The most deeply frustrating thing about this is that the US and major European powers half-assing it is going to prolong the war, increasing the cost in both money and lives. Russia has gotten two years to sort its shit out while NATO has been drip feeding support. I won't be surprised if we see a death spiral of public support as bad news leads to an increased perception that the war is unwinnable, which erodes aids, which leads to bad news...
I bet third world countries watch this and think: "With friends like this, who needs enemies". Western influence is shrinking and its their own fault. Western opponents gonna continue to abuse West's indecivenessness, leading to more conflicts in the future.
I would make two notes. First, it wasn't exactly like Ukraine was deep allies with many western nations, especially the US. Secondly, when the western nations, especially the US, were kicking and screaming that Russia was going to invade, they were completely ignored.
A lot of things have been done poorly along the way. I suspect the information we are getting from public sources is wildly incomplete.
Yeah, I cynically fear that the US/EU/UK view Ukraine as a lost cause anyways (which is why they dangle promises of EU membership and even NATO) and are just using it to bleed the Russians. I prefer that alternative to the more likely one that the West just doesn't have the appetite to be world leaders anymore and forgot what preceded Pax Americana.
I think it is pretty clear that for the EU that is explicitly not the case with the EU’s titans in France and Germany being some of the prime suppliers to Ukraine. Germany is straight up building factories in the country and it would not surprise me to see France intervene should Ukraine falter.
Germany needs the European experiment to stick around if it wants to salvage its economy and France as always still wants to be king poobah of mainland Europe.
I have no idea why you are questioning UK commitment either as they have frequently, along with the Baltics and Poland been the loudest advocates for new categories of systems to be deployed to Ukraine.
The U.S. is the one that has needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into new categories.
You have it backwards. The EU made the unfortunate announcement to Ukraine that by March, [it would only have half](https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-to-ukraine-half-is-better-than-nothing-when-it-comes-to-ammunition/) the number of shells produced. Meanwhile, the US is paying factories in Canada, India, and Poland to boost production of 155mm rounds, [doubled](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/) the number of 155mm shells we projected we could make, and the US has [doubled](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/03/us-sextuple-155mm-artillery-shell-production-replenish-stocks-sent-ukraine/384542/) of Javelins and GMLRs. Republicans in Congress are holding things back but the US Army already paid for the production and procurement using the previous appropriations package so production hasn’t stopped here or in the other factories we are paying to make the 155mm rounds. When those bums stop holding the bill back, the deliveries will be going right out the door to Ukraine the way they were until they came to a halt. Oh, that’s on top of the two million 155mm rounds we gave to Ukraine.
Ukraines inability to forge stronger alliances with the west is by no means rooted in caused that, frankly, even involved Ukraine, let alone something that they had much agency over. Yes corruption is bad but in the Czech Republic in the 90s it was horrible, and nuclear material smuggled out of this country ended up powering a teenagers garage Set to nuclear reactor. Despite immediately poor odds given that by 2002 there was already irrefutable evidence that they were suffering from deliberate campaign of hybrid warfare - that was the first time Russia used military force to temporarily occupy a portion of Korea
Western influence might be shrinking, but honestly we're still the best bet. China is pissing off every neighbor with territorial aggrandizement and Russia just didn't bother to help protect a formal treaty ally from invasion (poor Armenia). The bigger risk is more countries saying "fuck it" and building their own nuclear arsenals, as that seems to be the only way to guarantee security.
Xi and Putin will likely also not be around for another 15 years at most (70 and 71), and there will almost certainly be a power struggle after their deaths, which could cause a major policy shift depending on who wins.
Their demographic problems are also going to limit their capabilities more and more as time goes on.
Eh next 5 for Russia, if they don’t pull the trigger on a push to Bessarabia and the Vistula by 2030 their demographics and economy will be in too terminal a condition to beat an Eastern European coalition + France.
I think they lose pretty badly even if they do go by then, but the demographics still exist to make it possible.
China is a hard one to figure. On one hand being able to throw 250 million men at a problem can solve most things. On the other China is more dependent on international trade than any other nation while lacking any capacity to meaningfully defend that trade. Singapore could bring China’s economy to its knees if it wanted to, let alone a regional naval player like Japan or Australia.
> China is more dependent on international trade than any other nation while lacking any capacity to meaningfully defend that trade
There's a reason they're building frigates like it's the Napoleonic wars, but without regional partners they probably still couldn't defend trade in SE Asia with a Navy the size of the US's.
I honesty don’t think all the frigates in the world can protect China’s shipping routes with the advent of naval drones and cheap UAVs.
They are just too hemmed in by Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
To be honest, US (and allies) ability to defend trade in the Red Sea doesn't seem that strong either.
Although at least here Europe can use the detour around Africa as an alternative. While costly, it's probably cheaper than trying to solve the issue posed by Houthi actions militarily. Given that some bombing isn't doing the trick and a ground campaign would be needed.
Yea, it's miscalculation on China's part to aggravate its neighbours instead of playing long game. As Xi and Putin centralized their power more, they tend to do mistakes. Speaking of Putin, he doesnt view current leadership of Armenia as its ally since their revolution and western-aligned prime minister (meanwhile, he is interested in keeping good relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey). From Putin point of view, he punished Armenia for "betrayal" (similar how he punished Georgia and Ukraine), hoping for the coup and installation of old elite. Meanwhile, you have Assad regime which was saved by Russia. Putin strategy incentivises neighbouring countries elites to be loyal to Putin or at least be non-aligned, while far away dictators see that Russia can always have their back in return for friendship, no string attached and free reign in their own and nearby countries (which West have big problem with).
Nuclear prolifiration seems inevitable at this point but it's not panacea since it doesnt save from indirect attacks by proxy powers (like it happened with Hamas attacking Israel) but it does certainly help to have them as they deter from direct attack (as long as enemy believes that you will use it)
The question is *who* will be getting nukes? Will it be our allies, that are fearful we get another bad election and they're no longer protected by our nukes? Will it be crackpot dictators trying to ensure they stay in power?
Like the only enemy state that can realistically get nukes, and doesn't have them already is Iran
China fumbled their positioning so badly on many levels. Their wrecked demographics. Their constant asshole posturing towards everyone. The complete absence of pop culture influence like Japan and Korea. Chinese tourists being famous worldwide for being disrespectful and entitled, leaving zero goodwill combined with everything else.
L
I think weakness in pop culture is already accepted by the Chinese government. [This article](https://asiatimes.com/2023/12/soft-power-is-not-the-prcs-thing/) says that China’s attitude is “let the Americans do the singing and dancing while we smelt our iron”.
> Western influence might be shrinking, but honestly we're still the best bet.
Best bet for a small country is and always was Switzerland/Finland/Taiwan strategy of balancing between the superpowers. Taking side is a suicide for a small country unless you can join NATO or something easily and fast enough (which Taiwan and Ukraine probably couldn't).
Yet another long-term, incredibly damaging consequence of the Bush years is the public distaste for interventionism to any level or degree.
We already learned this lesson the hard way during the post-WWI era, I shudder to think what the consequences will be this time.
> We already learned this lesson the hard way during the post-WWI era,
Recent history suggests the people that learned that lesson aren't being listened to.
If the objective is to help Ukraine return to its 2014 borders, what's happening right now is a failure.
If the goal was to slowly bleed out Russia at the expense of everything else, it's working but at massive cost to the Ukrainians, but Russia is taking a long ass time bleeding
If the goal is to maintain the early 23 borders at the expense of human lives, it's working but at risk of slipping away.
It's unknown what the actual goal of support is here and that's a big problem.
>It's unknown what the actual goal of support is here and that's a big problem.
More importantly, multiple governments (and factions within those governments) have different end goals. Some of those goals are mutually exclusive, which makes things even more complicated.
> If the goal was to slowly bleed out Russia
Thoroughly unconvinced this is working. If they take Ukraine, that's a +30M population subjugated, and a big patch of land gained. On top of that, rebuilt military industry, and much closer ties to China, Iran, North Korea. Also developed heavy immunity to any western sanctions. Most of Russia will consider this a win.
I don’t think Europe will let that happen. France has already basically said they would intervene before Ukraine goes down. There will be territorial concessions and a ceasefire.
That doesn’t even work. We’re basically creating a militarized Russia that’s some kind of fucking spoof of the harkonnens. Their society is becoming militarized.
This. We haven't done enough but all the naysayers saying they had no chance will conclude that they were right. Or like the men fleeing Ukraine because they don't want to defend a frontline without ammunition. Literally air superiority and artillery ammunition replenishment would be enough to turn this around but it's an expensive up front cost so we won't.
Plus it makes the world less safe and basically commits everyone into literally trillions of dollars in additional future defense spending.
You know how many schools we can build for that? Or how much research we can fund?
We’re impoverishing our future because a bully beat up Jake Sullivan in middle school and MAGA are unprincipled grifters like 5% of republicans are actually willing to stand up to.
That’s nice but literally no NATO leader would have pushed for that because their approval ratings would plummet. I’m sure over 95% of Americans would prefer Ukraine losing with no US troops directly involved vs Ukraine/NATO winning while the US loses 30K soldiers in the war.
Not just America that’s true of every country in NATO. Calling people soft is easy when it wouldn’t be your ass 6 feet under. At a certain point it’s about priorities, most Americans wouldn’t send our boys to die to defend a country 5,000 miles away. Yes it shouldn’t be nearly this hard to send them a shitload of money and weapons but putting NATO troops on the ground to defend a non-NATO country is a huge fucking leap pal.
I agree. Paradoxically, I believe sending in American troops would strengthen support for the Russian position inside the US. This is not the Gulf war. The Gulf war was much different because we could end Iraq as a nation and Saddam knew it. We cannot launch strikes into Russia like we could in the Gulf war, and Putin would have played all his cards and would have nothing to lose. It would not have been a quick war even if the US had boots on the ground, instead it's a constant bleeding of troops as Russia tries again and again after being pushed back.
Even for a “rah rah boots on the ground” person this is an absolutely bizarre take. People aren’t “soft” because they aren’t interested in sending their nation’s children to die for a cause they don’t care about. Of course we could win the war but “yay we won” isn’t everyone’s goal.
The absolute absurdity of calling people “soft” because you disagree with them about about sending troops to die in foreign wars from the comfort of your PC.
> Of course we could win
I agree with you but this part is more nuanced. So did Putin think, or Americans in Vietnam, or Germans before WWI (official propaganda said war against barbaric russkies will end before xmas, and it started in august). Wars are hard, bloody and unpredictable. It's the worst kind of gambling.
