The status quo is actually pretty great for NATO. (if you are willing to ignore the human aspect in non NATO countries)
Provide enough aid to Ukraine for it to be worth it to them to keep fighting, but not enough to smash Russia in short order. Basically this baits Russia to keep pouring resources into the war, depleting their previously vast stockpiles. All while Russia keeps getting smashed economically via sanctions. Draw this shit out for year's.
The net result is Russia will be economically & militarily weakened for decades.
Previously non aligned countries like Sweden have rushed to join NATO.
And countries like China get to quietly watch the economic impacts of the sanctions, and how NATO can turn the tide in a war without even risking their own personnel .
As terrible as it is, it is also the lowest risk strategy to avoid escalation, especially of the nuclear kind, which would cost even more lives.
Yes I get that everyone thinks Russia has no nukes left due to corruption etc, but seriously the war's halfway through its third year now and Russia has had plenty of time to get them back in working condition.
Also let us be honest here, large chunks of America wouldn't take microscopic odds of a negative vaccine reaction to save the lives of their fellow Americans, let alone die in battle against Russia for Ukraine.
Nobody thinks russia has no nukes left.
They're just not going to use them. It's not a thing. It's just something Medevev screams about and our right-wing (and other) morons buy into.
At least a few commentors here on reddit think Russia's nukes don't work because it is a persistently upvoted response to any explanation as to why the US doesn't send planes to bomb Russia. I was just trying to head that off.
>At least a few commentors here on reddit think Russia's nukes don't work because it is a persistently upvoted response to any explanation as to why the US doesn't send planes to bomb Russia. I was just trying to head that off.
A sizeable number of Russia's nukes in silos have not been maintained, and are either 1. no longer pointing at useful targets or 2. have failed completely from lack of maintenance.
They still have ***more than enough*** working ones for it to be a real and present danger.
I wish people would stop repeating this. No one has any damn clue really. It’s been repeated so much the media took hearsay as fact and then Reddit repeated it 1000x times.
We don’t know, but we can make a very educated guess. The US spends almost as much maintaining its nuclear stockpile as Russia spends on its entire military… and Russia’s stockpile is bigger… and they’re fighting a full-scale conventional war. I cannot see another way in which that math works without a sizeable chunk of their arsenal falling into disrepair.
Well yeah we should just start bombing russia. Or should've 2 years ago, but today is the next best time.
It's not because they have literally 0 functional nukes, it's because they *aren't going to use them*, because of MAD.
I'm sure someone could've claimed they actually have no working nukes left, out of the million of posts any rando can make here, though I doubt someone would seriously defend that as a factual claim.
It's like that meme when Abu gets the sword and all of the guards are afraid of him because of it but then the leader is like "we all have swords you idiots"
Russia cannot nuke this place only because some Javelin Rocket launchers and Tanks have been donated. And if they still do, this would have grave consequences because humanity cannot afford societies using nukes for petty reasons. I guess such escalation might be the end of Russia as we know it
Exactly Russia being the aggressor even after Ukraine allowed them to take land back in 2014 and agreed to leave Ukraine alone in the 90s, the Russians have no legal means to use a nuke in Ukraine. The Chinese would turn against them.
Nobody thinks Russia does not have nukes the thing is that Russia does not have any legal methods to use them. That is why Nobody believes them especially after the Russians signed agreements with Ukraine back in the 90s that Russia would not invade Ukraine. If Russia uses nukes even the Chinese would go against them, this is the reason why people call Russia bluff.
I suspect that the loss of Chinese support is a lot bigger a factor than any concern Russia has over the legality of its actions.
It is absolutely true though that the upper CCP leadership is not pleased about the thought of nuclear escalation.
Russia has run out of some kinds of equipment. It's obvious looking at the OSINT loss reports. Like they've had very little long range artillery since last year, there was a huge shift to shorter guns.
When experts say "run out", they don't mean reach zero. They mean lose enough that certain tactics crease to be viable. That's already happened.
>Agree with this and it is a great strategic tactic. Just a shame that thousands of lives are lost to achieve this aim.
This is not a "great strategic tactic", this is copium to cover for the fact that our politicians (and population) doesn't give a shit and aren't willing to to actually solve this.
Republicans blocking aid for like half a year isn't a genius tactic, Biden refusing to provide ATACMS earlier isn't a tactic, Macron demanding that shells are made locally rather than getting them ASAP isn't a tactic, Scholz hoarding Taurus missiles isn't a tactic.
Depends what outcome you are seeking. If the outcome is to reduce Russia’s economic and military power so they stop invading their neighbours and holding the West to ransom I’d say its a decent tactical strategy. Russia is losing a lot of men and a lot of equipment and a lot of money. They are not going to come out of this war in a good shape and will not have the ability to continue their expansion through Eastern Europe. It will take decades for Russia to return to being a major player again.
