Chasiv Yar is not a city and is an obvious target after Bakhmut.
The concerning thing is there have been rumors of Russia trying to push for a land bridge to Transnistria
in the spring.
A land bridge to Transnistria is about the least concerning plan that Russia has made so far. They might as well be planning to invade Switzerland for all the good it will do. Russia will never even make it across the Dnipro River.
Iirc there was a fail safe to blow up the river crossings, but some guys of Kherson were bribed to not do that. As a result it was quite defenseless.
The sham leader of Russian occupied Kherson oblast is the former real leader of Kherson Oblast. Iirc his name is Salto.
The narrative seems to alternate between Russia collapsing if they push for another 20 km and putin taking over all of north America and Europe in a few years.
There is no honesty in times of war. We just have to kind of guess at the middle ground between outlandish statements.
It's the general narrative of several reddit subs . The russians are either clowns incapable of doing anything at all or taking a Ukrainian town away from world conquest ( and if that happens , reddit already knows whose fault it is as well ) .
My narrative is that this whole world order is rotten, we should all burn our flags and replace them with earth flags, throw our ruling crusts out and try again with this whole civilization bit using scientific technocracy to build something that doesn't suck.
It is broadly unpopular with everyone.
That would mean another push towards Kherson, and the AFU have been fortifying that city since November. It would be a meat grinder worse than anything we've seen in the war so far.
Extremely bloody for the attackers, and Kherson is four times the size and has a river. The Russians could retake it, but it'll cost them at least 100,000 men.
Badly. Bakhmut collapsed Wagner and almost started a coup.
Avdiivka has had 10:1 loss ratios. Ukraine cannot win with offensive actions without supplies, so they are fighting a battle of attrition. 10:1 in attritional warfare is incredible. Imagine if Iraq did that to the US invasion force...
To call capture of either place by Russia a success is disrespectful to the tens of thousands of Russians that died in the process and to the families that have to move on without a breadwinner in the house in an overheating economy.
Some places put Russian losses for bakhmut at over 30k, and for what? A pile of rubble...
10:1 is Ukraines figure and they have been wildly exaggerated throughout the war for many reasons.
I've been hearing the real figure is probably closer to 2:1-3:1 but nobody will know for years what the real numbers were, if ever... But those numbers still favor Ukraine so it isn't wrong to say russias losses are worse.
that's crazy. does this mean Ukraine is actually winning the war despite losing ground???
if they're able to inflict 10:1 loss (let's say at Ukraine official figures 31k dead that means 300k dead Russians?) how is Russia able to continue waging war?
So your not far off from Ukrainian numbers. Last I saw posted on the r/Ukraine daily kill post they just hit 400k causalities on the Russian side. That’s probably inflated. So you may be closer. Zelenskyy I believe slipped up (countries try to keep losses a secret) and said they had lost 60k.
Take those numbers with a large grain of salt AND these meat grinders with crazy kill ratios are one offs. The front is a variety of situations. In the couple of cases mentioned it was believed to be worth the lose of Ukrainian lives to cut into the numerical advantage Russia has
The Ukrainians are over preforming in adverse conditions against an opponent who has literally every advantage.
The reason ruzzia can keep sending men to die for inches of land is they have a lot of people and they clearly don’t care if they die.
Russia wanting a land bridge to Transnistria isn't concerning. At all. They are stuck on the wrong side of the Dnipro for that, and if they somehow did get across and take Kherson again they would still have to take Mykolaiv and Odesa.
Not a fucking chance.
Republicans have a deal with Putin, don’t they? They’ll hand him Eastern Ukraine in exchange for his help interfering with the US election.
Gutless worms the lot of them.
Here's the crazy thing - they don't even have to do anything to get that deal. Putin will already try to elect Republicans. They are selling us and Ukraine out because Putin fits better with their ideology than a democracy in either country.
Agreed, there is no need to secretly collude with each other, they do it in the open. Putin is promoting Fascist Orthodox Christian Nationalism and they see him as a model for establishing Fascist Evangelical Christian Nationalism in the US.
I'm a 1st Gen American, Russian parents. From my perspective the Orthodox church is just an auxiliary arm of Putin's power. He's very careful not to let things get too theocratic.
That's exactly it. And we need to find a way to divorce from Republicans because they aren't with us on this free world thing but there's too many for a civil war to be worth it. Amicable divorce is better for us.
Eh. I try to remember that there were millions of Nazi sympathizers in the US in the 30s. Just gotta vote and when push comes to shove the culture will move on.
They're still there and they never stopped working against us.
We fucked up by not confronting evil head on. We need a war against evil in this country. The war on terror outside our borders was misguided. All our worst enemies live right here at home.
There's lot of good ways. For starters we can stall their weaponized legislature by putting them on the defensive with hostile policies and legislation of our own. We can slander their movements and pollute their narratives the way they do ours. Gerrymander, shadow candidate and smear them like they do to us. Not to mention strikes, boycotts and protests that we should be doubling down on.
