Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

Exact full quote from CNN:

“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

  • mim@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    191
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.

    West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

    Tankies on Lemmy: “oh no, Russia is being oppressed”

  • diffuselight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s what a win win looks like. No need to be quiet around it. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Now everyone gets to replenish and modernize their weapons, test them in real conditions while making sure Russia gets enough of a bloody nose to not fucking try this shit ever again.

    Russia did the ‘fuck around and find out thing’. It was their choice and the only way they can win is by tankies convincing every other country that just saw rape, murder, pillaging and terrorism getting used on another country in Europe by a rabid bear that somehow Russia was justified and should be allowed a free pass. But it’s not working. The rabid bear is rabid, but there’s ways to deal with that.

    Because now they makes sure that every country around them is joining the anti rabid bear alliance.

    The way the OP framed the article is to create the idea that somehow Russia is good because US military is bad. But that’s a fallacy. The US military is perfectly capable of doing bad shit on behalf of the US, but that does not mean everyone else is good. Sometimes clobbering Nazis is win win and Russia should have know that. Their feeble at reframing may work on Fox brainwashed Republicans who are reduced to “Putins kills gays and is strong so Putin is good”, but it turns out Putin is a cuck taking it into the ass by his own chef.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No those are Freedom cancer tank shells and freedom child murder bombs

      Very different from what our enemies are doing, you see we are doing it, therefore it is good.

      That’s my impression of what I genuinely believe a conservative sounds like.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think Russia has been using DU munitions. It’s not like they’re needed for any of the tanks UA has. They have been using cluster bombs, though, because apparently we just can’t get anyone to stop that.

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It has been extremely obvious to everyone who isn’t an incredulous lib (ie the ledditor refugees from lemm.ee et al) that the US doesn’t actually give a shit about Ukraine and is more than happen to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training time while at the same time gobbling up Ukrainian state assets? And as we saw with how Afghanistan ended, the US will inevitably pull support, most likely because of Taiwan, and the Ukrainian war effort will collapse overnight just like Afghanistan imploded as soon as the US left the country.

    The US has to fight multiple fronts against its peer adversaries as well as not-quite peer adversaries. Just recently, there’s a coup in Niger with crowds of Nigeriens waving Russian flags cheering the coup leaders. While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens’ heartfelt desire to kick out the French and overexaggerate Russia’s involvement per usual, an anti-France alliance is forming in the Sahel, and Putin has launched a charm offensive courting African leaders. This is the formation of another front between the West and Russia, and the US will funnel resources away from Ukraine and towards various jihadist and separatist groups like Boko Haram in order to destabilize West Africa.

    Ukraine isn’t so exceptional that the US will be willing to abandon a front and lose say Taiwan for the sake of Ukraine. And from MSM reporting about the failed counteroffensive, we’re close to the “US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger” stage.

    • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The propaganda from the west is absolutely baffling if you try to understand it through anything other than pure vibes. America claims that Putin is going to genocide every single Ukrainian and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so? Why not promise 200-300 tanks and promise to send them as soon they can get tankers trained on them? There’s literally 2000 of them just standing there in the desert, isn’t a conflict with Russia what they were built for? The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.

      • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.

        That’s the crux of the matter right there. And they then force Ukraine to carry out attacks with this lack of equipment and training. Knowing full well that there is minimal chance of victory. Ghoul empire.

          • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            NATO doctrine relies heavily on airpower for any large military conflict. The NATO ground armies might be relatively small, but their combined air forces are qualitatively superior in every metric and at minimum three times larger than any potential opponent. 10k people can hold off 500k when they have a giant arsenal of precision guided weapons and complete control of the air.

            • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is verifiably not true. Vietnam and Korea made it very clear that you cannot win a war with air power alone. And precision weapons are effectively useless. The US can’t sustain minor campaigns of shelling random cities in the Global South without running out of munitions. And short of nuclear weapons it has no capability to level cities with it’s air force. The F-35 has, what, like four weapons pylons?

              Add to that, the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective, which changes the game. And the F-35 that is the lynchpin of NATO’s air superiority strategy has a great deal of limitations, not the least of which is how expensive and stretched it’s logistical requirements are.

              NATO’s air force is completely untested and reliant on extremely expensive, hard to maintain platforms with very limited tactical flexibility. It’s entirely possible the F-35 fleet will defeat itself through attrition due to it’s enormous maintenance requirements.

              • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Add to that, the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective.

                Proven effective against cold-war era planes maybe. There have been a few improvements in the past 50 years. Those same Russian air-defence systems proved themselves effectively useless against the F-117 in the Balkans, and the F-35 is miles above the F-117.

                Vietnam and Korea proved that 1950s and 1970s era technology was not up to the task, not that it was not possible. The main issue with both was the lack of accuracy.

                The US can’t sustain minor campaigns of shelling random cities in the Global South without running out of munitions.

                “Running out” in this case meaning dipping below normal stockpile levels.

                • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Those same Russian air-defence systems proved themselves effectively useless against the F-117 in the Balkans

                  There’s been some improvements in the past 20 years too, sometimes even not only on paper.

                  Anyway, the biggest problem of the ex-Soviet militaries is their incompetence, not their tech. The systems employed are up to the necessary tasks and sometimes more adaptable than NATO systems, it’s just that even their normal operation sometimes can’t be achieved by people using them.

              • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                the Russia air-defense systems have proven very effective, which changes the game

                Due to modernization in the course of the current war, and against weapons used in it, specifically those Turkish drones and the small copters everybody uses now in every conflict.

                I’m not sure how good they’d be against something launched from F-35.

                has a great deal of limitations, not the least of which is how expensive and stretched it’s logistical requirements are

                However I should agree that I too just hate F-35.

                NATO’s air force is completely untested

                Well, again, Israeli and Turkish ones are tested somewhat well, but mostly against much weaker opponents unable to get their sh*t together.

                and reliant on extremely expensive, hard to maintain platforms with very limited tactical flexibility.

                Yes.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so

        Europe is wondering the exact same thing: Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They’re usually much more hawkish. The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.

        The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.

        Europe is sending pretty much as much as it can without compromising its own defensive abilities. Have a look at the Baltic states, sending over as large as a percentage of their GDP as the US is sending as a percentage of its military budget. It’s the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.

        And also unlike the US, Europe is sending long-range missile systems to hit logistics etc. in the rear so that Ukraine doesn’t have to gnaw through trench lines.

        Homework: Go through all your geopolitical takes and get rid of the term “the west” and instead actually be precise.

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They’re usually much more hawkish.

          Because they’re using Ukrainians to grind down the Russian military, and economy, by attrition. The goal isn’t to “win”, the goal is to destabilize Russia. Ukrainians are just ammunition. The longer the war drags on, the more costly it is for Russia.

          The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.

          Russia already thinks that. That’s what turned the civil war in Ukraine in to a proxy war between NATO and Russia.

          Have a look at the Baltic states

          Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.

          It’s the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.

          That would be very expensive, and I’m not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it. Plus seeing Abrams burned out by modern ATGMs would seriously harm the US’s reputation for military invincibility. And, again, they’re primarily concerned that Russia loses. Ukraine winning would be a nice bonus, but it’s not the chief goal.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            the civil war in Ukraine

            You have a very active imagination.

            Okay, so? I could match that if I flipped over my couch and counted the loose change. All of the baltics together add up to one medium-large urban area.

            Look, it’s that Seppo exceptionalism again.

            That would be very expensive, and I’m not even sure the US has the logistical capacity for it.

            The US only has those Abrams because it’s cheaper to produce them than shut down the production line for a couple of years and then start it up again. Realistically speaking much of what the US sends should be valued at negative monetary value as Ukraine taking it means the US doesn’t have to pay to dispose of it.

            • MoreAmphibians [none/use name]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              the civil war in Ukraine

              You have a very active imagination.

              Look up what was happening in Ukraine from 2014-2022. I know the media always refers to the people living there as Russian-backed separatists but they are in fact Ukrainians.

              The US only has those Abrams because it’s cheaper to produce them than shut down the production line for a couple of years and then start it up again. Realistically speaking much of what the US sends should be valued at negative monetary value as Ukraine taking it means the US doesn’t have to pay to dispose of it.

              So why hasn’t the US sent 200-300 tanks? Why did the US demand that Ukraine launch a counteroffensive with insufficient tanks and air support? Why is the US trickling in just enough equipment to prolong the conflict as much as possible without giving Ukraine everything it could possibly need to win. Why is US propaganda so different from the actions the US is actually taking?

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I know the media always refers to the people living there as Russian-backed separatists but they are in fact Ukrainians.

                Force-recruited to fight on frontlines with Mosin Nagants or, alternatively, Wagner green men.

                So why hasn’t the US sent 200-300 tanks?

                Because they’re chicken and don’t understand Russia. Russia sees such hesitance as weakness and reason to continue on, as evidence that the US isn’t really in it for the long run. And, I mean, they’re not wrong in that regard proper commitment looks quite differently.

                Why did the US demand that Ukraine launch a counteroffensive with insufficient tanks and air support?

                When did the US demand such a thing? Ukraine has plenty of reason and grit and will to decide that on their own. Oh and there’s a suitable number of tanks for what Ukraine is doing (they’re not stupid and don’t overcommit), the issue indeed is lack of air superiority, all that fancy NATO hardware is supposed to be used with NATO doctrine which involves throwing air superiority at the enemy until the ground frontline is the enemy’s whole territory. But Ukraine is making the best out of the situation and picking off positions NATO would pick off from the air with various artillery systems, both medium and long range. And they’re very good at it, which shouldn’t really surprise anyone as that’s good ole soviet doctrine and Ukraine always was the core force in the red army anyways.

                Why is the US trickling in just enough equipment to prolong the conflict as much as possible without giving Ukraine everything it could possibly need to win.

                Because they’re a bunch of chickens who don’t understand Russia. Alternatively, with some conspiratorial thinking, they want to prolong the war – I frankly doubt it, never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. But that’s irrelevant, in any case: Because that should be reason for you to demand that more weapons be shipped, not less.

                Why is US propaganda so different from the actions the US is actually taking?

                I wouldn’t know I don’t follow US media way too much of a partisan clown show anyway.

        • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The US is pussyfooting because this was a fight they picked, and did not expect it to be this hard.

