McConnell on Ukraine proxy war: "We haven’t lost a single American in this war. Most of the money that we spend, is spent on replenishing weapons, so it’s actually employing people here."[paraphrased]

Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.

West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.

Tankies on Lemmy: "oh no, Russia is being oppressed"

Angry libs on lemmy downplay CNN poll showing majority of Americans oppose more US aid for Ukraine
- Heckin wholesome democracy, ignoring the will of the people to keep doing what you wanted anyway, after doing that for decades in Afghanistan and Iraq
- Imagine not helping your Allies when they’ve been invaded, unprovoked, and are fighting for everything.
- The White House must be angry libs on lemmy then.
- Good thing we listened to a few things Alexis Tocqueville had to say and we don't simply follow majority opinion on everything, because sometimes the majority is wrong.
At a 2008 summit, NATO stated that it would attempt to expand to include Georgia and Ukraine, despite Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them. Georgia was immediately invaded by Russia in response. Imo this makes it clear that NATO membership for either of those countries was so unacceptable that Russia would rather invade.
If we assume that Russia (and Putin in particular) is acting violently and irrationally like a wild animal, why did NATO continue to agitate Russia when the only possible outcome would be violence? Surely a neutral or even Russia-aligned Ukraine would be preferable to a war-torn Ukraine? This is proof that the US and NATO don't care about the average person actually living in Ukraine, and indeed don't care about the Ukrainian state beyond it being a useful (and profitable) proxy against a geo-political rival.
To be clear, I'm not excusing Russia here, but geo-politics aren't about what's "fair" or "right", and if they were, the US would be a global pariah.
- edit: sorry this is really long.
  I think it's clear that NATO support for Ukraine is not altruistic (it is simply not how international politics functions) but the Ukrainian people as such certainly do, in my eyes, have an ethical right to self-defence. If I were Ukrainian, I would want NATO weapons because they give me a better chance of fighting off the invader. After all, it's not like the 2022 invasion was the first bit of tension between Ukraine and Russia post-independence, it makes sense to try and form a counterbalancing alliance with the 'far' imperial power to counter the 'close' one, it's a common thing to do. e.g., Mali allying with Russia to counter French influence, Armenia allying with Russia to counter Turkish-Azeri aggression, and so on and so forth.
  I think what I find disagreeble about peoples' attitudes on here is their attitude towards the Ukrainian people's struggle. Yes, ok, I also hate the far-right elements in the Ukrainian military and don't care at all that they got smashed in Mariupol, but I certainly do care about the RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION which is being denied to so many Ukrainians (there is clear evidence that outside of Crimea even Russian-speaking Ukrainians almost entirely oppose the invasion). Likewise
  Yes, NATO does not care about Ukrainians, but an invasion was not the 'logical' response from Russia, and as per existing evidence was based on a complete misunderstanding of the realities on the ground in Ukraine from the Russian leadership which has become increasingly isolated and personalist (around Putin) in the past two decades but especially since COVID. There were a vast number of less escalatory and mutually destructive potential paths for the Russian leadership to have taken. After all, this war has gone terribly for Russia compared to their initial aims. Putin claimed (wrongly) that Ukrainian national identity was a Bolshevik creation with no real support, yet now a fervent Ukrainian national identity exists now more than ever before in both the east and west of the country. Putin thought Russian-speaking Ukrainians would rally to his side, yet he has pushed them into the arms of the Ukrainian state more than ever before. Putin was afraid of Ukraine becoming aligned with NATO, yet now he has pushed them into the arms of the west completely and permanently. The invasion has killed tens of thousands of young Russian men, has caused considerable capital flight, large-scale brain drain, and empowered Prigozhin and other mercenary/sub-state militias (including Kadyrovites and such) to the point where a mercenary group was within a few hours of marching on Moscow(!) before deciding it wasn't worth the effort (Prigozhin is still strong enough to be allowed to potter about diplomatic meetings, if you need any indication of the dire state of the Russian state). Putin claims to be conducting de-Nazification yet his policies since 2014 have uniformly strengthened the position of the far-right within Ukrainian state + society.
  Plus the conduct of the Russian Army and its affiliated elements has been extremely inhumane. I would not say there is evidence of genocide, no (though the large-scale kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their Russification, if true on a systemic scale, would be an act of genocide-I do not think there is enough evidence to say either way yet), but there is evidence of systematic and systemic abuses on a VASTLY larger scale than we have seen from the Ukrainians. It is a catastrophe of Russia's own making.
  To get back on topic (sorry), I do not see how you can admonish Ukrainians for supporting any means for their national self-defence. They have every right to resist the invasion and to not want part of their homeland (territory and 'land' is important in all national identities/mythologies), no? There is no contradiction between supporting this right to self-defence and self-determination and hating the Nazi groups which, unfortunately, have an outsized power within the Ukrainian military (but do not completely control the state-Zelensky is Jewish and a Russian-speaker!). Yes, Ukrainian national mythology has its share of far-right and general awful elements to it, but unfortunately that's common in a lot of Eastern Europe and as per studies Nazism and antisemitism do not have more support in Ukraine than in Russia or the rest of Eastern Europe. There has been plenty of polling/surveying on these topics in Ukraine. There is more so just a lack of understanding as to what the Banderites actually did in WW2, not real support for their actions/Nazi collaboration. That's bad but not what some are saying on here.
- You can't write two paragraphs excusing Russia and then say "I'm not excusing Russia btw."
  No country should be able to force 'my way or a military invasion' ultimatum on another non hostile sovereign state. If a government interprets a neighboring country joining a purely defensive treaty out of their own volition (no, Ukraine is not secretly run by the CIA after Maidan) as a hostile act, that only means the nationalism levels went out if control.
  I'm normally very critical of the US, but neither them nor NATO can be blamed for this conflict.
- Ok, according to what you're saying, Mexico can never join BRICS if the US says no. Is that what you think? The US can be a pretty rabid animal too, as you say.
- "How dare ex soviet nations try to ensure their own protection after Russia showed multiple times they like to invade ex soviet nations!"
- Russia having stated that NATO membership for those countries was a red line for them
  Fuck that bully shit. They don't own Ukraine and Georgia and they can make their own decisions. If Russia wanted a nato buffer zone they should have offered incentive. Look what they got instead...
- I remember another time when some dictator wanted a bigger sphere of influence and started occupying other countries. Appeasement didn't work than and it didn't work with Russia.
- I find in all Russia's statements kind of ridiculous that it would have a say in how other sovereign countries handle their safety. Ukraine and Georgia have their own decisions to make
The US dares to coup a democratically elected government, and then its neighbor invades at the behest of people the new government were persecuting after two different ceasefires are broken by Ukraines puppet government.
Dronies be like "oh no our wholesome smol bean azov fighters are being oppressed"
"And that's all I have to say about that."
You straight up butchered that straw man
He is in pieces
How could you do this
Tankies on Lemmy: "oh no, Russia is being oppressed"
Literally no one thinks this, but by all means, have fun in your fantasy land lol
You're commenting on an article explicitly saying the US isn't sending weapons for the purpose of defending Ukraine...
It's amazing how much they support imperialism when it's "their people" doing it.
- Read Settlers
- Siri, what's imperialism?
- That's because you don't understand what imperialism means. US/EU capital is looting and exploiting the former socialist block and controlling it through western capitalist media, NGOs, and military bases. That's imperialism. The Russians preventing Nazis from doing ethnic cleansing along their border and demanding not to be threatened with a gun to the head is not imperialism.
Even some otherwise good regular leftists have absolute dogshit takes on Ukraine. It's like they're allergic to even being coincidentally on the same side as the US State Department that they start falling all over themselves to be like "Remember guys, US Bad," and start like saying that we should be pushing Ukraine to give up territory to appease Russia so they don't use nukes. When we already know because of Crimea that Putin will almost certainly just regroup and try again if they give him anything.
- Yes, I couldn't understand it, because to most NATO members, NATO is the backbone of their security, but I've realised that many lefties' reaction to NATO is akin to atheists' emotional-dogmatic view of religion: They're ever suspicious, never forgive nor forget past crimes, they reject all redeeming qualities and twist themselves to oppose benefitting them at the axiom level.
- I would say most leftists (specially the libertarian type), are not on the side of Russia on this.
  Tankies have just been really loud with their mental gymnastics lately.
- OK so you're siding with the state dept on Ukraine but when was the last time you agreed with usa foreign policy around the world? Why do you think they're in any way acting on behalf of anyone in eastern Europe?
Russia invades a neighbour who dares to attempt to have stronger ties to the west.
You mean a western led coup with assistance from neo nazis to remove the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014. With the explicit goal of "Latin Americanising" Eastern Europe and privatizing and selling off all their assets. The Ukrainian government still has a website up today for selling off anything not bolted down to the highest bidder. Shock doctrine 2.0.
West supplies neighbour with weapons to defend itself.
You mean forcing Ukraine to start a counter offensive using NATO combined arms tactics for witch Ukraine had neither the equipment or required training to execute. And with no will from the west to give Ukraine the required equipment (F-16 saga anyone?). How do you do a combined arms offensive without a fully functional air force? The worst part being that the west knew this, and still forced Ukraine to go ahead with the offensive anyways, knowing there was little chance of success.
Tankies on Lemmy: "oh no, Russia is being oppressed"
More like people saw this coming and think the loss of life over this attrition war is tragic. How does Ukraine win an attrition war against Russia? What is the exit plan? This is just Afganistan all over again in some ways.
- The west forced Ukraine to defend itself?
  Were they supposed to welcome the Russians with open arms?
- Well, those definitely are some words.
I regret to inform you that you have failed your introduction to 21st century history class

