According to the deepstate map 190 miles would be right around the range, that would put ukraine in striking distance of the kerch bridge. Surely the US would understand the significance of this?
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
32 points (82.0% liked)
Ukraine
8216 readers
1731 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*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 must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[deleted]
Tomahawk would also go a long way helping on that front. They have a range of 1,300+ miles and the US has a bunch.
These will be a large addition to Ukraine's long range fires as it allows them to reach targets that can currently only be reached by UK's Storm Shadow missiles, which are available in limited quantity.
We've given Ukraine, what, the equivalent of $250,000,000,000 in weapons and cash? It's infuriating to me to continue to watch the two ruling parties voting in lockstep to fund another country's war and we cant get them to spend a dime on our own health care.
And the same lawmakers grandstanding on the war in Ukraine have spent the last eight years helping Saudi Arabia brutalize Yemen.
It's all just infuriating.
If it was new yes I would agree with you, when you look at it realistically, when US announces that it is sending weapons or vehiclea to Ukraine it's accounting for them as a Brand New. But they are sending Ukraine Used weapons, having said that.
Would it shock you to know that the US could spend money on Ukraine, give a more money to the Pentagon and fund healthcare. But it won't happen...
Russia is the first /second main adversary to US behind China. And currently the US is spending 2-3% of GDP to destroy a that counties military capabilities without putting boots on the ground.
Zelensky even has a joke about it. Two old guys in Odessa are talking. One says to the other so how's the war, who is winning NATO or Russia, the other says, well 100,000 kia for the Russians, one says, how about NATO, the other says, NATO hasn't arrived yet.
The weapons already exist, they cost "nothing" to give them to another country. Do you want to pay nurses and doctors in javelins and himars? You could argue that it costs money because this means that they will have to be replaced by new weapons but thats a different discussion.
And the same lawmakers grandstanding on the war in Ukraine have spent the last eight years helping Saudi Arabia brutalize Yemen.
It's almost as if helping a country defend itself against an invader is more morally acceptable. And it's also happens to serve the US interests(hence the bipartisan support). The story is kinda simple, a bigger country wants to conquer a smaller country because the smaller country is doing things the bigger country doesnt like.
Do you think countries and democratically elected governments have the right to choose their foreign policy? Would you be ok if the US invaded Mexico if Mexico decided to join an alliance with China? Because this is what is happening in Ukraine.
In Yemen, the US has no interests and it is basically a civil and proxy war between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Al Qaeda. It's kinda hard to find even relatively "good guys" in this conflict(other than the normal people suffering).
fund another country’s war and we cant get them to spend a dime on our own health care
One of the two primary countries we have built up arms to fight is Russia. Sending them to do what they were built for makes perfect sense.
Plus, it's not as allowing Ukraine to languish will suddenly solve our domestic healthcare woes. That money will be spent on the military either way. Best to send lethal aid where it can do some good rather than sitting in a warehouse.
I'd heard the US was spending about 5% of its military budget beating Russia through Ukraine in partnership with the EU countries. The military budget in the US was always predicated upon the premise of fighting the top two opponents simultaneously. Even if the US spends 10%, China needs to take note of that. China stated in the last week that "war with the US would be devastating". They've gotten the message, and the longer the West holds out against Russia, the more the message sinks in that a war between the two remaining superpowers would be a lose-lose situation.
By spending the money now, we prevent a major war later, and can get back to hosting proxy wars. /s
By the way, the next superpower has already started making itself known - India. They have developed their own aircraft carrier. The US and the West should do what they can to align interests with India. This will create a wall around China and further prevent imperialist daydreaming.
Very much this. 5% could be thought as a preventative investment in the future. Kind of like taking care of one's teeth instead of waiting until they rot and then fixing the problem.
Letting russia and china go through with colonialism would lead to a situation that is much more expensive to deal with.
I understand that I'm shouting in the void here.
Bipartisanship has always and will always exist for warmongering absent conscription, because the draft and the trauma it created for the youth of the 60's was the only thing that made our country acknowledge and confront the horrors of war.
Unfortunately, 98% of voters also approve of their own impoverishment on health care every two years, so that's not changing either.
I'd argue that our eagerness to enrich the 1% is the only reason we keep getting entangled in these wars, and one day it will be a major contributing factor to the ruin of this country. Ukraine is just an easier sell because their leader is marketable and their people have a skin tone that our countrymen find agreeable. But you can youtube how we showered affection on Hamid Karzai, and then subsequently wasted a few trillion dollars fighting a pointless war in Afghanistan. It feels like history repeating itself to me.
History sure is rhyming, but the roles are kinda reversed. From a perspective of someone who doesn't live in the US, vietnam & afghanistan sure seemed like a major waste of money. Both of those wars put US in the position of having to invest major amounts of money and manpower for the fighting.
Now US is spending comparatively "small" amounts of money to fund a proxy war, and russia is in the position of putting people to the meatgrinder.
Historically these proxy wars have favoured the power player, which is supporting a proxy country.
Also from an investment point of view, a weaker russia would incentivize foreign countries to maintain better relations with the US, including economical ones.
Additionally a version of Ukraine that was supported by the US would surely be keen on building strong relations. The country has a large population with a strong basis on technological industries, and could be seen as a major ally.
The american healthcare issue is a completely separate issue that isn't solved by isolating the country from all foreign politics. If you're looking for a publicly funded healthcare system in the US, you would need several major (some of them painful) reforms.
I live in a country with state funded healthcare, but it's still not as popular as one might think. Many oppose the taxation that is required to keep the system running, even if the current system is cheaper overall than a privately funded one.
You turkeys actually spend more on your shitty healthcare system than you would if you had socialised healthcare, aid for Ukraine isn't the reason for that.
For what it is worth, I usually feel the same way. In this case no, Russia and China have to be stopped in terms of rule of law and expansionism. The longer we wait the higher the cost. We are here because we did not act earlier.
Healthcare is a separate issue. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Stop voting for people that do not support healthcare for all.
Any source for that absurd high number.
Some guy's ass, maybe their own?
Latest source I could find was ~$75B, with under 50 going to the military.
For context, the war on terror apparently cost over $2000B. Also US is not deploying troops to fight in ukraine, which should be accounted for.
If this war was to go on for 20 years, then the bill could rack up. IMO that is a good incentive to frontload aid and help put a quick end to the conflict.
So we're just making up numbers now?
You owe me $55,000,000,000,000 dollars. Check mate.
view more: next ›