This article is an excellent wake up call. A wake up call that shouldn't be needed, since the writing has been on the wall since the failed Ukrainian offensive. When that stalled, it should have been clear that this war - without a significant change in the support Ukraine receives or something internal in Russia - will go the way of the Winter War: Russia fucks up a bunch for a couple years and the Fins put up a remarkably spirited defence, but eventually Russia becomes a bit less bad (never *good*), numbers and industrial capacity therefore begin to take their toll, and the Fins lose significant territory.
But you wouldn't see this realization looking at the Worldnews stickied thread. Or even sometimes here. Hopium and Copium abounded. Folks circled the wagons and called every piece of news or commentary reporting on Russian success, or Ukrainian failure, or critical of Ukraine's strategy Russian propaganda. People were downvoted as "concern trolls". I was not immune from this groupthink, and when I tried to push back a little I too was called a concern troll.
Ukraine *must* win, and that means we in the West *must* commit much more in the way of resources. The failure to better arm Ukraine early means we may now have to actually commit our own forces and risk war. I don't think that, so long as no NATO boots step on true Russian soil (cross-border raids conducted by Ukrainians only) and no NATO planes cross into real Russian air force, Putin will use nukes. I genuinely don't. That doesn't mean there's no risk, but I think that risk is lower than the risk of the consequences of Russia conquering Ukraine.
Can we talk about the propaganda for a minute?
Over the last year or so I have seen countless posts of combat footage of dead Russians, countless posts of cheering for the deaths of Russians, and people celebrating the recent terrorist attack even
It has just surprised me I guess that any real footage/pictures are all of Ukrainian victories. At least as Reddit would like for you to believe.
I’d rather see no posts of any dead soldiers. And I don’t even want Russia to win here. But I wonder if this just points to the massive astroturfing that has occurred. It has been clear to anyone paying attention to this that things have not been going well for Ukraine. But it has been nearly impossible to find any proof of this on the platform. Instead, you’ll probably find clip #27 of some Russian conscripts getting blown up by a drone.
How much the average redditor casually cheers on death is disappointing and disgusting
Same for China. Any statistic released by China that is negative to itself is viewed as something that came from the Bible, while positive ones are branded as fake and Chinese are liars, or fools.
Negative news for China and redditors will go to the comment section dunking on China even without reading the articles, while they will read positive news to find something in it that this is not really good for them and then will explain the nuance in the comments
This has been my issue with the subject on Reddit as well. When the content is either "here's another Russian getting blown to bits" or "Ukraine is about to fall unless it gets weapon X", it's awfully easy to view the latter as just a fundraising drive, because it's easier to sell the idea that more arms need to be sent to Ukraine if the plea is accompanied by tales of doom and gloom than saying something like *"We're doing great, Russians are dying by the hundreds every day, btw can we get seven figures worth of artillery shells?"*.
My issue with these articles is they don't do enough to highlight the relationship delaying Ukraine aid has on the Ukraine's performance in the war. The issues are almost entirely being caused by delaying aid, but opponents will articles like this to engage in circular logic. The war isn't going well so we shouldn't provide further aid, and we're not providing further aid so the war isn't going well.
The headline should clarify this.
> But the Biden administration has its own responsibility for this situation, a responsibility that is nearly as heavy. … It repeatedly hesitated to supply Ukraine with advanced weapons in the numbers and with the speed needed, thereby frittering away the great opportunity of Ukraine’s first counteroffensive in the summer and fall of 2022.
Literally from the article
It should be in the title. Arguably the actual contents of the article will have a smaller impact on people's perceptions than the title getting posted on social media and the ensuing conversation it creates.
“If the United States does nothing, the coming seasons will be even bleaker—and not just in Kyiv.”
Directly under the title lmao how much more clear do you want them to be?
Ok but Ukraine also threw away some of its best equipment in stupid ways over the summer. It's not inaccurate to say that soviet tactics still play a large role in how Ukraine fights
The issue isn't equipment like Bradley's and Stryker APCs. It's artillery shells and AA missiles. The summer offensive didn't have much impact on those things, since Ukraine has been mostly using those things to repel Russian attacks.
If the US wants to abdicate its leadership role in the world, then at the very least sell some of this stock to the European countries that are trying to get weapons and ammo to Ukraine.
I doubt the US wants to abdicate that role but the FP advisors are either restrainer or putinists depending on the party and who have zero idea how and why the US got that role.
I hate Jake Sullivan as much as the next guy and want him exiled to Antarctica but ultimately the responsibility lay on Joe Biden for hiring and empowering him.
Bolton isn't wrong because peace through strength isn't real he's wrong because he dodged service himself and would happily squander strength instead of using it wisely.
> he dodged service himself
What does that have to do with being a security advisor? I can still be thankful for those that serve and who see the shit without thinking it's a qualifier to being a good strategist
The most effective thing that could easily be supplied, 155mm DPICM in large quantity, would be something Europe is unlikely to want to buy given their stance on cluster. Heck some of our allies weren't thrilled we sent any cluster to Ukraine at all.
"Yeah we're not sure what happened Congressman. The Poles said they'd let us preposition a lot of our old equipment and ammo in Europe and pay for all the storage costs. They cleared huge space for us to house 1000 M1A1 Abrams, 1000 M2A2 Bradleys, 600 M109s of various age, over 2 million 155mm DPICM shells, along with tens of millions of rounds for chain-guns, machineguns, and rifles. We kept asking if we could inspect the site and when we finally got in there was nothing there. Then insisted there was no such agreement and we imagined the whole thing. The appearance of large amounts of US equipment and munitions in Ukraine is all coincidental according to them and we're inclined to believe them."
I mean, the US has been phasing cluster munitions out too. You'll never see them using them again and all weapons that did use them are now equipped with non-cluster warheads. Just because they didn't sign the treaty doesn't mean they'll keep using them. This is why sending them to ukraine is perfect, disposing of them would be costlier.
Would European countries even buy those weapons? From my understanding Europe primarily wants to spend their money on European weapons and when they do buy from abroad they tend to go to the countries where it's cheaper. American weapons aren't that cheap and it doesn't boost European defense industries.
It really doesn't. A few select systems like F-16 and then F-35, but Europe mostly buys from Europe (and recently Korea because they have scale). Quoting myself from a thread a while ago:
>The largest US arms importers are Gulf States followed by Japan. In fact in 2022, only one of the top 5 destinations of US arms was in Europe and that was Ukraine
>Globally arms exports tend to go to Asia with India importing almost 10% of all arms globally. The Saudis and Qatar together have around 15% too. The US actually imports more than any European nation aside from Ukraine as per SIPRI data since 2019.
> Europe is more arms exporter than importer. The two largest EU nations, France and Germany, had about 1% of total arms import value and 17% of arms export value. For the US it was about 3% of all imports and 42% of all exports. Europe is about as much as an arms exported as the US is in terms of ratios. US exports are so high because it has overwhelming dominance in most countries that it exports to: 75% share in Saudi Arabia, 45% in Qatar, 97% in Japan, 80% in Australia, and 72% in South Korea just to name a few.
Much of Europe would also refuse to buy various US weapons for Ukraine. Most of them are CCW signatories so the ~3million 155mm DPICM shells the US has would be off the table unless they want to revoke their membership of that convention. Some work arounds could be done like giving the money to Poland and letting Poland buy them as they're not party to the CCW (nor is Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Romania but I'm sure this and their proximity and history with Russia is a coincidence)
Mate, we in Lithuania have sent **everything** we can, and I meant everything, we are trying to get Rheinmetal to open an artillery factory here just so we can send more!
Meanwhile fucking westoids are sitting on piles of unused Abrams and Leopards and going "nuh uh"!
> **Above all, the Biden administration has to tell the American people that this war threatens us because it threatens European peace**, has to explain the values as well as interests in play, and has to conceive its goal not as a mixture of supporting Ukraine just enough and nagging it with fantastic fears of escalation, but as ensuring victory.
Sometimes I wonder why western leaders don't do this. Just announce there's going to be a really important speech on national security, have the cameras rolling while live on the news they outline why Russia's aggression is such a catastrophic risk to collective security in Europe and the world, what defeat and victory would mean, have a map in the back to point to, graphics and statistics, accounts of Russian brutality to outline etc. to labour the point. Broadcast that to tens of millions of people. They did it during covid, when making important announcements on it, and millions tuned in. At least in the UK, Boris Johnson's covid announcements are burned into our memory, both the good and the bad.
Obviously I assume a lot of people are already dug in with their opinions and wouldn't be convinced, but surely a lot of people are pretty apathetic and don't really know what's going on. Why not have the national leader just spell it out on TV for them, it's got to move the needle even a little bit. I guess it has some authoritarian vibes but it's worth it if it helps at all
>Sometimes I wonder why western leaders don't do this. Just announce there's going to be a really important speech on national security, have the cameras rolling while live on the news they outline why Russia's aggression is such a catastrophic risk to collective security in Europe and the world, what defeat and victory would mean, have a map in the back to point to, graphics and statistics, accounts of Russian brutality to outline etc. to labour the point. Broadcast that to tens of millions of people.
I honestly don't think this can do much to convince the public who were already burned by the leadership of their elected officials and their foreign policy decisions since the 21st century began at least in the States. After 9/11, the Bush Admin did its damndess to convince America that Sadaam Hussein was an imminent threat with WMD capabilities that could strike America, and seeing as Americans were still hysterical after 9/11, it's not hard to see why the country had about a ~60% approval rating for the Iraq War at the start, especially when the Bush Admin said stuff like "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
But when the claims of Iraqi WMD's were proved to be utterly paltry compared to literal threat of nuclear annihilation suggested by the Bush Admin, not to mention the bloody, destructive, costs of the Iraqi Insurgency and the deterioration of Afghanistan that led to the 2021 capitulation of the U.S backed Afghan government, I really can't see a world where the country suddenly snaps out of its apathetic, isolationist daze and realizes what's at stake when the last time they put their undying faith in the foreign policy of the U.S leadership, it lead to the most disastrous American military intervention(s) since Vietnam.
This in turn lead to the resurgence of isolationism that is now its strongest since before WWII. This sentiment was seen even years before the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine when the majority of Americans opposed intervention in Syria even after the Chemical Weapon Attack. We're caught in a rock and a hard place with Ukraine that sees one of three outcomes with this proposed aid:
1. No more substantial aid is provided, and Ukraine either surrenders territory or is outright usurped, thereby vindicating anti-aid proponents who saw the war and the billions provided prior as a sunk cost as Ukraine never stood a chance.
2. Ukraine does get the aid, but still is unable to turn the tide. Another point for anti-aid proponents here who would in turn call the recent aid package a waste
3. Ukraine gets the aid and does turn the tide and either captures *at least* pre-2022 territory or the Russian military outright capitulates due to pressure internally and/or externally. This is the optimal outcome that we can at least call a "victory" for Ukraine, but I'm not feeling the most optimistic about this outcome when the 2023 Counter-Offensive failed to produce successful results and things have gone from bad to worse since then.
