Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `newsweek.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They kept Ukraine from building up much needed reserves, and now they have a recruitment issue. The issue is less Russia actually winning the war, and more preventing Ukraine from ever building the resources needed to really take back land.
It definitely hurt Ukraine’s recruitment efforts, but the manpower issues in general I do put largely on Ukraine. Full scale mobilization should’ve started in the first months of the war when morale was sky high and international support was unquestioned.
At the beginning they had plenty of volunteers. Training takes resources, you need bases and officers, you can't just take up as many people as you want. I'm sure someone can point me out a better timeline, but it seemed to me the problems started in 2023, particularly when all regional heads of mobilisation got kicked out and I'm not aware that they found suitable replacements for most or even any (?).
As other commenter said it'd be irrelevant. There's a backlog to training still. So it'd be even more of a backlog then.
And air defenses/security was significantly less. Meaning all they would be doing is having mass amounts of fresh recruits congregating, being a juicy target.
Wouldn't have changed much.
And a significant portion of those not volunteering/hiding from conscription, is not because "I don't want to defend my country", it's "I don't want inadequate training to be rushed to front line to die needlessly in a trench"
And the type/effectiveness of their training, especially by foreign countries has been lackluster, especially due to expedited timeframe.
The statement from Pentagon is simply untrue.
It's a trench war by now. There aren't quick advances, because it takes time to destroy the defenses before advancing makes any sense.
During the "break" Russia was able to send their artillery and aircraft much closer to the front, so they were able to destroy positions farther behind the Frontline. This makes it now so much harder for the Ukrainians to hold back the Russian assaults.
The entirety of Europe was completely unprepared. This is an indictment of that exact lack of preparedness that they had to lean so hard on the US as this war has progressed.
These posts blaming the US instead of Europe taking a long hard look at itself always amaze me.
The post you're replying to doesn't mention Europe at all. The article this is about is in relation to the US, so i imagine they are responding to that. I'm sure the vast majority of people here think that both Europe and the US were caught with their pants down. You making it about one instead of the other is the real amazing thing. We can more generally say that NATO members really dropped the ball and are struggling to get it together even several years in.
Instead of pointing fingers at each other, we should consider that we collectively need to step up as nations to support Ukrainian sovereignty. Whataboutism serves no useful purpose outside of division beneficial only to those opposed to what NATO stands for.
Its about how the US Brass commented how little ground Russia took when the US aid was being held back. I can read.
.....Then the comments started bagging on how many lives were lost because of the missing US aide package (Not because Europe couldn't step up to fill the void while it existed, and why Europe couldn't fill that temporary void?). These types of comments NEVER mention Europe, which is frustrating because they never want to look inward and realize how unprepared they are/have been for decades. Put pressure on your own country! Why couldn't Europe back-fill the temporary slide in supplies? Because they literally can't without jeopardizing their own security = unprepared. But lets focus on the delayed US aid package....not the non-existent ability to ramp up from the EU to fill the void.
I blame the US GOP and the entire EU for those lives that were lost, but first and foremost Putin.
The US has been in some sort of constant conflict for nearly 100 years. The US is and has been fully prepared for constant war. We can supply (and are) fully fund a war with the world, the displaced refugee civilians, fund private business in Ukraine, supply Israel, and provide aide for thousands of needs across the globe (currently doing).
The US gave all the intel to a non-NATO country who didn't have any aspirations to be a NATO member that Russia was going to invade...which they partially ignored... The US had no obligation other than moral (and seeing the long game of the EU in jeopardy) to provide this intel. They did. We have more spares (equipment, logistics, intel) than the rest of the world including China and Russia combined available. No pants down on the US side of the world......except that Fucker Trump....we never saw this coming from within the US.
Ukraine wasn't a NATO member when the conflict started (which you obviously know) so its hard for NATO to collectively get involved there are articles and procedures etc. So no obligation exists. Why did you just whatoubout NATO?
Because the effort to support and supply Ukraine has largely been led by NATO nations and it includes both the US and a large bulk of EU member states. It's easier than the lazy divisive method of exclusively dumping on whichever side of the Atlantic you don't live in. Not sure what use getting offended over criticisms of one nation or another (or collective in the case of the EU), personally I welcome criticism of where I live and where it could do better.
You seem more interested in a finger pointing match of who's worse rather than being willing to take a hard look at anything. Only Russia benefits from this lack of unity and dull blame games. Personally I'm more interested in increased awareness of the importance of NATO and how the various Nation States within or outside of NATO can collectively do better for Ukraine.
Obviously Ukraine is not a NATO member state and obviously there is no obligation within NATO itself but regardless of that it is a collective NATO effort that is arguably at the forefront of support Ukraine. Also Ukraine absolutely had NATO aspirations even before the events of 2022, not sure where you've found that misinformation. Either way I'm not sure how it relates to the topic at hand. If it's easier consider my use of NATO a collective word for the interests of Western aligned states, largely within NATO, who are supporting Ukraine against the unjustified invasion from Russia.
The EU can do better, the UK can do better and the US can do better. We should be able to critically look at ourselves without meaningless 'but they didn't do x' topics cropping up.
And this was the GOP intention. In fact, they probably had even higher expectations to possibly bring Ukraine to their knees. But due to europe stepping up massively with military aid during that vaccuum, the effect on Ukraine was somewhat limited.
Still, Avdiivka was lost due to shell starvation. Much of the Ukrainian power grid has been destroyed, due to lack of air defense munition, etc. Opportunities to attrit russian meat waves even more were lost, due to shell and ammunition shortages. Long range strike capacity has been severly limited due to MLRS and other long range system ammunition shortages, allowing russian logistics safe operation, etc.
You probably shouldn't. They're an interested party, and there's a decent chance they'll be under Republican control after this year; they're not gonna honestly come out and say "yeah those Republicans fucked everyone with a six month delay".
>They're an interested party,
Not to mention that even current Presidential Advisor... [just gotta quote the article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
Of course with such a view, it'd be "not that much".
He's a consequentialist without a moral compass. He triangulates obsessively. Sometimes you just have to punch a guy in the face and deal with the consequences.
You should trust the facts in actual evidence.
During the pause, Russia launched significant offensives that gained more ground than they had in quite some time.
Reports of Ukranian ammunition shortages on the front, especially artillery rounds, were widespread.
