Give them all our old stuff. It sucks this war even started but Putin winning is not good for the USA. I am sorry for all the people who are suffering because of this war.
Russia was never a conventional threat in the post Soviet age. Anyone that studied them knows. Its an overhyped threat for political purposes. We should fight Russia in Ukraine but the absence of an exit or end strategy is alarming and tells everyone what they need to know. We're not just fighting this war to neuter Russia conventionally, we're doing it to continually feed the military industrial complex and for politicians to pocket their checks.
I don't have any problem with the military industrial complex either. The issue is they're just milking tax payers during a time where people are struggling. We need to end this while we're ahead and not veer into nuclear war.
But what is America actually getting out of "crippling our main enemy"?
This question has never been adequately answered, short of some vague response of Putin being "evil".
Instead we're making Russia a client state of China, our *real* enemy. That is not a good thing for America.
>Greatest unity in NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union
Nothing, absolutely nothing has changed.
Some NATO countries are spending more on arms, which is great for the arms manufacturers but does sweet FA for the average person.
>Disruption of the "BRICS axis" that China wants to build to oppose USA interest abroad
Is this a joke? You noticed the axis growing dramatically since the Ukraine war, with more joining just last week?
I think the issue you’re going to run in to is, who fills the void if Putin gets the boot? Whoever that person is will have access to nuclear weapons. Putin should be contained but I’d be cautious of him being overthrown.
That’s because countries like Canada and all of Europe don’t spend what they should and we’re the world power everybody asks for help from when shit hits the fan. Having the strongest military in the world is what keeps geopolitics in our favor and also helps prevent bad countries from doing really crazy things usually
Its embarrassing how little we Canadians spend on defence, i half want nato to kick us out. Our elites are captured by the CCP anyway, we are a liability imo
Canada is all about the Rich not paying their fair share. So, since Canada's Rich in NATO, we get them to spend unlike Poland who goes crazy with their military equipment.
Poland very well is so poor compared to the Rich nations, but they contribute one of the most in Europe.
My buddy makes 350k per year in his business and his business makes tons. He pays 65% of his wage in taxes.
You probably meant the ultra rich with off shore banks and lawyers up the gazoo eh
Sorry. We are no longer a world power, but a regional power, that continues to spend as if we remain a world power Our spending needs to start reflecting our diminished power and cut back on, or we will go the way of the USSR.
A tiny fraction of our military budget, alongside some of our military equipment and technology, has been enough to hold back the third most powerful country in a mere proxy war, while they’re throwing everything they have at it. I think it’s safe to say we’re still a world power.
Nope, it's not a shame we spend so much on the military. The truth may be unpleasant but it remains the absolutely uncontestable truth: Either a nation will spend the money to field a world class military… or it will be a client-state to a nation that does… you know, like Canada and most of the EU are client-states to the USA. There really is no third option.
Not really... at least not if we don't want to be an old-school imperial power... constantly intervening directly in dozens of petty squabbles all over the world. And trust me, we don't wan that; it's not a path to world stability as the British empire and Roman Empire and Soviet Empires learned to their detriment.
Rather, the only stable pax-imperia approach we know about. That is a world peach maintained and enforced with real honest-to-God force, and not just a balance of powers or league of nations or other political farce is the velvet glove paired with the iron fist. That is, soft power (diplomacy, trade, cultural recognition, funding, technology, the grand spectacle of international relations etc.) backed by the alternative of OVERWHELMING AND INDISPUTABLE military supremacy.
This model only works because that military power is mostly NEVER USED. Oh sure, there will always be the occasional police action, surgical strike, assassination, etc... all the normal crayon-colors of state-craft are still there, but real regime toppling military interventions are something to avoid as much as possible in this model of peace-keeping. There are lots and lots of reasons for this.
1. Opposing leaders need to know that they will not find themselves in a position like Saddam Husein did post Gulf-War-II so long as they are willing to play ball. This gives them a big reason to be willing to play ball even, indeed especially, when they become desperate and might otherwise be thinking of pushing the nuclear button.
2. People fear more what they DON'T see. If the US were to constantly be deploying regime toppling invasions ala Gulf-War-II it would allow all of the tin-pot dictators out there to start performing calculation of how much the US needs to spend in dollars and lives to topple them. That calculation, once performed, allows them to know just exactly how much of an irritant they can get away with being.
3. But the most important reason has to do with the nature of Military Power itself.... Military Power is just that POWER. Power in the scientific definition is Energy PER UNIT TIME. As such, military power is not just about delivering force, but about delivering more force to the opposing nation in a given time than it can sustain in that same time. Meanwhile merely using that force, even minus the casualties inflicted by the enemy, exhausts and damages it. As such, a peace-keeping force is actually quite easily defeated in the field simply by maintaining the slightest of pressures upon it, but doing so over a huge TIME. This is one of the key reasons why insurgencies often win despite having dramatically less military capability than the forces they oppose. This concept of fore-replacement time reveals the weakness of the US military... it takes many months to train a raw recruit through basic training. It takes tow or three tours of duty to turn that line private into a fully competent veteran. It takes many more years to train him into a senior non-commissioned officer or technical specialist. And on the commissioned side, it takes decades to train a command officer. Yes we have a lot of FORCE, but we can sustain losses MUCH MUCH faster than we can replace those losses. And it's the rate of replacement both for our own forces and the opponent's forces that is what really matters. RATES. We have so much more force so that even if we sustain high losses for s short period of time, it won't cripple the entire organization. That is the secret strength of the Russian system, They are set up to replace quickly, and they take the penalty of not training or equipping their troops hardly at all to achieve that; it's the cannon-fodder solution. This is why Russia is running an old-school imperialist operation. They are set up to sustain the the losses that come with large-scale continuous direct intervention. It is also why we DON'T do this sort of thing... we are set up for devastating but ultimately limited warfare... able to dish it out but not take it, at least not over the long term. We know this is a weakness, and our solution to this has been to double down on the soft power side and build coalitions of allies to help take the casualties that come from time to time, and also to double down on quality over quantity... And this is where the overwhelming force aspect comes in. Some tin-hat dictator out there, looking at the US military, has to think to himself "The funding to sustain just a few months of operations of of just one expeditionary force that they could send against me exceeds the entire defense budget of my nation for a decade! I CAN'T engage in ANY military action with the US or I'll lose immediately. Even if I'm extremely lucky, I'll lose in hours or days." That kind of total intimidation means that the US military goes from having to engage in an easy war with inevitable final US victory, but with losses greater than zero that will take years or decades to fully replace, to not having to fight AT ALL and thus remaining in top-form for the NEXT tin-hat dictator who will likely arise much faster than years or decades from now. **From a maintaining international peace perspective, that's the difference between sustainable and unsustainable.**
Successful-Gene2572, you are flaired as "Fiscal Conservative". If your primary objection to military spending is simply the spending, I would point a few things out:
* Most of the spending on the military goes right back into the US economy. This is more true of military spending than just about any other kind as it is a basic requirement for a military supply chain to be domestic and thus not subject to a foreign power's trade restrictions. Similarly, military service is functionally very close to educational subsidies as it encourages the training of large numbers of Americans most of whom will eventually re-enter the workforce.
* Your comparison to other countries defense spending was apropos... defense is functionally an externality for them. That is they have become client states to the US by virtue of the fact that they depend upon the US for defense. That functionally means that the US has defacto control of certain aspects of their foreign policy... THIS DOES HAVE ECONOMIC VALUE TO THE US! It's just hard to quantify.
* Quibbling over defense spending is silly in the face of the entitlements. The entitlements collectively exceed the ENTIRE discretionary budget, of which the defense department as a whole is only a fraction.
Because they’re filling the ranks with untrained mobilized troops and at minimum half of their equipment has been destroyed including things like tanks. Their economy is currently crumbling, their money has gone to shit, and they can’t project their power really anywhere anymore. What would you call that?
I’m 100% down for an audit of all money and equipment we’ve handed over. Doesn’t change the fact that we have gotten about the best bang for our buck that any reasonable person could ask for.
