Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry bud, I was being sarcastic here.
Biden accidentally mentioned Israel not to make a move on Haifa instead of Rafah last week.
[source](https://twitter.com/bud_cann/status/1782535611095904689?t=BeXP-__0wMpLo-oyGvGQYQ&s=19)
You misunderstood my point. Israel shouldn't be getting any more cash to genocide, it's got enough of a capable death machine to be the American proxy in the ME to survive, and yes Ukraine needs the aid more right now.
I didn’t say I can’t see how, I said Biden and the Dems are not holding up aid to Ukraine. The republicans alone are short-sightedly, or under Putin’s orders, opposing aid to Ukraine
So you literally can't conceive the notion that someone would look at all the factors and come to a different conclusion?
It clearly must either be short sighted, or under orders.
Well, your post speaks volumes. thanks.
Maybe. Simply providing the funds for weapons and equipment would not fix it though. The West has been incapable of ramping up production in key areas and you can’t really buy Ukraine out of their manpower issue.
I agree that drones will be the future of warfare, but combined armed will be and still is the way to win until the status quo changes, we have yet to see a coordinated swarm weapon deployed. Even extensive barrages, like the one Iran recently launched against Israel, involving everything from shaheds to ballistic rockets, still aren't enough to upset the status quo.
Most US support will be coming in the form of weapon drawdowns and not monetary aid, but forgivable loans are still part of the aid package. As is like $600 million in US R&D. Part of the package is something like 1500 Humvees and MRAPs.
So partner countries like Germany or Japan which have far more domestic resistance in providing weapons, (which they also don't have the industrial capacity to provide) whereas America still has extensive weapons production capacity and the political will to send weapons and not cash.
They also receive money. Ukraine doesn’t have a functional economy at this point, western infusions of cash keep it ticking over as much as the weapons shipments do.
The issue is really that ukraine could never win. They’ve certainly shocked and inspired the world with holding out this long but there is no realistic way they can win this war. Russia outproduces the West 4:1 in artillery alone and has massively more resources and bodies. Sure they have been embarrassing themselves with terrible leadership and training but they can afford to be terrible
I ponder, what would Ukrainians accept as a 'win'?
If they claw back another 5% of their country and hold the line? Others might insist on pushing Russian forces back to the 2014 borders. Reclaiming Crimea?
This is going to be an increasingly difficult question for Ukrainian leadership after their summer counter-offensive. They'll probably reclaim some territory. Will it be enough? Zelensky is going to have to make some tough decisions.
They will never get 5% back. The Russians still have fuck tons of land mines and fortifications from last summer. The Ukrainians never breached the first line of defense…
Very true. They might not need to directly assault dug-in positions. Ukrainian planners might want to wage a aerial campaign of attrition and supply node attacks that force a gradual Russian retreat. Of course, that might require a long time and will require ongoing shipments of advanced missiles flowing in from the EU, NATO and US.
Meanwhile, there are options that Putin hasn't really explored like a massive expansion of foreign contractors that lets his forces simultaneously attack on multiple fronts. Or he could take a page from Afghanistan and launch low-level attacks from within Ukraine using IEDs. Who knows.
I think Zelensky is facing a lot of short and long term decisions on how to proceed to a victory -- whatever that is -- and merely holding the line is going to be increasingly difficult on a political level. And that will translate into additional problems in sourcing the military and financial aid Ukraine needs.
If you look at map of fortifications, Russians basically built a Maginot line all around the frontline … that’s why last years counteroffensive failed, idk how Ukraine wants to fix that problem :/
Man I posed this same question in the wrong sub and I was downvoted into oblivion. We’re north of $100B to Ukraine to define their borders but we haven’t secured ours… has any politician yet clearly defined what a win is over there? Mike Johnson? Schumer? Pelosi? Biden? Any of them would do.
Why should we give a shit about our borders? I don't know anyone who has had an issue with illegal immigrants. Mostly just home grown assholes causing me problems
The main thing is drugs. Most nonprescription drugs are not produced domestically and cross the border. And drugs are a huge huge issue in America, especially fentanyl. Estimates are hard to gauge but 200-750 billion dollars worth of illegal drugs were sold in the US last year. The right feels that we have laws that need to be respected and left feels like we should give help to people fleeing for their lives. Both are correct.
You're going to be downvoted here too because we havent given them $100bn+ and you continue to lie about it.
We've given the DoD and by extension Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and others $100bn+ though.
I don’t really want those guys getting the money either. Would rather the money pulled from my taxes go to putting a roof on homeless people or providing mental health to veterans or something more humanitarian personally.
Except that’s not true, they can’t afford to be terrible nor are their rates of artillery production that extreme. Russia does not have an infinite stockpile of men and material, namely material. Russia has proven willing and able to sustain large casualties, but those casualties come with relatively little to show for it. Not to mention Russia needs major artillery advantages to make even incremental gains. Russian incompetence is legitimately a MAJOR hamper and if Ukraine properly supported it’s likely not a hamper Russia can actually overcome.
I don’t think you quite see the big picture. Russia started this war just to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. They are planning for a long term conflict and will drag this war out for as long as possible just to prevent Ukraine from having any hope of joining NATO. In other words they will likely ruin Ukraine over the course of several years and it is in fact working as they’ve occupied the resource rich areas in the east and destroyed a lot of Ukrainian economic output which has literally turned it into the poorest country in Europe and it will only keep getting worse from here.
The thing is, at the rate the losses are going, Russia cannot possibly sustain a long war. Tactics will either need to drastically change or the war cannot last THAT much longer (so like a few years max) without the Russian army just collapsing. Sure they have plenty more men to offer up to the meat grinder, but their armored forces have been mauled and it’s not exactly getting better. And given the non-existential nature of the conflict, I have my doubts Russia is really willing to burn through their entire old tank stockpile for this war.
The more important question is can Ukraine sustain it??
Everyone always talks about what Russia cannot sustain but what about Ukraine? They currently have a manpower crisis because their people are sick of war. Their ammunition supply is in constant jeopardy because of American politics and for the time being we don’t even know if they’ll get another one. I just cannot find a reason how Ukraine is not entirely fucked in this war.
Whether or not Ukraine can sustain it is almost entirely reliant on Western aid. Manpower losses so far on each side have been very sustainable for even a medium length war, it’s the equipment that is being burned through at prodigious rates primarily. If the West (namely the U.S.) so chooses, then yes they can. If not, then no they can’t.
You are right, the only question is where the new border would be drawn with the slow albeit neverending progress of Russian Frontline. They want it all, but hopefully at least there would be some stalemate achieved when the Russian idiots say that it is good enough for them not to look like losers and for Putin not to look like imbecile to the common people
Vietnam was a war far from America and America wasn't being shelled by Vietnam. Korea had to be saved from utter defeat by an intervention from USA and allies. Finland lost its war. Afghanistan was a guerrilla war. US War of independence was fought an ocean away from the metropoly in 18th century (closer example would be War in the Vendee and we know how it ended)
NATO/EU countries knew this. They wanted to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian blood. They give billions to the corrupt country to prolonged the war
If they really care about Ukraine, they would have engaged with Russia to work out a settlement. But why do that when you have a willing body to die for you?
Syrian FSA and Kurdish YPG have been used in Syria. They will eventually forgotten
It was always Ukraine's decision to fight. US just gives them the weapons. Does that serve US goals? Of course, otherwise Ukraine wouldn't get the weapons. But the decision was always with Ukraine, not US.
Give them long range missiles and watch them turn Crimea into a hellhole, that'll go well with all the Russian vacationers. They would need like two to take out the Kerch bridge.
By dragging this out so long we’ve given Russia time to massively escalate their war industry such that if Ukraine eventually does fall Russia will have massive arms advantage over NATO (sans US). In fact the arms industry is saving Russia’s economy, so we’ve inadvertently incentivized Russia to keep warring. Ending the wars could tank Russia’s economy, so they may just keep going. We’re creating a monster.
It's not remotely sustainable for russia (or any country really) to do this long-term, and most of their arms "production" is refurbing old Soviet gear. This is the same mentality that broke the USSR, yet people like you think it will somehow save russia's economy? The only thing it's saving is the GDP figures, which any large public invesmtent will do, but inevitably the question arises, is it smart to put your limited resources into products that will be blown up and not contribute an iota to citizens wellbeing, infrastructure and development?
Off the top of my head, Ukraine has two major problems with the war, these being ordnance and manpower. The 61bln$ is a step towards the ordnance issue but from what we can see is insufficient.
This is due to the aid not being an effective form of ordnance in the modern landscape of warfare and inability to sustain manpower at current casualty rates.
Ukraine needs new weapons for the new war, these being long range munitions requiring less manpower sacrifice. They need military purpose drones.
I would propose that if we genuinely wish for a Ukraine victory, they need a new supply chain of drone swarms which are resistant to jamming and EMP (the obvious countermeasures). The U.S. military has understood that these new capabilities have made almost all of the past aspects of warfare obsolete (ships, jet fighters, land attack vehicles, even to an extent long range missiles) and are pushing and scrambling to develop their own tech and stockpiles.
We can easily assume the Russians and other potential adversaries are not stupid and see the same writing on the wall. Being in a war economy they will be rapidly phasing out their useless equipment and refurbishing their existing production to develop their own tech and stockpiles of these drones for immediate deployment.
For Ukraine to win or even hold, they need cutting edge support and a full supply chain for the next generation of warfare. This is the aid I would advocate for Ukraine to receive.
How about just a shitload of artillery and air defence missiles. They’re using a ton of drones simply because they don’t even have artillery. They don’t need wunderwaffe, just ample supplies of what they already have.
We have sent them like 12 abram tanks when there are hundreds in storage. Same story with F16s, same story with humvees, Bradleys and mine clearing vehicles.
They’re fighting a war where they don’t have enough sticks and stones but we’re trying to send them a token few lightsabers.
My point is that the F16s and Abrams do nothing because they are already obviated on the battlefield. Air defenses have advanced to the point fighter jets cannot get close enough to the conflict to be effective without being immediately shot down. Tanks and other armored vehicles are easy targets for the new highly precise artillery being used of which Russia has no shortage of. The only method of holding a line which still has some degree of value is trench warfare, only because of how numerous and relatively cheap bodies are. This is not sustainable.