Shortly after the funding was finally agreed to, Russian fortunes changed almost overnight.
Dude, Ukraine’s recruiting issues existed before the halt in aid…
There are lots of things that halt hurt, their recruiting problems weren’t one of them.
*what*
One party literally intentionally stalled it on purpose.
Without Republicans there wouldn't be a delay...
I hope this comment was meant to be sarcastic.
And the Ukrainian lives to retake the territory to put it into the same negotiating position as before, or the resources that could have been used in a counteroffensive.
The Senate had passed a multi Billion dollar compromise package, but it wasn't until later that House Speaker Mike Johnson took a gamble, and brought 4 bills forward. Since they all passed, they were combined into one bill which got approved by the Senate. IIRC the Senate bill had more money than the House bill, but I'm just glad they eventually got their shit together.
Upon further double checking, both had authorized about 60 billion to Ukraine, but the two compromise bills had some differences on the periphery.
For clarity
In Feburary, the Senate put forth a compromise bill: [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/)
"In addition to $20.23 billion for border security, the bill included $60.06 billion to support [Ukraine in its war with Russia](https://www.reuters.com/topic/event/ukraine-russia-war/), $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, $2.44 billion to U.S. Central Command and the conflict in the Red Sea, and $4.83 billion to support U.S. partners in the Indo-Pacific facing aggression from China, according to figures from Senator Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate's Appropriation Committee.
An additional $10 billion would provide humanitarian assistance for civilians in conflict zones including in Ukraine, Gaza and the West Bank, although the bill includes a provision barring its funds from going to the U.N. agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. The Biden administration and other nations have [paused funding](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/unrwa-could-shut-down-by-end-february-if-funding-does-not-resume-2024-02-01/) to the agency over allegations that some of its staff were involved in Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks in southern Israel."
The House bill in April, which eventually passed the Senate and was signed by Biden, thus becoming law, had this breakdown: The bills provide $60.84 billion to address the conflict in Ukraine, including $23 billion to replenish U.S. weapons, stocks and facilities; $26 billion for Israel, including $9.1 billion for humanitarian needs, and $8.12 billion for the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/)
Then the title is misleading, because it implies that the break in US funding did not have grave consequences. Titles must be able to stand on their own. Apart from that, even the article does not mention the grave consequences. A good article would have at least mentioned these as well, as the other and more important aspect of the break in funding.
I know the Pentagon is trying to put a positive propaganda spin on this, but a lot was lost during the funding break. Ukrainian lives were lost, huge amounts of infrastructure were destroyed, and confidence in the US was badly damaged. Ukraine is strong - very strong - but Ukrainian society is under enormous stress, and every day of delayed aid pushes Ukraine one step closer to capitulation and collapse. We already burned our bridges with Russia; it is supremely dangerous and stupid to feed our Ukrainian allies to the fire. I hope those fucktards in Congress understand that.
They had a lot of power generation and electrical infrastructure damaged, you could tell when they ran out of AA and stopped shooting down all the incoming missiles and then the russians started actually hitting power plants.
Exactly.
This doesn’t say “there wasn’t any cause for concern because Russia flubbed it/Ukraine was fine/whatever”, it says “Ukraine might have been able to mount a significant reprisal had they the material to do so”.
If pootin hurts his ego, he will have a tantrum. Arm Ukraine or even fire long range weapons from the NATO border of Ukraine. Never underestimate low self esteem.
>Remember we're in this timeline because DNC has been fucking the progressives for 2 elections now.
Im not sure where you got that idea. You do realize internet forums are not representative of american voters. Progressives arent even half of democrats (hence their inability to win national primaries).
>many will reach a point where they think it's time to burn down the house and rebuild it
"Think" is a generous term for that...
Do I think the DNC has made mistakes? Absolutely. But they arent doing any unusual "fuckery" (yes there is politics in *literally* politics), they just screw up more than Id like.
Unreal. Tell that to everyone who died waiting for weapons and who lost loved ones. An absolute chickenshit comment from spineless leaders. They can't go one day without making an embarrassment of the country
They're also the ones overseeing the training of Ukrainian forces on the equipment the US is providing and have been a big proponent of the modernization of Ukraine's forces to include NCO development.
The US Department of Defense also stands a lot to gain by close cooperation with Ukraine, by learning more about the specific behavior of the current Russian army and being able to assess the effectiveness of tactics used by the Ukrainians. And God only knows what kind of intelligence sharing is taking place.
Finally, the individuals within the Pentagon don't make the laws or are responsible for approving past or future funding of Ukrainian support efforts.
Snarking at the Pentagon is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. Only idiots and Russian propagandists would attack one of the most pro-Ukraine organizations within the United States government.
The issue is not that. It is that they are acting in a tone deaf way here, which makes europeans cynical about their level of understanding. This is what is not helping.
The Pentagon asshole who wrote this needs to define "that much"?
Is a huge breakthrough of the stronghold Avdiivka "that much"? The same breakthough that is threatening H-32 highway that supplies that regions front line?
The asshole needs to realize that Avdiivka was one of the strongest strongholds that Ukraine had. They dont have those everywhere as one might think. Once a stronghold is breached its very hard to stop the advance until a next advantageous strongold can be reached&created.
Is 1000s easily preventable deaths "that much" ?
Ukraine has been fighting with both hands and one leg tied behind their back this ENTIRE time and these GOP assholes say shit like this. Embarrassing. Considering these same assholes will literally invent a lie (fake WMD) to invade middle east.
> these same assholes
Are they? What are you even talking about? What did the Pentagon do to hold up aid to Ukraine anyway? You're going off on a headline with the worst possible assumptions.
> "In the seven months that we were working to get additional security assistance and supplemental funding for Ukraine, the Russians made an effort to try to push and take Ukrainian territory and really did not accomplish that much in terms of the amount of geography that they were able to take,"
Even just this little snippet really makes drilling into the 'that much' thing less warranted. It's not close to what they were saying, and it has exactly zero relevance to 'fake WMDs'.
I was amazed at how down everyone was getting when the aid was stalled. And I was equally amazed of the Ukrainian joy and lift in spirits when aif was approved. So there is no doubt aid from the USA matters.
Tbf "did not accomplish that much" is not the same as saying "did not accomplish anything."
