discussion Ukraine/US governments working on a long-term support proposal

[Element]

Updated the title to be less sensationalist and link directly to the president of Ukraine's address - instead of a tweet

[Rep2000]

1 hour ago, geodude said:

I understand we don't want Russia to feel like they can invade allies and what not but I don't understand why there isn't a push to fix what's here when we have bridges collapsing, expensive healthcare, and college debt out the ass. 

Because Biden has less power on local issues than foreign issues. To pass a bill to fix bridges etc., that bill would need to go through the Republican majority in Senate or House first. Which means that would never happen with the modern Republicans. 

But he can propose much more effective deals with foreign powers, because they actually listen to him more. 

[Rep2000]

9 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

Whether it's fake or not, Americans can afford to turn the entire middle east into **** but funding something good for once in your lifetime is what will send the country into a third world status

You know the tankies are fuming, as usual. 

[Communion]

8 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

funding something good for once in your lifetime is what will send the country into a third world status

The issue is that Biden is explicitly for austerity as his defense for why he does not support programs like Medicare For All.

 

The MESSENGER sometimes *IS* just as important as the message. You can't run on a "socialist programs are too expensive" platform and then have infinite funds for military packages. If Biden thinks the US should fund free college for all Ukrainians to boost their economy in post-war recovery... why is he against that for Americans?

 

[Communion]

4 minutes ago, Rep2000 said:

Because Biden has less power on local issues than foreign issues.

He quite literally has promised to use his executive powers to veto Medicare For All if ever passed. 

[geodude]

4 minutes ago, Rep2000 said:

Because Biden has less power on local issues than foreign issues. To pass a bill to fix bridges etc., that bill would need to go through the Republican majority in Senate or House first. Which means that would never happen with the modern Republicans. 

But he can propose much more effective deals with foreign powers, because they actually listen to him more. 

 

1 hour ago, GhostBox said:

All three issues which Biden has worked on and is still trying to do more on even with the republicans/gop judges  trying to block him at every corner. 

which makes it even more apparent how ineffective he has been as a president tbh. 

[geodude]

And how does he have more power on FOREIGN issues than domestic issues?  If our own president can't influence what's at home we have a big problem 

[Communion]

1 minute ago, geodude said:

And how does he have more power on FOREIGN issues than domestic issues?  If our own president can't influence what's at home we have a big problem 

In practice, the president effectively acts as the head of the military.

 

This unique power of the executive likely making supporting Biden the worst, not best, choice progressives could have made in 2020 after the DNC rigged the primary:

 

 

[4th Time Around]

It wont matter

 

The front is falling apart even as we speak and Russia has not even launched a full scale offensive yet, Ukraine is losing territory every day and we are still only in the attritional phase. Once Ukraine is totally destroyed, forced to give up the territory Russia wants to seize from them and agree to neutrality, this agreement will become irrelevant

 

Unless United States and EU want to directly intervene and risk causing a nuclear war in the process, this is wasted resources being put into a failed war

Edited April 30 by 4th Time Around

[Illuminati]

53 minutes ago, Communion said:

The issue is that Biden is explicitly for austerity as his defense for why he does not support programs like Medicare For All.

 

The MESSENGER sometimes *IS* just as important as the message. You can't run on a "socialist programs are too expensive" platform and then have infinite funds for military packages. If Biden thinks the US should fund free college for all Ukrainians to boost their economy in post-war recovery... why is he against that for Americans?

 

Military aid to Ukraine literally has no downside to the US, this "but our moneys" rhetoric started as a far right talking point that was largely responsible for blocking aid and just completely ignores the entire machine behind it, the jobs it funds, the way it influences the US position in the world and its global weapons sales and how instead of buying from another country countries shift to buying from the US which in return makes the production cheaper.

 

Before you come at me about being a war hawk - this isn't the angle that motivates me but merely the quiet truth that is obvious to everyone except the people who want even *more* money. As American ATRLers shift more right wing and isolationist I think it's important to point out that the money goes right back into their precious economy.