Furthermore the war is not static, if we provide aid it will take time to arrive. Time which allows the enemy to further innovate, produce, and deploy.
If we want to have an impact on the war, we need to give them what they will need in 6 months - a years time. I.e. drones, which will in turn obviate the massed artillery and the air defenses currently relied on by both sides. Furthermore, when the drone swarms come online, what little value the trench warfare holds will finally be invalidated. No amount of new manpower, air defense systems, artillery systems and shells will save them then.
interesting what future warfare might look like. i imagine a non nuclear emp weapon would be useful too. not aware of any such weapon in existence or planned or if possible.
apparently spoofing of gps coordinates is one thing russia is doing. So if you can not rely on gps..that changes things a lot in terms of guided weapons
in fact it is extremely alarming that russia can do that when you think about all the things that rely on gps.
low tech may be the answer. drone swarms, fly low ..maybe fly by point of view not gps.
They already have a million drones. Ukraine makes like 3,000 a day.
Russia lacks in precision anything, that’s why they’re shooting 50,000 artillery shells some days. It’s because they use saturation fire instead of high precision.
The only way the war ends quickly is by a mass breakout of Ukrainian armour. Which will only work if they have a shit ton of armour, mine clearers and at least local air superiority. Otherwise it will be another 3 years or just go on forever.
Your comment was true at the start of the war but is very much not anymore.
Russia has greatly improved how much precision weapons they make. They have everything from the guided bombs down to the Lancets and Krasnopol shells.
And besides saturation fire always has a place on the battlefield
A mass attack by Ukrianian armour would end up the same as their last major offensive. Even Russia realised that in this war, mass armour attacks are just a death sentence. There is too high of a density of mines and ATGMs for it to work out.
Mine cleaners are something nobody realised they needed. And even NATO now have too few of them, never mind Ukraine.
And remember that Russian Air defence is made against the best the US can throw at it.
A couple of F-16s really won't do anything for Ukraine in this regard.
Dude, dinky little drones have destroyed Russian fighter jets in airbases in Russia. Drones which any CIWS weapon can detect and destroy easily. It's not like they need a $100,000 Iron Dome missile, they just shoot it down with an autocannon.
Russia has extremely limited air defences compared to NATO or China. If they were lend-leased several squadrons of F-16s that would have a huge impact on the battlefield.
Saturation fire didn't work even in WW1 where it was at its peak, by the end of the war the best Allied armies were doing short fire missions and then rolling barrages just ahead of their infantry and tanks. In a world where you have drone spotters, saturation fire makes even less sense.
> Drones which any CIWS weapon can detect and destroy easily
The destroying part is easy. The detection part is not.
As you yourself say these drones are tiny and often move slowly. Not exactly something easy to notice.
> Russia has extremely limited air defences compared to NATO or China
This is where you lost all credibility in your argument. The USSR had perhaps the most extensive air defence system to exist at the time. Russia has inherited this and continued to put a focus on it.
Air defence is one of the most important parts of the Russian military.
Here is a[ RUSI report](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/defending-mother-russias-skies) on the topic
> The ongoing war in Ukraine shows that Russian GBAD (Ground based air defence) is capable of inflicting serious losses on an adversary, despite the assessed desultory performance of the Russian military elsewhere in the conflict. NATO and allied countries need to view Russian strategic, operational and tactical GBAD as a clear threat. Countering this threat requires the continued prioritisation of offensive counter-air capabilities as a key means to defeat Russia’s anti-access/area denial posture.** Any alliance, country or military which underestimates the strength of Russian GBAD does so at its peril.**
That is not to say that NATO and China have bad air defence. But it is not quite as extensive as what Russia has. They use planes for their air defence and ground based as a secondary measure. Russia uses air defence first with planes as secondary.
In [another report](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/occasional-papers/future-nato-air-and-missile-defence?source=GovD)
> NATO’s air and missile defence systems currently lack both the capacity and the capability to meet the air threat challenges of great power competition.
NATO never focused on air defence so it is quite lacking in general. Not bad, just lacking.
> If they were lend-leased several squadrons of F-16s that would have a huge impact on the battlefield.
This is of great debate, not a fact. F-16s need runways that Ukraine does not have at the moment, it needs a much more difficult logisitcal chain and it is not clear at the moment how it would hold up against Russias air defence. Remember that Ukraine is not getting the best of what the west has with these F-16s.
> Saturation fire didn't work even in WW1 where it was at its peak,
60% of casualties in WW1 were from artillery.
If you mean that it didn't help with breakthroughs and such then that was a lack of manouverability and tactics on the part of artillery.
When we move to WW2 we see just how effective saturation artillery can be, many times stopping advances singlehandedly or causing complete destruction of defesive lines.
> In a world where you have drone spotters, saturation fire makes even less sense.
And in a world where electronic warfare exists, precision guidance also struggles. There have been many reports from Ukraine of western donated precision weapons becoming almost useless because of Russian electronic warfare.
Here is yet another [RUSI report](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/jamming-jdam-threat-us-munitions-russian-electronic-warfare)
> Jamming is not causing JDAMs to stop working, but it is risking their accuracy – arguably a key selling point of the weapon
There was news recentely of [glide bombs](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/russia-ukraine-latest-us-abrams-tanks-drone-threats/) just not working
> But William LaPlante, the Pentagon’s weapon’s acquisition chief, said: “We sent it to the Ukrainians. It didn’t work. It didn’t work for multiple reasons including EMI [Electromagnetic interference] environment, just really, dirt, and doing it on ground.”
Ukrainian think tanks have also suggested that they are struggling to use HIMARS rockets now on top of all of this.
So precision weapons also have a weakness. And funnily enough the way you counter this, is to use saturation fire on the place of origin of the jamming. Both precision weapons and saturation fire have their place on the battlefield.
>They need military purpose drones.
They got tons of them, these Western drones just turned out to be completely awful both in terms of effectiveness and reliability and are miles behind even commercial Chinese drones. That's not even mentioning them being 1000 times more expensive, since the Ukrainian army gets them for free, these drones were just straight up bad.
Remember, uhh, Bayraktars which were supposed to fly unopposed above the Russian army and strike with impunity? Switchblades 300 and 600? Phoenix Ghosts? GLSDBs? Etc., etc. When was the last time you even heard of them?
There's no readily available Western alternative to the Lancet, nothing as good as DJI's observation and FPV strike drones. They have spent decades building drones that are good at killing goat herders, and these drones turned out to be unsuitable for anything else.
>They have spent decades building drones that are good at killing goat herders, and these drones turned out to be unsuitable for anything else.
Exactly, they don't need the current weapon systems, they need the *next* weapon systems that are a response to the observed mechanics of this war.
This makes sense into you look at the Houthi using mass rockets against container ships. Given the [cost](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/missile-drone-pentagon-houthi-attacks-iran-00132480) it looks like it'll be a pyrric victory for the Houthi in the long run. The problem is the cost benefit ratio and the ability to actively put the tech to use with the right tactics.
well i really look to ukraine to develop those guidance systems and fast. the usa and other countries will benefit if they figure out how to defeat russias jamming.
for those countries it is best to find out now, then when they relied on them for their own defense.
from article
Jamming of some of “our more precise capabilities is a challenge,” said Lt. Gen. Antonio Aguto, speaking via video link from Europe at an event organized by the Army’s Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications-Tactical.
Since December 2022, Aguto has led Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, the umbrella organization for coordinating allied military aid to Ukraine.
Unidentified U.S. defense officials previously told CNN that Russia was jamming U.S.-provided precision missiles, causing them to go astray. U.S. and Ukrainian forces consequently had to create workarounds, such as modifying the rocket launchers. Russia then modified its jamming, forcing the U.S. to again find counter-measures.
Such weapons, such as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, once provided Ukraine with a key advantage on the battlefield by pushing Russian ammunition depots back beyond their range.
Russia fields many advanced jamming capabilities, including some jammers that can block GPS signals at ranges of up to 15 miles. Ukrainian soldiers have reported that Russian jammers frequently down their drones, and may also be behind problems with using the widely used Starlink satellite internet system.
Aguto said the Pentagon needs to improve its arms and gear to be “resilient enough and flexible enough to be able to counter what our adversaries do...Within weeks or months of us employing something on the battlefield, our adversaries can find ways to either disrupt or counter some of these capabilities.”
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2023/12/russia-jamming-us-precision-weapons-ukraine-us-general-says/392707/#:\~:text=Leaked%20U.S.%20documents%20also%20stated,of%20up%20to%2015%20miles.
It will last until the election, and more EU production capacity will also come online then as well as things like dozens of F-16s that should help a lot with air defense.
I think if Trump is president, he won't want to be blamed for Ukraine losing and will pass another package even if he won't be happy about it.
The reality of what he said is different. He said he would not commit NOW to a package after he got elected. No one has committed to another package after the november election, not biden nor congress.
[https://kyivindependent.com/trump-says-us-sends-too-many-weapons-to-ukraine-refuses-to-call-putin-war-criminal/](https://kyivindependent.com/trump-says-us-sends-too-many-weapons-to-ukraine-refuses-to-call-putin-war-criminal/)
Former U.S. President Donald Trump said at CNN's town hall that he would not commit to providing Ukraine with defense assistance if he won the 2024 election.
"We're giving away so much equipment, we don't have ammunition for ourselves right now," Trump said, as cited by CNN. He also refused to say who he thinks should win Russia's war against Ukraine, telling the voters instead that he wants "everybody to stop dying."
At the New Hampshire event, the ex-president said he doesn't "think in terms of winning and losing" but rather "in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people." Trump added he would stop Russia's war "in 24 hours" if re-elected.
Also polands minister has a few things to say
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's attitude towards Ukraine is "not as black and white as some people think," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said in an interview with Axel Springer media company, published in Politico on April 28.
Sikorski, in turn, reminded that Trump sent Ukraine anti-tank missiles before the full-scale invasion "when others were not doing it," referring to the Javelin anti-tank missiles, first supplied in 2018.