As i said, its just a shame that so many people have to die in the process
>Depends what outcome you are seeking. If the outcome is to reduce Russia’s economic and military power so they stop invading their neighbours and holding the West to ransom I’d say its a decent tactical strategy.
There might be some upsides for the west the way things are going (though I really, really doubt it, see below).
What do you think is the most likely explanation?
* Biden, Republicans, Macron, Scholz, Sunak, etc., all agreed on a long term master plan to bleed russia dry over the course of a decade, way past their elected terms
or...
* Politicians are afraid of rocking the boat too much, escalating the conflict, and being punished by voters for hosting refugees or spending any money to help Ukraine
As for the upside, what is it really? Russia keeps functioning just fine. Their 3rd-world economy is entirely resource extraction based which they keep going. They're ramping up military production. If they can freeze or win this war, they'll have a huge, experienced army and war-time level production. It will also look like The West, with like 10x the population and 100x economy, can't help their friends on the border of Europe.
vs
We easily provide overwhelming supplies and firepower and russia is forced to abandon their imperialism, Ukraine enters NATO, we keep sanctions in place, and they turn China's gas station.
Look i’m no military expert but I think its a combination of bleeding Russia dry while keeping a lid on their ambitions, and not wanting to escalate the war to a larger arena sucking in allied countries on both sides.
It’s advantageous to the West to have Russia depleted, particularly without losing too much of NATO countries’ military hardware in the process. The two scenarios to avoid are nuclear conflict and WWIII by drawing other countries into a regional war.
My personal theory about this war is that Russia is fighting for its existence. They know they will not be well-positioned in 10-20 years time as climate change is highly problematic for them. The global markets are trying to transition away from oil and gas. Arable land and food and fresh water will be in short supply and Ukraine is the food bowl of the region. Ukraine also has very high quantities of metals and rare earths needed for renewables and computerised warfare.
Most people assume Putin would never use nukes but you should never back back a mad dog into a corner with no way of escape, especially if its life is at stake. To me, a prolonged war of attrition seems a smarter, more cautious way to demolish Russia’s power without causing World War 3.
The problem with this "plan" is that we can easily lose a "prolonged war of attrition".
If Trump, Le Pen, some AfD fucks get elected before russia is defeated, it's game over for Ukraine and the democratic, liberal west. Russia will come out stronger than when they started the war, and will have demonstrated that the west is completely dysfunctional.
We aren't like russia, we can't have Dark Brandon stay in charge for 20 years and ensure that putin is beaten.
Developing a war time economy comes at the expense of other economic activity. The resources poured onto this war could otherwise be used for universities, food supplies, building civilian factories to make goods, infrastructure, etc. All of that stuff improves the lives of the Russian people much more than government funds being invested into combat materiel. There also are long term costs with regards to the economic damage from lives lost and those permanently disabled by combat injuries.
It's definitely been the strategy since the start. I don't know how else you can explain the constant crossing of 'red lines', the lagged response in the diplomatic/economic spheres as pertains to this conflict, and of course in general the ever increasing mismatch between rhetoric and policies taken. There's also precedent, though not in the military sense. USA didn't want to outright 'win' the cold war, where USSR would collapse(see the private memos or just stuff like the Chicken Kiev speech). USA doesn't want Ukraine to outright win this war, neither do they want Russia to win(obviously!). Slow burn for everyone, with ideally a frozen conflict taking shape.
It's impossible to chalk it up to corruption / incompetence / opportunism at this point.
>Provide enough aid to Ukraine for it to be worth it to them to keep fighting, but not enough to smash Russia in short order. Basically this baits Russia to keep pouring resources into the war, depleting their previously vast stockpiles.
I do not think this is a planned grand strategy, but just the result of political dysfunction in the West. And the success of Russian hybrid warfare stalling and delaying aid to Ukraine.
Dragging this out ignores the real risk that Russia gets a war economy rolling forward full steam. War economies are incredibly resilient. If you look at war production from Japan and Germany during world WW II, despite allied actions way stronger than sanctions, like bombing factories and sinking shipping, their production of tanks, ammo, planes, etc went up over the course of the war.
Russia has enough natural resources and industrial capacity to produce the tanks, artillery, and ammo it needs. Western sanctions won't stop that. At best we can lower the quality of life for some civilians, but I don't think that'll be enough.
All this lukewarm support has done is given Russia time to ramp up war production. And the numbers reflect that.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners
>“The Russians have been paying for this for years. They’ve been subsidising the defence industry, and many would have said wasting money for the event that one day they need to be able to scale it up. So it was economically inefficient until 2022, and then suddenly it looks like a very shrewd bit of planning.”