          All the surrounding nonsense is their propaganda, and the leaders don’t actually believe any of it.

          They don’t feel committed because they chose this, and won’t overcommit to a losing battle. They just need to steward the fight into a slow loss that doesn’t eat up many more resources.

          Their actions are inexplicable otherwise - if they were truly afraid of Russia, they’d never have joined in the first place.

    • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US obviously doesn’t care but the aid is helping Ukraine keep it’s independence and even if US pulled out Europe would continue it’s support. Like Poland is amping up ammo production to the point where it alone can supply Ukraine with ammo. Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason. Also even if Ukraine got no support it’s not like they would stop fighting, they would just be slaughtered and occupied by the Russians which is the worst outcome for them considering what’s going on in the occupied regions. Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that’s a good thing.

      • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason

        No, they really don’t have a good reason bugs-stalin

        Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that’s a good thing.

        doubt are you really that gullible?

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago
        • Ukraine isn’t independent, they got coup’ed by US-backed Nazis and libs and they’re now a vassal or the US empire.
        • Most European countries would immediately follow the US, as they always do.
        • The whole of NATO cannot send enough arms right now, and you think Poland can do it all on its own soon? What are you on about?
        • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago
          1. No they didn’t. Their president made a play to become a dictator and failed. Any support for euromaidan outside Ukraine happened after.
          2. Maybe Germany but no earthly force can stop support from the baltics and Poland that hate Russia with a passion due to their bloody rule during the soviet occupation and current antagonism from Russia.
          3. They can’t send enough arms that Ukraine can use. More modern stuff requires training Ukraine doesn’t have and most places aren’t producing old equipment so what’s sent is stuff is stockpile. More training is being done to modernize the equipment but that takes time. Also Poland just wants to produce the ammo, not everything and it was just one example.
          • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t know where you’re from, but I think you also “hate hate Russia with a passion” and it’s clouding your judgement, because you live in some alternate reality if you believe all that.

            There’s an old clip of Nuland where she says the US spent 5 billion dollars promoting democracy in Ukraine. There’s also the famous “Fuck the EU” clip of her deciding who’s going to be PM before the coup even happened. Then there’s her and lots of other western politicians on stage at the Maidan. McCain famously shook hands with a Nazi leader on there.

            Can you imagine what you would say if all these things were done by Russia instead of the US?

            • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have seen both clips. The 5 billion was over like 30 years as foreign aid which is like pretty common for the US, there are like 50 other countries that also receive aid like this. And the other one I know is when Nuland ‘selected’ their next leader who was the leader of the opposition who would have been in power anyways.

              All those politicians showed up after it happeded as I said.

              You can also verify the laws Yanukovych was trying to pass. They pretty obviously are meant to turn him into the dictator of Ukraine. I would protest that.

              • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                26
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The 5 billion was over like 30 years as foreign aid which is like pretty common for the US, there are like 50 other countries that also receive aid like this.

                Well that’s fine then I guess. The US “aids” pro-US political groups with billions of dollars everywhere! How nice.

                All those politicians showed up after it happeded as I said.

                There are pictures of them on the Maidan. Before the coup. News articles in the western press. What is this kindergarten? Do you have no object permanence?

                • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The US “aids” pro-US political groups with billions of dollars everywhere! How nice.

                  Yes but what if this time the US didn’t want something out of it? If the US did want something out of it there would be evidence of it, surely? Like a website for privatising Ukrainian assets? Or IMF reports explaining how half the loans were given to pay off the previous ones until Ukraine dismantled it’s manufacturing industries, military capabilities, and devalued it’s currency? Or, I don’t know, an article like the one in the OP that quotes someone explaining the US is only involved to quell dissent about it’s failing economy among it’s domestic workers.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What I was saying is that no, 5 billion wasn’t given to some shadowy group in Ukraine to do a coup, it was the standard foreign aid the US throws around to advance it’s interests.

                  Also yes, politicians go around shaking hands all over the place. I though you meant they went to Ukraine to specifically support Euromaidan before it happened but any politician supporting that visited after.

                  Ultimately the laws that triggered the protests were very protestable. If Kaia Kallas tried to pass those here I would be taking up a pitchfork and torch right now. There is no evidence to suggest it was some group paid by the US but plenty to suggest people protested because their leader was screwing them over.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            the baltics

            I’ve lived in cities with a much larger population than all of the Baltics. What, exactly, are three medium sized suburbs going to do against Russia?

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wait did you just said Baltics have actual military? Compared to… Russia? All of them combined have less that 50000 active military personnel with pretty weak armament and basically nonexisting navy and airforce (all three combined have literally zero combat airplanes).

    • fuser@quex.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      wunderwaffen

      too good a word not to research… comes from WWII, naturally…

      panjandrum (British) - two wheels connected by a sturdy, drum-like axle, with rockets on the wheels to propel it forward. Packed with explosives, it was supposed to charge toward the enemy defenses, smashing into them and exploding, creating a breach large enough for a tank to pass through. But when it was tested on an otherwise peaceful English beach, things didn’t go quite as planned. The 70 slow-burning cordite rockets attached to the two 10-foot steel wheels sparked into action, and for about 20 seconds it was quite impressive. Until the rockets started to dislodge and fly off in all directions, sending a dog chasing after one of them and generals running for cover. The rest was sheer chaos, as the Panjandrum charged around the beach, completely out of control. Unsurprisingly, the Panjandrum never saw battle. the panjamdrum two wheels connected by a sturdy, drum-like axle, with rockets on the wheels to propel it forward

      The Goliath Tracked Mine (German) The tracked vehicle could carry 60kg of explosives and was steered remotely using a joystick control box attached to the rear of the Goliath by 650m of triple-strand cable. Two of the strands accelerated and manoeuvred the Goliath, while the third was used to trigger the detonation.