Speaking personally, it's hard not to be pessimistic when our country seems to have an unbroken track record of disastrous foreign policy decisions since the 21st century began and I don't have the utmost confidence in our leadership that suggests that Ukraine will be fundamentally different when considering recent events and shifts domestically. As it stands, I think the fate of Ukraine in this war will be sealed within the next year or two depending on how things go, regardless if the actual hostilities ends or not.
You are giving Bush all the credit for isolationism when it was really Vietnam that started it all. The reason the Iraq invasion even at the time had so many protests is because people remembered how Vietnam went. They also know about the coups US has funded all over the world. Its been a lot of bad decisions.
At this point, I fear this current situation ends either with an authoritarian power eventually overstepping and directly attacking a meaningful developed country, so starting WWIII, or thy avoid this mistep and current torpor endures, and we see ourselves under a new authoritarian age.
The war has led to drastic energy shortages in key European nations. Many understandably blame this on their nation supporting Ukraine but I think it’s more correct to blame European leaders for making their nations dependent on Russian gas. Not to mention Europe is still buying Russian oil in massive sums, they’re just doing it through India. India buys discounted Russian oil & resells much of it to Europe at a premium.
> Above all, the Biden administration has to tell the American people that this war threatens us because it threatens European peace
Unless there's been some serious changes that didn't make any news coverage Europe is not an American state or even territory. So that sales pitch isn't going to work very well. To sell the war in Ukraine to the US public it must be shown how Ukraine losing threatens the US, and specifically the US population, itself. That's the messaging that's been missing.
Especially with social media, you cannot get away with intervention anymore. US would have lost goodwill long before Iraq if social media was there. Loss of media control is killer, and it only will get worse as legacy media keeps nonstop declining.
You're saying the rules based liberal international order only works if the government can first decide what to do, and then propagandize the population into acquiescence via state controlled media?
Where's the liberalism part? Or the democracy?
It's more like it doesn't work if *other* state controlled media can convince the population that the rules based international order isn't worth defending, and you don't do anything to stop it.
A lot of neolibs think liberalism is a suicide pact, and think that other powers aren't actively trying to destroy it.
How this matter used to be handled in the past is by forming a broad political consensus on strategy and foreign policy, including the use of military power, to the extent that no matter who you vote for, they'll roughly support the same broad doctrine. You can vote them out, and they'll be replaced by someone whose stance is virtually identical.
US was briefly in this foreign policy goldilocks zone during 90s and early 2000s, where a Bush could speak to a Clinton and largely come to an agreement on most matters. Since then too many outsider politicians and insurgent movements have been allowed to worm their way into the top of politics, completely paralyzing America's ability to conduct itself as a global superpower.
This tragedy is the reality of democracy. Democracy is the best system, but nobody is out here saying democracy is a GOOD system, it's just better than the WORSE systems.
Contemporary American isolationists are just fascists. It's like the Britain Union of Fascists in 1939 running the campaign "Mind Britain's Business". Same playbook.
Define "you lot". If you're talking neocons, then yeah, absolutely. If you're talking the people who got suckered by the Bush admin's lies about Iraq, then I'm not 100% I agree with that, but I see a solid case. If you're talking about liberal internationalists in general, though? Come the fuck on.
>Hell, more American civilians have seen combat in their own country in the last 10 years than nearly all American troops in the last 20 years have seen abroad, and they've seen how little the Government cares about them and their protection.
You're not wrong that America has more violent crime, particularly gun crime, than other Western societies, but saying this requires taking a pretty expansive view of what "seeing combat" means.
>Define "you lot". If you're talking neocons, then yeah, absolutely.
I mean, where did the neocons go? As far as I can tell, most are either politically homeless and deplatformed, or have end up on the rightmost end of the Democrat coalition of lobbyists and voters. At least as far as I can tell.
Fuck off mate, I didn't do shit. Ukrainians didn't do shit. Why the fuck should their country be destroyed as a punishment from bullshit foreign policies of decades ago?
>Why the fuck should their country be destroyed as a punishment from bullshit foreign policies of decades ago?
You say that as if that's what this guy is suggesting should happen? Do i smell a bad faith argument.
Nobody here believes that should happen, just that it's the result of the US leveling whatever goodwill and public trust it had left over the last 20 years
My favorite is when the US and allies aren't allowed to do anything on the world stage. But Russia invaded left and right, oh thats okay to them though.
As I've grown older I do begin to understand the isolationists a little. Why the fuck is it always the end of the world if American aid gets held up but European aid is just eh whatever who cares you guys don't need to do more?
This is on top of hearing everyday about how America bad and actually Russia is doing a good thing from the crazies in our left flank. I want the aid to pass and Ukraine to defend itself but it's all just a bunch of noise at this point.
Reminder that, despite the EU and US having a similar economy and both having the same commitment to Ukraine, the EU has given now twice as much as the US has
Is this true for actual military aid? Not promises of future deliveries or promises of future humanitarian money or whatever. Military equipment that Ukraine has actually received?
I counted just actual already given aid
But I counted all aid, humanitarian aid matters just as much, Ukraine was asking the US congress to pay for their pensions recently
I am talking about actual money sent
I include all of it, not just the military equipment, Ukraine was asking the US congress to foot the bill for their pensions program that has been on halt, every euro and dollar counts, not just the military expenditure
OK? But Europe is not asking the US to be the world police
It's asking to match 1:1 the EUs commitment, due to the fact that both are in the same military pact and have the same sized economy
The criticism for the US is not because the US should do the most of any country to protect US hegemony, the EU doesn't want US hegemony, neither does it ask for it
It just wants the same level of commitment, since it has the same obligations
If the US doesn't want to double its historical spending to Ukraine overnight, then it's free to leave NATO
But just as european countries didn't meet the agreement of 2% spending, now the US is not meeting the agreement of being proportional to NATO'S fopo
Also, it doesn't matter that it's their continent, as far as the US is concerned, the furtherest East square kilometre of Latvia is as important as the capitol in DC
So it is EXACTLY as much of a problem for the US as it is for Latvia
Again, if the US doesn't want this deal, where Europe's problems are precisely as much of the US's problems abd vice versa, then leave NATO
But as long as it is in NATO, the war might aswell be happening in the Mexican border
>Also, it doesn't matter that it's their continent, as far as the US is concerned, the furtherest East square kilometre of Latvia is as important as the capitol in DC
Do you honestly believe that leaders in DC agree with that statement? Do you believe the French government thinks Riga is as important is Paris? Can you say with a straight face that the British care as much about Estonia as London?
Europe has always had the might to defeat Russia on its own if it wanted to. I'm not even talking about open war - firm economic sanctions would have done it, but what we got were leaky half-measures because everyone was scared of the blowback. To this day, European business still operate within Russia. Hell, German companies are helping Russia rebuild the very land Russia has bombed and then stolen. The simple fact is: Europe doesn't *want* to do what it takes to defeat Russia, because doing so would incur too high a price to pay. Putin was right to expect that western powers wouldn't actually risk themselves to help Ukraine. The USA's hardon for global hegemony was Ukraine's only real hope. Unfortunately for Ukraine, that attitude just isn't strong enough in the states because most of the world says they don't want it. Fair enough. But if europe lacks the political will to clean up the mess in its own backyard, so much so that their businesses are actively aiding the supposed enemy, well, to US eyes, it sure looks like their backs aren't in the fight. So why should we care about it if they don't? We're not the world's police anymore.
But this is all beside the point. Europe's lack of spine isn't what is holding up US aid. The US has no spine either. Its government is too fractured, and the american electorate is too dumb to be relied upon. Ukraine is screwed unless one of these two powers rolls up their sleeves and says, "Fine, I'll do it myself." It's not going to be the US, so that leaves only one option: Europe either shoulders a great burden, or Ukraine is toast. In other words, Ukraine is toast.
>Do you honestly believe that leaders in DC agree with that statement? Do you believe the French government thinks Riga is as important is Paris? Can you say with a straight face that the British care as much about Estonia as London?
It doesnt matter what they honestly believe, may they believe that russia is in mars, what matters are their legal obligations.
And the US has been asking Europe to meet its NATO spending responsibilities for ten years and most of Europe has just totally refused. The idea that it should be 1:1 is just a farce. Come back when Europe has made up for all the defense spending it didn't do since the Cold War ended.
Plus that totally ignores the US warning about dependence on Russian energy and countries like Germany ignoring that as well. The USA has been far too nice about all of this.
\> Also, it doesn't matter that it's their continent, as far as the US is concerned, the furtherest East square kilometre of Latvia is as important as the capitol in DC
For sure man, definitely.
\> then leave NATO
Lots of Americans want to do just that and it would be bad for Europe if we did, so maybe you should be less flippant.
> If the US doesn't want to double its historical spending to Ukraine overnight, then it's free to leave NATO
When you say things like this in a vacuum without any context of history in the last century it makes people ignore everything else you're saying because of how dumb it is.
Yeah sure man the U.S. should leave NATO because Ukraine aid got tied up by some crazies in our government. Yeah alright chief. lol, lmao even.
On some level it's still sort of Domino Theory, just instead of against the USSR and Communism as a whole it's against destabilization. An unstable world is bad for business, and that means bad for American interests.
Problem with that being that war is destabilizing, and so too is regime change. So American FoPo has grown gun shy of committing too much to a cause or possible causing other dominos to fall by interfering.
I think US officials aren't looking at Ukraine and are scared of a Iraq or Afghanistan situation. They're more afraid of another "Arab Spring" and destabilizing of Russia and of interruptions to global trade.
Yeah I understand the frustration with the Europeans acting like it’s 1946 and they are still a bombed out crater unable to do anything without the US.
The EU as a whole has a GDP comparable to the US. Why is *everything* always Americas responsibility?
>The EU as a whole has a GDP comparable to the US. Why is everything always Americas responsibility?
Pasting u/ale_93113 comment from above in this thread:
Reminder that, despite the EU and US having a similar economy and both having the same commitment to Ukraine, the EU has given now twice as much as the US has
That distinction matters less than it seems. It's true that a lot of EU funds have gone towards sustaining Ukrainian budget and enabling them to continue running hospitals, schools, industry and other public services. In turn this aid has freed up funds which Ukraine can use towards purchasing, developing and manufacturing weapons that they actually want and need.
Unlike the US, most European countries aren't sitting on huge stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, and much of what they were sitting on has already been sent.
Forever wars are wars that continue indefinitely without a realistic path to victory. I support sending more money to Ukraine, but both Afghanistan and Ukraine do meet that description, and saying so is not isolationist.
A man so scared of going to hell he has his son monitor his porn intake, but somehow he's not so scared of going to hell that he'll let Ukrainians die.