Like just little things.
Do you know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol? Did you know that it's an incredibly important strategic asset? What do nation states do when an incredibly important strategic asset is threatened? Do they defend it?
Did you know Crimea has a 30 year long history of seeking more autonomy, or even independence, from Ukraine?
Do you know what the very first action of the coup Rada was?
Do you know what "encirclement" means?
I know Plato's Allegory of the Cave gets used a lot when discussion the hegemonic power of western propaganda over western people, but come on bruv.
Do the words "Minsk II" mean anything to you?
Are you aware of the tariff agreements in place between Russia and Ukraine in 2013?
Do you know who Bandera was?
Do you know what the Russian Federation's stated causus belli for the invasion is?
What do you know?
- I don't have the time for the classic tankie "reply with a wall of text and deflections", I actually have a real job to attend to. But some main points.
  Do you know that the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol? Did you know that it’s an incredibly important strategic asset? What do nation states do when an incredibly important strategic asset is threatened? Do they defend it?
  Do you also know that Russia took Sevastopol from Ukraine back in 2014?
  Tell me, do you also support Israel's claims on Palestinian territory?
  Do you know what the Russian Federation’s stated causus belli for the invasion is?
  Yes.
  Do you know what the causis belli for the US's invasion of Iraq was? Are you stupid enough to believe that one as well? Or does believing causus belli only applies to whatever country is not an ally of the US?
  What do you know?
  I know you should get a gold medal on mental gymnastics and double standards.
- Eli5 that Pluto shit I toned out the Cave hard when I took a philosophy class
I thought 'tankie' came from a video game. Turns out it's been around since the USSR decided to roll into Hungary.
- The Hungarian uprising was killing Jews in the street. It was anti-Semitic from the beginning and the “Jewish Bolshevik” idea from the Nazi era was a motivating factor with the fact several leaders of the Hungarian government were Jewish cited as a battle cry.
  https://www.jta.org/2006/10/25/lifestyle/1956-crises-decimated-two-communities
  After the uprising, 200,000 Hungarian Jews fled the country fearing it signaled a return of the antisemitism of the recent Nazi-collaborationist regime of the 1940s.
  Sending the tanks in to stop this was a good thing. It would have been better if the anti-Semitic uprising was stopped before the pogroms started.
- Yup. Thankfully they were able to crush the revolt before the fascists were able to re-establish the Arrow Cross Party.
- Órban still has fond memories of that...he was 7 in 1956, he probably remembers.
I hope we can keep supporting Ukraine. This is one of the few times in history when the scenario is so clear cut good vs evil. The Ukrainians fought hard to get out from under the thumb of Russia and the Russians just couldn’t have that so they invaded. The support the world provides to Ukraine is support provided for all Democracies.
- Democracy is when you ban all left-leaning parties in your country and burn a hall full of trade unionists alive, and the more parties you ban and trade unionists you burn alive the more democratic you are. I don't see what's so hard for these tankies to get!!
- Yeah, clearcut good is when a government starts building monuments to Holocaust perpetrators, and banning minority languages including Yiddish, followed by a decade of bombing ethnic minorities in a border region.
- I liked that part of the unalloyed good where your heroes locked a hundred ethnically unalloyed bad people in a building and burned them alive
- The Ukrainians fought hard to get out from under the thumb of Russia
  What?
- This is one of the few times in history when the scenario is so clear cut good vs evil.
  I mean yeah, if you ignore like 200 years of history, then entire history and purpose of NATO, any understanding of the nature of geopolitics and power whatsoever, everything about the economics and politics of all the involved parties, the entire timeline of events between 2013 and now, and a number of other things, it would be clear cut.
- Ukraine is Harry Skywalker and Russia is ebil Darth Voldemord. How much more clear could it be?
Tankies on Lemmy: "oh no, Russia is being oppressed"
Said literally no one here, besides you trying to frame communism as war loving imperialists.
Now that I'm speaking of war loving imperialists, what does that bring to mind?..