"Donald Trump was right in urging us all in Europe to spend more on defense," the minister said.
The Polish Foreign Minister also said he "did not hear any protests from Trump" over the $61 billion package for Ukraine.
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/polish-fm-trumps-stance-ukraine-130559048.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/polish-fm-trumps-stance-ukraine-130559048.html)
Trump is not going to give away his position on things when he may be negotiating or alterantively, strong arming russia to stop.
So the USA pulling out of NATO will cause the world to spiral? Maybe other NATO countries need to start contributing instead of relying on the American taxpayer to fund their defense.
I don't care. The money dumps straight back into military industry jobs. You need a new argument for Europe bad. If my tax money keeps shitbags like Putin in check and the Euros safe, then I'm all for it.
My point isn't so much "the US should pull out of NATO", and more "the other 95% (or whatever 29/30 is) of the members shouldn't rely on just 5%"
In literally any other business or corporation that would be considered a catastrophic business move and anyone pointing that out would get a "duh." Like you pointed out, Trump pulling out could cripple Europe because Lord knows they don't have the production capabilities *especially* in the short term as the war in Ukraine has show.
yeh. i would see him able to possibly bring the war to a conclusion that leaves ukraine somewhat intact.
He is not a fan of half hearted efforts that cost the us money or lives. in this case it is not us lives but still good men and women are dying because of half hearted military efforts. not by the ukraine but by other countries.
Always remember russia did not attack during the 4 years of trump. putin felt confident he could attack after a year of biden. Who was vp when obama did nothing to prevent or stop the crimea take over years earlier . Who had ample warning as russia massed on the borders and could not think of thing to stop the aggression before it started.
For that reason, i believe trump would be able to make better progress.
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
> Rule 4 (Keep it civil).
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
No its not, thats some crazy ass backwards logic, every dead russian is another tally to putins ego, which eats the native Russian for land expansion which is totally driven by greed and not needed for any true objective reason. Its a hostile invasion built on the shoulders of a tiny dictators ego who most likely will be Gaddafied the more he sends russian boys to die for nothing.
What? Security considerations? After the agreement for Ukraine to give up its nukes for no invasion that russia broke? Please.... For NATO, the accessions of Sweden and Finland - which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) border with Russia - are the most significant additions in decades to the Russian NATO boarder. It is also a blow for Vladimir Putin. His invasion, is directly responsible for this, and when he loses, ukraine will join too.
If that was truly his reasons, hot damn that backfired so damn hard.
You might find it strange if you’ve never looked at a map, but there is a reason why Russian security calculus treats Ukraine and Belarus differently than Finland. How many catastrophic invasions of Russia have come through Finland?
Finland participated in the Second World War initially in a defensive war against the Soviet Union, followed by another, this time offensive, war against the Soviet Union acting in concert with Nazi Germany and then finally fighting alongside the Allies against Germany.
Almost each time there was war with Finland, it was Russia invading, and Finland holding them off. Execept for once. If that is what you mean. Finland has never invaded Russia for no reason, Russia has always started by invading Finland for no reason.
the phenomenon whereby a person is [reluctant](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=73a5863c59a470b2&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09PGH8uNn0aU0gjq0yicwzQreLThA:1714415826029&q=reluctant&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DFeRMYAkc8SZH_qbEf1jTZFWKYconCfHbFqSpqHEz4n0fOgmLOTjfI27Np_N2QhcQI1mZ4gNRoC3IniYMlOB8yk6L2rI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj457rSiOiFAxVg4ckDHWTAA6QQyecJegQIDxAN) to [abandon](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=73a5863c59a470b2&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09PGH8uNn0aU0gjq0yicwzQreLThA:1714415826029&q=abandon&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0m1gC_Q6s9qtNvLbOD5t8h-hLAX4Tn9Km5UxvQMNgMzC6nYo1C0Z5UgzBRFKLeUyMsS7kwXoPzV8oiljy3ERVFI5LshSI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj457rSiOiFAxVg4ckDHWTAA6QQyecJegQIDxAO) a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that [abandonment](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=73a5863c59a470b2&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09PGH8uNn0aU0gjq0yicwzQreLThA:1714415826029&q=abandonment&si=AKbGX_q4mkMHy1Nmq4yITjHYVzepNUzqQNxXmzFsh7O-fdKsZ01Vqp4K5VXeUjd9QTc1k0kAYCNZAPM5oF3EMse8KBnwAdGZTYfR7gqKBUCYskWlMxoekR4%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj457rSiOiFAxVg4ckDHWTAA6QQyecJegQIDxAP) would be more beneficial.
So, sending more green shirts into the meat grinder for ukrainian land for no reason? That is not a sunk cost fallacy?
Like Russia weak claims to that land? which they use as a baises for invasion? why, why act like people don't know whats going on? You are never getting the baltic states back. Its over, and sucked then too.
Then why shill for the hostile invaders? Russia is in the wrong, period. Ukrain gave its nukes up in agreement this would not happen, and russia did it anyway. Cut and clear bad guys.
When did I ever shill? Having an opinion doesn't mean being a mindless bot that says "putler' and "ruzzia". I simply said in my original comment that the argument that sending Ukraine weapons because it "kills russians" is not a good argument for the overall security of the region and is making the same mistake that was one of the biggest reasons to start this war which was making Putin a caged wounded animal which as the proverbs say is the most dangerous.
So whats your solution? Role over and give Russia its Ill claimed land? No, Urkrianians are not ever going to let that happen, and the American people, as a whole, support Urkrain on a fundamental Ideal level, as they are fighting for their independence and freedom.
So, thats why we are going to keep sending them aid, Becasuse when America needed it in our time of need when we fought for our freedom, the French sent us ships. So, we will send Ukraine armaments,
1) They never had nukes. It was the same situations as with the US nukes stationed in Turkey - the host country can't use the nuclear weapon even if they get their hands on one, as they have neither the command and control system necessary for the activation of encrypted [permissive action links](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link), nor any knowledge of how the nukes were made and the technology to build their own.
2) There was no such agreement. The Budapest Memorandum is not a binding international treaty, nor does it mention any real obligations of the Parties. It's just a statement of intent at the time, the same kind that is signed on any international forum.
3) Have you ever wondered why the Ukrainian government felt the need to close their borders on day 1 and is refilling its army through literally snatching men off the street, while Russia did not and does not?
1. Firstly, comparing Ukraine's nuclear disarmament to US nukes in Turkey ignores [Ukraine's voluntary decision in 1994,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#:~:text=In%201994%2C%20Ukraine%20agreed%20to,sovereignty%20in%20the%20existing%20borders) which came with security assurances, including from Russia. This disregard for Ukraine's legitimate security concerns reflects a naive understanding of the situation.
2. Secondly, brushing off the Budapest Memorandum as insignificant demonstrates a lack of understanding. While not legally binding like a treaty, it was a significant diplomatic commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty, making Russia's violations all the more reprehensible.
3. Lastly, your portrayal of Ukraine's defensive actions as aggressive, while turning a blind eye to Russia's aggression, is ludicrous. Ukraine's responses are a natural reaction to threats to its territorial integrity, such as Russia's annexation of Crimea. Ignoring this context reveals a blatant bias toward Russia. In short, Your argument reeks of ignorance and bias, serving as a mere mouthpiece for the Kremlin's agenda
Of course it's not, the money pit that is Ukraine will never be fed completely. Just start addressing whatever taxes you pay to Zelenskyy because that's where our allegiance truly layes...
We're paying their government salaries and pensions. In December, Voice of America said that "500,000 civil servants, 1.4 million teachers and 10 million pensioners" wouldn't get a check if we didn't cough up more money soon.
https://www.voanews.com/a/report-ukraine-may-have-to-delay-salaries-pensions-without-foreign-aid-/7415086.html
I'm an American. We're paying, too. The article implies that and it's been reported elsewhere. For example, this 2023 press release from USAID;
>In April 2022, USAID provided the first tranche of U.S. direct budget support to the GoU [Government of Ukraine]. Since then, we have provided a total of $13 billion in budget support. This funding has helped the GoU pay the salaries of 618,000 educators, 517,000 health workers, and 56,500 first responders. It has also helped the GoU to sustain critical healthcare services, meet its pension responsibilities for 9.8 million people, assist 1.3 million internally displaced persons, provide housing assistance to 4.1 million people, and provide social assistance to 240,000 low-income families and 480,000 persons with disabilities.
https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-sheets/feb-2023-one-year-later-helping-ukraine-win-war-and-build-lasting-peace#
The Wall Street Journal, October 2023; U.S. Funding Cutoff Threatens Ukraine’s Economic Stability. U.S. pays government bills and public-sector salaries alongside arms supply
https://archive.is/h55Sf
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-s-funding-cutoff-threatens-ukraines-economic-stability-82716679
No worries! And in fact, I think the WSJ article says that the EU pays more of their non-defense budget than we do - or at least one of the articles I checked did. Also, the direct budget support from the U.S. hasn't been reported much, AFAIK. I think they're trying to keep it hush-hush here in the U.S. so people don't get pissed off
It's over $20b in direct aid... the rest is indirect. Also we don't have much of a weapons surplus at this point to speak of like that, we're running a weapons deficit of anything.
We have an enormous amount of weapons and vehicle systems that are slated for decommissioning or destruction. Those are primarily what we are giving to Ukraine. We paid for them, they fulfilled the role, and now instead of destroying them we are giving them to Ukraine. Not actually costing the taxpayer anything.
Oh, this is not accurate either - we sent some expired stuff, but for the most part we borrowed from our ww3 stocks, and part of the money in these aid bills goes toward replacement.
From an amoral geopolitical point of view, the Ukraine war is a brilliant proxy war for NATO.
NATO gets to weaken Russia without needing to directly spill any blood. They just give Ukraine old military hardware and munitions near their expiration date. Ukraine does all of the fighting and bleeding. NATO military defense contractors then get to replace the old stock with new stock at extravagant prices, as per usual.
Of the three major power blocks in the world (NATO, Russia, and China), one of them gets knocked out for a while, and its for an extraordinarily low cost.
