You mean sending aid to the country defending itself from a much larger more dangerous country rather than the one that’s wrecking a tiny already occupied open air prison just fine by itself? And the first enemy actually poses a danger to our politics and elections, while the second enemy can barely get fresh food and water let alone exert any international influence at all? Hm… Nah, makes too much sense for US politicians… That won’t do.
Hamas has billions in assets and international ties. Israel has murdered thousands without food and water but lets not pretend Hamas, who Israel is supposed to be targeting with this aid, is some helpless underdog. The money should go to Ukraine but let’s not exaggerate.
edit: Disappointed that people would rather downvote than engage and think critically. Hamas’s leaders are billionaires who hoard resources, keeping them from the people of Gaza. Hamas is a threat to both the people of Gaza and to international peace. Israel’s horrific crimes don’t make that fact magically go away.
That’s because Hamas is everywhere and everything. Children in hospital, Hamas! Tunnel that Israel built, Hamas! All out of everything bagels, Hamas! Stub your toe, Hamas!
It’s different stuff. Ukraine isn’t equipped or trained to really get the benefits of modern US weapons. You can see this with the M1 tanks, we trained crews how to use them, but without the supporting doctrine and strategy from commanders they aren’t that useful. They also don’t really have the capability to do maintenance as effectively, basically every US vehicle requires absurd maintenance.
If the US really wanted to help Ukraine, making the country a no fly zone would probably be the biggest benefit.
I know this is 100% on me for not being a native english speaker, but i hate when the media uses this unordinary phrases to avoid repetition (or cause impact, idk). I always have to run to the dictionary.
“Listen, man. I got a whole strip of desert to give weapons and funding to because they’re my lobbyists and defense industry bffs. I need you to hunker down and hold off the Russians by yourself until after my elections. I promise i’ll send you all the 30 year old decommissioned weapons you want with a 5% discount after the IDF finishes massacring some hobos on their land. Trust me man, it’ll be worth the wait. Imagine getting your hands on some old ass Merkava with RPG holes at reduced price. It’ll totally be enough to stop Putin, I swear.”
Naw, fuck Russia and their war of conquest. There is visual confirmation of Ukraine destroying over 13,000 Russian vehicles, including over 2,500 Russian tanks. Click the link, every single example has a picture or video detailing Russia’s devastating losses. Russia can continue to beat their head against a brick wall and I’m happy to help provide the bricks.
It’s not an argument, it’s just a fact I’m stating to draw attention to the false dichotomy presented by the other comment. If you think it’s worth sending aid is another issue altogether. You have to look at the costs, the results and weigh it against the cost of not sending the aid to figure out your position.
Even if we choose to ignore how unethical and self-centered this argument is (for any country), a lot of US influence, affluence and indeed global stability right now hinges on the US military might being there to reliably challenge authoritarian aggression on its allies and partners. The second US starts showing cracks in that reliability (with the extremist MAGA wing and all), authoritarian leaders start seeing opportunities to test the waters, literally as well.
This notion somehow assumes that the US achieved and can continue its status disconnected from the rest of the world’s security and it’s bonkers. Even the otherwise sound argument for increased defense spending in Europe is made moot by the Russo-Ukrainian war as it’ll obviously increase spending in Europe. Spending that could be largely funneled in to the US military-industrial complex, recouping from what gets sent if they signal their commitment and keep sending their late cold-war era kit to grind down one of their two most serious threats. Without a single US troop on the ground.
It’s hard to think of a bigger foreign policy W for the US with its otherwise controversial bloated military and more fitting use for what’s already built for this exact purpose, but it doesn’t seem important to the extremist wing.
It’s hard to think of a bigger foreign policy W for the US with its otherwise controversial bloated military and more fitting use for what’s already built for this exact purpose, but it doesn’t seem important to the extremist wing.
Testing a ICCBM with some kind of Kinetic Kill warhead (that is, non-nuclear, just… some heavy stuff that slams into stuff.) that is “accidentally” rigged to hit someplace in the near vicinity of Putin. Given laughable accuracy of russian missiles, we might even get away with it. (“Oooppps”)
In the same breath, US is giving items they would be deactivating at a cost. Probably cheaper to give the Bradley’s from the 60s and bombs from the 60s that expire next year away.
I think it makes total sense, it is a gift to the USA to be able to weaken another military superpower without having to send a single American. Instead of an expensive cold war style arms race during peace time, they can just send the material and “win” the arms race by proxy. USA and NATO should send military aid as long as there are Ukrainians willing to fight.
If you havent noticed, the US now Ukraine is winning. And Russia is not weakened, remember nearly 3 years ago when they said Russian defeat was weeks away? Its been nearly 143 weeks
You know ignoring your comment that the war has been going on for 3 years. Its only been a year and halfish maybe closing into 2 years. Its laughable that a country like Ukraine whom's military budget before this was several fractions of Russia's is able to hold them back in open fucking warfare. I know you are gonna say whatabout Vietnam or "War on Terror" but those were insurgencies (ignoring the ethics of the US being in those wars since really we shouldn't have been) the US and Nato trying to capture territory typically goes smoothly as we seen in the Gulf War and Desert Storm basically being called the 100 hour land war
It costs a lot less to make life better in other countries than to deal with the flow of migrants, so I guess you would be the first one in favor of spending money on the third world in order to save money for the people of the USA, right?
The use of “your” tells me you’re from outside the US. Which means none of the money being used came from “your” taxes and that you can’t vote on any of the senators or representatives, meaning you have no stake in this whatsoever.
I hope they do, but this is why I’ve always thought Ukraine needed to be a little less hard-line on not giving up any territory. Because I figured it was only a matter of time before the Republicans (and other similar parties/groups in other countries) ratfucked the support away from them.
I don’t know if Russia was ever open to negotiating, but if they were, Ukraine may find themselves wishing they had negotiated at a high point, instead of their support being pulled out from under them.
Sadly, the US is simply not a reliable ally or source of support right now, and probably won’t be until getting the internal insanity under control. Until there are two parties actually willing to govern instead of one party trying to govern and the other acting like a deranged shit-flinging baboon, the US will be unreliable.
If Ukraine gives up territory they have established that a large invasion will yield positive results, giving Russia an incentive to try again for more. Given that, in Ukraine’s position, what would you do? Choose to continue fighting, or choose to stop fighting now and then have to start fighting again in five years having given up loads of your ports and industrial base? You would need a guarantee that it would not happen.
What guarantee would you seek? The only one that makes sense to me is NATO membership, and that is exactly the situation Russia least wants to happen - they will not accept any deal in which Ukraine becomes a NATO member.
The reason for that is because more generally Russia wants to be able to threaten and conquer its neighbours at will. In other words, any attempt you make to guarantee Ukraine’s safety after a deal is struck is actually undermining Russia’s long-term goals and so will be refused. Russia only ever talked about negotiating to muddy the waters.
The only way to end the war favourably for the West and for democracies is for Russia to be defeated.
If it was me in their place, I’d try giving up as little as possible then seek some sort of binding defense agreement, whether NATO or something else. And if necessary do it in secrecy so Russia doesn’t hear about it until the agreement is fully in force.
Honestly I just think the US is simply not reliable, and with Ukraine seemingly relying heavily on the US, they need to be looking for the quickest exit strategy they can come up with at a moment of strength.
Hopefully, if Republicans prevent continued US support, other countries will still provide enough…I just fear it may not be, and that seems like a worse outcome for Ukraine’s people.