• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ukraine United States is going to lose if Congress doesn’t send more aid

    The fact that everyone understands that the war in Ukraine is based on American backing means that it’s a proxy war between the US and Russia.

    • Melkath@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      $773 billion dollars last year spent on fighting “proxy” wars around the world (and if you count the spying, domestically).

      The only one that America has actual moral footing to get behind is the only one we are pulling punches on.

      • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        mm, delicious bait! 😋 go on then, which proxy war does the US have “actual moral footing” to get behind?

      • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hardly the first time. I’d argue the US made the same mistake in Afghanistan in 2003, diverting resources to Iraq because Bush Jr. had such a hard-on for Saddam.

        • Melkath@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          100%

          With each passing day, Biden’s administration looks like the Bush administration’s bigger more right wing brother.

          Citizens United needs to be overturned. The Pentagon budget needs to be at least halved. We need the 2 party system to end.

          This will never happen if we keep voting for the lesser evil every 4 years.

  • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes, no shit. That was the outlook from day 1.

    The Russian Army is largely represented as a bunch of baffoons in the Western media, but it’s still one of the 3 largest armies in the world. Ukraine cannot hold their lines indefinitely, the only way to “win” against an opponent that has multiple times your materiel available is guerilla.

  • Alsjemenou@lemy.nl
    link
    fedilink
    Nederlands
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    People in this thread clearly don’t understand what the implications are. There is a very clear danger of war on the European continent that will involve NATO and by proxy the US. Aid for Ukraine is the absolute cheapest option. Europe is not going to just let Ukraine fall and will ramp up their involvement. We already have France willing to send troops.

    • LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You don’t understand that the only danger of further war is again from US/NATO. Europe is going to let Ukraine fall because it has no choice. France is a laughing stock. Even what they threatened to send could do nothing.

      In the case of shells, the problem isn’t money, it’s lack of production capacity. Even the mighty USA, owner of the largest military-industrial complex in the world, can only produce 28,000 rounds of 155mm per month – less than 10pc of what Ukraine needs – and this with its factories on 24-hour operation.

      Comment from the Torygrapgh readership:

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Aid for Ukraine is the absolute cheapest option

      One who consider a proxy war where thousand people die and a country get destroyed the “cheapest option” tells you how much they are in bad faith. For politicians your life is indeed cheap and something they can trash away for profits

      • Ebber@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        So no aid to Ukraine and show Russia that it can indeed start wars where thousands die and destroy countries, without negative consequences?

        • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Where are the negative consequences for America? Why can America invade any country it wants and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children but for some reason when Russia does it we have to show them they aren’t allowed?

          Only America and its allies can start wars and commit genocides?

          • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Classic whataboutism.

            Because the US does interventionism, fund far-right politicians, etc., Russia (and China) can do as such, and even more. At least the US doesn’t want to “regain it’s old lost territories”.

              • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                In fairness it’s a solid criticism considering there’s two kinds of comparisons that aren’t made on equal footing. To argue U.S.'s kind of intervention is the same as the Russias, would be more appropriate to consider Russia’s pre 2014 involvement in Ukraine. If you want to compare full-scale military operations then ZILtoid makes a good point. We haven’t tried to annex another country in a long time.

          • Ebber@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I didn’t condone the USA’s actions, and it’s clear from your comment that you assume I would. It’s clear to me who is the aggressor in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and it’s not Ukraine.

            Don’t let your disdain for one imperialist push you over to another.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is a delicate situation. If a NATO country is sending troops to Ukraine, it will escalate the war into a full blown world war.

        We know what happened in both world wars, so there is no good answers here.

          • GreenSkree@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?

            When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.

            Notable events:

            • Remilitarization of the Rhineland (Mar 1936) – this was a clear power move and violation of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1. With no real reaction from the France/Britain, this was a clear indication to Hitler he could continue to push things much further.
            • Anschluss (Annexation of Austria, Mar 1938) - Germany was prepared to take Austria by force, but managed to do so with only the threat of violence. This was also against the Treaty of Versailles and also had no real reaction from the Allied powers.
            • Sudetenland conquest (Sept 1938) - Germany pressures Czechoslovakia for pieces of it’s territory that border Germany. British PM finally gets involved, allowing the exchange of territory for a promise of peace. This is the famous " Peace for our time declaration.
            • Annexation of territory from Lithuania (Mar 1939) - Lithuania pressed to give up territory under threat of war.
            • Czech/Slovokia split and occupation/control (Mar 1939) - Under further pressure and threat of invasion, Czechoslovakia split and both come under German control.
            • Invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR (Sept 1939) - First open conflict. France and Britain declare war on Germany, roughly a year after the “Peace for our time” negotiations/declaration that clearly made a difference!

            As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.

            Knowing what happened, it’s easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.


            I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded. Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.

            The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, “Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever.” is that Russia won’t stop there. They’ll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they’re ready.

            The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.

            • index@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?

              Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.

              If there’s anything to be extrapolated from history is that ramping up for war and fueling authoritarian regimes brings you exactly war and dictatorships.

              Any violence against free nations should be resisted

              So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?

              The danger of washing our hands

              If there’s anyone washing their hands is politicians drinking champagne in dubai next to russian yachts. The same politicians that send people money to ukraine goverement.