This. Is. An. Investment. In. Democracy.

If Europe got involved and stopped Germany in Poland, world war 2 may never have happened...
- Why no one ever mentions Czechia? They literally had a summit about our country where we kinda weren't invited and decided that yeah, Hitler can take huge parts of Czechia, because that will surely stop him from expanding. Because it's usually the case - when something is very easy and costs you close to nothing, you immediately stop because you've had enough, right?
I don't know if this is a joke or not and at this point I am afraid to ask.
- Gotta be from that one copypasta from like three days ago
- :both-sides-mac:

That’s what a win win looks like. No need to be quiet around it. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Now everyone gets to replenish and modernize their weapons, test them in real conditions while making sure Russia gets enough of a bloody nose to not fucking try this shit ever again.

Russia did the ‘fuck around and find out thing’. It was their choice and the only way they can win is by tankies convincing every other country that just saw rape, murder, pillaging and terrorism getting used on another country in Europe by a rabid bear that somehow Russia was justified and should be allowed a free pass. But it’s not working. The rabid bear is rabid, but there’s ways to deal with that.

Because now they makes sure that every country around them is joining the anti rabid bear alliance.

The way the OP framed the article is to create the idea that somehow Russia is good because US military is bad. But that’s a fallacy. The US military is perfectly capable of doing bad shit on behalf of the US, but that does not mean everyone else is good. Sometimes clobbering Nazis is win win and Russia should have know that. Their feeble at reframing may work on Fox brainwashed Republicans who are reduced to “Putins kills gays and is strong so Putin is good”, but it turns out Putin is a cuck taking it into the ass by his own chef.

Yep, but could you please edit out the "cuck taking it in the ass" business? "Humiliated" works and doesn't make you sound like a "homophobic trumptard". We're managing to have a civilized discussion here and I don't want to see this devolve more into reddit.
- Even worse than that, it's a misrepresentation of the cuck/bull relationship dynamic!
- Thank you for pointing that out.
- It's funny because inane corrections of a good post is exactly what happens on Reddit
- Ones gotta insult tankies in the way they understand. Doesn’t make me homophobic. Cuckolding is a specific fetish that tankies are fascinated with, it’s not a blanket judgement about anyone gay.
What exactly is a tankie? I wanted to upvote this post when I saw its content, but I found the tag from the OP about the "quiet part" to be off-putting as though this quote from McConnell is a negative thing. I don't like or think McConnell is a good person, but to me this quote reads as a way to sell continued support for Ukraine to the crazier parts of our government. Like a "oh, you don't want to spend money on Ukraine because it's the right thing to do? Well here, how about because it's making money for Americans." Sure, maybe not the reason I support funding and arming Ukraine, but if it convinces people who aren't already in support, then I'm for it. If anything, it seems shrewd.
I've seen a lot of posts/comments on Lemmy about tankies recently and I'm confused about what that means. Haven't quite been able to determine from context since the context seems different depending on the post. Sorry if it's a dumb question.
- A subsection of people who are so far right they ended up on the left again, strongly aroused by military (tanks) symbols, manliness and strength while simultaneously being convinced that Russia is the good guys and therefore whatever they do must be good because US is bad.
  There’s a few varieties here. Roger Waters and Noam Chomsky for example who basically are the US is bad so anything is the opposite of what US says (down to denying russian genocide in syria because, well, they are against the US).
  There’s the cosplay section of milbloggers and western cosplay russian twitter specialists who usually are Canadian or German or Alabama white males in their basement cosplaying to be in Ukraine fighting for Russia
  And of course plenty of russian males who actually buy the narratives.
  Most of them have one thing in common - they just can’t handle reality and therefore escape into increasingly insane contortion.. basically Republicans meet Covid again.
- I think this Wikipedia quote is more informational
  The term "tankie" was originally used by dissident Marxist–Leninists to describe members of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) who followed the party line of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Specifically, it was used to distinguish party members who spoke out in defense of the Soviet use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring uprising, or who more broadly adhered to pro-Soviet positions.[7][8]
  The term is also used to describe people who endorse, defend, or deny the crimes committed by communist leaders such as Vladimir Lenin,[9][10] Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim il-Sung. In modern times, the term is used across the political spectrum to describe those who have a bias in favor of illiberal or authoritarian states with a socialist legacy or a nominally left-wing government, such as the Republic of Belarus, People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Serbia, the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Additionally, tankies have a tendency to support non-socialist states with no socialist legacy if they are opposed to the United States and the Western world in general, regardless of their ideology,[4][11] such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
- Basically it means someone who supports Russia - usually Communists (which is fine) who - for some reason think Russia is still communist (which is dumb)
Anti Rabid Bear Alliance. I'd like to petition to change NATO to ARBA.
The alternate reality you live in sounds fascinating.
It's not a win win for the Ukrainians, who are losing lives. The article shows what's been said all along: the US doesn't gaf about Ukraine or it's people. The US is only involved to make money and to prop up the US's dying empire.
- Without the US more ukrainians would die and Russia would have overrun them by now and subjugated them into the shitshow they call motherland.
  So it’s a win win.
  Ask Ukrainians which version they prefer - US involvement or not. Oh wait, it’s pretty clear they prefer the kill rabid bear with Himars version.
  The only version they’d like even more is killing bear with ATACMS and F16.
  So fuck off tankie.
- Ok, and? Are they doing something wrong? Aren't we supposed to scold someone when they're doing bads things, and praise them for doing good things, not just shit on them no matter what?
  US involvement is unambiguously a good thing morally and for the people of Ukraine. Any other take would lunacy. So why are you taking time to shit on the US and not the ethnonationalist dictatorship invading a democratic neighbor of theirs? Are your priorities that messed up? America bad? Certainly, but it hurts YOU to have a such narrow minded view geopolitics. The US isn't always the bad guy.
- Without aid Ukraine would lose more lives.
- Yes, the US is making money helping Ukraine uphold international law and russia is losing money committing war crimes to the last Ukrainian.
- Eh, we're not in there for a couple reasons and they all make sense. It would preclude NATO from ever entering because of the non-aggression portion of the agreement, and it would put Russia in a corner where they have to either admit defeat (which putin won't do) or go nuclear which is bad for everyone but especially bad for Ukraine.

are we the baddies when the only domestic manufacturing we do is cancer tank shells & child murder bombs?

No those are Freedom cancer tank shells and freedom child murder bombs
Very different from what our enemies are doing, you see we are doing it, therefore it is good.
That's my impression of what I genuinely believe a conservative sounds like.
- I don't think Russia has been using DU munitions. It's not like they're needed for any of the tanks UA has. They have been using cluster bombs, though, because apparently we just can't get anyone to stop that.

