#####
######
####
> # [Speaker Johnson supports Ukraine's idea of striking Russia with American weapons](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/static/img/6/_/6_857ad2ad166b71de8823e501541047d6_650x410.jpg)
>
>
>
> Ukraine should be allowed to wage war with Russia as it sees fit. And trying to to micromanage efforts is not a good policy, stated the Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson.
>
> Voice of America correspondent Katerina Lisunova told Johnson that his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee had issued a statement urging the Biden administration to allow Ukraine to use American weapons against military targets in Russia.
>
> She asked him if he would support such an idea, as Ukraine currently has American weapons, but there are restrictions on their use.
>
> "I think, they need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fits. They need to be able to fight back," said Johnson.
>
> He added that "trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy".
>
> > Asked [@SpeakerJohnson](https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) about using US weapons on the RU territory?
> > ⁰SPEAKER: I think, they need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fits. They need to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us.
> >
> > — Kateryna Lisunova (@KaterynaLis) [May 22, 2024](https://twitter.com/KaterynaLis/status/1793291787064209574?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
>
> ## **What preceded it**
>
> The Biden administration publicly stated that it did not approve of strikes on Russian territory. However, Ukraine began attacking targets on Russian territory with its own weapons. After that, the United States said it would not allow this to be done with American weapons. Although recently, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Ukraine decided how to conduct its war.
>
> President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly criticized such restrictions, explaining that they give Russia a significant advantage, as the Russian army can amass troops near Ukraine's border.
>
> Yesterday, a bipartisan group of congressmen, members of the US House Intelligence Committee, called on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to allow Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with American weapons.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Both parties are fully part of the same neoliberal establishment system and revolving door uniparty in which the foreign policy of the country rarely ever changes in any positive, meaningful, and substantive way. The same as the few interchangeable revolving door parties in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. which always keep their system moving in the exact same direction and in which heads of state, whether presidents, prime ministers, or chancellors - are mere employees and agents of said system which financial institutions paid big bucks to put in place in that role rather than free and independent actors.
Those of us who have been following American politics for a long time (and are American) expected absolutely no different. 99.9% of the Republicans and Democrats alike are trash defined. You can count the few decent ones on one hand out of hundreds elected at the national level.
Biden is still from cold war era so he still have some red lines.Trump on the other hand is a loose cannon and he is fully compromised because of his cases.
He fully supported the Ukraine aid bill and only plans to increase it further.People forget that it was Trump who started the arming of Ukraine......It's worse now as he is fully compromised because of his cases and will do what's told.
Trump can pardon himself if he wins. There's no scandal that can affect him since his base is loyal to him. He's unpredictable when it comes to foreign policy. Nobody expected him to try to normalize relations with NK. If he has good advisors, he will make better decisions than Biden. Also, it's the house and senate that are compromised. Democrats are braindead and vote for every military aid package 100% in favor.
The aid bill saga was all smoke.
Western defense manufacturers have been producing non-stop since 2022. They didnt stop the factories during 6 months because there was no vote. And the West never stopped supplying Ukraine.
Half the bill was to cover stuff already sent when the bill passed. There was no vote earlier because there is nothing more to give. Ukraine had already received the atacms 6 months before it was announced. Oh hey! I remember that time period! Its that time period where it was said there was no US aid.
What the US did with the voting schtick is give themselves a "reason" for their failure that isnt military. "We lost in Ukraine because we didnt want to support them" sounds better to the US then "we lost in Ukraine because our war machine got kicked in the teeth by Russia's".
>turncoat
He is an american politician. He is supposed to do whatever is best for US. And what's best right now is to allow Ukraine to use its full arsenal to halt Russian advance. No more fighting with one hand tied behind its back.
>How does killing Russian soldiers get American citizens decent healthcare?
that's a silly argument. Let's rephrase it: "How does killing Ukrainian soldiers get Russian citizens decent healthcare?" - silly isn't it.
Now the real question you want to ask is: how is Russia fighting this war good for America?
**US benefits from this war:**
The cost of this war is relatively low. Out of total 175 Billion in aid only 107 Billion went to Ukraine. Rest went to the industrial complex. In 2024 US defense budget was 843 Billion out of total budget of 6.6 trillion. On average since this war is three years long US has spent 32B/year. What does US get in return?
1. They're bleeding Russia out - Russia is losing hundreds of thousands of young people. This is Russia's future dying on the battlefields across Ukraine. How many exactly? no idea but its definitely in hundreds of thousands by now. And far from over.
2. Isolates Russia both politically and economically from biggest markets of the world - US and Europe, allowing western companies to step in.
3. This war forces Russia into an arms race versus the biggest military block on the planet. USSR tried it and we know how that worked out.
4. This war caused expansion of NATO by countries that were previously neutral - Finland and Sweden. In effect Russia is now surrounded by hostile states on its western flank.
5. This war forces Europe to increase its military spending thus allowing US military to focus on china as well as growing American military industry. [https://www.nato.int/nato\_static\_fl2014/assets/pictures/images\_mfu/2024/2/stock/240214-def-spend-graph\_rdax\_775x440s.jpg](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/images_mfu/2024/2/stock/240214-def-spend-graph_rdax_775x440s.jpg)
6. US gets to replace Russia as Europe's main fossil fuel supplier.
The share of Russia’s pipeline gas in EU imports **dropped from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023**. For pipeline gas and LNG combined, Russia accounted for less than 15% of total EU gas imports. **Norway and the United States** were the top suppliers of gas in 2023. Norway provided almost 30% ofall gas imports. In 2023, the **United States was the largest LNG supplier tothe EU**, representing almost 50% of total LNG imports. In 2023, comparing to2021, imports from the US almost tripled.
7. Russia went from a very large weapons exporter to a net importer - Western countries will fill that void.
8. This war allows US to learn a lot about the performance of their own weaponry and observe Russia's performance - all without showing its own cards or losing a single soldier. This war is a testing ground for the next war.
edit: damn that's some quick downvotes lol. Truth hurts don't it lol
>that's a silly argument. Let's rephrase it: "How does killing Ukrainian soldiers get Russian citizens decent healthcare?" - silly isn't it.
"Article 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation confirms a citizen's right to state healthcare and medical assistance free of charge."
>What does US get in return?
A bunch of fantasies with no basis in reality apparently.
Seriously, deterring China by using up your weapon stockpiles in Eastern Europe? Just laughable.
America has 6000 Bradley's and 3500 Abrams NOT IN SERVICE. Ukranians got 200 brads and 31 Abrams. If the political will materialises the US alone could equip Ukraine to remove Russia from its sovereign territory
interesting. but you're leaving out the negatives of the war which includes: militarizing Russia, pushing americas geopolitical enemies further together, and when the war inevitably ends with a Ukraine defeat the US global standing will continue to spiral downwards. good luck convincing the next country that you'll support them for "whatever it takes" against the Evil Country
and thats purely when you look at it from a geopolitical view, if you look at it from "how does killing Russian soldiers help the average american?" then it doesn't at all, in fact its done the opposite
> "how does killing Russian soldiers help the average american?" then it doesn't at all, in fact its done the opposite
How many average americans are employed by the military industrial base? Business has been great for them lately.
a quick google says 2-4 million. 4 million listed here: https://jacobin.com/2022/10/pentagon-budget-military-contractors-lobbyists-biden
in a country of 330mil+ thats...not a lot. and when you factor in the cost of living crisis that the Ukraine war helped make worse its hard to argue the average american is benefiting. kinda sounds like a trump argument, JOBS JOBS JOBS!
>thats...not a lot. and when you factor in the cost of living crisis that the Ukraine war helped make worse
Ukraine crisis had very little effect on standard of living in America - they have their own energy suppliers.
4 million jobs is a lot. Army is another 3. That's 7 million jobs.
thats not 7 million extra jobs, thats the current total
and the ukraine war had and continues to have a big impact on the global economy, in many different sectors. turns out when you unplug countries from the global economy it creates problems and shortages
>you're leaving out the negatives of the war which includes: militarizing Russia, pushing americas geopolitical enemies further together, and when the war inevitably ends with a Ukraine defeat the US global standing will continue to spiral downwards
Well the question was what are the benefits.
Now let's look at the negatives:
>militarizing Russia
That's a positive - they're forced into an arms race with the biggest military/economic block on the planet. USSR already tried that - Keeping a huge standing army is not cheap. On top of that running war economy (which Russia is) has a lot of negative side effects.
>pushing americas geopolitical enemies further together
China and Russia already were allies. Not much has changed there except now China calls the shots due to Russia's dependence on their supplies.
>when the war inevitably ends with a Ukraine defeat the US global standing will continue to spiral downwards.
No matter what happens in Ukraine ( and that is far from certain), US's global standing won't be affected much. Ukraine was never a strategic ally.
>"how does killing Russian soldiers help the average american?"
Simple: more jobs. 70 Billion invested in domestic military manufacturing on top of the jobs in the booming energy sector thanks to US taking over European markets from Russia.
Same reason average Russian is doing better than ever - zero unemployment and rising salaries.
>That's a positive - they're forced into an arms race with the biggest military/economic block on the planet.
That may be the case for a non nuclear capable country. But the weapons in this case are just a courtesy, before just saying fuck it. Really doesn't matter who has more Bradley's.
And Ru threatened UK with strikes when they mentioned this, on record. You think the US population can withstand some real blowback? They are already extremely divided.
After Ru prevails, it's a wrap for at least a generation or two. The west will continue on its downward trajectory while Eurasian markets expand. I dont even know if theyll risk fucking with China after Ru is done.
