Exhibit A of why we need to fund the war. Our greatest enemy state is now down to one of these left...300 million each. NATO has about 14.....
Looks more and more likely Ukraine will lose the war.
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
Word on the street is that Lying Donnie Sexual Abuser has already sent his congratulations card to his master Putin.
No other country has the military surplus the US does. Europe has exhausted much of their reserves so the only supplier is the USA. That being said, I would assume the Euro countries could buy US arms for Ukraine but I'm sure there is a ton of red tape to get through for that to happen
It's not money, it's ammunition and arms.
The MAGA Republicans are certainly pro Putin! Why - because their cult leader, Donald Trump, is pro Putin. Trump calls Putin not a thug, a killer, or a war criminal, but rather brilliant, savvy, and a great leader. Not once has Trump condemned Putin for invading, unprovoked, Ukraine - a sovereign country. And unfortunately, Speaker Mike Johnson, sickeningly sucking up to Trump at every turn, refuses to bring a desperately needed Ukraine aid package to the House floor for a vote. A vote he knows would overwhelmingly pass.
To process in more sham asylum claims? Hard pass.
I love this about Ukraine. They are earning my respect by the day. They are more at one with our ideals of government than any other country that we have sided with in war since S. Korea.
Last edited:
Putin owns Trump. He's been essentially a Russian asset for decades.
The amount of money we're spending on military equipment to send to Ukraine is insignificant in comparison to the full budget.
So we would have been just as well off if we had taken billions and billions of dollars and made a giant pile and lit it on fire.
In the interest of self-preservation of Ukraine, I’d probably encourage them to sue for peace with an accelerated path to being admitted to NATO.
Still the best defense money we’ve spent and I’ll stand by that.
Still the best defense money we’ve spent and I’ll stand by that.
You do understand that there are a thousand billion in a trillion, right? If we have sent 50B, that is .05T. So, to answer your question, if we send 100 to 500 times more military aid than we have, yes, Ukraine will win.
Last edited:
Well, if you must put a political spin on it, it could be perceived as being justt complete indifference to the ukrainians relative to the antipathy/contrarianism held toward biden. And, of course, we've not really been a long-haul ally to anyone since about 1940.
That said, the reality has always been that the Ukrainians were not going to win this in the way they define winning it. Ukrainians (of which I am 1/2) are obstinate, fierce, and passionate. But starting about 100 years ago, Russians are indifferent to human cost, and over time, that sort of thing tends to prevail in these situations.
Government currently states not to. I generally listen to my governments suggestions.
Ukraine Travel Advisory
travel.state.gov
Yeah, because there's a war. One that you're ok sending Americans to fight, just not yourself.
Sure, as long as we keep borrowing that money. Russia has the support of China, NK, and Iran. I’m all for sending more weapons, but at what point do you start to question whether Ukraine can win this. Or does Ukraine agree to a cease fire and allow Russia to keep the land they’ve grabbed.
frankly, that's what we should have done at the beginning (though I don't begrudge the alternative 'nonescalation-message' strategic choice we made). but certainly not time to do it at the end.
"Not gonna happen", not gonna happen? Or the not gonna happen that Rs won't stop supporting Ukraine funding like @binsfeldcyhawk2 has been telling us?
Simply put, the actual English version of that sentence or the complete, utter, everyone knows it's bullsh!t version that I'm leaning towards?
You are certainly a smart dude, but I think you are wrong. They don't (or at least didn't) need our troops. They needed our weapons. The good ones. And more of them.
Ukraine was holding it's own if not winning until our support dried up.
My understanding is that they have a massive shortage of artillery shells which is their biggest issue.
What they needed was our troops on their territory. Not so much to fight, as to force putin to think harder about the cost calculus before the fighting began.
Again, I don't begrudge the administration's choice to try to signal de-escalation. But in hindsight, it was the wrong choice.
Sorry, I did not think you meant as human shields which would trigger Article V. I thought you meant as combatants. In hindsight, we could have ramped up our presence in Poland right across the border helping with logistics and such, if Poland agreed to it.
exactly. and need not have even been on nato territory in a way to trigger article v. just put a handful of them in kiev in a very public way. it's the signal that counts.
What I read is that Russia might have 2 maybe 3 years max before they are completely exhausted for tanks. War has already gone 2 years. It's very reasonable to think that if the US funded Ukraine for just 2 more years, Russia would have no ground capabilities and therefore a severely limited ability to keep the war going. So the talk that Ukraine can't push Russia out holds less water than some think.
Winning is them decimating Russia to the point where Russia has to end the war. That is absolutely achievable with US help. But the Republicans don't want that.
When russia invades the next country, we need to send the maga scum over as cannon fodder.
We all know you and your HROT lib buddies won't go.
I did my time. How about your worthless ass?
They took an entire city and are geared up for more. Meanwhile Ukraine is losing arms to fight back at an alarming rate. That is a massive changing of the tidesMassive offensive progress?
boy that's awfully speculative and imo undersells the russian mindset. but even accepting the premise (including your subsequent 'decimation' end-game which i'm a little dubious of given their cash situation and china's current need/desire to maintain growth), don't forget to tack on another five years of very dangerous regional instability that will have to be managed. and then of course there's the reconstruction cost which will be nothing to shake a stick at.
FWIW, both the short and long term outlook of the Eurasia Group has been negative for quite some time now, and the most probable scenario has pretty much always been 'stalemate'.
Maybe you missed the memo but Republicans have not refused to supply Ukraine. They refuse to supply Ukraine unless Biden agrees to take concrete action to defend our southern border. That is the only way the Republicans feel they can get Biden to do the right thing to protect America. If Biden and the left were so concerned about Ukraine, why won't they agree to help solve our HUGE problem here? Sounds like Biden and the left don't care as much about Ukraine as they would like you to believe.
Ofc it's speculative. But what I've read says that at the current pace, Russia only has a couple years left before they have exhausted vital and irreplaceable supplies. But take away US arms and those two years will never come. Ukraine will become crippled without our help. They will not come close to lasting those two years. It's a gift to Russia
This claim has already been destroyed. Rs blocked standalone bills, bills coupled with Israel, and even bills connected to the border. Rs have blocked it all.
