4 ms·

Great, now please halt the congress psychotic episode for another moment and continue supplying Ukraine, to destroy more of the Russian armed forces at the cost

Great, now please halt the congress psychotic episode for another moment and continue supplying Ukraine, to destroy more of the Russian armed forces at the cost of single digit percentage of the defence budget. There will not be another such a ridiculously good deal in the future.

r00fus 3y ago
> There will not be another such a ridiculously good deal in the future. What's the good deal here? More Ukrainians and Russians dead? A peace deal needs to be floated ASAP because the Russian economy is actually not in shambles despite sanctions so the war outcome (absent a peace deal) will be won by Russia unless NATO wants to fully engage. As someone is not a fan of Russian expansion, I still see Ukraine funding as a proxy for feeding US defense contractors.
- H8crilA 3y ago
  US needs to spend a certain amount of money to deter opponents. One of the major opponents is Russia. By spending a small fraction of the deterrence money for example on cheap 155mm shells instead of on for example high tech F-22s in Alaska the US can blunt the Russian threat much much cheaper. If Russia wants its soldiers to stop dying then it can withdraw - all it takes is one phone call from Putin to Shoigu or his generals.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > What's the good deal here? The good deal is a halt to the escalating, expanding Russian aggression that started with the 2008 invasion of Georgia. > A peace deal needs to be floated ASAP because the Russian economy is actually not in shambles despite sanctions so the war outcome (absent a peace deal) will be won by Russia unless NATO wants to fully engage. Any peace deal that doesn't involve a complete Russian withdrawal is a win for Russia and encourages further aggression, the most likely first steps of which will be expansions of the current Russian intrusions in Georgia and/or Moldova, but seveeral of NATOs eastern flank members are also likely near-term targets. > As someone is not a fan of Russian expansion, I still see Ukraine funding as a proxy for feeding US defense contractors. Being “not a fan of Russian expansion” while seeking to reward its aggression is like being “not a fan of Nazi expansion” but wanting to hand them the Sudetenland. Except, in this case, its not even the first step in appeasement without a clear pattern: the first step waa caving to Russia demands in 2008 that NATO not offer Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia as, in Russia’s claim, that would be regionally destabilizing and promote conflict. The consequence of that was the immediate invasion of Georgia in 2008 followed by the invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
- pjc50 3y ago
  The Russians have not expressed interest in returning to their internationally agreed borders, so "peace deal" can only mean "Ukranian surrender". Especially as they keep asking for terms which would make the next invasion easier.

r00fus 3y ago

> There will not be another such a ridiculously good deal in the future. What's the good deal here? More Ukrainians and Russians dead? A peace deal needs to be floated ASAP because the Russian economy is actually not in shambles despite sanctions so the war outcome (absent a peace deal) will be won by Russia unless NATO wants to fully engage. As someone is not a fan of Russian expansion, I still see Ukraine funding as a proxy for feeding US defense contractors.

H8crilA 3y ago
US needs to spend a certain amount of money to deter opponents. One of the major opponents is Russia. By spending a small fraction of the deterrence money for example on cheap 155mm shells instead of on for example high tech F-22s in Alaska the US can blunt the Russian threat much much cheaper. If Russia wants its soldiers to stop dying then it can withdraw - all it takes is one phone call from Putin to Shoigu or his generals.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> What's the good deal here? The good deal is a halt to the escalating, expanding Russian aggression that started with the 2008 invasion of Georgia. > A peace deal needs to be floated ASAP because the Russian economy is actually not in shambles despite sanctions so the war outcome (absent a peace deal) will be won by Russia unless NATO wants to fully engage. Any peace deal that doesn't involve a complete Russian withdrawal is a win for Russia and encourages further aggression, the most likely first steps of which will be expansions of the current Russian intrusions in Georgia and/or Moldova, but seveeral of NATOs eastern flank members are also likely near-term targets. > As someone is not a fan of Russian expansion, I still see Ukraine funding as a proxy for feeding US defense contractors. Being “not a fan of Russian expansion” while seeking to reward its aggression is like being “not a fan of Nazi expansion” but wanting to hand them the Sudetenland. Except, in this case, its not even the first step in appeasement without a clear pattern: the first step waa caving to Russia demands in 2008 that NATO not offer Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia as, in Russia’s claim, that would be regionally destabilizing and promote conflict. The consequence of that was the immediate invasion of Georgia in 2008 followed by the invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
pjc50 3y ago
The Russians have not expressed interest in returning to their internationally agreed borders, so "peace deal" can only mean "Ukranian surrender". Especially as they keep asking for terms which would make the next invasion easier.