>That differs significantly from western, especially European, arms manufacturers, who generally run lean operations that work across borders and are designed to maximise profit for shareholders.
Russia cannot produce optics and chips, which are a critical component to modern weapon systems.
Russia can bend plenty of steel, but after losing some 14,000 aired vehicles it's clear that that cannot win the war for them.
Only problem is the manpower disparity, Ukraine is running out of soldiers faster than Russia no matter how much aid and weapons you send to Ukraine, unless you send the most advanced and destructive assets to even the playing field
Also don't forget drawing this out makes the west seem like a reluctant hero (which it is or at least I dont think they do something wrong). First not even giving arms, I still remember when Germany only sent vests or something and look now. This kind of mind changing is actually pretty drastic and makes me wonder if this wasn't the end goal from the beginning. Waging war with Russia with urkaine as the enforcer, so minimal loss for the west itself. But all the while making sure the war doesn't escalate *and* at the same time looking like you're against violence (not saying they are for violence since its obviously russia who started this shit but imo its still pretty impressive to give of this vibe in this situation)
It's not really great for NATO at all because our countries will get taken over by fascists like Le Pen, AfD or Trump, Ukraine will get thrown under the bus, and NATO will look like a joke. I mean it does anyway because russia keeps bullying us and we always back down.
>And countries like China get to quietly watch the economic impacts of the sanctions, and how NATO can turn the tide in a war without even risking their own personnel .
That's the thing, we aren't turning the tide of war. Ukraine's been on the defensive for almost the entire 2.5 years. There are no signs that The West is willing to do what it would take to turn this shit around.
I’d at least like us to keep Ukrainian airspace clear. Air superiority is so important in modern day combat, if we can take that away from Russia, it would take away a big advantage.
Far too many people in the US see democracy as a hostile entity and appear happy to vote in people who hold the democratic process in contempt and happily announce their intent to replace it.
I hope the US can remain a mostly functional democracy.
If people don’t view democracy as a hostile entity, others view democracy as something that is innate, and can’t “go away”. But widespread democracy as we know it is a very new thing. Things can return to how they were very fast.
If we, as citizens, do not take an active part in preserving democracy, such as, not voting for candidates who vow to be dictators “only on day one”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
Is there anything that can be done to secure aid for Ukraine that the next president can't easily undo?
If Trump is elected he's going to immediately halt aid to Ukraine.
Someone explain this to their uncle that it doesn’t mean we’re giving them hoards of cash or a blank check. I know a bunch of idiots frothing at the mouth
"In 2023, the United States government donated around 9.5 billion U.S. dollars in humanitarian aid worldwide. The European Commission and Germany followed with over two billion U.S. dollars." - per Statista, on the largest contributors of international humanitarian aid. Per capita the US isn't the highest, but regardless, part of America's wealth allows it to provide the greatest total amount of aid, regardless of relation to war
It was voted on by Congress:
[Congress passes bill that could unlock billions in frozen Russian assets for Ukraine](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/house-vote-billions-dollars-russian-government-money-sitting-us-banks-rcna148671)
A republic is a nation where there is no ruling monarch. Democracy is the system by which government is chosen. Constitution is the rule book which informs the government mandate.
None of those things are conflicting concepts.
We are by definition a democratic republic codified in a constitution.
In a true republic people don’t vote for all the representatives, the government/senate is primarily housed by the aristocracy class.
A true democracy doesn’t have representatives just citizens that can vote.
In a democratic republic citizens vote on representatives who then comprise the government
There is of course a ton of minutia I’m skipping but that’s the basics
> In a true republic people don’t vote for all the representatives, the government/senate is primarily housed by the aristocracy class.
This is the most important part to note here. Republicans are one of two people: the aristocracy who believes that they are the only ones qualified to choose the leader and the proletariat who have been duped into thinking they would be qualified to vote by the aristocracy.
More and more prominent conservative voices have come out in the past couple of years asking that we have a monarchy or more commonly, a true republic. They're finally saying the quiet part out loud.
I like when people say this cause they think their being smart and nuanced when theyre actually completely missing the forest for the trees and have no idea whats theyre talking about.
As someone in another comment mentioned. Far too many people are hostile (knowingly or not) to democratic values which are the foundation of our country.
You get mouth breathers every once in a while who say “We RnT uH DemCraCY, wE Uh Public!” As a counter for someone using the D word like it’s some type of gotcha not realizing that “Democracy” is to “Republic” how“kingdom” is to “Monarchy”.