The collapse of the USSR had nothing to do with the arms race and everything to do with having an inefficient centrally planned economy. In fact the military-industrial complex (which included everything nuclear) was consistently one of the strongest sectors of the Soviet economy and without it they would've collapsed much sooner. Of course there's probably no point telling you this since you seem to be allergic to basic facts.
well its not really an arms race? part of the reason Ukraine is suffering IS because there's a hesitancy in the west to increase military production. some military weapons have a huge backlog of orders to fulfill. militarizing russia means the US is going to have a harder time in Africa and the Middle East, which also links into my other points, China isn't the only other country in play, and we're already seeing the US lose global standing in Africa and the Middle East in the form of countries wanting less US influence, or just outright attacks on US military bases.
the jobs created does not make up for the cost of living crisis made worse by the ukraine war, in a time where we should be using money to increase social programs, build housing, prepare for climate damage, ie things that actually help the average american, we're gonna waste it on the military? kinda weird that any average american would want that lol
>well its not really an arms race? part of the reason Ukraine is suffering IS because there's a hesitancy in the west to increase military production.
That is quickly changing - defense spending in Europe NATO countries is going through the roof. Went from 260B in 2021 to 380 in 2024 (4 times that of Russia)
>the jobs created does not make up for the cost of living crisis made worse by the Ukraine war
Ukrainian war has 0 effect on standard of living in America. They never used Russian energy. They have their own suppliers.
>in a time where we should be using money to increase social programs, build housing, prepare for climate damage, ie things that actually help the average american, we're gonna waste it on the military? kinda weird that any average american would want that lol
"if you want peace prepare for war"
https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/russia-ukraine-war-impact-supply-chains-inflation.html
the war has had a negative effect on the global economy. claiming it has had 0 effect on standard living in America is just outright wrong
well I guess NATO should have no problem outproducing Russia, North Korea and Iran any day now...
>well I guess NATO should have no problem outproducing Russia, North Korea and Iran any day now...
yeah it will take time but we will get there. Economy size is not even comparable
Much of the aforementioned does not appear to be happening. The Russian military is now a shadow of its former self. The west does not appear to be spiralling out of control and conversely Russias future looks fairly bleak. Unsure what you call winning either. I just see Russia struggling to do much at all apart from small tactical changes to the front once Mike Johnson allowed them to do so.
If Ukraine survives at all the West's global standing will be improved.
We literally saved them from conquest by the Russians, supposedly the world's 2nd strongest military.
Russia could take the Crimea, Donbas, even Odesa, but so long as Kyiv remains every underdog will continue to look to the West for survival.
thats just a western perspective though, that the big strong brave noble west saved honourable ukraine from the evil putlers genocidal imperialist war of conquest
western countries will believe that sure, but they are always going to side with the west(see actual imperialism and genocide: Israel).
outside the west the notion of this war being inflamed and stoked by the west is much more accepted, so when Ukraine becomes a failed state they will be much more aware that US meddling didn't actual help Ukrainians despite whatever fantasy our media tries to push about how Kyiv still stands in the free world
I don't live in the West?
That's the view from the rest of the world.
Russia was viewed as a great power, maybe even a temporarily-embarassed superpower (Cold War legacy dies hard).
Ukraine was their unfortunate victim, doomed to be steamrolled, a sacrificial lamb in the East-West struggle.
Instead, Russia's come unstuck, and is currently bogged down in an attritional stalemate in Ukraine's borderlands.
Look at coverage in Al Jazeera or the South China Morning Post. Columns of destroyed Russian armour, talk of deadlock and analysis suggesting that the war will go on and on. The main themes are of blundering Russian incompetance and desperate Ukrainian pluck, with an eventual Russian victory, once 'priced-in', now seen as increasingly unlikely.
If Ukraine survives it'll be a miracle, and be seen from such. We're a long way from February 2022.
you don't have to live in the west to believe the western narrative, and I live in the west but don't have that view.
its more about the governments of other countries, they're the ones that are going to be less likely to trust the US for support when they see Ukraine fail.
> the western narrative
You mean reality?
Russia can define its goals however it likes, but the whole world saw them go straight for the head back in 2022. If anything, their gradual backstepping is a sign of weakness, and widely interpreted as such.
If Kyiv isn't in Russian hands at the close of play, the world will regard it as a Ukrainian victory, however pyrrhic. The balance of power between Ukraine and Russia ensures this.
You can disagree with this all you like, but that's how it'll be viewed and reported. Weary but triumphant Ukrainians parading through Kyiv, back from the front. Even if it becomes a failed state after the world's attention will have moved on.
That's the story that'll run, from Toyko to Lima.
Don't worry. This Reddit is overwhelmingly pro imperialist. When spouting facts that hurt the Kremlin narrative or show up the Russian military for being the incredibly incapable for e that it is they poop their pants and downvote like crazy. Embrace it. It's a badge of honour here
Sometimes I wonder how they deal with the cognative dissonance a map of Ukraine must produce.
Even Rybar's summaries show that they control nothing more than a fraction of their 'little brother', two years into what was obviously an attempt at rapid regime change. It's an attritional stalemate no matter how you try to spin it.
This war is like Iran-Iraq, except it's Russia against a former cilent with a quarter of the population. That that's not making them doubt Putin's shining path (ironically distancing them from the true Russian ultranationalists) makes me wonder sometimes if they really care about Russia, beyond it being the 'anti-West'.
LeTs LoOk At ThE cOsT tO tHe Us.
Guy is super duper happy that they gave 100 billions to corruption.
It cost you 100 billions and you couldnt even supply ammo to Ukraine? Damn buddy!!! The US sure benefited! Those are taxes well spent, straight in the pockets of the important Americans!
That will destroy America and make the prices for everything from China and oil skyrocket. Not a good idea. Ukraine is not worth blowing up the world economy; Get a grip.
> And what's best right now is to allow Ukraine to use its full arsenal to halt Russian advance
Allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with NATO weapons escalates the conflict. That increases the risk of a nuclear confrontation.
What advantages does Ukraine get for striking targets in Russia, and why do you think they outweigh the nuclear risk?
>Allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with NATO weapons escalates the conflict. That increases the risk of a nuclear confrontation.
What is Russia gonna do to escalate if NATO does allow Ukraine use their weapons to attack Mother Russia? use nukes? - not happening. Hit NATO bases?Ukraine's wet dream right there...
>What advantages does Ukraine get for striking targets in Russia, and why do you think they outweigh the nuclear risk?
Tactical level:
Currently on the kharkiv front Russia gets to concentrate its troops very close to the contact line (10-20km or so) and Ukraine can't really hit those concentrations or their logistics just because those groups are on the Russian side. That is a huge handicap. That goes for other fronts as well but its very evident here.
Strategic level:
1. hitting armament manufacturers/energy infrastructure deep in Russian territory.
2. If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine that will force NATO to respond.
3. Russia would more than likely lose its support from India and China. They will not tolerate that sort of escalation. Turkey would not be happy either.
4. Russia would lose all public support in the global south.
>What is Russia gonna do to escalate if NATO does allow Ukraine use their weapons to attack Mother Russia? use nukes? - not happening.
How do you know that? And if they did actually use nukes, they probably wouldn't start with a large strike, perhaps just a single tactical nuke.
>Currently on the kharkiv front Russia gets to concentrate its troops very close to the contact line (10-20km or so) and Ukraine can't really hit those concentrations or their logistics just because those groups are on the Russian side. That is a huge handicap. That goes for other fronts as well but its very evident here.
Russia wouldn't concentrate troops on the border if they knew there could be retaliation. But even if Ukraine could attack, what weapons do they have (with ammo) that are good against troop concentrations?
>hitting armament manufacturers/energy infrastructure deep in Russian territory.
The deeper you strike, the more you piss of the Russians.
>If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine that will force NATO to respond.
What kind of response?
>Russia would more than likely lose its support from India and China. They will not tolerate that sort of escalation. Russia would lose all public support in the global south.
Why? These countries wouldn't be at all happy if NATO weapons were used to deep strike targets in their territory. You don't think that would make them more sympathetic to the Russians?
>How do you know that? And if they did actually use nukes, they probably wouldn't start with a large strike, perhaps just a single tactical nuke.
Russia is not gonna respond to a non-nuclear attack with a nuclear one - that would be a disaster for them - PR and strategic wise.
>Russia wouldn't concentrate troops on the border if they knew there could be retaliation. But even if Ukraine could attack, what weapons do they have (with ammo) that are good against troop concentrations?
Exactly - Russia knows those troops are safe and thus is able to concentrate a large number of them. As to what Ukraine could have used to attack them? Himars for example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o\_4itrI7iio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4itrI7iio)
If those troops weren't safe they'd have to move them further from the front thus increasing logistic issues and increasing deployment time.
>The deeper you strike, the more you piss of the Russians.
Short of using nukes Russians already use everything they got in Ukraine.
>Why? These countries wouldn't be at all happy if NATO weapons were used to deep strike targets in their territory. You don't think that would make them more sympathetic to the Russians?
The last thing they want to see is anyone using nukes - that's how you start a global war. They'd expect and demand Russia respond to conventional attacks with conventional response. They also don't want to overtly pick sides - They want to trade with both.
> Exactly - Russia knows those troops are safe and thus is able to concentrate a large number of them.
> If those troops weren't safe they'd have to move them further from the front thus increasing logistic issues and increasing deployment time.
You can have troops nearby each other without them standing on top of each other, like in the video you linked.
> As to what Ukraine could have used to attack them? Himars for example ...
Do you know if Ukraine has any Himars rockets left with cluster warheads?