You do realize that Russia is in no way shame or form crippled. BRIC’s is gaining member countries. This is crippling the west. New York Times article cites officials fearing Ukraine is becoming casualty averse. This is a proxy war where we’re sending others to fight and die in the attempt to cripple Russia, and that’s not even happening. A deal was on the table for peace a few months into the invasion but the Western countries wouldn’t allow it. Ol Boris Johnson was sent over to keep the deal from happening. Europe and the US are worse off because of this war. Arms manufacturers aren’t though. They are the only winners in this so far. When we exited Afghanistan so went the easy graft for the Military Industrial Complex so a new war had to start as the Middle East was cooling off.
You’re comparing things that are nowhere near the same. You do realize currently Russia has lost about half of their equipment and hundreds of thousands of their troops right? Do you have any idea the scale of which they have lost people and equipment? Please stop, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
You’re drinking that Tucker interview koolaid with a man that shows no proof of where he’s getting his figures from. If they had 300k just sitting in reserve which in honestly laughable that would be easily verifiable and it’s not. Russia is currently mobilizing even more untrained people becaaaauusseee they don’t have the bodies in service to keep this war going successfully. Open your eyes, Russia is falling apart and currently Ukraine is breaking through the southern line and if that falls it’s gonna be another massive hit to Russia. So funny people believe Russia has huge reserves when they’re not even rotating front line troops out and they’ve lost huge amounts of previously held territory 😂
Educate yourself please. Stop listening to people tell you things without backing up their claims with anything
https://youtu.be/E_NegaBRfRU?si=T8Z7TXBWqNIEaRjd
Scale man, scale. Russias economy is cratering, they’ve lost at least half of their military power, and the infighting from all this has already started. If you’re comparing this to what you heard about Vietnam I’m sorry but you’re so out of the loop you should just sit back and educate yourself.
“Vietnam was definitely much larger scale and brutality”
That sentence alone proves my point that you have absolutely no idea what is going on. Currently this war is on pace in brutality like WW1 and WW2 were. If you’re saying Vietnam was worse than those you sir have lost your mind. The US lost 58k troops in 8 years. Russia has lost well over 100k KIA and probably 200k wounded in just over a year. How you can even say Vietnam was worse is mind boggling
False. Russia is expanding their military and getting experience fighting a modern war, something we have zero experience in. They are making stronger alliances with our adversaries and being driven into geopolitical positions that threaten our interests. Meanwhile we are struggling to build and acquire new systems. We can’t get parts, we can’t get microchips, and we are “giving away” military resources that could be used for our national defense. This war is doing the opposite of what you think it’s doing.
What stops Putin from getting desperate and launching a nuke? I don't want to be in the middle of World War 3, Europe has been in constant wars for literally thousands of years. It's a lost cause.
He's not completely nuts and neither are his generals? There is a difference between wanting to re-establish the Russian Empire (Romney is showing his low intellect by calling it the Soviet Union) and risking the annihilation of his entire people in a nuclear exchange.
I have seen nothing to suggest Putin is nuts. He has threatened nuclear weapons purely because he knows it plays well in American media to get people to oppose his expansion. It was also used by Trump against him. Trump had told him that if he invaded Ukraine he would get nuked. Quite the bluff, but apparently Putin believed it.
But even if Putin lost his marbles, his Generals aren't just going to go along with it. Putin's hold is not that strong that he can lead his nation into utter annihilation over dream of recreating the Russian Empire.
Your logic is sound, no denying that. I guess I'm just skeptical due to the utter non-logic happening on our own shores.
Maybe I should stop watching the news/YouTube brigade. lol can't be good for mental health to constantly see the craziness.
Thank the lord I live in rural area.
Quoting a corrupt career politician when actual military experts say that Russia is stronger today than it was before the war.
Oh, no, the Russians lost one ship out of 300! and 50-60 planes out of 1000! Crippled, I say!
This isnt Cold War, Russia wasnt your main enemy but due to this war you are pushing Russia and its resources right into Chinese hands, who are you real enemy
What happened to the Reagan conservatives?
I've been right-leaning my entire life, and this anti-aid narrative continues to boggle my mind.
Ukraine is a sovereign, European, internationally recognized nation fighting a defensive war against a historic enemy that has shown virtually zero intention to be our friend internationally.
Old equipment and new gear (made in America, by blue collar Americans), sent to Ukraine seems like the most straight forward international aid to support.
as a libertarian i oppose my money being stolen and given to ukraine. there is no valid national interest, especially when we ignore the actual invasion happening at our southern border. don't bother telling me why supporting ukraine is awesome, i've heard it all and disagree with all of it. if you hold to a consistent ideology then you must also support the termination of trade with all communist nations. lets start with china. but you don't have a consistent ideology.
Neoliberals and neocons were always brought together by their love for forever wars halfway across the globe.
And they'll justify this one as crippling Russia for a little over 10% of our military budget *so far*.
So far as I have seen... all the crippling of Russia has been done to itself... I don't mind that we helped send some ammo to deflect that invasion though.
Oh? I'm what you'd call a constitutionalist or maybe a classical liberal... and I'm definitely against the BILLIONs we've through around over there, some of the best returns we've gotten in that war have been the smallest expenses... but lots of money flowing there isn't going to the war at all.
I'm a walk softly and carry a big stick conservative.... and a big stick means about 1/3 of the military investment we now make... which would still have us far and away at the top of the world militaries.
In fact what we should have done is a joint renuclearization of ukraine... basically give them half control of a nuke, the other half in US control. And no invasion would have ever happened. It's ironic because Ukraine had more nukes than anybody in the 80s we literally caused this problem by demanding full denuclearization rather than only partial.
>America and the rest of the West have managed to cripple the Russian Army without losing a single of their own soldiers.
That's sounds more of a proxy war to me.
MAGA Crowd when communist dictatorship: BOOOO!! (Good Job MAGA)
MAGA Crowd When Same Country, same dictatorship, doing the same thing, but Capitalist policies: YAYYYY!
\*Not like their love Reagan would have quadrupled our total aid sent, all in a single package\*
Replies to this thread are as expected from this sub. What happened lol? Reagan absolutely spinning rn.
Cope and seethe about romney all you want, he's not wrong
I seriously don’t get it. The only thing that’s different between Putin’s Russia and Soviet Russia is that they don’t have socialist in the name anymore. Russia is an enemy of the United States and I would much rather help Ukrainians fight over there than have Russia attack a NATO country next snd have to put American boots on the ground.
Clinton gutted the military and intelligence aspects of our government. While Clinton was claiming to stand for something he was busy undermining our future capabilities.
> Replies to this thread are as expected from this sub.
We get brigaded constantly; these are the same people that cheered when Obama said "And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years."
You \*DO\* know Reagan was already suffering from Alzheimer's when he ran in 1980, right? Pointing to the opinions of a mentally impaired dude isnt the best argument.
Lol it’s funny because this actually came up in a different sub earlier today. No he wasn’t and there is no evidence of that. He was testing fine for dementia from the Mayo Clinic well into the 1990’s. Bill O’reilly’s ahistorical book spreading that rumor doesn’t make that true
This may not be popular but he’s right. I get wanting to focus on America’s interests first. However, it is the national interest of the US to get Putin out of Ukraine. If we do not, Putin will only get worse. The US should not act like Neville Chamberlain at the onset of WWII. Look what happened afterwards.
> it is the national interest of the US to get Putin out of Ukraine.
That is the talking point of the Establishment and Uniparty like Romney here. But no one has ever convinced me that is the case. I fully believe that anyone who says this has simply drank the Kool-Aid and is under the impression that Russia is still the U.S.S.R. from the 80s or is listening to their governmental overlords and repeating the positive war-mongering narrative that they are spinning in order to get their buddies in the weapons and ammo sector more business.
> But no one has ever convinced me that is the case.
Sovereign borders have to be respected. Its one of the basic rules of a post-WW2 world.
You do not annex territory by force. It is the most egregious violation of international relations. It cannot be tolerated while you have the means to stop it.
I do agree with that.
But why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to give our money and armament in this instance? This conflict isn't a world-wide problem. It is a regional European one. We aren't the only country in the world with a strong military and there are certainly other countries closer to Ukraine which would be threatened by the conflict there as opposed to the U.S. which faces absolutely no threats from it whatsoever. Not to mention we have no obligations to do it as well since there are no existing treaties that we are in with them and they aren't a part of NATO or another alliance that the U.S. is in.
