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…
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.
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 moot 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?
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
deleted by creator
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 moot 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.