President Joe Biden has invited his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House on Tuesday, a spokeswoman said, after the administration warned it will run out of money for Ukraine aid…
I hope they do, but this is why I’ve always thought Ukraine needed to be a little less hard-line on not giving up any territory. Because I figured it was only a matter of time before the Republicans (and other similar parties/groups in other countries) ratfucked the support away from them.
I don’t know if Russia was ever open to negotiating, but if they were, Ukraine may find themselves wishing they had negotiated at a high point, instead of their support being pulled out from under them.
Sadly, the US is simply not a reliable ally or source of support right now, and probably won’t be until getting the internal insanity under control. Until there are two parties actually willing to govern instead of one party trying to govern and the other acting like a deranged shit-flinging baboon, the US will be unreliable.
If Ukraine gives up territory they have established that a large invasion will yield positive results, giving Russia an incentive to try again for more. Given that, in Ukraine’s position, what would you do? Choose to continue fighting, or choose to stop fighting now and then have to start fighting again in five years having given up loads of your ports and industrial base? You would need a guarantee that it would not happen.
What guarantee would you seek? The only one that makes sense to me is NATO membership, and that is exactly the situation Russia least wants to happen - they will not accept any deal in which Ukraine becomes a NATO member.
The reason for that is because more generally Russia wants to be able to threaten and conquer its neighbours at will. In other words, any attempt you make to guarantee Ukraine’s safety after a deal is struck is actually undermining Russia’s long-term goals and so will be refused. Russia only ever talked about negotiating to muddy the waters.
The only way to end the war favourably for the West and for democracies is for Russia to be defeated.
If it was me in their place, I’d try giving up as little as possible then seek some sort of binding defense agreement, whether NATO or something else. And if necessary do it in secrecy so Russia doesn’t hear about it until the agreement is fully in force.
Honestly I just think the US is simply not reliable, and with Ukraine seemingly relying heavily on the US, they need to be looking for the quickest exit strategy they can come up with at a moment of strength.
Hopefully, if Republicans prevent continued US support, other countries will still provide enough…I just fear it may not be, and that seems like a worse outcome for Ukraine’s people.
Naw, fuck Russia and their war of conquest. There is visual confirmation of Ukraine destroying over 13,000 Russian vehicles, including over 2,500 Russian tanks. Click the link, every single example has a picture or video detailing Russia’s devastating losses. Russia can continue to beat their head against a brick wall and I’m happy to help provide the bricks.
In the same breath, US is giving items they would be deactivating at a cost. Probably cheaper to give the Bradley’s from the 60s and bombs from the 60s that expire next year away.
This argument is only marginally less lazy than the we could fund X if we didn’t fund Y. Money is finite, blindly sending funds to a country with ongoing corruption and embezzlement issues is foolish. Major oversight needs to happen.
It’s not an argument, it’s just a fact I’m stating to draw attention to the false dichotomy presented by the other comment. If you think it’s worth sending aid is another issue altogether. You have to look at the costs, the results and weigh it against the cost of not sending the aid to figure out your position.
I think it makes total sense, it is a gift to the USA to be able to weaken another military superpower without having to send a single American.
Instead of an expensive cold war style arms race during peace time, they can just send the material and “win” the arms race by proxy.
USA and NATO should send military aid as long as there are Ukrainians willing to fight.
If you havent noticed, the US now Ukraine is winning. And Russia is not weakened, remember nearly 3 years ago when they said Russian defeat was weeks away? Its been nearly 143 weeks
You know ignoring your comment that the war has been going on for 3 years. Its only been a year and halfish maybe closing into 2 years. Its laughable that a country like Ukraine whom’s military budget before this was several fractions of Russia’s is able to hold them back in open fucking warfare. I know you are gonna say whatabout Vietnam or “War on Terror” but those were insurgencies (ignoring the ethics of the US being in those wars since really we shouldn’t have been) the US and Nato trying to capture territory typically goes smoothly as we seen in the Gulf War and Desert Storm basically being called the 100 hour land war
Even if we choose to ignore how unethical and self-centered this argument is (for any country), a lot of US influence, affluence and indeed global stability right now hinges on the US military might being there to reliably challenge authoritarian aggression on its allies and partners. The second US starts showing cracks in that reliability (with the extremist MAGA wing and all), authoritarian leaders start seeing opportunities to test the waters, literally as well.
