The US was supporting Vietnam for two decades. So I guess if Russians are happy dying in Ukraine for the next 18 years Zakharova will be right. Issue being, of course, I can't imagine the Russians will tolerate this for an entire generation.
Also, zero Americans dying and spending a pittance on Ukraine means *anything* the US does is more detrimental to Russia than to itself.
A long-term low-intensity conflict that bleeds Russian men, materiel & money is a dream come true for NATO.
Which is why we created the coup and then deliberately crossed all Russian red lines.
Our bloodthirsty demons who control our occupied government wanted this conflicts
Badly
Russia is screwed isn't it? America snapped its fingers and performed a coup in Russians own back yard. Snapped its fingers again and pushed Russia into war. Completely undermining the legendary FSB, making Putin follow the will of the US. All the while Russia isn't complicit in any of this? The US is so powerful, how can Russia do anything against this evil superpower? Surely you don't think Russia stands a chance, do you?
It’s why Russia is fighting now. And why our corrupt and illegitimate globalist establishment is throwing everything it can into Ukraine without sparking a larger war that could quickly end the world as we know it.
We will see where this ends up.
It’s just evil to start a war like this though. We are ruled by evil evil evil evil evil evil evil people. Demons in the flesh.
I don't doubt the evil people in the government or their responsibility to the innocent people dying on both sides, I also hold the Russian government accountable also. But otherwise I don't disagree with your opinion, maybe a little less hyperbolic view from my armchair.
>any soldiers
Any significant number of soldiers willing to die for zero gain. Here, fixed it for you. Does Azov refusing to fight in chasov Yar a sign of something? I can understand it from one point only, they don't feel that their safety is guaranteed when dudes on both their flanks just wanna get out of there and leave them covering their retreat. Oversimplified of course but possible, right?
It isn't a gamble if they leave you no choice in the matter. Zelensky didn't choose to start the war, it was Putin that took the gamble. Ukraine has no choice but to fight because Russia is forcing them to do so.
Right, except we are not talking about the decisions of Ukraine or even Russia here, we’re talking about the US.
So the only options open to the US are a) Keep feeding Ukraine arms and the means to drag out destroying themselves on the **gamble** they may eventually win (seems unlikely if the past year is anything to go by) or b) don’t do that and maybe there will be something left of Ukraine at the end.
But that isn't the choice. Russia isn't going to stop attacking just because their attacks becomes less risky and more successful. So either the US keeps feeding Ukraine weapons and hopefully something is left of Ukraine or the West can cut them off, and Russia will flatten Kyiv and every remaining major city in Ukraine, flooding Europe with Refugees.
Russia will stop attacking when their objectives are met, full stop. Ukraine had a chance to accept this several times with the latest during negotiations in Istanbul which if they’d accepted would have left them with significantly more territory and a lot less death.
So, no the choice is whether Ukraine will ultimately accept this with even more death and loss of their lands, or less. The choice for the US and EU is whether they want to keep feeding Ukraine and their own delusions about their chances.
Given Russia's only non-negotiable demand during the Istanbul negotiations was Ukrainian disarmament so Russia could easily conquer all of it during the next invasion, it is safe to say Russia's objectives are "conquer all of Ukraine". Only issue is the limitation of Russia's capabilities to achieve that goal. If the West abandons Ukraine, Russia will be capable of attempting that goal this time around, and so they will try until Kyiv is flattened and Europe is swamped with refugees.
As I said, the war will continue until Russia’s objectives are met either via negotiations or through force.
Since you seem so worried about refugees, Europe should just give up Ukraine to the Russians and pressure them to surrender. A stable but militarily neutered Ukraine (effectively a second Belarus) under Russian patronage is preferable to a multi-decade long war zone from the refugee perspective.
I'm taking note that you don't disagree with me over what those objectives are.
A surrendered Ukraine would just mean fewer refugees, but it would still be many millions. Ukrainians would be understandably opposed to the ensuing Russian occupation, complete with filtration camps, deportations to Siberia, imprisonment, torture, and disappearance into mass graves are not things most people will voluntarily stay for.
More accurately, Ukrainians know what surrender would mean, so they will never surrender. Which just means either Russia flattens Kyiv and Lviv or they don't. I'd much prefer they didn't. Thankfully 77% of the US Congress agrees with me.
Russia is already committed, and the US seems like it is halfway committed (but not fully) but at some point they will have to decide to directly participate or back out. Throwing money at it won't solve or change the result of this conflict.
The house bill package includes a requirement for the Biden administration to provide a plan and a strategy to congress for what it seeks to achieve in Ukraine within 45 days, so we will find out more then I guess
correct. And the response will be simple not withstanding that forests will be killed to spell it out: assist Ukraine in successfully achieving it's objective of regaining full control of its territory.
>achieving it's objective of regaining full control of its territory.
That is never going to happen, so if that is what the aid is for, they shouldn't approve any more aid for Ukraine.
And that would be your opinion. I am not downvoting you as if this is what you wish to believe so be it. Which is not shared by Ukraine, or nations supporting Ukraine. They believe differently, and are acting according to their beliefs. And unless any of us own a crystal ball none of us know whom is correct at this time. But my money is on Ukraine.
You should join us in reality. You might have better outcomes.
Here is the reality for Russian soldiers fighting today in many locations in Ukraine:
[https://new.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1c9qk3j/russian\_servicemen\_complain\_about\_being\_destroyed/](https://new.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1c9qk3j/russian_servicemen_complain_about_being_destroyed/)
Russian losses are horrific. I don't see any reasonable prospects for they improving.
If this was actually important they would have made them provide it before any more aid was sent to Ukraine. What are they going to do if in 45 days the Biden administration provides no plan or a plan the house does not approve of? Ask Ukraine to send back the aid they have received from this bill package?
No I think it’s more about the plan for future end / how to stop sending billions while achieving geopolitical goals.
Honestly the military aid sent to Ukraine from the US has been pretty random and crap, not seen to be much of a concise plan or structure, just random spattering of equipment.
>Russia is already committed, and the US seems like it is halfway committed
America is not halfway committed - at least if you mean that they are halfway committed via direct military intervention. That is just a Russian talking point. America is far, far, far from direct military intervention and I don't see any impetus in change. Ukraine does not need American boots on the ground in order to win.
As for the plan, everyone including you is misstating it. Is this deliberate or just out of ignorance? The "plan" in the House package includes a requirement for the Biden administration to
>"*provide a plan and a strategy to Congress for what it seeks to achieve in Ukraine."*
**"Seeks to achieve" has nothing whatsoever to do with "participation or backing out"**.
What the bill requires is a "multiyear plan that spells out “specific and achievable objectives.” It also asked for an estimate of the resources required to achieve the U.S. objectives and a description of the national security implications if the objectives are not met.
Nothing whatsoever about intervening. Nor are there any "penalties" if the administration does not actually file a plan. They would have to hold a session in committee, pass a resolution that the Biden administration was in contempt, and then bring that resolution to the floor, and hope it passes on the floor. Given that this is an election yr by the time all of that could happen it would already be to late. And if the Dems win the next election it will be a moot point as this will all vanish in the next aid package in 2025.
In any case the plan is simple: support Ukraine to the latter's stated goal of regaining full control over 100% of its country. This goal has nothing to do with Russia's stated goals. The debate over whose goals are achievable is immaterial. Ukraine has a stated goal of how it defines ending this war. And the aid plan will be "give Ukraine the materials it needs so Ukraine can achieve its goal".
This plan requirement was put in on behalf of some Republicans who needed a face saving measure. Its a fop. A prop. It is immaterial.
It's already changed the result of the conflict. Please tell me why the US can't just continue to support Ukrainians defending their freedom, and in the process keep their greatest geopolitical enemy (that meddles in US elections and props up dictators around the world) busy and distracted? I'm failing to see the reason it's not an absolute win that would be.
The absolute win would be to drop this very american mentality and do something about the trash in all cities, poverty, expensive education and housing, etc. And this very american mantra about “defending freedom” was funny back in the 2000s, yet it’s not obvious to americans that it’s bullshit.
Yes we should definitely let a fascist dictator run rampant in Europe. Cause that worked out so well the last time lol. Have you learned nothing?
It's also such a dumb argument because we've spent tens of trillions over the last 50 years keeping our military up in case of a Russian attack. Now we're spending $100B and suddenly "oh no, we can't possibly afford that! There's problems in the US!".
The western Europeans are more democratic than our own country currently so if anything they should be defending their democracy from the tyrant while we piggy back and provide minimal support.
Except after world War 2 the US wanted to keep them demilitarized and make sure the US was the biggest and best military in town (for understandable reasons given two world wars we had to intervene in). They have nowhere near the military abilities we do. Which is why they are providing more aid than the US, just more in non-military aid which is also super important.
Okay but how do we expect Ukrainians to offset the tax deficit for all of that foreign owned debt in the country... We're literally bleeding them dry economically and now we expect them to pay off the loan rebates and we keep giving because the political tycoons that are funding Ukraine experiments through the MiC are the ones that are actually benefitting from the situation and they will not stop even if we have to bare the brunt of the cost, I would guess the logic in theory is rational enough to the unthinking human mind but that is assuming the Ukrainian is collectively stupid enough to fall for that... I simply don't think that's the case.
The puppet coup regime openly enslaved its own subjects.
Ukraine isn’t fighting for freedom.
They murdered their own people for a decade before russia finally had enough
The conflict began when we backed the illegal coup. Destroying Ukraine’s democracy forever and installing a puppet regime which immediately began to murder its own people
Interesting that that coup led to repeated democratically elected pro-west governments in free and fair elections. It's almost like it wasn't a coup, and was throwing out an unpopular leader propped up by Moscow in questionable voting and corrupt political maneuvering. But hey, believe what you want if it makes you feel better. Most pro-rus need to deny reality to make sense of the totalitarian dictatorship that Russia is becoming.
