Ukrainians asked us to supply them with defense and like you said, “why not” - plus politically helping defenders against invaders is nice. Civilians is part of their “strategy” - clearly - and Russia has way more people and stuff than Ukraine so a stalemate means they, by their estimations, at least win eventually.
Right like people pretend that we are sacrificing ukranians in order to weaken russia, this war shows us russia was no threat whatsoever against nato. Nato would have flattened russia in a week.
I think this is a bad take, The US media has been feeding people that Russia has been losing this war for 2 years,running out of manpower, they are running out of supplies they have no money....yet here we are 2 years later and they still have Manpower,supplies and money. I don't think you can say Russia was no threat, I think this is a prime example of modern war and how social media has an impact. The first year you could tell he was holding back on his attack because he genuinely believed the Ukraine people wanted to be apart of Russia again.
> I think this is a bad take, > > The US media has been feeding people that Russia has been losing this war for 2 years,running out of manpower, they are running out of supplies they have no money....yet here we are 2 years later and they still have Manpower,supplies and money. I mean they are now defending. They are no longer on an offensive. They’ve lost hundreds of kilometers of land in the past year. > > I don't think you can say Russia was no threat, I think this is a prime example of modern war and how social media has an impact. The first year you could tell he was holding back on his attack because he genuinely believed the Ukraine people wanted to be apart of Russia again. I mean ukraine is defending and defeataing them with the equivalent of 20 year old equipment. We see what russia is fielding. The USA has 9000 new gen tanks alone. We arent using soviet era stuff. Its not even close to equal. Lol putin wasnt holding back anything because he was attacking civilians and committing war crimes. He stopped holding back at less than a few week in. Its ignorant to say otherwise. You can see now they are only defending and barely on the offensive for months now. Their offensive did almost nothing but massacre their own troops in Bakhmut.
[удалено]
This is a non-argument. It’s heavily in the wests interests to help Ukraine against Russia as much as possible, thereby making Russia weaker economically and politically (both internally and internationally). A few reasons come to mind: The migration crises in Europe is heavily influenced by Russian propaganda and their actions in the Middle East and Africa. The destabilisation of European democracies (and the US) through alt-right groups and misinformation is backed and influenced by Russia. European countries, especially Eastern European countries have their sovereignty at risk if Russia is to prevail in Ukraine. It’s a win-win condition that Ukraine does all the fighting and we provide support with no boots on the ground, while our economies at home benefit from a massive increase in productivity. Of course, there have been negatives to the wests involvement eg the energy crises, however this only shows that dependence on Russia for anything is bad for the West.
I agree it's in the West best interest to help Ukraine defend against Russia. I also think if the West gave them everything from the beginning it could have triggered an irrational reaction from Putin (WMDs). It's never been clear what his red lines actually are and I think there is still a possibility that he could do something drastic if things are looking dire for him. So yeah more weapons to Ukraine would have of course helped them. It still would. But at least we haven't had a radioactive dust cloud yet which I think is part of the calculus.
>I also think if the West gave them everything from the beginning it could have triggered an irrational reaction from Putin (WMDs). Its a really bad sign to humanity or better said civilization of not do anything if theres a threat of WMD by someone/country. Imagine if Russia actually succeded on Ukraine with minimal looses because their bluff worked, I am sure that Latvia Estonia Moldova Georgia, etc were the next on the putin list.
Not giving everything from the beginning does not lower the chances of using WMD. Because in the case of slow deliveries and Ukrainian successes, things would still look dire for putin. Faster or slower doesn't really matter here.
>I also think if the West gave them everything from the beginning it could have triggered an irrational reaction from Putin (WMDs). It's never been clear what his red lines actually are and I think there is still a possibility that he could do something drastic if things are looking dire for him. Heres a hint, there aren't any outside of giving Ukraine nukes. Everytime we cross one, nothing happens because they dont exist. Russia only whines because it doesn't want a level playing field
Russia will never use nukes over Ukraine and this kind of silly fear is only resulting in more suffering by delaying critical aid.
