7 ms·

Not sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing ac

Not sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong.

olivermuty 2y ago
So you want to achieve that the illegal agressor wins…? The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > illegal agressor Are there any "legal agressors" ?
  - willmarch 2y ago
    Yes
fractallyte 2y ago
Because the weapons were drip-fed, preventing Ukraine from achieving any decisive, quick victory. Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
- bwb 2y ago
  Nuclear weapons are a scary prospect, that def plays into what can be done. Finding that line is not something that is easy.
stuffoverflow 2y ago
Ukraine has retained its independence. That's a big achievement on its own.
- ty6853 2y ago
  If they are independent then they won't need to rely on being propped up by American taxpayers to survive. Because if they did, they'd be dependent not independent.
  - bwb 2y ago
    With that logic, any country too small to fight its neighbors should be taken over, their citizens killed, their women defiled. What planet are you from? Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - DecoySalamander 2y ago
        This argument makes no sense - you have never been asked to pay a special "Kurdish" tax, or a special "Ukrainian" tax. You will still pay the same amount (or more) of taxes even if the US becomes completely isolationist.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Unless the cost is zero the tax is paid, either directly, by inflation, or one of the two later to settle the debt. The fungibility of money means no special separate tax is assessed. Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        You can just pretend 100% of your tax dollars goes to services you use then. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that? I understand you personally don't want to spend on those things, but in our system our representatives voted to send that aid. It's not Trump's to withhold.
zfg 2y ago
Russia's stated intention is to destroy the Ukrainian nation and to erase Ukrainian identity. Putin believes Ukraine is not a real country and Ukrainians are not a real people: https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russian-empire-says-ukraine-not-real-country-2022-2?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia... Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong. Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map. America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and in becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.
schroeding 2y ago
If France had hold out until 1943, with the Wehrmacht only making a few hundred yards progress per day, it would have been a massive success, don't you agree? Without western help, Ukraine would have had no chance in hell to survive that long. It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing". The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter. And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next). The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Someone was coming to bail out France. I don't see a D day for Ukraine. If it is coming a European nation needs to step up right fuckin now and say it. If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
  - schroeding 2y ago
    The US wasn't active part of the war until December 1941, though. For the first years, no boots on the ground were coming. And if Germany didn't declare war against the US, which they weren't forced to do by the tripartite pact, it's questionable they would have come at all (in 1944). Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot? Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different? But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".
throwaway290 2y ago
"Nothing achieved" is exactly right. Russia did not achieve in 3 years what it thought it could achieve in 1-2 weeks. Tons of people died on both sides (though no civilians in Russia). The only reason russia is continuing is because west while is perfectly equipped militarily desperately lacks balls and succumbs to putin's propaganda.
ap-hyperbole 2y ago
Nothing achieved for you but for example my mother and some relatives don't have to live under forced occupation. Her city was under siege for a number of weeks during initial invasion and totally cut off from any basic human needs like water, electricity and food supplies were limited. Not to mention constant rocket attacks and some shelling. There are millions of people like my mother who are greatful for what Ukrainian army has achieved and are still fighting for. The containment of further expansion and the fact that there is very little progress Russian army is making is also an achievement. Russian Soviet stock piles are depleted, their economy is on a downward spiral, untill a few weeks ago they were totally isolated from the rest of the civilised world, that's another achievement.Exposing Russia's bluff of their military might is another achievement. The fact that USA can now "focus on China" is thanks to Ukraine. Everyone in the world was united against the aggressor. What is happening right now is that some of those achievements are being undone and may I ask for who's benefit? So that Trump can make a deal that he promised and restore the economic relations with Russia? It might stop the deaths and fighting now but you are simply taking a "peace debt" from Putin.

olivermuty 2y ago

So you want to achieve that the illegal agressor wins…? The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.

hulitu 2y ago
> illegal agressor Are there any "legal agressors" ?
- willmarch 2y ago
  Yes

fractallyte 2y ago

Because the weapons were drip-fed, preventing Ukraine from achieving any decisive, quick victory. Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.

bwb 2y ago
Nuclear weapons are a scary prospect, that def plays into what can be done. Finding that line is not something that is easy.

stuffoverflow 2y ago

Ukraine has retained its independence. That's a big achievement on its own.

ty6853 2y ago
If they are independent then they won't need to rely on being propped up by American taxpayers to survive. Because if they did, they'd be dependent not independent.
- bwb 2y ago
  With that logic, any country too small to fight its neighbors should be taken over, their citizens killed, their women defiled. What planet are you from? Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - DecoySalamander 2y ago
      This argument makes no sense - you have never been asked to pay a special "Kurdish" tax, or a special "Ukrainian" tax. You will still pay the same amount (or more) of taxes even if the US becomes completely isolationist.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Unless the cost is zero the tax is paid, either directly, by inflation, or one of the two later to settle the debt. The fungibility of money means no special separate tax is assessed. Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        You can just pretend 100% of your tax dollars goes to services you use then. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that? I understand you personally don't want to spend on those things, but in our system our representatives voted to send that aid. It's not Trump's to withhold.

zfg 2y ago

Russia's stated intention is to destroy the Ukrainian nation and to erase Ukrainian identity. Putin believes Ukraine is not a real country and Ukrainians are not a real people: https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russian-empire-says-ukraine-not-real-country-2022-2?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia... Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong. Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map. America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and in becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.

schroeding 2y ago

If France had hold out until 1943, with the Wehrmacht only making a few hundred yards progress per day, it would have been a massive success, don't you agree? Without western help, Ukraine would have had no chance in hell to survive that long. It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing". The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter. And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next). The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.

ty6853 2y ago
Someone was coming to bail out France. I don't see a D day for Ukraine. If it is coming a European nation needs to step up right fuckin now and say it. If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
- schroeding 2y ago
  The US wasn't active part of the war until December 1941, though. For the first years, no boots on the ground were coming. And if Germany didn't declare war against the US, which they weren't forced to do by the tripartite pact, it's questionable they would have come at all (in 1944). Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot? Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different? But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".

throwaway290 2y ago

"Nothing achieved" is exactly right. Russia did not achieve in 3 years what it thought it could achieve in 1-2 weeks. Tons of people died on both sides (though no civilians in Russia). The only reason russia is continuing is because west while is perfectly equipped militarily desperately lacks balls and succumbs to putin's propaganda.

ap-hyperbole 2y ago

Nothing achieved for you but for example my mother and some relatives don't have to live under forced occupation. Her city was under siege for a number of weeks during initial invasion and totally cut off from any basic human needs like water, electricity and food supplies were limited. Not to mention constant rocket attacks and some shelling. There are millions of people like my mother who are greatful for what Ukrainian army has achieved and are still fighting for. The containment of further expansion and the fact that there is very little progress Russian army is making is also an achievement. Russian Soviet stock piles are depleted, their economy is on a downward spiral, untill a few weeks ago they were totally isolated from the rest of the civilised world, that's another achievement.Exposing Russia's bluff of their military might is another achievement. The fact that USA can now "focus on China" is thanks to Ukraine. Everyone in the world was united against the aggressor. What is happening right now is that some of those achievements are being undone and may I ask for who's benefit? So that Trump can make a deal that he promised and restore the economic relations with Russia? It might stop the deaths and fighting now but you are simply taking a "peace debt" from Putin.