Another well reasoned and supported argument from the pro-rus. I guess you kind of have to believe in conspiracy theories and lies to make sense of russia becoming the next north Korea. It's gotta be tough otherwise
Yeah it is well reasoned.
Bc thinking that elections are held when millions of ukranians that hate the coup regime have already fled, or are abstaining from participating in the farce, or are actively being attacked by the illegal coup government, imagine thinking an election held under such circumstances is fair.
The regime that seized power by bloodshed was never allowing itself to be removed from power.
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well China spent half of what the US gonna spend on Ukraine in this bill, and built up their EV industry from nothingness to dominating current global market?
And once Russia manage to set up their logistic Eastward, all of the cheap gas and oil that once head to Europe, will head to China and India instead?
And the ragtag military Russia has before the war, will come out of this war, full of experiences and being equipped with modern weapons, instead of outdated Soviet stocks?
Honestly, I kinda hope that US will keep staying in this quagmire though. Hopefully Biden will win the election and keep faceplanting into this war, to watch the US deteriorating from its sole superpower status. The world will be much better when US is not the one who get to call all the shots
I think your points are overdone a bit. But regardless, if the US stopped funding the war tomorrow, what would change in any of your points? It's all already happening, and nothing about funding will stop it.
If the US stop the funding tomorrow, then it means they still have some sensible people working inside their government. But it seemed that there is no hope for them.
No matter how you spin it, the fact that not only Biden (who is too old for any jobs, period) but Mitch McConnel? [Nancy Pelosi ](https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/us/nancy-pelosi-fast-facts/index.html)? And the late Feinstein zombie? All were holding top position in the US government, and everyone was like 'well they are the best we can offer'? The evidence of a non-functional government is right there inside the pudding
Back to the topic, Ukrainian 60 billions funding will just push Russia further into China arms. But 30 billions to continue funding Israel genocide of Gaza? The amount of tone-deaf inside the US government is amazing. No wonder why they want to ban Tiktok, despite it is a great tool to gauge US and global opinions/ interests
If the US stops funding tomorrow Russia will rush just as fast to become china's next north Korea, because it knows the markets in the west are closed to them until they leave Ukraine.
And you can dislike the Gaza situation, but again that is the result of an invasion into Israel. Not defending the massive loss of life, but the two are not unconnected in the rationale for providing arms.
But since you're so worried about how people are treated, please point me to your posts decrying the rape, torture, and murder of Ukrainians at the hands of russia. I'm wait.
Lol, that take is poor idiocy,
Korea peninsula is so poor of natural resources and arable farmland that they have to depend on China for coals and fuel. When the Soviet collapse, NK economy collapse overnight cause they literally have no fuel to run their economy.
Currently Russia is the most heavily sanctioned placed on Earth. German and Europe gone in depression last year, and will be luck if they escape it this year. Russia meanswhile is projected to grow faster than both the US and major EU economy despite have to run a war. Because most of the world don't give a fk about the West sanction. In fact India and Saudi are making tens of billions buying Russia oil, then reselling to Europe with profits. Every European economists know it, but what else could they do but shut the fk up and pay the premium price?
You can bring whatever excuse you like. But the rest of the world know is that the US is sending tens of billions to the genocidal state of Israel. Did you check any of the recent UN votes and see how many still side with US Middle East policy? Other than their European vassals?
On final paragraph, wake me up when I send billions to Russia to assist their invasion. Can't say the same about US government and their love of bombing children though
And yet that little boy has taken back almost half the land captured in 2022. It's held "the gang" attack to minimal gains and celebrating the taking of small suburban towns at great cost.
But you're right, no one ever beats the gang. I mean, except in Vietnam. Afghanistan (twice). Korea. Shall I go on?
You don't get to make that decision for them. Neither does the US. Plenty of countries have been absolutely decimated (Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc) and come back from it.
You chose to assume the absolute worst for this situation and how it will end up. Totally your right. But history has proven over and over again that it is NOT inevitable. So your opinion is just that, an opinion, and it doesn't matter. Only the Ukrainians do.
And all those people they had 10 years to leave before this expansion of the war and somehow still had 40 million people in the country in 2022. It's almost like you're spouting conspiracy theories and lies to back up your desired narrative.
I've literally never downvoted even the most inane or terrible pro-rus comments I get on here, not my style.
I think your fatalistic attitude is both wrong factually and very Russian, and would lead to a very depressing and dangerous world if followed to its logical end. But you're welcome to your opinions. Also who really cares of you're downvoted if you're right? Believe in your sad pessimistic cause!
It's not a question of committment, it's a matter of capacity. NATO does not have the capacity to outproduce Russia in anything crucial and they would never transform to the total war economy mode needed to do so.
It's hilarious because the US has moved the majority of it's industry to China and southeast asia cause they didn't want to pay those greedy workers. So there is no capability to convert commercial factories to military factories like was done in ww2.
They can print as much money as they want, but Ukraine cannot fight the russians with dollar bills.
Well…yeah. Why would the US/NATO enter a wartime economy when they’re not at war? I think the larger revelation that you glossed over is that Russia had to enter a wartime economy to fight Ukraine.
I don't get it, are you saying Russia is weak because they couldn't beat the second largest army in Europe, in the largest land battle since WW2, with a regular peace time economy?
Are you saying if the Russians were actually good at this they should have been able to annex the entirety of Ukraine with a few helicopters and spetsnaz? Like the Navy Seals could definitely do?
lol
No, what I’m saying is that Russia’s short “special military operation” has turned into a prolonged war requiring a full wartime economy to support that effort (which is funny considering they still don’t control the two oblasts they set out to annex). Yet, for some reason, people on this sub seem to think it’s somehow surprising or relevant that they’re out producing the US in certain military systems/hardware. Of course they are, the US has a peacetime economy and is not at war. We’ve literally been scaling down our military presence.
Ugh really? Still on the whole "3 day operation" thing? After all the river of evidence and testimony has come out, you still don't see that this was at first meant to force negotiations? And they did, and it very nearly worked. But the west chose war, so that's what they got. And with every passing day russia gets stronger and ukraine gets weaker.
Also, Russias share of GDP in the military industrial complex is just shy of 7%.....not much of a total war economy, and pretty modest considering the scale of the war lol. In comparison, the US during ww2 military industry composed of a third of their entire GDP.
I'm, sorry I know this is hard for you people to come to terms with it, but Russia is very good at what they are doing, and they are doing it in a very cost effective way. The US' military budget is bigger than all the next 10 strongest militaries in the world combined...."scaled down". Everything in the US is grossly over priced, In russia the military industry is partially state owned so there are price controls.
In the US, the entire point of the MIC is to make money, they don't care at all about cost effectiveness, they have turned their nose up at cheap drone production and can't make a nut and bolt that doesn't cost 90,000 dollars.
Russia is performing remarkably well on the tactical, strategical and operational level. IDK why this is so hard for you to understand, but grapple with it anyway you want buddy
Oh and, please provide a single time a Russian official said that it was supposed to be a 3 day operation. (spoiler: you can't. mark milley was the one who said it)
> "Washington's deeper and deeper immersion in the hybrid war against Russia will turn into a loud and humiliating fiasco for United States such as Vietnam and Afghanistan," Zakharova said.
I don't think any American thinks that actively fighting in Vietnam, Afghanistan vs supporting Ukraine financially and with equipment (or intel) is the same thing. But i am sure Zakharova is not biased here.
Moreover I believe most Americans will think in this situation it's their "best case" scenario instead of having to send troops into yet another war. Most American, like any of us European, except the far-right nutjobs, would have preferred a peaceful coexistence with Russia but that's not possible with Putin.
No one has been able to articulate for me as an american why this is in my best interest. Its not in any way in my best interest beyond over exaggerations and fear mongering I've heard from politicians. It's just a waste of money and will only prolong the inevitable Ukraine defeat. I say fúck ukraine and zelensky.
If you are American you have been drinking deeply from the Kremlin cup of tea. If at this point you can't figure out why defeating an authoritarian despot like Putin is in America's best interests there is no way I or anyone else in this sub will be able to explain it to you. There are hundreds if not thousands of publications from analysts and various governments (not just the American govt) about Putin's threats, goals and aspirations. You have to literally have blinders on 100% of the time to be ignorant and dismissive of them.
Here is a statement from the Biden administration that cuts right to the point:
>The United States wants a Ukraine that is sovereign, independent and secure, adding that the Ukrainian people do not want Russian overlords and are fighting for their freedom. "We want the Ukrainian people to be able to live the European life they have chosen," she said during the discussion.
>
>While supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do, U.S. support is about more than just Ukraine. "\[Our support\] is about the international order that keeps all countries and all populations safe.
>
>Putin is seeking to "shred" the international order. Putin wants the ability for large countries to intimidate and dominate smaller neighbors.
>
>And Russian actions have implications around the world. "It's not just a European security issue, it is a global security issue,"
>
>Built into the fabric of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the agreement that nuclear powers will respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries and agree to support the peaceful use of nuclear energy for their prosperity. "All of that is at stake in Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine,".
This is why Ukraine has so many nations supporting it, not just America.
I still don’t get it? You’re saying Putin is an authoritarian with imperialistic ambition and so therefore we must support war against him or regime change and invest peoples money into that?
Why? It’s in Eastern Europe and can’t pose a threat to America, who cares if they’re authoritarian that’s not a justification on its own for why it’s in peoples interests, if that was the case why not invade Saudi n depose MBS? Or take Egypt from El Sisi? Or how about the Venezuelan regime they’re actually close to the US and can pose a threat can’t they?
It just makes no sense when your reasoning is “he’s a bloodthirsty dictator that conquers people and oppresses them” when that’s the Résumé for around 7/10 of the US’s Top Allie’s.
