When it comes down to it, this is a hell of a deal for the US. We spend a tiny fraction of our military budget to de-fang Putin and don't have to fire a single shot ourselves.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
956 points (97.6% liked)
Ukraine
10207 readers
410 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
🇺🇦 Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
🌻🤢No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
💥Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
🚷Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
❗ Server Rules
- Remember the human! (no harassment, threats, etc.)
- No racism or other discrimination
- No Nazis, QAnon or similar
- No porn
- No ads or spam (includes charities)
- No content against Finnish law
💳 Defense Aid 💥
💳 Humanitarian Aid ⚕️⛑️
🪖 Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Better than defanging is real world testing.
What worked as expected, what didn't, how we can make it better etc.
It's not often you get to deploy these weapons.
What will happen to the US defense budget now that we know it's unnecessary?
That was rhetorical by the way, I know it's going to increase.
Not sure about "unnecessary." 5% works for Ukraine but also it has a much smaller land mass. You can't use that 5% to protect the entirety of the US' borders along with every other place we are stationed along with the required ongoing maintenance
I'm not saying the budget isn't ridiculously high, but also saying it's unnecessary as a whole is just incorrect
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Watch the Ukranian drone ops teams taking contracts after this is all done. The Winged Hussars ride again! 🤘🏼💀
There was an article a few days ago about how the soldiers stopped following some of their western training as it wasn't working / appropriate for their situation.
I imagine there will also be some cross training where they update the American soldiers on what worked and didn't work and why.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
Unfortunately, the target audience also wear shirts which say "I'd rather be Russian than democrat"
They may take it as an attack against themselves.
But if you can reframe Ukraine as sticking it to those democrats who don't like military, they might be on board.
load more comments
(11 replies)
@Wilshire I cannot think of a time in recent history when we have gotten more bang for our military buck than supporting #Ukraine against #Russia .
Not only are we doing the right thing by helping a democratic nation fight an invasion by an expansionist regime, but this aid has helped weaken one of our two main adversaries, and serves as a warning to China.
This is truly one of those win/win situations where the only debate should be the degree of military aid, not whether we support Ukraine.
Besides. Ukraine gave up nukes because we promised to protect them. There's a tremendous cost to going back on our word for soooo many reasons.
We didn't promise to protect them. But Russia and the US both promised not to invade.
Of course, we should still help them because it's the right thing to do AND is harmful to our average.
But I do think the worst thing about this war from a geopolitics standpoint is Russia going back on its word. They've essentially proven that no nation should ever give up their nukes.
no nation should ever give up their nukes
No nation within invasion distance of Russia, anyway.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(24 replies)
We need an attack ad: "Why are some republicans afraid of russia?"
They are not afraid of Russia they are enthralled by Russia. They serve Putin because they are indebted to him.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Does this include giving them old equipment which they'd have to dispose of anyway? Because that's not exactly "spending". Some even say that it saves money because they have no disposal cost.
Hopefully Ukraine keeps “disposing” all of our ammunition in the general direction of the invaders.
That stuff has a limited shel(l)f life anyways.
Don’t forget that the old gear has to be replaced. That’s good American jobs right there.
It was going to be replaced regardless of Ukraine, that's the point. It was to be junked anyway.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Thats assuming the republicans and tankies WANT Putin's army destroyed. To them, this sounds like what a normal person would hear if we said: "We've used 5% of our defense budget to arm the IRA and 50% of Britain's army has been destroyed."
Now hold on, is funding the IRA on the table?
Yes, but only $6,500 per person, and it is only tax deductible if you don't give it to a guy named Roth.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
I fucking hate computer generated voices, the cadence is always fucking weird. This one is far too fast, and the pause between words is too short.
It's just weird.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Give em 20%
If you could reason with them they wouldn’t be republicans.
We should stop trying to convince them with logic, and start paying off the far right talking heads to change their talking points. If fox and newsmax pundits, and the shitty far right members of congress (like bimbobert and MTG and minor-lover matt gaetz) did an about face overnight, so would the entire republican base.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Does anyone have a source about the Russian attrition rate? I can’t find one
They’re conservative about planes and attack helis but have enough. Money is good, oil good, cash reserves ok debt to GDP more than good. Workforce very big but affected
But still... They’re low on tanks, artillery shells, Combat experience, Air defence systems,
Russia as a whole is doing fine attrition wise but they’re equipment is being blown back 40 years. On top of that Ukrainians are doing very well and are cost effective. Russia spends multiple $ for every $ sent to Ukraine.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›