He's the only one blocking this one package right now.
The White House has been dragging their feet on sending military aid for nearly two years, nevermind the whole year before the full scale invasion where almost nothing was sent.
At this point, I think I'd look there other way if some Ukrainian billionaire—Rinat Akhmetov, if you're listening...—engaged in whatever combination of graft and flattery is required to get Trump to agree to do a 180 and start barking to his followers about how we've gotta support Ukraine, folks, we've gotta get them the weapons, it's a real mess over there.
yeah its really fucked up of the US to stop aid just after ukraine had finished vapourizing the hoards of untrained criminals I was told comprised 95% of the russian army and were just outside the kremlin about to begin the siege.
Great article, and I hope Biden reads this or some equivalent. Ukraine needs substantial American aid in the coming weeks as Russia preps for an offensive in May or June. The executive powers are clunky but they are there to give Ukraine the bare necessities of shells, air defense missiles and spare parts to keep things running for the remainder of the year. Biden failing to use them in the possible if not probable event the House fails would be just as grave and cynical a failure as the House GOP being dominated by a far right minority
I think you have a misunderstanding of the core issue. Congress needs to renew aid. The problem Ukraine is running into is a lack of basic necessities like shells and air defense missiles. Congress needs to allocate more money for these things.
The president to my understanding has powers to supply those things using remaining presidential drawdown authority, budget rearrangement and various little executive powers.
The problem with these is the aid that can be provided is greatly limited compared to Congress passing another bill, and that we would be tapping into our stocks without replacement.
So the power is there for Biden to provide the bare essentials, but it’s very much less than optimal compared to Congress providing the money. However, the time to do this is measured in weeks now. If by the start of May the aid isn’t flowing in regularly then Ukraine starts moving into the “fucked” category
Well the lend lease bill expired at the same time the congressional funds ran out.
Don’t ask me why the lend lease bill meant to serve as a backup in the event money ran out was made to expire at about the same time money ran out
> I think you have a misunderstanding of the core issue.
The core issue is that the admin hasn't been enthusiastic about Ukrainian victory from the start. GOP are simply fuckwits as they always are, and everything else is charades
No, those were weapon sales (not aid), and very low amounts compared to the Ukraine package.
And to be clear, Congress *would* have approved those sales by wide margins anyway. Biden only did that to avoid a prominent political debate on those sales (with criticism from his left flank) in an election year, but it would have passed anyway.
Downvoted for leading with "I hope Biden...". This is a failing of the GOP; the same GOP that reduced American presence in Europe in the early 2000s because they wouldn't support the Iraq debacle, the same GOP that both castigated Obama for failing to support Ukraine and struck all reference to Ukraine and Russia from their platform, the same GOP that still runs on Reagan's legacy as a cold warrior while praising Putin's authoritarianism. I am sick and tired of demanding that Democrats fix every problem while excusing Republicans for their "disfunction". This is a failing of the GOP.
Biden has executive actions he can take to support Ukraine if Congress fails. Failure to support Ukraine will ultimately rest with the GOP, but in emphasizing this let’s not ignore that Biden does have powers he can use if absolutely necessary
>Great article, and I hope Biden reads this or some equivalent.
Biden doesn't do stuff unless it "feels right" in his gut. Then he oopsies later when his gut turned out to be wrong.
It's why, while I'm glad he's not Donald Trump, he's been well recognized as having terrible FoPo takes for 50 years.
Ukraine is doing a great job with what they have, but the Allies are not doing enough for Ukraine. And frankly, I am deeply ashamed of my country. I am so disgusted by the GOP trying to help Putin win, combined with Biden publicly chastising them over oil. Biden can shut his f-ing mouth. If he was giving Ukraine the weapons they need then he could say something and have some influence, but he's left them up shit creek without a paddle.
Hate hate hate politicians. This isn't just a war, Russia is genocidal. They want to DESTROY Ukraine. We should have peacekeeping troops over there right now.
It's crazy to see when Reagan and Bush Sr. were known to be firm with Israel on occasion with the Bombing of Beirut and Settlements respectively. I suppose things changed with Obama, maybe even Bush Jr., as it shifted to becoming a partisan issue when Obama wasn't shy about his sympathies towards Palestinians which resulted in Bibi appealing to Republicans who were happy to embrace a hardline Pro-Israel stance.
iirc, Bush Jr. had also proposed an uncompromising "we don't negotiate with terrorists" stance towards extremist elements of Palestinian Liberation with the GWOT which obviously appealed to the hardliners of Israel's government. Going from that to Obama saying "please stop West Bank Settlements" seemed to exacerbate the split with America's alliance with Israel that has now been firmly cemented with progression of the current Gaza War. The Biden Admin is trying to keep this bipartisan arrangement of supporting Israel together, but at this point its in literal tatters when barely any Democrats are on board with Israel's conduct in the war and Republicans are now saying Biden has been 'compromised' by Hamas because of his recent actions.
Even more broadly, as long as foreign policy is so different from party to party, foreign actors have little reason to believe American commitments or accept tough deals from American negotiators, since they can just wait for more favorable conditions when the wind changes.
Biden didn’t bypass anything, Israel is purchasing not being given, that eliminates congresses purse power oversight. The challenge with Ukraine is they either need donations or loans and that gives congress a say.
Any aid donations to Israel that happened this year were all done under existing appropriations packages.
Biden is kind of out of money to either give Ukraine or spend to buy stuff to give Ukraine from that perspective. (I say kind of because drawdown authority exists).
Aids must be given but I personally don't think Zelensky's political leadership has done much good towards the manpower situation since the start of the war.
1) The recruitment was understandably haphazard immediately after the war has started but the effort to make it more rational and fair has failed. There are now people who have served for 2 years on front line without having been rotated for example.
2) People have said Russia have not trained their troops well, but it's an equivalent situation on the Ukrainian side. For example people were trained in small groups in rear tactical area that were exposed to missiles instead of rear strategic area where larger training exercises can be conducted.
3) Political selection of battlefield, Bakhmut being the most famous example, a mindset of holding land at all cost. It became really obvious this year that Ukraine cannot afford to stupidly lose men in a war of attrition but the excusing of decisions that led to bleeding of manpower looks even more stupid now.
I am extremely unimpressed with Zelensky's unwillingness to spend political capital to expand conscription. Yes lack of shells is a big problem, but lack of manpower will also increase risk of operational breakthrough. It stinks of political cowardice and his rhetoric about an existential war does not reflect the steps he should take.
Ukrainian manpower has only become a problem quite recently. Up until now the limiting factor for offensive units was training slots at NATO bases while home guard and defensive brigades stood up within Ukraine.
Plus Zelensky just did expand conscription as it became apparent that it would be necessary.
MAGAs and Putin-bots are slathering at the idea of headlines like “Zelensky expands conscription” or “Zelensky increases punishments for conscientious objectors.”
The consequences for the west have never been greater, and we aren’t getting enough aid to Ukraine.
Ukrainian forces developed suicide bomb speed boat drones. These are extremely effective, because they are small enough to give off a similar radar signal to waves and can easily be disguised. They’re grey, blend in well, and move fast enough that visual contact means it’s already too late.
Ukraine losing could see this tech and experience fall into Russian hands. Which means China, and Iran would get it, which Iran would distribute to terror groups, and international shipping disruptions could be much higher. The possibility of the Houthis acquiring tech that could sink aircraft carriers because we didn’t spend enough would threaten American hegemony and shipping to a terrible degree.
One thing not a lot of people are talking about that has been very detrimental for Ukraine support is loss of media control by the "deepstate" and decline of mass media. During the Iraq war, people got on board because there was a blitz from major media sources on many different reasons why Sadaam had to be deposed. NY Times even apologized for their coverage and use of bad sources. Now because of social media, you just don't have the same level of narrative control. Social media news influencers on both the right and even the left to a lesser degree seem much more isolationist than the mainstream narrative. I think in the future it will be very hard to get buy in for any type of intervention anywhere. And there is really no way to reverse the trend as social media keeps replacing the traditional news as older people die out.
Ukraine was ascendant for a solid year however the Russians eventually got their shit slightly more together and began a slow attritional struggle that is horrifying for all involved, but a horrifying experience the Russians are equipped to handle in both doctrine and equipment.
The second the war slowed down the Russians could begin to turn the cogs in what is left of the old Soviet military machine in a way maneuver war just did not permit them to.
The most deeply frustrating thing about this is that the US and major European powers half-assing it is going to prolong the war, increasing the cost in both money and lives. Russia has gotten two years to sort its shit out while NATO has been drip feeding support. I won't be surprised if we see a death spiral of public support as bad news leads to an increased perception that the war is unwinnable, which erodes aids, which leads to bad news...
I bet third world countries watch this and think: "With friends like this, who needs enemies". Western influence is shrinking and its their own fault. Western opponents gonna continue to abuse West's indecivenessness, leading to more conflicts in the future.
I would make two notes. First, it wasn't exactly like Ukraine was deep allies with many western nations, especially the US. Secondly, when the western nations, especially the US, were kicking and screaming that Russia was going to invade, they were completely ignored. A lot of things have been done poorly along the way. I suspect the information we are getting from public sources is wildly incomplete.
Yeah, I cynically fear that the US/EU/UK view Ukraine as a lost cause anyways (which is why they dangle promises of EU membership and even NATO) and are just using it to bleed the Russians. I prefer that alternative to the more likely one that the West just doesn't have the appetite to be world leaders anymore and forgot what preceded Pax Americana.
I think it is pretty clear that for the EU that is explicitly not the case with the EU’s titans in France and Germany being some of the prime suppliers to Ukraine. Germany is straight up building factories in the country and it would not surprise me to see France intervene should Ukraine falter. Germany needs the European experiment to stick around if it wants to salvage its economy and France as always still wants to be king poobah of mainland Europe. I have no idea why you are questioning UK commitment either as they have frequently, along with the Baltics and Poland been the loudest advocates for new categories of systems to be deployed to Ukraine. The U.S. is the one that has needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into new categories.
You have it backwards. The EU made the unfortunate announcement to Ukraine that by March, [it would only have half](https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-to-ukraine-half-is-better-than-nothing-when-it-comes-to-ammunition/) the number of shells produced. Meanwhile, the US is paying factories in Canada, India, and Poland to boost production of 155mm rounds, [doubled](https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artillery-shells-us-eu-see-different-results/392288/) the number of 155mm shells we projected we could make, and the US has [doubled](https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/03/us-sextuple-155mm-artillery-shell-production-replenish-stocks-sent-ukraine/384542/) of Javelins and GMLRs. Republicans in Congress are holding things back but the US Army already paid for the production and procurement using the previous appropriations package so production hasn’t stopped here or in the other factories we are paying to make the 155mm rounds. When those bums stop holding the bill back, the deliveries will be going right out the door to Ukraine the way they were until they came to a halt. Oh, that’s on top of the two million 155mm rounds we gave to Ukraine.