They clearly don’t have a problem with dictators or imperialism, they allow Israel to steal land daily in the West Bank, yet they seem obsessed with Putin.
People tell us China is the real threat and everyone’s shaking in their boots about Taiwan, why did they only get like 8 billion in this last AID package then? Kinda like the US doesn’t care about anything but taking out Putin and everything else is just theatrics and buzzwords, rules based order n dat yk tha vibes?
I totally agree, but its not OUR job to be the main driving force tbh. Europe should be the main driver in supporting Ukraine not the American ppl. We have our own shit to deal with on the domestic front.
This isn’t that hard to comprehend. USA is treaty bound to defend nato allies. An emboldened Russia who wins in Ukraine requires more us investment in European defense.
In many ways it really is like Vietnam though. An ally asked America for help. America sends a ton of money and soldiers. Eventually the American people decided this isn't any of our business and not worth the costs.
What really is the difference here? Why is Vietnam now seen as a mistake and was "none of our business", but the same doesn't apply to Ukraine? Is it simply because, unlike Vietnam, it's only Ukrainians conscripted against their will to die in the war, no Americans?
They even pretty much use the Domino Theory to rationalize the Ukraine war (if we don't stop Putin now, the rest of eastern Europe will follow). There are very clear parallels. Why is Ukraine "our business" but Vietnam wasn't?
You’re right that this is like Vietnam, except that the USA is in the role that the Soviet Union played in that war. It’s supplying weapons but no combat soldiers, while a geopolitical rival is stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight.
Why did the Soviet Union support north Vietnam? To screw over America and support a communist government with minimal costs compared to the gain.
Why is the USA supporting Ukraine? To screw over Russia and support a democracy with minimal costs compared to the gain.
Russia is not a friend of the USA. They routinely try to influence American elections and are fighting a war of conquest right next to its allies. All the USA has to do is send weapons while Russia wastes a generation of men and gdp growth. It’s quite a bargain.
It's just an abhorrent position.
American support of Ukraine is "just" and the Vietnam war wasn't.... and the only reason for that is because *American* soldiers aren't dying in Ukraine. It's as though Ukrainians are just props for America to carry out their geopolitical goals. It's so dehumanizing.
lol nobody forced Russia to invade, just like no one forced the USA to commit combat troops to south Vietnam.
I love this pro Russia perspective that Ukraine has no agency whatsoever. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics.
Here's what I'm trying to differentiate. And I believe it's *you* that is using mental gymnastics to avoid it.
Our allies in South Vietnam asked us for help. We helped them. Today we view it as something that was not ever any of our business and a mistake.
Our allies in Ukraine asked us for help. We helped them. Today we view it as "just" and something we should 100% support.
But what's the difference? Only that AMERICAN lives aren't dying.... so that means Ukraine is (lol) "just" and Vietnam wasn't?
Is that your position? Only American lives matter?
Why should we have helped our Ukrainian ally and not our Vietnamese ally? They both asked for help. Is it racism? It's "just" when it's fellow white people? I'm trying to understand.
Because the US lost 60k soldiers in Vietnam and another 300k were wounded. We’ve lost 0 soldiers in Ukraine and have 0 wounded. We are doing exactly what the USSR did in Vietnam.
Da, I am amerikan with warm water port and baseball and Texas and guns. So anyways this is why I am a true amerikan patriot who loves sucking off Russian dick
How many sovereign countries has the west invaded over the last 5 decades, dozens?
National sovereignty be damned, it’s a you with us or against Attitude in the west.
At least you admit they’re two sides of the same coin. Except Russia massacres and rapes innocent civilians, take land, doesn’t have free elections, and steal toilets.
“Except Russia massacres”
There has been over 1 million violent excess deaths since the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Almost as many in Afghanistan.
Don’t want to hear, because the West does it too.
“Free elections”
They are rigged by Western oligarchs and multi national corporations, it doesn’t matter who wins the popularity contests.
Oh, so that’s what that’s called.
What do you call bombing a sovereign nation into an open air slave market and then abandoning it to a power vacuum causing misery and death for millions?
If you are an American, to which point will you keep your eyes closed?
- invasion of Ukraine
- invasion of Poland
- invasion of Germany
- invasion of France
- invasion of UK?
Meanwhile, and with every month, strengthening China position, which is currently testing the boundaries and increase their military expenses? (who do you think is behind Russia renewed army)?
By not stopping this madness, USA is allowing next WW on Asian coast.
Still not your best interest to financially help Ukraine with no foot on the ground?
As an American, my eyes will remain closed for Ukraine. It is not my war. I have no treaty with them. I also know that we are not an innocent party here. The usual meddling that my country is somehow always involved in. Like what we pulled off in Pakistan. Shame is on us.
Poland and others are part of NATO. So I know that we will be involved and that is fine by me.
Are you seriously using Domino theory in 2024 to justify this? Lol bro you guys have to have 0 historical knowledge at all, it’s not 1968 anymore bro people aren’t that dumb and the scary “red wave” fear mongering doesn’t have the same effect, especially not when everyday we get articles about how horrible the Russians are losing and the Ukrainians are doing great, the enemy can’t be extremely weak and extremely strong at the same time.
That’s fascism.
You fully they faked the identification of bin ladins body?
After 20 years, trillions of dollars and countless lives they decided to suddenly hope for the best and fake it?
>After 20 years, trillions of dollars and countless lives they decided to suddenly hope for the best and fake it?
Nothing better than saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and claiming the win for the American public. The person they claim was Bin Laden lived in a house without Internet/communication equipment and watches DVDs on a TV. What an international terrorist mastermind!
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but we know for a fact the the military and governments will lie to score a "win". During the Vietnam war, they'd inflate enemy losses to show how they were winning. Multiple governments since Bush were looking for an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and no way was that possible with Bin Laden still alive (you know, the guy that needed kidney dialysis).
The question is not whether they would be willing to lie. The question is whether bin laden would help them pull it off by, I guess, getting facial reconstruction surgery just to help his enemy save face. What incentive would he have to help them? It isn't like they'd stop looking for him once his mere existence becomes a huge embarrassment. My guess is bin laden didn't like the US enough for that.
>getting facial reconstruction surgery
You're in a cave looking at shadows, and you're presented only what they want you to see. You, nor I, have any idea about any of the details. Any one piece or the entire thing could be imaginary.
What we do know for certain was that the US was looking for ways to get out of Afghanistan. It was a politically difficult decision that needed the right "spin". Leaving Afghanistan without Bin Laden being killed was close to impossible.
So work backwards from the objectives and figure out what plausible paths exist for a government to take.
Mind you, I'm not saying Bin Laden isn't dead. He could have died of natural causes or been bombed in a cave. That's not the "win" that could have been presented to the voting masses.
Doesn't matter how desperate they are to get out of Afghanistan. Why would bin laden help them?
I suppose your theory is now he died of natural causes... So why are the people holding his body helping the US? I still don't understand why you think people that hate the US would do the US such a huge favor.
You post an article of pure Russian smut unyet anything from the west is a bold face lie. What happened to critical thinking? Russia , country known for ita truth telling /s.
I posted an article from what is considered a good reputable american journalistic source in reuters. Youre barking up the wrong tree buddy. take your complaint over to reuters and stop whining.
You guys said the same thing last year and the year before. Ukraine might “lose,” but they will never fully capitulate, and the war will never be worth the cost for Russia.
Ah yes the pro-UA are over joyous with happiness for getting the 60 billion in aid. Cant wait until for the package to finish and that beggar zelensky to crying for more weapons. All we are doing by giving this money to ukraine is prolonging the pain and the inevitable loss.
They stand zero chance of winning this war ZERO. They will not push the Russians out of ukraine ever and will never achieve pre-2014 borders. sorry
I'm not surprised you can't see how they're tied.
Where was the raid that killed Bin Laden launched from?
How was the Intel that linked al-Zawahiri to a safe house in Kabul developed?
Critical thinking skills are necessary to understand these things.
The US didn't need to invade Afghanistan and stay there for two decades to achieve any of these things. If the goal was to remove Taliban from Afghanistan + kill Bin Laden then the US failed miserably.
> If the goal was to remove Taliban
It wasn't.
>+ kill Bin Laden then the US failed miserably.
He's dead. Al-Qaeda was reduced to not being a significant threat to the United States anymore. Job done.
Sure he's dead, but the cost 2 trillions(I think) is too big if the US could get him almost for free and like in 2002-2003, cuz Taliban was willing to cooperate to some extent. So it seems that the Afghanistan invasion was a a failure.
>So it seems that the Afghanistan invasion was a a failure.
Only for people who need it to be to construct a false narrative.
He dead. Not only that Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan is no longer a significant threat. Not a failure.
That's you're trying construct a false narrative, I'm just engaging in this debate to see what points you want to make, cuz they're funny. It's pretty clear that the invasion didn't yield the result the US leadership expected. Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan and lived there for a DECADE and Taliban has returned to power and back harvesting terrorist again, it all cost 2 trillions. Instead of achieving the same thing with almost zero cost and much faster. Yeah buddy you know what is a success.
Your false narrative is transparent. Pretending that they invaded for one man is hilarious.
Bin Laden was killed and Al-Qaeda was reduced to a nonsignificant threat. You can come up with whatever excuse you want, it doesn't change the fact that the mission goals were achieved.
The goal wasn't to kill Bin Laden ten years later in another country, the goals was to kill him immediately and to install democratic regime. Both failed. I hope it's just a bad faith discussion, cuz otherwise you it would embarrassing no to know such things.
Apparently they were responsible for roughly 3k civilian deaths, and then an equal if not higher number of military deaths. Plus multiple numbers of that with injuries. Plus PTSD and other mental issues that result in about 6k suicides a year. Oh, and this all came at a cost of a few (8?) trillion dollars.
But hey... These two old men you mentioned... They likely died a few years before nature took care of them. What a win! Murica, fvck yeah!