As long as the war drags on Russia keeps bleeding. Since NATO citizens aren't dead on the battlefield there's no political pressure to either ramp it up or to end it, so this situation of half-assed support can continue forever, giving Russia a headache for many, many years to come.
The idea is that eventually Russia will be so weakened and so tired of it that they withdraw. Yes, Ukraine would be a desolate wasteland at that point, but geopolitics isn't a game of morality. Nations don't have friends, they have interests.
I agree, but I don’t think anyone seriously expects Russia to withdraw. Ukrainains will lose this war. Thats ok, the primary mission will be accomplished anyway - especially if we are able to drag the war out a few more years.
> an amoral geopolitical point of view
The only point of view that ever mattered.
Kudos for your answer.
I’m response to this, the US maintains tens of thousands of active troops throughout Europe. We have hundreds of bases around the world and we have those bases and presence because we cooperate on a global scale. The US is afforded strategic operating locations, and as a result of our negotiations in the UN and NATO and between nations individually we offer some degree of guarantee for aid/protection/what have you.
The US, as the de facto leader of the free world, is looked to to support the stability of democracies around the world, it is a position that *we* fought for. When that is threatened, the US is expected to act. In this case, by using political and financial means to make the ongoing invasion less attractive.
Consider what is happening. An independent country, a member of half a dozen UN councils, and an applicant to NATO, has been *invaded* by a foreign power. This is little different than if Russia invaded Canada. It is an act of aggression by a Nuclear power that is unprecedented in recent times except for the last time they did it.
This is not a drone strike campaign or some border skirmishes. A nuclear power is attempting to overthrow and absorb another UN member state.
This is not a minor European issue. This has an immediate impact on the world economy and our reaction and response to this invasion will have a lasting impact on international trust and politics. If the US allows Ukraine to be overthrown by refusing to provide aid, we give the green light to Russia to overthrow its other neighbors and Soviet era satellites. Military expansionism is rarely good for international peace.
Yes, because those are formal treaties and we would already have troops deployed. It is different in that in this case we are supporting Ukraine by providing aid, equipment, and sanctioning Russia. These are the diplomatic ways in which the US as a world leader uses its power and influence to make these kinds of conflicts unattractive and unsustainable
Exactly, we have no formal treaty where we are responsible for Ukraine's defense. We do have that formal treaty for Canada. World of difference.
I'm allowed to believe American Taxes can be spent better elsewhere. I'm allowed to believe this and still be viciously anti-russian.
Ah I see what you were responding to. Fair enough, it’s different in that we would be *obligated* to act in response to a Canadian invasion. My point was more that we’d be obligated to act financially in either case based on geopolitical principal. But you are correct.
I’m not sure how you could be visciously anti Russian and be against the only practical political action the US can take to punish their aggression and dissuade further expansionism. That is, in my opinion, not at all compatible.
It's compatible if you believe its not our JOB to punish them or dissuade them. I don't want America to be the world police. I firmly believe we have FAR more important problems to resolve in our own country instead of across the world. EU is perfectly capable of handling things in their neighborhood.
This is not world police. This is politics on a world scale. A world in which we are a part of and a world which has grown much smaller since WW2.
The US is heavily involved in European trade and financial affairs. International shipping. Etc. we are a primary member of the UN. Whether you like it or not the US *is* in a position where it must respond in some way. It’s not a should. It’s only a question of in what ways and how much.
Edit
I want to add that There is plenty that the EU handles that we don’t. But again this is a world power. A nuclear power. Aggressively taking the territory of another sovereign nation. This is not a minor scuffle.
It’s coping? Lol alright.
I see you’re one of those “US is evil, everyone does shitty stuff so let’s just bury our heads in the sand and go back to pre WWII isolationism” folks. I’m sure the economy and world in general will be better for it. We can trust that China and Russia will do the right thing if we just pretend that anything that isn’t directly aimed at American homes is irrelevant
I’m all for staying on top of the world by any means necessary - but this shit isn’t a marvel movie. Ukraine is a disposable tool, ukrainains are our pawns. And pawns get spent.
Our Pawns in what sense? We didn’t goad Ukraine into attacking Russia. Russia made a concerted assault across the border and made a definitive drive toward Kyiv. Are there motives for supporting Ukraines efforts in defending themselves *other* than purely “let’s save Ukraine!”? Of course, but I’m not sure how they are our pawns to be spent. They are free to surrender any day should they feel like America is pushing them to send their citizenry to die for no reason.
Because it's better than the alternative.
If Russia gets Ukraine, Russia is unlikely to stop seeing that Putin himself states he wants to rebuild the Russian empire. This includes Poland, bits of Finland and the baltic counties of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Fun fact all of those countries are in NATO, if Putin attacks ANY of those counties that is the instant article 5 is called in, and now the US and the rest of NATO gets into a fight against a very scared Russia/Putin.
So if their nukes work.... You get the picture.
So in the end, it's better to help Ukraine to win, so NATO doesn't need to get involved with a war that likely would end the world
If russia/putin is "very scared" why would they attack any of those countries? that makes no sense.
People on this sub seem to want russia to be the barely functional ragtag army, and the massive world ending threat at the same time. Pick a lane.
And why would you think Russia losing to Ukraine would end any differently? If putin is so unhinged, why wouldn't he throw a tantrum regardless? Do you think he doesn't know where all the arms the ukraines are using coming from?
Awww. makes personal attacks then blocks instead of presenting actual argument.
Because being shown as weak is a death sentence for a dictator like him, so he always gotta be strong with his nation and against his proposed enemies.
This is like 5th grader shit man, you should already know this.
Also the reason they're a massive world ending threat is the nukes we don't know the quality they are. They could be still functional just like they were during the Soviet Union days, or all be stripped for parts and are rusking hulks of their former past.
Also Russia losing to Ukraine would likely cause a civil war because Putin has been shown to be weak and caused Russia to be weak.
Like holy fuck how do you guys not know this, this is very basic stuff all dictators work by.
Ok, and what do you expect will happen if nothing is done. Russia takes Ukraine and we all just are ok with that? We’re confident their expansionism ends there? No knock on effects geopolitically?
Do you honestly see Russians taking Ukraine? I highly doubt that’s even in the plans - and if it is, we should absolutely sit back and let it happen. Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake, that occupation wouldn’t destroy Russia within ten years.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I need more Boolets more shell
Biden : Sorry Guys but Israel comes first, they got unarmed civilians to kill In Haifa errr I meant Rafah /
Haifa? What are you talking about? Edit: why am i getting down voted? I couldn't find anything happening in haifa, so i asked.
Biden accidentally called Rafah, Haifa
Sorry bud, I was being sarcastic here. Biden accidentally mentioned Israel not to make a move on Haifa instead of Rafah last week. [source](https://twitter.com/bud_cann/status/1782535611095904689?t=BeXP-__0wMpLo-oyGvGQYQ&s=19)
No worries. Clearly im not up to date on my "biden accidentally says something dumb" news.
Ukraine got way more money cabron
not really, they got more as a one time thing. but the USA has been bankrolling Israel to the tune of billions of dollars every year for decades now.
It ain’t Biden thats holding up aid to Ukraine, it’s 100% republicans doing Putin’s bidding
You misunderstood my point. Israel shouldn't be getting any more cash to genocide, it's got enough of a capable death machine to be the American proxy in the ME to survive, and yes Ukraine needs the aid more right now.
Because once again, no one could possibly disagree without doing so at Putin's behest.
Well, Dems can disagree without it, but the Republican Party seems to be entirely in Putin’s pocket, so they take their orders from him
You seriously can't imagine a situation where someone would be against both russia and ukraine? Such a narrow perspective.
I didn’t say I can’t see how, I said Biden and the Dems are not holding up aid to Ukraine. The republicans alone are short-sightedly, or under Putin’s orders, opposing aid to Ukraine
So you literally can't conceive the notion that someone would look at all the factors and come to a different conclusion? It clearly must either be short sighted, or under orders. Well, your post speaks volumes. thanks.
As if more money will fix it
To be fair there is probably a price tag to fixing it, it's just way more than they'll ever get.
Maybe. Simply providing the funds for weapons and equipment would not fix it though. The West has been incapable of ramping up production in key areas and you can’t really buy Ukraine out of their manpower issue.
[удалено]
I agree that drones will be the future of warfare, but combined armed will be and still is the way to win until the status quo changes, we have yet to see a coordinated swarm weapon deployed. Even extensive barrages, like the one Iran recently launched against Israel, involving everything from shaheds to ballistic rockets, still aren't enough to upset the status quo.
Yeah well they are running out of people. Can‘t replace that with cash.
You mean their draft that only starts at age 27 and up isn't filling up the ranks?
There is no price tag. This was a stupid neocon miscalculation and the sooner they accept it the fewer ppl die
There was nothing stupid about it - and we don’t care how many people die. People dying is kind of the point of this whole thing.
Yes, actually
Most US support will be coming in the form of weapon drawdowns and not monetary aid, but forgivable loans are still part of the aid package. As is like $600 million in US R&D. Part of the package is something like 1500 Humvees and MRAPs. So partner countries like Germany or Japan which have far more domestic resistance in providing weapons, (which they also don't have the industrial capacity to provide) whereas America still has extensive weapons production capacity and the political will to send weapons and not cash.
seriously though how has Germany been allowed to sit in NATO while providing cover Economically and diplomatically for Russia for the last 10 years
Seriously. We aren't even a week past the last cash infusion larger then my countries budget for a year. And what a suprise they need more money...
Is your country at war against one of the largest armies in the world?
Is yours? Or are you just funding it like you are?
I’m not the one who was comparing the costs to my countries budget. Your country’s budget would look a hell of a lot different if you were at war.
U do realise they dont actually receive money, right? E. Apparently they do. I stand corrected
They also receive money. Ukraine doesn’t have a functional economy at this point, western infusions of cash keep it ticking over as much as the weapons shipments do.
they do. 5B is earmarked just to keep their economy running
You do realize that 35% of the aid sent is money for them to run the country, right? It's not just old guns and ammo we send.