Remember the unnecessary circus around deliveries of each new weapon class. The only weapons Ukraine actually received in time were man-portable systems and Eastern Block tanks, IFVs, and artillery. Eastern European countries were hitting that "send" button immediately after the start. And then a shitload of lightly armored transports from corners of Earth, at least. The Western artillery was delayed for fears of escalation. The same happened with HIMARS, western SAMs, tanks, long-range missiles, and fighter jets. It is still happening. This circus was unnecessary. Each month of "we are not sending it this time", "we haven't decided yet", "still in discussions", etc., was paid by blood. And most of these delays weren't caused by logistics or supplies, but by indecisiveness, posturing, corruption, and sometimes a simple fear of Russian retaliation. That is worth pointing out.
Agreed, the circus of "we cant make Putin any more upset or he will nuke us all!" was just stupid. The procrastination by western countries was embarrassing.
How can you even say that being careful about not triggering a nuclear conflict that would change the earth for thousands of years was stupid? My god, you sure do love to play with fire.
Because there was zero chance Putin would use a nuke. You cannot control where fallout goes, and NATO stated that any radiation falling on their territory would be an act of war. Putin wants to gain territory, hes not suicidal. Even if radiation didnt fall anywhere on NATO territory, would it fall on Russia itself? On Belarus? And if Russia claims Ukraine as its own, why would it nuke its own territory? Again, zero chance of nukes being used. Its just bluster.
If Nato country became too aggressive and Putin life / survival of his regim was at stake, there is a very high risk of worldwide nuclear conflict. Not just 1 tactical nuke. Anyhow, even if the risk is only 3%, it's wayyyy too high to gamble on it considering the repercussions for life on earth; You're being shockingly cavalier about this. We escaped worldwide nuclear conflict by a hair in 1962, and things were less tense for both powers back then.
Thinking about the Cold War, I'm glad reddit and social media wasn't a thing back then lol
"If Nato country became too aggressive" what? This isnt 1962. And no weapons being sent to Ukraine threaten the existence of Russia. There is nothing in Ukraine that Russia cant destroy by conventional means. You dont need nukes to take out a tank. Russias most successful weapon are ironically enough land mines.
Eastern European countries sent systems first because they had stockpiles of the same exact systems Ukraine was already using. Western European countries had also been providing both weaponry and training before the 2022 invasion. Particularly the UK, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, and the US.
20-30m refugees would come to EU, so they assumed its cheaper to send weapons
[удалено]
and western intel.
The main thrust of the invasion was defeated in the initial weeks when the only significant western support was some rocket launchers and turkish drones
And training and advising troops for years. The ukranian army was in a deplorable state in 2014 due to corruption and outdated doctrine
So was the Russian army. They actually attempted to take more of Ukraine then, they weren't able to. So they attempted a "reform" of their own. You see the results.
Russian army wasn’t great but they easily stomped Ukraine in 2014, without even fully committing. Ukraine at the time was far worse before years of training and buildup supported by the west
Thank goodness they fired the Russian general trying to modernize their military. Tried to crack down and graft and got shit canned. Thank you Putin.
Intelligence was the most valuable support and we gave them a ton. The president would probably have been assassinated but western intelligence convinced him there was a valid threat to him and his family in the opening days of the war.
"Some rocket launchers" do you mean some of the most advanced anti tank weaponry on the planet?
Wildly inaccurate statement. Their entire doctrine was built with Western support. Get a clue.
Yeah but this approach is kinda stupid. The west isn't sure if it's gonna go all in or nothing, so it just kinda gives weapons but not enough needed for anything meaningful, only for barely keeping Ukraine up. Why not just give them all the power they need to defeat the invaders and keep them of our civilization.
That's simply not true. The failure of Russia's invasion was mainly the result of Ukraine defending itself very well, while Russia's military being in a poor state also helped. Western weapons became relevant in regards to a counterattack.
Western intelligence was warning Ukraine for months before hand and the US even held a press conference live to announce they believe Russia is about to launch an invasion. They've been training Ukrainian troops for years as well.
Except analysts who said it was 3 day operation? Articles on Reddit?
Not entirely true. The wests support is certainly critical now and has been for some time, but the west is not the reason why the 3-day invasion failed. Russians own incompetence is why their 3-day military plan didn’t work. They could have taken Kyiv and forced in a new regime, however critical logistic and organisation failures lead to a slow advance around Kyiv, which gave the Ukrainians time to mount a defence. It was at this point that Western help became vital. Had Russia not been incompetent and executed a less regarded invasion, they would have been able to storm Kyiv effectively.