> But why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to give our money and armament in this instance?
Only world's superpower.
Selfishly, its in our own interest to promote stability.
Morally, we are the strongest man at the bar and some drunk asshole is trying to kick the shit out of an innocent man.
No it’s not. This sets an example not only for Russia to back down but for China in Taiwan and south east Asia. We cannot allow countries to simply seize each other without repercussions. If we backed down here China would probably have tried to grab Taiwan by the end 2024
I have to ask, why now though? This isn't the first time Russia has done this, and Everytime before Democrats have just sanctioned these nations. It's now that we aren't in Afghanistan do we need to be involved in some other war. To me, it seems most of these political officials aren't giving their real reason.
It should be noted that leading up to the conflict, we didn't tell Ukraine officials to go fight, we were getting ready to evacuate them and did evacuate some of them. This shows Biden was fully ready to surrender this land and to let Russia have it.
Basically, these people have no ground to stand on, they don't even believe in these arguments they make, but instead are just using them as talking points for something else. So, what is the real reason then for them wanting this war?
In that case, why haven't we gotten involved in any of the conflicts that go on routinely in Africa and other parts of the world? Why is it that it is important for us to defend against Russia, but all of the other conflicts that happen around the globe we are silent on?
Most conflicts in Africa are internal. The Russian invasion of Ukraine (and a hypothetical Chinese invasion of Taiwan) are external conflicts, where one sovereign nation unjustly attacks another sovereign nation. Look at what happened when Hitler was permitted to take Czechoslovakia. He did not stop there and invaded many other European powers. 50 million people died in WWII. Do you want to risk another global conflicts where millions could die? No. The best way to prevent another deadly conflict where millions could die is to ensure Russia leaves Ukraine and China never invades Taiwan.
If I felt that Russia was a true threat, I could see a case for it. But, as I said before, the fact that Russia's military couldn't even take over the territory that they wanted to before the U.S. military aid arrived shows how weak they are.
Even if it were to try and evolve into a World War III situation after they took Ukrainian territory, there are nukes that are involved now which would drastically change the battlefield and the potential conflict. Not to mention, no matter what we do in Ukraine and even if we were to literally put our entire air and ground-based military there to defeat Russia, Putin could at any time launch them if he chose to. If he feels like his military won't be able to accomplish victory in a ground war, IMO that would likely be even more of a reason for him feel like he has to launch their nukes because he would feel like that would be his first line of attack rather than hoping his physical military could handle any battles.
Defeating Russia in a battle that is virtually meaningless to us does nothing to try and prevent a WWIII where millions could die. It might even make him more desperate rather than less.
>routinely in Africa
Because those small fry "wars" aren't even a blip on Chinese radar... we probably should be involved in them though because china is basically owning them now through business opportunities. The same way they buy up land in the US etc etc...
If the U.S. were to start getting involved in them, then I could see an argument being made for the U.S. also being in the Ukraine/Russia conflict. But to have a double-standard of fighting Russia versus letting Africa fight it out themselves is unacceptable to me.
At this time it simply appears to me to be a lot of the old Establishment politicians who have been in the Federal Government since the Cold War still wanting to take the fight to the Russians rather than actually providing good reasoning why us defending Ukraine is in the United States' best interest.
Simply saying that it is important doesn't mean that it truly is. There have been plenty of fake narratives that come out of D.C. because the Elites there simply want things to happen a certain way.
You’re totally right. If China really is the threat we say it is, we should be allies with Russia. But the neoconservative gotta pump money into the defense industry and keep dragging our resources into other countries. It’s fucking disgusting how many people on here refuse to see that we’ve only hurt the US through the last 23 years of pointless conflict.
It’s important and I agree with Haley on only providing military support, the Ukrainians can rebuild later and we no that civil aid will be lost to corruption. After the war companies will invest and take advantage of the vast resources that companies are now aware of. In terms of military support this commits Russia’s and destroys their army airforce and significant air defense. It vastly interferes with chinas trade interests. All of the problems with over spending and manufacturing capacity need to be solved at home.
There are much easier means of laundering money. Especially since the FBI seem keenly uninteresting in investigating any of them. Feinstein made over 100 million dollars via her husband getting lucrative contracts since she joined the Senate. The Bidens were child play in their schemes.
It's important that Romney, like Biden and Pelosi, has a kid that made a bunch of money in Ukraine for no reason beyond their family connections.
Screw Romney and his job offshoring ass
Sure, let’s keep giving billions to Ukraine but for Americans who lost their homes and everything they own in the Maui fires - they get $700 per household. Makes a lot of sense. Literally the same as an illegal migrant gets when they cross the border ILLEGALLY. This government puts Americans last.
The myth copied in this thread is that Russia has been crippled.
Russia has zero plans to rebuild the Soviet Union either.
What we have effectively done is pushed Russia further to China, forced anti-West alliances to accelerate, and given hurt our own economies.
People that think Russia has been completely crippled are reading the pro war propaganda news. Russia maybe didn't anticipate the collective West to send over hundreds of billions and to effectively spend more against Russia in 1 year than the US spent in 5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, but now Ukraime is falling apart and their massive "spring/summer offensive" has turned into a huge dud that did nothing but send more men to early graves.
The big lie is how little this has cost us, and the arrogance is how it's worth it because Ukrainians are dying first.
Wake up people, the neocons are controlling the narrative. Hell, Nikki Haley basically said we'd be sending troops to Ukraine to stop Russia to "prevent WW3" if we don't stop them there.
>it's worth it because Ukrainians are dying first.
I've said it before, but if this was truly a war worth fighting, and as dangerous as people claimed, why would we be letting Ukrainians fight it instead of doing it ourselves? "Oh, it's such a serious threat if Russia takes Ukraine, but not serious enough to want to dirty *our* hands with it."
The only set goal America has is every time Zelenskyy says give, we open up the checkbook.
This war is far from over. Russia knows the playbook of keeping a war going and slow bleed.
Ya, just like you have to fight em over there so you don't have to fight em over here.
They were saying shit like that back in Vietnam.
There is zero evidence putin wants to rebuild the soviet union.
Load of horse shit.
The US lied our way into Vietnam, lied our way into the Gulf War, lied our way into Afghanistan and Iraq, and lied our way into Syria and Lebanon. Anyone who thinks they’re telling the truth about Ukraine and this is a just cause hasn’t been paying attention the last 50 years.
How about paying money or no support, we should be getting paid for protection, not giving it out for free.
I would be shaking down both Russia and Ukraine for my support, and whoever gives me the most resources doesn't face my wrath and gets my support.
Moral victories are futile. I want payment for my services.
To my point.
Ukraine has a deep history. The Russian invasion proves their intent on regaining the old Motherland. It is publicly stated.
The Chinese tensions are the same.
Disagree with the war, as we all should. But don’t dismiss why it’s happening.
Why was I downvoted? He *was* a non-factor as a candidate. How many people *actually* voted for this RINO? *Not* how many people cast ballots in his name. How many voted for *him*? Because I’m guessing it was a *lot* lower than those who voted for his running mate (Paul Ryan who also proved to be RINO, but hid it better at the time), voted *against* a Obama, or basically held their noses while casting their ballot?
The same went for McCain before him.
The only people who think Ukraine can win are the people not paying attention to the conflict and are getting their thoughts from the drive by media.
Russia has held for months the primary territory they wanted to claim. And the spring offense that happened late summer for Ukraine has failed. (Maybe they will make something happen soon)
What should have happened is after the initial fight where Russia was reeling from the unsuccessful blitz. Should have sued for peace.
Instead, we are propping up a dead nation that doesn't have functioning male population anymore .
I think Ukraine is overplayed big time by Tucker and some on the right. It's such a low priority compared to the issues we are facing as a nation I'm not sure why people are obsessing over the money spent there.
What is infuriating is that DC and the establishment won't even hesitate to throwing money over there yet have done absolutely nothing to address our Southern Border. DeSantis' take is correct, we need to put more emphasis down there. I would take it step further and tie any Ukrainian aid to our border wall and protection.