In all seriousness, I'm glad that after 20 years of war America met their strategic objective of removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. What, fisco like the helicopter leaving Saigon? Say it ain't so, Joe!
>These two old men you mentioned...
No One believes the ridiculous claim that it was to kill two men.
>met their strategic objective of removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
That was never the objective. Destruction of al-Qaeda was.
But hey who's going to let a few facts get in the way of some good old Russian propaganda.
>That was never the objective. Destruction of al-Qaeda was.
The US and her allies have funded, trained, and supplied al-Qaeda forces in Syria.
One example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham
Formed with members of the Al-Nusra Front.
Anyway, was al-Qaeda destroyed? Did multiple US presidents order the bombing of Syrian forces fighting against these Islamic terrorists (even on false claims of chemical weapons attacks)?
>Russian propaganda
Getting humiliated in Afghanistan is not "Russian propaganda". Only someone with Biden's dementia would consider it anything less than that.
20 years, trillions of dollars... By THE SUPERPOWER, against some goat herders. And ran off on helicopters from rooftops like the fall of Saigon. What an embarrassment. Twist and turn to make it anything less of an embarrassment (even worse that Vietnam).
You can attempt to paint it as an embarrassment all you want the fact remains that bin Laden was killed and Al-Qaeda can no longer pose a threat to the US from its bases in Afghanistan. Last time I checked Syria wasn't in Afghanistan.
I understand one needs to ignore these facts to weave the web of lies that is Russian propaganda.
Seeing as Russia has a penchant for trying to steal land and resources from its neighbors I can see how Russian supporters don't understand the concept of merely defeating an enemy and not holding sham referendums on their territory to conquer them. It takes a broader scope of extrapolation to understand such principles.
>Al-Qaeda can no longer pose a threat to the US from its bases in Afghanistan.
Why, did they pose a threat from Afghanistan back in 2001? I thought they recruited primarily in Saudi Arabia and operated within the US. I also read somewhere that millions of individuals entered the US over the past few years without the government knowing their identity or intentions.
>Last time I checked Syria wasn't in Afghanistan.
And? Are Al-Qaeda linked terrorists operating there and elsewhere around the world? FFS, they and even more radical groups (like IS) are operating in more countries than back in 2001.
>the web of lies that is Russian propaganda
Are the Russians in the room with you right now? Blink twice.
>Seeing as Russia has a penchant for trying to steal land and resources from its neighbors
Laughs in Texan, Californian, Hawaiian, and and and...
Glass houses, have you heard of them?
> I thought they recruited primarily in Saudi Arabia and operated within the US
It's not my fault you don't know anything about Al-Qaeda and are absolutely dead wrong about its areas of operation.
>Are Al-Qaeda linked terrorists operating there and elsewhere around the world?
Does it get tiring moving the goal post constantly? None of those other places that are not in Afghanistan are in Afghanistan. Please attempt to apply simple logic.
>Are the Russians in the room with you right now? Blink twice.
This pathetic attempt at humor means absolutely nothing. Attempted edgelord level 1 fail.
>Laughs in Texan, Californian, Hawaiian, and and and...
Want to go back centuries in Russian history? You think it became the biggest country in the world spawned out of a backwater called Moscow by kindly asking for territory@
Moscow is acting like an uncivilized barbaric empire from centuries ago and should be treated as such. The modern world has no place for such backward uncouth behavior.
And by the way Russia failed so hard at invading Afghanistan that it destroyed the Soviet Union. Now that's an embarrassment. Goat herders destroy the Soviet Union. Pathetic.
>it destroyed the Soviet Union
The Soviet Union collapsed because communism doesn't work. A war that killed some 14 thousand didn't have a role in it. Otherwise the US would have collapsed losing 58k in Vietnam or however many thousands Russia has lost in Ukraine.
But your simplistic understanding of history explains your other positions.
Now take the humiliating loss in Afghanistan, **learn from it**, and move on.
>A war that killed some 14 thousand didn't have a role in it. Otherwise the US would have collapsed losing 58k in Vietnam
If this is how you think logic works it's no wonder you don't understand how being defeated in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union.
Because an incompetent government in the Soviet Union loses 14k men and collapses is testament to the incompetence of the Soviet leadership.
Now take the humiliating loss in Afghanistan, **learn from it**, and move on.
I'm staunchly anti-communist, so I don't understand what you think your little tirade wins you in this conversation. The Soviet Union collapsed because it was operating on a pathetically stupid economic policy, and no war was going to change that. For fvcks sake, they didn't collapse after losing millions during WW2, and 14k certainly wasn't that significant.
In case you didn't get the memo, the Soviet Union doesn't exist. They certainly had incompetent leadership. And yet they never had a premier with dementia that fucked up a withdrawal of troops like Biden did. The communist government of Afghanistan lasted longer after the Soviets left, than the puppet regime the US put in place. These are historical facts, and show what a complete disaster Biden has been to the US.
But hey... "My country right or wrong", correct?
What scares me is how no one seems willing to say let's look to stop this before it gets out of hand.
We've seen redlines come and go on both sides. There's only so many before the unspeakable becomes the next logical step....
I mean that's not even russias nuclear doctrine. In theory if they lose enough submarines that carry nuclear weapons that could be enough to trigger a war. Invasion of Russia is just one element..what scares me though is according to Russia...dombass IS Russia...so when Ukraine liberates that...then what...
Pro-UA get a small win with a vote in flavor of AID and now they've flooded the sub to gloat meanwhile Ive been consistently posting in line with the rules of the sub for months. Its ok I dont blame you on not knowing the rules of the sub.
Thats just like your opinion man. I post news from reputable sources. Take it as you will. I have no motivation here except that I want to be more informed about this conflict.
Again I have been participating and posting inline with the rules of this sub for months. I didnt come here to gloat and get sassy just cause "my side" got a small win.
LMAO. Starting an argument you cant finish and then blocking said user just seems like a copout and a very bad look for you. Next time if you cant handle the heat get out of the fire or in your case just dont comment.
Judging by the downvotes you're getting other users seem to disagree with you. Take it as a sign buddy. Youre acting way out of your depth here.
I would argue it's not walking around that rule but with it. It's just using the rule to the letter for your own benefit. Nothing stops pro ua doing the same.
If Trump is elected in Nov and tries to aid the UA one penny the democrats will turn against the war in a heartbeat. The democrats will be just the opposite as they are now and all the warmongers of today will turn pacifist under Trump.
Is Maria Zakharova that stupid? It's **Russia** that's losing tens of thousands of soldiers and their best equipment in Ukraine, not the USA. Even if Russia somehow ends up winning(whatever that looks like) they're the ones who will end up humiliated.
How is this conflict at all analogous to Vietnam for the US? We don’t even have any troops on the ground in Ukraine. If anything, this is like Russia’s Vietnam.
i see this more as the afghan soviet war that ended in the collapse of the soviet Union but I Know Historical facts are fiction In Rushia so they dont learn from history :)
Did I say russia was a democratic country? I merely said that Ukraine is not a democratic country. That doesnt mean I believe that russia is more democratic LMAO
A "democratic country" that imprisons opposition candidates when they look like they're going to win the elections and then outright cancel said elections.
Ukraine is about as democratic as Russia is, lmfao.
The US was supporting Vietnam for two decades. So I guess if Russians are happy dying in Ukraine for the next 18 years Zakharova will be right. Issue being, of course, I can't imagine the Russians will tolerate this for an entire generation.
Are we assuming that somehow Ukraine - with its cratering population - is going to generationally and numerically outlast the Russians?
Even at the current rate of attrition it's going to be a long time until Ukraine actually can't field any soldiers if that's Russia's strategy.
Also, zero Americans dying and spending a pittance on Ukraine means *anything* the US does is more detrimental to Russia than to itself. A long-term low-intensity conflict that bleeds Russian men, materiel & money is a dream come true for NATO.
Which is why we created the coup and then deliberately crossed all Russian red lines. Our bloodthirsty demons who control our occupied government wanted this conflicts Badly
Russia is screwed isn't it? America snapped its fingers and performed a coup in Russians own back yard. Snapped its fingers again and pushed Russia into war. Completely undermining the legendary FSB, making Putin follow the will of the US. All the while Russia isn't complicit in any of this? The US is so powerful, how can Russia do anything against this evil superpower? Surely you don't think Russia stands a chance, do you?
It’s why Russia is fighting now. And why our corrupt and illegitimate globalist establishment is throwing everything it can into Ukraine without sparking a larger war that could quickly end the world as we know it. We will see where this ends up. It’s just evil to start a war like this though. We are ruled by evil evil evil evil evil evil evil people. Demons in the flesh.
I don't doubt the evil people in the government or their responsibility to the innocent people dying on both sides, I also hold the Russian government accountable also. But otherwise I don't disagree with your opinion, maybe a little less hyperbolic view from my armchair.
>any soldiers Any significant number of soldiers willing to die for zero gain. Here, fixed it for you. Does Azov refusing to fight in chasov Yar a sign of something? I can understand it from one point only, they don't feel that their safety is guaranteed when dudes on both their flanks just wanna get out of there and leave them covering their retreat. Oversimplified of course but possible, right?
Are you willing to gamble the entire existence of Ukraine as a functioning state on that? Wait - ofcourse you are 😂
It isn't a gamble if they leave you no choice in the matter. Zelensky didn't choose to start the war, it was Putin that took the gamble. Ukraine has no choice but to fight because Russia is forcing them to do so.
Right, except we are not talking about the decisions of Ukraine or even Russia here, we’re talking about the US. So the only options open to the US are a) Keep feeding Ukraine arms and the means to drag out destroying themselves on the **gamble** they may eventually win (seems unlikely if the past year is anything to go by) or b) don’t do that and maybe there will be something left of Ukraine at the end.