It has been extremely obvious to everyone who isn't an incredulous lib (ie the ledditor refugees from lemmee et al) that the US doesn't actually give a shit about Ukraine and is more than happen to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training time while at the same time gobbling up Ukrainian state assets? And as we saw with how Afghanistan ended, the US will inevitably pull support, most likely because of Taiwan, and the Ukrainian war effort will collapse overnight just like Afghanistan imploded as soon as the US left the country.

The US has to fight multiple fronts against its peer adversaries as well as not-quite peer adversaries. Just recently, there's a coup in Niger with crowds of Nigeriens waving Russian flags cheering the coup leaders. While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens' heartfelt desire to kick out the French and overexaggerate Russia's involvement per usual, an anti-France alliance is forming in the Sahel, and Putin has launched a charm offensive courting African leaders. This is the formation of another front between the West and Russia, and the US will funnel resources away from Ukraine and towards various jihadist and separatist groups like Boko Haram in order to destabilize West Africa.

Ukraine isn't so exceptional that the US will be willing to abandon a front and lose say Taiwan for the sake of Ukraine. And from MSM reporting about the failed counteroffensive, we're close to the "US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger" stage.

The propaganda from the west is absolutely baffling if you try to understand it through anything other than pure vibes. America claims that Putin is going to genocide every single Ukrainian and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so? Why not promise 200-300 tanks and promise to send them as soon they can get tankers trained on them? There's literally 2000 of them just standing there in the desert, isn't a conflict with Russia what they were built for? The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
- The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
  That's the crux of the matter right there. And they then force Ukraine to carry out attacks with this lack of equipment and training. Knowing full well that there is minimal chance of victory. Ghoul empire.
- and the response from the US is to send a dozen tanks in a year or so
  Europe is wondering the exact same thing: Why are the yanks pussy-footing around? They're usually much more hawkish. The reason is that the US are shit-scared about Russia thinking the US is trying to invade by proxy or something.
  The west is sending just enough weapons and ammo to prolong the conflict but nowhere near enough for Ukraine to actually have a shot at winning.
  Europe is sending pretty much as much as it can without compromising its own defensive abilities. Have a look at the Baltic states, sending over as large as a percentage of their GDP as the US is sending as a percentage of its military budget. It's the US which has gazillions of Abrams sitting around doing nothing but collecting dust and is not shipping them over, not Europe.
  And also unlike the US, Europe is sending long-range missile systems to hit logistics etc. in the rear so that Ukraine doesn't have to gnaw through trench lines.
  Homework: Go through all your geopolitical takes and get rid of the term "the west" and instead actually be precise.
- 🤡
The US obviously doesn't care but the aid is helping Ukraine keep it's independence and even if US pulled out Europe would continue it's support. Like Poland is amping up ammo production to the point where it alone can supply Ukraine with ammo. Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason. Also even if Ukraine got no support it's not like they would stop fighting, they would just be slaughtered and occupied by the Russians which is the worst outcome for them considering what's going on in the occupied regions. Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that's a good thing.
- Ex-soviet countries fucking hate Russia for a good reason
  No, they really don't have a good reason
  
  Like for once the US military is not doing something completely morally reprehensible and is actually opposing imperialism for once, that's a good thing.
  are you really that gullible?
- Ukraine isn't independent, they got coup'ed by US-backed Nazis and libs and they're now a vassal or the US empire.
  Most European countries would immediately follow the US, as they always do.
  The whole of NATO cannot send enough arms right now, and you think Poland can do it all on its own soon? What are you on about?
- Sorry to break it down to you but if your safety DEPENDS from foreign weapon aids, you're anything but independent.
- No it cant all of nato cant support ukraine with ammo. That is nonsense.
Manichean views don't explain enough, although they do create engagement, which may be the primary goal.
A less angry explanation is that it is all of that at the same time. They want to help Ukraine's democracy, weaken a historical authoritarian enemy and feed their military–industrial complex. It's a balance of all of that in the interest of the people that elected them, like in any democracy. If something gets out of balance, yes they will probably retract their support before it hurts their country in some way, like any other country would. It's just Realpolitik.
wunderwaffen
too good a word not to research.... comes from WWII, naturally...
panjandrum (British) - two wheels connected by a sturdy, drum-like axle, with rockets on the wheels to propel it forward. Packed with explosives, it was supposed to charge toward the enemy defenses, smashing into them and exploding, creating a breach large enough for a tank to pass through. But when it was tested on an otherwise peaceful English beach, things didn’t go quite as planned. The 70 slow-burning cordite rockets attached to the two 10-foot steel wheels sparked into action, and for about 20 seconds it was quite impressive. Until the rockets started to dislodge and fly off in all directions, sending a dog chasing after one of them and generals running for cover. The rest was sheer chaos, as the Panjandrum charged around the beach, completely out of control. Unsurprisingly, the Panjandrum never saw battle.
The Goliath Tracked Mine (German) The tracked vehicle could carry 60kg of explosives and was steered remotely using a joystick control box attached to the rear of the Goliath by 650m of triple-strand cable. Two of the strands accelerated and manoeuvred the Goliath, while the third was used to trigger the detonation.
Each Goliath had to be disposable, as each was built specifically to be blown up along with an enemy target. The first models were powered by an electric motor, but these proved difficult to repair on the battlefield, and at 3,000 Reichsmarks were not exactly cost effective. As a result, later models (the SdKfz 303) used a simpler, more reliable gasoline engine.
Being sent back to the drawing board is a disgrace usually reserved for weapons that never saw battlefield action. Goliaths did see combat and were deployed on all German fronts beginning in the spring of 1942. Their role in the action was usually nugatory, however, having been rendered immobile by uncompromising terrain or deactivated by cunning enemy soldiers who had cut their command cables.
The bat bomb (American) Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a Pennsylvania dentist named Lytle S. Adams contacted the White House with a plan of retaliation: bat bombs.
The plan involved dropping a bomb containing more than 1000 compartments, each containing a hibernating bat attached to a timed incendiary device. A bomber would then drop the principal bomb over Japan at dawn and the bats would be released mid-flight, dispersing into the roofs and attics of buildings over a 20- to 40-mile radius. The timed incendiary devices would then ignite, setting fire to Japanese cities.
Despite the somewhat outlandish proposal, the National Research Defense Committee took the idea seriously. Thousands of Mexican free-tailed bats were captured (they were, for some reason, considered the best option) and tiny napalm incendiary devices were built for them to carry. A complicated release system was developed and tests were carried out. The tests, however, revealed an array of technical problems, especially when some bats escaped prematurely and blew up a hangar and a general's car.
In December 1943, the Marine Corps took over the project, running 30 demonstrations at a total cost of $2 million. Eventually, however, the program was canceled, probably because the U.S. had shifted its focus onto the development of the atomic bomb.
Gustav rail gun (German) The railway-mounted weapon was the largest gun ever built. Fully assembled, it weighed in at 1,344 tons, and was four stories tall, 20 feet wide, and 140 feet long. It required a 500-man crew to operate it, and had to be moved to be fully disassembled, as the railroad tracks could not bear its weight in transit. It required 54 hours to assemble and prepare for firing.
The bore diameter was just under 3 feet and required 3,000 pounds of smokeless powder charge to fire two different projectiles. The first was a 10,584-pound high explosive shell that could produce a crater 30 feet in diameter. The other was a 16,540-pound concrete-piercing shell, capable of punching through 264 feet of concrete. Both projectiles could be shot, with relatively correct aim, from more than 20 miles away.
The Gustav Gun was used in Sevastopol in the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa and destroyed various targets, including a munitions facility in the bay. It was also briefly used during the Warsaw Uprising in Poland. The Gustav Gun was captured by the Allies before the end of World War II and dismantled for scrap. The second massive rail gun, the Dora, was disabled to keep it from falling into Soviet hands near the end of the War.
Why else would the US constantly ship overpriced wunderwaffen that the Ukrainians can barely use due to lack of training
Is that why the US is sending ATACMS?
Where are the fucking ATACMS?
...I know, it's of no use. Germany gave up on bullying you into shipping them so it's safe to say that that ship has sailed. The US has been pussy-footing about since the beginning of the conflict.
While Western MSM underreport the average Nigeriens’ heartfelt desire to kick out the French
There's no need to kick out the French. They readily leave when uninvited.
we’re close to the “US cutting their loses and leaving their allies out to dry while Hexbears repeat that quote from Kissinger” stage.
The US is fickle, news at 11. But that won't stop the rest of Europe backing Ukraine, and then the US is probably going to chime in again as, like with Libya, it's unthinkable for the Seppos for Europe to do anything on our own so that you can keep up the illusion that we're doing what you want.
Classical American exceptionalism from the Tankie side, again.
- Europe is firmly vassilszed by the U.S.
  That has been the case since the end of WW2. You are free to pretend operation Gladio never happened, but it did.