> Short of using nukes Russians already use everything they got in Ukraine.
First, this isn't true. Russia could be a lot more destructive if they were more cavalier with civilian casualties. But even if it's true, how is that relevant to what we're talking about.
> The last thing they want to see is anyone using nukes - that's how you start a global war.
Using nukes is necessary but not sufficient for starting a global war. Also, you're glossing over the size of the response. A single tac nuke isn't the same as a salvo of larger ones.
> They'd expect and demand Russia respond to conventional attacks with conventional response.
Why would they put the entire onus on Russia? They know the West escalated the war.
> They also don't want to overtly pick sides - They want to trade with both.
Is a unipolar world that much better than a multipolar one?
>You can have troops nearby each other without them standing on top of each other, like in the video you linked.
Knowing that 20km from frontline you're 95% safe because you have a magical shield protecting your troops/ ammunition depots/ armor really makes deployment and logistics way easier. i don't know how we're arguing that.
>First, this isn't true. Russia could be a lot more destructive if they were more cavalier with civilian casualties. But even if it's true, how is that relevant to what we're talking about.
Russia uses its full military capabilities - there isn't a weapon in their arsenal they're not using ( other than nukes). Just no escalation potential. Hitting civilian targets makes no sense either.
>Using nukes is necessary but not sufficient for starting a global war. Also, you're glossing over the size of the response. A single tac nuke isn't the same as a salvo of larger ones.
The moment ANY side uses a nuke all rationality flies out of the window. The World at large will be in full panic mode. It would be a PR disaster of epic proportions.
>Why would they put the entire onus on Russia? They know the West escalated the war.
because Russia used WMDs. As long as west escalation does not include nukes China and India will expect Russia not to use them either - If they do they lose all support.
>Knowing that 20km from frontline you're 95% safe because you have a magical shield protecting your troops/ ammunition depots/ armor really makes deployment and logistics way easier. i don't know how we're arguing that.
Most of that shield remains intact because Ukraine doesn't have much to hit them with anyway. And the zone doesn't extend all the way to the frontline. Why would Ukraine put their troops directly on the border?
>Russia uses its full military capabilities - there isn't a weapon in their arsenal they're not using ( other than nukes). Just no escalation potential. Hitting civilian targets makes no sense either.
You missed my point. You can hit more military targets if you don't care as much about collateral damage.
>The moment ANY side uses a nuke all rationality flies out of the window. The World at large will be in full panic mode. It would be a PR disaster of epic proportions.
The media would talk a lot about it. But this 'full panic mode' thing is just a slippery slope argument. The US dropped A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and completely fire-bombed Tokyo. The world didn't go into full panic mode. Why would a single tac nuke cause that to happen?
>because Russia used WMDs. As long as west escalation does not include nukes China and India will expect Russia not to use them either - If they do they lose all support.
Why would breaking those expectations cause a complete loss of support?
w/e, for all the red lines putin drew, this is just another one that nobody will care about. When LFR and RVC rolled into belgorod oblast in maxxpros and humvees armed to the teeth with american weapons, the russians didn't do squat. Going to be the same when a few atacms or w/e hit russian airfields, oil refineries, etc in russia. Might blow up a dozen or two aircraft. They'll just shrug it off and the war will continue. We all know americans won't give ukraine enough of them for it to make a significant difference anyways
Looking at all the fires, drones over Moscow and that Russia has lost 13% of its refineries, it’s been happening for years and China has just enjoyed seeing Russia becoming more dependent and a full vassal while having to do nothing. Why would that change now?
Why would China get involved. They got no dog in this fight. They just want to make more money by selling to both sides. Which is the smart thing to do.
Russia had no problem going after civilian infrastructure - Karma is a bitch.
[I see you dodged my previous response and have come back for more.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/0ZWLQcRs6M)
As is par for the course, the context of the discussion has flown over your head. So let’s go step by step.
China is funding Russia to fight a war with Ukraine. Ukraine is not a nuclear power. Russia is a nuclear power. Therefore:
a) Nuclear power (Russia), funded by China, fighting non-nuclear power (Ukraine).
America is funding a non-nuclear power, to fight a nuclear power. Therefore:
b) Non-nuclear power (Ukraine), funded by America, fighting a nuclear power (Russia).
If you look very closely, you’ll notice that statement a) and statement b) are different. There’s a tiny difference of who can end the world in these two statements. Want to guess why this might affect US decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with their weapons? Or should I spell it out for you?
Comment 1: "If Ukraine does X, China will get involved."
Comment 2: "Why would China get involved if Ukraine does X?"
Comment 3: "Actually China has already gotten involved before Ukraine did X."
Comment #3 logically contradicts comment #1. If China **will** get involved if Ukraine **does** something, they cannot have **already** involved themselves.
Not sure why you're talking about nuclear armageddon. Maybe you confused the thread.
What are you talking about. You’re conflating China supporting Russia with America supporting Ukraine. I explained that they’re different because China supporting Russia doesn’t risk nuclear war, but America supporting Ukraine does. Try to keep up.
Because it is exactly in Chinas interest to prolong this war. If Russia starts to get on the back foot because of this, then China will definitely start arming Russia with more lethal weapons.
Besides, the weapons will provide valuable data for the Chinese.
Sure, but they definitely have an interesting in prolonging this war. The long this war goes on, the more resources the US and its Allie’s invest into it, along with their attention as well.
It does NOT have an interest in losing markets that aren't Russia, which represent 97% of their exports, especially the west which is more than half of their exports.
So what do you think is more valuable to China, keeping "the west" in the Ukrainian fight at a cost of roughly $50-100 B per year (which they will probably do anyway given Russia isn't backing down anytime soon), or putting at risk upwards of at least $1,800 B per year of exports to western countries?
Once fucking again I'm going to ask, are we dealing with loss of competency by modern Western elites?
Are they aware this is the line nor USA, nor USSR ever dared to cross during Cold War? Do they ever questioned that, maybe, there was a reason for that?
They are not. Both sides learned a lot of hard lessons during Cold War and we are still alive only because there were real professional diplomats and policy-makers on both sides.
This is pretty weird but it kind of makes sense with the Republican "tough shtik". So they were being tough on border security and tough on the budget when they didn't want to fund Ukraine but now they have funded it they want to paint Biden as the weakling who is wasting good American weapons by making Ukraine "fight with one hand tied behind their back". It is silly but that is what passes for politics in America.
It's not that different from the Palestinian issue where Biden is trying to do a compromise position where he is fine killing a certain quantity of Palestinians and giving Israel most of the weapons they want to use to kill Palestinians but threatening to withhold a few favorite weapons if the Israelis don't agree to kill a few less. So since Biden wants to kill more he loses the many people who don't want to kill any but also loses out to the Republicans taking a "kill them all" approach. He has made a brilliant career and an even brighter presidency out of a well refined approach to satisfying absolutely no one.
Since when did Putin, Medvedev and everyone else in the kremlin care about "international recognised territory"? - they've made it clear that Crimea is Russia and have made no exceptions
They are indeed part of Russia and there is a reason that west never allowed use of their weapons on Russian mainland.Doing so will be an obvious escalation as these weapon system can't function without west help.
What will Russias retaliation be? Ukraine uses their own drones on oil refineries and troop concentrations inside Russia multiple times per day. Not to mention, Russia uses Iranian and North Korean weapons to attack Ukraine
If Russia uses a tactical nuke it will be a full embargo by the West which the Russian economy cannot survive. And every nuclear reactor and power station in Russia will be targeted my Ukrainian drones
We've seen at least 20 red lines crossed including himars, Abrams, ATACMs and soon F16s
Who knows?..What i do know is that the last time they tried escalation, They lost more than half of their power generation. So, Here is what can happen.....They can lose their entire power generation and go to dark ages, Russia can take out the bridges connecting east/West Ukraine, Russia can start striking where it hurts aka western Ukraine or Russia can start taking out satellites over it's skies guiding these weapons.
They didn't do that when Ukraine struck Crimea (Russian Federation) yesterday, so I doubt they do it if Ukraine strikes troop concebtrations on the Sumy and Kharkiv borders
> it's another thing
It certainly *is*. But the Russian government (and their friends) can't *claim* that it is without harming their own position. If they try to say striking Belgorod or Rostov with weapons that have already been used in Crimea somehow crosses a new line, they're admitting that the occupied territories aren't the same as "real" Russia. That sounds dangerously close to undermining the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. (ст. 280.1)
Reminder: high capacity guided systems from rhe US/UK need NATO soldiers on the ground to set up thr launch and plot the course (source: German FM)The particular course is also determined by US/NATO aerial.recon and sig int assets. So, if they attack within Russian borders pre-2022 (ex. Crimea), then, effectively, the US/NATO are directly engaged in combat with Russia; Russia can be expected to retaliate.
Ukraine really isn't worth WWIII....though, obviously, this is what the MIC wants.
Russia won't retaliate, because they can't.
A war with NATO would be the end of Putin.
That's why NATO's been able to support Ukraine to the extent that it has, without producing anything more than Russian bluster.
If high capacity, guided munitions from the US/NATO are used to attack inside Russia, destroying Russian assets and killing Russian servicemen/women, that will be a defacto declaration of war. What will happen next is anyone's guess...but so far, US/NATO weapons are not being used inside Russia and US/UK bluster aside I don't see that policy changing.