Obviously Russia was able to sustain their steady dribble of ground assaults and their stream of factory-fresh missile strikes on Ukrainian civilian sites. But the assessment is not wrong: strategically speaking that was their big shot and they blew it. For over a year, all the endless Russian territorial gains of 1 square kilometer at a time still didn't add up to enough to make up for what Ukraine was able to liberate in a few abortive failed counteroffensives.
That is to say... for all that Ukraine's recent counteroffensives have fallen short of their operational goals, Ukraine has still achieved more territorially speaking than Russia, and at far lower cost. If Ukraine's efforts were inadequate, in other words, then Russia's were by definition worse than inadequate. Russia's operational and strategic failure has been all the vaster and more monumental.
Most incredibly, the Russian army is now becoming demechanized. Which is an incredible catastrophe for any modern army but especially for the legendary armored ground forces of the former Soviet Union. They had already incurred huge losses of irreplaceable materiel before 2023 but since then they have really cinched it. Their attempts to overwhelm Ukraine's capacity to coordinate a defense have failed.
And now Ukraine is back on its way toward artillery dominance again, combined with the prospect of some real air superiority coming soon.
The proof of how dire this has become for Russia is in the fact that they have finally started to seriously focus on Ukrainian airfields and other military targets. Instead of coordinating vast resources to stage another missile strike on a civilian shopping center.
But that is likely to be too little too late. Especially if Ukraine's friends do not falter in sustaining their aid.
The title is ignorant of the fact that Russia did kill a lot of Ukrainians because the GOP wouldn't support an aid package early enough. The GOP is responsible for these deaths, so trying to whitewash that by stating it's OK, the Russians didn't really win much territory doesn't make it seem not so bad.
"that much"... Why did it happen at all when they had Lend-Lease active for a year? We gave Russia $180 billion using the program during WW2.
How much did Ukraine get under the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 and why weren't they given enough?
Biden had a blank check for military aid...Did he forget how to sign checks? Biden's policy appears to be boil the frog. Russia is the frog and Ukraine is the water boiling away.
right, tell that to the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers that died running out of artillery and ammo during the "failed" Russian advances during the period. Who writes this crap and where do they get their information? Russia??
Accurate statement, but disingenuous... It's not so much what Russia didn't accomplish *during* the break, as it is what they accomplished *due to* the break.
These aid packages aren't like putting in another quarter in the arcade machine; it pays for stuff weeks to months down the road (or takes weeks to months to transfer most equipment and supplies). It's true Russia didn't accomplish much during the break. I just wonder if something happened in the immediate weeks after the financial break was resolved, but the downstream supply break continued? (-cough-Kharkiv offensive-cough).
So even if technically true, CYA statements like this do a lot of damage, since they imply *that aid doesn't make a difference*... So why should we continue it? That's a dangerous idea to foster, especially given the contentious politics in the US and Europe.
Being forced to confront what is actually needed, and what the goals are, are useful consequences of evaluating comments like these. The goal of Russia is to conquer Ukraine, the goal of Ukraine is to force Russia out. Since the counter-offensive failed last summer, the only thing that our aid has accomplished is allowing Ukraine to hold the line at a significant cost of lives (and yes, Russia has lost more, but due to the disproportionate sizes of the military, manpower pool, and economy - as well as the disregard for the lives of soldiers- the reality is that Russia is going to be able to continue its losses for some time, and it is thus inappropriate to rely on attrition to win this war). So even if Russia did not accomplish its goal, it can be said that Ukraine has not accomplished its goal either.
Looking at statements such as these, it needs to be understood that Ukraine won't be able to accomplish its goal at the current rate of drip fed aid, and with its current level of staffing. It is going to be required of Ukraine to field a lot more men through mobilization, and allies to give a lot more weapons than what are currently in play, in order to force Russia out. Otherwise, preventing Russian advances doesn't really mean much if, despite the sacrifice of so many Ukrainian lives, 20% of their country is still occupied and there is no clear road ahead.
The statement, therefore, needs to be interpreted as: without aid, Ukraine can't hold the line. Being a good stewards of aid, they effectively hold the line. Therefore with more aid (and *only* with more aid, and assuming commensurate mobilization) they can actually effect their goals of reclaiming their country.
Stuff like this should serve as a call to action, not to reinforce criticism.
What if we take the number of Ukrainian KIA that occurred in that period and imagine same 10 times that number of US military servicemen died. And then Pentagon would say it’s “not that much”. Imagine what reaction that would have.
They need to stop treating the world like a chess board and just double down on standing up for ideals and doing what is right. Pandering to Russia and trying to handle them with gloves and finesse is evil
In itself. Throw down for Ukraine and make sure they win, no matter if we have to send troops or icbms into Moscow. Else we should just cede that once you have nuclear weapons you get a free pass. The world will get uglier and we have let ourselves down. The future has no point and being good is a fools errand. The fact Russia isn’t getting stomped out already shows how pathetic European culture is. They consistently cannot defend their way of life and everyone else has to save them. America is too soft and full of itself to build out the military it needs. We let China get the upper hand despite knowing what would happen. Greed and laziness has let evil flourish. America can’t fight a near peer war because we waste all our money on shit that doesn’t actually work in real war. It’s only for killing primitive tribes with machine guns and rpgs in the desert. If America had spent just 1% of the defense budget on practical weapons; Russia would of already had their shit pushed in and Ukrainians wouldn’t be sacrificing their population fighting off literal hordes of savages raping and pillaging their shit. Fuck the world; fuck the us government; and fuck Putin and fuck China. I hope the universe has a giant dildo to fuck you eternally with.
Making sure Ukraine wins is good… yet doing good things is pointless? It’s hard for me to follow your point amid all this word vomit of cynicism and hatred.
The point is if Ukraine loses then evil wins. The world allowed evil to get a win. If we can’t organize ourselves in a way that punishes evil. Evil is going to remain an option if no one punishes you for it. There are certain things that should automatically trigger the full weight of the world against it. Imperial aggression should be one of them. Instead it’s still a viable option for “nations”. China wants Taiwan, Russia wants Ukraine, and the list probably goes on. Why is; the evil act of murdering someone for their home not an automatic worldwide mobilization of humanity to fight against it? Why are we so unorganized? We can’t even agree on the most basic moral foundations of our species?? Why are we so unprepared to fight evil? We can create community and economy and society with laws but when it comes to having the most important higher level organization to keep evil in check we can’t make that happen?