These people are monsters, and the idiot liberals that have happily jumped on their barbarous murder machine are too.

You sent tens of thousands of people to die in a futile meatgrinder while acting like you're good people """helping""" those you were killing. In reality what was happening was that you didn't care about what happened to those people as long as it harmed some russians.

The consequences of decades of anti-russian racism all came to a head in this war, with liberals LOVING the opportunity to be openly racist pieces of shit.

All excused by what? Some fucking lines on a map? I don't give a shit about lines on a map, I care about the tens of thousands of people's lives wasted on this shit, both ukrainian and russian.

Who invaded who? Who started shelling who?
- I don't give a fuck mate. The result of the war is that one group of bourgeoisie exploit people, or another group of bourgeoisie exploit people. Neither outcome is worth any lives to me. No war but class war.
  You are a pro war bloodthirsty psychopath willing to expend as many lives as necessary as long as it empowers the particular group of billionaires that you cheerlead for instead of some other group of them.
  And it was Ukraine that was shelling Donetsk and Luhansk actually. Don't make me get the OSCE shelling maps out.
- The us invaded ukraine and started shelling donbas.
- This is too simplistic. Just stop. That's not how geopolitics works. The lines on the map aren't real and don't mean anything. Christ Liberals and their profound inability to understand the nature of power.
Russia can fucking leave Ukraine any time. And suddenly all the "lives wasted on this shit" are no longer wasted.
What would be a solution to this conflict?
- Ceasefire agreement and a return to negotiations would be a start. They had already agreed to a deal when Boris Johnson showed up over a year ago though, and then Ukraine went back on it after his unscheduled visit. My assumption is that this agreement would have preserved Donetsk and Luhansk as either independent countries or as autonomously governed regions of Ukraine, that's changed now with the law making them part of Russia and I'm not entirely sure whether that's something Putin even has the power to change without a vote by those respective regions or the State Duma (unsure what mechanism might exist).
  Either way there is no military capability to take them back by force as demonstrated by the complete failure of the counteroffensive, Ukraine will either lose them by force with a massive pile of bodies lost on both sides, or not. This is the reality of the situation. I care about avoiding the pile of bodies one way or another.
- Well, the EU could have entered negotiations in good faith with Russia when all this started. The US could have not supported the Maidan coup. The coup Rada could have not declared their intent to destroy the culture and language of Russian speaking Ukrainians as their literal first act after assuming power. They could have granted the DPR and LPR the autonomy within Ukraine and protection of their language (and, frankly, ethnicity) that was initially requested. the EU could have honored Minsk and Minsk II. They could have negotiated in good faith at any point in this entire process. They could stop goading Ukrainians in to Russian defensive lines they have no chance of defeating to prolong the war. They could have allowed Ukraine to engage in attempts to negotiate a peace at any point in this process. They could have supported Zelensky's peace platform when he was elected.
  There's no real solution now. Until Russia can no longer sustain it's operations or NATO does, this is going to keep going until Ukraine runs out of Ukrainians to send to their deaths.
- At this point any solution that does not end in the complete collapse of nato is very bad for the third world. Because it shows the power the west has to arbitrarily apply embargoes. Even nuclear armagedon wold be betrer than that. If you think the yanks are unhinged now they ill be much more rabid after russia capitulates. So the only solution is to make trenches and fire artillery shells until the ukranians run out of amunitio or men.

Fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian

The real question is why does russia want to kill Ukrainians to the last Ukrainian.
- Russia repeatedly made peace talk attempts early on. Western powers that actually call those shots rebuffed them. Boris Johnson himself intervened, allegedly.
  The answer to the real question, which is why Russia isn't unilaterally ending the war, is that its objectives have not been met and/or the status quo is acceptable to them. The former is the exact same as saying why Russia invaded in the first place.
  So why do Western powers want this was to go to the last Ukrainian? NATO military tactics that assume air dominance without the air dominance. Zero expectation of a win, despite the propaganda.
- Russia does not want that. That's the answer.
- gottem
- Seriously, to listen to hexbears talk about the Ukranian invasion, you'd think that the US talked Ukraine into invading Russia just for fun, and that Russia was simply left with no choice.
  The killing can stop absolutely any day now - all Putin has to do is pull out and pay for his mess, easy peasy
As opposed to the alternative, surrendering to Russia to the last Ukrainian.
This argument assumes that absent US backing Ukraine and Russia would not be at war. Ukraine is not just a pawn between a Russia-US struggle, it’s a state which has asked for assistance in an existential struggle with a much larger authoritarian aggressor. Ukrainians are dying because of Russian aggression, not US backing.
So as someone not close to this war, and as someone who's always been open to the idea that the worst outcome for the war is for it to be drawn out for a long time, and that the west should think more clearly about what's really going on here, but also as someone who would probably have picked up a gun and prepared to die if an invading force I didn't like came for my country ... what's the alternative for the Ukrainians here? Or, do you think Ukraine should be conquered and are fighting an unjust war?
- Upholding the Minsk agreement would have been an option up until 2022 at least.
- what's the alternative for the Ukrainians here?
  Not shelling the Donbass for the past 8 years for one. That was them fucking around and the Russian invasion is them finding out.
- Apparently their government messed up years ago so now they all have to die. Seriously, look at the replies from hexbear to your question. The obvious answer is that they were attacked, they now have to defend themselves, and the US and Europe are helping them do that. And even if it's just to weaken Russia, it's also what the Ukrainian people would want, just like you or I would want someone to hand us a rifle if someone is attacking us.
  But they can't say that, so they have nothing they can say to this question, no answer, no solution, just what coulda shoulda, etc. They can't empathize with Ukrainian citizens protecting their land when invaded, just like you or I would do, because the US sucks. And it does, but that's besides the point. Oh well. Ukraine has some Nazis so I guess Russia gets to invade their neighbors when they feel like it and take Crimea or similar territories, like they've been doing with Georgia and other places near them for awhile now. And it's their neighbors jobs to just allow it and not ally with anyone to prevent it.
Russia openly states that their goal is the elimination of Ukrainian identity. Literally genocide. And here you are being smug about it, believing your edgy contrarian sentiment is justified by the evils of a country which is not even party to the war.
Talk about rent free mind rot.
- Trying to rob the word genocide of all meaning in the way your doing serves only to trivialise actual genocide.

Oof. Ruskie shills all up in these comments.

It's really sad when the Russian shills are so good that you can't even think of a rebuttal
- Oof.
- That's an unwarranted assumption. It's perfectly possible that they are already familiar with your arguments and are uninterested in relitigating the issue with idiots. Certainly that would be my position.
- lol like I'd waste my time.
Say something about the article for christs sake. This doesn't help your image the way you think
- Why would anyone give a fuck about their "image" on an anonymous Internet forum? Honest question.
I'm supposed to be paid for this???
How do you say "ruskie" and not feel like a loser? Do you know what decade it is?

I wonder if there was a more efficient way of employing people without having executives from the MIC getting almost all the benefit?

funneling money to the executives of the MIC is the entire purpose of the defense budget. why would they suddenly stop now?
I mean that's the entire point. Ever read "war is a racket"?. It still holds up today.
- Alternately, Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
We could just give the money to people for nothing but that would apparently be more immoral and illogical than having them make purely destructive things.
This makes sense to many people
Working for an aerospace electronics startup, I have SO MUCH to say about this and how fucked it is.
There absolutely is a more efficient way if Putin didn't invade Ukraine, but we can only work with the hand that we're dealt.
- Did we not make weapons instead of providing healthcare before putin invade ukraine? I mean maybe we did and I just didn't realize it, but I'm pretty sure weapons were already being made in lieu of social investment well before putin was born.

it’s not “the quiet part” as you imply. your insinuating that we made this war happen for the reasons he gives. no, context is king. he is merely trying to justify our involvement in the face of criticism. russia has long wanted to grab more countries. putin is a dictator, have you heard? he poisons opponents and attacks other countries to smash them back into his idea of what russia should be.

It's interesting how the republicans believe in Keynesian economics, but exclusively when it's applied for feeding the military industrial complex.

In this situation I agree with the need to support Ukraine, but I wish they would make the same realization about infrastructure investments as well.

A broken clock is right twice a day, as long as it makes them money, they don't give a shit who benefits and who loses.
Feeding the MIC is a bipartisan effort, never forget that.
- A key difference being that the Democratic party supports state spending on infrastructure in other areas as well. So their understanding of the economy is at least consistent, and your moronic effort to equate "both parties" is, sadly, irrelevant to the point being made here.

Werent a bunch of reddit brigaders obliterated forgetting to turn off location services posting from their top secret training facility?

I don't know were they?

To all the people not wanting to extend the proxy war against the war crime committing Russians: what do you expect will happen if you stop funding Ukraine defense against war crimes? You think Russians just go home? You think China and North Korea don't look around at adjacent territories licking their lips? Do you understand what deterrence means?

Before you respond like a tankie that America is an imperialist shithole, America is not the one (this time) committing war crimes, RUSSIA is.

You think China and North Korea don't look around at adjacent territories licking their lips
North Korea only borders SK and China. It has never invaded another country. China hasn't invaded another country since 1979 and since then Vietnam and China have peacefully resolved their land border dispute.
Before you respond like a tankie that America is an imperialist shithole, America is not the one (this time) committing war crimes, RUSSIA is.
America is committing war crimes right now. The imposition of collective punishment is a war crime. America's comprehensive sanctions which it has applied to several countries constitute collective punishment and are hence a war crime.
Condemning the Russian invasion shouldn't mean white washing the world's largest perpetrator of state terrorism.
- Just a minor correction for you, NK also borders Russia.
- Sanctions are not collective punishment, and war crimes only exist in the context of war.
  Also, the DPRK did invade the RoK, that's what started the Korean War.
  Also also, China has reserved a spot on its equivalent of the National Mall for when it takes Taiwan back.
  China definitely cares about how well Russia's invasion of Ukraine goes, because of the many geopolitical parallels it would have with it invading Taiwan.
Axis of Evil ganggggg
you think north korea is annexing ukraine??? what planet are you living on
Those inscrutable asiatics are licking their lips! Something must be done!!!!
I wouldn't even mind extending the war so much if there was any attempt to have some good faith peace negotiations to at least entertain a chance at peace??? Russia has always been up for peace talks, Ukraine/the West has not. In fact I am still often shouted down if I so much as say that all sides should be discussing the possibility of peace.
I agree Russia bad and should not be doing an awful invasion, but there is also a much wider context to their invasion that involves Ukraine refusing to give its eastern regions a vote on their own future and bombing civilians for 8 years. This war was very far from inevitable, even without giving Russia any major concessions.
- Russia can unilaterally end the war by leaving Ukrainian territory. They choose to extend the war because they want land and resources.
what do you expect will happen if you stop funding Ukraine defense against war crimes? You think Russians just go home?
The Russian Ukrainians will be able to stay in their homes without fear of genocide by the NATO backed government.
- And fuck all the other Ukrainians that will get genocided by putin, right?
your analysis is completly of as it starts from a Propaganda Tainted cartoonishly Ill Informed Postion..
Russia Reacted , Its the Ukrainian Warcrimes thats the Issue here ! How can you Start this story from 2022 .. its a crime against rational thinking , Chronology , Human Civilisation ... Unserious Analyss based on the uncritical repetion of irrational claimes by the World greates Liars ....
- I think no PPB outside of hexbear
Well at least not in Ukraine. I'm sure we are committing some war crimes quietly somewhere else. Seems like we can't stop doing that.
I agree with your comment by the way, I'm just further shitting down that argument as well.
We know our government sucks. We're working on making it work the way it was supposed to. Section 1983 has to be rectified.
- AngryCommieKender
  Opinion immediately discarded.