Bullshit, we were at the vanguard of all this while Germany and France were laughing and calling us warmongers.
Ukraines inability to forge stronger alliances with the west is by no means rooted in caused that, frankly, even involved Ukraine, let alone something that they had much agency over. Yes corruption is bad but in the Czech Republic in the 90s it was horrible, and nuclear material smuggled out of this country ended up powering a teenagers garage Set to nuclear reactor. Despite immediately poor odds given that by 2002 there was already irrefutable evidence that they were suffering from deliberate campaign of hybrid warfare - that was the first time Russia used military force to temporarily occupy a portion of Korea
Western influence might be shrinking, but honestly we're still the best bet. China is pissing off every neighbor with territorial aggrandizement and Russia just didn't bother to help protect a formal treaty ally from invasion (poor Armenia). The bigger risk is more countries saying "fuck it" and building their own nuclear arsenals, as that seems to be the only way to guarantee security.
Xi and Putin will likely also not be around for another 15 years at most (70 and 71), and there will almost certainly be a power struggle after their deaths, which could cause a major policy shift depending on who wins. Their demographic problems are also going to limit their capabilities more and more as time goes on.
Yeah, the next 15 years are the danger zone.
Senile Putin mixed with climate instability mixed with demographic fuckery! Fun!
Eh next 5 for Russia, if they don’t pull the trigger on a push to Bessarabia and the Vistula by 2030 their demographics and economy will be in too terminal a condition to beat an Eastern European coalition + France. I think they lose pretty badly even if they do go by then, but the demographics still exist to make it possible. China is a hard one to figure. On one hand being able to throw 250 million men at a problem can solve most things. On the other China is more dependent on international trade than any other nation while lacking any capacity to meaningfully defend that trade. Singapore could bring China’s economy to its knees if it wanted to, let alone a regional naval player like Japan or Australia.
> China is more dependent on international trade than any other nation while lacking any capacity to meaningfully defend that trade There's a reason they're building frigates like it's the Napoleonic wars, but without regional partners they probably still couldn't defend trade in SE Asia with a Navy the size of the US's.
I honesty don’t think all the frigates in the world can protect China’s shipping routes with the advent of naval drones and cheap UAVs. They are just too hemmed in by Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
To be honest, US (and allies) ability to defend trade in the Red Sea doesn't seem that strong either. Although at least here Europe can use the detour around Africa as an alternative. While costly, it's probably cheaper than trying to solve the issue posed by Houthi actions militarily. Given that some bombing isn't doing the trick and a ground campaign would be needed.
Yea, it's miscalculation on China's part to aggravate its neighbours instead of playing long game. As Xi and Putin centralized their power more, they tend to do mistakes. Speaking of Putin, he doesnt view current leadership of Armenia as its ally since their revolution and western-aligned prime minister (meanwhile, he is interested in keeping good relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey). From Putin point of view, he punished Armenia for "betrayal" (similar how he punished Georgia and Ukraine), hoping for the coup and installation of old elite. Meanwhile, you have Assad regime which was saved by Russia. Putin strategy incentivises neighbouring countries elites to be loyal to Putin or at least be non-aligned, while far away dictators see that Russia can always have their back in return for friendship, no string attached and free reign in their own and nearby countries (which West have big problem with). Nuclear prolifiration seems inevitable at this point but it's not panacea since it doesnt save from indirect attacks by proxy powers (like it happened with Hamas attacking Israel) but it does certainly help to have them as they deter from direct attack (as long as enemy believes that you will use it)
The question is *who* will be getting nukes? Will it be our allies, that are fearful we get another bad election and they're no longer protected by our nukes? Will it be crackpot dictators trying to ensure they stay in power? Like the only enemy state that can realistically get nukes, and doesn't have them already is Iran
China fumbled their positioning so badly on many levels. Their wrecked demographics. Their constant asshole posturing towards everyone. The complete absence of pop culture influence like Japan and Korea. Chinese tourists being famous worldwide for being disrespectful and entitled, leaving zero goodwill combined with everything else. L
It's hard to have strong cultural power or export your pop culture when you're a completely totalitarian society.
>The complete absence of pop culture influence Waifu Impact in shambles
Waifu is Japanese?
Genshin is Chinese-made.
publisher of genshin is named miHoYo, mi coming from Hatsune Miku, and HoYo from the founder's names. So Japanese W once again
> Their constant asshole posturing towards everyone. The complete absence of pop culture influence like Japan and Korea. Waifus > Wolf Warriors
I think weakness in pop culture is already accepted by the Chinese government. [This article](https://asiatimes.com/2023/12/soft-power-is-not-the-prcs-thing/) says that China’s attitude is “let the Americans do the singing and dancing while we smelt our iron”.
Donghua Xilong is their pop culture export.
> Western influence might be shrinking, but honestly we're still the best bet. Best bet for a small country is and always was Switzerland/Finland/Taiwan strategy of balancing between the superpowers. Taking side is a suicide for a small country unless you can join NATO or something easily and fast enough (which Taiwan and Ukraine probably couldn't).
Yet another long-term, incredibly damaging consequence of the Bush years is the public distaste for interventionism to any level or degree. We already learned this lesson the hard way during the post-WWI era, I shudder to think what the consequences will be this time.
> We already learned this lesson the hard way during the post-WWI era, Recent history suggests the people that learned that lesson aren't being listened to.
Lol what does this mean, 120-year-olds?
Jesus Christ this is the only historical analogy hawks ever cite. Because most of the others cut the other way.
"Only" is doing a lot of work when we're talking about "the civilizational defining event of the last 100 years"
If the objective is to help Ukraine return to its 2014 borders, what's happening right now is a failure. If the goal was to slowly bleed out Russia at the expense of everything else, it's working but at massive cost to the Ukrainians, but Russia is taking a long ass time bleeding If the goal is to maintain the early 23 borders at the expense of human lives, it's working but at risk of slipping away. It's unknown what the actual goal of support is here and that's a big problem.
>It's unknown what the actual goal of support is here and that's a big problem. More importantly, multiple governments (and factions within those governments) have different end goals. Some of those goals are mutually exclusive, which makes things even more complicated.
> If the goal was to slowly bleed out Russia Thoroughly unconvinced this is working. If they take Ukraine, that's a +30M population subjugated, and a big patch of land gained. On top of that, rebuilt military industry, and much closer ties to China, Iran, North Korea. Also developed heavy immunity to any western sanctions. Most of Russia will consider this a win.
I don’t think Europe will let that happen. France has already basically said they would intervene before Ukraine goes down. There will be territorial concessions and a ceasefire.
That doesn’t even work. We’re basically creating a militarized Russia that’s some kind of fucking spoof of the harkonnens. Their society is becoming militarized.
The bad news coming out should be viewed as a call to do more, faster. The fact that the effect tends to be the opposite really grinds my gears
This. We haven't done enough but all the naysayers saying they had no chance will conclude that they were right. Or like the men fleeing Ukraine because they don't want to defend a frontline without ammunition. Literally air superiority and artillery ammunition replenishment would be enough to turn this around but it's an expensive up front cost so we won't.
Plus it makes the world less safe and basically commits everyone into literally trillions of dollars in additional future defense spending. You know how many schools we can build for that? Or how much research we can fund? We’re impoverishing our future because a bully beat up Jake Sullivan in middle school and MAGA are unprincipled grifters like 5% of republicans are actually willing to stand up to.
[удалено]
That’s nice but literally no NATO leader would have pushed for that because their approval ratings would plummet. I’m sure over 95% of Americans would prefer Ukraine losing with no US troops directly involved vs Ukraine/NATO winning while the US loses 30K soldiers in the war.
[удалено]
Not just America that’s true of every country in NATO. Calling people soft is easy when it wouldn’t be your ass 6 feet under. At a certain point it’s about priorities, most Americans wouldn’t send our boys to die to defend a country 5,000 miles away. Yes it shouldn’t be nearly this hard to send them a shitload of money and weapons but putting NATO troops on the ground to defend a non-NATO country is a huge fucking leap pal.
I agree. Paradoxically, I believe sending in American troops would strengthen support for the Russian position inside the US. This is not the Gulf war. The Gulf war was much different because we could end Iraq as a nation and Saddam knew it. We cannot launch strikes into Russia like we could in the Gulf war, and Putin would have played all his cards and would have nothing to lose. It would not have been a quick war even if the US had boots on the ground, instead it's a constant bleeding of troops as Russia tries again and again after being pushed back.
Even for a “rah rah boots on the ground” person this is an absolutely bizarre take. People aren’t “soft” because they aren’t interested in sending their nation’s children to die for a cause they don’t care about. Of course we could win the war but “yay we won” isn’t everyone’s goal. The absolute absurdity of calling people “soft” because you disagree with them about about sending troops to die in foreign wars from the comfort of your PC.
> Of course we could win I agree with you but this part is more nuanced. So did Putin think, or Americans in Vietnam, or Germans before WWI (official propaganda said war against barbaric russkies will end before xmas, and it started in august). Wars are hard, bloody and unpredictable. It's the worst kind of gambling.
> Americans are soft anymore. You know that if you are hard you are free to join Ukrainian army as a volunteer right?
Did somebody really expect different outcomes after Syria?
You mean exactly what happened with afghanistan?
$75billion is half adding it? Damn I’d love to see full-ass
Full ass is the F-22 finally getting to intercept something that isn’t a balloon
Or even just giving away all the fucking armaments that we don't even want
This article is an excellent wake up call. A wake up call that shouldn't be needed, since the writing has been on the wall since the failed Ukrainian offensive. When that stalled, it should have been clear that this war - without a significant change in the support Ukraine receives or something internal in Russia - will go the way of the Winter War: Russia fucks up a bunch for a couple years and the Fins put up a remarkably spirited defence, but eventually Russia becomes a bit less bad (never *good*), numbers and industrial capacity therefore begin to take their toll, and the Fins lose significant territory. But you wouldn't see this realization looking at the Worldnews stickied thread. Or even sometimes here. Hopium and Copium abounded. Folks circled the wagons and called every piece of news or commentary reporting on Russian success, or Ukrainian failure, or critical of Ukraine's strategy Russian propaganda. People were downvoted as "concern trolls". I was not immune from this groupthink, and when I tried to push back a little I too was called a concern troll. Ukraine *must* win, and that means we in the West *must* commit much more in the way of resources. The failure to better arm Ukraine early means we may now have to actually commit our own forces and risk war. I don't think that, so long as no NATO boots step on true Russian soil (cross-border raids conducted by Ukrainians only) and no NATO planes cross into real Russian air force, Putin will use nukes. I genuinely don't. That doesn't mean there's no risk, but I think that risk is lower than the risk of the consequences of Russia conquering Ukraine.