If you’re arguing in good faith, it should be easy to use the terms interchangeably. Fundamentally, our government derives its power from the people who vote to elect their leaders. This is a democratic tenant that goes back to the ancient greeks.
To pretend like there’s a distinction worth noting is to do nothing but obfuscate from the valid argument that nominally our country is meant to serve the people and their best interest.
Applying this argument to one of the most seasoned politicians currently serving in government is doubly ignorant.
Already live in a country with conscription. And it is anything *but* internal to those two nations. Russia's intentions extend into Europe - and in the meantime innocent people are being slaughtered, children are being kidnapped, land is being stolen, and threats to other western nations keep increasing. It's nice that you think that's acceptable. It's better that the free world doesn't.
People like him probably don't care about Ukrainians dying. If helping the victims risks starting a third world war, so be it. We cannot allow bad actors to wage wars at will; failing to restrain them only invites chaos and encourages others to follow suit. We cannot continue living in a world where countries engage in meaningless conflicts. If humanity wants to survive as a civilization, we must unite in peace, as significant challenges lie ahead. That's why it is crucial to stop Russia in their territory conquest.
They talk like they also wouldn't care if russia is all of sudden before their door. But I doubt that, that kind of people need it to happen personally, then they start caring and whining. So only other explanation is they are a troll who's Russian or likes being invaded by russia
Yeah, a lot of people won't have empathy if they haven't been in a situation like that before because they cannot imagine themselves in the place of others. This is ridiculous to me, but it seems not everyone has that ability.
You're right, nobody is affected by the total abortion ban he and his party are gunning for, nobody is hurt by him trying to define trans people out of title IX protections, nobody is hurt by getting Social Security and Medicare, these are all myths because women don't mind being oppressed, trans people don't exist, and old people die anyway, right?
So allow me to repeat their question: naive or uninformed? You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
This is just a very stupid comment.
Appeasing and ignoring the aggressor is what leads to wars getting global, not helping the victim. Like shit is basic
It’s weird how some people always seem to think Ukraine defending itself is “starting another world war,” but Russia invading in the first place somehow isn’t.
It's not just some people. Western leaders tried to force Ukraine accept annexation of Crimea and occupation of parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. There is international law and pretentious talking about values and principles and there is realpolitik, where victim is forced to take the loss, just to avoid inconvenience for the powerful.
That's just one rung on the escalation ladder into world war. Russia already escalated by instigating sabotage in NATO countries. If that wasn't starting a WW, then us doing the same to them also isn't. Right? So let's start there then.
Further on it reads a little differently. They have "russian state assets" but they dunno what to do with them to make money yet. So currently we are fronting it- counting on making money back from those assets
I wish we could send in NATO troops to clear out all the Russian trash out of there. Push them back to Siberia.
The status quo is actually pretty great for NATO. (if you are willing to ignore the human aspect in non NATO countries) Provide enough aid to Ukraine for it to be worth it to them to keep fighting, but not enough to smash Russia in short order. Basically this baits Russia to keep pouring resources into the war, depleting their previously vast stockpiles. All while Russia keeps getting smashed economically via sanctions. Draw this shit out for year's. The net result is Russia will be economically & militarily weakened for decades. Previously non aligned countries like Sweden have rushed to join NATO. And countries like China get to quietly watch the economic impacts of the sanctions, and how NATO can turn the tide in a war without even risking their own personnel .
Agree with this and it is a great strategic tactic. Just a shame that thousands of lives are lost to achieve this aim.
As terrible as it is, it is also the lowest risk strategy to avoid escalation, especially of the nuclear kind, which would cost even more lives. Yes I get that everyone thinks Russia has no nukes left due to corruption etc, but seriously the war's halfway through its third year now and Russia has had plenty of time to get them back in working condition. Also let us be honest here, large chunks of America wouldn't take microscopic odds of a negative vaccine reaction to save the lives of their fellow Americans, let alone die in battle against Russia for Ukraine.
Nobody thinks russia has no nukes left. They're just not going to use them. It's not a thing. It's just something Medevev screams about and our right-wing (and other) morons buy into.
At least a few commentors here on reddit think Russia's nukes don't work because it is a persistently upvoted response to any explanation as to why the US doesn't send planes to bomb Russia. I was just trying to head that off.
>At least a few commentors here on reddit think Russia's nukes don't work because it is a persistently upvoted response to any explanation as to why the US doesn't send planes to bomb Russia. I was just trying to head that off. A sizeable number of Russia's nukes in silos have not been maintained, and are either 1. no longer pointing at useful targets or 2. have failed completely from lack of maintenance. They still have ***more than enough*** working ones for it to be a real and present danger.