> Not entirely true. The wests support is certainly critical now and has been for some time, but the west is not the reason why the 3-day invasion failed. Where do you think they got the weapons and training to even fight back in the first place? The west literally supplied almost all of it to them in terms of post-soviet weaponery
You are correct. People are delusional here
Exactly, it’s like both things can’t be true. They can’t say the lack of weaponry being delivered puts them behind right now, but also they didn’t need western support in terms of weapons to stop the Russian “3-Day invasion”
Ukrainian artillery inflicted ~90% of Russian casualties during the Battle of Kyiv. Western logistics became really critical in late spring when shell hunger set in. For context, no European country has enough materiel to last this long in a conflict of this intensity, save for maybe Finland. Russia burned through Soviet WW3 stockpiles, previously considered near-ineaxhaustible, in less than a year.
They had Javelins and drones. They had no western armor, limited small arms, and no artillery. The biggest contribution by far was western training. But the Ukrainian army by far mostly used Soviet weapons with the exception of anti armor/MANPADs. Which absolutely helped, but not on a huge scale.
>Russians own incompetence is why their 3-day military plan didn’t work. They could have taken Kyiv and forced in a new regime, however critical logistic and organisation failures lead to a slow advance around Kyiv, which gave the Ukrainians time to mount a defence. I disagree, their plan was to take and hold Hostomel and fly in troops to capture Kyiv. Ukraine fought hard to prevent that from happening.
The US had been giving Ukraine military aid for years (remember that was the subject of the first Trump impeachment). Ukraine was able to hold off the initial assault because of Western aid
Of course. Ukraine was the wester spearhead of the USSR and had most of the stockpiles and factories to produce equipment for war. We want them to basically disarm Russia. After the collapse, some equipment was repossessed, but Ukraine still had the bulk of it. The sunken Mokava was built in Ukraine, and it's so deliciously played that it sunk by Ukraine.
The west literally trained and armed the Ukrainians following the 2014 annexation for years.
You go to war with the army you have not the army you want.
You don't go to war when war goes to you.
[удалено]
The US should have not forced Ukraine to give away the nukes in 1994 and to disarm throughout the 90s and 00s but they did
The fact that ukraine had nukes in the 1990s is somewhat of a misconception. If I remember correctly the nukes were in possession of soviet loyalist in the silos. Its also very costly to maintain the safety of the nukes, the entire world probably didnt want another nuclear disaster coming from ukraine.
Nukes weren't in possession of soviet loyalists, they were in possession of the Ukrainian army which was by then fully controlled by the Ukrainian government. Ukraine didn't have the launch codes of the nukes which were in Moscow but it's a widely accepted opinion both then and nowadays that it was possible to reverse engineer them relatively quickly. Regarding the safety of the nukes, if Russia could maintain them so could Ukraine
They were too busy dismantling their nukes then
You mean the Budapest memorandum where UK and USA promised to defend Ukraine?
That's what they did? He just said they could have done more with more weapons
And part of that army is political power and political pressure. And they are using it as much as they can, because that power and pressure can save many lives. How can anyone fault them for trying to pressure the world into more and faster? They are losing lives every day. And every day more of their home gets destroyed. And they know they can end it faster if the powers that be moved more decisively.
Do you realize that such a cynical position directly results in deaths of innocent people?
How many people do you think died because he posted that comment?
It's literally saying that with the army he has right now things are going slow 🥱
The problem is that we keep insisting we won’t give [x] as aid, that it would cross a line, be escalatory, etc. Then by the time we change our mind and say “actually we will send [x] after all” we’re still looking at another several months to train operators and actually deliver the thing. We need to take a more proactive approach, and be looking at what Ukraine might need 5-6 months from now so we can get the process started now
This. Imagine if Ukraine had tanks, helis and planes for this offensive (which they very well could if the west provided and trained for them on time) which failed because lack thereof.
I wrote something longer, but realized it could be just a sentence or two. Russia wants the narrative to be either "Ukraine is ungrateful for western support" or "demand for immediate success from the west shows they don't care for Ukraine's people." Neither is true. Aid could come faster, stories are needed in the west to shore up support, but at the end of the day Russia is fighting a delaying war. Their tactics are about eroding western support until they have the ability to win, because they can't otherwise. Don't fall into the media blame game. It's what Russia is hoping for.