 

If I have to point out the obvious - Ukraine isn't responsible for you guys not electing Bernie. Biden was never gonna make healthcare free for all and it isn't the consequence of recent developments. Ever since the war has started the US has been affected the least out of the countries that are in any way involved.

Edited April 30 by Illuminati

[Communion]

8 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

Military aid to Ukraine literally has no downside to the US

It also has no material benefit to Americans, thus it's not "being anti-Ukraine" to hold hostage and thus leverage Ukrainian aid against Democrats like Biden.

Especially when it serves as a convenient example of Biden's own hypocrisies on the idea of what America can and cannot financially do.

 

You think America should continue massively funding most of Ukraine's defenses because it benefits you as a European. That's 100% cool.

Many Americans would be off-put by Biden's very specific pro-military spending, pro-austerity approach to policy and thus would threaten to tank one to save the other. That's also fine.

 

Because at the end of the day politics is transactional. You.can want what's in your interests. People aren't wrong for wanting what it's theirs, especially poor Americans.

The only person making it more difficult for you to get what you want is Biden for bad politicking, not working class Americans demanding better.

 

8 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

goes right back into their precious economy.

Lockheed Martin executives getting richer doesn't make poor Americans more able to afford rent. 

Edited April 30 by Communion

[Illuminati]

Just now, Communion said:

Many Americans would be off-put by Biden's very specific pro-war, pro-austerity approach to policy and thus would threaten to tank one to save the other. That's also fine.

 

Because at the end of the day voting is transactional. You. can want what's in your interests. People aren't wrong for wanting what it's theirs, especially poor Americans.

I pointed out the economic benefits but you left them out. Mind you Biden comes from Obama's cabinet. They have already tried the peaceful approach with Russia. That approach was largely responsible in normalizing Russia just taking chunks of Ukraine (or any country) with no pushback, because Obama was more invested in other affairs.

 

And it's not like Biden was overly excited to be tangled into all of this either, it seemed like he was prioritizing relations with China and Taiwan.

[bad guy]

4 more years of stagflation to look forward too is a great strategy for this election cycle

 

[4th Time Around]

1 hour ago, Illuminati said:

 They have already tried the peaceful approach with Russia. 

Is that why the United States deliberately sabotaged the negotiations taking place in Turkey to stop the war? The US was delusional enough to think that they could actually supply Ukraine with the means to defeat Russia in a prolonged war of attrition

 

Now Ukraine is going to end up with even more territory lost and the entire country left in ruins

 

The United States is an evil government, they will fight until the last Ukranian and then tuck their tail between their legs after another failed military investment, just like they did in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

 

Also, if the United States is really such a protector of freedom and democracy, how come they continue to supply Israel with the means to murder Palestinians in the ongoing genocide and are always taking part in coups to overthrow democratic regimes?

Edited April 30 by 4th Time Around

[Illuminati]

3 hours ago, 4th Time Around said:

Now Ukraine is going to end up with even more territory lost and the entire country left in ruins

Ukraine has reclaimed very large portions of its territory since the initial negotiations fell through and its representatives were poisoned in 2022.

 

The sentiment in Ukraine to this day is - give them weapons and they will fight for their existence, because they already exhausted the alternatives and this IS a matter of pushing Russia back or having the same thing repeated in a few years from an even larger border.

 

Right before the 2022 war Zelensky practically begged Putin to spare lives and sort it out peacefully, and then later agreed to negotiate at the table where Russia demanded even more land. People forget that Zelensky was a Russian-speaking Ukrainian who got elected in part because he united the two sides of the country by trying to approach Russia in a more diplomatic manner.

 

I don't defend the US as much as you think I do, if you scroll up I said that this would be the opportunity for once in their lifetime to fund a good cause.

Edited April 30 by Illuminati

[Illuminati]

1 minute ago, 4th Time Around said:

Interesting how whenever anybody talks about the chances for Ukraine to win this war, the only thing they cite are early examples of Ukranian victories when Russia invaded with an under strength and inexperienced force.