      Each Goliath had to be disposable, as each was built specifically to be blown up along with an enemy target. The first models were powered by an electric motor, but these proved difficult to repair on the battlefield, and at 3,000 Reichsmarks were not exactly cost effective. As a result, later models (the SdKfz 303) used a simpler, more reliable gasoline engine.

      Being sent back to the drawing board is a disgrace usually reserved for weapons that never saw battlefield action. Goliaths did see combat and were deployed on all German fronts beginning in the spring of 1942. Their role in the action was usually nugatory, however, having been rendered immobile by uncompromising terrain or deactivated by cunning enemy soldiers who had cut their command cables.

      solidiers standing with several small goliath remotely controlled (by wire) explosive devices

      The bat bomb (American) Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a Pennsylvania dentist named Lytle S. Adams contacted the White House with a plan of retaliation: bat bombs.

      The plan involved dropping a bomb containing more than 1000 compartments, each containing a hibernating bat attached to a timed incendiary device. A bomber would then drop the principal bomb over Japan at dawn and the bats would be released mid-flight, dispersing into the roofs and attics of buildings over a 20- to 40-mile radius. The timed incendiary devices would then ignite, setting fire to Japanese cities.

      Despite the somewhat outlandish proposal, the National Research Defense Committee took the idea seriously. Thousands of Mexican free-tailed bats were captured (they were, for some reason, considered the best option) and tiny napalm incendiary devices were built for them to carry. A complicated release system was developed and tests were carried out. The tests, however, revealed an array of technical problems, especially when some bats escaped prematurely and blew up a hangar and a general’s car.

      In December 1943, the Marine Corps took over the project, running 30 demonstrations at a total cost of $2 million. Eventually, however, the program was canceled, probably because the U.S. had shifted its focus onto the development of the atomic bomb.

      picture of bat attached to small explosive device

      Gustav rail gun (German) The railway-mounted weapon was the largest gun ever built. Fully assembled, it weighed in at 1,344 tons, and was four stories tall, 20 feet wide, and 140 feet long. It required a 500-man crew to operate it, and had to be moved to be fully disassembled, as the railroad tracks could not bear its weight in transit. It required 54 hours to assemble and prepare for firing.

      The bore diameter was just under 3 feet and required 3,000 pounds of smokeless powder charge to fire two different projectiles. The first was a 10,584-pound high explosive shell that could produce a crater 30 feet in diameter. The other was a 16,540-pound concrete-piercing shell, capable of punching through 264 feet of concrete. Both projectiles could be shot, with relatively correct aim, from more than 20 miles away.

      The Gustav Gun was used in Sevastopol in the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa and destroyed various targets, including a munitions facility in the bay. It was also briefly used during the Warsaw Uprising in Poland. The Gustav Gun was captured by the Allies before the end of World War II and dismantled for scrap. The second massive rail gun, the Dora, was disabled to keep it from falling into Soviet hands near the end of the War.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Manichean views don’t explain enough, although they do create engagement, which may be the primary goal.

      A less angry explanation is that it is all of that at the same time. They want to help Ukraine’s democracy, weaken a historical authoritarian enemy and feed their military–industrial complex. It’s a balance of all of that in the interest of the people that elected them, like in any democracy. If something gets out of balance, yes they will probably retract their support before it hurts their country in some way, like any other country would. It’s just Realpolitik.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training

      Is that why the US is sending ATACMS?

      Where are the fucking ATACMS?

      …I know, it’s of no use. Germany gave up on bullying you into shipping them so it’s safe to say that that ship has sailed. The US has been pussy-footing about since the beginning of the conflict.

      While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens’ heartfelt desire to kick out the French

      There’s no need to kick out the French. They readily leave when uninvited.

      we’re close to the “US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger” stage.

      The US is fickle, news at 11. But that won’t stop the rest of Europe backing Ukraine, and then the US is probably going to chime in again as, like with Libya, it’s unthinkable for the Seppos for Europe to do anything on our own so that you can keep up the illusion that we’re doing what you want.

      Classical American exceptionalism from the Tankie side, again.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gladio? Yeah no shit the US is partly to blame for issues we have with fascists. How does that make us a vassal?

          Tell you one thing if the US really is our overlord they really, really suck at controlling us, not losing trade wars against us, tons of stuff.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unlikely. Too much risk no advantage. Frankly speaking it’s more likely Greta Thunberg herself dove down there and gnawed through it.

              • EmotionalSupportLancet [undecided]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 year ago

                no advantage

                What possible gain is there for Russia to blow up the off-ramp to the gas sanctions? Best case scenario for Russia in regards to the pipeline would have been it being reopened when Europe decided higher energy costs are no longer worth it.