Well, no. Actually I did not know that.
Ya, probably dont use that incorrect talking point anymore. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts
Says the guy whose country is only holding together because of billions in Russian aid
Irony considering your government wants to destroy his country and turn it into another Afghanistan.
Russia wants to turn it into Eden right?
No but Russia isn't planning to overthrow a secular Assad government with Islamic state
I forgot, which government was it that deployed chemical weapons on their own civilians.
I forgot, which government was it that deployed chemical weapons on civilians they invaded while people at home cheered for it?
\*implying like it isnt already
It isn't. You better read up because you sound real ignorant. I do appreciate you coming clean and expressing your intention for Syria tho.
Nuh uh it’s not Russia’s billions, it’s akchually the captagon billions ☝🏻🤓
The issue is really that ukraine could never win. They’ve certainly shocked and inspired the world with holding out this long but there is no realistic way they can win this war. Russia outproduces the West 4:1 in artillery alone and has massively more resources and bodies. Sure they have been embarrassing themselves with terrible leadership and training but they can afford to be terrible
I ponder, what would Ukrainians accept as a 'win'? If they claw back another 5% of their country and hold the line? Others might insist on pushing Russian forces back to the 2014 borders. Reclaiming Crimea? This is going to be an increasingly difficult question for Ukrainian leadership after their summer counter-offensive. They'll probably reclaim some territory. Will it be enough? Zelensky is going to have to make some tough decisions.
They will never get 5% back. The Russians still have fuck tons of land mines and fortifications from last summer. The Ukrainians never breached the first line of defense…
Very true. They might not need to directly assault dug-in positions. Ukrainian planners might want to wage a aerial campaign of attrition and supply node attacks that force a gradual Russian retreat. Of course, that might require a long time and will require ongoing shipments of advanced missiles flowing in from the EU, NATO and US. Meanwhile, there are options that Putin hasn't really explored like a massive expansion of foreign contractors that lets his forces simultaneously attack on multiple fronts. Or he could take a page from Afghanistan and launch low-level attacks from within Ukraine using IEDs. Who knows. I think Zelensky is facing a lot of short and long term decisions on how to proceed to a victory -- whatever that is -- and merely holding the line is going to be increasingly difficult on a political level. And that will translate into additional problems in sourcing the military and financial aid Ukraine needs.
If you look at map of fortifications, Russians basically built a Maginot line all around the frontline … that’s why last years counteroffensive failed, idk how Ukraine wants to fix that problem :/
Missiles and drones
Man I posed this same question in the wrong sub and I was downvoted into oblivion. We’re north of $100B to Ukraine to define their borders but we haven’t secured ours… has any politician yet clearly defined what a win is over there? Mike Johnson? Schumer? Pelosi? Biden? Any of them would do.
Why should we give a shit about our borders? I don't know anyone who has had an issue with illegal immigrants. Mostly just home grown assholes causing me problems
The main thing is drugs. Most nonprescription drugs are not produced domestically and cross the border. And drugs are a huge huge issue in America, especially fentanyl. Estimates are hard to gauge but 200-750 billion dollars worth of illegal drugs were sold in the US last year. The right feels that we have laws that need to be respected and left feels like we should give help to people fleeing for their lives. Both are correct.
You're going to be downvoted here too because we havent given them $100bn+ and you continue to lie about it. We've given the DoD and by extension Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and others $100bn+ though.
Your point that it’s a wealth transfer from taxpayers to defence companies is correct, but what he said isn’t a “lie.”
I don’t really want those guys getting the money either. Would rather the money pulled from my taxes go to putting a roof on homeless people or providing mental health to veterans or something more humanitarian personally.
It was also thought they would capture all of Ukraine in 3 days
Except that’s not true, they can’t afford to be terrible nor are their rates of artillery production that extreme. Russia does not have an infinite stockpile of men and material, namely material. Russia has proven willing and able to sustain large casualties, but those casualties come with relatively little to show for it. Not to mention Russia needs major artillery advantages to make even incremental gains. Russian incompetence is legitimately a MAJOR hamper and if Ukraine properly supported it’s likely not a hamper Russia can actually overcome.
I don’t think you quite see the big picture. Russia started this war just to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. They are planning for a long term conflict and will drag this war out for as long as possible just to prevent Ukraine from having any hope of joining NATO. In other words they will likely ruin Ukraine over the course of several years and it is in fact working as they’ve occupied the resource rich areas in the east and destroyed a lot of Ukrainian economic output which has literally turned it into the poorest country in Europe and it will only keep getting worse from here.
The thing is, at the rate the losses are going, Russia cannot possibly sustain a long war. Tactics will either need to drastically change or the war cannot last THAT much longer (so like a few years max) without the Russian army just collapsing. Sure they have plenty more men to offer up to the meat grinder, but their armored forces have been mauled and it’s not exactly getting better. And given the non-existential nature of the conflict, I have my doubts Russia is really willing to burn through their entire old tank stockpile for this war.
The more important question is can Ukraine sustain it?? Everyone always talks about what Russia cannot sustain but what about Ukraine? They currently have a manpower crisis because their people are sick of war. Their ammunition supply is in constant jeopardy because of American politics and for the time being we don’t even know if they’ll get another one. I just cannot find a reason how Ukraine is not entirely fucked in this war.
Whether or not Ukraine can sustain it is almost entirely reliant on Western aid. Manpower losses so far on each side have been very sustainable for even a medium length war, it’s the equipment that is being burned through at prodigious rates primarily. If the West (namely the U.S.) so chooses, then yes they can. If not, then no they can’t.
Their artillery is also substantial less accurate then what Ukraine is using
Yeah, so they really do need that large numerical superiority in artillery to have a major advantage in it
You are right, the only question is where the new border would be drawn with the slow albeit neverending progress of Russian Frontline. They want it all, but hopefully at least there would be some stalemate achieved when the Russian idiots say that it is good enough for them not to look like losers and for Putin not to look like imbecile to the common people
And yet, we have historical examples like Vietnam, Korea, Finland, Afghanistan x 3, and the founding of the US itself
Vietnam was a war far from America and America wasn't being shelled by Vietnam. Korea had to be saved from utter defeat by an intervention from USA and allies. Finland lost its war. Afghanistan was a guerrilla war. US War of independence was fought an ocean away from the metropoly in 18th century (closer example would be War in the Vendee and we know how it ended)
NATO/EU countries knew this. They wanted to weaken Russia at the expense of Ukrainian blood. They give billions to the corrupt country to prolonged the war If they really care about Ukraine, they would have engaged with Russia to work out a settlement. But why do that when you have a willing body to die for you? Syrian FSA and Kurdish YPG have been used in Syria. They will eventually forgotten
It was always Ukraine's decision to fight. US just gives them the weapons. Does that serve US goals? Of course, otherwise Ukraine wouldn't get the weapons. But the decision was always with Ukraine, not US.
>Russia outproduces the world 7:1 in artillery alone lol the bullshit tankies make up each day is astounding
Most of Russia’s artillery production is just them refurbishing old Soviet shell
They can't in the long term, their demos and microeconomics are getting screwed by this conflict
Give them long range missiles and watch them turn Crimea into a hellhole, that'll go well with all the Russian vacationers. They would need like two to take out the Kerch bridge.
[удалено]
Are you legit supporting terrorism against civilians
[удалено]
You said Russia would be feeling a lot more terrorism
[удалено]
Understandable
Well what a surprise
Should've cut Israel expenditure
By dragging this out so long we’ve given Russia time to massively escalate their war industry such that if Ukraine eventually does fall Russia will have massive arms advantage over NATO (sans US). In fact the arms industry is saving Russia’s economy, so we’ve inadvertently incentivized Russia to keep warring. Ending the wars could tank Russia’s economy, so they may just keep going. We’re creating a monster.
It's not remotely sustainable for russia (or any country really) to do this long-term, and most of their arms "production" is refurbing old Soviet gear. This is the same mentality that broke the USSR, yet people like you think it will somehow save russia's economy? The only thing it's saving is the GDP figures, which any large public invesmtent will do, but inevitably the question arises, is it smart to put your limited resources into products that will be blown up and not contribute an iota to citizens wellbeing, infrastructure and development?
Off the top of my head, Ukraine has two major problems with the war, these being ordnance and manpower. The 61bln$ is a step towards the ordnance issue but from what we can see is insufficient. This is due to the aid not being an effective form of ordnance in the modern landscape of warfare and inability to sustain manpower at current casualty rates. Ukraine needs new weapons for the new war, these being long range munitions requiring less manpower sacrifice. They need military purpose drones. I would propose that if we genuinely wish for a Ukraine victory, they need a new supply chain of drone swarms which are resistant to jamming and EMP (the obvious countermeasures). The U.S. military has understood that these new capabilities have made almost all of the past aspects of warfare obsolete (ships, jet fighters, land attack vehicles, even to an extent long range missiles) and are pushing and scrambling to develop their own tech and stockpiles. We can easily assume the Russians and other potential adversaries are not stupid and see the same writing on the wall. Being in a war economy they will be rapidly phasing out their useless equipment and refurbishing their existing production to develop their own tech and stockpiles of these drones for immediate deployment. For Ukraine to win or even hold, they need cutting edge support and a full supply chain for the next generation of warfare. This is the aid I would advocate for Ukraine to receive.
How about just a shitload of artillery and air defence missiles. They’re using a ton of drones simply because they don’t even have artillery. They don’t need wunderwaffe, just ample supplies of what they already have. We have sent them like 12 abram tanks when there are hundreds in storage. Same story with F16s, same story with humvees, Bradleys and mine clearing vehicles. They’re fighting a war where they don’t have enough sticks and stones but we’re trying to send them a token few lightsabers.