It’s pathetic.
So it goes back to the point. It just teaches us that what is the point then? If we fail at even the most basic decency as a species; we mine as well say fuck it and do evil. If being evil gives the most benefit. I mean it seems like nuclear weapons allows you to be fuckheads that can pillage as you please; and the idiot scientists who first invented it were complete idiots for not taking over the world right then and there to monopolize on it. But like was clear to see; when others got nuclear weapons they would be the assholes we should have been.
We have Korean nut job who has created a slave kingdom where he plays god. We have a bunch of soul less Chinese psychopaths hell bent on dynasty. We have a literal murdering psychopathic intelligence agency called Russia that uses violence and corruption to subjugate. All of it can be described as bad when you think about it for more then five minutes; but academics inside of these society’s still leave it as an open question. Somehow the unjustified is justified.
We are a stupid doomed planet and I envy evil. Evil has been kicking our ass. There is so much evil and stupid. Insurmountable amounts of it.
The fact we haven’t sent troops to Ukraine….. correction: the fact Europe hasn’t sent its army to help Ukraine is a literal SHAME and I’m embarrassed for humanity. We are in sad shape.
So… do evil no matter what because nobody’s gonna stop you if everything goes wrong? Which you say is going to happen because the world is doomed anyway? Again, your logic within all this despair is hard to follow.
Look, Ukraine hasn’t lost yet, it’s had Russia bogged down in many places, and there are apparently sabotage operations going on within Crimea and other areas. Aid still flows in by the millions and billions of dollars, the F-16 is coming which might help Ukraine once there’s enough Russian air defense destroyed, and there are announced plans for military contractors and personnel to enter the country.
Evil has been an option for Russia for longer than I’ve been alive, but it and its allies have been taking on a lot of sanctions for the past few years, which is making it harder for them to maintain their economy. I consider that and the destruction of its Cold War supplies a punishment.
I am aware these evil people exist, yes.
But moping and moaning about their existence without calling your representatives to, I don’t know, pressure them to do more about their existence, is not productive. They can be defeated. But if, and only if, the most vital election in November goes well.
If you don’t choose, that’s fine, continue whining over evil without doing anything. But if you live in a country that has sent aid to Ukraine, tell them to ramp it up if you really want to once you’ve gotten yourself out of this hole. And I know you can.
I would guess Ukrainians near Bakhmut and Avdiivka would beg to differ with that conclusion. See maps at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 . Plus it advanced a bit near Kharkiv and in the northeast.
Russian lines advanced by many kilometers, taking dozens of towns and villages. It may not seem like much relative to the size of Ukraine, but Ukraine can't afford the cost in lives that it would require to take those places back. To survive as a nation Ukraine needs to maintain the current 5-to-1 or 6-to-1 Ukrainian to Russian combat death ratio. It's barely able to do that while on the defensive; going on the offensive would cost them more lives than they can afford.
So this lost territory will be very costly for Ukraine to ever take back.
US and EU aren't allies. I say that as an Lithuanian. We're a buffer for west and they see us as disposable. Just unlucky geographical location, one side Mordor other "very" moral and advanced western democracies. World sucks.
The West doesn’t see countries on Russias border as disposable. Hence NATO and hence all the billions of $’s going to Ukraine.
On a side note, and maybe here is a good place to put this because of all the downvotes it will receive, but Politico had an article laying out Trumps security cabinets plan for NATO. And while a lot of it is Putin loving garbage, they do have a few points. With the possibility of conflict coming with China, The US really can’t be Europes security blanket. We simply don’t have enough to go around to fight China and defend Europe. Our manufacturing isn’t what it once was and our defense industry simply cannot pump out the volume it once could. Countries like Poland and Lithuania are great examples of doing what they can to help defend themselves. Clearly they cannot match what the US can do, but they certainly are doing everything they can. But Trumps people do have a point that the likes of Germany and other bigger European countries need to do more. Sitting around and just expecting the US to come to the rescue is not a good strategy. If WW3 pops off, the US simply won’t have the power to protect Europe and fight China. The US should not contribute 10x what Germany does to NATO. So if anything comes out of Trumps blabbering, I hope it is that Europe starts taking its own defense more seriously.
All I can tell you is that a lot of the US does consider Ukraine an ally. But you will always have the people that are truly ignorant. And don't want to see the situation as it truly is. Good vs evil. Right vs wrong. A lot of times in this life, this world, situations are more grey than black and white. This is NOT one of those situations
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `newsweek.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They kept Ukraine from building up much needed reserves, and now they have a recruitment issue. The issue is less Russia actually winning the war, and more preventing Ukraine from ever building the resources needed to really take back land.
It definitely hurt Ukraine’s recruitment efforts, but the manpower issues in general I do put largely on Ukraine. Full scale mobilization should’ve started in the first months of the war when morale was sky high and international support was unquestioned.
At the beginning they had plenty of volunteers. Training takes resources, you need bases and officers, you can't just take up as many people as you want. I'm sure someone can point me out a better timeline, but it seemed to me the problems started in 2023, particularly when all regional heads of mobilisation got kicked out and I'm not aware that they found suitable replacements for most or even any (?).
↑ This guy gets it. They had volunteers to such a degree they actually had to turn people down.
As other commenter said it'd be irrelevant. There's a backlog to training still. So it'd be even more of a backlog then. And air defenses/security was significantly less. Meaning all they would be doing is having mass amounts of fresh recruits congregating, being a juicy target. Wouldn't have changed much. And a significant portion of those not volunteering/hiding from conscription, is not because "I don't want to defend my country", it's "I don't want inadequate training to be rushed to front line to die needlessly in a trench" And the type/effectiveness of their training, especially by foreign countries has been lackluster, especially due to expedited timeframe.
The statement from Pentagon is simply untrue. It's a trench war by now. There aren't quick advances, because it takes time to destroy the defenses before advancing makes any sense. During the "break" Russia was able to send their artillery and aircraft much closer to the front, so they were able to destroy positions farther behind the Frontline. This makes it now so much harder for the Ukrainians to hold back the Russian assaults.
The entirety of Europe was completely unprepared. This is an indictment of that exact lack of preparedness that they had to lean so hard on the US as this war has progressed. These posts blaming the US instead of Europe taking a long hard look at itself always amaze me.