Interesting that you wanted Ukraine to unconditionally surrender/ negotiate when it was at its weakest point. That just about says it all

Can you even point to those captured locations on a map? Ukraine absolutely has a manpower shortage which was the whole point of evening out the scales and providing aid. You think Russia invading a few kilometers deep over the past year means that everything is about to collapse and that Ukraine should surrender "while they still have a country left" but the reality is that both sides are deeply entrenched and it's not the kind of war where Ukrainians will just walk out and let themselves get raped and castrated to death.

 

The best time to send Ukraine aid was yesterday but the second best time is now.

[4th Time Around]

11 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

Interesting that you wanted Ukraine to unconditionally surrender/ negotiate when it was at its weakest point. That just about says it all

Can you even point to those captured locations on a map? Ukraine absolutely has a manpower shortage which was the whole point of evening out the scales and providing aid. You think Russia invading a few kilometers deep over the past year means that everything is about to collapse and that Ukraine should surrender "while they still have a country left" but the reality is that both sides are deeply entrenched and it's not the kind of war where Ukrainians will just walk out and let themselves get raped and castrated to death.

 

The best time to send Ukraine aid was yesterday but the second best time is now.

 "deeply entrenched" is irrelevant if one side is getting repeatedly pushed back. Ukraine is losing ground every single day as we speak and the amount of territory they are losing each day is mounting. There are tons of videos you can watch detailing the increasingly unfavorabe situation on the frontline and of Ukraine army soldiers complaining about appalling and impossible conditions on the ground

 

Once the full scale Russian offensive comes some time this year, the front will collapse. This is not just my opinion, this is a very common opinion among experts following this war. The balence of resources and manpower have tipped impossibly against Ukraine and modern wars are decided by attrition

 

I would not be so staunchly pro negotiation if I thought Ukraine had any chance of winning, but they simply dont and I think they should salvage something and save as many lives as possible and this idiotic myth that sending them a couple more billion in aid is going to acomplish anything is laughable. we gave them hundreds of billions and a year to prepare for the counter offensive and guess what, it was a disastrous failure. This war is lost without direct foreign intervention, any realistic person can see that

 

 

Edited April 30 by 4th Time Around

[Illuminati]

1 minute ago, 4th Time Around said:

 "deeply entrenched" is irrelevant if one side is getting repeatedly pushed back. Ukraine is losing ground every single day as we speak and the amount of territory they are losing each day is mounting. There are tons of videos you can watch of Ukraine army soldiers complaining about appalling and impossible conditions at the front 

 

Once the full scale Russian offensive comes some time this year, the front will collapse. This is not just my opinion, this is a very common opinion among experts following this war. The balence of resources and manpower have tipped impossibly against Ukraine and modern wars are decided by attrition

If every frontline village costs 30k soldiers to capture Russia will run out of Russians before it captures the territory it held in 2022. It always costs 3 times more soldiers to push forward than to be in the defensive. Ukrainians are complaining about not being supplied enough ammunition, something that you seem to be determined to prolong at all cost with complete disregard to them as people.

 

I do think that a time will come for negotiations but it's not as doom and gloom (or in your case joyful I guess?) as a youtuber with 2 years worth of videos about Ukraine's imminent collapse would lead you to believe.

[4th Time Around]

15 minutes ago, Illuminati said:

If every frontline village costs 30k soldiers to capture Russia will run out of Russians before it captures the territory it held in 2022. It always costs 3 times more soldiers to push forward than to be in the defensive. Ukrainians are complaining about not being supplied enough ammunition, something that you seem to be determined to prolong at all cost with complete disregard to them as people.

 

I do think that a time will come for negotiations but it's not as doom and gloom (or in your case joyful I guess?) as a youtuber with 2 years worth of videos about Ukraine's imminent collapse would lead you to believe.