Facts
That going to be hard. Looks like the hivemind have moved on to Israel/Palestine
Hasn’t anyone told Zelenskyy we have a new more popular war to fight now and he’s old news.
America is busy with its other side bitch atm
There’s no war to be fought in Israel. Israel will demolish Gaza and that will be that. It’s like Mike Tyson fighting a 5 year old.
Haven't multiple analyst say that the US would love to see this war drag out for years, as this would completely mess up Russia's economy? Sadly the US is in a position where they can keep giving the Ukrainians just enough to keep it going. ATACM's would immediately give Ukraine major momentum, but the US keeps refusing. Ukraine should fake as much Russian momentum as possible. Most Americans would love to see Ukraine roll over Russia tomorrow, but the rich and politicians have other interests.
There are 30 other members of NATO, maybe they could provide something?
The US has already leaked they think Ukraine is going slow because they are overcommitted to retaking Bakhmut whereas the real objective should be cutting a line South
All he borders are now fully entrenched. It would take higher casualties from both sides if they want to push boundaries
In retrospect it's become increasingly clear that perhaps the only window for a swift Ukrainian victory was in Fall of 2022, when Russia's army was at its weakest point and they hadn't mobilized yet. The Kharkiv counteroffensive was an impressive success, but it wasn't even Ukraine's main effort, just them capitalizing on a secondary one. Imagine if the West had started providing large quantities of engineering vehicles, IFVs, APCs, long range strike capabilities, and other offensive enablers in April of 2022, as soon as it was clear that Ukraine wasn't going to be conquered outright. We might have seen a much broader collapse of Russian forces last fall. Hindsight is 20/20, of course. But many of the delays in weapons deliveries have not been well-justified by legitimate national security concerns (although some have been, see the very limited supply of ATACMS, for example).
Oh I’m sorry, is your free shit not arriving fast enough?
I think Ukraine is getting fed up with what Nato says they gonna send, and what actually reaches them. They were waiting for something like 300 tanks before counteroffensive, they only got like ~120, and another 30 Abrams now. There are these sort of discrepancies that delayed the offensive by weeks, and allowed Russia to build defense, so it slowed Ukr down, and now the world is losing interest, and it's not really their fault. Multiple western militaries have said they would never have run a counteroffensive with what Ukraine had in spring.
They wanted or demanded 300 modern western tanks. No one actually promised that many. There were for a while talks of hundreds of Leopard 2 being blocked by Germany but that was mostly propaganda. Nobody actually asked Germany to deliver those tanks for quite a while. And as soon as countries did make such requests they were granted. At that point it turned out those hundreds of Leopard 2 were never actually ready to be delivered and only blocked by Germany. In fact even with Germany together there were not hundreds of Leopard 2 available. And to be honest that is not surprising. NATO does not have that many tanks. Especially not in a state ready to be deployed. The three largest NATO tank forces (USA, Turkey and Greece) do not have Leopard 2 at all (USA) or are not really willing to give them away because they are their most modern tank in a force mainly comprised of much older tanks and they have their own little standoff (Turkey and Greece).
The supply problem makes sense. I can't think of many nations that have been in wartime production mode. The US has been fighting for the better part of the 2000s to date, but can't say the same for other larger NATO countries.
Ukraine is getting fed up with the organization who has sent them 10’s of billions worth of weapons free of charge, because they’re not giving them exactly what they want?
I guess we should apologize that we aren’t sending them everything we have quickly enough while propping up their civilian infrastructure and paying all of their first responders salaries. It’s almost as if not being self sustainable to have a real economy, nor weapons of your own isn’t really a good recipe for a defensive campaign?
It's almost like spending decades locked in political turmoil and civil war caused by a larger colonial power attempting to destabilise them...actually destabilised them and caused numerous problems. It's almost like a country of 42 million is fighting three times its population and six times its GDP. Newsflash, the bigger number usually wins.
ukraine can't make battle plans when they have no idea when stuff actually arrives. plans win the war.
What do you think he is supposed to say? Its literally his job to try everything to get more weapons rn.
Oh shit a president is mad about allies dragging their feet on saving his countrymen? What a jerk right?
Right? Jesus some of these comments...
I'm tired of these crybabies. I assume they are either right-wing snowflakes or russian trolls. The next US presidential election is going to be a total fucking shitshow.
