• UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        11 months ago

        But they’re not motorized chainsaw blades so according to one visiting galaxy-brain we need to pack it up because we’ve been checkmated. no-choice very-intelligent

        • krolden@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          11 months ago

          So I’m just reading through the comments here and I’m like wow lemmy has gotten much more based somehow where are all the libs. Then I realize y’all are from hexbear I had no idea it got federated. Hell yeah!

    • FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      11 months ago

      the-democrat “The latest request from the Biden administration shows America’s continued commitment to helping Americans here at home and our friends abroad”

      frothingfash “…but God help them if those friends try to come here!”

  • Roody15
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    11 months ago

    Where is the off ramp here? Despite billions and constant propaganda Russia is not going to lose this war on the battlefield.

    How much money and how many people are we going to just send to their deaths just because prolonging the conflict weakens an adversary to US.

    It’s really sad :(

    • jackmarxist [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      11 months ago

      Russia will lose any day now. Their army has been routed and they’re constantly fleeing the lines. Hundreds of thousands of Russians are dead or zero-summed while Ukraine has no casualties. Ukraine is marching towards Moscow and this war will end with Putin Putler shooting himself in the head! Slava Ukraini!

      Inb4 anyone calls me a tankie for supporting Biden sending tanks to Ukraine.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Lol so never. They have a vested interest in keeping this a stalemate as long as possible. My tinfoil hat theory is the only reason Ukraine is barred from using weapons in Russia is that the US military industrial complex would love to see this drawn out for as long as possible. Every aid package is a boon to their stock price.

      • JDubbleu@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        11 months ago

        Pretty much. All US veterans who have died in Ukraine were volunteers. Just about everything we’ve given Ukraine is old military equipment we don’t need, and it accounts for such a small amount in the total budget while absolutely fucking the greatest threat to Europe at the moment. It might be the best ROI we’ve ever gotten from anything ever.

        This is coming from someone who is extremely anti-war, but that doesn’t make me anti-defend yourself.

        • Yaglis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 months ago

          The original commenter is probably a troll or an idiot whose idea of peace is to put down your own weapon and raise your ass in the air and await the invader to come and fuck it.

          Peace with Russia is not possible. The world attempted peace with Russia in 2014 after Russia said they would not invade more of Ukraine after Crimea, now the “peace advocates” want Ukraine to give up 1/3 of their country to appease Russia and “stop” the war. At this rate Eastern Europe will be part of Russia within a few short decades.

          The war is not over until every millimeter has been retaken and Russia is pushed out.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The United States also gave tens of billions of dollars worth of aid following the collapse of the Soviet Union to Russia. We paid to have all of their nuclear material secured, including providing security detail at all of their nuclear sites. And this is how they repay us.

    • EnderWi99in@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Oddly enough the US makes it back in many ways as it’s being fulfilled by US military contractors. So it’s not as much of a loss financially as it seems. It’s also geopolitically a good cause as bolstering support in Europe has netted a ton of contracts Russia was fulfilling for gas and coal. Ukraine is also a US ally and likely future member of both the EU and NATO, so it makes sense to support them when invaded for absolutely no rhyme or reason by pretty much the most consistent adversary of the US throughout modern history. But I’m sure whatever you said makes sense too.

      • Roody15
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree it has helped the us economy. Wow we are the real heroes here… Europe now turns to us for gas/energy … military contracts getting filled… ohh who cares about the actual Ukrainians dying at least they are not US citizens …

        Honestly disgusting

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          So you’d just abandon them to Russian imperialism? Yeah that’s historically gone fucking great for Ukrainians. I can’t possibly imagine why they’d be against that.

          Ukraine was fighting the invasion before the West started sending them guns anyway. Ukraine is choosing to fight whether it has support or not.

          • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            You want to abandon the people in Ukraine to fuckers with SS Totenkopf patches on their uniform? Yeah that’s historically gone fucking great for Ukrainians. I can’t possibly imagine why they’d be against.

            • Skua@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m sorry, who is actually running Ukraine? Is it the Azov lot and their like?

              One of the two sides of this war has warmongering ultranationalists in government. It’s not Ukraine.

              • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                Zelenskiy just a couple of weeks ago did a photo op with Azov fighters. The Ukrainian government gives money and arms and propaganda support to Neo-Nazis. No other government does that. Even Russian Neo-Nazis are fighting for Ukraine. Yes the Ukrainian government is ethnonationalist.

                Zelenskiy:

                There are indisputable heroes. Stepan Bandera is a hero for a certain part of Ukrainians, and this is a normal and cool thing. He was one of those who defended the freedom of Ukraine. But I think that when we name so many streets, bridges by the same name, this is not quite right.

                Such a brave push back on the Nazis. He has a point. Naming every street and bridge after Bandera is going to be confusing, I’m sure the Nazis will agree.

                • Skua@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  If your proposed plan for dealing with the likes of Azov is “let Putin’s Russia win” then you do not actually have a problem with the far right being in power in Ukraine, you just have a preference in your flavour of far right. Frankly if I were in Zelenskiy’s position and a fascist told me he wanted to go die to defend democracy from other fascists, I’m not about to discourage him, I’m gonna chalk it up as a win-win

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      We’re not sending anyone to their death. Ukrainian soldiers are doing the fighting, not American ones.