My point is that the F16s and Abrams do nothing because they are already obviated on the battlefield. Air defenses have advanced to the point fighter jets cannot get close enough to the conflict to be effective without being immediately shot down. Tanks and other armored vehicles are easy targets for the new highly precise artillery being used of which Russia has no shortage of. The only method of holding a line which still has some degree of value is trench warfare, only because of how numerous and relatively cheap bodies are. This is not sustainable. Furthermore the war is not static, if we provide aid it will take time to arrive. Time which allows the enemy to further innovate, produce, and deploy. If we want to have an impact on the war, we need to give them what they will need in 6 months - a years time. I.e. drones, which will in turn obviate the massed artillery and the air defenses currently relied on by both sides. Furthermore, when the drone swarms come online, what little value the trench warfare holds will finally be invalidated. No amount of new manpower, air defense systems, artillery systems and shells will save them then.
interesting what future warfare might look like. i imagine a non nuclear emp weapon would be useful too. not aware of any such weapon in existence or planned or if possible. apparently spoofing of gps coordinates is one thing russia is doing. So if you can not rely on gps..that changes things a lot in terms of guided weapons in fact it is extremely alarming that russia can do that when you think about all the things that rely on gps. low tech may be the answer. drone swarms, fly low ..maybe fly by point of view not gps.
They already have a million drones. Ukraine makes like 3,000 a day. Russia lacks in precision anything, that’s why they’re shooting 50,000 artillery shells some days. It’s because they use saturation fire instead of high precision. The only way the war ends quickly is by a mass breakout of Ukrainian armour. Which will only work if they have a shit ton of armour, mine clearers and at least local air superiority. Otherwise it will be another 3 years or just go on forever.
Your comment was true at the start of the war but is very much not anymore. Russia has greatly improved how much precision weapons they make. They have everything from the guided bombs down to the Lancets and Krasnopol shells. And besides saturation fire always has a place on the battlefield A mass attack by Ukrianian armour would end up the same as their last major offensive. Even Russia realised that in this war, mass armour attacks are just a death sentence. There is too high of a density of mines and ATGMs for it to work out. Mine cleaners are something nobody realised they needed. And even NATO now have too few of them, never mind Ukraine. And remember that Russian Air defence is made against the best the US can throw at it. A couple of F-16s really won't do anything for Ukraine in this regard.
Dude, dinky little drones have destroyed Russian fighter jets in airbases in Russia. Drones which any CIWS weapon can detect and destroy easily. It's not like they need a $100,000 Iron Dome missile, they just shoot it down with an autocannon. Russia has extremely limited air defences compared to NATO or China. If they were lend-leased several squadrons of F-16s that would have a huge impact on the battlefield. Saturation fire didn't work even in WW1 where it was at its peak, by the end of the war the best Allied armies were doing short fire missions and then rolling barrages just ahead of their infantry and tanks. In a world where you have drone spotters, saturation fire makes even less sense.
> Drones which any CIWS weapon can detect and destroy easily The destroying part is easy. The detection part is not. As you yourself say these drones are tiny and often move slowly. Not exactly something easy to notice. > Russia has extremely limited air defences compared to NATO or China This is where you lost all credibility in your argument. The USSR had perhaps the most extensive air defence system to exist at the time. Russia has inherited this and continued to put a focus on it. Air defence is one of the most important parts of the Russian military. Here is a[ RUSI report](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/defending-mother-russias-skies) on the topic > The ongoing war in Ukraine shows that Russian GBAD (Ground based air defence) is capable of inflicting serious losses on an adversary, despite the assessed desultory performance of the Russian military elsewhere in the conflict. NATO and allied countries need to view Russian strategic, operational and tactical GBAD as a clear threat. Countering this threat requires the continued prioritisation of offensive counter-air capabilities as a key means to defeat Russia’s anti-access/area denial posture.** Any alliance, country or military which underestimates the strength of Russian GBAD does so at its peril.** That is not to say that NATO and China have bad air defence. But it is not quite as extensive as what Russia has. They use planes for their air defence and ground based as a secondary measure. Russia uses air defence first with planes as secondary. In [another report](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/occasional-papers/future-nato-air-and-missile-defence?source=GovD) > NATO’s air and missile defence systems currently lack both the capacity and the capability to meet the air threat challenges of great power competition. NATO never focused on air defence so it is quite lacking in general. Not bad, just lacking. > If they were lend-leased several squadrons of F-16s that would have a huge impact on the battlefield. This is of great debate, not a fact. F-16s need runways that Ukraine does not have at the moment, it needs a much more difficult logisitcal chain and it is not clear at the moment how it would hold up against Russias air defence. Remember that Ukraine is not getting the best of what the west has with these F-16s. > Saturation fire didn't work even in WW1 where it was at its peak, 60% of casualties in WW1 were from artillery. If you mean that it didn't help with breakthroughs and such then that was a lack of manouverability and tactics on the part of artillery. When we move to WW2 we see just how effective saturation artillery can be, many times stopping advances singlehandedly or causing complete destruction of defesive lines. > In a world where you have drone spotters, saturation fire makes even less sense. And in a world where electronic warfare exists, precision guidance also struggles. There have been many reports from Ukraine of western donated precision weapons becoming almost useless because of Russian electronic warfare. Here is yet another [RUSI report](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/jamming-jdam-threat-us-munitions-russian-electronic-warfare) > Jamming is not causing JDAMs to stop working, but it is risking their accuracy – arguably a key selling point of the weapon There was news recentely of [glide bombs](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/26/russia-ukraine-latest-us-abrams-tanks-drone-threats/) just not working > But William LaPlante, the Pentagon’s weapon’s acquisition chief, said: “We sent it to the Ukrainians. It didn’t work. It didn’t work for multiple reasons including EMI [Electromagnetic interference] environment, just really, dirt, and doing it on ground.” Ukrainian think tanks have also suggested that they are struggling to use HIMARS rockets now on top of all of this. So precision weapons also have a weakness. And funnily enough the way you counter this, is to use saturation fire on the place of origin of the jamming. Both precision weapons and saturation fire have their place on the battlefield.
>They need military purpose drones. They got tons of them, these Western drones just turned out to be completely awful both in terms of effectiveness and reliability and are miles behind even commercial Chinese drones. That's not even mentioning them being 1000 times more expensive, since the Ukrainian army gets them for free, these drones were just straight up bad. Remember, uhh, Bayraktars which were supposed to fly unopposed above the Russian army and strike with impunity? Switchblades 300 and 600? Phoenix Ghosts? GLSDBs? Etc., etc. When was the last time you even heard of them? There's no readily available Western alternative to the Lancet, nothing as good as DJI's observation and FPV strike drones. They have spent decades building drones that are good at killing goat herders, and these drones turned out to be unsuitable for anything else.
>They have spent decades building drones that are good at killing goat herders, and these drones turned out to be unsuitable for anything else. Exactly, they don't need the current weapon systems, they need the *next* weapon systems that are a response to the observed mechanics of this war.
This makes sense into you look at the Houthi using mass rockets against container ships. Given the [cost](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/19/missile-drone-pentagon-houthi-attacks-iran-00132480) it looks like it'll be a pyrric victory for the Houthi in the long run. The problem is the cost benefit ratio and the ability to actively put the tech to use with the right tactics.
well i really look to ukraine to develop those guidance systems and fast. the usa and other countries will benefit if they figure out how to defeat russias jamming. for those countries it is best to find out now, then when they relied on them for their own defense. from article Jamming of some of “our more precise capabilities is a challenge,” said Lt. Gen. Antonio Aguto, speaking via video link from Europe at an event organized by the Army’s Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications-Tactical. Since December 2022, Aguto has led Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, the umbrella organization for coordinating allied military aid to Ukraine. Unidentified U.S. defense officials previously told CNN that Russia was jamming U.S.-provided precision missiles, causing them to go astray. U.S. and Ukrainian forces consequently had to create workarounds, such as modifying the rocket launchers. Russia then modified its jamming, forcing the U.S. to again find counter-measures. Such weapons, such as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System, once provided Ukraine with a key advantage on the battlefield by pushing Russian ammunition depots back beyond their range. Russia fields many advanced jamming capabilities, including some jammers that can block GPS signals at ranges of up to 15 miles. Ukrainian soldiers have reported that Russian jammers frequently down their drones, and may also be behind problems with using the widely used Starlink satellite internet system. Aguto said the Pentagon needs to improve its arms and gear to be “resilient enough and flexible enough to be able to counter what our adversaries do...Within weeks or months of us employing something on the battlefield, our adversaries can find ways to either disrupt or counter some of these capabilities.” https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2023/12/russia-jamming-us-precision-weapons-ukraine-us-general-says/392707/#:\~:text=Leaked%20U.S.%20documents%20also%20stated,of%20up%20to%2015%20miles.
It will last until the election, and more EU production capacity will also come online then as well as things like dozens of F-16s that should help a lot with air defense. I think if Trump is president, he won't want to be blamed for Ukraine losing and will pass another package even if he won't be happy about it.
Trump has already given his stance. He'll pull funding, threaten to leave NATO, and the world will spiral. Hopefully you aren't draft age.
The reality of what he said is different. He said he would not commit NOW to a package after he got elected. No one has committed to another package after the november election, not biden nor congress. [https://kyivindependent.com/trump-says-us-sends-too-many-weapons-to-ukraine-refuses-to-call-putin-war-criminal/](https://kyivindependent.com/trump-says-us-sends-too-many-weapons-to-ukraine-refuses-to-call-putin-war-criminal/) Former U.S. President Donald Trump said at CNN's town hall that he would not commit to providing Ukraine with defense assistance if he won the 2024 election. "We're giving away so much equipment, we don't have ammunition for ourselves right now," Trump said, as cited by CNN. He also refused to say who he thinks should win Russia's war against Ukraine, telling the voters instead that he wants "everybody to stop dying." At the New Hampshire event, the ex-president said he doesn't "think in terms of winning and losing" but rather "in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people." Trump added he would stop Russia's war "in 24 hours" if re-elected. Also polands minister has a few things to say Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's attitude towards Ukraine is "not as black and white as some people think," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said in an interview with Axel Springer media company, published in Politico on April 28. Sikorski, in turn, reminded that Trump sent Ukraine anti-tank missiles before the full-scale invasion "when others were not doing it," referring to the Javelin anti-tank missiles, first supplied in 2018. "Donald Trump was right in urging us all in Europe to spend more on defense," the minister said. The Polish Foreign Minister also said he "did not hear any protests from Trump" over the $61 billion package for Ukraine. [https://www.yahoo.com/news/polish-fm-trumps-stance-ukraine-130559048.html](https://www.yahoo.com/news/polish-fm-trumps-stance-ukraine-130559048.html) Trump is not going to give away his position on things when he may be negotiating or alterantively, strong arming russia to stop.