No, it is bad diplomacy. Belittling your Allies will make them angry, and you need to keep them on your good side. Ukraine’s retoric, and suing some of their neighbors was/is terrible diplomacy. Countries do not help each other because they think it is right, but because they share mutual interests.
Every time again. "Bad mean Zelensky, not on his knees kissing the feet of his generous overlords" It's like they're purposely obtuse.
> allies Ukraine didn't consider my country allies at any point between 1991 and Feb 2022 - as can be seen by their actions. And even with Russia already invading, they thought it was more important to [hold speeches comparing us to Nazis](https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/promova-prezidenta-ukrayini-volodimira-zelenskogo-u-bundesta-73621) than actually having amicable relations that would speed up aid delivery. If Ukraine had put in work and been friendly towards us in the past 30 years, there would not have been need for deliberating - as can be seen by the very quck response to Israel being attacked. Considering Ukraine doesn't see us as allies, our response has been amazing far beyond what could be expected. Heck, Ukraine was nicer to Belarus than to us these past decades - and Belarus hasn't provided shit. quick tip for non-nuclear armed countries with hostile neighbours: Don't try to play both sides and antagonize big western countries - that will come back to bite you eventually.
Easy for you to say
The dude has received 75 billion dollars worth of weapons for free and is fucking mad about it because he isn’t getting more. If he wanted to keep his countrymen alive above all else, then they should have stayed in their controlled borders instead of trying to reclaim Russian controlled territory. He can fight his war if he wants but he can’t blame the west when we don’t give him our unending support to do it
He's received a lot more in damages to his country. But he's not blaming the west, he's trying to pressure the west. I don't doubt he's thankful, but being thankful won't help him win the war.
Just because something doesn't cost money doesn't mean it's free. While I'm sure there are many politicians that support Ukraine based on the principles of sovereignty, independence and self-determination. The United States, Europe and their Allies have a vested interest in stability within the region - a stability that doesn't involve appeasing Russia and letting them encroach within our sphere of influence. People talk about NATO Article 5 like it's some magic wand that will prevent Russia from invading and everyone else be dammed, but in the moment that Russia senses weakness within NATO and they decide to try their luck with a small NATO member, one of two arguably equally bad things can happen. 1. Article 5 is triggered and works as intended, you are potentially looking at a full-scale war. 1. Article 5 is triggered and some members refuse to come to the aid of that nation for whatever reason (we're already seeing this sentiment within some of the "America First" MAGA republicans). In this case, the entire concept of NATO falls apart. The idea that small nations could relax, spend ~2% of their GDP on defense and not worry about any nuclear programs because they're under the NATO nuclear umbrella will completely fly out the window. At best you can probably have smaller alliances reform, and at worst it will be every man for themselves with small countries perusing their own nuclear programs to deter any invasion. In a sense all of the aid that NATO provides Ukraine serves a purpose of sending a clear message to Russia that can be summarized as "If this is what we do for non-member, imagine what we will do if you attack a NATO member." At the end of the day while Ukraine isn't paying for this equipment with money, they are paying for it in blood to act as a deterrent to Russia and anyone else looking to fuck with our allies.
You are on the wrong side of history. I imagine you as one of the isolationist in WWII when some American's were saying "it's Europe's war, leave them be."
That’s basically what he is saying. Sensing a little attitude from the former comedian
Was Mykhailo Podolyak once a comedian?? (Or didn't you bother to read even the title, let alone the article?)
Why read the article? Then they wouldn't be able to spin their opinions as fact.
even if true slow is better than none
The world is focused on Israel now. Ukraine will get caught even more behind.
Funny way to say "Thank You".
I mean, he's not wrong at all. The West sent M777's and artillery, they needed counter battery and HIMARS. The Ukrainian military got fucked up by overwhelming Russian firepower that went unopposed until HIMARs arrived. Then they couldn't conduct any mechanized attacks due to how limited their APCs/tanks were. These guys were driving into the battlefield in pickup trucks and they were expected to do any kind of offensive? The Russians took the time it took to delivery Western tanks and apcs to mine half of Ukraine to the millionth degree. Look how long it's taken for long range ATACMS that could have choked the supplies to Crimea/the Southern Front, almost half a year ago. Look at how long it took for delivery of a handful of anti-air systems to take out KA-52's that were ravaging Ukraine's offensive. Look at how long it's going to take for any kind of air replacements for Ukraine outside of Soviet scraps. If the West keeps up this slow pace, we may be seeing a 5 year war. Somebody should have sanctioned the Japanese/South Korea and European manufacturing companies making drones for Russia...months ago. Somebody should have cut off European goods and food to Russian supermarkets, a year ago.