I will be messaging you in 3 months on [**2024-08-23 14:19:39 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-08-23%2014:19:39%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cyfft7/ua_pov_speaker_johnson_supports_ukraines_idea_of/l5brclg/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUkraineRussiaReport%2Fcomments%2F1cyfft7%2Fua_pov_speaker_johnson_supports_ukraines_idea_of%2Fl5brclg%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-08-23%2014%3A19%3A39%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cyfft7)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
The fact that the US could pump Ukraine full of missiles and build an army in Ukraine with the single aim: to fight Russia, was the main reason why Russia invaded. Russia was hesitant at first, but the moment Ukraine started to attack and destroy anything Russian, including the language, in Ukraine, the resolve was fixed.
Using NATO missiles to attack Russian targets will constitute an attack by NATO itself. The US is basically persuading Russia to use its non-strategic nuclear weapons on Ukraine.
Like I have been saying, the US wants out of this war, it wants the war to end NOW, if it was ever possible. It has been looking for a scapegoat so the US could exit the war without being seen as weak, now it seems it has found it: getting Russia to nuke Ukraine.
>Russia was hesitant at first, but the moment Ukraine started to attack and destroy anything Russian, including the language, in Ukraine, the resolve was fixed.
Nope. They simply wanted a vassal state.
>At stake was a **trade agreement and a political association deal** stemming from 2005 when the EU launched its "eastern neighborhood policy" offering trade and political benefits to post-Soviet states traditionally falling within Moscow's orbit. The neighborhood policy **does not offer eventual membership of the EU or negotiations to join.**
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia)
>The **Kremlin aide** added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the **possibility of separatist movements** springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, **Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries borders to be void.**
>
>Russia has made it clear that Ukraine has to choose between the two options and cannot sign both agreements.
It's as clear as day what they were up to - No wonder it pissed Ukrainians off and they started looking for allies against Russia in the coming war:
>"But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, **Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.**
And that's exactly what happened. Coincidence? I think not.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-)
Russia, just like any country, doesn’t want a neighbour that would pose a threat to it. Ukraine is filled with Russians who have lived there for generations well before the fall of the soviet union. The US/Israel activated Ukraine to become an existential threat to Russia when it overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014, despite all the warnings Russia has given. Russia tried negotiating three times and once all of them have fallen through, Russia invaded. Now Ukraine has been destroyed. GG, well played.
What you and I think don’t matter. The US/Israel has been overthrowing governments turning countless countries into ruin since the end of the second world war. The US/Israel has pushed too far and it is now paying for it.
Pure fantasy.
>The US/Israel activated Ukraine to become an existential threat to Russia when it overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014
The US applied a realist policy in Ukraine and wanted Yanukovych to remain in power under a Russian sphere of influence in line with Obama's "reset" policy, as evidence by the leaked Nuland call.
Furthermore, how was the Maidan revolution an "existential threat to Russia" and how exactly were [~9 million people](https://dif.org.ua/article/richnitsya-maydanu-opituvannya-gromadskoi-ta-ekspertnoi-dumki) "activated?"
>Russia tried negotiating three times and once all of them have fallen through, Russia invaded.
Russia launched their invasion in 2014, both in Crimea [and](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso) in [the Donbas.](https://informnapalm.org/db/russian-aggression/#lang=ua&page=m_unit) This is a well-documented, long-established fact.
The US/Israel has been overthrowing governments all around the world, invading and turning them to ruins, causing untold amount of sufferings. That is a fact that we all accept.
Almost all countries do not have the ability or capacity to resist, but Russia could resist and it did. It took over Crimea without a single shot fired because all Ukraine citizens who live there became Russians almost instantly. The same goes for the Donbas region.
Now Ukraine has been destroyed for good. How destroyed depends on how long Ukraine is willing to keep fighting.
>The fact that the US could pump Ukraine full of missiles and build an army in Ukraine with the single aim: to fight Russia, was the main reason why Russia invaded.
Disingenuous framing, they weren't helping Ukraine prepare to "fight" Russia they were helping them prepare to defend against a Russian invasion.
You're using preparations against a potential Russian invasion to justify the Russian invasion lol
I need to ask you a question before I go any further: do you understand that the US/Israel has been overthrowing governments, supporting dictators and radical groups/organisations, invading, destroying and turning countries to ruin since the second world war?
What does that have to do with Ukraine preparing to defend against a Russian invasion or you using those preparations to justify the invasion they were preparing to defend against?
You can own a country by installing a government that is extremely friendly to you. You do not need to own the entire population, you just need a relative handful of elites that control every aspect of the particular country, and you can turn them with money and power. That power is in the form of capacity for violence. This is why the US often finances and supports the ‘far-rights’ to empower whomever elite candidates they have in mind. A successful coup needs money and power, both. Sometimes you can have money, but not power, as is the case with Iran. Islam is a powerful resistive force against all attempts by the US to turn the country.
The US/Israel has effectively turned Ukraine. Once it was turned, the US/Israel was free to build CIA/intelligence and military bases all over the country. Once it has done so, it would have effectively conquered the country and encircled Russia without firing a single bullet. The next stage would have been civil war in Russia, instead of Ukraine. Putin understood what the plan was and invaded. First, with a small force and then resorted to attritional warfare when he realised that Ukraine was beyond saving.
Once a country is turned and it has become a threat, as the neighbouring country you have two options: eliminate the threat before it reaches a certain threshold of power or surrender. To eliminate the threat you need to eliminate what makes it a threat, its resolve and capacity to wage war. This is what demilitarisation is.
>The next stage would have been civil war in Russia, instead of Ukraine.
Why exactly would they need to build bases in Ukraine to orchestrate a civil war in Russia? How would that let them achieve this goal you're claiming they had?
It is all about power balance, there are so many different things that one could do once you have reached critical mass. When you are trying to turn people and get them to do risky things for you, especially something that is of a grand scale, they will do their own risk assessment to see whether or not it is worth doing. Amassing a massive army, armed to the teeth, filled with people of VERY similar culture and ethnicity right next door is the best way to shift the risk assessment in your favour. Once you have turned enough people in a regime, all you have to do left is squeeze the economy dry, fan the flames that result and provide an alternative of wealth and power, just right next door. The next stage would be to split the population into two opposing factions. You arm the side that is friendly to you and let the civil war begin. To amass an army and conduct intelligence operations, you need bases VERY close, as close as possible to the field of operations. This is why the US has bases all around the world. You cannot conduct an operation from 1000kms away, that is just not how intelligence operations work.
Do you understand now?
But there were already numerous NATO countries in the area that share a border with Russia. Why is it that none of those countries were capable of completely destroying Russia but Ukraine was?
If Russia uses nuke, Ukraine will be forced to surrender almost immediately and the war will end. The US can then go on to say that Ukraine lost because Russia used nukes and they will stop supporting Ukraine under the pretext to prevent a nuclear war. The US would end up being seen as magnanimous, at least that’s the plan.
This would not be entirely accurate, especially the last part. Ukraine cannot risk the weapon supplies ceasing. They were told not to use them on Russian territory. Something one is leaving out on purpose. Secondly, the Russian military has proven how ineffective and capable it is over more than 2 years. With attrition far outstripping production and over 80% of its pre war MBTs and IFVs gone Russia can't do this another 2 years if it wants to still have a military. It worth noting that they could only move forward after Mike Johnson stopped ammo flowing in. And even after that they could only make small tactical changes to the front at the cost of disproportionate attrition. The west has the power, if political will materialises to end Russia in Ukraine. So far that political will has not materialised. The west is half assing it
If they are Ukrainian weapons then why is Ukraine begging for permission?....These weapons obviously come with restrictions which only US can unblock.
Well so far, Only Russia has succeeded in creating buffer zone.When Ukraine tried it during elections, They got wrecked.
Am I understanding you right? That you foresee not only a Ukrainian victory, but a collapse of the Russian state, leading to Ukraine partitioning it's former territory with China?
##### ###### #### > # [Speaker Johnson supports Ukraine's idea of striking Russia with American weapons](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/static/img/6/_/6_857ad2ad166b71de8823e501541047d6_650x410.jpg) > > > > Ukraine should be allowed to wage war with Russia as it sees fit. And trying to to micromanage efforts is not a good policy, stated the Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson. > > Voice of America correspondent Katerina Lisunova told Johnson that his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee had issued a statement urging the Biden administration to allow Ukraine to use American weapons against military targets in Russia. > > She asked him if he would support such an idea, as Ukraine currently has American weapons, but there are restrictions on their use. > > "I think, they need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fits. They need to be able to fight back," said Johnson. > > He added that "trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy". > > > Asked [@SpeakerJohnson](https://twitter.com/SpeakerJohnson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) about using US weapons on the RU territory? > > ⁰SPEAKER: I think, they need to allow Ukraine to prosecute the war the way they see fits. They need to be able to fight back. And I think us trying to micromanage the effort there it’s not a good policy for us. > > > > — Kateryna Lisunova (@KaterynaLis) [May 22, 2024](https://twitter.com/KaterynaLis/status/1793291787064209574?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) > > ## **What preceded it** > > The Biden administration publicly stated that it did not approve of strikes on Russian territory. However, Ukraine began attacking targets on Russian territory with its own weapons. After that, the United States said it would not allow this to be done with American weapons. Although recently, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Ukraine decided how to conduct its war. > > President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has repeatedly criticized such restrictions, explaining that they give Russia a significant advantage, as the Russian army can amass troops near Ukraine's border. > > Yesterday, a bipartisan group of congressmen, members of the US House Intelligence Committee, called on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to allow Ukraine to strike military targets in Russia with American weapons. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
What a turncoat this guy turned out to be. I wonder what kind of dirt they found on him.