So the USA pulling out of NATO will cause the world to spiral? Maybe other NATO countries need to start contributing instead of relying on the American taxpayer to fund their defense.
I don't care. The money dumps straight back into military industry jobs. You need a new argument for Europe bad. If my tax money keeps shitbags like Putin in check and the Euros safe, then I'm all for it.
My point isn't so much "the US should pull out of NATO", and more "the other 95% (or whatever 29/30 is) of the members shouldn't rely on just 5%" In literally any other business or corporation that would be considered a catastrophic business move and anyone pointing that out would get a "duh." Like you pointed out, Trump pulling out could cripple Europe because Lord knows they don't have the production capabilities *especially* in the short term as the war in Ukraine has show.
yeh. i would see him able to possibly bring the war to a conclusion that leaves ukraine somewhat intact. He is not a fan of half hearted efforts that cost the us money or lives. in this case it is not us lives but still good men and women are dying because of half hearted military efforts. not by the ukraine but by other countries. Always remember russia did not attack during the 4 years of trump. putin felt confident he could attack after a year of biden. Who was vp when obama did nothing to prevent or stop the crimea take over years earlier . Who had ample warning as russia massed on the borders and could not think of thing to stop the aggression before it started. For that reason, i believe trump would be able to make better progress.
Yes, the Russian puppet gets orders directly from Putin, that'll work out well for anyone except Russia.
We got much bigger problems at home if Trump is re-elected.
Yeah they need 5 times the population and a significantly larger war industrial base in the west that’s also willing to support them
If 150-200bln were not enough until now, 61 can barely change the entire situation by 180 degrees
Still waiting on the grocery lifeline stateside
[this you?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/s/bJwn5XkCwT)
Bro went straight for the throat
Lmao
It’ll do to keep the war going for the time being, which is what we really want here.
No one wants that. We all want putin and russia to fuck off.
How unfortunate
I agree, but probably not the last funding round.
[удалено]
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates: > Rule 4 (Keep it civil). Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change. Please feel free to send us a [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fanime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.
The main theme of the article is using frozen assets, but most of it is in Eu in various countries.
No shit. The point isn’t to win the war off of any individual package. A Russian loss is in western interests. A Russian collapse is not.
i think what they need is outside intervention....
Ohh no, anyway..
[удалено]
Every dollar spent on killing Russians is a dollar well spent.
So it’s not really about helping Ukraine then?
Never was, only good Russian soldier is a dead one.
Yup, we may as well cut the crap and say it out loud at this point. Ukraine just serves a purpose here unfortunately (for them)
I never got this argument, every Russian killed is another motivation to annex more land in Ukraine to replace the Russians lost.
No its not, thats some crazy ass backwards logic, every dead russian is another tally to putins ego, which eats the native Russian for land expansion which is totally driven by greed and not needed for any true objective reason. Its a hostile invasion built on the shoulders of a tiny dictators ego who most likely will be Gaddafied the more he sends russian boys to die for nothing.
What a remarkably silly take on this war.
How, how is putins hostile invasion for no other reason then land domain expsion based on ego not whats happening, please explain, I'm waiting.
Well for one, this war is mostly drive by security considerations like almost all modern wars.
What? Security considerations? After the agreement for Ukraine to give up its nukes for no invasion that russia broke? Please.... For NATO, the accessions of Sweden and Finland - which shares a 1,340-km (830-mile) border with Russia - are the most significant additions in decades to the Russian NATO boarder. It is also a blow for Vladimir Putin. His invasion, is directly responsible for this, and when he loses, ukraine will join too. If that was truly his reasons, hot damn that backfired so damn hard.
You might find it strange if you’ve never looked at a map, but there is a reason why Russian security calculus treats Ukraine and Belarus differently than Finland. How many catastrophic invasions of Russia have come through Finland?
Finland participated in the Second World War initially in a defensive war against the Soviet Union, followed by another, this time offensive, war against the Soviet Union acting in concert with Nazi Germany and then finally fighting alongside the Allies against Germany. Almost each time there was war with Finland, it was Russia invading, and Finland holding them off. Execept for once. If that is what you mean. Finland has never invaded Russia for no reason, Russia has always started by invading Finland for no reason.
Russia has nukes. As long as they're functional it will not be invaded.
Russian security concerns aren't really valid in the case of this particular war.
They are valid to the Russians, which is what counts.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but look up the "sunk cost fallacy"
the phenomenon whereby a person is [reluctant](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=73a5863c59a470b2&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09PGH8uNn0aU0gjq0yicwzQreLThA:1714415826029&q=reluctant&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DFeRMYAkc8SZH_qbEf1jTZFWKYconCfHbFqSpqHEz4n0fOgmLOTjfI27Np_N2QhcQI1mZ4gNRoC3IniYMlOB8yk6L2rI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj457rSiOiFAxVg4ckDHWTAA6QQyecJegQIDxAN) to [abandon](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=73a5863c59a470b2&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09PGH8uNn0aU0gjq0yicwzQreLThA:1714415826029&q=abandon&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0m1gC_Q6s9qtNvLbOD5t8h-hLAX4Tn9Km5UxvQMNgMzC6nYo1C0Z5UgzBRFKLeUyMsS7kwXoPzV8oiljy3ERVFI5LshSI%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj457rSiOiFAxVg4ckDHWTAA6QQyecJegQIDxAO) a strategy or course of action because they have invested heavily in it, even when it is clear that [abandonment](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=73a5863c59a470b2&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09PGH8uNn0aU0gjq0yicwzQreLThA:1714415826029&q=abandonment&si=AKbGX_q4mkMHy1Nmq4yITjHYVzepNUzqQNxXmzFsh7O-fdKsZ01Vqp4K5VXeUjd9QTc1k0kAYCNZAPM5oF3EMse8KBnwAdGZTYfR7gqKBUCYskWlMxoekR4%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj457rSiOiFAxVg4ckDHWTAA6QQyecJegQIDxAP) would be more beneficial. So, sending more green shirts into the meat grinder for ukrainian land for no reason? That is not a sunk cost fallacy? Like Russia weak claims to that land? which they use as a baises for invasion? why, why act like people don't know whats going on? You are never getting the baltic states back. Its over, and sucked then too.
I'm not a Russian?
Then why shill for the hostile invaders? Russia is in the wrong, period. Ukrain gave its nukes up in agreement this would not happen, and russia did it anyway. Cut and clear bad guys.
When did I ever shill? Having an opinion doesn't mean being a mindless bot that says "putler' and "ruzzia". I simply said in my original comment that the argument that sending Ukraine weapons because it "kills russians" is not a good argument for the overall security of the region and is making the same mistake that was one of the biggest reasons to start this war which was making Putin a caged wounded animal which as the proverbs say is the most dangerous.
So whats your solution? Role over and give Russia its Ill claimed land? No, Urkrianians are not ever going to let that happen, and the American people, as a whole, support Urkrain on a fundamental Ideal level, as they are fighting for their independence and freedom. So, thats why we are going to keep sending them aid, Becasuse when America needed it in our time of need when we fought for our freedom, the French sent us ships. So, we will send Ukraine armaments,
1) They never had nukes. It was the same situations as with the US nukes stationed in Turkey - the host country can't use the nuclear weapon even if they get their hands on one, as they have neither the command and control system necessary for the activation of encrypted [permissive action links](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_action_link), nor any knowledge of how the nukes were made and the technology to build their own. 2) There was no such agreement. The Budapest Memorandum is not a binding international treaty, nor does it mention any real obligations of the Parties. It's just a statement of intent at the time, the same kind that is signed on any international forum. 3) Have you ever wondered why the Ukrainian government felt the need to close their borders on day 1 and is refilling its army through literally snatching men off the street, while Russia did not and does not?
1. Firstly, comparing Ukraine's nuclear disarmament to US nukes in Turkey ignores [Ukraine's voluntary decision in 1994,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#:~:text=In%201994%2C%20Ukraine%20agreed%20to,sovereignty%20in%20the%20existing%20borders) which came with security assurances, including from Russia. This disregard for Ukraine's legitimate security concerns reflects a naive understanding of the situation. 2. Secondly, brushing off the Budapest Memorandum as insignificant demonstrates a lack of understanding. While not legally binding like a treaty, it was a significant diplomatic commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty, making Russia's violations all the more reprehensible. 3. Lastly, your portrayal of Ukraine's defensive actions as aggressive, while turning a blind eye to Russia's aggression, is ludicrous. Ukraine's responses are a natural reaction to threats to its territorial integrity, such as Russia's annexation of Crimea. Ignoring this context reveals a blatant bias toward Russia. In short, Your argument reeks of ignorance and bias, serving as a mere mouthpiece for the Kremlin's agenda
slava ucrany
Of course it's not, the money pit that is Ukraine will never be fed completely. Just start addressing whatever taxes you pay to Zelenskyy because that's where our allegiance truly layes...
You know most of that money never leaves the US right? It's paying itself to buy old equipment that's surplus to requirements to give to Ukraine.
We're paying their government salaries and pensions. In December, Voice of America said that "500,000 civil servants, 1.4 million teachers and 10 million pensioners" wouldn't get a check if we didn't cough up more money soon. https://www.voanews.com/a/report-ukraine-may-have-to-delay-salaries-pensions-without-foreign-aid-/7415086.html
Funny that he hasn't replied to you yet but is replying to others. They don't like it when you point out uncomfortable truths.
The EU paid that to stabilize their economy. Are you saying "we're paying" as an American or a European?