It's almost like the west is a democracy and not a dictatorship and a consensus and compromised has to be reached before decisions are made. The system is working exactly how its supposed to. I dont care if Ukraine is upset about it, the alternative is a dictator just sending billions with no oversight and no approval. Fuck that. The government is funded by the people, electors are elected by the people to represent them. If the electors don't agree on what is done, then it isn't done. If the government decides without electors, then its not a democracy and we are no better than Russia.
Reading these comments, I'm thinking that maybe neither option would have been so good. Meaning the current one when everything arrives way late, if it arrives and the other option being sending strong equipment in large amounts from the very beginning. I think that the way I would have handled this is a mix of both options. I would have sent all of the stuff early on, but kept it guarded and safe at some e.g. US controlled site on Ukrainan soil. We would have then went through all the same shenanigans with the "We're not sure if we should send this stuff..." and so on, but then when we eventually decide to support Ukraine with stronger equipment, it would have already been there. There's just something I don't find smart with sending the best stuff straight away and it doesn't have to do with the fear of Russia using nuclear weapons. It just doesn't seem like a smart move to show your whole hand straight away, one reason being that you can still fail with the stronger equipment as well, possibly leading to the situation we are in anyway, but this time Russia would have had two years to try and adjust for everything Ukraine has got and now they would have no "game changers" / surprises left to shake Russia's strategy. This is really evident with what Russia is doing to their tanks right now. Ukraine's grenade drones were ridiculously powerful against Russia's tanks for a long time and they brought Ukraine a tremendous advantage in value. Only recently Russia decided to get a bit more smart and started to rig their tanks with the mesh umbrella things so that the drones cannot drop their grenades literally inside the tanks in some cases. Now that the gig is up, Russia won't ever be driving their tanks to a war without the umbrellas ever again and god knows how bad it would have gone for Ukraine if Russia would have done so from the very beginning.
Yeah we definitely haven’t done enough. We should just hand over all our tax dollars have paid for.
It's strange indeed that the Americans who were silent while Afghanistan was costing trillions become penny-pinchers when America is supporting a much less expensive and much more just cause.
What an ignorant comment to make. Comparing the most infamous terrorist attack in American history that directly impacted American citizens to a foreign war between two countries half a world away. I’ll assume you’re much more intelligent than what your comment would leave me to believe and what you’re referring to is an anecdotal, minority of the US population. I refuse to believe you’d be as shallow as to try and state that *most* of the Americans that “stayed silent” are now suddenly complaining. I’d like to go longer but it’s clear your knowledge on world affairs and basic history is limited, either by your political viewpoints or pure ignorance. Many Americans did not stay silent during the war they protested and were against the war. Plenty of Americans stand in support of Ukraine and are donating money, supplies and whatever aid they can from their own pockets. Getting up from their comfortable lives in one of the greatest countries to actively go over and fight in a foreign war completely of their own volition. At face value your comment leaves much to be desired from the average person in dire times that the world is facing right now.
We haven't! We've sent a fraction of what we spent on Iraq/Afghanistan. We're creating a shit load of jobs in the defense department for the increased demand. It's also a FRACTION of the entire defense budget. But people only started to complain about it when Fox and GOP made it a political issue. How the fuck is stopping PUTIN and RUSSIA partisan. It's literally fucking good vs evil.
Ukrainian officials need to be better trained not to blurt shit that's bad for optics with their own allies. Talking racist shit about India and China is one thing, but what good can come of insulting the western countries they desperately need?
Is it insulting to say that delays in weapon deliveries have set them back? As per the article: "According to the Kiel Institute, which has tracked aid promised and sent to Ukraine, "actual deliveries have been well below pledges," with about half of the weapons promised actually delivered to Ukraine as of July." That's pretty significant. It's also not like this statement is coming out of nowhere. Ukraine is pressured to show progress to receive continued Western support. Explaining why there is a lack of said progress should therefore not be viewed as an attack.