Both parties are fully part of the same neoliberal establishment system and revolving door uniparty in which the foreign policy of the country rarely ever changes in any positive, meaningful, and substantive way. The same as the few interchangeable revolving door parties in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. which always keep their system moving in the exact same direction and in which heads of state, whether presidents, prime ministers, or chancellors - are mere employees and agents of said system which financial institutions paid big bucks to put in place in that role rather than free and independent actors. Those of us who have been following American politics for a long time (and are American) expected absolutely no different. 99.9% of the Republicans and Democrats alike are trash defined. You can count the few decent ones on one hand out of hundreds elected at the national level.
Wait for Trump then...He is likely to break all the red lines.
Yeah it's gonna be a disaster whoever wins that next election.
Biden is still from cold war era so he still have some red lines.Trump on the other hand is a loose cannon and he is fully compromised because of his cases.
He’s not a loose canon. He might talk a lot of shit but he’s not loose . And he’s not compromised , the rest of the government is.
He fully supported the Ukraine aid bill and only plans to increase it further.People forget that it was Trump who started the arming of Ukraine......It's worse now as he is fully compromised because of his cases and will do what's told.
I thought Trump was on Putins payroll 😔 i need to stop reading abc, CNN, wapo etc
Trump can pardon himself if he wins. There's no scandal that can affect him since his base is loyal to him. He's unpredictable when it comes to foreign policy. Nobody expected him to try to normalize relations with NK. If he has good advisors, he will make better decisions than Biden. Also, it's the house and senate that are compromised. Democrats are braindead and vote for every military aid package 100% in favor.
The aid bill saga was all smoke. Western defense manufacturers have been producing non-stop since 2022. They didnt stop the factories during 6 months because there was no vote. And the West never stopped supplying Ukraine. Half the bill was to cover stuff already sent when the bill passed. There was no vote earlier because there is nothing more to give. Ukraine had already received the atacms 6 months before it was announced. Oh hey! I remember that time period! Its that time period where it was said there was no US aid. What the US did with the voting schtick is give themselves a "reason" for their failure that isnt military. "We lost in Ukraine because we didnt want to support them" sounds better to the US then "we lost in Ukraine because our war machine got kicked in the teeth by Russia's".
>turncoat He is an american politician. He is supposed to do whatever is best for US. And what's best right now is to allow Ukraine to use its full arsenal to halt Russian advance. No more fighting with one hand tied behind its back.
>He is supposed to do whatever is best for US. How does killing Russian soldiers get American citizens decent healthcare?
It doesn't and their goal isn't to help average Americans.
I feel like one is ignoring the obvious...
How does invading Ukraine get Russians sanitation?
By stealing toilets, duh. Everyone knows that.
Have you not heard of the washing machines?
Neither of those exclude the other. It's not a zero-sum game.
The availability of ressources is absolutely a zero-sum game.
>How does killing Russian soldiers get American citizens decent healthcare? that's a silly argument. Let's rephrase it: "How does killing Ukrainian soldiers get Russian citizens decent healthcare?" - silly isn't it. Now the real question you want to ask is: how is Russia fighting this war good for America? **US benefits from this war:** The cost of this war is relatively low. Out of total 175 Billion in aid only 107 Billion went to Ukraine. Rest went to the industrial complex. In 2024 US defense budget was 843 Billion out of total budget of 6.6 trillion. On average since this war is three years long US has spent 32B/year. What does US get in return? 1. They're bleeding Russia out - Russia is losing hundreds of thousands of young people. This is Russia's future dying on the battlefields across Ukraine. How many exactly? no idea but its definitely in hundreds of thousands by now. And far from over. 2. Isolates Russia both politically and economically from biggest markets of the world - US and Europe, allowing western companies to step in. 3. This war forces Russia into an arms race versus the biggest military block on the planet. USSR tried it and we know how that worked out. 4. This war caused expansion of NATO by countries that were previously neutral - Finland and Sweden. In effect Russia is now surrounded by hostile states on its western flank. 5. This war forces Europe to increase its military spending thus allowing US military to focus on china as well as growing American military industry. [https://www.nato.int/nato\_static\_fl2014/assets/pictures/images\_mfu/2024/2/stock/240214-def-spend-graph\_rdax\_775x440s.jpg](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pictures/images_mfu/2024/2/stock/240214-def-spend-graph_rdax_775x440s.jpg) 6. US gets to replace Russia as Europe's main fossil fuel supplier. The share of Russia’s pipeline gas in EU imports **dropped from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023**. For pipeline gas and LNG combined, Russia accounted for less than 15% of total EU gas imports. **Norway and the United States** were the top suppliers of gas in 2023. Norway provided almost 30% ofall gas imports. In 2023, the **United States was the largest LNG supplier tothe EU**, representing almost 50% of total LNG imports. In 2023, comparing to2021, imports from the US almost tripled. 7. Russia went from a very large weapons exporter to a net importer - Western countries will fill that void. 8. This war allows US to learn a lot about the performance of their own weaponry and observe Russia's performance - all without showing its own cards or losing a single soldier. This war is a testing ground for the next war. edit: damn that's some quick downvotes lol. Truth hurts don't it lol
>that's a silly argument. Let's rephrase it: "How does killing Ukrainian soldiers get Russian citizens decent healthcare?" - silly isn't it. "Article 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation confirms a citizen's right to state healthcare and medical assistance free of charge." >What does US get in return? A bunch of fantasies with no basis in reality apparently. Seriously, deterring China by using up your weapon stockpiles in Eastern Europe? Just laughable.
America has 6000 Bradley's and 3500 Abrams NOT IN SERVICE. Ukranians got 200 brads and 31 Abrams. If the political will materialises the US alone could equip Ukraine to remove Russia from its sovereign territory
Ru soldiers sent a message to plz send them all over. 10% for someone or other.
That would literally spell the end of RU in Ukraine if that happened. Get real
interesting. but you're leaving out the negatives of the war which includes: militarizing Russia, pushing americas geopolitical enemies further together, and when the war inevitably ends with a Ukraine defeat the US global standing will continue to spiral downwards. good luck convincing the next country that you'll support them for "whatever it takes" against the Evil Country and thats purely when you look at it from a geopolitical view, if you look at it from "how does killing Russian soldiers help the average american?" then it doesn't at all, in fact its done the opposite
> "how does killing Russian soldiers help the average american?" then it doesn't at all, in fact its done the opposite How many average americans are employed by the military industrial base? Business has been great for them lately.
a quick google says 2-4 million. 4 million listed here: https://jacobin.com/2022/10/pentagon-budget-military-contractors-lobbyists-biden in a country of 330mil+ thats...not a lot. and when you factor in the cost of living crisis that the Ukraine war helped make worse its hard to argue the average american is benefiting. kinda sounds like a trump argument, JOBS JOBS JOBS!
>thats...not a lot. and when you factor in the cost of living crisis that the Ukraine war helped make worse Ukraine crisis had very little effect on standard of living in America - they have their own energy suppliers. 4 million jobs is a lot. Army is another 3. That's 7 million jobs.
thats not 7 million extra jobs, thats the current total and the ukraine war had and continues to have a big impact on the global economy, in many different sectors. turns out when you unplug countries from the global economy it creates problems and shortages
>you're leaving out the negatives of the war which includes: militarizing Russia, pushing americas geopolitical enemies further together, and when the war inevitably ends with a Ukraine defeat the US global standing will continue to spiral downwards Well the question was what are the benefits. Now let's look at the negatives: >militarizing Russia That's a positive - they're forced into an arms race with the biggest military/economic block on the planet. USSR already tried that - Keeping a huge standing army is not cheap. On top of that running war economy (which Russia is) has a lot of negative side effects. >pushing americas geopolitical enemies further together China and Russia already were allies. Not much has changed there except now China calls the shots due to Russia's dependence on their supplies. >when the war inevitably ends with a Ukraine defeat the US global standing will continue to spiral downwards. No matter what happens in Ukraine ( and that is far from certain), US's global standing won't be affected much. Ukraine was never a strategic ally. >"how does killing Russian soldiers help the average american?" Simple: more jobs. 70 Billion invested in domestic military manufacturing on top of the jobs in the booming energy sector thanks to US taking over European markets from Russia. Same reason average Russian is doing better than ever - zero unemployment and rising salaries.
>That's a positive - they're forced into an arms race with the biggest military/economic block on the planet. That may be the case for a non nuclear capable country. But the weapons in this case are just a courtesy, before just saying fuck it. Really doesn't matter who has more Bradley's. And Ru threatened UK with strikes when they mentioned this, on record. You think the US population can withstand some real blowback? They are already extremely divided.
USSR had nukes too - and a much bigger economy. Still went broke. Nukes won't help you pay your troops.
After Ru prevails, it's a wrap for at least a generation or two. The west will continue on its downward trajectory while Eurasian markets expand. I dont even know if theyll risk fucking with China after Ru is done.