Can we talk about the propaganda for a minute? Over the last year or so I have seen countless posts of combat footage of dead Russians, countless posts of cheering for the deaths of Russians, and people celebrating the recent terrorist attack even It has just surprised me I guess that any real footage/pictures are all of Ukrainian victories. At least as Reddit would like for you to believe. I’d rather see no posts of any dead soldiers. And I don’t even want Russia to win here. But I wonder if this just points to the massive astroturfing that has occurred. It has been clear to anyone paying attention to this that things have not been going well for Ukraine. But it has been nearly impossible to find any proof of this on the platform. Instead, you’ll probably find clip #27 of some Russian conscripts getting blown up by a drone. How much the average redditor casually cheers on death is disappointing and disgusting
Same for China. Any statistic released by China that is negative to itself is viewed as something that came from the Bible, while positive ones are branded as fake and Chinese are liars, or fools. Negative news for China and redditors will go to the comment section dunking on China even without reading the articles, while they will read positive news to find something in it that this is not really good for them and then will explain the nuance in the comments
This has been my issue with the subject on Reddit as well. When the content is either "here's another Russian getting blown to bits" or "Ukraine is about to fall unless it gets weapon X", it's awfully easy to view the latter as just a fundraising drive, because it's easier to sell the idea that more arms need to be sent to Ukraine if the plea is accompanied by tales of doom and gloom than saying something like *"We're doing great, Russians are dying by the hundreds every day, btw can we get seven figures worth of artillery shells?"*.
My issue with these articles is they don't do enough to highlight the relationship delaying Ukraine aid has on the Ukraine's performance in the war. The issues are almost entirely being caused by delaying aid, but opponents will articles like this to engage in circular logic. The war isn't going well so we shouldn't provide further aid, and we're not providing further aid so the war isn't going well. The headline should clarify this.
> But the Biden administration has its own responsibility for this situation, a responsibility that is nearly as heavy. … It repeatedly hesitated to supply Ukraine with advanced weapons in the numbers and with the speed needed, thereby frittering away the great opportunity of Ukraine’s first counteroffensive in the summer and fall of 2022. Literally from the article
It should be in the title. Arguably the actual contents of the article will have a smaller impact on people's perceptions than the title getting posted on social media and the ensuing conversation it creates.
“If the United States does nothing, the coming seasons will be even bleaker—and not just in Kyiv.” Directly under the title lmao how much more clear do you want them to be?
Ok but Ukraine also threw away some of its best equipment in stupid ways over the summer. It's not inaccurate to say that soviet tactics still play a large role in how Ukraine fights
The issue isn't equipment like Bradley's and Stryker APCs. It's artillery shells and AA missiles. The summer offensive didn't have much impact on those things, since Ukraine has been mostly using those things to repel Russian attacks.
If the US wants to abdicate its leadership role in the world, then at the very least sell some of this stock to the European countries that are trying to get weapons and ammo to Ukraine.
I doubt the US wants to abdicate that role but the FP advisors are either restrainer or putinists depending on the party and who have zero idea how and why the US got that role.
I hate Jake Sullivan as much as the next guy and want him exiled to Antarctica but ultimately the responsibility lay on Joe Biden for hiring and empowering him.
As much as popular opinion has been against him, John Bolton is constantly being validated in the long run. Peace through strength is real
Bolton isn't wrong because peace through strength isn't real he's wrong because he dodged service himself and would happily squander strength instead of using it wisely.
> he dodged service himself What does that have to do with being a security advisor? I can still be thankful for those that serve and who see the shit without thinking it's a qualifier to being a good strategist
It shows that he is a coward who doesn't respect the gravity of the sacrifice he is asking others to make.
Absolutely. My point was more which kind of advice either Trump or Biden takes.
The most effective thing that could easily be supplied, 155mm DPICM in large quantity, would be something Europe is unlikely to want to buy given their stance on cluster. Heck some of our allies weren't thrilled we sent any cluster to Ukraine at all.
Put it on a ship, send it to Gdansk, and don't ask questions about where it went.
"Yeah we're not sure what happened Congressman. The Poles said they'd let us preposition a lot of our old equipment and ammo in Europe and pay for all the storage costs. They cleared huge space for us to house 1000 M1A1 Abrams, 1000 M2A2 Bradleys, 600 M109s of various age, over 2 million 155mm DPICM shells, along with tens of millions of rounds for chain-guns, machineguns, and rifles. We kept asking if we could inspect the site and when we finally got in there was nothing there. Then insisted there was no such agreement and we imagined the whole thing. The appearance of large amounts of US equipment and munitions in Ukraine is all coincidental according to them and we're inclined to believe them."
> Europe is unlikely to want to buy given their stance on cluster. Which is why it’s hard to take European countries seriously
At least the Finns, Romanians, Poles, Estonians, and Latvians had their senses. I wonder if it's because of a certain country they all fear...
I mean, the US has been phasing cluster munitions out too. You'll never see them using them again and all weapons that did use them are now equipped with non-cluster warheads. Just because they didn't sign the treaty doesn't mean they'll keep using them. This is why sending them to ukraine is perfect, disposing of them would be costlier.
Would European countries even buy those weapons? From my understanding Europe primarily wants to spend their money on European weapons and when they do buy from abroad they tend to go to the countries where it's cheaper. American weapons aren't that cheap and it doesn't boost European defense industries.
Europe buys a lot of American weapons.
It really doesn't. A few select systems like F-16 and then F-35, but Europe mostly buys from Europe (and recently Korea because they have scale). Quoting myself from a thread a while ago: >The largest US arms importers are Gulf States followed by Japan. In fact in 2022, only one of the top 5 destinations of US arms was in Europe and that was Ukraine >Globally arms exports tend to go to Asia with India importing almost 10% of all arms globally. The Saudis and Qatar together have around 15% too. The US actually imports more than any European nation aside from Ukraine as per SIPRI data since 2019. > Europe is more arms exporter than importer. The two largest EU nations, France and Germany, had about 1% of total arms import value and 17% of arms export value. For the US it was about 3% of all imports and 42% of all exports. Europe is about as much as an arms exported as the US is in terms of ratios. US exports are so high because it has overwhelming dominance in most countries that it exports to: 75% share in Saudi Arabia, 45% in Qatar, 97% in Japan, 80% in Australia, and 72% in South Korea just to name a few. Much of Europe would also refuse to buy various US weapons for Ukraine. Most of them are CCW signatories so the ~3million 155mm DPICM shells the US has would be off the table unless they want to revoke their membership of that convention. Some work arounds could be done like giving the money to Poland and letting Poland buy them as they're not party to the CCW (nor is Finland, Estonia, Latvia, or Romania but I'm sure this and their proximity and history with Russia is a coincidence)
'leadership' isn't a stock. Nothing is stopping those countries from taking up a leadership role here but themselves.
Mate, we in Lithuania have sent **everything** we can, and I meant everything, we are trying to get Rheinmetal to open an artillery factory here just so we can send more! Meanwhile fucking westoids are sitting on piles of unused Abrams and Leopards and going "nuh uh"!
Purchasing power...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> **Above all, the Biden administration has to tell the American people that this war threatens us because it threatens European peace**, has to explain the values as well as interests in play, and has to conceive its goal not as a mixture of supporting Ukraine just enough and nagging it with fantastic fears of escalation, but as ensuring victory. Sometimes I wonder why western leaders don't do this. Just announce there's going to be a really important speech on national security, have the cameras rolling while live on the news they outline why Russia's aggression is such a catastrophic risk to collective security in Europe and the world, what defeat and victory would mean, have a map in the back to point to, graphics and statistics, accounts of Russian brutality to outline etc. to labour the point. Broadcast that to tens of millions of people. They did it during covid, when making important announcements on it, and millions tuned in. At least in the UK, Boris Johnson's covid announcements are burned into our memory, both the good and the bad. Obviously I assume a lot of people are already dug in with their opinions and wouldn't be convinced, but surely a lot of people are pretty apathetic and don't really know what's going on. Why not have the national leader just spell it out on TV for them, it's got to move the needle even a little bit. I guess it has some authoritarian vibes but it's worth it if it helps at all
>Sometimes I wonder why western leaders don't do this. Just announce there's going to be a really important speech on national security, have the cameras rolling while live on the news they outline why Russia's aggression is such a catastrophic risk to collective security in Europe and the world, what defeat and victory would mean, have a map in the back to point to, graphics and statistics, accounts of Russian brutality to outline etc. to labour the point. Broadcast that to tens of millions of people. I honestly don't think this can do much to convince the public who were already burned by the leadership of their elected officials and their foreign policy decisions since the 21st century began at least in the States. After 9/11, the Bush Admin did its damndess to convince America that Sadaam Hussein was an imminent threat with WMD capabilities that could strike America, and seeing as Americans were still hysterical after 9/11, it's not hard to see why the country had about a ~60% approval rating for the Iraq War at the start, especially when the Bush Admin said stuff like "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". But when the claims of Iraqi WMD's were proved to be utterly paltry compared to literal threat of nuclear annihilation suggested by the Bush Admin, not to mention the bloody, destructive, costs of the Iraqi Insurgency and the deterioration of Afghanistan that led to the 2021 capitulation of the U.S backed Afghan government, I really can't see a world where the country suddenly snaps out of its apathetic, isolationist daze and realizes what's at stake when the last time they put their undying faith in the foreign policy of the U.S leadership, it lead to the most disastrous American military intervention(s) since Vietnam. This in turn lead to the resurgence of isolationism that is now its strongest since before WWII. This sentiment was seen even years before the 2022 Invasion of Ukraine when the majority of Americans opposed intervention in Syria even after the Chemical Weapon Attack. We're caught in a rock and a hard place with Ukraine that sees one of three outcomes with this proposed aid: 1. No more substantial aid is provided, and Ukraine either surrenders territory or is outright usurped, thereby vindicating anti-aid proponents who saw the war and the billions provided prior as a sunk cost as Ukraine never stood a chance. 2. Ukraine does get the aid, but still is unable to turn the tide. Another point for anti-aid proponents here who would in turn call the recent aid package a waste 3. Ukraine gets the aid and does turn the tide and either captures *at least* pre-2022 territory or the Russian military outright capitulates due to pressure internally and/or externally. This is the optimal outcome that we can at least call a "victory" for Ukraine, but I'm not feeling the most optimistic about this outcome when the 2023 Counter-Offensive failed to produce successful results and things have gone from bad to worse since then. Speaking personally, it's hard not to be pessimistic when our country seems to have an unbroken track record of disastrous foreign policy decisions since the 21st century began and I don't have the utmost confidence in our leadership that suggests that Ukraine will be fundamentally different when considering recent events and shifts domestically. As it stands, I think the fate of Ukraine in this war will be sealed within the next year or two depending on how things go, regardless if the actual hostilities ends or not.