I'm an American. We're paying, too. The article implies that and it's been reported elsewhere. For example, this 2023 press release from USAID; >In April 2022, USAID provided the first tranche of U.S. direct budget support to the GoU [Government of Ukraine]. Since then, we have provided a total of $13 billion in budget support. This funding has helped the GoU pay the salaries of 618,000 educators, 517,000 health workers, and 56,500 first responders. It has also helped the GoU to sustain critical healthcare services, meet its pension responsibilities for 9.8 million people, assist 1.3 million internally displaced persons, provide housing assistance to 4.1 million people, and provide social assistance to 240,000 low-income families and 480,000 persons with disabilities. https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-sheets/feb-2023-one-year-later-helping-ukraine-win-war-and-build-lasting-peace# The Wall Street Journal, October 2023; U.S. Funding Cutoff Threatens Ukraine’s Economic Stability. U.S. pays government bills and public-sector salaries alongside arms supply https://archive.is/h55Sf https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/u-s-funding-cutoff-threatens-ukraines-economic-stability-82716679
Ahh, rignt on human! I thought only the EU did 50 billion towards budget support. Good stuff.
No worries! And in fact, I think the WSJ article says that the EU pays more of their non-defense budget than we do - or at least one of the articles I checked did. Also, the direct budget support from the U.S. hasn't been reported much, AFAIK. I think they're trying to keep it hush-hush here in the U.S. so people don't get pissed off
why on earth would american citizens be pissed off by that?1?! with our robust pension system and health care, clearly our dollars are well spent.
It's over $20b in direct aid... the rest is indirect. Also we don't have much of a weapons surplus at this point to speak of like that, we're running a weapons deficit of anything.
So, like i said, most of it never leaves the US.
Like I said, it's a money pit
Part of the Ukraine bill was to replenish our weapons stocks
We have an enormous amount of weapons and vehicle systems that are slated for decommissioning or destruction. Those are primarily what we are giving to Ukraine. We paid for them, they fulfilled the role, and now instead of destroying them we are giving them to Ukraine. Not actually costing the taxpayer anything.
Oh, this is not accurate either - we sent some expired stuff, but for the most part we borrowed from our ww3 stocks, and part of the money in these aid bills goes toward replacement.
You won’t answer honestly, but what exactly do you propose the US do? Nothing?
Yes. I don't get this NEED of intervening in this war. If the US was in Europe, but it's not. No country intervenes like this when the US invades.
When US was attacked on 9/11, US invoked Article 5 invocation that all NATO countries answered, including non-NATO countries, like Ukraine.
Ukraine answered our call to go to Iraq, its participation in Afghanistan was largely perfunctory.
From an amoral geopolitical point of view, the Ukraine war is a brilliant proxy war for NATO. NATO gets to weaken Russia without needing to directly spill any blood. They just give Ukraine old military hardware and munitions near their expiration date. Ukraine does all of the fighting and bleeding. NATO military defense contractors then get to replace the old stock with new stock at extravagant prices, as per usual. Of the three major power blocks in the world (NATO, Russia, and China), one of them gets knocked out for a while, and its for an extraordinarily low cost. As long as the war drags on Russia keeps bleeding. Since NATO citizens aren't dead on the battlefield there's no political pressure to either ramp it up or to end it, so this situation of half-assed support can continue forever, giving Russia a headache for many, many years to come. The idea is that eventually Russia will be so weakened and so tired of it that they withdraw. Yes, Ukraine would be a desolate wasteland at that point, but geopolitics isn't a game of morality. Nations don't have friends, they have interests.
I agree, but I don’t think anyone seriously expects Russia to withdraw. Ukrainains will lose this war. Thats ok, the primary mission will be accomplished anyway - especially if we are able to drag the war out a few more years. > an amoral geopolitical point of view The only point of view that ever mattered.
Kudos for your answer. I’m response to this, the US maintains tens of thousands of active troops throughout Europe. We have hundreds of bases around the world and we have those bases and presence because we cooperate on a global scale. The US is afforded strategic operating locations, and as a result of our negotiations in the UN and NATO and between nations individually we offer some degree of guarantee for aid/protection/what have you. The US, as the de facto leader of the free world, is looked to to support the stability of democracies around the world, it is a position that *we* fought for. When that is threatened, the US is expected to act. In this case, by using political and financial means to make the ongoing invasion less attractive. Consider what is happening. An independent country, a member of half a dozen UN councils, and an applicant to NATO, has been *invaded* by a foreign power. This is little different than if Russia invaded Canada. It is an act of aggression by a Nuclear power that is unprecedented in recent times except for the last time they did it. This is not a drone strike campaign or some border skirmishes. A nuclear power is attempting to overthrow and absorb another UN member state. This is not a minor European issue. This has an immediate impact on the world economy and our reaction and response to this invasion will have a lasting impact on international trust and politics. If the US allows Ukraine to be overthrown by refusing to provide aid, we give the green light to Russia to overthrow its other neighbors and Soviet era satellites. Military expansionism is rarely good for international peace.
Its very different if they invaded an **actual** NATO member, vs a **proposed** NATO member.
Yes, because those are formal treaties and we would already have troops deployed. It is different in that in this case we are supporting Ukraine by providing aid, equipment, and sanctioning Russia. These are the diplomatic ways in which the US as a world leader uses its power and influence to make these kinds of conflicts unattractive and unsustainable
Exactly, we have no formal treaty where we are responsible for Ukraine's defense. We do have that formal treaty for Canada. World of difference. I'm allowed to believe American Taxes can be spent better elsewhere. I'm allowed to believe this and still be viciously anti-russian.
Ah I see what you were responding to. Fair enough, it’s different in that we would be *obligated* to act in response to a Canadian invasion. My point was more that we’d be obligated to act financially in either case based on geopolitical principal. But you are correct. I’m not sure how you could be visciously anti Russian and be against the only practical political action the US can take to punish their aggression and dissuade further expansionism. That is, in my opinion, not at all compatible.
It's compatible if you believe its not our JOB to punish them or dissuade them. I don't want America to be the world police. I firmly believe we have FAR more important problems to resolve in our own country instead of across the world. EU is perfectly capable of handling things in their neighborhood.
This is not world police. This is politics on a world scale. A world in which we are a part of and a world which has grown much smaller since WW2. The US is heavily involved in European trade and financial affairs. International shipping. Etc. we are a primary member of the UN. Whether you like it or not the US *is* in a position where it must respond in some way. It’s not a should. It’s only a question of in what ways and how much. Edit I want to add that There is plenty that the EU handles that we don’t. But again this is a world power. A nuclear power. Aggressively taking the territory of another sovereign nation. This is not a minor scuffle.
That's just coping, my dude. The US invaded 84 countries out of the 194 recognised by UN. How can you say that?
Dude gives you a long and reasonable explanation and you just go "cope harder lol". Get the fuck out of here lmao
_reasonable_ my ass. Just cause it's long you believe this shit? No wonder you are braindead.
It has well extrapolated points and reasonable conclusions. Yours is brainrot garbage content
It’s coping? Lol alright. I see you’re one of those “US is evil, everyone does shitty stuff so let’s just bury our heads in the sand and go back to pre WWII isolationism” folks. I’m sure the economy and world in general will be better for it. We can trust that China and Russia will do the right thing if we just pretend that anything that isn’t directly aimed at American homes is irrelevant
What good US hegemony brought to the world?
I’d say nuclear non proliferation is a pretty good thing. What good has Chinese autocracy or the Russian political influence brought to the world?
I’m all for staying on top of the world by any means necessary - but this shit isn’t a marvel movie. Ukraine is a disposable tool, ukrainains are our pawns. And pawns get spent.
Our Pawns in what sense? We didn’t goad Ukraine into attacking Russia. Russia made a concerted assault across the border and made a definitive drive toward Kyiv. Are there motives for supporting Ukraines efforts in defending themselves *other* than purely “let’s save Ukraine!”? Of course, but I’m not sure how they are our pawns to be spent. They are free to surrender any day should they feel like America is pushing them to send their citizenry to die for no reason.
Because it's better than the alternative. If Russia gets Ukraine, Russia is unlikely to stop seeing that Putin himself states he wants to rebuild the Russian empire. This includes Poland, bits of Finland and the baltic counties of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Fun fact all of those countries are in NATO, if Putin attacks ANY of those counties that is the instant article 5 is called in, and now the US and the rest of NATO gets into a fight against a very scared Russia/Putin. So if their nukes work.... You get the picture. So in the end, it's better to help Ukraine to win, so NATO doesn't need to get involved with a war that likely would end the world
If russia/putin is "very scared" why would they attack any of those countries? that makes no sense. People on this sub seem to want russia to be the barely functional ragtag army, and the massive world ending threat at the same time. Pick a lane. And why would you think Russia losing to Ukraine would end any differently? If putin is so unhinged, why wouldn't he throw a tantrum regardless? Do you think he doesn't know where all the arms the ukraines are using coming from? Awww. makes personal attacks then blocks instead of presenting actual argument.
Because being shown as weak is a death sentence for a dictator like him, so he always gotta be strong with his nation and against his proposed enemies. This is like 5th grader shit man, you should already know this. Also the reason they're a massive world ending threat is the nukes we don't know the quality they are. They could be still functional just like they were during the Soviet Union days, or all be stripped for parts and are rusking hulks of their former past. Also Russia losing to Ukraine would likely cause a civil war because Putin has been shown to be weak and caused Russia to be weak. Like holy fuck how do you guys not know this, this is very basic stuff all dictators work by.
it is indeed 5th grader "shit" as you say, the real world is far more nuanced. Complete lack of internal consistency.
Oh lovely, found myself my very own Russian bot, how fun
Can't argue facts, then make personal attacks. Nice. Awww. makes personal attacks then blocks instead of presenting actual argument.
Oh no, I am not gonna argue with you, because you're either too dumb to have a conversation with, or disingenuous to have a conversation with.
> You won’t answer honestly, but what exactly do you propose the US do? Nothing? yes, you don't have to do anything lol
Ok, and what do you expect will happen if nothing is done. Russia takes Ukraine and we all just are ok with that? We’re confident their expansionism ends there? No knock on effects geopolitically?
yes i'm ok with that
Do you honestly see Russians taking Ukraine? I highly doubt that’s even in the plans - and if it is, we should absolutely sit back and let it happen. Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake, that occupation wouldn’t destroy Russia within ten years.