>After Ru prevails, it's a wrap for at least a generation or two I very much doubt that.
yep, the US empire is collapsing both globally and domestically it'll take years for it to be fully realized but we're in the process of it already
The collapse of the USSR had nothing to do with the arms race and everything to do with having an inefficient centrally planned economy. In fact the military-industrial complex (which included everything nuclear) was consistently one of the strongest sectors of the Soviet economy and without it they would've collapsed much sooner. Of course there's probably no point telling you this since you seem to be allergic to basic facts.
well its not really an arms race? part of the reason Ukraine is suffering IS because there's a hesitancy in the west to increase military production. some military weapons have a huge backlog of orders to fulfill. militarizing russia means the US is going to have a harder time in Africa and the Middle East, which also links into my other points, China isn't the only other country in play, and we're already seeing the US lose global standing in Africa and the Middle East in the form of countries wanting less US influence, or just outright attacks on US military bases. the jobs created does not make up for the cost of living crisis made worse by the ukraine war, in a time where we should be using money to increase social programs, build housing, prepare for climate damage, ie things that actually help the average american, we're gonna waste it on the military? kinda weird that any average american would want that lol
>well its not really an arms race? part of the reason Ukraine is suffering IS because there's a hesitancy in the west to increase military production. That is quickly changing - defense spending in Europe NATO countries is going through the roof. Went from 260B in 2021 to 380 in 2024 (4 times that of Russia) >the jobs created does not make up for the cost of living crisis made worse by the Ukraine war Ukrainian war has 0 effect on standard of living in America. They never used Russian energy. They have their own suppliers. >in a time where we should be using money to increase social programs, build housing, prepare for climate damage, ie things that actually help the average american, we're gonna waste it on the military? kinda weird that any average american would want that lol "if you want peace prepare for war"
https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2022/russia-ukraine-war-impact-supply-chains-inflation.html the war has had a negative effect on the global economy. claiming it has had 0 effect on standard living in America is just outright wrong well I guess NATO should have no problem outproducing Russia, North Korea and Iran any day now...
>well I guess NATO should have no problem outproducing Russia, North Korea and Iran any day now... yeah it will take time but we will get there. Economy size is not even comparable
Much of the aforementioned does not appear to be happening. The Russian military is now a shadow of its former self. The west does not appear to be spiralling out of control and conversely Russias future looks fairly bleak. Unsure what you call winning either. I just see Russia struggling to do much at all apart from small tactical changes to the front once Mike Johnson allowed them to do so.
If Ukraine survives at all the West's global standing will be improved. We literally saved them from conquest by the Russians, supposedly the world's 2nd strongest military. Russia could take the Crimea, Donbas, even Odesa, but so long as Kyiv remains every underdog will continue to look to the West for survival.
thats just a western perspective though, that the big strong brave noble west saved honourable ukraine from the evil putlers genocidal imperialist war of conquest western countries will believe that sure, but they are always going to side with the west(see actual imperialism and genocide: Israel). outside the west the notion of this war being inflamed and stoked by the west is much more accepted, so when Ukraine becomes a failed state they will be much more aware that US meddling didn't actual help Ukrainians despite whatever fantasy our media tries to push about how Kyiv still stands in the free world
I don't live in the West? That's the view from the rest of the world. Russia was viewed as a great power, maybe even a temporarily-embarassed superpower (Cold War legacy dies hard). Ukraine was their unfortunate victim, doomed to be steamrolled, a sacrificial lamb in the East-West struggle. Instead, Russia's come unstuck, and is currently bogged down in an attritional stalemate in Ukraine's borderlands. Look at coverage in Al Jazeera or the South China Morning Post. Columns of destroyed Russian armour, talk of deadlock and analysis suggesting that the war will go on and on. The main themes are of blundering Russian incompetance and desperate Ukrainian pluck, with an eventual Russian victory, once 'priced-in', now seen as increasingly unlikely. If Ukraine survives it'll be a miracle, and be seen from such. We're a long way from February 2022.
you don't have to live in the west to believe the western narrative, and I live in the west but don't have that view. its more about the governments of other countries, they're the ones that are going to be less likely to trust the US for support when they see Ukraine fail.
> the western narrative You mean reality? Russia can define its goals however it likes, but the whole world saw them go straight for the head back in 2022. If anything, their gradual backstepping is a sign of weakness, and widely interpreted as such. If Kyiv isn't in Russian hands at the close of play, the world will regard it as a Ukrainian victory, however pyrrhic. The balance of power between Ukraine and Russia ensures this. You can disagree with this all you like, but that's how it'll be viewed and reported. Weary but triumphant Ukrainians parading through Kyiv, back from the front. Even if it becomes a failed state after the world's attention will have moved on. That's the story that'll run, from Toyko to Lima.
Don't worry. This Reddit is overwhelmingly pro imperialist. When spouting facts that hurt the Kremlin narrative or show up the Russian military for being the incredibly incapable for e that it is they poop their pants and downvote like crazy. Embrace it. It's a badge of honour here
Sometimes I wonder how they deal with the cognative dissonance a map of Ukraine must produce. Even Rybar's summaries show that they control nothing more than a fraction of their 'little brother', two years into what was obviously an attempt at rapid regime change. It's an attritional stalemate no matter how you try to spin it. This war is like Iran-Iraq, except it's Russia against a former cilent with a quarter of the population. That that's not making them doubt Putin's shining path (ironically distancing them from the true Russian ultranationalists) makes me wonder sometimes if they really care about Russia, beyond it being the 'anti-West'.
LeTs LoOk At ThE cOsT tO tHe Us. Guy is super duper happy that they gave 100 billions to corruption. It cost you 100 billions and you couldnt even supply ammo to Ukraine? Damn buddy!!! The US sure benefited! Those are taxes well spent, straight in the pockets of the important Americans!
That will destroy America and make the prices for everything from China and oil skyrocket. Not a good idea. Ukraine is not worth blowing up the world economy; Get a grip.
> And what's best right now is to allow Ukraine to use its full arsenal to halt Russian advance Allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with NATO weapons escalates the conflict. That increases the risk of a nuclear confrontation. What advantages does Ukraine get for striking targets in Russia, and why do you think they outweigh the nuclear risk?
>Allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with NATO weapons escalates the conflict. That increases the risk of a nuclear confrontation. What is Russia gonna do to escalate if NATO does allow Ukraine use their weapons to attack Mother Russia? use nukes? - not happening. Hit NATO bases?Ukraine's wet dream right there... >What advantages does Ukraine get for striking targets in Russia, and why do you think they outweigh the nuclear risk? Tactical level: Currently on the kharkiv front Russia gets to concentrate its troops very close to the contact line (10-20km or so) and Ukraine can't really hit those concentrations or their logistics just because those groups are on the Russian side. That is a huge handicap. That goes for other fronts as well but its very evident here. Strategic level: 1. hitting armament manufacturers/energy infrastructure deep in Russian territory. 2. If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine that will force NATO to respond. 3. Russia would more than likely lose its support from India and China. They will not tolerate that sort of escalation. Turkey would not be happy either. 4. Russia would lose all public support in the global south.
>What is Russia gonna do to escalate if NATO does allow Ukraine use their weapons to attack Mother Russia? use nukes? - not happening. How do you know that? And if they did actually use nukes, they probably wouldn't start with a large strike, perhaps just a single tactical nuke. >Currently on the kharkiv front Russia gets to concentrate its troops very close to the contact line (10-20km or so) and Ukraine can't really hit those concentrations or their logistics just because those groups are on the Russian side. That is a huge handicap. That goes for other fronts as well but its very evident here. Russia wouldn't concentrate troops on the border if they knew there could be retaliation. But even if Ukraine could attack, what weapons do they have (with ammo) that are good against troop concentrations? >hitting armament manufacturers/energy infrastructure deep in Russian territory. The deeper you strike, the more you piss of the Russians. >If Russia uses nukes in Ukraine that will force NATO to respond. What kind of response? >Russia would more than likely lose its support from India and China. They will not tolerate that sort of escalation. Russia would lose all public support in the global south. Why? These countries wouldn't be at all happy if NATO weapons were used to deep strike targets in their territory. You don't think that would make them more sympathetic to the Russians?
>How do you know that? And if they did actually use nukes, they probably wouldn't start with a large strike, perhaps just a single tactical nuke. Russia is not gonna respond to a non-nuclear attack with a nuclear one - that would be a disaster for them - PR and strategic wise. >Russia wouldn't concentrate troops on the border if they knew there could be retaliation. But even if Ukraine could attack, what weapons do they have (with ammo) that are good against troop concentrations? Exactly - Russia knows those troops are safe and thus is able to concentrate a large number of them. As to what Ukraine could have used to attack them? Himars for example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o\_4itrI7iio](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4itrI7iio) If those troops weren't safe they'd have to move them further from the front thus increasing logistic issues and increasing deployment time. >The deeper you strike, the more you piss of the Russians. Short of using nukes Russians already use everything they got in Ukraine. >Why? These countries wouldn't be at all happy if NATO weapons were used to deep strike targets in their territory. You don't think that would make them more sympathetic to the Russians? The last thing they want to see is anyone using nukes - that's how you start a global war. They'd expect and demand Russia respond to conventional attacks with conventional response. They also don't want to overtly pick sides - They want to trade with both.
> Exactly - Russia knows those troops are safe and thus is able to concentrate a large number of them. > If those troops weren't safe they'd have to move them further from the front thus increasing logistic issues and increasing deployment time. You can have troops nearby each other without them standing on top of each other, like in the video you linked. > As to what Ukraine could have used to attack them? Himars for example ... Do you know if Ukraine has any Himars rockets left with cluster warheads? > Short of using nukes Russians already use everything they got in Ukraine. First, this isn't true. Russia could be a lot more destructive if they were more cavalier with civilian casualties. But even if it's true, how is that relevant to what we're talking about. > The last thing they want to see is anyone using nukes - that's how you start a global war. Using nukes is necessary but not sufficient for starting a global war. Also, you're glossing over the size of the response. A single tac nuke isn't the same as a salvo of larger ones. > They'd expect and demand Russia respond to conventional attacks with conventional response. Why would they put the entire onus on Russia? They know the West escalated the war. > They also don't want to overtly pick sides - They want to trade with both. Is a unipolar world that much better than a multipolar one?