This notion somehow assumes that the US achieved and can continue its status disconnected from the rest of the world’s security and it’s bonkers. Even the otherwise sound argument for increased defense spending in Europe is made irrelevant by the Russo-Ukrainian war as it’ll obviously increase spending in Europe. Spending that could be largely funneled in to the US military-industrial complex, recouping from what gets sent if they signal their commitment and keep sending their late cold-war era kit to grind down one of their two most serious threats. Without a single US troop on the ground.
It’s hard to think of a bigger foreign policy W for the US with its otherwise controversial bloated military and more fitting use for what’s already built for this exact purpose, but it doesn’t seem important to the extremist wing.
It’s hard to think of a bigger foreign policy W for the US with its otherwise controversial bloated military and more fitting use for what’s already built for this exact purpose, but it doesn’t seem important to the extremist wing.
Testing a ICCBM with some kind of Kinetic Kill warhead (that is, non-nuclear, just… some heavy stuff that slams into stuff.) that is “accidentally” rigged to hit someplace in the near vicinity of Putin. Given laughable accuracy of russian missiles, we might even get away with it. (“Oooppps”)
The use of “your” tells me you’re from outside the US. Which means none of the money being used came from “your” taxes and that you can’t vote on any of the senators or representatives, meaning you have no stake in this whatsoever.
It costs a lot less to make life better in other countries than to deal with the flow of migrants, so I guess you would be the first one in favor of spending money on the third world in order to save money for the people of the USA, right?
Congress needs to get off their ass and pass a Ukraine lethal aid bill.
Roughly half of Congress is rooting for the enemy unfortunately.
It would be fantastic if the Ukrainians could defend their country by themselves using weapons we gave them.
It would be terrible if other countries had to send manpower to Ukraine.
Giving them arms is a great way to prevent future entanglement
I hope they do, but this is why I’ve always thought Ukraine needed to be a little less hard-line on not giving up any territory. Because I figured it was only a matter of time before the Republicans (and other similar parties/groups in other countries) ratfucked the support away from them.
I don’t know if Russia was ever open to negotiating, but if they were, Ukraine may find themselves wishing they had negotiated at a high point, instead of their support being pulled out from under them.
Sadly, the US is simply not a reliable ally or source of support right now, and probably won’t be until getting the internal insanity under control. Until there are two parties actually willing to govern instead of one party trying to govern and the other acting like a deranged shit-flinging baboon, the US will be unreliable.
If Ukraine gives up territory they have established that a large invasion will yield positive results, giving Russia an incentive to try again for more. Given that, in Ukraine’s position, what would you do? Choose to continue fighting, or choose to stop fighting now and then have to start fighting again in five years having given up loads of your ports and industrial base? You would need a guarantee that it would not happen.
What guarantee would you seek? The only one that makes sense to me is NATO membership, and that is exactly the situation Russia least wants to happen - they will not accept any deal in which Ukraine becomes a NATO member.
The reason for that is because more generally Russia wants to be able to threaten and conquer its neighbours at will. In other words, any attempt you make to guarantee Ukraine’s safety after a deal is struck is actually undermining Russia’s long-term goals and so will be refused. Russia only ever talked about negotiating to muddy the waters.
The only way to end the war favourably for the West and for democracies is for Russia to be defeated.
If it was me in their place, I’d try giving up as little as possible then seek some sort of binding defense agreement, whether NATO or something else. And if necessary do it in secrecy so Russia doesn’t hear about it until the agreement is fully in force.
Honestly I just think the US is simply not reliable, and with Ukraine seemingly relying heavily on the US, they need to be looking for the quickest exit strategy they can come up with at a moment of strength.
Hopefully, if Republicans prevent continued US support, other countries will still provide enough…I just fear it may not be, and that seems like a worse outcome for Ukraine’s people.
They already tried that after Russia took Crimea, and then Russia went ahead and invaded the rest of Ukraine anyway.
What part of your country are you willing to give up to the russians?
Your(?) Congress needs to focus on the people of the USA and not foreign wars that have nothing to do with them.
Naw, fuck Russia and their war of conquest. There is visual confirmation of Ukraine destroying over 13,000 Russian vehicles, including over 2,500 Russian tanks. Click the link, every single example has a picture or video detailing Russia’s devastating losses. Russia can continue to beat their head against a brick wall and I’m happy to help provide the bricks.