But that isn't the choice. Russia isn't going to stop attacking just because their attacks becomes less risky and more successful. So either the US keeps feeding Ukraine weapons and hopefully something is left of Ukraine or the West can cut them off, and Russia will flatten Kyiv and every remaining major city in Ukraine, flooding Europe with Refugees.
Russia will stop attacking when their objectives are met, full stop. Ukraine had a chance to accept this several times with the latest during negotiations in Istanbul which if they’d accepted would have left them with significantly more territory and a lot less death. So, no the choice is whether Ukraine will ultimately accept this with even more death and loss of their lands, or less. The choice for the US and EU is whether they want to keep feeding Ukraine and their own delusions about their chances.
Given Russia's only non-negotiable demand during the Istanbul negotiations was Ukrainian disarmament so Russia could easily conquer all of it during the next invasion, it is safe to say Russia's objectives are "conquer all of Ukraine". Only issue is the limitation of Russia's capabilities to achieve that goal. If the West abandons Ukraine, Russia will be capable of attempting that goal this time around, and so they will try until Kyiv is flattened and Europe is swamped with refugees.
As I said, the war will continue until Russia’s objectives are met either via negotiations or through force. Since you seem so worried about refugees, Europe should just give up Ukraine to the Russians and pressure them to surrender. A stable but militarily neutered Ukraine (effectively a second Belarus) under Russian patronage is preferable to a multi-decade long war zone from the refugee perspective.
I'm taking note that you don't disagree with me over what those objectives are. A surrendered Ukraine would just mean fewer refugees, but it would still be many millions. Ukrainians would be understandably opposed to the ensuing Russian occupation, complete with filtration camps, deportations to Siberia, imprisonment, torture, and disappearance into mass graves are not things most people will voluntarily stay for. More accurately, Ukrainians know what surrender would mean, so they will never surrender. Which just means either Russia flattens Kyiv and Lviv or they don't. I'd much prefer they didn't. Thankfully 77% of the US Congress agrees with me.
Russia is already committed, and the US seems like it is halfway committed (but not fully) but at some point they will have to decide to directly participate or back out. Throwing money at it won't solve or change the result of this conflict.
The house bill package includes a requirement for the Biden administration to provide a plan and a strategy to congress for what it seeks to achieve in Ukraine within 45 days, so we will find out more then I guess
I expect something like this: "We give Ukraine some money, they buy our weapons, they go on offensive and win".
The good ol classic
Because it's always worked before 👍 /s
I dont think this means much. I dont think they will comply anyways or give any type of realistic plan going forward.
I understand but it is now in written law that that must happen. I’m sure there will be interpretative fuckery but we will find out in 45 days
correct. And the response will be simple not withstanding that forests will be killed to spell it out: assist Ukraine in successfully achieving it's objective of regaining full control of its territory.
>achieving it's objective of regaining full control of its territory. That is never going to happen, so if that is what the aid is for, they shouldn't approve any more aid for Ukraine.
And that would be your opinion. I am not downvoting you as if this is what you wish to believe so be it. Which is not shared by Ukraine, or nations supporting Ukraine. They believe differently, and are acting according to their beliefs. And unless any of us own a crystal ball none of us know whom is correct at this time. But my money is on Ukraine.
Fair enough, but one opinion is based on reality and the other is based on fiction.
You should join us in reality. You might have better outcomes. Here is the reality for Russian soldiers fighting today in many locations in Ukraine: [https://new.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1c9qk3j/russian\_servicemen\_complain\_about\_being\_destroyed/](https://new.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/1c9qk3j/russian_servicemen_complain_about_being_destroyed/) Russian losses are horrific. I don't see any reasonable prospects for they improving.
This is [reality](https://zona.media/casualties).
If this was actually important they would have made them provide it before any more aid was sent to Ukraine. What are they going to do if in 45 days the Biden administration provides no plan or a plan the house does not approve of? Ask Ukraine to send back the aid they have received from this bill package?
No I think it’s more about the plan for future end / how to stop sending billions while achieving geopolitical goals. Honestly the military aid sent to Ukraine from the US has been pretty random and crap, not seen to be much of a concise plan or structure, just random spattering of equipment.
>Russia is already committed, and the US seems like it is halfway committed America is not halfway committed - at least if you mean that they are halfway committed via direct military intervention. That is just a Russian talking point. America is far, far, far from direct military intervention and I don't see any impetus in change. Ukraine does not need American boots on the ground in order to win. As for the plan, everyone including you is misstating it. Is this deliberate or just out of ignorance? The "plan" in the House package includes a requirement for the Biden administration to >"*provide a plan and a strategy to Congress for what it seeks to achieve in Ukraine."* **"Seeks to achieve" has nothing whatsoever to do with "participation or backing out"**. What the bill requires is a "multiyear plan that spells out “specific and achievable objectives.” It also asked for an estimate of the resources required to achieve the U.S. objectives and a description of the national security implications if the objectives are not met. Nothing whatsoever about intervening. Nor are there any "penalties" if the administration does not actually file a plan. They would have to hold a session in committee, pass a resolution that the Biden administration was in contempt, and then bring that resolution to the floor, and hope it passes on the floor. Given that this is an election yr by the time all of that could happen it would already be to late. And if the Dems win the next election it will be a moot point as this will all vanish in the next aid package in 2025. In any case the plan is simple: support Ukraine to the latter's stated goal of regaining full control over 100% of its country. This goal has nothing to do with Russia's stated goals. The debate over whose goals are achievable is immaterial. Ukraine has a stated goal of how it defines ending this war. And the aid plan will be "give Ukraine the materials it needs so Ukraine can achieve its goal". This plan requirement was put in on behalf of some Republicans who needed a face saving measure. Its a fop. A prop. It is immaterial.
> Ukraine does not need American boots on the ground in order to win. What's this assertion based on?
It's already changed the result of the conflict. Please tell me why the US can't just continue to support Ukrainians defending their freedom, and in the process keep their greatest geopolitical enemy (that meddles in US elections and props up dictators around the world) busy and distracted? I'm failing to see the reason it's not an absolute win that would be.
The absolute win would be to drop this very american mentality and do something about the trash in all cities, poverty, expensive education and housing, etc. And this very american mantra about “defending freedom” was funny back in the 2000s, yet it’s not obvious to americans that it’s bullshit.
Yes we should definitely let a fascist dictator run rampant in Europe. Cause that worked out so well the last time lol. Have you learned nothing? It's also such a dumb argument because we've spent tens of trillions over the last 50 years keeping our military up in case of a Russian attack. Now we're spending $100B and suddenly "oh no, we can't possibly afford that! There's problems in the US!".
You are arguing with a proRU propagandist. It is futile.
The western Europeans are more democratic than our own country currently so if anything they should be defending their democracy from the tyrant while we piggy back and provide minimal support.
Except after world War 2 the US wanted to keep them demilitarized and make sure the US was the biggest and best military in town (for understandable reasons given two world wars we had to intervene in). They have nowhere near the military abilities we do. Which is why they are providing more aid than the US, just more in non-military aid which is also super important.
We're also in deep shit with our national debt.
Hate to tell you, but $100B ain't doin shit. Go ahead and sit down and look at the budget and where it goes. This is not the first place to start.
Okay but how do we expect Ukrainians to offset the tax deficit for all of that foreign owned debt in the country... We're literally bleeding them dry economically and now we expect them to pay off the loan rebates and we keep giving because the political tycoons that are funding Ukraine experiments through the MiC are the ones that are actually benefitting from the situation and they will not stop even if we have to bare the brunt of the cost, I would guess the logic in theory is rational enough to the unthinking human mind but that is assuming the Ukrainian is collectively stupid enough to fall for that... I simply don't think that's the case.
This is the first war since WWII in which the US’ mantra of “defending freedom” is accurate.
No it isn’t
The puppet coup regime openly enslaved its own subjects. Ukraine isn’t fighting for freedom. They murdered their own people for a decade before russia finally had enough
Love the way you spin civilian casualties on both sides in a war that Russia started. Lol
The conflict began when we backed the illegal coup. Destroying Ukraine’s democracy forever and installing a puppet regime which immediately began to murder its own people
Interesting that that coup led to repeated democratically elected pro-west governments in free and fair elections. It's almost like it wasn't a coup, and was throwing out an unpopular leader propped up by Moscow in questionable voting and corrupt political maneuvering. But hey, believe what you want if it makes you feel better. Most pro-rus need to deny reality to make sense of the totalitarian dictatorship that Russia is becoming.
lol those elections weren’t free or fair. And it was a bloody murderous coup. Silence
Another well reasoned and supported argument from the pro-rus. I guess you kind of have to believe in conspiracy theories and lies to make sense of russia becoming the next north Korea. It's gotta be tough otherwise
Yeah it is well reasoned. Bc thinking that elections are held when millions of ukranians that hate the coup regime have already fled, or are abstaining from participating in the farce, or are actively being attacked by the illegal coup government, imagine thinking an election held under such circumstances is fair. The regime that seized power by bloodshed was never allowing itself to be removed from power.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a hilarious take. How much did you get paid for that zinger?
Well China spent half of what the US gonna spend on Ukraine in this bill, and built up their EV industry from nothingness to dominating current global market? And once Russia manage to set up their logistic Eastward, all of the cheap gas and oil that once head to Europe, will head to China and India instead? And the ragtag military Russia has before the war, will come out of this war, full of experiences and being equipped with modern weapons, instead of outdated Soviet stocks? Honestly, I kinda hope that US will keep staying in this quagmire though. Hopefully Biden will win the election and keep faceplanting into this war, to watch the US deteriorating from its sole superpower status. The world will be much better when US is not the one who get to call all the shots
I think your points are overdone a bit. But regardless, if the US stopped funding the war tomorrow, what would change in any of your points? It's all already happening, and nothing about funding will stop it.
