4 ms·

By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for the

By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?

ceejayoz 10mo ago
> When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them? I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us. The 1980s Cold Warriors would've been flabbergasted at how cheap taking out the Russian military at the knees would wind up being.
- joe_mamba 10mo ago
  It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
  - mikkupikku 10mo ago
    Don't forget, they choked on Afghanistan too.
    - machomaster 10mo ago
      No they didn't. Militarily is was a clear and easy win. Politically it made no sense after a while and USSR decided to leave. Militarily they could have continued staying there for the eternity. The same situation as with the American/Nato forces, with the difference of Soviets controlling significantly more of the country than Nato (only major urban centers, a small part of the country).
    - SanjayMehta 10mo ago
      Wrong. They did a planned and phased withdrawal over a period of several months. Unlike Biden's Saigon 2.0 shambolic exit.
      - defrost 10mo ago
        That was indeed a US shitshow, begun in the prior US administration: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal... Biden followed through on a poisoned chalice.
  - skeeter2020 10mo ago
    30 years from today? The army they had in the 80's was such a shadow of post WWII the country was essentially bankrupt, and why Gorbachev let the USSR satellites leave. They had no problem crushing change until they ran out of money. Russia today is much stronger than when the wall came down.
- badhackernews 10mo ago
  [dead]
alex43578 10mo ago
>I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us. Is there a war we needed to fight with Russia in this decade, the next decade, or the last, and if so, is Ukraine even damaging the parts that matter? Russia nukes hold America at threat, not a bunch of conscripts and some old BMPs. America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties, and there’s even an argument that a destabilized, volatilized Russia would be more dangerous for America.
- ericmay 10mo ago
  > America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties Europe is safer though, so there's that at least. Russia can't invade the United States of course, but it can invade other countries in Europe, and it is actively taking action to do so.
  - alex43578 10mo ago
    Good thing NATO has consistently hit the 2% funding target, and Europe more broadly hasn’t neglected to maintain their defense spending in favor of profligate social welfare spending.
  - FpUser 10mo ago
    Some 150,000,000 people in Russia vs some 450,000,000 in EU. I think it is unrealistic and I think Russia / Putin knows it.
    - ericmay 10mo ago
      Depends. Is he actually fighting 450,000,000 in the EU? Is Portugal going to send troops to the front lines in Estonia? Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine? These are serious questions. Meanwhile Putin is very much able to draft Russians to fight wars, and god-forbid he takes over Ukraine he'll send Ukrainians too.
      - FpUser 10mo ago
        >"Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine" Ukraine is not in EU. As for the rest - if they don't then, well, they were just hiding behind the US with all the consequences.
sophacles 10mo ago
Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies. The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
- ericmay 10mo ago
  Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger. > The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies. So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
- alex43578 10mo ago
  We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war. Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost. Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
  - leptons 10mo ago
    The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
watwut 10mo ago
In the past, Biden administration gave help to Ukraine. Trump stopped it entirely. Second, Trump is very much helping Russia, literally taking Russian positions in negotiations and pressuring only on Ukraine - into bad deals. Trump also talks admirably about Putin. So no, America switched sides.
- ericmay 10mo ago
  > Trump stopped it entirely. Factually incorrect. > Second, Trump is very much helping Russia, literally taking Russian positions in negotiations and pressuring only on Ukraine - into bad deals. Again, factually incorrect. No deals between Russia and Ukraine have been made, the US continues to sanction Russia and Russian allies including seizure of tankers that are evading sanctions, and the US continues to provide arms, weapons sales, and intelligence to Ukraine including targeting intelligence for striking targets in Russia. I understand having a different opinion early last year, but the tide has shifted significantly. You are behind the times. Meanwhile China supplies Russia, India buys their weapons and oil, Iran supplies them with drones, Venezuela/Cuba and all of those shenanigans, Brazil is pro-Russia/neutral, and other countries throughout Latin America and Africa and elsewhere think that NATO started the war! So no, America didn’t switch sides. The negotiation rhetoric and tactics did, but the end result has not changed. This is not up for debate.
- SanjayMehta 10mo ago
  Trump keeps reminding everyone that he supplied The Ukraine with Javelins. Also, a series of NATO exercises which involved Ukrainian troops were conducted during the Trump 1.0 regime. Operation Rapid Trident. (Trident seems to be a reference to a Ukrainian symbol.) Now imagine China or Russia conducting such a series of exercises in Mexico.