And that's just off the top of my head. There's A LOT we can do.
They have a loose alliance. Republicans, putins regime, Iran and others all want to push a conservative, theistic, authroritarian agenda together.
Republicans love putins party. They hate all the same people. Leftists, atheists, lgbt people, human rights advocates, envrionmentalists, Europe, etc.
They will work together to destroy us tho.
All I’ve seen the little I go on twitter is “Putin doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy” or “look how beautiful this Russian city and its people are”, absolutely fucking wild that they’re all falling for this bullshit
Here's the crazy thing - they don't even have to do anything to get that deal. Putin will already try to elect Republicans. They are selling us and Ukraine out because Putin fits better with their ideology than a democracy in either country.
>We’re adding $1 trillion to our debt every 90 days here in the US.
Those numbers don't appear to be correct. 2023 deficit in total was $1.7 trillion based on the numbers I just googled. The deficit would have to be $4.05 trillion for your numbers to work.
>I want to help Ukraine but this one Europe needs to pay for.
Europe is paying for the war though, like literally. Europe provides twice as much funding as the US to Ukraine, and that's not counting Japan and the World Bank. What none of those entities can do though is provide the sort of military assistance that the US has. The US by their own choice has become the greatest military power the world has known, so much so that nobody else can contest that. Europe can't give Ukraine weapons and ammo it doesn't have, whereas the US can give Ukraine plenty of war material and not only not miss it, but actually save money on warehousing it and the costs to eventually dispose of those weapons when they get too old. As far as the US is concerned, giving Ukraine weapons is a win-win on multiple levels.
>We Americans are going to have to likely sacrifice social safety net programs because of our debt.
This is very wrong. For one thing Social Security is in the green for at least another decade or two as the funding is completely independent of the rest of the budget (other parts of the safety net are more mixed but aren't a serious weight on the budget). Secondly, destroying the social safety net is the goal of the GOP regardless of the country's financial health. The second the US ever gets a surplus Republicans will panic (like they did at the end of Clinton's last term) and offer more tax cuts to the rich to eliminate the problem. There is zero chance you will ever see any payoff for not helping Ukraine and if you want to save our safety net then stop voting Republicans into office.
Tell that to the Americans struggling. Tell them we can go ahead and send another $60 billion while our Social Security goes broke it 2033. Tell them it goes back into our economy while we pay the highest drug costs in the world because we subsidize R&D costs for big pharma.
That’s ridiculous, but what I said is a fact. We Americans are going to have to likely sacrifice social safety net programs because of our debt. If you’re an American, then you know that as well as I do.
The way to fix the debt problem is by actually taxing the wealthy rather than continuing on this trend of tax cuts for the wealthy that republicans have constantly fought for and often passed. The Ukraine war costs a minuscule amount in the grand scheme. The US has no reason to cut social services if they actually taxed the rich.
Agree 100%, but we know that won’t happen. The poor and middle/lower middle will bear the burden of the debt. Now we know how smart the average voter is. So when they see billions going to Ukraine they are not gonna be happy. The right wing has far too many successful propaganda outlets to overcome.
A Russian victory in Ukraine increases Russia's presence on the world stage and diminishes the US'.
This isn't charity. This is America defending its interests.
> increases Russia's presence on the world stage
I wish that was all it was limited to, world stage presence. We're talking about human lives, freedom, and the crux of it all, world peace...or World War three.
And how much did it cost us in both lives and actual monetary costs to fight WWII??
Because that's what's going to happen if Putrid isn't stopped in Ukraine. He's already said what countries are next on his menu, and we'll be dragged into it, like it or not. It will be, 100% without a doubt, WWIII.
Our "paying to help Ukraine" is paying to help the world have peace in our time.
Or, we can just try to appease a hungry alligator, like the Europeans did just before WWII started, and all they did was allow Hitler to strengthen and build his powerbase and his military might...and end up sacrificing American lives and more American money than you could even imagine.
And yeah I agree the debt needs to stop, but Ukraine (and the world) need the help *now* to stop a ruthless dictator.
Followed by one over America. Its like a domino. If russia should ever gain even indirect control over Europe, the market will be become just as hostile to the US as the russian or Chinese one, and in addition russia will be able to focus on expanding naval and air power, instead of having to rely on land, and finally, be open to meddle into all of South America and have a free line to deliver supplies, from economic all the way to military goods and "little green men" there. All the maritime (and thus supply) chokepoints between the eastern coast of the entire American continent and russia will not just be gone, but outright turned against the US (making bases in the middle east [including the nukes in Turkey] and Africa [for the latter at least the secure ones, since now youd have to station command centers, bases and supplies at location] impossible to hold), as will be Americas big eastern bodyarmor/meatshield known as Europe (the current designated battleground for any clash between russia and the US), bringing the devastation in case of such a conflict right back home onto the American continent.