This is a bad faith argument.
We could take that same amount of money and say we’re going to fund every school lunch K-12 across the US and the GQP would cry “socialism!”
In the same breath, US is giving items they would be deactivating at a cost. Probably cheaper to give the Bradley’s from the 60s and bombs from the 60s that expire next year away.
this and also… the argument that it has nothing to do with us is a joke, too.
It’s important to recognize that left unchecked, Putin will start ww3.
Well he likely just means more cops, cameras, and spying,
Governments can do multiple things at once
This argument is only marginally less lazy than the we could fund X if we didn’t fund Y. Money is finite, blindly sending funds to a country with ongoing corruption and embezzlement issues is foolish. Major oversight needs to happen.
It’s not an argument, it’s just a fact I’m stating to draw attention to the false dichotomy presented by the other comment. If you think it’s worth sending aid is another issue altogether. You have to look at the costs, the results and weigh it against the cost of not sending the aid to figure out your position.
I agree it’s not much of an argument.
I think it makes total sense, it is a gift to the USA to be able to weaken another military superpower without having to send a single American. Instead of an expensive cold war style arms race during peace time, they can just send the material and “win” the arms race by proxy. USA and NATO should send military aid as long as there are Ukrainians willing to fight.
If you havent noticed, the US now Ukraine is winning. And Russia is not weakened, remember nearly 3 years ago when they said Russian defeat was weeks away? Its been nearly 143 weeks
Three years ago? Wtf are you talking about?
You know ignoring your comment that the war has been going on for 3 years. Its only been a year and halfish maybe closing into 2 years. Its laughable that a country like Ukraine whom’s military budget before this was several fractions of Russia’s is able to hold them back in open fucking warfare. I know you are gonna say whatabout Vietnam or “War on Terror” but those were insurgencies (ignoring the ethics of the US being in those wars since really we shouldn’t have been) the US and Nato trying to capture territory typically goes smoothly as we seen in the Gulf War and Desert Storm basically being called the 100 hour land war
Whatever helps you sleep at night
143 weeks ago was March 15, 2021, 11 months before the invasion.
So clueless of the events prior?
since Moscows three days to Kyiev? 🤣
Mmm, boot leather!
Ever heard of a foreign policy?
Duh, you’re taking to Russian’s foreign policy in action
Ha true that
Even if we choose to ignore how unethical and self-centered this argument is (for any country), a lot of US influence, affluence and indeed global stability right now hinges on the US military might being there to reliably challenge authoritarian aggression on its allies and partners. The second US starts showing cracks in that reliability (with the extremist MAGA wing and all), authoritarian leaders start seeing opportunities to test the waters, literally as well.
This notion somehow assumes that the US achieved and can continue its status disconnected from the rest of the world’s security and it’s bonkers. Even the otherwise sound argument for increased defense spending in Europe is made irrelevant by the Russo-Ukrainian war as it’ll obviously increase spending in Europe. Spending that could be largely funneled in to the US military-industrial complex, recouping from what gets sent if they signal their commitment and keep sending their late cold-war era kit to grind down one of their two most serious threats. Without a single US troop on the ground.
It’s hard to think of a bigger foreign policy W for the US with its otherwise controversial bloated military and more fitting use for what’s already built for this exact purpose, but it doesn’t seem important to the extremist wing.
Testing a ICCBM with some kind of Kinetic Kill warhead (that is, non-nuclear, just… some heavy stuff that slams into stuff.) that is “accidentally” rigged to hit someplace in the near vicinity of Putin. Given laughable accuracy of russian missiles, we might even get away with it. (“Oooppps”)
(yeh. I wouldn’t vote for me either. )
The use of “your” tells me you’re from outside the US. Which means none of the money being used came from “your” taxes and that you can’t vote on any of the senators or representatives, meaning you have no stake in this whatsoever.
It costs a lot less to make life better in other countries than to deal with the flow of migrants, so I guess you would be the first one in favor of spending money on the third world in order to save money for the people of the USA, right?
I would.
Me too, but I doubt the person I was replying to would!
Except some time ago, we demanded that Ukraine give up their nuclear arsenal and that we’d protect them from Russia if they did.