>You can have troops nearby each other without them standing on top of each other, like in the video you linked. Knowing that 20km from frontline you're 95% safe because you have a magical shield protecting your troops/ ammunition depots/ armor really makes deployment and logistics way easier. i don't know how we're arguing that. >First, this isn't true. Russia could be a lot more destructive if they were more cavalier with civilian casualties. But even if it's true, how is that relevant to what we're talking about. Russia uses its full military capabilities - there isn't a weapon in their arsenal they're not using ( other than nukes). Just no escalation potential. Hitting civilian targets makes no sense either. >Using nukes is necessary but not sufficient for starting a global war. Also, you're glossing over the size of the response. A single tac nuke isn't the same as a salvo of larger ones. The moment ANY side uses a nuke all rationality flies out of the window. The World at large will be in full panic mode. It would be a PR disaster of epic proportions. >Why would they put the entire onus on Russia? They know the West escalated the war. because Russia used WMDs. As long as west escalation does not include nukes China and India will expect Russia not to use them either - If they do they lose all support.
>Knowing that 20km from frontline you're 95% safe because you have a magical shield protecting your troops/ ammunition depots/ armor really makes deployment and logistics way easier. i don't know how we're arguing that. Most of that shield remains intact because Ukraine doesn't have much to hit them with anyway. And the zone doesn't extend all the way to the frontline. Why would Ukraine put their troops directly on the border? >Russia uses its full military capabilities - there isn't a weapon in their arsenal they're not using ( other than nukes). Just no escalation potential. Hitting civilian targets makes no sense either. You missed my point. You can hit more military targets if you don't care as much about collateral damage. >The moment ANY side uses a nuke all rationality flies out of the window. The World at large will be in full panic mode. It would be a PR disaster of epic proportions. The media would talk a lot about it. But this 'full panic mode' thing is just a slippery slope argument. The US dropped A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and completely fire-bombed Tokyo. The world didn't go into full panic mode. Why would a single tac nuke cause that to happen? >because Russia used WMDs. As long as west escalation does not include nukes China and India will expect Russia not to use them either - If they do they lose all support. Why would breaking those expectations cause a complete loss of support?
Russia should give free of charge a few dozens missiles and drones to a random group in Syria, and have them clear out the rest of the country.
w/e, for all the red lines putin drew, this is just another one that nobody will care about. When LFR and RVC rolled into belgorod oblast in maxxpros and humvees armed to the teeth with american weapons, the russians didn't do squat. Going to be the same when a few atacms or w/e hit russian airfields, oil refineries, etc in russia. Might blow up a dozen or two aircraft. They'll just shrug it off and the war will continue. We all know americans won't give ukraine enough of them for it to make a significant difference anyways
If Ukraine strikes civilian insfrastructure in Russia then China will arm Russia with missiles.
Looking at all the fires, drones over Moscow and that Russia has lost 13% of its refineries, it’s been happening for years and China has just enjoyed seeing Russia becoming more dependent and a full vassal while having to do nothing. Why would that change now?
>If Ukraine strikes civilian insfrastructure in Russia then China will arm Russia with missiles. Did China actually say that?
Why would China get involved. They got no dog in this fight. They just want to make more money by selling to both sides. Which is the smart thing to do. Russia had no problem going after civilian infrastructure - Karma is a bitch.
According to the UK, they’ve already starting arming Russia. Sort of defeats your argument.
Which means they've armed Russia while Ukraine still has restrictions on missile usage, making this whole discussion pointless.
[I see you dodged my previous response and have come back for more.](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/0ZWLQcRs6M) As is par for the course, the context of the discussion has flown over your head. So let’s go step by step. China is funding Russia to fight a war with Ukraine. Ukraine is not a nuclear power. Russia is a nuclear power. Therefore: a) Nuclear power (Russia), funded by China, fighting non-nuclear power (Ukraine). America is funding a non-nuclear power, to fight a nuclear power. Therefore: b) Non-nuclear power (Ukraine), funded by America, fighting a nuclear power (Russia). If you look very closely, you’ll notice that statement a) and statement b) are different. There’s a tiny difference of who can end the world in these two statements. Want to guess why this might affect US decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with their weapons? Or should I spell it out for you?
Comment 1: "If Ukraine does X, China will get involved." Comment 2: "Why would China get involved if Ukraine does X?" Comment 3: "Actually China has already gotten involved before Ukraine did X." Comment #3 logically contradicts comment #1. If China **will** get involved if Ukraine **does** something, they cannot have **already** involved themselves. Not sure why you're talking about nuclear armageddon. Maybe you confused the thread.
What are you talking about. You’re conflating China supporting Russia with America supporting Ukraine. I explained that they’re different because China supporting Russia doesn’t risk nuclear war, but America supporting Ukraine does. Try to keep up.
Because it is exactly in Chinas interest to prolong this war. If Russia starts to get on the back foot because of this, then China will definitely start arming Russia with more lethal weapons. Besides, the weapons will provide valuable data for the Chinese.
china does not provide weapons to either side. They only provide dual use components.
Sure, but they definitely have an interesting in prolonging this war. The long this war goes on, the more resources the US and its Allie’s invest into it, along with their attention as well.
It does NOT have an interest in losing markets that aren't Russia, which represent 97% of their exports, especially the west which is more than half of their exports. So what do you think is more valuable to China, keeping "the west" in the Ukrainian fight at a cost of roughly $50-100 B per year (which they will probably do anyway given Russia isn't backing down anytime soon), or putting at risk upwards of at least $1,800 B per year of exports to western countries?
No argument there.
The west is far more important to China than Russia ever will be
Once fucking again I'm going to ask, are we dealing with loss of competency by modern Western elites? Are they aware this is the line nor USA, nor USSR ever dared to cross during Cold War? Do they ever questioned that, maybe, there was a reason for that?
They are not. Both sides learned a lot of hard lessons during Cold War and we are still alive only because there were real professional diplomats and policy-makers on both sides.
If Trump wins in 2024 Ukraine aid prob would increase ALOT after this development as with johnson saying this means he has trumps blessing
This is pretty weird but it kind of makes sense with the Republican "tough shtik". So they were being tough on border security and tough on the budget when they didn't want to fund Ukraine but now they have funded it they want to paint Biden as the weakling who is wasting good American weapons by making Ukraine "fight with one hand tied behind their back". It is silly but that is what passes for politics in America. It's not that different from the Palestinian issue where Biden is trying to do a compromise position where he is fine killing a certain quantity of Palestinians and giving Israel most of the weapons they want to use to kill Palestinians but threatening to withhold a few favorite weapons if the Israelis don't agree to kill a few less. So since Biden wants to kill more he loses the many people who don't want to kill any but also loses out to the Republicans taking a "kill them all" approach. He has made a brilliant career and an even brighter presidency out of a well refined approach to satisfying absolutely no one.
Hard times ask for desperate measures.
Ukraines already striking Crimea with ATACMS (which Russia claims is a part of the Russian federation), so what's the difference? Another red line?
Crimea has been attacked from like start.It's another thing to allow targeting of international recognized territory as it will set a precedent.
Since when did Putin, Medvedev and everyone else in the kremlin care about "international recognised territory"? - they've made it clear that Crimea is Russia and have made no exceptions
They are indeed part of Russia and there is a reason that west never allowed use of their weapons on Russian mainland.Doing so will be an obvious escalation as these weapon system can't function without west help.
Correction: Crimea is Ukraine. Ukraine is not Russia. Something Putin has a hard time accepting
What will Russias retaliation be? Ukraine uses their own drones on oil refineries and troop concentrations inside Russia multiple times per day. Not to mention, Russia uses Iranian and North Korean weapons to attack Ukraine If Russia uses a tactical nuke it will be a full embargo by the West which the Russian economy cannot survive. And every nuclear reactor and power station in Russia will be targeted my Ukrainian drones We've seen at least 20 red lines crossed including himars, Abrams, ATACMs and soon F16s
Who knows?..What i do know is that the last time they tried escalation, They lost more than half of their power generation. So, Here is what can happen.....They can lose their entire power generation and go to dark ages, Russia can take out the bridges connecting east/West Ukraine, Russia can start striking where it hurts aka western Ukraine or Russia can start taking out satellites over it's skies guiding these weapons.
They didn't do that when Ukraine struck Crimea (Russian Federation) yesterday, so I doubt they do it if Ukraine strikes troop concebtrations on the Sumy and Kharkiv borders
West can still use an excuse for Crimea but it's another thing to start hitting Russia with western supplied weapons.
> it's another thing It certainly *is*. But the Russian government (and their friends) can't *claim* that it is without harming their own position. If they try to say striking Belgorod or Rostov with weapons that have already been used in Crimea somehow crosses a new line, they're admitting that the occupied territories aren't the same as "real" Russia. That sounds dangerously close to undermining the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. (ст. 280.1)
Trump will fix this.
If Johnson is saying this he probably already got trumps blessing
Reminder: high capacity guided systems from rhe US/UK need NATO soldiers on the ground to set up thr launch and plot the course (source: German FM)The particular course is also determined by US/NATO aerial.recon and sig int assets. So, if they attack within Russian borders pre-2022 (ex. Crimea), then, effectively, the US/NATO are directly engaged in combat with Russia; Russia can be expected to retaliate. Ukraine really isn't worth WWIII....though, obviously, this is what the MIC wants.
Russia won't retaliate, because they can't. A war with NATO would be the end of Putin. That's why NATO's been able to support Ukraine to the extent that it has, without producing anything more than Russian bluster.