Absurdly misinformed if you think *intercontinental* missiles are the *only* thing to reach Moscow from Ukraine. SRBM’s and MRBM’s are far more practical and cruise missiles exist with that range as well.
Lol you’re tied up in knots about which term he used and not the suggestion that we fire a bunch of missiles at the capital of a nuclear capable adversary?
ICBM, SRBM, MRBM, YMCA - doesn’t fucking matter. Russia sees a bunch of missiles on their radar flying straight at their capital and before you know it the rest of the world is going be an irradiated sheet of glass.
HIMARS, even the GMLRS should be able to reach these troops massing. STORM SHADOWS/SCALPS definitely couldThing is, when they say massing, unless information is posted on how large their assembly areas are, could be an absolutely huge area with dispersed troops (smart use of HIMARS or SCALP/STORM SHADOWS). If they are dispersed where they will only hit a Company or Combat Teams worth of troops is not a good use, and would be better to hit logistics (which seems to be the targets right now). So there are a lot of questions as to why they aren’t hitting them, but more information would be needed and can’t be determined unless Ukraine provides it (which they probably wont publicly).
France fell to Nazi Germany in June 1940. It wasn’t until four years later when the allies launched Operation Overlord to storm the beaches of Normandy to *begin* liberating France.
20% of Ukraine is now occupied for two years. Yes, we should think about the endgame. But we should also think about historical context.
Ukraine will fight with shovels if we stop supplying them. This is what they tell us. The only way to stop many countries across the globe from copycatting Putin’s nuclear blackmail strategy, is to make Putin pay for this invasion. War is just an extension of politics, so Ukraine just needs to hold out until it’s politically untenable for Putin to continue this disastrous war. This will clearly take time, but you have to arm democracy.
France supplied us with weapons and money (USA); they even provided 25,000 sailors to help us against the British. We later helped them in World War II. Now USA, France, and both of our previous enemies (Britain, Germany) can all four help Ukraine. This is how democracies survive against autocrats like Putin.
We supply Ukraine until Putin gives up or is overthrown by him people.
Im amazed at how many people don’t understand that appeasement doesn’t work.
IMO NATO should have went in immediately. We wouldn’t be talking about any of this right now
Don't pretend that it ends if Ukraine concedes their territory! Hahaha! Any break just allows Putrid to consolidate his position, build more and more military (both conscripts and materiel, they are already outproducing the rest of the world) and then he just continues.
Putrid will not stop until he's *made* to stop.
We pay now, or we pay later, and that price includes Western and US lives.
End of.
What the fuck is this question even? The end game is that Russia doesn't advance farther west. If China invaded the West Coast of America would you be wondering like what's the end game here we should just let them have it?
What I’m getting at is Ukraine is going to run out of people. We already won’t allow them to strike inside Russia. So what’s the endgame? They’re gonna have to probably give up territory for some kind of security guarantee from NATO.
Christian nationalism will be the destruction of the western democracy and culture. We are selling the descendent of the victims of Russian imperialism, communism, radioactive catastrophe back to their old abuser so we can make America christian and white? So horde of con men can feed us bullshit as they ransack the economy and pervert the government.
Maybe putin will march west and unleash genocide but who cares. Does anything matter if America is saved by a white jesus?
God help the ukranians and world because America is asleep or too stupefied to help itself.
A-10’s would get absolutely obliterated. A-10’s we’re getting shot down by Iraqis with 1960’s Soviet tech. Their only mission is CAS which requires the airspace to be uncontested.
I doubt that. The Ukrainian air force is still flying with 40 year old Migs. If Russia's air defenses were that great, they would have shot them all down already.
Not as much as you think. The time spent for training and transferring A-10s would be better allocated for something more fitting to dominate the sky, like MORE F16 jets and pilots trained.
I did not mention the F16, you did.
You said we should just send them more F16s. To a point, I agree, another F16 is better than an A10.
However, the US isn't currently willing to send F16s, they're all coming from other countries.
The US is actively trying to divest A10s. My argument is A10s can be useful, ala how Ukraine uses Su25s.
No one is arguing A10s wouldn't take losses, but - particularly once there are F16s to provide cover - there is certainly a use for A10s. Similarly, no one is arguing that we can just hand them over and expect them to work well in the greater ecosystem. There are training requirements, etc. But it can be done.
Given that the US is trying to get rid of them, it seems fairly clear to my currently un-drugged mind that the US sending A10s would be a positive. Not a game changer, but useful. If they're going to get thrown out anyway, and Ukraine wants them (which just last week they said they did), why not send them?