                Furthermore, here is a direct quote from Biden:

                Speaking to reporters on February 7, Biden said: “If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2.” “We will bring an end to it,” the president said. A journalist asked Biden how he could do that since Germany was in control of the project, the president replied: “I promise you: We will be able to do it.”

                The discussion started with a disagreement over the claims of subservience, right? Taking away the option to assert sovereignty over which sanctions are worth it is something that benefits the USA, hurts Europe, and takes away a potential advantage for Russia when the war inevitably ends someday and the practicality of buying from them instead of America (who charges more in addition to being less practical).

                There would be no need to blow it up if Europe (Germany at bare minimum) was seen as completely subservient.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What possible gain is there for Russia to blow up the off-ramp to the gas sanctions?

                  I didn’t say Russia did it. I mean it probably did but Germany isn’t off the table. Unlike the US Germany actually has the stealth subs to pull it off undetected, but all in all Russia is still the more likely option I’d say. Of course, the presence of ships in that area etc. is only circumstantial evidence.

                  And in your analysis you’re making a crucial mistake, a mistake I myself made directly before the invasion when Russian soldiers were getting itchy underwear on Ukraine’s border because I thought if they’re going to attack, they’d already have done it: You assume Russia is a rational actor. Or, maybe better put, that it considers the same things as rational as you do.

                  Blowing up NS2 from Russia’s side could have the motive of a) knowing or suspecting that you don’t need it any more – though it also wouldn’t be terribly hard to repair which people are constantly overlooking and b) to provide an excuse to stop deliveries. Russia was playing around back at that time with NS1 maintenance and turbines being needed which were stuck in the sanctions regime etc, allthewhile Germany was filling its gas storage and nationalising Russian gas assets on German soil. They might’ve thought that they need to disable NS2 so Germany wouldn’t say “well if NS1 doesn’t work why don’t we use NS2”.

                  As to the US threats: What was probably meant was sanctions. It’s true that the US has levers it can pull to force such an issue. Those would come at a cost to the US itself but they’re there and can be pulled if the cost is deemed acceptable.

                  And btw one thing is for sure: Germany will never again buy any (noticable) amount of Russian gas. Even if they retreat to their own borders tomorrow that ship has sailed, Germany is in full swing to replace all that fossil infrastructure with ammonia and hydrogen. NS2 is dead no matter whether it’s operational or not.

                  Oh another thing is for sure: Ukraine is way more important to Russia, or maybe better put Putin, than some gas pipeline. Pretty much the moment Germany changed laws to legalise sending weapons into crisis territories, i.e. Ukraine, Russia knew where Germany stood, and will continue to stand. We don’t tend to flop easily and they know it. As such it also might simply have been Putin being stroppy, expecting Germany really to go for that Duginesque1 division of Europe between great powers things, with Germany taking a forceful lead in Europe. He did later on comment that “siding with Ukraine was Germany’s mistake of the millennium” or something to that effect. So much for Putin’s rationality, he’s living in a completely different world than us, thinking state relations and decisions work on fundamentally different principles than they actually do.

                  1 not really, Dugin never came up with that stuff he’s not a theorist he just rehashes nationalist bullshit those theories actually date back to the German Empire trolling the Russians to bait them it’s a long story.

              • Redcat [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Lmfao. They threatened to blow it up for years without end and now you gotta buy natural gas from them at a premium. The polish government immediately thanked America on twitter while the German Foreign Minister outright said that ties to the US are more important than the opinions of german voters.

                Vassals at least had a two way relationship with the King.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They threatened to blow it up for years without end and now you gotta buy natural gas from them at a premium.

                  What. We’re not buying US gas, not in any noticeable amount, that is. First of all usage was cut drastically (the likes of BASF could switch to other energy sources), most gas we still consume comes from Norway, LNG overall is only a tiny portion and of that most is Qatar.

                  If the US really did it then Germany is holding tight right now for Ukraine’s sake and there’s going to be hell to pay after the war.

                  Oh, and you gotta cut your welfare system and spend it all on american weapons too.

                  What. The only reason any amount of US hardware is on our shopping list is because Eurofighter GmbH doesn’t want to give the US access to data they’d need to certify US nukes for the Typhoon because industrial espionage. F-35s are already certified, available off the shelf, and our Tornado fleet really needs replacement but really, it’s just for the nukes: The EWAR Tornados are getting replaced not by F-35s, but more, freshly designed, Eurofighters. Down the line there’s going to be FCAS and likely French instead of US nukes. Now it’s not that I’m saying that France would be less prone to industrial espionage than the US, in fact they’re notorious for it, but they already have all that data through Airbus anyway.

                  Poland is going on a shopping spree for quite a lot of American hardware, but that’s another topic, also, focussed very much on airframes. Tanks and artillery are onshored South Korean systems (which are onshored German systems). France will never buy American because strategic autonomy, in fact they were right-out insulted when hearing Germany is going to buy F35s, but seem to have cooled down seeing that it’s a stop-gap solution.

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    These people are monsters, and the idiot liberals that have happily jumped on their barbarous murder machine are too.

    You sent tens of thousands of people to die in a futile meatgrinder while acting like you’re good people “”“helping”“” those you were killing. In reality what was happening was that you didn’t care about what happened to those people as long as it harmed some russians.