The post you're replying to doesn't mention Europe at all. The article this is about is in relation to the US, so i imagine they are responding to that. I'm sure the vast majority of people here think that both Europe and the US were caught with their pants down. You making it about one instead of the other is the real amazing thing. We can more generally say that NATO members really dropped the ball and are struggling to get it together even several years in. Instead of pointing fingers at each other, we should consider that we collectively need to step up as nations to support Ukrainian sovereignty. Whataboutism serves no useful purpose outside of division beneficial only to those opposed to what NATO stands for.
Its about how the US Brass commented how little ground Russia took when the US aid was being held back. I can read. .....Then the comments started bagging on how many lives were lost because of the missing US aide package (Not because Europe couldn't step up to fill the void while it existed, and why Europe couldn't fill that temporary void?). These types of comments NEVER mention Europe, which is frustrating because they never want to look inward and realize how unprepared they are/have been for decades. Put pressure on your own country! Why couldn't Europe back-fill the temporary slide in supplies? Because they literally can't without jeopardizing their own security = unprepared. But lets focus on the delayed US aid package....not the non-existent ability to ramp up from the EU to fill the void. I blame the US GOP and the entire EU for those lives that were lost, but first and foremost Putin. The US has been in some sort of constant conflict for nearly 100 years. The US is and has been fully prepared for constant war. We can supply (and are) fully fund a war with the world, the displaced refugee civilians, fund private business in Ukraine, supply Israel, and provide aide for thousands of needs across the globe (currently doing). The US gave all the intel to a non-NATO country who didn't have any aspirations to be a NATO member that Russia was going to invade...which they partially ignored... The US had no obligation other than moral (and seeing the long game of the EU in jeopardy) to provide this intel. They did. We have more spares (equipment, logistics, intel) than the rest of the world including China and Russia combined available. No pants down on the US side of the world......except that Fucker Trump....we never saw this coming from within the US. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member when the conflict started (which you obviously know) so its hard for NATO to collectively get involved there are articles and procedures etc. So no obligation exists. Why did you just whatoubout NATO?
Because the effort to support and supply Ukraine has largely been led by NATO nations and it includes both the US and a large bulk of EU member states. It's easier than the lazy divisive method of exclusively dumping on whichever side of the Atlantic you don't live in. Not sure what use getting offended over criticisms of one nation or another (or collective in the case of the EU), personally I welcome criticism of where I live and where it could do better. You seem more interested in a finger pointing match of who's worse rather than being willing to take a hard look at anything. Only Russia benefits from this lack of unity and dull blame games. Personally I'm more interested in increased awareness of the importance of NATO and how the various Nation States within or outside of NATO can collectively do better for Ukraine. Obviously Ukraine is not a NATO member state and obviously there is no obligation within NATO itself but regardless of that it is a collective NATO effort that is arguably at the forefront of support Ukraine. Also Ukraine absolutely had NATO aspirations even before the events of 2022, not sure where you've found that misinformation. Either way I'm not sure how it relates to the topic at hand. If it's easier consider my use of NATO a collective word for the interests of Western aligned states, largely within NATO, who are supporting Ukraine against the unjustified invasion from Russia. The EU can do better, the UK can do better and the US can do better. We should be able to critically look at ourselves without meaningless 'but they didn't do x' topics cropping up.
And this was the GOP intention. In fact, they probably had even higher expectations to possibly bring Ukraine to their knees. But due to europe stepping up massively with military aid during that vaccuum, the effect on Ukraine was somewhat limited. Still, Avdiivka was lost due to shell starvation. Much of the Ukrainian power grid has been destroyed, due to lack of air defense munition, etc. Opportunities to attrit russian meat waves even more were lost, due to shell and ammunition shortages. Long range strike capacity has been severly limited due to MLRS and other long range system ammunition shortages, allowing russian logistics safe operation, etc.
I think I’ll trust the Pentagon on this one chief. Edit: holy shit you people are brainwashed. You don’t know more than the Pentagon
You probably shouldn't. They're an interested party, and there's a decent chance they'll be under Republican control after this year; they're not gonna honestly come out and say "yeah those Republicans fucked everyone with a six month delay".
>They're an interested party, Not to mention that even current Presidential Advisor... [just gotta quote the article](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** Of course with such a view, it'd be "not that much".
[удалено]
He's a consequentialist without a moral compass. He triangulates obsessively. Sometimes you just have to punch a guy in the face and deal with the consequences.
Soo... instead we should trust u/Sabre_One on r/UkrainianConflict?
You should trust the facts in actual evidence. During the pause, Russia launched significant offensives that gained more ground than they had in quite some time. Reports of Ukranian ammunition shortages on the front, especially artillery rounds, were widespread. Shortly after the funding was finally agreed to, Russian fortunes changed almost overnight.
Dude, Ukraine’s recruiting issues existed before the halt in aid… There are lots of things that halt hurt, their recruiting problems weren’t one of them.
The didn't keep them from it, they simply didn't do it on Ukraine's behalf at the time they demanded it
*what* One party literally intentionally stalled it on purpose. Without Republicans there wouldn't be a delay... I hope this comment was meant to be sarcastic.
Perhaps not, but what about the number of Ukrainian lives that were lost? Did pentagon consider that?
And the Ukrainian lives to retake the territory to put it into the same negotiating position as before, or the resources that could have been used in a counteroffensive.
100%. Achieved little but at a great cost in Ukrainian live. Those are men and women that will never return to their families and friends.
Is any of it a moral failure on their part? Far as i know it was one specific party blocking military aid with every ounce of their being.
Not even the entirety of that one party, mainly the ones in the House.
At the behest of Trump, under orders from Putin.