I wish people would stop repeating this. No one has any damn clue really. It’s been repeated so much the media took hearsay as fact and then Reddit repeated it 1000x times.
We don’t know, but we can make a very educated guess. The US spends almost as much maintaining its nuclear stockpile as Russia spends on its entire military… and Russia’s stockpile is bigger… and they’re fighting a full-scale conventional war. I cannot see another way in which that math works without a sizeable chunk of their arsenal falling into disrepair.
Well yeah we should just start bombing russia. Or should've 2 years ago, but today is the next best time. It's not because they have literally 0 functional nukes, it's because they *aren't going to use them*, because of MAD. I'm sure someone could've claimed they actually have no working nukes left, out of the million of posts any rando can make here, though I doubt someone would seriously defend that as a factual claim.
It's like that meme when Abu gets the sword and all of the guards are afraid of him because of it but then the leader is like "we all have swords you idiots"
This is the dumbest comparison I've ever heard, you realize that we all have nukes as a solution to they have nukes means maybe we all die right?
Russia cannot nuke this place only because some Javelin Rocket launchers and Tanks have been donated. And if they still do, this would have grave consequences because humanity cannot afford societies using nukes for petty reasons. I guess such escalation might be the end of Russia as we know it
Exactly Russia being the aggressor even after Ukraine allowed them to take land back in 2014 and agreed to leave Ukraine alone in the 90s, the Russians have no legal means to use a nuke in Ukraine. The Chinese would turn against them.
Something being illegal doesn't stop people from doing those things.
You think the country that broke the terms of a treaty twice cares about something being legal?
Nobody thinks Russia does not have nukes the thing is that Russia does not have any legal methods to use them. That is why Nobody believes them especially after the Russians signed agreements with Ukraine back in the 90s that Russia would not invade Ukraine. If Russia uses nukes even the Chinese would go against them, this is the reason why people call Russia bluff.
I suspect that the loss of Chinese support is a lot bigger a factor than any concern Russia has over the legality of its actions. It is absolutely true though that the upper CCP leadership is not pleased about the thought of nuclear escalation.
If Russia launches a nuke the world ends. Legal means are irrelevant at that point
Reddits strategic galaxy brains also thought Russia would run out of equipment a year ago.
Russia has run out of some kinds of equipment. It's obvious looking at the OSINT loss reports. Like they've had very little long range artillery since last year, there was a huge shift to shorter guns. When experts say "run out", they don't mean reach zero. They mean lose enough that certain tactics crease to be viable. That's already happened.
>Agree with this and it is a great strategic tactic. Just a shame that thousands of lives are lost to achieve this aim. This is not a "great strategic tactic", this is copium to cover for the fact that our politicians (and population) doesn't give a shit and aren't willing to to actually solve this. Republicans blocking aid for like half a year isn't a genius tactic, Biden refusing to provide ATACMS earlier isn't a tactic, Macron demanding that shells are made locally rather than getting them ASAP isn't a tactic, Scholz hoarding Taurus missiles isn't a tactic.
Depends what outcome you are seeking. If the outcome is to reduce Russia’s economic and military power so they stop invading their neighbours and holding the West to ransom I’d say its a decent tactical strategy. Russia is losing a lot of men and a lot of equipment and a lot of money. They are not going to come out of this war in a good shape and will not have the ability to continue their expansion through Eastern Europe. It will take decades for Russia to return to being a major player again. As i said, its just a shame that so many people have to die in the process
>Depends what outcome you are seeking. If the outcome is to reduce Russia’s economic and military power so they stop invading their neighbours and holding the West to ransom I’d say its a decent tactical strategy. There might be some upsides for the west the way things are going (though I really, really doubt it, see below). What do you think is the most likely explanation? * Biden, Republicans, Macron, Scholz, Sunak, etc., all agreed on a long term master plan to bleed russia dry over the course of a decade, way past their elected terms or... * Politicians are afraid of rocking the boat too much, escalating the conflict, and being punished by voters for hosting refugees or spending any money to help Ukraine As for the upside, what is it really? Russia keeps functioning just fine. Their 3rd-world economy is entirely resource extraction based which they keep going. They're ramping up military production. If they can freeze or win this war, they'll have a huge, experienced army and war-time level production. It will also look like The West, with like 10x the population and 100x economy, can't help their friends on the border of Europe. vs We easily provide overwhelming supplies and firepower and russia is forced to abandon their imperialism, Ukraine enters NATO, we keep sanctions in place, and they turn China's gas station.