    The consequences of decades of anti-russian racism all came to a head in this war, with liberals LOVING the opportunity to be openly racist pieces of shit.

    All excused by what? Some fucking lines on a map? I don’t give a shit about lines on a map, I care about the tens of thousands of people’s lives wasted on this shit, both ukrainian and russian.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t give a fuck mate. The result of the war is that one group of bourgeoisie exploit people, or another group of bourgeoisie exploit people. Neither outcome is worth any lives to me. No war but class war.

        You are a pro war bloodthirsty psychopath willing to expend as many lives as necessary as long as it empowers the particular group of billionaires that you cheerlead for instead of some other group of them.

        And it was Ukraine that was shelling Donetsk and Luhansk actually. Don’t make me get the OSCE shelling maps out.

        • Eccitaze@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          IQ so low scientists are studying its applications for cooling nuclear fusion reactors

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is too simplistic. Just stop. That’s not how geopolitics works. The lines on the map aren’t real and don’t mean anything. Christ Liberals and their profound inability to understand the nature of power.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Russia can fucking leave Ukraine any time. And suddenly all the “lives wasted on this shit” are no longer wasted.

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ceasefire agreement and a return to negotiations would be a start. They had already agreed to a deal when Boris Johnson showed up over a year ago though, and then Ukraine went back on it after his unscheduled visit. My assumption is that this agreement would have preserved Donetsk and Luhansk as either independent countries or as autonomously governed regions of Ukraine, that’s changed now with the law making them part of Russia and I’m not entirely sure whether that’s something Putin even has the power to change without a vote by those respective regions or the State Duma (unsure what mechanism might exist).

        Either way there is no military capability to take them back by force as demonstrated by the complete failure of the counteroffensive, Ukraine will either lose them by force with a massive pile of bodies lost on both sides, or not. This is the reality of the situation. I care about avoiding the pile of bodies one way or another.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, the EU could have entered negotiations in good faith with Russia when all this started. The US could have not supported the Maidan coup. The coup Rada could have not declared their intent to destroy the culture and language of Russian speaking Ukrainians as their literal first act after assuming power. They could have granted the DPR and LPR the autonomy within Ukraine and protection of their language (and, frankly, ethnicity) that was initially requested. the EU could have honored Minsk and Minsk II. They could have negotiated in good faith at any point in this entire process. They could stop goading Ukrainians in to Russian defensive lines they have no chance of defeating to prolong the war. They could have allowed Ukraine to engage in attempts to negotiate a peace at any point in this process. They could have supported Zelensky’s peace platform when he was elected.

        There’s no real solution now. Until Russia can no longer sustain it’s operations or NATO does, this is going to keep going until Ukraine runs out of Ukrainians to send to their deaths.

      • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        At this point any solution that does not end in the complete collapse of nato is very bad for the third world. Because it shows the power the west has to arbitrarily apply embargoes. Even nuclear armagedon wold be betrer than that. If you think the yanks are unhinged now they ill be much more rabid after russia capitulates. So the only solution is to make trenches and fire artillery shells until the ukranians run out of amunitio or men.

              • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not really i live thousands of miles away from were the nukes will be falling. We are going to be fine. There is going to be some problems depending on how much sunligth is bloked and trade disruption for a while but we will be rid of the dane so long term we are going to be beyter of than if current trends continue. And much better of than if the us keeps acting like a rabid dog.

                • radiofreeval [any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  i live thousands of miles away from were the nukes will be falling. We are going to be fine. There is going to be some problems depending on how much sunligth is bloked

                  Some problems? The ash and clouds alone can destroy countries agriculture. Not to mention just how far fallout can spread. Full scale nuclear war would be the end of humanity. Not civilization, not the West, but our species would go extinct.

  • iquanyin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s not “the quiet part” as you imply. your insinuating that we made this war happen for the reasons he gives. no, context is king. he is merely trying to justify our involvement in the face of criticism. russia has long wanted to grab more countries. putin is a dictator, have you heard? he poisons opponents and attacks other countries to smash them back into his idea of what russia should be.

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if there was a more efficient way of employing people without having executives from the MIC getting almost all the benefit?

  • sab@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting how the republicans believe in Keynesian economics, but exclusively when it’s applied for feeding the military industrial complex.

    In this situation I agree with the need to support Ukraine, but I wish they would make the same realization about infrastructure investments as well.

  • rusticus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    To all the people not wanting to extend the proxy war against the war crime committing Russians: what do you expect will happen if you stop funding Ukraine defense against war crimes? You think Russians just go home? You think China and North Korea don’t look around at adjacent territories licking their lips? Do you understand what deterrence means?

    Before you respond like a tankie that America is an imperialist shithole, America is not the one (this time) committing war crimes, RUSSIA is.

    • Chapo_is_Red [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      You think China and North Korea don’t look around at adjacent territories licking their lips

      North Korea only borders SK and China. It has never invaded another country. China hasn’t invaded another country since 1979 and since then Vietnam and China have peacefully resolved their land border dispute.

      Before you respond like a tankie that America is an imperialist shithole, America is not the one (this time) committing war crimes, RUSSIA is.