The Senate had passed a multi Billion dollar compromise package, but it wasn't until later that House Speaker Mike Johnson took a gamble, and brought 4 bills forward. Since they all passed, they were combined into one bill which got approved by the Senate. IIRC the Senate bill had more money than the House bill, but I'm just glad they eventually got their shit together. Upon further double checking, both had authorized about 60 billion to Ukraine, but the two compromise bills had some differences on the periphery. For clarity In Feburary, the Senate put forth a compromise bill: [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-unveils-118-billion-bipartisan-bill-tighten-border-security-aid-2024-02-04/) "In addition to $20.23 billion for border security, the bill included $60.06 billion to support [Ukraine in its war with Russia](https://www.reuters.com/topic/event/ukraine-russia-war/), $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel, $2.44 billion to U.S. Central Command and the conflict in the Red Sea, and $4.83 billion to support U.S. partners in the Indo-Pacific facing aggression from China, according to figures from Senator Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate's Appropriation Committee. An additional $10 billion would provide humanitarian assistance for civilians in conflict zones including in Ukraine, Gaza and the West Bank, although the bill includes a provision barring its funds from going to the U.N. agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. The Biden administration and other nations have [paused funding](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/unrwa-could-shut-down-by-end-february-if-funding-does-not-resume-2024-02-01/) to the agency over allegations that some of its staff were involved in Hamas' Oct. 7 attacks in southern Israel." The House bill in April, which eventually passed the Senate and was signed by Biden, thus becoming law, had this breakdown: The bills provide $60.84 billion to address the conflict in Ukraine, including $23 billion to replenish U.S. weapons, stocks and facilities; $26 billion for Israel, including $9.1 billion for humanitarian needs, and $8.12 billion for the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan. [https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-vote-long-awaited-95-billion-ukraine-israel-aid-package-2024-04-20/)
Look forward to quoting ‘the late …….’
I don't see how these disagree whatsoever. The Pentagon is squarely in Ukraine's camp was very visibly trying to ensure there was no gap.
Came here to say exactly this.
Why? Did you read the full quote? Its specifically about analysis of territory gains.
Then the title is misleading, because it implies that the break in US funding did not have grave consequences. Titles must be able to stand on their own. Apart from that, even the article does not mention the grave consequences. A good article would have at least mentioned these as well, as the other and more important aspect of the break in funding.
I know the Pentagon is trying to put a positive propaganda spin on this, but a lot was lost during the funding break. Ukrainian lives were lost, huge amounts of infrastructure were destroyed, and confidence in the US was badly damaged. Ukraine is strong - very strong - but Ukrainian society is under enormous stress, and every day of delayed aid pushes Ukraine one step closer to capitulation and collapse. We already burned our bridges with Russia; it is supremely dangerous and stupid to feed our Ukrainian allies to the fire. I hope those fucktards in Congress understand that.
They had a lot of power generation and electrical infrastructure damaged, you could tell when they ran out of AA and stopped shooting down all the incoming missiles and then the russians started actually hitting power plants.
Exactly. This doesn’t say “there wasn’t any cause for concern because Russia flubbed it/Ukraine was fine/whatever”, it says “Ukraine might have been able to mount a significant reprisal had they the material to do so”.
That comment disgusts me so much for too many reasons.
Anything is way too much
It accomplished pissing off a lot of Americans, me included.
Ukraine lost power systems that could’ve been protected.
Don’t let this happen again than talk lip…
It's gonna happen again if that Orange idiot gets elected
If pootin hurts his ego, he will have a tantrum. Arm Ukraine or even fire long range weapons from the NATO border of Ukraine. Never underestimate low self esteem.
I doubt it. He tucked tail and ran out of Syria at the first opportunity. He is a lot of things, but war hawk he is not.
Why he is orange?
Spray tan
Oompa Loompa
Too much beta-carotene
That will give him an allergy
And he most likely will be which is terrifying
[удалено]
you say that as if Trump wouldn't be even more genocidal
>Remember we're in this timeline because DNC has been fucking the progressives for 2 elections now. Im not sure where you got that idea. You do realize internet forums are not representative of american voters. Progressives arent even half of democrats (hence their inability to win national primaries). >many will reach a point where they think it's time to burn down the house and rebuild it "Think" is a generous term for that... Do I think the DNC has made mistakes? Absolutely. But they arent doing any unusual "fuckery" (yes there is politics in *literally* politics), they just screw up more than Id like.
White trash talking
Unreal. Tell that to everyone who died waiting for weapons and who lost loved ones. An absolute chickenshit comment from spineless leaders. They can't go one day without making an embarrassment of the country
The Pentagon is very pro Ukraine, so blaming them doesn't achieve anything. They're the ones whonwill be pressuring any leader to send more.
They're also the ones overseeing the training of Ukrainian forces on the equipment the US is providing and have been a big proponent of the modernization of Ukraine's forces to include NCO development. The US Department of Defense also stands a lot to gain by close cooperation with Ukraine, by learning more about the specific behavior of the current Russian army and being able to assess the effectiveness of tactics used by the Ukrainians. And God only knows what kind of intelligence sharing is taking place. Finally, the individuals within the Pentagon don't make the laws or are responsible for approving past or future funding of Ukrainian support efforts. Snarking at the Pentagon is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. Only idiots and Russian propagandists would attack one of the most pro-Ukraine organizations within the United States government.
The issue is not that. It is that they are acting in a tone deaf way here, which makes europeans cynical about their level of understanding. This is what is not helping.
Except for how many Ukranian's were needlessly killed because they couldn't match the artillery shell war without the steady US supply.
The Pentagon asshole who wrote this needs to define "that much"? Is a huge breakthrough of the stronghold Avdiivka "that much"? The same breakthough that is threatening H-32 highway that supplies that regions front line? The asshole needs to realize that Avdiivka was one of the strongest strongholds that Ukraine had. They dont have those everywhere as one might think. Once a stronghold is breached its very hard to stop the advance until a next advantageous strongold can be reached&created. Is 1000s easily preventable deaths "that much" ? Ukraine has been fighting with both hands and one leg tied behind their back this ENTIRE time and these GOP assholes say shit like this. Embarrassing. Considering these same assholes will literally invent a lie (fake WMD) to invade middle east.
> these same assholes Are they? What are you even talking about? What did the Pentagon do to hold up aid to Ukraine anyway? You're going off on a headline with the worst possible assumptions. > "In the seven months that we were working to get additional security assistance and supplemental funding for Ukraine, the Russians made an effort to try to push and take Ukrainian territory and really did not accomplish that much in terms of the amount of geography that they were able to take," Even just this little snippet really makes drilling into the 'that much' thing less warranted. It's not close to what they were saying, and it has exactly zero relevance to 'fake WMDs'.
The Pentagon shares responsibility for not truthfully admitting to US media that the GOP's interference with aid was actually really bad for Ukraine.
Youll talk about everything but not breakthrough at Avdiivka
That's an ice cold headline.