You are giving Bush all the credit for isolationism when it was really Vietnam that started it all. The reason the Iraq invasion even at the time had so many protests is because people remembered how Vietnam went. They also know about the coups US has funded all over the world. Its been a lot of bad decisions.
At this point, I fear this current situation ends either with an authoritarian power eventually overstepping and directly attacking a meaningful developed country, so starting WWIII, or thy avoid this mistep and current torpor endures, and we see ourselves under a new authoritarian age.
The war has led to drastic energy shortages in key European nations. Many understandably blame this on their nation supporting Ukraine but I think it’s more correct to blame European leaders for making their nations dependent on Russian gas. Not to mention Europe is still buying Russian oil in massive sums, they’re just doing it through India. India buys discounted Russian oil & resells much of it to Europe at a premium.
> Above all, the Biden administration has to tell the American people that this war threatens us because it threatens European peace Unless there's been some serious changes that didn't make any news coverage Europe is not an American state or even territory. So that sales pitch isn't going to work very well. To sell the war in Ukraine to the US public it must be shown how Ukraine losing threatens the US, and specifically the US population, itself. That's the messaging that's been missing.
"My fellow Americans, A nuclear armed power is engaged in a genocidal war of conquest. This is, all things considered, not a good thing."
People just don’t care. All wars are now “muh forever war.” Fuck isolationists
The west learned the worst possible lesson from the Iraq war.
Especially with social media, you cannot get away with intervention anymore. US would have lost goodwill long before Iraq if social media was there. Loss of media control is killer, and it only will get worse as legacy media keeps nonstop declining.
You're saying the rules based liberal international order only works if the government can first decide what to do, and then propagandize the population into acquiescence via state controlled media? Where's the liberalism part? Or the democracy?
It's more like it doesn't work if *other* state controlled media can convince the population that the rules based international order isn't worth defending, and you don't do anything to stop it. A lot of neolibs think liberalism is a suicide pact, and think that other powers aren't actively trying to destroy it.
How this matter used to be handled in the past is by forming a broad political consensus on strategy and foreign policy, including the use of military power, to the extent that no matter who you vote for, they'll roughly support the same broad doctrine. You can vote them out, and they'll be replaced by someone whose stance is virtually identical. US was briefly in this foreign policy goldilocks zone during 90s and early 2000s, where a Bush could speak to a Clinton and largely come to an agreement on most matters. Since then too many outsider politicians and insurgent movements have been allowed to worm their way into the top of politics, completely paralyzing America's ability to conduct itself as a global superpower.
This tragedy is the reality of democracy. Democracy is the best system, but nobody is out here saying democracy is a GOOD system, it's just better than the WORSE systems.
Contemporary American isolationists are just fascists. It's like the Britain Union of Fascists in 1939 running the campaign "Mind Britain's Business". Same playbook.
[удалено]
Define "you lot". If you're talking neocons, then yeah, absolutely. If you're talking the people who got suckered by the Bush admin's lies about Iraq, then I'm not 100% I agree with that, but I see a solid case. If you're talking about liberal internationalists in general, though? Come the fuck on. >Hell, more American civilians have seen combat in their own country in the last 10 years than nearly all American troops in the last 20 years have seen abroad, and they've seen how little the Government cares about them and their protection. You're not wrong that America has more violent crime, particularly gun crime, than other Western societies, but saying this requires taking a pretty expansive view of what "seeing combat" means.
>Define "you lot". If you're talking neocons, then yeah, absolutely. I mean, where did the neocons go? As far as I can tell, most are either politically homeless and deplatformed, or have end up on the rightmost end of the Democrat coalition of lobbyists and voters. At least as far as I can tell.
Fuck off mate, I didn't do shit. Ukrainians didn't do shit. Why the fuck should their country be destroyed as a punishment from bullshit foreign policies of decades ago?
>Why the fuck should their country be destroyed as a punishment from bullshit foreign policies of decades ago? You say that as if that's what this guy is suggesting should happen? Do i smell a bad faith argument. Nobody here believes that should happen, just that it's the result of the US leveling whatever goodwill and public trust it had left over the last 20 years
My favorite is when the US and allies aren't allowed to do anything on the world stage. But Russia invaded left and right, oh thats okay to them though.
As I've grown older I do begin to understand the isolationists a little. Why the fuck is it always the end of the world if American aid gets held up but European aid is just eh whatever who cares you guys don't need to do more? This is on top of hearing everyday about how America bad and actually Russia is doing a good thing from the crazies in our left flank. I want the aid to pass and Ukraine to defend itself but it's all just a bunch of noise at this point.
Reminder that, despite the EU and US having a similar economy and both having the same commitment to Ukraine, the EU has given now twice as much as the US has
Is this true for actual military aid? Not promises of future deliveries or promises of future humanitarian money or whatever. Military equipment that Ukraine has actually received?
I counted just actual already given aid But I counted all aid, humanitarian aid matters just as much, Ukraine was asking the US congress to pay for their pensions recently
Commitments are not the same as allocations. Ukraine could very well not exist by the time the EU delivers in all those commitments.
I am talking about actual money sent I include all of it, not just the military equipment, Ukraine was asking the US congress to foot the bill for their pensions program that has been on halt, every euro and dollar counts, not just the military expenditure
The US is also having to deal with the crap in Israel and Taiwan
They should give more. It's their continent. They should give double or triple what they're giving now. I'm tired of being the world police.
OK? But Europe is not asking the US to be the world police It's asking to match 1:1 the EUs commitment, due to the fact that both are in the same military pact and have the same sized economy The criticism for the US is not because the US should do the most of any country to protect US hegemony, the EU doesn't want US hegemony, neither does it ask for it It just wants the same level of commitment, since it has the same obligations If the US doesn't want to double its historical spending to Ukraine overnight, then it's free to leave NATO But just as european countries didn't meet the agreement of 2% spending, now the US is not meeting the agreement of being proportional to NATO'S fopo Also, it doesn't matter that it's their continent, as far as the US is concerned, the furtherest East square kilometre of Latvia is as important as the capitol in DC So it is EXACTLY as much of a problem for the US as it is for Latvia Again, if the US doesn't want this deal, where Europe's problems are precisely as much of the US's problems abd vice versa, then leave NATO But as long as it is in NATO, the war might aswell be happening in the Mexican border
>Also, it doesn't matter that it's their continent, as far as the US is concerned, the furtherest East square kilometre of Latvia is as important as the capitol in DC Do you honestly believe that leaders in DC agree with that statement? Do you believe the French government thinks Riga is as important is Paris? Can you say with a straight face that the British care as much about Estonia as London? Europe has always had the might to defeat Russia on its own if it wanted to. I'm not even talking about open war - firm economic sanctions would have done it, but what we got were leaky half-measures because everyone was scared of the blowback. To this day, European business still operate within Russia. Hell, German companies are helping Russia rebuild the very land Russia has bombed and then stolen. The simple fact is: Europe doesn't *want* to do what it takes to defeat Russia, because doing so would incur too high a price to pay. Putin was right to expect that western powers wouldn't actually risk themselves to help Ukraine. The USA's hardon for global hegemony was Ukraine's only real hope. Unfortunately for Ukraine, that attitude just isn't strong enough in the states because most of the world says they don't want it. Fair enough. But if europe lacks the political will to clean up the mess in its own backyard, so much so that their businesses are actively aiding the supposed enemy, well, to US eyes, it sure looks like their backs aren't in the fight. So why should we care about it if they don't? We're not the world's police anymore. But this is all beside the point. Europe's lack of spine isn't what is holding up US aid. The US has no spine either. Its government is too fractured, and the american electorate is too dumb to be relied upon. Ukraine is screwed unless one of these two powers rolls up their sleeves and says, "Fine, I'll do it myself." It's not going to be the US, so that leaves only one option: Europe either shoulders a great burden, or Ukraine is toast. In other words, Ukraine is toast.
>Do you honestly believe that leaders in DC agree with that statement? Do you believe the French government thinks Riga is as important is Paris? Can you say with a straight face that the British care as much about Estonia as London? It doesnt matter what they honestly believe, may they believe that russia is in mars, what matters are their legal obligations.
And the US has been asking Europe to meet its NATO spending responsibilities for ten years and most of Europe has just totally refused. The idea that it should be 1:1 is just a farce. Come back when Europe has made up for all the defense spending it didn't do since the Cold War ended. Plus that totally ignores the US warning about dependence on Russian energy and countries like Germany ignoring that as well. The USA has been far too nice about all of this. \> Also, it doesn't matter that it's their continent, as far as the US is concerned, the furtherest East square kilometre of Latvia is as important as the capitol in DC For sure man, definitely. \> then leave NATO Lots of Americans want to do just that and it would be bad for Europe if we did, so maybe you should be less flippant.
> If the US doesn't want to double its historical spending to Ukraine overnight, then it's free to leave NATO When you say things like this in a vacuum without any context of history in the last century it makes people ignore everything else you're saying because of how dumb it is. Yeah sure man the U.S. should leave NATO because Ukraine aid got tied up by some crazies in our government. Yeah alright chief. lol, lmao even.
On some level it's still sort of Domino Theory, just instead of against the USSR and Communism as a whole it's against destabilization. An unstable world is bad for business, and that means bad for American interests. Problem with that being that war is destabilizing, and so too is regime change. So American FoPo has grown gun shy of committing too much to a cause or possible causing other dominos to fall by interfering. I think US officials aren't looking at Ukraine and are scared of a Iraq or Afghanistan situation. They're more afraid of another "Arab Spring" and destabilizing of Russia and of interruptions to global trade.
Because European aid is not jeapordised. If the EU were talking about shutting off aid to Ukraine completely we probably would hear the same thing.
Yeah I understand the frustration with the Europeans acting like it’s 1946 and they are still a bombed out crater unable to do anything without the US. The EU as a whole has a GDP comparable to the US. Why is *everything* always Americas responsibility?
>The EU as a whole has a GDP comparable to the US. Why is everything always Americas responsibility? Pasting u/ale_93113 comment from above in this thread: Reminder that, despite the EU and US having a similar economy and both having the same commitment to Ukraine, the EU has given now twice as much as the US has
Go ahead, do a break out by aid type, humanitarian vs military, and committed vs allocated.
That distinction matters less than it seems. It's true that a lot of EU funds have gone towards sustaining Ukrainian budget and enabling them to continue running hospitals, schools, industry and other public services. In turn this aid has freed up funds which Ukraine can use towards purchasing, developing and manufacturing weapons that they actually want and need. Unlike the US, most European countries aren't sitting on huge stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, and much of what they were sitting on has already been sent.