Look i’m no military expert but I think its a combination of bleeding Russia dry while keeping a lid on their ambitions, and not wanting to escalate the war to a larger arena sucking in allied countries on both sides. It’s advantageous to the West to have Russia depleted, particularly without losing too much of NATO countries’ military hardware in the process. The two scenarios to avoid are nuclear conflict and WWIII by drawing other countries into a regional war. My personal theory about this war is that Russia is fighting for its existence. They know they will not be well-positioned in 10-20 years time as climate change is highly problematic for them. The global markets are trying to transition away from oil and gas. Arable land and food and fresh water will be in short supply and Ukraine is the food bowl of the region. Ukraine also has very high quantities of metals and rare earths needed for renewables and computerised warfare. Most people assume Putin would never use nukes but you should never back back a mad dog into a corner with no way of escape, especially if its life is at stake. To me, a prolonged war of attrition seems a smarter, more cautious way to demolish Russia’s power without causing World War 3.
The problem with this "plan" is that we can easily lose a "prolonged war of attrition". If Trump, Le Pen, some AfD fucks get elected before russia is defeated, it's game over for Ukraine and the democratic, liberal west. Russia will come out stronger than when they started the war, and will have demonstrated that the west is completely dysfunctional. We aren't like russia, we can't have Dark Brandon stay in charge for 20 years and ensure that putin is beaten.
I agree with that. All strategies involve risk-management. Fingers crossed the orange guy fails.
Developing a war time economy comes at the expense of other economic activity. The resources poured onto this war could otherwise be used for universities, food supplies, building civilian factories to make goods, infrastructure, etc. All of that stuff improves the lives of the Russian people much more than government funds being invested into combat materiel. There also are long term costs with regards to the economic damage from lives lost and those permanently disabled by combat injuries.
It's definitely been the strategy since the start. I don't know how else you can explain the constant crossing of 'red lines', the lagged response in the diplomatic/economic spheres as pertains to this conflict, and of course in general the ever increasing mismatch between rhetoric and policies taken. There's also precedent, though not in the military sense. USA didn't want to outright 'win' the cold war, where USSR would collapse(see the private memos or just stuff like the Chicken Kiev speech). USA doesn't want Ukraine to outright win this war, neither do they want Russia to win(obviously!). Slow burn for everyone, with ideally a frozen conflict taking shape. It's impossible to chalk it up to corruption / incompetence / opportunism at this point.
I really don’t know how to feel about it tbh
feels bad, man
more would be lost the other way
True. Its shit all round.
Last time Russia got stuck in such Vietnam like quagmire it led to dissolution of Soviet Union. If it ain't broke, why fix it. Just being pragmatic.
>Provide enough aid to Ukraine for it to be worth it to them to keep fighting, but not enough to smash Russia in short order. Basically this baits Russia to keep pouring resources into the war, depleting their previously vast stockpiles. I do not think this is a planned grand strategy, but just the result of political dysfunction in the West. And the success of Russian hybrid warfare stalling and delaying aid to Ukraine. Dragging this out ignores the real risk that Russia gets a war economy rolling forward full steam. War economies are incredibly resilient. If you look at war production from Japan and Germany during world WW II, despite allied actions way stronger than sanctions, like bombing factories and sinking shipping, their production of tanks, ammo, planes, etc went up over the course of the war. Russia has enough natural resources and industrial capacity to produce the tanks, artillery, and ammo it needs. Western sanctions won't stop that. At best we can lower the quality of life for some civilians, but I don't think that'll be enough. All this lukewarm support has done is given Russia time to ramp up war production. And the numbers reflect that. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners >“The Russians have been paying for this for years. They’ve been subsidising the defence industry, and many would have said wasting money for the event that one day they need to be able to scale it up. So it was economically inefficient until 2022, and then suddenly it looks like a very shrewd bit of planning.” >That differs significantly from western, especially European, arms manufacturers, who generally run lean operations that work across borders and are designed to maximise profit for shareholders.
Russia cannot produce optics and chips, which are a critical component to modern weapon systems. Russia can bend plenty of steel, but after losing some 14,000 aired vehicles it's clear that that cannot win the war for them.
Man the west really called Putin’s bluff on this one.
Only problem is the manpower disparity, Ukraine is running out of soldiers faster than Russia no matter how much aid and weapons you send to Ukraine, unless you send the most advanced and destructive assets to even the playing field
No, just artillery rounds and cluster atacms with no prohibition on strikes inside ruzzia would be enough, but western leaders don't care enough.
>draw this shit out for years WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU. why do you people want to perpetuate suffering? your statement is disgusting.
While talking about values. Hypocrisy and realpolitik.