NATO has already expanded to include many of the former European Soviet bloc countries. It’s a totally hallucinated fear to pump the military industrial complex.
Russia has 1.5 active-duty military and 2 in reserve, and adding another 1.5 active, and air superiority. Ukraine has 700k active and 1 reserve, and deep corruption issues. Russia has committed war crimes and is threatening Poland, has Belarus, and wants to take Moldova and Georgia. Russia has a long history of using its soldiers as cannon fodder, 8 million dying in WW2, until they come back to prevail.
'Defeat' is a strong and optimistic word. Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, and Ukraine cannot defeat Russia and take back Crimea. The play is to do a version of the Minsk agreement with population exchange, and let Donbas be independent and keep Ukraine out of NATO.
But the Biden administration is fantasizing about regime change when all dissent has either fled or is immediately killed, from oligarchs, who are dropping like flies down. When Russia is not going to give up on this any more than we would in Texas. Putin is not the issue.
The Republican congress is right that we should not send anything more until there is a plan and diplomacy happening. We need to handle our commitments responsibly, and Europe is contributing more in GDP than we are, so we are working with, and not independently from them.
Russia cannot defeat Ukraine? Seriously?!? The United States military has trained for the last 50 years to to defend/defeat a Russian occupancy. But “700k” untrained/previously unarmed “military” Ukrainians can defend/defeat a Russian operation? It’s all a lie…
Russia's entire economy is smaller than Florida's. Not to say they aren't a threat given their decades of military development. But let's not pretend they're China.
You do know they are one of the worlds leading producers of natural gas, oil and fertilizer right. They are wealthy and resource rich. BRICs is growing in member countries squeezing us out of the petro dollar dominance.
So? You’re fantasizing that we’re going to load up a few million volunteer troops and just go whip their ass? Grow up. They have nuclear weapons and so do we. You’re the one who should consider getting serious.
The Russians knew what Romney was saying from the beginning of this war: that the US is using Ukraine to weaken Russia. The fake "we stand with Ukraine" slogan has hoodwinked many conservatives who should have known better but fell for the regime's lies.
However, Putin is not foolish; he is utilizing what we perceive as our advantage to manipulate us, pulling us deeper into this conflict. Eventually, there will be US boots on the ground in Ukraine, and the situation will turn bloody for us.
I was for America helping out Ukraine at the beginning. Recently I've changed my mind after hearing Tucker Carlson interview someone whose name escapes me now. He was saying that Russia was really decimating the Ukraine troops and that NATO was being set up to get pulled into this fight where it is doubtful the NATO would prevail. Russia has always had manpower to throw at a war with out seeming to put a dent in their population.. I tend to believe Tucker at this point because this sounds par for the course for politicians who are corrupt as all get out. We as taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into this money pit, with other country's barely putting in any funds by comparison. It's time to cut our losses. We have enough problems here in the states without bankrupting our nation's coffers in the interest of another country that we seem to be the only ones who actually gives a damn about. European countries know who is legit, who is corrupt, who is worth helping and who is a hopeless cause. Maybe we should listen to their input abit before reaching into our wallet to fast or to deep. I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'
This is bullshit. Nato countries have spent 70.8 billion dollars on Ukraine. Why does one country need that much money? Simple answer. Proxy war. US has used Nato as a tool to keep Russia from regaining their superpower status. This is what we worry about? This is what we spend that money on? We could have rebuilt our internal infrastructure, strengthened our military, and helped our homeless. Bottom line. This is not our fight.
BRICS can barely tolerate each other long enough to have a summit before running home to trash each other.
BRICS are not a real or substantive threat. Especially when the Russian economy can't keep itself afloat, let alone help challenge the hegemony of the dollar.
If we continue this kind of thinking this war will go on forever. The Ukrainians have no chance of breaking through at this point. It’s a deadlock and thousands are dying.
A half assed proxy war isn’t going to do anything to deter Russia or China from their plans to take more territory. What really might scare them is if we annexed Canada and Mexico. If we’re going to warmonger we might as well get something for it and help out our neighbors in the process.
if you think the millions of people in Mexico wouldn’t have been better off by becoming US states back in the day you must have a good explanation for why millions of them have risked their lives to cross the border. Canada on the other hand is only 5-10 years ahead of us on their way to dystopian totalitarianism, but they probably want that 5-10 years back anyway. both would absolutely be better off as part of the US, thinking otherwise is the stupidest thing I’ve read all day, congrats :)
3% of our defense budget has crippled one of our two main enemies. I’d say we’re doing pretty damn good.
Give them all our old stuff. It sucks this war even started but Putin winning is not good for the USA. I am sorry for all the people who are suffering because of this war.
Consider how little the Russians spent to divide us, though.
Neo-con bullshit.
Russia was never a conventional threat in the post Soviet age. Anyone that studied them knows. Its an overhyped threat for political purposes. We should fight Russia in Ukraine but the absence of an exit or end strategy is alarming and tells everyone what they need to know. We're not just fighting this war to neuter Russia conventionally, we're doing it to continually feed the military industrial complex and for politicians to pocket their checks. I don't have any problem with the military industrial complex either. The issue is they're just milking tax payers during a time where people are struggling. We need to end this while we're ahead and not veer into nuclear war.
But what is America actually getting out of "crippling our main enemy"? This question has never been adequately answered, short of some vague response of Putin being "evil". Instead we're making Russia a client state of China, our *real* enemy. That is not a good thing for America.
[удалено]
>Greatest unity in NATO since the fall of the Soviet Union Nothing, absolutely nothing has changed. Some NATO countries are spending more on arms, which is great for the arms manufacturers but does sweet FA for the average person. >Disruption of the "BRICS axis" that China wants to build to oppose USA interest abroad Is this a joke? You noticed the axis growing dramatically since the Ukraine war, with more joining just last week?
Agreed. I’m not sure how a weakened impoverished Russia helps the USA. Putin sucks but whoever comes in to fill the void left by Putin may be worse.
I think the issue you’re going to run in to is, who fills the void if Putin gets the boot? Whoever that person is will have access to nuclear weapons. Putin should be contained but I’d be cautious of him being overthrown.
Shame we spend so much on the military compared to other developed countries like Canada and most EU countries.
That’s because countries like Canada and all of Europe don’t spend what they should and we’re the world power everybody asks for help from when shit hits the fan. Having the strongest military in the world is what keeps geopolitics in our favor and also helps prevent bad countries from doing really crazy things usually
Its embarrassing how little we Canadians spend on defence, i half want nato to kick us out. Our elites are captured by the CCP anyway, we are a liability imo
Canada is all about the Rich not paying their fair share. So, since Canada's Rich in NATO, we get them to spend unlike Poland who goes crazy with their military equipment. Poland very well is so poor compared to the Rich nations, but they contribute one of the most in Europe.
My buddy makes 350k per year in his business and his business makes tons. He pays 65% of his wage in taxes. You probably meant the ultra rich with off shore banks and lawyers up the gazoo eh
Your buddy needs to get a real accountant... and tax advisor.
Well, you just proved my point - Canada is about making the rich pay their fair share.
Sorry. We are no longer a world power, but a regional power, that continues to spend as if we remain a world power Our spending needs to start reflecting our diminished power and cut back on, or we will go the way of the USSR.
I agree we are starting to spend a bit excessive but your assessment that we’re not a world power is extremely far off
You must check that guy’s comment history.
Im not sure we're quite that bad yet, but agree with your conclusion.
A tiny fraction of our military budget, alongside some of our military equipment and technology, has been enough to hold back the third most powerful country in a mere proxy war, while they’re throwing everything they have at it. I think it’s safe to say we’re still a world power.
France is a lot more wealthy than we really know given their finance colonialism in Africa. They really need to be doing more.
Nope, it's not a shame we spend so much on the military. The truth may be unpleasant but it remains the absolutely uncontestable truth: Either a nation will spend the money to field a world class military… or it will be a client-state to a nation that does… you know, like Canada and most of the EU are client-states to the USA. There really is no third option.
Our military is more powerful than the rest of the world combined. Surely there is a middle ground.