Whilst not suffering a series of mini-strokes on national television, Mitch is as always razor sharp and the epitome of giving zero fucks about any human lives/hides other than his own. May the Sweet Lord Above see fit to drown this nearly calcified ghoul in a bed of his own shit, like real soon. Tomorrow morning would be cool

Mitch may be crap, but here he is just trying to get ahead of Republicans who would rather leave Ukraine high and dry. He may give zero fucks about human lives but not as bad as the Russians who have no problem committing war crimes on a daily basis.
Fact is that for less than 3% of the DOD budget we get the result of the loss of over 50% of the military strength of one of our top geopolitical foes. Plus, it will take them at least a decade to rebuild it.
No one asked Russia to invade Ukraine and disrupt world order. Russia doesn't seem to want to negotiate. Why would you want Ukraine to give up?
- By all third party accounts the Russian military is stronger than when the invasion began.
  Where you get a 50% reduction in strength must be from the most fevered of dreams. The Nazis could not overthrow Russia with millions of men and hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
  You think it will be done with 3% of our budget? Honestly? We couldn’t do it with 100% of our budget. We’d have to go to a war economy and devote 60% or more of the gdp.

The only thing Kojima got wrong was his depiction of women

Also the middle part of Xenoblade Chronicles 2, funnily enough.
Just played and was like "holy shit this has just become a Kojima game". It was awesome.
who and what
- Hideo Kojima is the creator of the Metal Gear Solid video game franchise. The games have a plot critical of the war economy/racket. I think the original commenter is saying that the games got their criticism of the war economy right, but their depiction of women was sexist and/or oversexualised.
- ?
  You don't know who Hideo Kojima is?

Seriously though, where would Ukraine be right now if it didnt have the U.S. right now or even all the other nations donating?

They'd have been fucked.
Everyone wants to joke about Russian military tech but the Ukrainian forces were operating on outdated technology prior to massive NATO overhauls.
The US likely wanted to field modern weapons against Russia so we could 1. Clear out our back stock of older inventory (which Mitch just admitted, basically) and 2. See how said inventory stacked up in a real war against Russia, since we have basically just been fighting rebel insurgents for the last 30 years of warfare and don't have a good representation of what our modern equipment would be capable of against an actual standing army.
- Ukrainian soldiers in 2014 vs 2022.
  The U.S. and allies, despite what a lot of people say (usually something like "why haven't they helped since the war actually started in 2014") helped transform the Ukranian military into the capable fighting force it is today, and the work started years ago.
- Fucked is what Ukraine is right now thanks to US pushing Ukraine into a war it can't win instead of letting them negotiate.
Fighting a partisan war.
Neutral
- Like Georgia?
It would be a neutral country that isn't in a war. Ukraine and Russia almost negotiated peace back in March last year, then US and UK decided to sabotage it, and Ukraine is in a far worse position today than it was back then. Anybody who thinks US is helping Ukraine needs to get their head checked.
- You're really sitting there pretending like you know exactly what went on during those negotiations?

Mitch McConell says the quiet part out loud.

And why shouldn't he?

Not a single lib will change their minds after hearing this.

russia can end this whenever they want by restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, if they think the US is benefiting so much from it at their expense. The US is just making it much harder for russia to reach its maximalist goals: to conquer Ukraine. One of those is a war crime, the other one is supporting international law.
- International law is when you support a government coup to replace the pro-Russia government with a pro-EU/pro-NATO government.
- The US isn't making it much harder, it's making it pay.
- Alright but what would guarantee Russia's safety after they do that? It's obviously not in their interest. What they want is to negotiate a peace treaty, which is why they are holding their defense line so strongly until their opponents are exhausted.
- Oh my god, nobody gives a fuck about international law. It’s a meaningless term used to sling attacks at your geopolitical enemies. Just look at Guantanamo bay, where Americans are torturing people that have never even faced a military tribunal for over two decades! In an illegal occupation of Cuban land!
Not a single lib will change their minds after hearing this.
Are liberals generally opposed to supporting Ukraine? What opinion are they not going to change?
- Because the reasons to support Ukraine are supposed to be noble and not completely self-interested. That's why there is popular support for it. McConnell admitting that it's about funneling money into the military industrial complex, at least in part, ought to make at least some people reconsider their assumptions
- Opposed? Liberals are fully on board with endless war in Ukraine. It's a bipartisan consensus.
- Liberals are just as bloodthirsty as their fashy counterparts, they just need to have their own slightly different words for why it is okay.
  It took like 6 months for mainstream liberals to feel 100% comfortable thinking of Russians as subhuman monsters deserving of any and all violence, dredging up old-school orientalist tropes, and celebrating snuff videos, making special exception for them so long as they are accompanied by a little story about how it's happening to Russians. A random Russian civilian got attacked by a shark in Egypy and liberals were rah-rahing for the shark.
  Liberals will be pro-war until their corporate masters tell them not to be. Then, like with Iraq, they might pretend they werw anti-war the whole time.

Millions of fellow human beings are constantly dying, being severely injured, or displaced. You fucking ghoul.

Russians can just leave Ukraine, you know? If they don't, they deserve every single death. Poor Ukrainians, though.
- Iirc the main thing preventing Russian troops from pulling back to their border is the Russian commanders that won't let them

Did he go into suspend mode again while saying the quiet part out loud?

We’re destroying that shithole and ensuring continued Western dominance on the cheap
LMAO, libs on their way to analyze geopolitics: https://piped.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=L2quonm59Kc
Let's go over some facts we can source from Western sources:
Russia is outperforming every single EU economy except for Spain
Russia is firing 40 to 50 thousand artillery shells A DAY while the United States can only produce 30 thousand A MONTH, which allows Ukraine to fire about 4000 to 5000 in comparison. Russia is able to fire IN A SINGLE DAY what the United States takes A MONTH to produce, got it?
The so hyped Ukrainian "counteroffensive" has been going on for THREE MONTHS and they haven't even been able to breach the first line of Russian defenses, let alone produce any gains to justify all the equipment and men they wasted
The plan to isolate and crash Russia's economy failed, so did the plan to send Ukraine garbage Western equipment without proper training while expecting miraculous results from offensives that do not posses air support and are outgunned 10 to 1 in artillery, I'm not so sure if "shithole" and "western dominance" are words that correctly describe Russia's situation here.
- I love seeing "aggressively LGBTQ inclusive" tankies bend over backwards to support a literal homophobic fascist dictatorship and parrot their talking points.