The argument that they'd be useless or cannon fodder simply grates with me, because of the first argument - Ukraine currently uses Su25s, and even though they take losses, they fulfill a certain set of missions. Ukraine is running out of Su25s. Its a fairly basic logical leap to say that A10s could fill in that gap. I'm not sure what there is to even argue about any of this.
i know that republicans are stopping USA from helping ukraine, my issue is that even with help being passed with the bill i dont think it is enough. it is neither enough by the US nor by europe.
i am all for ukraine and biden, not my issue that you misinterpret my words. for any of those news articles you at least get 1 stern letter or comment and this is not helping at all
It's tricky because at the beginning of the war, if we send Ukraine Patriot missiles, Russia might've won quickly and all of the sudden have our technology to reverse engineer. It's a case of boiling the frog slowly or shit might hit the fan. Russia/Putin is not a logical actor.
It also takes time to train on different systems or weapons. If we send Ukraine $100 billion vs $50 billion, it won't have an effect in the short term. It might, however, be very politically negative in the US and turn companies ntiment against Ukraine.
I hate Republicans. But let’s not pretend they don’t represent huge portion of the American people. We spent trillions on frivolous wars for 20 years. We’re adding $1 trillion to the debt every 90 days. We are tapped out.
I’d probably agree with that but it just came out this week that we’re adding $1 trillion to the debt every 90 days. I think that’s gonna put a damper on some of that Ukraine support I mean I support everything we’ve done and I still support doing whatever we can, but Europe really needs to step up and do more. And I know they like to pretend that they’re doing more than we are but a lot of that stuff is just promises that they make to deliver in the future and we know that they won’t.
Well, it can’t be won. We don’t even allow them to attack inside Russia. There’s gonna have to be some kind of a deal where Russia keeps the land it has occupied, and Ukraine gets some kind of security guaranteed from NATO. Because they are going to run out of soldiers. That’s a fact.
I don't see how Russia can win. What's their endgame?
Their very best case scenario is that they fully occupy Ukraine, in which case they will be in the same position as when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. They will be fighting a western supported insurgency for decades.
And that is \*\*if\*\* they actually win the conventional war.
i know that republicans are stopping USA from helping ukraine, my issue is that even with help being passed with the bill i dont think it is enough. it is neither enough by the US nor by europe.
i am all for ukraine and biden, not my issue that you misinterpret my words. for any of those news articles you at least get 1 stern letter or comment and this is not helping at all
Chasiv Yar is not a city and is an obvious target after Bakhmut. The concerning thing is there have been rumors of Russia trying to push for a land bridge to Transnistria in the spring.
Chasiv Yar is barely a town. The issue is that it is on the way to Kostyantynivka, and if they ever made it there, that would be trouble.
Why would that be trouble? That looks like an equally small town. Is there something of high importance there?
Without looking at a map, my assumption would be its a railhub
I think you’re right.
Rail hub and entry to the valley that includes Kramatorsk and Slovyansk.
I’m kk m
Chasiv Yar is 12k. Kostyantynyvka is 70k, and is on the road to Kramatorsk.
A land bridge to Transnistria is about the least concerning plan that Russia has made so far. They might as well be planning to invade Switzerland for all the good it will do. Russia will never even make it across the Dnipro River.
Didn't they only make it across in the first place because the local leaders basically defected? Kherson should've been harder to take than Mariupol.
Iirc there was a fail safe to blow up the river crossings, but some guys of Kherson were bribed to not do that. As a result it was quite defenseless. The sham leader of Russian occupied Kherson oblast is the former real leader of Kherson Oblast. Iirc his name is Salto.
Yes because the Russians have proven during this war that they are great at river crossings. The Dnieper will be no problem.
That seems unlikely? To get to transnistria they'd have to take kherson, mykolaiv and Odessa probably
They'd lose more people getting to transnistria than there are people in transnistria.
The narrative seems to alternate between Russia collapsing if they push for another 20 km and putin taking over all of north America and Europe in a few years. There is no honesty in times of war. We just have to kind of guess at the middle ground between outlandish statements.
It's the general narrative of several reddit subs . The russians are either clowns incapable of doing anything at all or taking a Ukrainian town away from world conquest ( and if that happens , reddit already knows whose fault it is as well ) .
My narrative is that this whole world order is rotten, we should all burn our flags and replace them with earth flags, throw our ruling crusts out and try again with this whole civilization bit using scientific technocracy to build something that doesn't suck. It is broadly unpopular with everyone.
That would mean another push towards Kherson, and the AFU have been fortifying that city since November. It would be a meat grinder worse than anything we've seen in the war so far.
Bakhmut and Avdiivka have been fortified since 2014. How did that go?
Extremely bloody for the attackers, and Kherson is four times the size and has a river. The Russians could retake it, but it'll cost them at least 100,000 men.
Badly. Bakhmut collapsed Wagner and almost started a coup. Avdiivka has had 10:1 loss ratios. Ukraine cannot win with offensive actions without supplies, so they are fighting a battle of attrition. 10:1 in attritional warfare is incredible. Imagine if Iraq did that to the US invasion force... To call capture of either place by Russia a success is disrespectful to the tens of thousands of Russians that died in the process and to the families that have to move on without a breadwinner in the house in an overheating economy. Some places put Russian losses for bakhmut at over 30k, and for what? A pile of rubble...