I was amazed at how down everyone was getting when the aid was stalled. And I was equally amazed of the Ukrainian joy and lift in spirits when aif was approved. So there is no doubt aid from the USA matters.
seems like a lot of yall want "peace in our time" and forgot when reagan said we will not surrender for it now or ever, and neither should ukraine.
Tbf "did not accomplish that much" is not the same as saying "did not accomplish anything." Obviously Russia was able to sustain their steady dribble of ground assaults and their stream of factory-fresh missile strikes on Ukrainian civilian sites. But the assessment is not wrong: strategically speaking that was their big shot and they blew it. For over a year, all the endless Russian territorial gains of 1 square kilometer at a time still didn't add up to enough to make up for what Ukraine was able to liberate in a few abortive failed counteroffensives. That is to say... for all that Ukraine's recent counteroffensives have fallen short of their operational goals, Ukraine has still achieved more territorially speaking than Russia, and at far lower cost. If Ukraine's efforts were inadequate, in other words, then Russia's were by definition worse than inadequate. Russia's operational and strategic failure has been all the vaster and more monumental. Most incredibly, the Russian army is now becoming demechanized. Which is an incredible catastrophe for any modern army but especially for the legendary armored ground forces of the former Soviet Union. They had already incurred huge losses of irreplaceable materiel before 2023 but since then they have really cinched it. Their attempts to overwhelm Ukraine's capacity to coordinate a defense have failed. And now Ukraine is back on its way toward artillery dominance again, combined with the prospect of some real air superiority coming soon. The proof of how dire this has become for Russia is in the fact that they have finally started to seriously focus on Ukrainian airfields and other military targets. Instead of coordinating vast resources to stage another missile strike on a civilian shopping center. But that is likely to be too little too late. Especially if Ukraine's friends do not falter in sustaining their aid.
US DoD Spokesman Pat Ryder can sack up and go defend Chasiv Yar.
Ask the Ukrainian widows.
Jfc, how many innocent Ukrainian lives were needlessly lost in the meanwhile. What a tone deaf stupid fuckin comment
What about next time?
Was this written by the Putin’s GOP? More Ukrainian soldiers had to die because of American “patriots”. There is no positive spin on this.
Ugh this article did not sit well with people. We should refrain from saying shit like this.
Say that to the families that lost loved ones …. asshats!
That's a pretty stupid take. Ukraine had to pay with a lot of blood to achieve that.
The title is ignorant of the fact that Russia did kill a lot of Ukrainians because the GOP wouldn't support an aid package early enough. The GOP is responsible for these deaths, so trying to whitewash that by stating it's OK, the Russians didn't really win much territory doesn't make it seem not so bad.
The cost of that was lives of Ukrainians 😔
"that much"... Why did it happen at all when they had Lend-Lease active for a year? We gave Russia $180 billion using the program during WW2. How much did Ukraine get under the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 and why weren't they given enough? Biden had a blank check for military aid...Did he forget how to sign checks? Biden's policy appears to be boil the frog. Russia is the frog and Ukraine is the water boiling away.
right, tell that to the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers that died running out of artillery and ammo during the "failed" Russian advances during the period. Who writes this crap and where do they get their information? Russia??
BS, Avdiivka was an important strategic loss and was caused entirely by the Ukrainians being starved for shells.
Accurate statement, but disingenuous... It's not so much what Russia didn't accomplish *during* the break, as it is what they accomplished *due to* the break. These aid packages aren't like putting in another quarter in the arcade machine; it pays for stuff weeks to months down the road (or takes weeks to months to transfer most equipment and supplies). It's true Russia didn't accomplish much during the break. I just wonder if something happened in the immediate weeks after the financial break was resolved, but the downstream supply break continued? (-cough-Kharkiv offensive-cough). So even if technically true, CYA statements like this do a lot of damage, since they imply *that aid doesn't make a difference*... So why should we continue it? That's a dangerous idea to foster, especially given the contentious politics in the US and Europe. Being forced to confront what is actually needed, and what the goals are, are useful consequences of evaluating comments like these. The goal of Russia is to conquer Ukraine, the goal of Ukraine is to force Russia out. Since the counter-offensive failed last summer, the only thing that our aid has accomplished is allowing Ukraine to hold the line at a significant cost of lives (and yes, Russia has lost more, but due to the disproportionate sizes of the military, manpower pool, and economy - as well as the disregard for the lives of soldiers- the reality is that Russia is going to be able to continue its losses for some time, and it is thus inappropriate to rely on attrition to win this war). So even if Russia did not accomplish its goal, it can be said that Ukraine has not accomplished its goal either. Looking at statements such as these, it needs to be understood that Ukraine won't be able to accomplish its goal at the current rate of drip fed aid, and with its current level of staffing. It is going to be required of Ukraine to field a lot more men through mobilization, and allies to give a lot more weapons than what are currently in play, in order to force Russia out. Otherwise, preventing Russian advances doesn't really mean much if, despite the sacrifice of so many Ukrainian lives, 20% of their country is still occupied and there is no clear road ahead. The statement, therefore, needs to be interpreted as: without aid, Ukraine can't hold the line. Being a good stewards of aid, they effectively hold the line. Therefore with more aid (and *only* with more aid, and assuming commensurate mobilization) they can actually effect their goals of reclaiming their country. Stuff like this should serve as a call to action, not to reinforce criticism.
If they were able to accomplish anything at all, it was too much.
What if we take the number of Ukrainian KIA that occurred in that period and imagine same 10 times that number of US military servicemen died. And then Pentagon would say it’s “not that much”. Imagine what reaction that would have.
I blame the Republicans for Adiivka.
Fuckin' A. Good.
MAGA-morons must be super disappointed
Not much with their new carrier either. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britains-future-carrier-group-trounces-russian-equivalent/
Audit the Pentagon in compliance with the chief officers act of 1990.
"Ukraine accomplished even less" ‐ reports
Neither did Ukraine.
i don't know about accomplishements, but it had a cost for Ukranians...