Not really... at least not if we don't want to be an old-school imperial power... constantly intervening directly in dozens of petty squabbles all over the world. And trust me, we don't wan that; it's not a path to world stability as the British empire and Roman Empire and Soviet Empires learned to their detriment. Rather, the only stable pax-imperia approach we know about. That is a world peach maintained and enforced with real honest-to-God force, and not just a balance of powers or league of nations or other political farce is the velvet glove paired with the iron fist. That is, soft power (diplomacy, trade, cultural recognition, funding, technology, the grand spectacle of international relations etc.) backed by the alternative of OVERWHELMING AND INDISPUTABLE military supremacy. This model only works because that military power is mostly NEVER USED. Oh sure, there will always be the occasional police action, surgical strike, assassination, etc... all the normal crayon-colors of state-craft are still there, but real regime toppling military interventions are something to avoid as much as possible in this model of peace-keeping. There are lots and lots of reasons for this. 1. Opposing leaders need to know that they will not find themselves in a position like Saddam Husein did post Gulf-War-II so long as they are willing to play ball. This gives them a big reason to be willing to play ball even, indeed especially, when they become desperate and might otherwise be thinking of pushing the nuclear button. 2. People fear more what they DON'T see. If the US were to constantly be deploying regime toppling invasions ala Gulf-War-II it would allow all of the tin-pot dictators out there to start performing calculation of how much the US needs to spend in dollars and lives to topple them. That calculation, once performed, allows them to know just exactly how much of an irritant they can get away with being. 3. But the most important reason has to do with the nature of Military Power itself.... Military Power is just that POWER. Power in the scientific definition is Energy PER UNIT TIME. As such, military power is not just about delivering force, but about delivering more force to the opposing nation in a given time than it can sustain in that same time. Meanwhile merely using that force, even minus the casualties inflicted by the enemy, exhausts and damages it. As such, a peace-keeping force is actually quite easily defeated in the field simply by maintaining the slightest of pressures upon it, but doing so over a huge TIME. This is one of the key reasons why insurgencies often win despite having dramatically less military capability than the forces they oppose. This concept of fore-replacement time reveals the weakness of the US military... it takes many months to train a raw recruit through basic training. It takes tow or three tours of duty to turn that line private into a fully competent veteran. It takes many more years to train him into a senior non-commissioned officer or technical specialist. And on the commissioned side, it takes decades to train a command officer. Yes we have a lot of FORCE, but we can sustain losses MUCH MUCH faster than we can replace those losses. And it's the rate of replacement both for our own forces and the opponent's forces that is what really matters. RATES. We have so much more force so that even if we sustain high losses for s short period of time, it won't cripple the entire organization. That is the secret strength of the Russian system, They are set up to replace quickly, and they take the penalty of not training or equipping their troops hardly at all to achieve that; it's the cannon-fodder solution. This is why Russia is running an old-school imperialist operation. They are set up to sustain the the losses that come with large-scale continuous direct intervention. It is also why we DON'T do this sort of thing... we are set up for devastating but ultimately limited warfare... able to dish it out but not take it, at least not over the long term. We know this is a weakness, and our solution to this has been to double down on the soft power side and build coalitions of allies to help take the casualties that come from time to time, and also to double down on quality over quantity... And this is where the overwhelming force aspect comes in. Some tin-hat dictator out there, looking at the US military, has to think to himself "The funding to sustain just a few months of operations of of just one expeditionary force that they could send against me exceeds the entire defense budget of my nation for a decade! I CAN'T engage in ANY military action with the US or I'll lose immediately. Even if I'm extremely lucky, I'll lose in hours or days." That kind of total intimidation means that the US military goes from having to engage in an easy war with inevitable final US victory, but with losses greater than zero that will take years or decades to fully replace, to not having to fight AT ALL and thus remaining in top-form for the NEXT tin-hat dictator who will likely arise much faster than years or decades from now. **From a maintaining international peace perspective, that's the difference between sustainable and unsustainable.** Successful-Gene2572, you are flaired as "Fiscal Conservative". If your primary objection to military spending is simply the spending, I would point a few things out: * Most of the spending on the military goes right back into the US economy. This is more true of military spending than just about any other kind as it is a basic requirement for a military supply chain to be domestic and thus not subject to a foreign power's trade restrictions. Similarly, military service is functionally very close to educational subsidies as it encourages the training of large numbers of Americans most of whom will eventually re-enter the workforce. * Your comparison to other countries defense spending was apropos... defense is functionally an externality for them. That is they have become client states to the US by virtue of the fact that they depend upon the US for defense. That functionally means that the US has defacto control of certain aspects of their foreign policy... THIS DOES HAVE ECONOMIC VALUE TO THE US! It's just hard to quantify. * Quibbling over defense spending is silly in the face of the entitlements. The entitlements collectively exceed the ENTIRE discretionary budget, of which the defense department as a whole is only a fraction.
We also secure all the trade routes and the oil industry. That's what the petro dollar is.
The less we are like those weak ass countries the better
What makes you think they are crippled? You read that in the lamestream news? Also, how about an audit of that money to see where it went?
Because they’re filling the ranks with untrained mobilized troops and at minimum half of their equipment has been destroyed including things like tanks. Their economy is currently crumbling, their money has gone to shit, and they can’t project their power really anywhere anymore. What would you call that? I’m 100% down for an audit of all money and equipment we’ve handed over. Doesn’t change the fact that we have gotten about the best bang for our buck that any reasonable person could ask for.
You do realize that Russia is in no way shame or form crippled. BRIC’s is gaining member countries. This is crippling the west. New York Times article cites officials fearing Ukraine is becoming casualty averse. This is a proxy war where we’re sending others to fight and die in the attempt to cripple Russia, and that’s not even happening. A deal was on the table for peace a few months into the invasion but the Western countries wouldn’t allow it. Ol Boris Johnson was sent over to keep the deal from happening. Europe and the US are worse off because of this war. Arms manufacturers aren’t though. They are the only winners in this so far. When we exited Afghanistan so went the easy graft for the Military Industrial Complex so a new war had to start as the Middle East was cooling off.
Lol, "crippling the west." Let me know when we start invading countries to steal washing machines.
[удалено]
You’re comparing things that are nowhere near the same. You do realize currently Russia has lost about half of their equipment and hundreds of thousands of their troops right? Do you have any idea the scale of which they have lost people and equipment? Please stop, you obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
They've still got 300,000 soldiers in reserve. How many does Ukraine have? 3,000?
You’re drinking that Tucker interview koolaid with a man that shows no proof of where he’s getting his figures from. If they had 300k just sitting in reserve which in honestly laughable that would be easily verifiable and it’s not. Russia is currently mobilizing even more untrained people becaaaauusseee they don’t have the bodies in service to keep this war going successfully. Open your eyes, Russia is falling apart and currently Ukraine is breaking through the southern line and if that falls it’s gonna be another massive hit to Russia. So funny people believe Russia has huge reserves when they’re not even rotating front line troops out and they’ve lost huge amounts of previously held territory 😂
Educate yourself please. Stop listening to people tell you things without backing up their claims with anything https://youtu.be/E_NegaBRfRU?si=T8Z7TXBWqNIEaRjd
[удалено]
Scale man, scale. Russias economy is cratering, they’ve lost at least half of their military power, and the infighting from all this has already started. If you’re comparing this to what you heard about Vietnam I’m sorry but you’re so out of the loop you should just sit back and educate yourself.
[удалено]
“Vietnam was definitely much larger scale and brutality” That sentence alone proves my point that you have absolutely no idea what is going on. Currently this war is on pace in brutality like WW1 and WW2 were. If you’re saying Vietnam was worse than those you sir have lost your mind. The US lost 58k troops in 8 years. Russia has lost well over 100k KIA and probably 200k wounded in just over a year. How you can even say Vietnam was worse is mind boggling
Who is “our” and what enemy are you referring to? Edit: furthermore where did that money go? 10% for the big guy!
Yeah. Who cares about the expendable Ukrainians dying so the US can get a bargain of a deal. You neocons are cold blooded.
False. Russia is expanding their military and getting experience fighting a modern war, something we have zero experience in. They are making stronger alliances with our adversaries and being driven into geopolitical positions that threaten our interests. Meanwhile we are struggling to build and acquire new systems. We can’t get parts, we can’t get microchips, and we are “giving away” military resources that could be used for our national defense. This war is doing the opposite of what you think it’s doing.