              • GreenSkree@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.

                I think this is overly naive and simplistic.

                So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?

                (I’m not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)

                The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don’t have any easy answer unfortunately.

                • Palestine doesn’t have a conventional army or a means to fight Israel the same way Ukraine is fighting Russia.
                • Israel’s reaction and occupation of Gaza Strip is horrible.
                • Historically, Israel’s treatment of Palestinian people has been completely unacceptable.
                • Hamas’ actions have been awful, both historically and with the first attack in October where they started this conflict. Their attacks routinely target civilians, which is unacceptable.

                So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes – I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.

                So, unfortunately, I think there are no “good guys” here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can’t wait until this shit is over so that all the shit-for-brains boomers finally take down all their stupid flags.

  • lemmytellyousomething@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    The free world loses when Russia wins.

    It’s pretty much an invitation to China to do the same in Taiwan and an invitation for Russia to start more wars in eastern Europe…

    Helping Ukraine costs money. Not helping Ukraine costs even more.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    I was wondering how the media was going to explain the collapse in Ukraine when it finally becomes impossible to hide it, and now we know. The whole thing is going to be blamed on republicans holding up money in congress, as if pouring another 61 billion after all the untold billions that were already poured into this was going to make any difference. The fact that people genuinely believe this is frankly depressing. It shows just how utterly credulous and mentally deficient western public is.

  • istanbullu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    It is a bad idea to trust and rely on Ameeica. Some Afgans learned this lesson in 2021, the same is happening to Ukraine now.

  • Yor [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Without the support of Congress, it will be “difficult” for Ukraine to win, “even to stay,” Zelenskyy said in a video meeting with fundraising supporters, including Mark Hamill and billionaire Richard Branson.

    Nightmare blunt rotation

    Anyway, wow! You mean every time Russia was said to be slowing down or taking unsustainable levels of casualties wasn’t entirely true? Wow! surprised-pika

    • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the weakness of Ukraine is also narrative.

      Whatever narrative they push, it’s completely unrelated to the truth.

      When they wanted western sympathy and when the western funds were rolling, it was the plucky tractor brigade killing Russians at $1.40 a kill.

      Now that they aren’t getting another aid package, the front lines are about to collapse and Russia will be in Warsaw by summer.

      It’s all bullshit. As in it’s unrelated to the truth. The truth has no relationship to what Zelenskyy says.

      The fact Ukraine is starting to push an imminent collapse narrative is a key factor in me believing collapse is not in fact imminent.

      • dragonfly4933@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You are right, you can’t use only information Ukraine or Russia provides. But it probably is the case that Ukraine was stomping Russia for pennies on the dollar earlier in the war. However, Russia is not a static force. They learn and change their tactics, and Russia spends more resources now than they did earlier.

        It would be a grave mistake to stop aid to Ukraine while they are still willing and able to fight.

        • 420stalin69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          But it probably is the case that Ukraine was stomping Russia for pennies on the dollar earlier in the war.

          When the aid was flowing the narrative was that this was a “good investment” which is why they sold you with this “pennies on the dollar” angle.

          Put down the slava pipe and have a look at what the cost basis is for western military gear vs Russian stuff. It’s rarely better than 5:1 even for basic stuff like shells and advanced stuff runs at around 10:1. The idea that it was “pennies on the dollar” is crazy shit.

          It’s all narrative. It doesn’t have a relationship to facts on the ground. It’s a sales pitch.

          • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            “Pennies on the dollar” refers more to the fact that we have mostly sent old equipment that’s already paid for and would otherwise never see the light of day, while also avoiding the use of any US/NATO manpower to massively undermine an adversary. It’s a great deal, i.e. pennies on the dollar.

            I guess it’s edifer to just call everything a “narrative” though than try and understand current events.

            • Fidel_Cashflow@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s a great deal if you’re a monster who doesn’t pay any mind to the broken Ukrainian bodies littering the trenches for the past few years. More conscripts for the meat grinder, it’s cost-effective! Fucking ghouls, I swear.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          pennies on the dollar

          Psychopathic framing. “Look how efficiently we’re killing people!”

          Also great example of conflating states with people. Maybe Ukraine still wants to fight, but Ukrainians are being conscripted against their will. In the same way, wearing Russia down may serve the interests of the US government, but it certainly doesn’t benefit the American people in any way. The best thing for the Ukrainian people would be to stop the killing at any cost, even if it meant territorial concessions. They could’ve saved countless lives if they’d done this from the start, and eventually that’s what’s going to happen anyway, but unfortunately countless people have died and countless more will before the ruling class decides to stop forcing the poor into the meat grinder.

          How the fuck is my life supposed to be better because of dead Russian soldiers?

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

          The West has spent many times Russias military budget and hundreds of thousands of soldiers only to lose the war.

          Russia will likely gain several states worth of land.

          Unsure how this is a “good deal”, even in the most psychopathic framing possible. I’d think that would mean Russia is getting the good deal in that case? They have spent far less and gained actual winnings.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          It would be a grave mistake to stop aid to Ukraine while they are still willing and able to fight.

          While who is still willing to fight? The conscripted who are forced to fight or the neonazis who volunteered to fight?

    • caveman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      That was propaganda. Without it people would say “why wasting money if they will lose anyway?”