That should fund it for a couple more years at least. Then there's the 300b in Russian assets under European control that can keep the funding going after.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
It's not. In fact, it's the opposite - I don't want our resources squandered ($250 billion and counting so far) on a country of a limited strategic importance for the US, when our debt is spiraling, infrastructure is decrepit, healthcare is unaffordable and education subpar.
I couldn't care if it's Russia/Ukraine, or Turkey/Armenia, or Ethiopia/Eritrea - I don't want US to police the world.
And, for the record Putin stated the war so he's the criminal, but we (the collective west that is) could have done more to help prevent it.
No its actually in complete lock step with Marjorie Taylor Greene and Putin's desired position America should take on Ukraine.
Could you spell out the rules of engagement for me? You oscillate between name-calling, slinging mud, warning others not engage with me, and yet curiously quoting my posts that aren’t even aimed at you. Pick a lane please. Just for the record, I’ve kept my discourse with you respectful throughout this thread and for the past two decades on this forum. If you expect me to engage honestly, I'd hope for at least that much in return.
You run this forum, this is your domain, and you set the rules; could you clarify them for me? If not, there seems little point in continuing this charade.
I literally was the first (I think) to post the Foreign Affairs article. Don't be dishonest here.
And there wasn't (and isn't) solid evidence for the claims people were making such as "the West forced Zelensky to fight". Which the FA article authors seem to dismiss.
And the FA article in itself is an interesting read but also highlighted how there were major disagreements on several aspects.
There was also a WSJ piece on the negotiations a while ago that suggested that there weren't binding commitments made so a deal wasn't "close". The FA article has more details than the WSJ article.
Last edited:
I haven’t heard anything about her views on the conflict, she doesn’t seem to be a very public person — unlike Kanchelskis, who regularly gives interviews (although mostly football-related).
Why is it $250bn? The reports I have read put the US contribution, until Feb at more like $75bn, with $46bn being military aid, half of which has been donated spare US equipment, so not really spending.
You argue it is of limited strategic importance, yet the consequences for the US if Russia won, and Ukraine lost, would be significant - the US would be defeated, US security guarantees to its allies would be exposed as useless, countries would be forced to rearm and go nuclear, and richer, more powerful and more capable states than Russia would think their time has come. There would be global chaos as the vacuum was filled by countries unfriendly to the US.
When you say you don't want the US to "police the world" (ie maintain stability in a way that benefits the US's economic interests, which all empires do), what you are saying, IMO, is you want to benefit from being the richest, most powerful country in the world without paying for it.
Last edited:
The US military financial aid to Ukraine is hardly anything out of its annual defense budget and when you consider what a good job Ukraine has done in decimating Russias military(the nemesis)would logically be money well spent.
Last edited:
Not to mention the fact that unlike many other countries (including most European countries providing aid), the "aid" goes directly back into the economy since they produce these things themselves. For the government itself it's still obviously the same amount out, immediately, but for the country it doesn't "cost" that sum.
Nah. @Suedesi is more 'I want the US to not police the world, so despite that Russia is the bad side in this, Ukraine is too far away and I do not care', MTG is 'Ukraine are nazis, Russia are good'. End result is probably the same though.
Because probably those weapons would be as shit as Russia's are, who have a nationalised military production.
Caf is Caf, but at times need a reminder that governments suck at innovation. And yep, you need good innovation to make top military hardware.
That's pretty much in lock step with Marge Green's recent comments about why the US shouldn't fund Ukraine.
"People want to see a peace deal..." etc... (ie., allow Putin to help himself to as much of Ukraine as he wants in exchange for a ceasefire).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
As for her comments about a majority of Americans - recent polling from Gallup this month.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx
Honestly, I haven't heard much of her cause she is batshit insane, so I might be wrong, but thought that her point is similar to Tucker's (who is a Russian shill) that Russia are the good guys on this. suedesi is a bit more, I do not care what happens in the world, want first to fix the US.
Never mind, there is a lot of intersection between these 2 points of view.
'
Which was my original point. Those wanting the US to not support Ukraine are on common ground with Putin and all the Russian propagandists, whose views largely overlap with Tucker, Marge, and the rest of the crazies on US right.
Not very recently though. Governments were not that much directly involved with innovations in computers, AI, pharma, modern weapons in the west, electric vehicles etc. There were posts here over the years in the same topic, how much better Russia is at this cause they do not waste money to capitalists but have nationalized military production, and well, it is clear now that Russia weapons are 30 years or so behind the US. Government sectors tend to be corrupted and usually do not pay as well as private sector, which is why private sector bring the innovation.
Now obviously there are some things that you need the government to be involved instead of leaving it entirely to the market, stuff like police, healthcare, education and infrastructure. But in many, like military weapons, I do not see how it would be a good idea to have the government itself producing them.
Oh, I agree that the end result is the same (Russia winning). I just think that motivations are very different, for suedesi is cause he does not want the US to spend money outside of the US despite that he thinks Russia are bad. For Tucker, it is because Russia is a great Christian country who is rejecting the woke culture, those are the good guys.
I find it a bit mad how US politicians and media personalities can be so blatantly on the Russian payroll now, considering how being a Soviet sympathiser would have put you on a list just a few decades ago. Feels like it’s only a matter of time until a pro-Russian leadership eventually takes hold.
From what i have heard, those who don't subscribe to orthodox-christianity are not treated well in Russia, so all the evangelicals hard-on for Russia would disappear if they actually moved there.
For Tucker its just pandering to whatever gives Trumpists a hard on.
Probably. To some degree, Russia is how the Trumpists want America to become. A right-wing autocracy with no division between religion and politics (even less than in the US), where racism and homophobia are virtues. They'll be dirt poor, but at least no drag queens and cancel culture.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
US should just deplete it's inventories at this point and backfill it.
There is no scenario where US will be dependent on shells in it's fighting and if it reaches that point something has gone horribly wrong.
In the past, we were told that the US cannot send ATACMS to Ukraine, because that would be "escalation". The same with tanks, with F-16s, and with other weapons.
For some reason, this is not true anymore, and nobody explained to us why. Why was this "escalation" in 2022, but it is not "escalation" in 2024? Perhaps it was never "escalation"? But then why did our leaders force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind their backs?
I do not understand why Biden and Scholz made those decisions in 2022, the only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they both are morons.
Scholz ain’t a moron. He’s just corrupt and lacks morals. So that’s probably why.
A possible (still not great) explanation could be that Ukraine demonstrated the ability to strike deep within Russia using their own designs in the meantime. Which would mean that ATACMS improve the numbers and quality of the weapons they have, but are not a fundamentally new ability for them.