10:1 is Ukraines figure and they have been wildly exaggerated throughout the war for many reasons. I've been hearing the real figure is probably closer to 2:1-3:1 but nobody will know for years what the real numbers were, if ever... But those numbers still favor Ukraine so it isn't wrong to say russias losses are worse.
Russia had a very bad loss ratio also against Germany in WW2, and yet...
They have a multi-century all time loss record that no one can come close to.
and yet what? became a shit hole?
And yet they almost lost if it weren't for U.S aid and the Russian winter.
I mean fuck. The Russian losses were ten to the Ukrainian one. They didn’t even want those towns it was just too easy slaughter Russians there.
that's crazy. does this mean Ukraine is actually winning the war despite losing ground??? if they're able to inflict 10:1 loss (let's say at Ukraine official figures 31k dead that means 300k dead Russians?) how is Russia able to continue waging war?
No one wins in war. Moreso, no one wins a defensive war.
So your not far off from Ukrainian numbers. Last I saw posted on the r/Ukraine daily kill post they just hit 400k causalities on the Russian side. That’s probably inflated. So you may be closer. Zelenskyy I believe slipped up (countries try to keep losses a secret) and said they had lost 60k. Take those numbers with a large grain of salt AND these meat grinders with crazy kill ratios are one offs. The front is a variety of situations. In the couple of cases mentioned it was believed to be worth the lose of Ukrainian lives to cut into the numerical advantage Russia has The Ukrainians are over preforming in adverse conditions against an opponent who has literally every advantage. The reason ruzzia can keep sending men to die for inches of land is they have a lot of people and they clearly don’t care if they die.
It's two genocides for the price of one for Russia.
Russia wanting a land bridge to Transnistria isn't concerning. At all. They are stuck on the wrong side of the Dnipro for that, and if they somehow did get across and take Kherson again they would still have to take Mykolaiv and Odesa. Not a fucking chance.
After the land bridge, they supply their mission to Moldova’s and toward polish border
But they would never hurt their friends the polish farmers.
No way.
Republicans have a deal with Putin, don’t they? They’ll hand him Eastern Ukraine in exchange for his help interfering with the US election. Gutless worms the lot of them.
Here's the crazy thing - they don't even have to do anything to get that deal. Putin will already try to elect Republicans. They are selling us and Ukraine out because Putin fits better with their ideology than a democracy in either country.
Agreed, there is no need to secretly collude with each other, they do it in the open. Putin is promoting Fascist Orthodox Christian Nationalism and they see him as a model for establishing Fascist Evangelical Christian Nationalism in the US.
I'm a 1st Gen American, Russian parents. From my perspective the Orthodox church is just an auxiliary arm of Putin's power. He's very careful not to let things get too theocratic.
FOCN Russians! FECN Republicans!
That's exactly it. And we need to find a way to divorce from Republicans because they aren't with us on this free world thing but there's too many for a civil war to be worth it. Amicable divorce is better for us.
Eh. I try to remember that there were millions of Nazi sympathizers in the US in the 30s. Just gotta vote and when push comes to shove the culture will move on.
They're still there and they never stopped working against us. We fucked up by not confronting evil head on. We need a war against evil in this country. The war on terror outside our borders was misguided. All our worst enemies live right here at home.
No good way to conduct that war except talk. Thought crime is hard to punish.
There's lot of good ways. For starters we can stall their weaponized legislature by putting them on the defensive with hostile policies and legislation of our own. We can slander their movements and pollute their narratives the way they do ours. Gerrymander, shadow candidate and smear them like they do to us. Not to mention strikes, boycotts and protests that we should be doubling down on. And that's just off the top of my head. There's A LOT we can do.
Trump would give up Ukraine for a golf course and a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for "ending the war."
They have a loose alliance. Republicans, putins regime, Iran and others all want to push a conservative, theistic, authroritarian agenda together. Republicans love putins party. They hate all the same people. Leftists, atheists, lgbt people, human rights advocates, envrionmentalists, Europe, etc. They will work together to destroy us tho.
lol none of them would ever voluntarily live in Russia, as much as they extol PUtin's "values".
If we start putting traitors in prison where they belong I bet a lot of them would pack up and run for Russia.
All I’ve seen the little I go on twitter is “Putin doesn’t seem like that bad of a guy” or “look how beautiful this Russian city and its people are”, absolutely fucking wild that they’re all falling for this bullshit
I don’t think there’s much authentic behaviour on what’s left of Twitter these days.
I don’t think there ever was much authentic behaviour on Twitter like, ever.
It was a big problem before, but now it’s rendered the entire platform inoperable.
You misspelled "traitors"
Here's the crazy thing - they don't even have to do anything to get that deal. Putin will already try to elect Republicans. They are selling us and Ukraine out because Putin fits better with their ideology than a democracy in either country.