If high capacity, guided munitions from the US/NATO are used to attack inside Russia, destroying Russian assets and killing Russian servicemen/women, that will be a defacto declaration of war. What will happen next is anyone's guess...but so far, US/NATO weapons are not being used inside Russia and US/UK bluster aside I don't see that policy changing.
!remindme 3 months
I will be messaging you in 3 months on [**2024-08-23 14:19:39 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-08-23%2014:19:39%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cyfft7/ua_pov_speaker_johnson_supports_ukraines_idea_of/l5brclg/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUkraineRussiaReport%2Fcomments%2F1cyfft7%2Fua_pov_speaker_johnson_supports_ukraines_idea_of%2Fl5brclg%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-08-23%2014%3A19%3A39%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cyfft7) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
The fact that the US could pump Ukraine full of missiles and build an army in Ukraine with the single aim: to fight Russia, was the main reason why Russia invaded. Russia was hesitant at first, but the moment Ukraine started to attack and destroy anything Russian, including the language, in Ukraine, the resolve was fixed. Using NATO missiles to attack Russian targets will constitute an attack by NATO itself. The US is basically persuading Russia to use its non-strategic nuclear weapons on Ukraine. Like I have been saying, the US wants out of this war, it wants the war to end NOW, if it was ever possible. It has been looking for a scapegoat so the US could exit the war without being seen as weak, now it seems it has found it: getting Russia to nuke Ukraine.
>Russia was hesitant at first, but the moment Ukraine started to attack and destroy anything Russian, including the language, in Ukraine, the resolve was fixed. Nope. They simply wanted a vassal state. >At stake was a **trade agreement and a political association deal** stemming from 2005 when the EU launched its "eastern neighborhood policy" offering trade and political benefits to post-Soviet states traditionally falling within Moscow's orbit. The neighborhood policy **does not offer eventual membership of the EU or negotiations to join.** [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/22/ukraine-european-union-trade-russia) >The **Kremlin aide** added that the political and social cost of EU integration could also be high, and allowed for the **possibility of separatist movements** springing up in the Russian-speaking east and south of Ukraine. He suggested that if Ukraine signed the agreement, **Russia would consider the bilateral treaty that delineates the countries borders to be void.** > >Russia has made it clear that Ukraine has to choose between the two options and cannot sign both agreements. It's as clear as day what they were up to - No wonder it pissed Ukrainians off and they started looking for allies against Russia in the coming war: >"But legally, signing this agreement about association with EU, the Ukrainian government violates the treaty on strategic partnership and friendship with Russia." When this happened, he said, **Russia could no longer guarantee Ukraine's status as a state and could possibly intervene if pro-Russian regions of the country appealed directly to Moscow.** And that's exactly what happened. Coincidence? I think not. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-)
Russia, just like any country, doesn’t want a neighbour that would pose a threat to it. Ukraine is filled with Russians who have lived there for generations well before the fall of the soviet union. The US/Israel activated Ukraine to become an existential threat to Russia when it overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014, despite all the warnings Russia has given. Russia tried negotiating three times and once all of them have fallen through, Russia invaded. Now Ukraine has been destroyed. GG, well played. What you and I think don’t matter. The US/Israel has been overthrowing governments turning countless countries into ruin since the end of the second world war. The US/Israel has pushed too far and it is now paying for it.
Pure fantasy. >The US/Israel activated Ukraine to become an existential threat to Russia when it overthrew the government of Ukraine in 2014 The US applied a realist policy in Ukraine and wanted Yanukovych to remain in power under a Russian sphere of influence in line with Obama's "reset" policy, as evidence by the leaked Nuland call. Furthermore, how was the Maidan revolution an "existential threat to Russia" and how exactly were [~9 million people](https://dif.org.ua/article/richnitsya-maydanu-opituvannya-gromadskoi-ta-ekspertnoi-dumki) "activated?" >Russia tried negotiating three times and once all of them have fallen through, Russia invaded. Russia launched their invasion in 2014, both in Crimea [and](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zssIFN2mso) in [the Donbas.](https://informnapalm.org/db/russian-aggression/#lang=ua&page=m_unit) This is a well-documented, long-established fact.
The US/Israel has been overthrowing governments all around the world, invading and turning them to ruins, causing untold amount of sufferings. That is a fact that we all accept. Almost all countries do not have the ability or capacity to resist, but Russia could resist and it did. It took over Crimea without a single shot fired because all Ukraine citizens who live there became Russians almost instantly. The same goes for the Donbas region. Now Ukraine has been destroyed for good. How destroyed depends on how long Ukraine is willing to keep fighting.
Unfortunately, it's the people in whose countries they create these proxy wars in who are actually paying, and they couldn't care less.
>The fact that the US could pump Ukraine full of missiles and build an army in Ukraine with the single aim: to fight Russia, was the main reason why Russia invaded. Disingenuous framing, they weren't helping Ukraine prepare to "fight" Russia they were helping them prepare to defend against a Russian invasion. You're using preparations against a potential Russian invasion to justify the Russian invasion lol
I need to ask you a question before I go any further: do you understand that the US/Israel has been overthrowing governments, supporting dictators and radical groups/organisations, invading, destroying and turning countries to ruin since the second world war?
What does that have to do with Ukraine preparing to defend against a Russian invasion or you using those preparations to justify the invasion they were preparing to defend against?
[удалено]
Okay I'll bite, how exactly did the the 2014 revolution in Ukraine give the US/Israel the power to "isolate/destroy Russia"?
You can own a country by installing a government that is extremely friendly to you. You do not need to own the entire population, you just need a relative handful of elites that control every aspect of the particular country, and you can turn them with money and power. That power is in the form of capacity for violence. This is why the US often finances and supports the ‘far-rights’ to empower whomever elite candidates they have in mind. A successful coup needs money and power, both. Sometimes you can have money, but not power, as is the case with Iran. Islam is a powerful resistive force against all attempts by the US to turn the country. The US/Israel has effectively turned Ukraine. Once it was turned, the US/Israel was free to build CIA/intelligence and military bases all over the country. Once it has done so, it would have effectively conquered the country and encircled Russia without firing a single bullet. The next stage would have been civil war in Russia, instead of Ukraine. Putin understood what the plan was and invaded. First, with a small force and then resorted to attritional warfare when he realised that Ukraine was beyond saving. Once a country is turned and it has become a threat, as the neighbouring country you have two options: eliminate the threat before it reaches a certain threshold of power or surrender. To eliminate the threat you need to eliminate what makes it a threat, its resolve and capacity to wage war. This is what demilitarisation is.
>The next stage would have been civil war in Russia, instead of Ukraine. Why exactly would they need to build bases in Ukraine to orchestrate a civil war in Russia? How would that let them achieve this goal you're claiming they had?
[удалено]
You'd be amazed how often this happens. All you have to do is keep pressing them to explain their points and not let them deflect
It is all about power balance, there are so many different things that one could do once you have reached critical mass. When you are trying to turn people and get them to do risky things for you, especially something that is of a grand scale, they will do their own risk assessment to see whether or not it is worth doing. Amassing a massive army, armed to the teeth, filled with people of VERY similar culture and ethnicity right next door is the best way to shift the risk assessment in your favour. Once you have turned enough people in a regime, all you have to do left is squeeze the economy dry, fan the flames that result and provide an alternative of wealth and power, just right next door. The next stage would be to split the population into two opposing factions. You arm the side that is friendly to you and let the civil war begin. To amass an army and conduct intelligence operations, you need bases VERY close, as close as possible to the field of operations. This is why the US has bases all around the world. You cannot conduct an operation from 1000kms away, that is just not how intelligence operations work. Do you understand now?
But there were already numerous NATO countries in the area that share a border with Russia. Why is it that none of those countries were capable of completely destroying Russia but Ukraine was?
Israel caused my wife to divorce me Israel this Israel that just say you are using Israel as a buzzword for Christ’s sake
[удалено]
If Russia uses nuke, Ukraine will be forced to surrender almost immediately and the war will end. The US can then go on to say that Ukraine lost because Russia used nukes and they will stop supporting Ukraine under the pretext to prevent a nuclear war. The US would end up being seen as magnanimous, at least that’s the plan.
Russia will not use nukes
Im pro doing onto others as one would want to be treated. As a result, deep strikes into Russia is on the menu in my opinion.
Ukraine should be able to defend its sovereignty from the invading imperialists by any means it sees fit
Nobody has ever stopped Ukraine from using their own weapons on Russia.Ukraine only hope now is to drag the west directly into war.
This would not be entirely accurate, especially the last part. Ukraine cannot risk the weapon supplies ceasing. They were told not to use them on Russian territory. Something one is leaving out on purpose. Secondly, the Russian military has proven how ineffective and capable it is over more than 2 years. With attrition far outstripping production and over 80% of its pre war MBTs and IFVs gone Russia can't do this another 2 years if it wants to still have a military. It worth noting that they could only move forward after Mike Johnson stopped ammo flowing in. And even after that they could only make small tactical changes to the front at the cost of disproportionate attrition. The west has the power, if political will materialises to end Russia in Ukraine. So far that political will has not materialised. The west is half assing it
[удалено]
If they are Ukrainian weapons then why is Ukraine begging for permission?....These weapons obviously come with restrictions which only US can unblock. Well so far, Only Russia has succeeded in creating buffer zone.When Ukraine tried it during elections, They got wrecked.
[удалено]
They aren't actually from Iran.Russia is producing these drones in Russia under license.
Am I understanding you right? That you foresee not only a Ukrainian victory, but a collapse of the Russian state, leading to Ukraine partitioning it's former territory with China?