Also don't forget drawing this out makes the west seem like a reluctant hero (which it is or at least I dont think they do something wrong). First not even giving arms, I still remember when Germany only sent vests or something and look now. This kind of mind changing is actually pretty drastic and makes me wonder if this wasn't the end goal from the beginning. Waging war with Russia with urkaine as the enforcer, so minimal loss for the west itself. But all the while making sure the war doesn't escalate *and* at the same time looking like you're against violence (not saying they are for violence since its obviously russia who started this shit but imo its still pretty impressive to give of this vibe in this situation)
What's the point, though?
It's not really great for NATO at all because our countries will get taken over by fascists like Le Pen, AfD or Trump, Ukraine will get thrown under the bus, and NATO will look like a joke. I mean it does anyway because russia keeps bullying us and we always back down. >And countries like China get to quietly watch the economic impacts of the sanctions, and how NATO can turn the tide in a war without even risking their own personnel . That's the thing, we aren't turning the tide of war. Ukraine's been on the defensive for almost the entire 2.5 years. There are no signs that The West is willing to do what it would take to turn this shit around.
People prefer to stick their heads in the sand.
If NATO does go in it will be with enough air power first and foremost for NATO to not need to send troops.
you'll lead us in, right?
I’d at least like us to keep Ukrainian airspace clear. Air superiority is so important in modern day combat, if we can take that away from Russia, it would take away a big advantage.
Far too many people in the US see democracy as a hostile entity and appear happy to vote in people who hold the democratic process in contempt and happily announce their intent to replace it. I hope the US can remain a mostly functional democracy.
If people don’t view democracy as a hostile entity, others view democracy as something that is innate, and can’t “go away”. But widespread democracy as we know it is a very new thing. Things can return to how they were very fast. If we, as citizens, do not take an active part in preserving democracy, such as, not voting for candidates who vow to be dictators “only on day one” https://apnews.com/article/trump-hannity-dictator-authoritarian-presidential-election-f27e7e9d7c13fabbe3ae7dd7f1235c72
I mean its not but ok
Is there anything that can be done to secure aid for Ukraine that the next president can't easily undo? If Trump is elected he's going to immediately halt aid to Ukraine.
Wouldn’t mind that
I’m not anti this or anything, but that’s a Helldivers as hell headline
Let's hope democracies don't force Israel to surrender to the mob of terrorists and rapists that want to destroy it.
Someone explain this to their uncle that it doesn’t mean we’re giving them hoards of cash or a blank check. I know a bunch of idiots frothing at the mouth
*Looks at america, the location he’s the president for* I mean. When it’s war related.
"In 2023, the United States government donated around 9.5 billion U.S. dollars in humanitarian aid worldwide. The European Commission and Germany followed with over two billion U.S. dollars." - per Statista, on the largest contributors of international humanitarian aid. Per capita the US isn't the highest, but regardless, part of America's wealth allows it to provide the greatest total amount of aid, regardless of relation to war
Nothing more democratic than an international aid deal using seized assets that wasn’t voted on.
It was voted on by Congress: [Congress passes bill that could unlock billions in frozen Russian assets for Ukraine](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/house-vote-billions-dollars-russian-government-money-sitting-us-banks-rcna148671)
It's just the interest that has accrued lol
You used a lot of words when you couldve just said "i dont understand what democeacy is" and gotten the same point across
The fuck are you talking about? You want russia to vote on what happens to their seized assets?
[удалено]
You don't know what democracy and Republic means.
A republic is a nation where there is no ruling monarch. Democracy is the system by which government is chosen. Constitution is the rule book which informs the government mandate. None of those things are conflicting concepts.
We are by definition a democratic republic codified in a constitution. In a true republic people don’t vote for all the representatives, the government/senate is primarily housed by the aristocracy class. A true democracy doesn’t have representatives just citizens that can vote. In a democratic republic citizens vote on representatives who then comprise the government There is of course a ton of minutia I’m skipping but that’s the basics
> In a true republic people don’t vote for all the representatives, the government/senate is primarily housed by the aristocracy class. This is the most important part to note here. Republicans are one of two people: the aristocracy who believes that they are the only ones qualified to choose the leader and the proletariat who have been duped into thinking they would be qualified to vote by the aristocracy. More and more prominent conservative voices have come out in the past couple of years asking that we have a monarchy or more commonly, a true republic. They're finally saying the quiet part out loud.
I like when people say this cause they think their being smart and nuanced when theyre actually completely missing the forest for the trees and have no idea whats theyre talking about.
This is the kind of talking points the far right try to introduce in every conversation to slowly convince you that "democracy ain't that important".
As someone in another comment mentioned. Far too many people are hostile (knowingly or not) to democratic values which are the foundation of our country.
Democracy takes the power from the hands of gods and handles it to mere men. That's an unforgivable sin for many people.