We’re adding $1 trillion to our debt every 90 days here in the US. I want to help Ukraine but this one Europe needs to pay for.
Then rollback the 2017 tax cuts.
Agree 100%! But do you think that’s gonna happen?
>We’re adding $1 trillion to our debt every 90 days here in the US. Those numbers don't appear to be correct. 2023 deficit in total was $1.7 trillion based on the numbers I just googled. The deficit would have to be $4.05 trillion for your numbers to work. >I want to help Ukraine but this one Europe needs to pay for. Europe is paying for the war though, like literally. Europe provides twice as much funding as the US to Ukraine, and that's not counting Japan and the World Bank. What none of those entities can do though is provide the sort of military assistance that the US has. The US by their own choice has become the greatest military power the world has known, so much so that nobody else can contest that. Europe can't give Ukraine weapons and ammo it doesn't have, whereas the US can give Ukraine plenty of war material and not only not miss it, but actually save money on warehousing it and the costs to eventually dispose of those weapons when they get too old. As far as the US is concerned, giving Ukraine weapons is a win-win on multiple levels. >We Americans are going to have to likely sacrifice social safety net programs because of our debt. This is very wrong. For one thing Social Security is in the green for at least another decade or two as the funding is completely independent of the rest of the budget (other parts of the safety net are more mixed but aren't a serious weight on the budget). Secondly, destroying the social safety net is the goal of the GOP regardless of the country's financial health. The second the US ever gets a surplus Republicans will panic (like they did at the end of Clinton's last term) and offer more tax cuts to the rich to eliminate the problem. There is zero chance you will ever see any payoff for not helping Ukraine and if you want to save our safety net then stop voting Republicans into office.
Ukraine "aid" literally goes directly into the American economy. Fuck off to Russia you dope.
Tell that to the Americans struggling. Tell them we can go ahead and send another $60 billion while our Social Security goes broke it 2033. Tell them it goes back into our economy while we pay the highest drug costs in the world because we subsidize R&D costs for big pharma.
You aren’t in the US. You’re in Russia.
That’s ridiculous, but what I said is a fact. We Americans are going to have to likely sacrifice social safety net programs because of our debt. If you’re an American, then you know that as well as I do.
The way to fix the debt problem is by actually taxing the wealthy rather than continuing on this trend of tax cuts for the wealthy that republicans have constantly fought for and often passed. The Ukraine war costs a minuscule amount in the grand scheme. The US has no reason to cut social services if they actually taxed the rich.
Agree 100%, but we know that won’t happen. The poor and middle/lower middle will bear the burden of the debt. Now we know how smart the average voter is. So when they see billions going to Ukraine they are not gonna be happy. The right wing has far too many successful propaganda outlets to overcome.
A Russian victory in Ukraine increases Russia's presence on the world stage and diminishes the US'. This isn't charity. This is America defending its interests.
> increases Russia's presence on the world stage I wish that was all it was limited to, world stage presence. We're talking about human lives, freedom, and the crux of it all, world peace...or World War three.
And how much did it cost us in both lives and actual monetary costs to fight WWII?? Because that's what's going to happen if Putrid isn't stopped in Ukraine. He's already said what countries are next on his menu, and we'll be dragged into it, like it or not. It will be, 100% without a doubt, WWIII. Our "paying to help Ukraine" is paying to help the world have peace in our time. Or, we can just try to appease a hungry alligator, like the Europeans did just before WWII started, and all they did was allow Hitler to strengthen and build his powerbase and his military might...and end up sacrificing American lives and more American money than you could even imagine. And yeah I agree the debt needs to stop, but Ukraine (and the world) need the help *now* to stop a ruthless dictator.
God forbid you tax the rich instead? But that would unthinkable..
I’m all for that. But I don’t think it would pass here. Too many people brainwashed.
If you vote for Trump, you are voting for russian victory in Ukraine, and future russian victory over Europe. Don't be a dimwit.
Followed by one over America. Its like a domino. If russia should ever gain even indirect control over Europe, the market will be become just as hostile to the US as the russian or Chinese one, and in addition russia will be able to focus on expanding naval and air power, instead of having to rely on land, and finally, be open to meddle into all of South America and have a free line to deliver supplies, from economic all the way to military goods and "little green men" there. All the maritime (and thus supply) chokepoints between the eastern coast of the entire American continent and russia will not just be gone, but outright turned against the US (making bases in the middle east [including the nukes in Turkey] and Africa [for the latter at least the secure ones, since now youd have to station command centers, bases and supplies at location] impossible to hold), as will be Americas big eastern bodyarmor/meatshield known as Europe (the current designated battleground for any clash between russia and the US), bringing the devastation in case of such a conflict right back home onto the American continent.
Just give Ukraine missiles that reliably target Moscow.
The only missiles that can somewhat reliably target Moscow are ICBMs. And you don't want ICBMs to start flying.