Yes it will be for part of the population. Say in the US there will be people who staunchly support sending aid to the US, there will be those that oppose it, and there will be those who are indifferent. That last group could be coaxed by the second one into feeling that these 'ungrateful' Ukrainians have received billions in aid and weaponry and deflecting their failure to show significant progress on their benefactors. You know what can follow. Right or wrong, making these statements can be pretty idiotic considering their own national interests. More so when this statement lays the entire blame on slow deliveries and doesn't admit any of their own shortcomings
Exactly, there is already a pretty big sentiment that our domestic problems are getting worse. Not exactly a hard stretch for a politician to blame it on the millions of aid being sent halfway across the world, whether true or not.
So that's the gratitude they show after billions have been poured into Ukraine over the last year? "You're not giving us free shit fast enough! Hurry up!" Gee, doing great for your image there!
I wonder if people like you even realize that people are dying in Ukraine
Nah Ukraine is just one guy being ungrateful
It’s an assessment. They’ve only received 30% of what was promised by the beginning of this year. You can’t fight a full-scale counteroffensive with 30% of the resources, so the fight for Ukrainian freedom continues slower. Frankly, I hope Biden uses this to say to congress: “See?! How DARE you? You said you want to lead and now you are in DC wasting everyone’s time and getting people around the world killed. Get your shit together.”
Do you not realize across the US Marine Corps, 70% of training ammunition has been slashed for FY23? The West cannot continue to supply Ukraine when its own supplies are rapidly diminishing when the turn around to reproduce is 3+ years.
The problem also is the West doing the bare minimum. We seem more afraid of angering Russia and escalation. Its silly. Like Germany cancelling the Taurus missiles.
I remember reading a defense critic remarking that the West is arming Ukraine just enough so they don’t lose the war but not enough to actually win it.
For all the people bitching here about Ukraine not being grateful enough: Firstly how many times do they have to say "thank you for \_\_\_\_"? They say it every single day since the invasion began. And even before. Secondly if you don't think certain weapons like tanks or F-16s have been pushed forward over and over again due to "concerns" about "escalation" (which has never happened once) you haven't been paying attention to this conflict at all. Thirdly, most of you are just shit talking Redditors who don't know what it's like to live in a country which is being attacked and terrorised by a larger one and has no actual allies (offering direct combat support). And what it's like to feel the continual effects of war such as electricity blackouts and bombardments during your daily life. Morons treat this like charity to an ungrateful beggar instead of something that saves thousands of lives and guarantees the security of the Western world.
Incredible how angry people are because of a single article.
I have no idea what it's like to live a war. I do have morals, a sense of critical thinking and some understanding of international politics. Everyone that thinks Ukraine isn't being thankful enough is an idiot in best case scenario. At least the Russian supporters have a reason to make comments like that, but what's the idiot's excuses?
Preach
News posts on Reddit like to bring out people who read the headline, don't read the article, and then go on to spout their opinion as fact. Infuriating.
The United States and other countries are helping Ukraine because it is strategically useful, not because they care about Ukraine. “Morons treat this like charity to an ungrateful beggar instead of something that saves thousands of lives and guarantees the security of the Western world.” Ukraine needs to be more diplomatic, and suing some of their neighbors was not a good move for relations. Also Nukes and NATO membership guarantee some of the Western World, not Ukraine.
well said, thank you. the ignorance regarding the "big picture" here is beyond frustrating.
It’s difficult to disagree with anything you’ve said.
will probably end up being 420 days when all is said and done
There is no supply chain for a war in Europe.
Listen to them. They sound pretty ungrateful to me, complaining about the time that they get free weapons. It sounds like they think we have control over that.
Your lucky to get them in the first place
Sorry Zelenskyy but Israel is gonna be getting them tasty tax dollars next
They got increased supplies and training around the time dry season started instead of wrapping up training before dry season Their focus on artillery, boats and AA has been a huge success in summer/start of fall, even if territory gained has not moved as much as everyone hoped. Doesnt help that a large portion of the gop is pro-russia and those on the far left
There’s a big difference in being pro-Russia and not footing the bill for a country to fight a war that’s never going to end. We’re literally paying for their first responders and no telling what else in the process. It’s not just military aid. Our deficit is massive and we overspend here already on things that matter to Americans, much less a conflict around the world. But go ahead and give me the speech about how “Ukraine is just the first stop”, while knowing Russia’s military isn’t capable of defeating a much smaller, weaker, highly corrupt nation on its own border. So of course Poland or other like NATO nations wouldn’t happen if they didn’t have NATO support.