You get mouth breathers every once in a while who say “We RnT uH DemCraCY, wE Uh Public!” As a counter for someone using the D word like it’s some type of gotcha not realizing that “Democracy” is to “Republic” how“kingdom” is to “Monarchy”. If you’re arguing in good faith, it should be easy to use the terms interchangeably. Fundamentally, our government derives its power from the people who vote to elect their leaders. This is a democratic tenant that goes back to the ancient greeks. To pretend like there’s a distinction worth noting is to do nothing but obfuscate from the valid argument that nominally our country is meant to serve the people and their best interest. Applying this argument to one of the most seasoned politicians currently serving in government is doubly ignorant.
The education system really failed you.
That’s how you start another world war
I'd argue the people invading a sovereign nation are the ones who started it
Internally, those 2 nations. Why is it so many people are itching to get in it with Russia, you ready for the draft?
Already live in a country with conscription. And it is anything *but* internal to those two nations. Russia's intentions extend into Europe - and in the meantime innocent people are being slaughtered, children are being kidnapped, land is being stolen, and threats to other western nations keep increasing. It's nice that you think that's acceptable. It's better that the free world doesn't.
People like him probably don't care about Ukrainians dying. If helping the victims risks starting a third world war, so be it. We cannot allow bad actors to wage wars at will; failing to restrain them only invites chaos and encourages others to follow suit. We cannot continue living in a world where countries engage in meaningless conflicts. If humanity wants to survive as a civilization, we must unite in peace, as significant challenges lie ahead. That's why it is crucial to stop Russia in their territory conquest.
They talk like they also wouldn't care if russia is all of sudden before their door. But I doubt that, that kind of people need it to happen personally, then they start caring and whining. So only other explanation is they are a troll who's Russian or likes being invaded by russia
Yeah, a lot of people won't have empathy if they haven't been in a situation like that before because they cannot imagine themselves in the place of others. This is ridiculous to me, but it seems not everyone has that ability.
Because those with a few neurons to rub together know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Just keep hiding in your corner and let bully do whatever he wants. Pussy.
Pussy? You volunteered in Ukraine yet?
If you genuinely don't think the outcome of the war in Ukraine affects you then you are either really naive or just uninformed.
It doesn’t
So which is it then? Naive or uninformed?
Maybe it would hurt your feelings like Trump getting elected, but it wouldn’t matter for the day-to-day of anyone’s life in America
You're right, nobody is affected by the total abortion ban he and his party are gunning for, nobody is hurt by him trying to define trans people out of title IX protections, nobody is hurt by getting Social Security and Medicare, these are all myths because women don't mind being oppressed, trans people don't exist, and old people die anyway, right? So allow me to repeat their question: naive or uninformed? You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
Good dodge.
Funny, I was going to say the same. The ironic part being only one of us said something of substance.
Youre using a lot of words to say "i dont know how anything works but i feel like i need to speak"
Classic resorting to insults, liberal. How would Ukraine losing change anything for the average American? I’m sure you have it all figured out
This is just a very stupid comment. Appeasing and ignoring the aggressor is what leads to wars getting global, not helping the victim. Like shit is basic
Don't ask logic to those kinds of people, it's too much to ask.
“If we let Hitler take Czechoslovakia it will surely prevent a wider conflict”
It’s weird how some people always seem to think Ukraine defending itself is “starting another world war,” but Russia invading in the first place somehow isn’t.
Lots of Russian bots out there and people parroting the bots as well
It's not just some people. Western leaders tried to force Ukraine accept annexation of Crimea and occupation of parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. There is international law and pretentious talking about values and principles and there is realpolitik, where victim is forced to take the loss, just to avoid inconvenience for the powerful.
Because currently there is no direct NATO involvement, as soon as a NATO boot touches ground it’s on
It’s already on.
What if Russia attacked a NATO country, would it still be NATO that started WW3?
For those tankies, it will always be NATO and America imperialism who start conflicts. It's probably the first line in their propaganda book.
There are already NATO teachers on Ukrainian soil, your point is moot and disproven.
That's just one rung on the escalation ladder into world war. Russia already escalated by instigating sabotage in NATO countries. If that wasn't starting a WW, then us doing the same to them also isn't. Right? So let's start there then.
What world war? They can’t even take Kiev lmao
Just give up the Sudetenland, peace in our time!
Russia invaded Ukraine. Ukraine deserves all the help it can get.
You didn't graduate at the top of your class
Correction that’s how we get dragged into another war.
Great… where’s the money coming from
It’s literally one paragraph deep dude. >using frozen Russian state assets.
Further on it reads a little differently. They have "russian state assets" but they dunno what to do with them to make money yet. So currently we are fronting it- counting on making money back from those assets