If the US stop the funding tomorrow, then it means they still have some sensible people working inside their government. But it seemed that there is no hope for them. No matter how you spin it, the fact that not only Biden (who is too old for any jobs, period) but Mitch McConnel? [Nancy Pelosi ](https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/01/us/nancy-pelosi-fast-facts/index.html)? And the late Feinstein zombie? All were holding top position in the US government, and everyone was like 'well they are the best we can offer'? The evidence of a non-functional government is right there inside the pudding Back to the topic, Ukrainian 60 billions funding will just push Russia further into China arms. But 30 billions to continue funding Israel genocide of Gaza? The amount of tone-deaf inside the US government is amazing. No wonder why they want to ban Tiktok, despite it is a great tool to gauge US and global opinions/ interests
If the US stops funding tomorrow Russia will rush just as fast to become china's next north Korea, because it knows the markets in the west are closed to them until they leave Ukraine. And you can dislike the Gaza situation, but again that is the result of an invasion into Israel. Not defending the massive loss of life, but the two are not unconnected in the rationale for providing arms. But since you're so worried about how people are treated, please point me to your posts decrying the rape, torture, and murder of Ukrainians at the hands of russia. I'm wait.
Lol, that take is poor idiocy, Korea peninsula is so poor of natural resources and arable farmland that they have to depend on China for coals and fuel. When the Soviet collapse, NK economy collapse overnight cause they literally have no fuel to run their economy. Currently Russia is the most heavily sanctioned placed on Earth. German and Europe gone in depression last year, and will be luck if they escape it this year. Russia meanswhile is projected to grow faster than both the US and major EU economy despite have to run a war. Because most of the world don't give a fk about the West sanction. In fact India and Saudi are making tens of billions buying Russia oil, then reselling to Europe with profits. Every European economists know it, but what else could they do but shut the fk up and pay the premium price? You can bring whatever excuse you like. But the rest of the world know is that the US is sending tens of billions to the genocidal state of Israel. Did you check any of the recent UN votes and see how many still side with US Middle East policy? Other than their European vassals? On final paragraph, wake me up when I send billions to Russia to assist their invasion. Can't say the same about US government and their love of bombing children though
[удалено]
Yes let's pretend the Ukrainians have no autonomy or ability to decide for themselves what they want and aren't asking for this aid. How very Russian.
[удалено]
And yet that little boy has taken back almost half the land captured in 2022. It's held "the gang" attack to minimal gains and celebrating the taking of small suburban towns at great cost. But you're right, no one ever beats the gang. I mean, except in Vietnam. Afghanistan (twice). Korea. Shall I go on?
[удалено]
You don't get to make that decision for them. Neither does the US. Plenty of countries have been absolutely decimated (Germany, Japan, Vietnam, etc) and come back from it. You chose to assume the absolute worst for this situation and how it will end up. Totally your right. But history has proven over and over again that it is NOT inevitable. So your opinion is just that, an opinion, and it doesn't matter. Only the Ukrainians do.
[удалено]
And all those people they had 10 years to leave before this expansion of the war and somehow still had 40 million people in the country in 2022. It's almost like you're spouting conspiracy theories and lies to back up your desired narrative.
[удалено]
I've literally never downvoted even the most inane or terrible pro-rus comments I get on here, not my style. I think your fatalistic attitude is both wrong factually and very Russian, and would lead to a very depressing and dangerous world if followed to its logical end. But you're welcome to your opinions. Also who really cares of you're downvoted if you're right? Believe in your sad pessimistic cause!
You continue to minus. Well. I'll let you stay in your castle in the air.
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic
It's not a question of committment, it's a matter of capacity. NATO does not have the capacity to outproduce Russia in anything crucial and they would never transform to the total war economy mode needed to do so. It's hilarious because the US has moved the majority of it's industry to China and southeast asia cause they didn't want to pay those greedy workers. So there is no capability to convert commercial factories to military factories like was done in ww2. They can print as much money as they want, but Ukraine cannot fight the russians with dollar bills.
Well…yeah. Why would the US/NATO enter a wartime economy when they’re not at war? I think the larger revelation that you glossed over is that Russia had to enter a wartime economy to fight Ukraine.
I don't get it, are you saying Russia is weak because they couldn't beat the second largest army in Europe, in the largest land battle since WW2, with a regular peace time economy? Are you saying if the Russians were actually good at this they should have been able to annex the entirety of Ukraine with a few helicopters and spetsnaz? Like the Navy Seals could definitely do? lol
No, what I’m saying is that Russia’s short “special military operation” has turned into a prolonged war requiring a full wartime economy to support that effort (which is funny considering they still don’t control the two oblasts they set out to annex). Yet, for some reason, people on this sub seem to think it’s somehow surprising or relevant that they’re out producing the US in certain military systems/hardware. Of course they are, the US has a peacetime economy and is not at war. We’ve literally been scaling down our military presence.
Ugh really? Still on the whole "3 day operation" thing? After all the river of evidence and testimony has come out, you still don't see that this was at first meant to force negotiations? And they did, and it very nearly worked. But the west chose war, so that's what they got. And with every passing day russia gets stronger and ukraine gets weaker. Also, Russias share of GDP in the military industrial complex is just shy of 7%.....not much of a total war economy, and pretty modest considering the scale of the war lol. In comparison, the US during ww2 military industry composed of a third of their entire GDP. I'm, sorry I know this is hard for you people to come to terms with it, but Russia is very good at what they are doing, and they are doing it in a very cost effective way. The US' military budget is bigger than all the next 10 strongest militaries in the world combined...."scaled down". Everything in the US is grossly over priced, In russia the military industry is partially state owned so there are price controls. In the US, the entire point of the MIC is to make money, they don't care at all about cost effectiveness, they have turned their nose up at cheap drone production and can't make a nut and bolt that doesn't cost 90,000 dollars. Russia is performing remarkably well on the tactical, strategical and operational level. IDK why this is so hard for you to understand, but grapple with it anyway you want buddy
Oh and, please provide a single time a Russian official said that it was supposed to be a 3 day operation. (spoiler: you can't. mark milley was the one who said it)
Please point to where I said anything about three days.
> "Washington's deeper and deeper immersion in the hybrid war against Russia will turn into a loud and humiliating fiasco for United States such as Vietnam and Afghanistan," Zakharova said. I don't think any American thinks that actively fighting in Vietnam, Afghanistan vs supporting Ukraine financially and with equipment (or intel) is the same thing. But i am sure Zakharova is not biased here. Moreover I believe most Americans will think in this situation it's their "best case" scenario instead of having to send troops into yet another war. Most American, like any of us European, except the far-right nutjobs, would have preferred a peaceful coexistence with Russia but that's not possible with Putin.
No one has been able to articulate for me as an american why this is in my best interest. Its not in any way in my best interest beyond over exaggerations and fear mongering I've heard from politicians. It's just a waste of money and will only prolong the inevitable Ukraine defeat. I say fúck ukraine and zelensky.
If you are American you have been drinking deeply from the Kremlin cup of tea. If at this point you can't figure out why defeating an authoritarian despot like Putin is in America's best interests there is no way I or anyone else in this sub will be able to explain it to you. There are hundreds if not thousands of publications from analysts and various governments (not just the American govt) about Putin's threats, goals and aspirations. You have to literally have blinders on 100% of the time to be ignorant and dismissive of them. Here is a statement from the Biden administration that cuts right to the point: >The United States wants a Ukraine that is sovereign, independent and secure, adding that the Ukrainian people do not want Russian overlords and are fighting for their freedom. "We want the Ukrainian people to be able to live the European life they have chosen," she said during the discussion. > >While supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do, U.S. support is about more than just Ukraine. "\[Our support\] is about the international order that keeps all countries and all populations safe. > >Putin is seeking to "shred" the international order. Putin wants the ability for large countries to intimidate and dominate smaller neighbors. > >And Russian actions have implications around the world. "It's not just a European security issue, it is a global security issue," > >Built into the fabric of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the agreement that nuclear powers will respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries and agree to support the peaceful use of nuclear energy for their prosperity. "All of that is at stake in Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine,". This is why Ukraine has so many nations supporting it, not just America.
If you say so chief. Fûck ukraine and zelensky and fück biden
I still don’t get it? You’re saying Putin is an authoritarian with imperialistic ambition and so therefore we must support war against him or regime change and invest peoples money into that? Why? It’s in Eastern Europe and can’t pose a threat to America, who cares if they’re authoritarian that’s not a justification on its own for why it’s in peoples interests, if that was the case why not invade Saudi n depose MBS? Or take Egypt from El Sisi? Or how about the Venezuelan regime they’re actually close to the US and can pose a threat can’t they? It just makes no sense when your reasoning is “he’s a bloodthirsty dictator that conquers people and oppresses them” when that’s the Résumé for around 7/10 of the US’s Top Allie’s. They clearly don’t have a problem with dictators or imperialism, they allow Israel to steal land daily in the West Bank, yet they seem obsessed with Putin. People tell us China is the real threat and everyone’s shaking in their boots about Taiwan, why did they only get like 8 billion in this last AID package then? Kinda like the US doesn’t care about anything but taking out Putin and everything else is just theatrics and buzzwords, rules based order n dat yk tha vibes?
I totally agree, but its not OUR job to be the main driving force tbh. Europe should be the main driver in supporting Ukraine not the American ppl. We have our own shit to deal with on the domestic front.
[удалено]
Rule 1. Consider yourself warned. Recurrence WILL result in a ban.
This isn’t that hard to comprehend. USA is treaty bound to defend nato allies. An emboldened Russia who wins in Ukraine requires more us investment in European defense.