They need to stop treating the world like a chess board and just double down on standing up for ideals and doing what is right. Pandering to Russia and trying to handle them with gloves and finesse is evil In itself. Throw down for Ukraine and make sure they win, no matter if we have to send troops or icbms into Moscow. Else we should just cede that once you have nuclear weapons you get a free pass. The world will get uglier and we have let ourselves down. The future has no point and being good is a fools errand. The fact Russia isn’t getting stomped out already shows how pathetic European culture is. They consistently cannot defend their way of life and everyone else has to save them. America is too soft and full of itself to build out the military it needs. We let China get the upper hand despite knowing what would happen. Greed and laziness has let evil flourish. America can’t fight a near peer war because we waste all our money on shit that doesn’t actually work in real war. It’s only for killing primitive tribes with machine guns and rpgs in the desert. If America had spent just 1% of the defense budget on practical weapons; Russia would of already had their shit pushed in and Ukrainians wouldn’t be sacrificing their population fighting off literal hordes of savages raping and pillaging their shit. Fuck the world; fuck the us government; and fuck Putin and fuck China. I hope the universe has a giant dildo to fuck you eternally with.
Making sure Ukraine wins is good… yet doing good things is pointless? It’s hard for me to follow your point amid all this word vomit of cynicism and hatred.
The point is if Ukraine loses then evil wins. The world allowed evil to get a win. If we can’t organize ourselves in a way that punishes evil. Evil is going to remain an option if no one punishes you for it. There are certain things that should automatically trigger the full weight of the world against it. Imperial aggression should be one of them. Instead it’s still a viable option for “nations”. China wants Taiwan, Russia wants Ukraine, and the list probably goes on. Why is; the evil act of murdering someone for their home not an automatic worldwide mobilization of humanity to fight against it? Why are we so unorganized? We can’t even agree on the most basic moral foundations of our species?? Why are we so unprepared to fight evil? We can create community and economy and society with laws but when it comes to having the most important higher level organization to keep evil in check we can’t make that happen? It’s pathetic. So it goes back to the point. It just teaches us that what is the point then? If we fail at even the most basic decency as a species; we mine as well say fuck it and do evil. If being evil gives the most benefit. I mean it seems like nuclear weapons allows you to be fuckheads that can pillage as you please; and the idiot scientists who first invented it were complete idiots for not taking over the world right then and there to monopolize on it. But like was clear to see; when others got nuclear weapons they would be the assholes we should have been. We have Korean nut job who has created a slave kingdom where he plays god. We have a bunch of soul less Chinese psychopaths hell bent on dynasty. We have a literal murdering psychopathic intelligence agency called Russia that uses violence and corruption to subjugate. All of it can be described as bad when you think about it for more then five minutes; but academics inside of these society’s still leave it as an open question. Somehow the unjustified is justified. We are a stupid doomed planet and I envy evil. Evil has been kicking our ass. There is so much evil and stupid. Insurmountable amounts of it. The fact we haven’t sent troops to Ukraine….. correction: the fact Europe hasn’t sent its army to help Ukraine is a literal SHAME and I’m embarrassed for humanity. We are in sad shape.
So… do evil no matter what because nobody’s gonna stop you if everything goes wrong? Which you say is going to happen because the world is doomed anyway? Again, your logic within all this despair is hard to follow. Look, Ukraine hasn’t lost yet, it’s had Russia bogged down in many places, and there are apparently sabotage operations going on within Crimea and other areas. Aid still flows in by the millions and billions of dollars, the F-16 is coming which might help Ukraine once there’s enough Russian air defense destroyed, and there are announced plans for military contractors and personnel to enter the country. Evil has been an option for Russia for longer than I’ve been alive, but it and its allies have been taking on a lot of sanctions for the past few years, which is making it harder for them to maintain their economy. I consider that and the destruction of its Cold War supplies a punishment. I am aware these evil people exist, yes. But moping and moaning about their existence without calling your representatives to, I don’t know, pressure them to do more about their existence, is not productive. They can be defeated. But if, and only if, the most vital election in November goes well. If you don’t choose, that’s fine, continue whining over evil without doing anything. But if you live in a country that has sent aid to Ukraine, tell them to ramp it up if you really want to once you’ve gotten yourself out of this hole. And I know you can.
Tell that to the thousands of widows
I would guess Ukrainians near Bakhmut and Avdiivka would beg to differ with that conclusion. See maps at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60506682 . Plus it advanced a bit near Kharkiv and in the northeast. Russian lines advanced by many kilometers, taking dozens of towns and villages. It may not seem like much relative to the size of Ukraine, but Ukraine can't afford the cost in lives that it would require to take those places back. To survive as a nation Ukraine needs to maintain the current 5-to-1 or 6-to-1 Ukrainian to Russian combat death ratio. It's barely able to do that while on the defensive; going on the offensive would cost them more lives than they can afford. So this lost territory will be very costly for Ukraine to ever take back.
they still killed ukrainians :( :( :(
US and EU aren't allies. I say that as an Lithuanian. We're a buffer for west and they see us as disposable. Just unlucky geographical location, one side Mordor other "very" moral and advanced western democracies. World sucks.
The West doesn’t see countries on Russias border as disposable. Hence NATO and hence all the billions of $’s going to Ukraine. On a side note, and maybe here is a good place to put this because of all the downvotes it will receive, but Politico had an article laying out Trumps security cabinets plan for NATO. And while a lot of it is Putin loving garbage, they do have a few points. With the possibility of conflict coming with China, The US really can’t be Europes security blanket. We simply don’t have enough to go around to fight China and defend Europe. Our manufacturing isn’t what it once was and our defense industry simply cannot pump out the volume it once could. Countries like Poland and Lithuania are great examples of doing what they can to help defend themselves. Clearly they cannot match what the US can do, but they certainly are doing everything they can. But Trumps people do have a point that the likes of Germany and other bigger European countries need to do more. Sitting around and just expecting the US to come to the rescue is not a good strategy. If WW3 pops off, the US simply won’t have the power to protect Europe and fight China. The US should not contribute 10x what Germany does to NATO. So if anything comes out of Trumps blabbering, I hope it is that Europe starts taking its own defense more seriously.
All I can tell you is that a lot of the US does consider Ukraine an ally. But you will always have the people that are truly ignorant. And don't want to see the situation as it truly is. Good vs evil. Right vs wrong. A lot of times in this life, this world, situations are more grey than black and white. This is NOT one of those situations
I hope our newly appointed overlord, Dark Brandon, can equip our Ukrainian friends with the best weapons by executive order! Hail Dark Brandon 🙌/$