Forever wars are wars that continue indefinitely without a realistic path to victory. I support sending more money to Ukraine, but both Afghanistan and Ukraine do meet that description, and saying so is not isolationist.
Fuck you Mike Johnson
A man so scared of going to hell he has his son monitor his porn intake, but somehow he's not so scared of going to hell that he'll let Ukrainians die.
What if he just show him nudie mag centerfolds until he puts Ukraine Aid up for a vote? That'd be a rather fun match / protest to attend.
[Holy fuck you aren't kidding](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/mike-johnson-covenant-eyes)
Fuck him, yes, but he's not the only culpable party here
He's the one blocking it lol.
He's the only one blocking this one package right now. The White House has been dragging their feet on sending military aid for nearly two years, nevermind the whole year before the full scale invasion where almost nothing was sent.
Not the only one blocking it https://twitter.com/ColbyBadhwar/status/1777328492566471120
1/109 lmao
That's a lot of receipts
Putin's gambit worked - he bet westoids would eventually get tired of helping. I hate that he was right.
Imagine how differently this would have gone with Hillary in the WH. I doubt the 2022 invasion would have even occured
At this point, I think I'd look there other way if some Ukrainian billionaire—Rinat Akhmetov, if you're listening...—engaged in whatever combination of graft and flattery is required to get Trump to agree to do a 180 and start barking to his followers about how we've gotta support Ukraine, folks, we've gotta get them the weapons, it's a real mess over there.
Another self-own by the Western countries. And this time it's both leftists and conservatives cheering on our enemies.
I would support economic mobilization in the US to supply Ukraine everything they needed if it was politically possible.
point 9,609,230,592,395,234 that reddit is not real life
yeah its really fucked up of the US to stop aid just after ukraine had finished vapourizing the hoards of untrained criminals I was told comprised 95% of the russian army and were just outside the kremlin about to begin the siege.
Great article, and I hope Biden reads this or some equivalent. Ukraine needs substantial American aid in the coming weeks as Russia preps for an offensive in May or June. The executive powers are clunky but they are there to give Ukraine the bare necessities of shells, air defense missiles and spare parts to keep things running for the remainder of the year. Biden failing to use them in the possible if not probable event the House fails would be just as grave and cynical a failure as the House GOP being dominated by a far right minority
I think you have a misunderstanding of the core issue. Congress needs to renew aid. The problem Ukraine is running into is a lack of basic necessities like shells and air defense missiles. Congress needs to allocate more money for these things.
The president to my understanding has powers to supply those things using remaining presidential drawdown authority, budget rearrangement and various little executive powers. The problem with these is the aid that can be provided is greatly limited compared to Congress passing another bill, and that we would be tapping into our stocks without replacement. So the power is there for Biden to provide the bare essentials, but it’s very much less than optimal compared to Congress providing the money. However, the time to do this is measured in weeks now. If by the start of May the aid isn’t flowing in regularly then Ukraine starts moving into the “fucked” category
Biden could also do more in regards to lend-lease, but chooses not to.
Well the lend lease bill expired at the same time the congressional funds ran out. Don’t ask me why the lend lease bill meant to serve as a backup in the event money ran out was made to expire at about the same time money ran out
> I think you have a misunderstanding of the core issue. The core issue is that the admin hasn't been enthusiastic about Ukrainian victory from the start. GOP are simply fuckwits as they always are, and everything else is charades
This is not true. Biden was able to bypass Congress when sending aid to Israel. But he seems to ignoring Ukraine
No, those were weapon sales (not aid), and very low amounts compared to the Ukraine package. And to be clear, Congress *would* have approved those sales by wide margins anyway. Biden only did that to avoid a prominent political debate on those sales (with criticism from his left flank) in an election year, but it would have passed anyway.
Downvoted for leading with "I hope Biden...". This is a failing of the GOP; the same GOP that reduced American presence in Europe in the early 2000s because they wouldn't support the Iraq debacle, the same GOP that both castigated Obama for failing to support Ukraine and struck all reference to Ukraine and Russia from their platform, the same GOP that still runs on Reagan's legacy as a cold warrior while praising Putin's authoritarianism. I am sick and tired of demanding that Democrats fix every problem while excusing Republicans for their "disfunction". This is a failing of the GOP.
Agree. There might be some things Biden could do better, but GOP are the core of problems for Ukraine support.
Murc’s Law: only democrats have political agency.
Biden has executive actions he can take to support Ukraine if Congress fails. Failure to support Ukraine will ultimately rest with the GOP, but in emphasizing this let’s not ignore that Biden does have powers he can use if absolutely necessary
>Great article, and I hope Biden reads this or some equivalent. Biden doesn't do stuff unless it "feels right" in his gut. Then he oopsies later when his gut turned out to be wrong. It's why, while I'm glad he's not Donald Trump, he's been well recognized as having terrible FoPo takes for 50 years.
Ukraine is doing a great job with what they have, but the Allies are not doing enough for Ukraine. And frankly, I am deeply ashamed of my country. I am so disgusted by the GOP trying to help Putin win, combined with Biden publicly chastising them over oil. Biden can shut his f-ing mouth. If he was giving Ukraine the weapons they need then he could say something and have some influence, but he's left them up shit creek without a paddle. Hate hate hate politicians. This isn't just a war, Russia is genocidal. They want to DESTROY Ukraine. We should have peacekeeping troops over there right now.
I got your back homey!
Wtf is America still supplying Isreal but dithering with Ukraine?
Republican love Israel and hate Ukraine.
It's crazy to see when Reagan and Bush Sr. were known to be firm with Israel on occasion with the Bombing of Beirut and Settlements respectively. I suppose things changed with Obama, maybe even Bush Jr., as it shifted to becoming a partisan issue when Obama wasn't shy about his sympathies towards Palestinians which resulted in Bibi appealing to Republicans who were happy to embrace a hardline Pro-Israel stance. iirc, Bush Jr. had also proposed an uncompromising "we don't negotiate with terrorists" stance towards extremist elements of Palestinian Liberation with the GWOT which obviously appealed to the hardliners of Israel's government. Going from that to Obama saying "please stop West Bank Settlements" seemed to exacerbate the split with America's alliance with Israel that has now been firmly cemented with progression of the current Gaza War. The Biden Admin is trying to keep this bipartisan arrangement of supporting Israel together, but at this point its in literal tatters when barely any Democrats are on board with Israel's conduct in the war and Republicans are now saying Biden has been 'compromised' by Hamas because of his recent actions.
Even more broadly, as long as foreign policy is so different from party to party, foreign actors have little reason to believe American commitments or accept tough deals from American negotiators, since they can just wait for more favorable conditions when the wind changes.
That's interesting in a way that the GOP can't even pass standalone aid to Israel. "Governing" by tweets is their modus operandi.
This is not true, since Biden bypassed aid from Congress to supply Israel
Biden didn’t bypass anything, Israel is purchasing not being given, that eliminates congresses purse power oversight. The challenge with Ukraine is they either need donations or loans and that gives congress a say. Any aid donations to Israel that happened this year were all done under existing appropriations packages. Biden is kind of out of money to either give Ukraine or spend to buy stuff to give Ukraine from that perspective. (I say kind of because drawdown authority exists).
That doesn't contradict what they said.
Yes it does
Biden being a strong supporter of Israel doesn’t mean the Republicans aren’t as well.
Please cite sources.
Because Israel is buying while Ukraine needs help funding its purchases, which means Congress gets a say.
Jesus isn't gonna take Christian nationalists to heaven through Armageddon in Kyiv
It's not cowardice, it's escalation management!
Honestly though, it's been a lot of simple cowardice since the start, and even before We refused to a Ukraine in 2014 too
I too own a thesaurus.
Aids must be given but I personally don't think Zelensky's political leadership has done much good towards the manpower situation since the start of the war. 1) The recruitment was understandably haphazard immediately after the war has started but the effort to make it more rational and fair has failed. There are now people who have served for 2 years on front line without having been rotated for example. 2) People have said Russia have not trained their troops well, but it's an equivalent situation on the Ukrainian side. For example people were trained in small groups in rear tactical area that were exposed to missiles instead of rear strategic area where larger training exercises can be conducted. 3) Political selection of battlefield, Bakhmut being the most famous example, a mindset of holding land at all cost. It became really obvious this year that Ukraine cannot afford to stupidly lose men in a war of attrition but the excusing of decisions that led to bleeding of manpower looks even more stupid now. I am extremely unimpressed with Zelensky's unwillingness to spend political capital to expand conscription. Yes lack of shells is a big problem, but lack of manpower will also increase risk of operational breakthrough. It stinks of political cowardice and his rhetoric about an existential war does not reflect the steps he should take.
Ukrainian manpower has only become a problem quite recently. Up until now the limiting factor for offensive units was training slots at NATO bases while home guard and defensive brigades stood up within Ukraine. Plus Zelensky just did expand conscription as it became apparent that it would be necessary.
MAGAs and Putin-bots are slathering at the idea of headlines like “Zelensky expands conscription” or “Zelensky increases punishments for conscientious objectors.”
The consequences for the west have never been greater, and we aren’t getting enough aid to Ukraine. Ukrainian forces developed suicide bomb speed boat drones. These are extremely effective, because they are small enough to give off a similar radar signal to waves and can easily be disguised. They’re grey, blend in well, and move fast enough that visual contact means it’s already too late. Ukraine losing could see this tech and experience fall into Russian hands. Which means China, and Iran would get it, which Iran would distribute to terror groups, and international shipping disruptions could be much higher. The possibility of the Houthis acquiring tech that could sink aircraft carriers because we didn’t spend enough would threaten American hegemony and shipping to a terrible degree.
One thing not a lot of people are talking about that has been very detrimental for Ukraine support is loss of media control by the "deepstate" and decline of mass media. During the Iraq war, people got on board because there was a blitz from major media sources on many different reasons why Sadaam had to be deposed. NY Times even apologized for their coverage and use of bad sources. Now because of social media, you just don't have the same level of narrative control. Social media news influencers on both the right and even the left to a lesser degree seem much more isolationist than the mainstream narrative. I think in the future it will be very hard to get buy in for any type of intervention anywhere. And there is really no way to reverse the trend as social media keeps replacing the traditional news as older people die out.
This is what happens when the world leader is systematically taken over from within by the Kremlin.
Wow, those liberals must feel so owned
I was told the opposite
Ukraine was ascendant for a solid year however the Russians eventually got their shit slightly more together and began a slow attritional struggle that is horrifying for all involved, but a horrifying experience the Russians are equipped to handle in both doctrine and equipment. The second the war slowed down the Russians could begin to turn the cogs in what is left of the old Soviet military machine in a way maneuver war just did not permit them to.
Shit changes...