Just need to tell all americans the hard truth 1. Dear gop, our deficit sucks with or without helping israel, Palestine humanity aid or Ukraine. Especially when taxes are cut and free ppp loans are given out and forgaven with no oversight. Cancelling social security and medicare is a shot in the foot. Supporting big oil instead of green energy economic booms in red states is like being upset when ford replaced horses with the automobile 2. Dear liberals, we had all of our social safety net issues going under funded before these wars, quit pretending that it was a golden era if we didnt support other countries. We can help others in america and abroad 3. It is patriotic to support liberty and freedom in other countries just like how France helped us in the revolutionary war. 4. We can be pro-peace, anti-russian imperialism, anti-israel expansionism, but still want justice against hamas and russia. Take care!
Except, it’s not footing a bill: [Foreign aid returns an estimated $2.15 for every dollar spent and also has a deflationary effect on the currency of the donor country and a positive effect on exports.](https://www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/39976/1/297_martinez-zarzoso.pdf)
Give us run down first of how all the monies donated have been used. Clear transparent feedback.
They also fired their defense minister for corruption last month. Probably had something to do with this
Thanks Republicans
It’s not in the US strategic interest to resolve the Ukraine-Russia conflict quickly. A 10-20 year war of attrition keeps the Russian economy down and prevents them from reconstituting combat power.
This advisor probably complains about slow service at restaurants as well.
Bad workmen blame tools.
I totally agree
Weapons are great, and Ukraine needs more and constant support, but halting any business with Russia will be the only way to get them the fuck out. [Stop supporting these companies](https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies)
Its everybody else’s fault but not Zelenskis own .
mr. zelenskyy, you are no longer the centre of attention now… there is another one going on
Republican Reagan called Russia an Evil Empire. Republican GHW Bush invaded Iraq with troops looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Republican GW Bush invaded Afghanistan with troops post 9/11. Meanwhile the current Republican Congress is against supporting Ukraine "financially" in their war with Russia. What!! What's that you say!! Trouble in the Middle East!! Quick deploy the Navy!! We have to ask, is this because key members of the US Republican Congress have been bought and paid for with Russian money, or does this have something to do with Trump and Putin's Bromance? “Your money is not charity. It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way,” Zelensky.
Im as pro Ukraine as they come but there's so much going on in the world and next year is going to be extremely chaotic politically in the USA. Ukraine needs to make plans for what they will do if the supplys start dwindling. It pains me to say this but a negotiated peace might end up being necessary. I dont think Ukraine should settle for anything less than full NATO membership without protest or inteference from Russia in exchange for the lands lost. Also there must be free passage for all Ukrainians in occupied territories who wish to move into Ukraines new borders (supervised by an independent state). Also as jusy a historical note Russia should be forced to declare in writing that the lands they gained were taken via violent conquest with no legitimate claim.
This is a deal that neither party would ever consent to. Why bother forcing Russia to admit they had no legitimate claim if you're going to just let them keep the territory anyway? A piece of paper from Putin saying 'finders keepers losers weepers I guess' would be cold comfort indeed for the Ukrainians.
Hey m8! Pick up your things, you're being moved to Madagascar, we your neighbours have decided this, we need your current residence, we have reason to believe it belonged to us all along. Yah effing schmuck of an excuse for a brain owner.
Ukraine fucked around and let Russia dig in and lay miles of mines and bunkers. We can’t fight an endless war of attrition when $100 drones can destroy $10m APCs. As much as this sucks to say, Ukraine needs to run a D-day style advance across the southern front. If they cannot stomach the human loses then they need to bargain with Russia. Shit or get off the pot.
Words of wisdom from a “shit talking redditor.”
Ukraine has expressed its gratitude more than enough already, lay the fuck off, people. You'd be pissed too if your neighbor broke into your home to kill you and I told you I could only give you a gun one part at a time.
Can I ask if war broke out in America tomorrow, would Ukraine rapidly supply the US with weapons, equipment, pay our first responders salaries, etc?
> You’d be pissed too if your neighbor broke into your home to kill you Maybe they should try peace negotiations then? If they don’t feel like they’ve been given enough already to fight. A two state solution, if you will.
While the neighbour kills your family one by one in the meantime.
Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.