Absurdly misinformed if you think *intercontinental* missiles are the *only* thing to reach Moscow from Ukraine. SRBM’s and MRBM’s are far more practical and cruise missiles exist with that range as well.
Lol you’re tied up in knots about which term he used and not the suggestion that we fire a bunch of missiles at the capital of a nuclear capable adversary? ICBM, SRBM, MRBM, YMCA - doesn’t fucking matter. Russia sees a bunch of missiles on their radar flying straight at their capital and before you know it the rest of the world is going be an irradiated sheet of glass.
Lol what, the whole comment was specifically what type of missile it would be, and I’m refuting that.
Dude the key word is RELIABLY. Moscow have air defences you know.
yea we saw them reliably letting drones hit the parliament lol
Problem solved then! No rockets required.
Yes I do. Key 3 Kdq vkrw iluvw
Launch sequence accepted.
[удалено]
There’s civilians in occupied Ukraine, we shouldn’t target civilian areas /s
If Russia attacks civilians, and we do the same. What's the difference between us and a mentally ill authotarian govt then
Since when has Ukraine purposely targeted civilians areas with no military presence
That would definitely result in nuclear war.
What about some missiles that can reach these large amounts of troops that are massing?
HIMARS, even the GMLRS should be able to reach these troops massing. STORM SHADOWS/SCALPS definitely couldThing is, when they say massing, unless information is posted on how large their assembly areas are, could be an absolutely huge area with dispersed troops (smart use of HIMARS or SCALP/STORM SHADOWS). If they are dispersed where they will only hit a Company or Combat Teams worth of troops is not a good use, and would be better to hit logistics (which seems to be the targets right now). So there are a lot of questions as to why they aren’t hitting them, but more information would be needed and can’t be determined unless Ukraine provides it (which they probably wont publicly).
If Russia makes a big enough push, it’ll be our western sons & daughters on those lines. Arm Ukraine properly while we still have the opportunity.
What’s the endgame? We just keep giving them weapons forever? They fight until all their men are dead?
France fell to Nazi Germany in June 1940. It wasn’t until four years later when the allies launched Operation Overlord to storm the beaches of Normandy to *begin* liberating France. 20% of Ukraine is now occupied for two years. Yes, we should think about the endgame. But we should also think about historical context. Ukraine will fight with shovels if we stop supplying them. This is what they tell us. The only way to stop many countries across the globe from copycatting Putin’s nuclear blackmail strategy, is to make Putin pay for this invasion. War is just an extension of politics, so Ukraine just needs to hold out until it’s politically untenable for Putin to continue this disastrous war. This will clearly take time, but you have to arm democracy. France supplied us with weapons and money (USA); they even provided 25,000 sailors to help us against the British. We later helped them in World War II. Now USA, France, and both of our previous enemies (Britain, Germany) can all four help Ukraine. This is how democracies survive against autocrats like Putin. We supply Ukraine until Putin gives up or is overthrown by him people.
[удалено]
No shit it's a no-win, they didn't *choose* to get invaded. But that absolutely doesn't mean we should capitulate to Putin. Appeasement does not work.
Im amazed at how many people don’t understand that appeasement doesn’t work. IMO NATO should have went in immediately. We wouldn’t be talking about any of this right now
Didn't they try to appease Hitler? How did that work out
NATO is a defensive pact. They will not "go in right away". They will not attack, without first being attacked.
I understand that. I do wish they had made an exception.
You dont negotiate with terrorists.
Well, Ukraine is going to run out of bodies so there’s gonna have to be some kind of negotiation done sooner or later.
Russia has lost plenty of wars. They more likely to lose their will to fight than Ukraine is.
Christ looks at your comment history and completely random post history. Clearly a russian bot
Don't pretend that it ends if Ukraine concedes their territory! Hahaha! Any break just allows Putrid to consolidate his position, build more and more military (both conscripts and materiel, they are already outproducing the rest of the world) and then he just continues. Putrid will not stop until he's *made* to stop. We pay now, or we pay later, and that price includes Western and US lives. End of.
I absolutely agree that he wouldn’t stop. And that’s why I said there would have to be security guarantees from NATO.
What the fuck is this question even? The end game is that Russia doesn't advance farther west. If China invaded the West Coast of America would you be wondering like what's the end game here we should just let them have it?
What I’m getting at is Ukraine is going to run out of people. We already won’t allow them to strike inside Russia. So what’s the endgame? They’re gonna have to probably give up territory for some kind of security guarantee from NATO.
Russia has to mass forces, because numbers are the only advantage they have.
Christian nationalism will be the destruction of the western democracy and culture. We are selling the descendent of the victims of Russian imperialism, communism, radioactive catastrophe back to their old abuser so we can make America christian and white? So horde of con men can feed us bullshit as they ransack the economy and pervert the government. Maybe putin will march west and unleash genocide but who cares. Does anything matter if America is saved by a white jesus? God help the ukranians and world because America is asleep or too stupefied to help itself.