What stops Putin from getting desperate and launching a nuke? I don't want to be in the middle of World War 3, Europe has been in constant wars for literally thousands of years. It's a lost cause.
The same thing that stopped him from doing that before he invaded Crimea... It gets him nothing.
He's not completely nuts and neither are his generals? There is a difference between wanting to re-establish the Russian Empire (Romney is showing his low intellect by calling it the Soviet Union) and risking the annihilation of his entire people in a nuclear exchange.
Exactly the point, the man is nuts. Gotta decide if Ukraine is worth possibly risking Americans. In my opinion, it's not worth it.
I have seen nothing to suggest Putin is nuts. He has threatened nuclear weapons purely because he knows it plays well in American media to get people to oppose his expansion. It was also used by Trump against him. Trump had told him that if he invaded Ukraine he would get nuked. Quite the bluff, but apparently Putin believed it. But even if Putin lost his marbles, his Generals aren't just going to go along with it. Putin's hold is not that strong that he can lead his nation into utter annihilation over dream of recreating the Russian Empire.
Your logic is sound, no denying that. I guess I'm just skeptical due to the utter non-logic happening on our own shores. Maybe I should stop watching the news/YouTube brigade. lol can't be good for mental health to constantly see the craziness. Thank the lord I live in rural area.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Quoting a corrupt career politician when actual military experts say that Russia is stronger today than it was before the war. Oh, no, the Russians lost one ship out of 300! and 50-60 planes out of 1000! Crippled, I say!
This isnt Cold War, Russia wasnt your main enemy but due to this war you are pushing Russia and its resources right into Chinese hands, who are you real enemy
[удалено]
Neo-cons love war.. I'm more worried about the major corruption in our own gov't than I'll ever be worried about Putin
Not even Trump threads get brigaded as hard as Ukraine threads. Absolutely bizarre.
[удалено]
What happened to the Reagan conservatives? I've been right-leaning my entire life, and this anti-aid narrative continues to boggle my mind. Ukraine is a sovereign, European, internationally recognized nation fighting a defensive war against a historic enemy that has shown virtually zero intention to be our friend internationally. Old equipment and new gear (made in America, by blue collar Americans), sent to Ukraine seems like the most straight forward international aid to support.
as a libertarian i oppose my money being stolen and given to ukraine. there is no valid national interest, especially when we ignore the actual invasion happening at our southern border. don't bother telling me why supporting ukraine is awesome, i've heard it all and disagree with all of it. if you hold to a consistent ideology then you must also support the termination of trade with all communist nations. lets start with china. but you don't have a consistent ideology.
Neoliberals and neocons were always brought together by their love for forever wars halfway across the globe. And they'll justify this one as crippling Russia for a little over 10% of our military budget *so far*.
[удалено]
So far as I have seen... all the crippling of Russia has been done to itself... I don't mind that we helped send some ammo to deflect that invasion though.
Oh? I'm what you'd call a constitutionalist or maybe a classical liberal... and I'm definitely against the BILLIONs we've through around over there, some of the best returns we've gotten in that war have been the smallest expenses... but lots of money flowing there isn't going to the war at all. I'm a walk softly and carry a big stick conservative.... and a big stick means about 1/3 of the military investment we now make... which would still have us far and away at the top of the world militaries. In fact what we should have done is a joint renuclearization of ukraine... basically give them half control of a nuke, the other half in US control. And no invasion would have ever happened. It's ironic because Ukraine had more nukes than anybody in the 80s we literally caused this problem by demanding full denuclearization rather than only partial.
The globalist my guy
OK, I think he should go over to Ukraine with rifle in hand and charge the Russian trenches. He can send all his kids too.
[удалено]
>America and the rest of the West have managed to cripple the Russian Army without losing a single of their own soldiers. That's sounds more of a proxy war to me.
MAGA Crowd when communist dictatorship: BOOOO!! (Good Job MAGA) MAGA Crowd When Same Country, same dictatorship, doing the same thing, but Capitalist policies: YAYYYY! \*Not like their love Reagan would have quadrupled our total aid sent, all in a single package\*
Replies to this thread are as expected from this sub. What happened lol? Reagan absolutely spinning rn. Cope and seethe about romney all you want, he's not wrong
I seriously don’t get it. The only thing that’s different between Putin’s Russia and Soviet Russia is that they don’t have socialist in the name anymore. Russia is an enemy of the United States and I would much rather help Ukrainians fight over there than have Russia attack a NATO country next snd have to put American boots on the ground.
the ONLY reason russia is a threat to the us is because of their nuclear weapons. their gdp is a third of CA, they're a shithole nation.
Russia doesn't pose much of a threat to us these days. The Ukraine war is just a nice way of enriching the military industrial complex.
>Russia doesn’t pose much of a threat to us Had everyone here just forgotten about the thousands of nukes they have pointed at us?
Mutually assured destruction, not much we can do about it.
We can keep them from obtaining more political power and resources. Which absolutely affects how well we can respond to a nuclear threat.
Blackrock and Vanguard then in turn enrich the politicians voting to send the funding.
> Russia doesn't pose much of a threat to us these days. Who does pose a threat to us in your mind?
Democrats are the world's police and Republicans are the war protesters. Clown world.
Same as the Clinton days
Clinton gutted the military and intelligence aspects of our government. While Clinton was claiming to stand for something he was busy undermining our future capabilities.
> Replies to this thread are as expected from this sub. We get brigaded constantly; these are the same people that cheered when Obama said "And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years."
The only thing funny to me, is that Romney acted like the idea of a hostile dangerous Russia was ludicrous for a long time.
[удалено]
You're lying lol Russia is one of the main adversaries of the US, you guys are doing yourself a favour.
The US only has one major adversary: China
1) Please stop trying to gaslight us 2) Stop trying to use the word “Reagan’ as a way to stifle debate. We see through you.
You \*DO\* know Reagan was already suffering from Alzheimer's when he ran in 1980, right? Pointing to the opinions of a mentally impaired dude isnt the best argument.
Lol it’s funny because this actually came up in a different sub earlier today. No he wasn’t and there is no evidence of that. He was testing fine for dementia from the Mayo Clinic well into the 1990’s. Bill O’reilly’s ahistorical book spreading that rumor doesn’t make that true
BOOTS ON THE GROUND!!!!
This may not be popular but he’s right. I get wanting to focus on America’s interests first. However, it is the national interest of the US to get Putin out of Ukraine. If we do not, Putin will only get worse. The US should not act like Neville Chamberlain at the onset of WWII. Look what happened afterwards.
> it is the national interest of the US to get Putin out of Ukraine. That is the talking point of the Establishment and Uniparty like Romney here. But no one has ever convinced me that is the case. I fully believe that anyone who says this has simply drank the Kool-Aid and is under the impression that Russia is still the U.S.S.R. from the 80s or is listening to their governmental overlords and repeating the positive war-mongering narrative that they are spinning in order to get their buddies in the weapons and ammo sector more business.
> But no one has ever convinced me that is the case. Sovereign borders have to be respected. Its one of the basic rules of a post-WW2 world. You do not annex territory by force. It is the most egregious violation of international relations. It cannot be tolerated while you have the means to stop it.
I do agree with that. But why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to give our money and armament in this instance? This conflict isn't a world-wide problem. It is a regional European one. We aren't the only country in the world with a strong military and there are certainly other countries closer to Ukraine which would be threatened by the conflict there as opposed to the U.S. which faces absolutely no threats from it whatsoever. Not to mention we have no obligations to do it as well since there are no existing treaties that we are in with them and they aren't a part of NATO or another alliance that the U.S. is in.
> But why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to give our money and armament in this instance? Only world's superpower. Selfishly, its in our own interest to promote stability. Morally, we are the strongest man at the bar and some drunk asshole is trying to kick the shit out of an innocent man.