Straight out of the gaping shitass orifice of Failed States of America propaganda. Incredible

I'm not sure that it's as "quiet" as OP thinks it is.

Americans have died in that war. Just not sent there by force like imperialists like to do and purely out of the instinct to help their brothers in danger.

Someone from my state recently died fighting for Ukraine. I live in New England. I guess we aren't American?

I think you know what he meant, or are you claiming that the "someone" was part of a secret US military program and died in action?
"Americans" as in "Agents of the American government", not as in "American citizens"
Just English being weird as per usual
Have you SEEN patriot fans?
Smh
It was a volunteer. Not a solider ordered to be there

Fair, but those were volunteers. Obviously he is referring to Americans deployed by the government in some form, nobody died in the line of duty so to say.
- Speaking as a civil serviceman, "we [the State] haven't lost a single American in this war" is accurate. Speaking as an American, "we [the American people] haven't lost a single American in this war" is inaccurate.
  In addition to volunteers there's the American journalist Brent Renaud, who was killed by Russian forces last year.

I can understand other arguments as to why we should be funding the war. But this one is a parable of the broken window. We could have been paying Americans to make more useful things than weapons; it's still a net loss.

I agree and disagree, I guess. It's sad that so much money is invested in the military industrial complex, but since those weapons are used to fight an opressive and dictatorial regime in favor of democracy, I guess its better. Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz refer to the use of an army as the continuation of the political process, and democratization of Ukraine is to many a worthy goal, as opposed to the growth of the Russian sphere of influence. Opposing Russia now might lead to a lower overall negative impact than if the same figth is had after Ukraine is annexed and Poland is next in line, but that's just a hypothetical.

Fuck russia but do we really need to be supporting a proxy war at the moment? Why is Ukraine so important to us?
- Because Russia fucked around during the elections, and how are in the find out phase.
  On a more serious note, it's because it sends a message to many other nations (China for example) that invading have consequences. A good example of this was Hitler and Chamberlain: appeasement did not stop, but actually made worse, the situation. It costs less this way in the long term
- Because we promised to help them, and Ukraine deserves independence.
  We supply Saudi Arabia with missiles that hit school busses, we should at least also help protect a democracy from being re-colonized.
  Putin's Russia is cruel and exploitative. The best thing we can do as a world leader is help a smaller country stand up for itself.

I guess Putin's checks are bouncing.

I wish
- Career politicians never say what they really mean at times like this. Even if it's true, it serves a purpose to himself.

"You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."

I can't hear your over the sound of tanks rolling west

:haram

NATO bad but picking sides in a proxy war between capitalists also bad.
Are these 'tanks rolling west' in the room with us right now? Take your schizo- phrenia medication.
- Cease your disinformation campaign at once tankie !
  https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/crisis-crises/ukraine-fact-fait.aspx?lang=eng
  Depicted, Russian tanks rolling west, killing civilians https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10590863/Ukraine-war-Elderly-civilian-couple-blown-car-Russian-tank.html

It makes sense to me that the ghouls in charge of this dying empire would say this but it always blows my mind when I meet someone in real life who will say shit like this. Especially when they turn around and play liberal progressive like they aren’t sitting in a circle trying to ritually summon the nuclear holocaust

Is the Empire dying? I've been hearing people tell me that I witnessing the death whales of fascism finally being stabbed out, since before a lot of gen Z was born.
- Control of the periphery is looking real shaky. Multipolarity is pretty much a fait accompli right now. The core of the empire itself is objectively crumbling. The institutions that mediate conflicts between internal concentrations of power have become completely incapable of doing anything. So there's not going to be a correction to the trends unless something revolutionary happens.
  Not to say the US empire isn't still daunting in its hard and soft power. But boy did taking Russia off of SWIFT land with a wet fart. And it sure seems like the US military is a paper tiger from how their equipment has been performing to say nothing of NATO tactics.
  That and they fucked up the sino-soviet split by putting Russia and China on the same side of an issue. That's the greatest foreign policy win for the empire in the 20th century gone.
- I was skeptical until tesla became a thing. In 2010 a friend wanted me to buy and i refused because it was so oviously a scam. Despite huge subsidies it has made a majority of its profits from bitcoin, wich is also a scam. Yet its worth a lot of money. The only way to explain it is that the rate of profit is low enough that most proffit is coming from risk rather than from the actual natural rate of profitthe us already deep into the canobalistic phase all societies end in.
  So esentially we are living in the industrial equivalent of an agrarian crisis. unless something fundamental changes in our understanding of phisics the empire may colapse under a significant enough stocastic shock. And that treshold is only going to get smaller. In this analogy covid was the equivalent of the 1315 famine. Wich didnt cause a collapse but made it clear the collapse was imminent.
- Seems to be, but it'll take a long time to go completely. It's easy to over estimate the speed at which these things happen.
- There are a lot of things going on that could result in the US losing a great deal of it's power. NATO's poor performance in Ukraine will likely greatly reduce their reputation for an invincible military. The US's illegal seizure of funds from Russian oligarchs and from Afghanistan seems to have greatly reduced confidence in the dollar. The Yuan is seeing more and more use in international trade, and Saudi is thinking about letting countries use currency other than dollars to buy oil. The famines or near-famines caused by the war in Ukraine has greatly damaged NATOs already poor reputation in the Global South. And of course the US domestic economy is in free fall, with many people struggling just to afford bread and a roof, and hundreds of thousands of homeless. And hundreds of thousands is likely a severe undercount. Plus the GOP aligned states are leading an active genocide against trans people, with an estimate by Erin Reed suggesting there are at least 250,000 internal refugees fleeing state repression in the US, with many more unable to flee for financial or other reasons. The US is going to face an enormous social burden from Long Covid related disability which will likely continue to increase as more and more people are disabled by Covid complications. The US is trying to provoke a war with China despite having no way to pay for it, no confidence in the government at home, and no way to replace the access to manufactured goods that a war with China would result in. To say nothing of the nuclear apocalypse. Large swaths of the US south hit a wet-bulb temperature that was fatal to human life earlier in the summer. This was not predicted to happen for decades yet. Given the state of infrastructure in the US south, especially Texas's grid, this may lead to a truly horrific mass death event in the near future, with a commensurately horrific refugee crisis as people flee the death zone.
  There's a lot of destabilizing factors in the US. The future is never certain, but it doesn't look good for America.