      America is committing war crimes right now. The imposition of collective punishment is a war crime. America’s comprehensive sanctions which it has applied to several countries constitute collective punishment and are hence a war crime.

      Condemning the Russian invasion shouldn’t mean white washing the world’s largest perpetrator of state terrorism.

      • KerPop47@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sanctions are not collective punishment, and war crimes only exist in the context of war.

        Also, the DPRK did invade the RoK, that’s what started the Korean War.

        Also also, China has reserved a spot on its equivalent of the National Mall for when it takes Taiwan back.

        China definitely cares about how well Russia’s invasion of Ukraine goes, because of the many geopolitical parallels it would have with it invading Taiwan.

    • SootyChimney [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t even mind extending the war so much if there was any attempt to have some good faith peace negotiations to at least entertain a chance at peace??? Russia has always been up for peace talks, Ukraine/the West has not. In fact I am still often shouted down if I so much as say that all sides should be discussing the possibility of peace.

      I agree Russia bad and should not be doing an awful invasion, but there is also a much wider context to their invasion that involves Ukraine refusing to give its eastern regions a vote on their own future and bombing civilians for 8 years. This war was very far from inevitable, even without giving Russia any major concessions.

    • Redcat [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      what do you expect will happen if you stop funding Ukraine defense against war crimes? You think Russians just go home?

      The Russian Ukrainians will be able to stay in their homes without fear of genocide by the NATO backed government.

    • ThomasMuentzner [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      your analysis is completly of as it starts from a Propaganda Tainted cartoonishly Ill Informed Postion…

      Russia Reacted , Its the Ukrainian Warcrimes thats the Issue here ! How can you Start this story from 2022 … its a crime against rational thinking , Chronology , Human Civilisation … Unserious Analyss based on the uncritical repetion of irrational claimes by the World greates Liars …

      • dsmk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        According to Russia, they started it all in 2014 by invading Crimea. They initially denied it, but then even Putin himself said that the Little Green Men were their special forces. People like Igor Girkin said he was commanding militias in Crimea and later in the Dombas and that they were composed of Russians and some Ukrainians. That’s what Russia says, so there’s no point in even trying to deny it.

        There was no Azov before the invasion. There was no war crimes. There was no famine. There was no shelling. No ceasefire violations. It started when Russia made the decision to invade Ukraine.

        Maybe you want to go further back? How far back? How about 1994 and the Budapest Memorandum where Russia agreed to respect Ukraine’s borders?

        Wait, I know, you’ll blame NATO. Care to explain why countries want to give some of their military freedom away just to join NATO? What is nice Russia doing or saying that makes them want to join? Could it be something to do with the regular comments about invading their countries or nuking their cities? And do you really think that a weak, bloated, and corrupt military (a fair description of pre-2014 Ukraine military) was going to be allowed into NATO (and we’re the ones falling for propaganda)? I’d also like to know your opinion about CSTO.

        Russia decided to invade Ukraine to expand their territory. That’s why Putin gave that long history lesson days before the invasion (the one that was not going to happen and was an American lie!). It’s was all there, for those who actually listened to it.

        If you want to support them, then do it, but at least grow up a pair and stop using bullshit excuses to support your position.

          • dsmk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve watched the lecture. He makes some good points, but there are also some flaws with his positions. I recommend doing a quick “googling” for articles with counter points.

            Russia is not governed by amateurs that are easily baited into invading a country. They decided to force Ukraine to align with them and when that didn’t work, they decided to invade in 2014. The decision and responsibility is theirs.

            It’s a bit like blaming the Soviet Union or China for the Vietnam war because they were “expanding” communism or something like that. It makes no sense.

            • s0ykaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              i’m aware of the counter points

              Russia is not governed by amateurs that are easily baited into invading a country

              this was a bit surprising to read because if i spend 10 minutes in reddit i’ll leave thinking russians are governed by absolutely inept people who can’t do anything right and always fall for the silliest of cebolinha do pix zelensky’s schemes

              and it wasn’t a “bait”, that’s a silly way of looking at it; in the neo-realist view it makes perfect sense that russia would see ukraine as an existential threat after the nato mistake was made, and that war would become inevitable if things escalated - as mearsheimer predicted more than a decade ago in other discussions

              ukraine, in practical terms, has been disputed territory in terms of political influence since the fall of the ussr. but before the threat of nato, and the repeated breaking of the non-expansion promise, there was no sign that an invasion like this would ever happen

              It’s a bit like blaming the Soviet Union or China for the Vietnam war because they were “expanding” communism or something like that. It makes no sense.

              now you’re being disingenuous, vietnam doesn’t share a literal border with america. we should be able to blame the soviets for a mexican war if they attempted to bring mexico into a military alliance in the 80s or something, and the US would be absolutely right to see said alliance as an existential threat because it would be

              it’s ok to think that russia deserves an existential threat for whatever reason, such as, i don’t know, “putin bad” (though of course i wouldn’t say he’s as bad as any american president, at least he has never been such for my country). but denying that russia’s change into a bellicose attitude was predictable and avoidable by sane geopolitics is just denying reality at this point

              • dsmk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t know what reddit is saying about Russia, but the “poor Russia, couldn’t help themselves and had to invade” doesn’t convince me. They made a calculated move which didn’t go as well as they expected. It happens sometimes.