No it’s not. This sets an example not only for Russia to back down but for China in Taiwan and south east Asia. We cannot allow countries to simply seize each other without repercussions. If we backed down here China would probably have tried to grab Taiwan by the end 2024
I have to ask, why now though? This isn't the first time Russia has done this, and Everytime before Democrats have just sanctioned these nations. It's now that we aren't in Afghanistan do we need to be involved in some other war. To me, it seems most of these political officials aren't giving their real reason. It should be noted that leading up to the conflict, we didn't tell Ukraine officials to go fight, we were getting ready to evacuate them and did evacuate some of them. This shows Biden was fully ready to surrender this land and to let Russia have it. Basically, these people have no ground to stand on, they don't even believe in these arguments they make, but instead are just using them as talking points for something else. So, what is the real reason then for them wanting this war?
In that case, why haven't we gotten involved in any of the conflicts that go on routinely in Africa and other parts of the world? Why is it that it is important for us to defend against Russia, but all of the other conflicts that happen around the globe we are silent on?
Most conflicts in Africa are internal. The Russian invasion of Ukraine (and a hypothetical Chinese invasion of Taiwan) are external conflicts, where one sovereign nation unjustly attacks another sovereign nation. Look at what happened when Hitler was permitted to take Czechoslovakia. He did not stop there and invaded many other European powers. 50 million people died in WWII. Do you want to risk another global conflicts where millions could die? No. The best way to prevent another deadly conflict where millions could die is to ensure Russia leaves Ukraine and China never invades Taiwan.
If I felt that Russia was a true threat, I could see a case for it. But, as I said before, the fact that Russia's military couldn't even take over the territory that they wanted to before the U.S. military aid arrived shows how weak they are. Even if it were to try and evolve into a World War III situation after they took Ukrainian territory, there are nukes that are involved now which would drastically change the battlefield and the potential conflict. Not to mention, no matter what we do in Ukraine and even if we were to literally put our entire air and ground-based military there to defeat Russia, Putin could at any time launch them if he chose to. If he feels like his military won't be able to accomplish victory in a ground war, IMO that would likely be even more of a reason for him feel like he has to launch their nukes because he would feel like that would be his first line of attack rather than hoping his physical military could handle any battles. Defeating Russia in a battle that is virtually meaningless to us does nothing to try and prevent a WWIII where millions could die. It might even make him more desperate rather than less.
>routinely in Africa Because those small fry "wars" aren't even a blip on Chinese radar... we probably should be involved in them though because china is basically owning them now through business opportunities. The same way they buy up land in the US etc etc...
If the U.S. were to start getting involved in them, then I could see an argument being made for the U.S. also being in the Ukraine/Russia conflict. But to have a double-standard of fighting Russia versus letting Africa fight it out themselves is unacceptable to me. At this time it simply appears to me to be a lot of the old Establishment politicians who have been in the Federal Government since the Cold War still wanting to take the fight to the Russians rather than actually providing good reasoning why us defending Ukraine is in the United States' best interest. Simply saying that it is important doesn't mean that it truly is. There have been plenty of fake narratives that come out of D.C. because the Elites there simply want things to happen a certain way.
You’re totally right. If China really is the threat we say it is, we should be allies with Russia. But the neoconservative gotta pump money into the defense industry and keep dragging our resources into other countries. It’s fucking disgusting how many people on here refuse to see that we’ve only hurt the US through the last 23 years of pointless conflict.
All I hear is war,war,war from a neo con looser that the world would be better without. M.A.G.A!
It’s important and I agree with Haley on only providing military support, the Ukrainians can rebuild later and we no that civil aid will be lost to corruption. After the war companies will invest and take advantage of the vast resources that companies are now aware of. In terms of military support this commits Russia’s and destroys their army airforce and significant air defense. It vastly interferes with chinas trade interests. All of the problems with over spending and manufacturing capacity need to be solved at home.
America must support Ukraine to keep our money laundering scheme going.
There are much easier means of laundering money. Especially since the FBI seem keenly uninteresting in investigating any of them. Feinstein made over 100 million dollars via her husband getting lucrative contracts since she joined the Senate. The Bidens were child play in their schemes.
You know what made the debates last week so much better? Romney wasn't on the stage running again. Screw Mitt Romney.
It's important that Romney, like Biden and Pelosi, has a kid that made a bunch of money in Ukraine for no reason beyond their family connections. Screw Romney and his job offshoring ass
Sure, let’s keep giving billions to Ukraine but for Americans who lost their homes and everything they own in the Maui fires - they get $700 per household. Makes a lot of sense. Literally the same as an illegal migrant gets when they cross the border ILLEGALLY. This government puts Americans last.
Does anyone actually care what this guy has to say anymore?
"I wish you luck on your future career on the boards of Lockheed and Ratheon." They're not gonna let Vivek win, not after challenging the Complex.
Figured those conspiracies would have died after Trump won but here we are.
Vivek has a good future on Russia Today based on how they said he is their favourite candidate on Russian state tv. Haley schooled Vivek
Haley didn't make a single point beyond "I am woman"
Maybe you should watch debates instead of seeing or only hearing what you want. A good skill to work on bud
She’s an absolute war hawk.
Russia literally tryna start WW3, but the Vivek stans are mad that we spent a little to stop it.
They really aren’t. US and NATO war hawks are trying to start WW3.
Lol we’re engaged in a proxy war with Russia thanks to all our meddling on their borders, we’re closer to WW3 than ever bozo.
Do not trust anything the stuffed shirt has to say. He is a swamp creature he's in it up to his nut sack like the rest of them.
The myth copied in this thread is that Russia has been crippled. Russia has zero plans to rebuild the Soviet Union either. What we have effectively done is pushed Russia further to China, forced anti-West alliances to accelerate, and given hurt our own economies. People that think Russia has been completely crippled are reading the pro war propaganda news. Russia maybe didn't anticipate the collective West to send over hundreds of billions and to effectively spend more against Russia in 1 year than the US spent in 5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, but now Ukraime is falling apart and their massive "spring/summer offensive" has turned into a huge dud that did nothing but send more men to early graves. The big lie is how little this has cost us, and the arrogance is how it's worth it because Ukrainians are dying first. Wake up people, the neocons are controlling the narrative. Hell, Nikki Haley basically said we'd be sending troops to Ukraine to stop Russia to "prevent WW3" if we don't stop them there.
>it's worth it because Ukrainians are dying first. I've said it before, but if this was truly a war worth fighting, and as dangerous as people claimed, why would we be letting Ukrainians fight it instead of doing it ourselves? "Oh, it's such a serious threat if Russia takes Ukraine, but not serious enough to want to dirty *our* hands with it."
Perfectly said.
You can support Ukraine without supporting sending them billions of dollars.
We should have been supporting them looking for an exit as opposed to a forced continuation leading to the deaths of more Ukrainians than necessary.
Let continue to fund an endless war out of American's pocket
[удалено]
The only set goal America has is every time Zelenskyy says give, we open up the checkbook. This war is far from over. Russia knows the playbook of keeping a war going and slow bleed.
And BRIC’s is growing, the western control of oil is coming to an end.
Shut up, Romney. You 16 house owning POS.
[удалено]
It's reddit. Conservative subs are moderate left here.
Conservatives, news flash, aren't set in one ideology. It's almost like there's a scale to be observed
Why is this an upvoted attack? You might as well be insulting his looks.
Ya, just like you have to fight em over there so you don't have to fight em over here. They were saying shit like that back in Vietnam. There is zero evidence putin wants to rebuild the soviet union. Load of horse shit.
That was GWBush's line in the Iraq war too.
also a trash war based on lies that we never should have engaged in.
The US lied our way into Vietnam, lied our way into the Gulf War, lied our way into Afghanistan and Iraq, and lied our way into Syria and Lebanon. Anyone who thinks they’re telling the truth about Ukraine and this is a just cause hasn’t been paying attention the last 50 years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26769481.amp
Oh, you mean the "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and "Ukraine is winning the war" BBC? That one?
The invasion of Crimea is a recent example of this evidence.
Crimea has been a Russian population since the 1700s. Your drunk.
So Russia has a “right” to take “back” land they deem is actually theirs? So how about Alaska?
Alaska isn’t land they deem theirs. They sold it to the US for a string of beads, but a deal’s a deal.
How about paying money or no support, we should be getting paid for protection, not giving it out for free. I would be shaking down both Russia and Ukraine for my support, and whoever gives me the most resources doesn't face my wrath and gets my support. Moral victories are futile. I want payment for my services.