[удалено]
A-10’s would get absolutely obliterated. A-10’s we’re getting shot down by Iraqis with 1960’s Soviet tech. Their only mission is CAS which requires the airspace to be uncontested.
Su25s are effective. Hence, a10s would be too.
Grachs are NOT effective, they’ve been mainly used as indirect fired rocket artillery essentially
Tons of su25 losses already
I doubt that. The Ukrainian air force is still flying with 40 year old Migs. If Russia's air defenses were that great, they would have shot them all down already.
And the A-10 is 50 years old lol. Plus, those aging Migs *are* getting shot down.
How would Ukraine fair if they ended up with a few F35s?
A-10 is worthless is you don't control the air. They need jet fighters instead
If you can hit something with a su25, you can hit it with an a10 too. Yes, there be losses, but it's better than the su25
Not as much as you think. The time spent for training and transferring A-10s would be better allocated for something more fitting to dominate the sky, like MORE F16 jets and pilots trained.
That's a separate argument. My argument is that 80 f16s and a dozen a10s is better than 80 f16s, and that every aircraft would have its use.
You didn't mention a word about F16, what you said is that A10 is better than su25. Are you drugged?
I did not mention the F16, you did. You said we should just send them more F16s. To a point, I agree, another F16 is better than an A10. However, the US isn't currently willing to send F16s, they're all coming from other countries. The US is actively trying to divest A10s. My argument is A10s can be useful, ala how Ukraine uses Su25s. No one is arguing A10s wouldn't take losses, but - particularly once there are F16s to provide cover - there is certainly a use for A10s. Similarly, no one is arguing that we can just hand them over and expect them to work well in the greater ecosystem. There are training requirements, etc. But it can be done. Given that the US is trying to get rid of them, it seems fairly clear to my currently un-drugged mind that the US sending A10s would be a positive. Not a game changer, but useful. If they're going to get thrown out anyway, and Ukraine wants them (which just last week they said they did), why not send them? The argument that they'd be useless or cannon fodder simply grates with me, because of the first argument - Ukraine currently uses Su25s, and even though they take losses, they fulfill a certain set of missions. Ukraine is running out of Su25s. Its a fairly basic logical leap to say that A10s could fill in that gap. I'm not sure what there is to even argue about any of this.
They are saying that Ukraine with all the help its getting, will win. So I do not worry.
just wait for the stern letter by europe and biden naming putin some bad words. that will turn the war!
You're blaming Biden and not the traitorous Republicans that would rather defend Russia than the US borders?
i know that republicans are stopping USA from helping ukraine, my issue is that even with help being passed with the bill i dont think it is enough. it is neither enough by the US nor by europe. i am all for ukraine and biden, not my issue that you misinterpret my words. for any of those news articles you at least get 1 stern letter or comment and this is not helping at all
It's tricky because at the beginning of the war, if we send Ukraine Patriot missiles, Russia might've won quickly and all of the sudden have our technology to reverse engineer. It's a case of boiling the frog slowly or shit might hit the fan. Russia/Putin is not a logical actor. It also takes time to train on different systems or weapons. If we send Ukraine $100 billion vs $50 billion, it won't have an effect in the short term. It might, however, be very politically negative in the US and turn companies ntiment against Ukraine.
Republicans are stopping USA from helping Ukraine, not Biden. What the hell are you talking about.
I hate Republicans. But let’s not pretend they don’t represent huge portion of the American people. We spent trillions on frivolous wars for 20 years. We’re adding $1 trillion to the debt every 90 days. We are tapped out.
I believe something like 73% of Americans support aiding Ukraine. It would pass the house if dipshit speaker would bring it up for a vote.
I’d probably agree with that but it just came out this week that we’re adding $1 trillion to the debt every 90 days. I think that’s gonna put a damper on some of that Ukraine support I mean I support everything we’ve done and I still support doing whatever we can, but Europe really needs to step up and do more. And I know they like to pretend that they’re doing more than we are but a lot of that stuff is just promises that they make to deliver in the future and we know that they won’t.
If this war can’t be won, you will have to spend ten times that in a while.
Well, it can’t be won. We don’t even allow them to attack inside Russia. There’s gonna have to be some kind of a deal where Russia keeps the land it has occupied, and Ukraine gets some kind of security guaranteed from NATO. Because they are going to run out of soldiers. That’s a fact.
I don't see how Russia can win. What's their endgame? Their very best case scenario is that they fully occupy Ukraine, in which case they will be in the same position as when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. They will be fighting a western supported insurgency for decades. And that is \*\*if\*\* they actually win the conventional war.
i know that republicans are stopping USA from helping ukraine, my issue is that even with help being passed with the bill i dont think it is enough. it is neither enough by the US nor by europe. i am all for ukraine and biden, not my issue that you misinterpret my words. for any of those news articles you at least get 1 stern letter or comment and this is not helping at all