By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?

ceejayoz 10mo ago

> When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them? I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us. The 1980s Cold Warriors would've been flabbergasted at how cheap taking out the Russian military at the knees would wind up being.

joe_mamba 10mo ago
It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  Don't forget, they choked on Afghanistan too.
  - machomaster 10mo ago
    No they didn't. Militarily is was a clear and easy win. Politically it made no sense after a while and USSR decided to leave. Militarily they could have continued staying there for the eternity. The same situation as with the American/Nato forces, with the difference of Soviets controlling significantly more of the country than Nato (only major urban centers, a small part of the country).
  - SanjayMehta 10mo ago
    Wrong. They did a planned and phased withdrawal over a period of several months. Unlike Biden's Saigon 2.0 shambolic exit.
    - defrost 10mo ago
      That was indeed a US shitshow, begun in the prior US administration: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal... Biden followed through on a poisoned chalice.
- skeeter2020 10mo ago
  30 years from today? The army they had in the 80's was such a shadow of post WWII the country was essentially bankrupt, and why Gorbachev let the USSR satellites leave. They had no problem crushing change until they ran out of money. Russia today is much stronger than when the wall came down.
badhackernews 10mo ago
[dead]

alex43578 10mo ago

>I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us. Is there a war we needed to fight with Russia in this decade, the next decade, or the last, and if so, is Ukraine even damaging the parts that matter? Russia nukes hold America at threat, not a bunch of conscripts and some old BMPs. America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties, and there’s even an argument that a destabilized, volatilized Russia would be more dangerous for America.

ericmay 10mo ago
> America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties Europe is safer though, so there's that at least. Russia can't invade the United States of course, but it can invade other countries in Europe, and it is actively taking action to do so.
- alex43578 10mo ago
  Good thing NATO has consistently hit the 2% funding target, and Europe more broadly hasn’t neglected to maintain their defense spending in favor of profligate social welfare spending.
- FpUser 10mo ago
  Some 150,000,000 people in Russia vs some 450,000,000 in EU. I think it is unrealistic and I think Russia / Putin knows it.
  - ericmay 10mo ago
    Depends. Is he actually fighting 450,000,000 in the EU? Is Portugal going to send troops to the front lines in Estonia? Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine? These are serious questions. Meanwhile Putin is very much able to draft Russians to fight wars, and god-forbid he takes over Ukraine he'll send Ukrainians too.
    - FpUser 10mo ago
      >"Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine" Ukraine is not in EU. As for the rest - if they don't then, well, they were just hiding behind the US with all the consequences.

sophacles 10mo ago

Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies. The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.

ericmay 10mo ago
Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger. > The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies. So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
alex43578 10mo ago
We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war. Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost. Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
- leptons 10mo ago
  The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.

watwut 10mo ago

In the past, Biden administration gave help to Ukraine. Trump stopped it entirely. Second, Trump is very much helping Russia, literally taking Russian positions in negotiations and pressuring only on Ukraine - into bad deals. Trump also talks admirably about Putin. So no, America switched sides.

ericmay 10mo ago
> Trump stopped it entirely. Factually incorrect. > Second, Trump is very much helping Russia, literally taking Russian positions in negotiations and pressuring only on Ukraine - into bad deals. Again, factually incorrect. No deals between Russia and Ukraine have been made, the US continues to sanction Russia and Russian allies including seizure of tankers that are evading sanctions, and the US continues to provide arms, weapons sales, and intelligence to Ukraine including targeting intelligence for striking targets in Russia. I understand having a different opinion early last year, but the tide has shifted significantly. You are behind the times. Meanwhile China supplies Russia, India buys their weapons and oil, Iran supplies them with drones, Venezuela/Cuba and all of those shenanigans, Brazil is pro-Russia/neutral, and other countries throughout Latin America and Africa and elsewhere think that NATO started the war! So no, America didn’t switch sides. The negotiation rhetoric and tactics did, but the end result has not changed. This is not up for debate.
SanjayMehta 10mo ago
Trump keeps reminding everyone that he supplied The Ukraine with Javelins. Also, a series of NATO exercises which involved Ukrainian troops were conducted during the Trump 1.0 regime. Operation Rapid Trident. (Trident seems to be a reference to a Ukrainian symbol.) Now imagine China or Russia conducting such a series of exercises in Mexico.