                NATO had an “open-door” policy from the start. Russia knows this, so unless we really think everyone over there is really dumb, they knew that NATO’s “sure, maybe we’ll let you in sometime in the future” meant little. Ukraine was trying to join since the early 2000’s and the reply was always the same… Ukraine wasn’t going to join NATO in 2014, like zero chance. I recommend reading about the state of their forces, corruption, etc, at the time. What changed was that Yanukovych was going to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, something that most of Ukraine supported (if we’re to trust polls and look at the reaction when he unexpectedly changed his mind) while Russia wanted Ukraine to do the same agreement with them instead.

                The existential threat… I don’t know. Do you really think that their “existential threat” is now higher that Finland joined NATO (because of Russia’s actions)? Estonia is fine, but Ukraine is makes that “existential threat” much, much worse? And who the hell is going to start a war in Russia when they have capacity to reply to normal attacks and will, without a doubt, use their nukes if invaded? Does NATO now have a death wish or something like that?

                I keep reading about that non expansion promise… again, I guess you all think Russians are dumb and got verbal assurances thinking that it’s the same as having them in writing. In any case, Russia doesn’t own eastern Europe, many countries have made clear they don’t want to be under their thumb or be part of their country. If Russia doesn’t like this, well, though luck. A reality check would also help here… they’re not the USSR.

                The Vietnam example wasn’t a good one, but my point is that if we start finding excuses to justify wars, well, we can, but it never ends and it’s never our fault.

                The US has some history with Cuba… but the only time when there was a really serious reaction wasn’t when Castro became friends with the Soviet Union… it was when nukes were deployed in Cuba (partially their fault, after deploying theirs in Turkey). Russia invaded Ukraine because they were winking at the EU and NATO… like, they didn’t even kiss!

                I know why they invaded, but I also believe in taking responsibility for one’s actions. We can talk about moral responsibility, but at the end of the day Russia invaded Ukraine and therefore they are responsible for the war they started.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well at least not in Ukraine. I’m sure we are committing some war crimes quietly somewhere else. Seems like we can’t stop doing that.

      I agree with your comment by the way, I’m just further shitting down that argument as well.

      We know our government sucks. We’re working on making it work the way it was supposed to. Section 1983 has to be rectified.

  • Grownbravy [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Werent a bunch of reddit brigaders obliterated forgetting to turn off location services posting from their top secret training facility?

  • sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Whilst not suffering a series of mini-strokes on national television, Mitch is as always razor sharp and the epitome of giving zero fucks about any human lives/hides other than his own. May the Sweet Lord Above see fit to drown this nearly calcified ghoul in a bed of his own shit, like real soon. Tomorrow morning would be cool

    • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mitch may be crap, but here he is just trying to get ahead of Republicans who would rather leave Ukraine high and dry. He may give zero fucks about human lives but not as bad as the Russians who have no problem committing war crimes on a daily basis.

      Fact is that for less than 3% of the DOD budget we get the result of the loss of over 50% of the military strength of one of our top geopolitical foes. Plus, it will take them at least a decade to rebuild it.

      No one asked Russia to invade Ukraine and disrupt world order. Russia doesn’t seem to want to negotiate. Why would you want Ukraine to give up?

      • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        By all third party accounts the Russian military is stronger than when the invasion began.

        Where you get a 50% reduction in strength must be from the most fevered of dreams. The Nazis could not overthrow Russia with millions of men and hundreds of thousands of vehicles.

        You think it will be done with 3% of our budget? Honestly? We couldn’t do it with 100% of our budget. We’d have to go to a war economy and devote 60% or more of the gdp.

        • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By all third parties you must be excluding the institute of war and every western intelligence agency. That must be the reason you are pulling WWII tanks out of museums, emptying prisons for manpower, ect. Your BS may play well in your own country, comrade, but it’s still BS.

          • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Western intelligence agencies are party to the war…

            Open a history book if you think beating Russia is easy. Dozens of leaders made the same mistake over and over.

            The fact that you have to assume I’m Russian to believe this reveals your arrogance.

            • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes yes the mighty Russians and their 3 day war…

              We’re not living in history but in reality. The reality is that although Ukraine have less troops, they are battle hardened. Russia uses cannon fodder and officers who blow up if they don’t fall out of a window.

              • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yeah - Russia has and always had one tactic - “nas mnogo” aka “there’s many of us”. While it might have worked in the past where the amount of troops basically decided who will win, it doesn’t work with modern weapons.

              • PosadistInevitablity [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The Ukrainians vastly outnumbered the Russian forces in Ukraine at the beginning of this conflict. Easily 5 to 1.

                That’s easily researchable and provable, spare me the sass.

                Now it is roughly 1 to 1. You can see how that’s played out, with the Ukranian counter offensive accomplishing much less than expected.

                Russias army started weak and is continuing to grow in strength, as they have in nearly every conflict they’ve been in over the last five centuries.

                • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  5 to 1 you say? Since Russia is commonly acknowledged having encircled Ukraine with more than 100,000 troops before their invasion, that would mean little old Ukraine put 500,000 troops in the field. There are very few places that can put half a million troops in the field. China of course, if pressed. And of course NATO

                  Take your BS to someone foolish enough to believe it