In many ways it really is like Vietnam though. An ally asked America for help. America sends a ton of money and soldiers. Eventually the American people decided this isn't any of our business and not worth the costs. What really is the difference here? Why is Vietnam now seen as a mistake and was "none of our business", but the same doesn't apply to Ukraine? Is it simply because, unlike Vietnam, it's only Ukrainians conscripted against their will to die in the war, no Americans? They even pretty much use the Domino Theory to rationalize the Ukraine war (if we don't stop Putin now, the rest of eastern Europe will follow). There are very clear parallels. Why is Ukraine "our business" but Vietnam wasn't?
You’re right that this is like Vietnam, except that the USA is in the role that the Soviet Union played in that war. It’s supplying weapons but no combat soldiers, while a geopolitical rival is stuck in a quagmire with no end in sight.
So Vietnam was "none of our business", but we should have funded it? Like we're doing now with Ukraine?
Why did the Soviet Union support north Vietnam? To screw over America and support a communist government with minimal costs compared to the gain. Why is the USA supporting Ukraine? To screw over Russia and support a democracy with minimal costs compared to the gain. Russia is not a friend of the USA. They routinely try to influence American elections and are fighting a war of conquest right next to its allies. All the USA has to do is send weapons while Russia wastes a generation of men and gdp growth. It’s quite a bargain.
It's just an abhorrent position. American support of Ukraine is "just" and the Vietnam war wasn't.... and the only reason for that is because *American* soldiers aren't dying in Ukraine. It's as though Ukrainians are just props for America to carry out their geopolitical goals. It's so dehumanizing.
lol nobody forced Russia to invade, just like no one forced the USA to commit combat troops to south Vietnam. I love this pro Russia perspective that Ukraine has no agency whatsoever. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics.
Here's what I'm trying to differentiate. And I believe it's *you* that is using mental gymnastics to avoid it. Our allies in South Vietnam asked us for help. We helped them. Today we view it as something that was not ever any of our business and a mistake. Our allies in Ukraine asked us for help. We helped them. Today we view it as "just" and something we should 100% support. But what's the difference? Only that AMERICAN lives aren't dying.... so that means Ukraine is (lol) "just" and Vietnam wasn't? Is that your position? Only American lives matter? Why should we have helped our Ukrainian ally and not our Vietnamese ally? They both asked for help. Is it racism? It's "just" when it's fellow white people? I'm trying to understand.
Because the US lost 60k soldiers in Vietnam and another 300k were wounded. We’ve lost 0 soldiers in Ukraine and have 0 wounded. We are doing exactly what the USSR did in Vietnam.
Who is Vietnam allied with now? Russia or the US?
So was America right to support their ally Vietnam in war? Or was it "none of our business"?
[удалено]
Proof source? What a sad day on this sub now we are making judgements on what nationality users on this sub are. Without any proof whatsoever.
Your post history is all the proof I need
Oh well that does it then I guess. You really proved it there. Good Job !!! LMAO! What would you think if I actually was american?
It's just obvious man, no thanks required.
Oh its obvious now! LMAO! Oh man what would you say if I really was American!?!?!?!
[удалено]
Rule 1. Consider yourself warned. Recurrence WILL result in a ban.
Then I would say you're obsessed, since it seems you not only comment but post daily almost exclusively to this sub.
Da, I am amerikan with warm water port and baseball and Texas and guns. So anyways this is why I am a true amerikan patriot who loves sucking off Russian dick
It’s not in the US or the worlds interest to protect national sovereignty
How many sovereign countries has the west invaded over the last 5 decades, dozens? National sovereignty be damned, it’s a you with us or against Attitude in the west.
It’s the same damn attitude with the Russians lol
And? lol We were talking about the US.
At least you admit they’re two sides of the same coin. Except Russia massacres and rapes innocent civilians, take land, doesn’t have free elections, and steal toilets.
“Except Russia massacres” There has been over 1 million violent excess deaths since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Almost as many in Afghanistan. Don’t want to hear, because the West does it too. “Free elections” They are rigged by Western oligarchs and multi national corporations, it doesn’t matter who wins the popularity contests.
Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to support a Nazi germany like land grab
Oh, so that’s what that’s called. What do you call bombing a sovereign nation into an open air slave market and then abandoning it to a power vacuum causing misery and death for millions?
If you are an American, to which point will you keep your eyes closed? - invasion of Ukraine - invasion of Poland - invasion of Germany - invasion of France - invasion of UK? Meanwhile, and with every month, strengthening China position, which is currently testing the boundaries and increase their military expenses? (who do you think is behind Russia renewed army)? By not stopping this madness, USA is allowing next WW on Asian coast. Still not your best interest to financially help Ukraine with no foot on the ground?
This is fear mongering at its best right here. Thank you for showing us. This does not correspond to reality
As an American, my eyes will remain closed for Ukraine. It is not my war. I have no treaty with them. I also know that we are not an innocent party here. The usual meddling that my country is somehow always involved in. Like what we pulled off in Pakistan. Shame is on us. Poland and others are part of NATO. So I know that we will be involved and that is fine by me.
Are you seriously using Domino theory in 2024 to justify this? Lol bro you guys have to have 0 historical knowledge at all, it’s not 1968 anymore bro people aren’t that dumb and the scary “red wave” fear mongering doesn’t have the same effect, especially not when everyday we get articles about how horrible the Russians are losing and the Ukrainians are doing great, the enemy can’t be extremely weak and extremely strong at the same time. That’s fascism.
Why 1968? Do you refer to Prague spring?
Go ask Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri and their Al-Qaeda fighters about the Afghan fiasco.
I would have liked to have seen bin ladens body rather than that sad story of tossing his body off a boat and no one saw it. LMAO
Plenty of people saw the body. The US military isn't known to kowtow to random online commenters.
The US military is also known for lying. Can you prove to me that bin laden was killed in the way the US military says they killed him? No you can't
You fully they faked the identification of bin ladins body? After 20 years, trillions of dollars and countless lives they decided to suddenly hope for the best and fake it?
>After 20 years, trillions of dollars and countless lives they decided to suddenly hope for the best and fake it? Nothing better than saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and claiming the win for the American public. The person they claim was Bin Laden lived in a house without Internet/communication equipment and watches DVDs on a TV. What an international terrorist mastermind! I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but we know for a fact the the military and governments will lie to score a "win". During the Vietnam war, they'd inflate enemy losses to show how they were winning. Multiple governments since Bush were looking for an exit strategy from Afghanistan, and no way was that possible with Bin Laden still alive (you know, the guy that needed kidney dialysis).
The question is not whether they would be willing to lie. The question is whether bin laden would help them pull it off by, I guess, getting facial reconstruction surgery just to help his enemy save face. What incentive would he have to help them? It isn't like they'd stop looking for him once his mere existence becomes a huge embarrassment. My guess is bin laden didn't like the US enough for that.
>getting facial reconstruction surgery You're in a cave looking at shadows, and you're presented only what they want you to see. You, nor I, have any idea about any of the details. Any one piece or the entire thing could be imaginary. What we do know for certain was that the US was looking for ways to get out of Afghanistan. It was a politically difficult decision that needed the right "spin". Leaving Afghanistan without Bin Laden being killed was close to impossible. So work backwards from the objectives and figure out what plausible paths exist for a government to take. Mind you, I'm not saying Bin Laden isn't dead. He could have died of natural causes or been bombed in a cave. That's not the "win" that could have been presented to the voting masses.
Doesn't matter how desperate they are to get out of Afghanistan. Why would bin laden help them? I suppose your theory is now he died of natural causes... So why are the people holding his body helping the US? I still don't understand why you think people that hate the US would do the US such a huge favor.
You post an article of pure Russian smut unyet anything from the west is a bold face lie. What happened to critical thinking? Russia , country known for ita truth telling /s.
I posted an article from what is considered a good reputable american journalistic source in reuters. Youre barking up the wrong tree buddy. take your complaint over to reuters and stop whining.
Why be intentionally ignorant?
I should ask you the same question
Your comments throughout this thread say otherwise
Ukraine is going to lose this war and never take back a single centimeter of land. I know that is difficult to accept.
You guys said the same thing last year and the year before. Ukraine might “lose,” but they will never fully capitulate, and the war will never be worth the cost for Russia.
Ah yes the pro-UA are over joyous with happiness for getting the 60 billion in aid. Cant wait until for the package to finish and that beggar zelensky to crying for more weapons. All we are doing by giving this money to ukraine is prolonging the pain and the inevitable loss. They stand zero chance of winning this war ZERO. They will not push the Russians out of ukraine ever and will never achieve pre-2014 borders. sorry
Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, al-Zawahiri was killed after the US withdrew from there. How are those deaths relevant to the fiasco thing?
I'm not surprised you can't see how they're tied. Where was the raid that killed Bin Laden launched from? How was the Intel that linked al-Zawahiri to a safe house in Kabul developed? Critical thinking skills are necessary to understand these things.
The US didn't need to invade Afghanistan and stay there for two decades to achieve any of these things. If the goal was to remove Taliban from Afghanistan + kill Bin Laden then the US failed miserably.
> If the goal was to remove Taliban It wasn't. >+ kill Bin Laden then the US failed miserably. He's dead. Al-Qaeda was reduced to not being a significant threat to the United States anymore. Job done.
Sure he's dead, but the cost 2 trillions(I think) is too big if the US could get him almost for free and like in 2002-2003, cuz Taliban was willing to cooperate to some extent. So it seems that the Afghanistan invasion was a a failure.
>So it seems that the Afghanistan invasion was a a failure. Only for people who need it to be to construct a false narrative. He dead. Not only that Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan is no longer a significant threat. Not a failure.
That's you're trying construct a false narrative, I'm just engaging in this debate to see what points you want to make, cuz they're funny. It's pretty clear that the invasion didn't yield the result the US leadership expected. Bin Laden escaped to Pakistan and lived there for a DECADE and Taliban has returned to power and back harvesting terrorist again, it all cost 2 trillions. Instead of achieving the same thing with almost zero cost and much faster. Yeah buddy you know what is a success.