Every frontline village does not cost 30k soldiers to capture and these are not villages we are taking about but massively fortified strongholds and their surounding areas. Adivka was the most heavily fortified city in Ukraine and Russia collapsed it like a house of cards recently

 

Defenders do not automatically suffer less casualties, that is a myth, especially when the defender has lack of air power and a huge inferiority in artillery. It also does not matter how much ammunition we supply Ukraine, they are always going to have way less than the Russians and what good is ammo without sodiers because they are all dead due to a manpower shortage? What good are fortifications when attrition and the collapse of morale starts taking place?

 

You say it is not all doom and gloom yet that is precisely the attitude of the soldiers of Ukraine at the front right now but I suppose you know better than the men who are fighting and dying right?

Edited April 30 by 4th Time Around

[Rep2000]

1 hour ago, 4th Time Around said:

Ukraine needs to cut ties with the United States and try to negotiate to become a totally neutral state while they still have a country left because the alternative is total destruction

The absolutely idiocy of this sentence, far too much. We all saw what Russia proposed to be new Ukraine. "Neutral state" my ass.

The tankies are truly insane. 

[4th Time Around]

2 minutes ago, Rep2000 said:

The absolutely idiocy of this sentence, far too much. We all saw what Russia proposed to be new Ukraine. "Neutral state" my ass.

The tankies are truly insane. 

So what alternative do you propose? I want Ukraine to be able to retain as much of their territory as possible during the negotiations. The longer this war continues, the less likely that becomes. They can't win the war in a military sense and nobody will intervene to help them directly. Reality is often a painful pill to swallow

Edited April 30 by 4th Time Around

[Rep2000]

Just now, 4th Time Around said:

So what alternative do you propose? They can't win the war, reality is often a painful pill to swallow

There's no alternative. They'd lose even harder in your proposal, idiot.

Imagine saying the bs you're saying with Gaza/Israel and see how fast you would get banned.

[4th Time Around]

10 minutes ago, Rep2000 said:

There's no alternative. They'd lose even harder in your proposal, idiot.

Imagine saying the bs you're saying with Gaza/Israel and see how fast you would get banned.

They would? My proposal would aim to ensure they keep as much of the pre war territory as possible and save lives because the alternative is the destruction of the state of Ukraine. Trying to solve or freeze the conflict in some way is a lot better than the total military collapse you seem to think is good for Ukraine

 

Also, watch your name calling because I will report you to the moderators

Edited April 30 by 4th Time Around

[Rep2000]

2 minutes ago, 4th Time Around said:

They would? My proposal would aim to ensure they keep as much of the pre war territory as possible because the alternative is the destruction of the state of Ukraine

 

Also, watch your name calling because I will report you to the moderators

And what exactly is this name calling? You are proposing Ukraine to just roll over and die. We all saw what Russia Medvedev introduces as "future Ukraine" map and it's literally just Kiev.

How about you propose Russia to stop this idiotic assault on our intelligence instead, huh? Have you ever considered that alternative?

[Illuminati]

11 minutes ago, 4th Time Around said:

Every frontline village does not cost 30k soldiers to capture and these are not villages we are taking about but massively fortified strongholds and their surounding areas. Adivka was the most heavily fortified city in Ukraine and Russia collapsed it like a house of cards recently

 

Defenders do not automatically suffer less casualties, that is a myth, especially when the defender has lack of air power and a huge inferiority in artillery. It also does not matter how much ammunition we supply Ukraine, they are always going to have way less than the Russians and what good is ammo without sodiers because they are all dead due to a manpower shortage? What good are fortifications when attrition and the collapse of morale starts taking place?

 

You say it is not all doom and gloom yet that is precisely the attitude of the soldiers of Ukraine at the front right now but I suppose you know better than the men who are fighting and dying right?

You feel very confident speaking for them (and thinking you know better what the Ukrainians need than they do) you must be at the frontlines yourself. As a stronghold that was always at the frontline Avdiivka held for 10 years of constant attacks until there was nothing left to hold. If every "house of cards" holds like this Ukraine will be fine.