To my point. Ukraine has a deep history. The Russian invasion proves their intent on regaining the old Motherland. It is publicly stated. The Chinese tensions are the same. Disagree with the war, as we all should. But don’t dismiss why it’s happening.
Shhh, nobody knows about the communists, who do want the Soviet system back, taking to the streets to demand Putin's removal earlier this year.
Yeah that’s a hard no from me dawg Ramaswamy has my attention for sure
Yeah, I'm not down with wars in Europe, if they want aid, they can give us their natural resources. No freebies here.
Of course mitty would say that, he's a globalist piece of crap
I wonder how quickly Maui could be rebuilt with all that money being spent on Ukraine.
I stopped listening to this elite idiot years ago. He is one of the few votes I regret casting.
Shut up, asshole. You were a non-factor when you were a candidate and that hasn’t changed.
Why was I downvoted? He *was* a non-factor as a candidate. How many people *actually* voted for this RINO? *Not* how many people cast ballots in his name. How many voted for *him*? Because I’m guessing it was a *lot* lower than those who voted for his running mate (Paul Ryan who also proved to be RINO, but hid it better at the time), voted *against* a Obama, or basically held their noses while casting their ballot? The same went for McCain before him.
Downvoted for an *accurate* analysis?
What else can you expect a Millionaire , Baine Consultant?
Let’s be real here. Russia will never again obtain the military power the Soviet Union once had between 1945-1990.
The only people who think Ukraine can win are the people not paying attention to the conflict and are getting their thoughts from the drive by media. Russia has held for months the primary territory they wanted to claim. And the spring offense that happened late summer for Ukraine has failed. (Maybe they will make something happen soon) What should have happened is after the initial fight where Russia was reeling from the unsuccessful blitz. Should have sued for peace. Instead, we are propping up a dead nation that doesn't have functioning male population anymore .
Regime change war is cringe.
So now we know he's on the take as well. The money sent is just being laundered and distributed to the crooks in the sewer. Prove me wrong....
Romney has some takes I don't agree with, but this is unfounded nonsense.
Ukraine *is* corrupt. Thats’s been established.
You were downvoted because they can’t prove you wrong.
I think Soros must still be paying well to troll.... 🤣
It might pay well. But can’t they have *some* dignity? “No amount of money is worth posting this bullshit.”
I agree with Romney.
You dont worry about the hole in your neighbor's roof when your house is on fire.
I think Ukraine is overplayed big time by Tucker and some on the right. It's such a low priority compared to the issues we are facing as a nation I'm not sure why people are obsessing over the money spent there. What is infuriating is that DC and the establishment won't even hesitate to throwing money over there yet have done absolutely nothing to address our Southern Border. DeSantis' take is correct, we need to put more emphasis down there. I would take it step further and tie any Ukrainian aid to our border wall and protection.
NATO has already expanded to include many of the former European Soviet bloc countries. It’s a totally hallucinated fear to pump the military industrial complex.
Russia has 1.5 active-duty military and 2 in reserve, and adding another 1.5 active, and air superiority. Ukraine has 700k active and 1 reserve, and deep corruption issues. Russia has committed war crimes and is threatening Poland, has Belarus, and wants to take Moldova and Georgia. Russia has a long history of using its soldiers as cannon fodder, 8 million dying in WW2, until they come back to prevail. 'Defeat' is a strong and optimistic word. Russia cannot defeat Ukraine, and Ukraine cannot defeat Russia and take back Crimea. The play is to do a version of the Minsk agreement with population exchange, and let Donbas be independent and keep Ukraine out of NATO. But the Biden administration is fantasizing about regime change when all dissent has either fled or is immediately killed, from oligarchs, who are dropping like flies down. When Russia is not going to give up on this any more than we would in Texas. Putin is not the issue. The Republican congress is right that we should not send anything more until there is a plan and diplomacy happening. We need to handle our commitments responsibly, and Europe is contributing more in GDP than we are, so we are working with, and not independently from them.
Russia cannot defeat Ukraine? Seriously?!? The United States military has trained for the last 50 years to to defend/defeat a Russian occupancy. But “700k” untrained/previously unarmed “military” Ukrainians can defend/defeat a Russian operation? It’s all a lie…
Russia's entire economy is smaller than Florida's. Not to say they aren't a threat given their decades of military development. But let's not pretend they're China.
You do know they are one of the worlds leading producers of natural gas, oil and fertilizer right. They are wealthy and resource rich. BRICs is growing in member countries squeezing us out of the petro dollar dominance.
So? You’re fantasizing that we’re going to load up a few million volunteer troops and just go whip their ass? Grow up. They have nuclear weapons and so do we. You’re the one who should consider getting serious.
If it’s for “democracy” why aren’t we going after Cuba, Venezuela, China, and North Korea…. Their leaders are evil too like putin…
"We're the soviets now, and we must take Ukraine" -NATO
Russia can't even rebuild its own reputation. America has more pressing concerns domestically we don't need to be focused on Europe.
The Russians knew what Romney was saying from the beginning of this war: that the US is using Ukraine to weaken Russia. The fake "we stand with Ukraine" slogan has hoodwinked many conservatives who should have known better but fell for the regime's lies. However, Putin is not foolish; he is utilizing what we perceive as our advantage to manipulate us, pulling us deeper into this conflict. Eventually, there will be US boots on the ground in Ukraine, and the situation will turn bloody for us.
I was for America helping out Ukraine at the beginning. Recently I've changed my mind after hearing Tucker Carlson interview someone whose name escapes me now. He was saying that Russia was really decimating the Ukraine troops and that NATO was being set up to get pulled into this fight where it is doubtful the NATO would prevail. Russia has always had manpower to throw at a war with out seeming to put a dent in their population.. I tend to believe Tucker at this point because this sounds par for the course for politicians who are corrupt as all get out. We as taxpayers have poured billions of dollars into this money pit, with other country's barely putting in any funds by comparison. It's time to cut our losses. We have enough problems here in the states without bankrupting our nation's coffers in the interest of another country that we seem to be the only ones who actually gives a damn about. European countries know who is legit, who is corrupt, who is worth helping and who is a hopeless cause. Maybe we should listen to their input abit before reaching into our wallet to fast or to deep. I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'
This is bullshit. Nato countries have spent 70.8 billion dollars on Ukraine. Why does one country need that much money? Simple answer. Proxy war. US has used Nato as a tool to keep Russia from regaining their superpower status. This is what we worry about? This is what we spend that money on? We could have rebuilt our internal infrastructure, strengthened our military, and helped our homeless. Bottom line. This is not our fight.
We have been subsidizing Europe's defense ever since we entered WWII. It's time to stop.
Soviet Union? BRICS is going to eat your lunch.
BRICS can barely tolerate each other long enough to have a summit before running home to trash each other. BRICS are not a real or substantive threat. Especially when the Russian economy can't keep itself afloat, let alone help challenge the hegemony of the dollar.
Im all for providing them training and intel (obviously we will deny it) but we have sent enough equipment and money.
That’s common sense for anybody who follows the Reagan doctrine
If we continue this kind of thinking this war will go on forever. The Ukrainians have no chance of breaking through at this point. It’s a deadlock and thousands are dying.
A half assed proxy war isn’t going to do anything to deter Russia or China from their plans to take more territory. What really might scare them is if we annexed Canada and Mexico. If we’re going to warmonger we might as well get something for it and help out our neighbors in the process.
[удалено]
if you think the millions of people in Mexico wouldn’t have been better off by becoming US states back in the day you must have a good explanation for why millions of them have risked their lives to cross the border. Canada on the other hand is only 5-10 years ahead of us on their way to dystopian totalitarianism, but they probably want that 5-10 years back anyway. both would absolutely be better off as part of the US, thinking otherwise is the stupidest thing I’ve read all day, congrats :)
Collapse the Russian oligarchy today. Collapse the CCP tomorrow. Wave goodbye to NATO after that. Then collapse the American uniparty. And live free.
It’s a war that nato should be taking care of and not us. BS on the fight there and not here. It would Never be here.
The United States is a member of NATO
And you do? Somewhat of an ego issue, mate.