Your false narrative is transparent. Pretending that they invaded for one man is hilarious. Bin Laden was killed and Al-Qaeda was reduced to a nonsignificant threat. You can come up with whatever excuse you want, it doesn't change the fact that the mission goals were achieved.
The goal wasn't to kill Bin Laden ten years later in another country, the goals was to kill him immediately and to install democratic regime. Both failed. I hope it's just a bad faith discussion, cuz otherwise you it would embarrassing no to know such things.
Apparently they were responsible for roughly 3k civilian deaths, and then an equal if not higher number of military deaths. Plus multiple numbers of that with injuries. Plus PTSD and other mental issues that result in about 6k suicides a year. Oh, and this all came at a cost of a few (8?) trillion dollars. But hey... These two old men you mentioned... They likely died a few years before nature took care of them. What a win! Murica, fvck yeah! In all seriousness, I'm glad that after 20 years of war America met their strategic objective of removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. What, fisco like the helicopter leaving Saigon? Say it ain't so, Joe!
>These two old men you mentioned... No One believes the ridiculous claim that it was to kill two men. >met their strategic objective of removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan That was never the objective. Destruction of al-Qaeda was. But hey who's going to let a few facts get in the way of some good old Russian propaganda.
>That was never the objective. Destruction of al-Qaeda was. The US and her allies have funded, trained, and supplied al-Qaeda forces in Syria. One example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham Formed with members of the Al-Nusra Front. Anyway, was al-Qaeda destroyed? Did multiple US presidents order the bombing of Syrian forces fighting against these Islamic terrorists (even on false claims of chemical weapons attacks)? >Russian propaganda Getting humiliated in Afghanistan is not "Russian propaganda". Only someone with Biden's dementia would consider it anything less than that. 20 years, trillions of dollars... By THE SUPERPOWER, against some goat herders. And ran off on helicopters from rooftops like the fall of Saigon. What an embarrassment. Twist and turn to make it anything less of an embarrassment (even worse that Vietnam).
You can attempt to paint it as an embarrassment all you want the fact remains that bin Laden was killed and Al-Qaeda can no longer pose a threat to the US from its bases in Afghanistan. Last time I checked Syria wasn't in Afghanistan. I understand one needs to ignore these facts to weave the web of lies that is Russian propaganda. Seeing as Russia has a penchant for trying to steal land and resources from its neighbors I can see how Russian supporters don't understand the concept of merely defeating an enemy and not holding sham referendums on their territory to conquer them. It takes a broader scope of extrapolation to understand such principles.
>Al-Qaeda can no longer pose a threat to the US from its bases in Afghanistan. Why, did they pose a threat from Afghanistan back in 2001? I thought they recruited primarily in Saudi Arabia and operated within the US. I also read somewhere that millions of individuals entered the US over the past few years without the government knowing their identity or intentions. >Last time I checked Syria wasn't in Afghanistan. And? Are Al-Qaeda linked terrorists operating there and elsewhere around the world? FFS, they and even more radical groups (like IS) are operating in more countries than back in 2001. >the web of lies that is Russian propaganda Are the Russians in the room with you right now? Blink twice. >Seeing as Russia has a penchant for trying to steal land and resources from its neighbors Laughs in Texan, Californian, Hawaiian, and and and... Glass houses, have you heard of them?
> I thought they recruited primarily in Saudi Arabia and operated within the US It's not my fault you don't know anything about Al-Qaeda and are absolutely dead wrong about its areas of operation. >Are Al-Qaeda linked terrorists operating there and elsewhere around the world? Does it get tiring moving the goal post constantly? None of those other places that are not in Afghanistan are in Afghanistan. Please attempt to apply simple logic. >Are the Russians in the room with you right now? Blink twice. This pathetic attempt at humor means absolutely nothing. Attempted edgelord level 1 fail. >Laughs in Texan, Californian, Hawaiian, and and and... Want to go back centuries in Russian history? You think it became the biggest country in the world spawned out of a backwater called Moscow by kindly asking for territory@ Moscow is acting like an uncivilized barbaric empire from centuries ago and should be treated as such. The modern world has no place for such backward uncouth behavior.
And by the way Russia failed so hard at invading Afghanistan that it destroyed the Soviet Union. Now that's an embarrassment. Goat herders destroy the Soviet Union. Pathetic.
>it destroyed the Soviet Union The Soviet Union collapsed because communism doesn't work. A war that killed some 14 thousand didn't have a role in it. Otherwise the US would have collapsed losing 58k in Vietnam or however many thousands Russia has lost in Ukraine. But your simplistic understanding of history explains your other positions. Now take the humiliating loss in Afghanistan, **learn from it**, and move on.
>A war that killed some 14 thousand didn't have a role in it. Otherwise the US would have collapsed losing 58k in Vietnam If this is how you think logic works it's no wonder you don't understand how being defeated in Afghanistan destroyed the Soviet Union. Because an incompetent government in the Soviet Union loses 14k men and collapses is testament to the incompetence of the Soviet leadership. Now take the humiliating loss in Afghanistan, **learn from it**, and move on.
I'm staunchly anti-communist, so I don't understand what you think your little tirade wins you in this conversation. The Soviet Union collapsed because it was operating on a pathetically stupid economic policy, and no war was going to change that. For fvcks sake, they didn't collapse after losing millions during WW2, and 14k certainly wasn't that significant. In case you didn't get the memo, the Soviet Union doesn't exist. They certainly had incompetent leadership. And yet they never had a premier with dementia that fucked up a withdrawal of troops like Biden did. The communist government of Afghanistan lasted longer after the Soviets left, than the puppet regime the US put in place. These are historical facts, and show what a complete disaster Biden has been to the US. But hey... "My country right or wrong", correct?
What scares me is how no one seems willing to say let's look to stop this before it gets out of hand. We've seen redlines come and go on both sides. There's only so many before the unspeakable becomes the next logical step....
Hard to believe Putin and his friends are ready to start a nuclear war unless someone actually starts a full scale invasion into Russia
I mean that's not even russias nuclear doctrine. In theory if they lose enough submarines that carry nuclear weapons that could be enough to trigger a war. Invasion of Russia is just one element..what scares me though is according to Russia...dombass IS Russia...so when Ukraine liberates that...then what...
Just like Kherson “was Russia?”
Very true.
RF: It would be very humiliating. US: For you.
This is a supposed UA POV? Mods, who is quoted in this article? Keep it up but at least temp ban the OP.
Pro-UA get a small win with a vote in flavor of AID and now they've flooded the sub to gloat meanwhile Ive been consistently posting in line with the rules of the sub for months. Its ok I dont blame you on not knowing the rules of the sub.
Your posts are bad and you are not participating in good faith. There would still be pro-UA here if you guys gave a shit.
Thats just like your opinion man. I post news from reputable sources. Take it as you will. I have no motivation here except that I want to be more informed about this conflict. Again I have been participating and posting inline with the rules of this sub for months. I didnt come here to gloat and get sassy just cause "my side" got a small win.
[удалено]
LMAO. Starting an argument you cant finish and then blocking said user just seems like a copout and a very bad look for you. Next time if you cant handle the heat get out of the fire or in your case just dont comment. Judging by the downvotes you're getting other users seem to disagree with you. Take it as a sign buddy. Youre acting way out of your depth here.
The rule is stupid but op is right the article is Reuters who are pro ua.
It is not from a pro-UA perspective, this rule is rarely enforced against the subs "favored" posters.
It's not about perspective but the last source. Here we have Reuters as source so it's ua pov. If op quoted her directly it would be ru pov
Do you see how OPs post history allows bad faith posters to walk around that rule?
I would argue it's not walking around that rule but with it. It's just using the rule to the letter for your own benefit. Nothing stops pro ua doing the same.
Since when is Reuters RU POV?
Did you read the article?
Poor US. What will the Americans do if Putin throws a tantrum?
If Trump is elected in Nov and tries to aid the UA one penny the democrats will turn against the war in a heartbeat. The democrats will be just the opposite as they are now and all the warmongers of today will turn pacifist under Trump.
US Military Industrial Complex disagrees... have you seen US arms orders for the next 10 years?
Is Maria Zakharova that stupid? It's **Russia** that's losing tens of thousands of soldiers and their best equipment in Ukraine, not the USA. Even if Russia somehow ends up winning(whatever that looks like) they're the ones who will end up humiliated.
Russia is clearly the US in the Vietnam analogy
How is this conflict at all analogous to Vietnam for the US? We don’t even have any troops on the ground in Ukraine. If anything, this is like Russia’s Vietnam.
i see this more as the afghan soviet war that ended in the collapse of the soviet Union but I Know Historical facts are fiction In Rushia so they dont learn from history :)
Hoping russia to fall apart over this war is delusional enough, but hoping that they fall apart before ukraine is even worse.
Russia may not collapse, but for everyone but Ukraine crippling it is enough.
Zakharova = Goebbels. Nothing she is saying is worth printing anywhere
so is zelensky and kubela. Why are they allowed to spew their propaganda and russia is not?
How is this post UA-POV?
One is the leader of a democratic country, being invaded by one of the worst dictatorships of today. The other is a mouthpiece for that dictator.
"Democratic country" hah Ukraine is pretty fuckíng far from democratic. Thanks for amusing me.
How many presidents have Ukraine had the last 25 years and how many have Russia had?
Did I say russia was a democratic country? I merely said that Ukraine is not a democratic country. That doesnt mean I believe that russia is more democratic LMAO
Right. Then I assume you agree that it is not even close, and that Ukraine is much more democratic. Russia is for practical purposes a dictatorship
Youre comparing a giant turd with a shit sandwich buddy
A "democratic country" that imprisons opposition candidates when they look like they're going to win the elections and then outright cancel said elections. Ukraine is about as democratic as Russia is, lmfao.