      If Russia doesn’t lose on the battlefield, Putin will invade Poland next, and then one of the following happens:

      1. NATO responds. Nukes fly. Game over.
      2. NATO doesn’t respond, proves itself useless, and dissolves. Putin divides and conquers Europe, marching his army all the way to Portugal. Putin, emboldened, launches an attack on the US. Nukes fly. Game over.

      Putin is Hitler with nukes. He’s trying to start World War 3. We’re trying to stop him before the conflict spirals out of control. If we fail, everybody dies.

      We’re not supporting Ukraine out of the goodness of our hearts. We’re doing it to save our own asses.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        NATO doesn’t respond, proves itself useless, and dissolves. Putin divides and conquers Europe, marching his army all the way to Portugal. Putin, emboldened, launches an attack on the US. Nukes fly. Game over.

        That’s assuming the EU won’t respond, or for that matter Poland being incapable of pushing back Russia all by itself. There’s about exactly one single reason why the Poles aren’t parading on the Red Square right now: Because they’re in NATO, which acts as a leash. Baltics pretty much have the same attitude but are smaller so they’d simply follow Poland. Finland would get pulled into it because of their own attitude and Estonia, and with them, without fail, Sweden. At which point Germany would have a hard time holding back and then it’s guaranteed that the French will be in the fray, and that’s presuming they wouldn’t have been as soon as Poland lets loose because principle.

        Now the US in its usual exceptionalism might be blissfully unaware of those dynamics, and the Kremlin because the FSB reports what the Kremlin wants to hear, but it’s true nontheless. But in the end once the EU is involved the US will be, too, because the US can’t countenance Europe doing something militarily without joining in. Reluctantly and in a limited fashion, probably, just as they’re reluctant now. Germany has pretty much stopped trying to bully the US into providing more things because we’ve reached the limits of what the US will do (that is, Germany could pressure the US to deliver Abrams by tying Leos to the US also delivering tanks, but providing Taurus cruise missiles won’t be tied to ATACMS because apparently that’s a US red line).

        • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s assuming the EU won’t respond, or for that matter Poland being incapable of pushing back Russia all by itself.

          Them and what army? The only countries on Earth with enough firepower to stop Putin without launching any nukes are the US and China, and China is on Putin’s side.

          There’s about exactly one single reason why the Poles aren’t parading on the Red Square right now: Because they’re in NATO, which acts as a leash.

          I assume this is some kind of joke.

          Finland would get pulled into it because of their own attitude and Estonia, and with them, without fail, Sweden. At which point Germany would have a hard time holding back and then it’s guaranteed that the French will be in the fray, and that’s presuming they wouldn’t have been as soon as Poland lets loose because principle.

          Last I heard, Finland and Sweden had been taken over by Nazis, and Germany was in the middle of being taken over by Nazis. I’d expect them to welcome Putin’s invasion with open arms. France is too busy fighting itself to fight anyone else.

          But in the end once the EU is involved the US will be, too, because the US can’t countenance Europe doing something militarily without joining in.

          At which point we’re back to square one. The reason we’re having this discussion is because, in the opinion of @Roody15@reddthat.com, it is “very sad” that the US isn’t going to sit back and let Putin start World War 3.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            The only countries on Earth with enough firepower to stop Putin

            …include Ukraine being drip-fed western surplus. France alone would roll over Russia, the Poles aren’t as strong but they’re fucking nuts determined because history.

            I assume this is some kind of joke.

            Then you don’t know any Poles. You know it’s one of those Eastern European countries where the first line of the national anthem goes “Our country isn’t lost yet”, referring to centuries upon centuries of Russian imperialism. As the joke goes:

            Two Polish veterans meet at a bar. Asks one: “Wawrek, if tomorrow both the Germans and the Russians invade, who do we shoot at first?”, replies the other: “Oh that’s an easy one. The Germans: Business before pleasure”.

            • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              That sure isn’t how it went last time Poland got invaded. Their country was lost until the Allies liberated them. Same with France.

              Determination does not equal manpower or firepower. If it did, there wouldn’t be any Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine right now; they’d have been defeated already. That’s why we’re sending Ukraine war supplies.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                The polish army isn’t using cavalry any more. And France has nukes this time around and just for the record: France’s half-surrender was the strategically optimal move in their position.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Since the EU doesn’t have a standing army, they cannot respond. Without NATO, Putin can drive straight to the Atlantic and there’s not a goddamn thing Europeans can do about it.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        We’re not sending anyone to their death. Ukrainian soldiers are doing the fighting, not American ones.

        Mask off moment. Ukrainians aren’t even people to you. Most of them are conscripts forced to be on the front line.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ya know there’s a country called Ukraine that’s involved in this, right? They are people defending their country and they’re going to do that with or without US support. And Ukraine will win in the end. Russia doesn’t have enough to successfully occupy Ukraine against an organized resistance which is where things could go without military aid from the west.

      While a resistance would ultimately be successful, it would take a decade or more. And it’s likely a Russian occupation of Ukraine would involve genocide. Do you want that?

      Sending military aid isn’t about trying to change the outcome of the war. Russia’s defeat is inevitable. The military aid is about helping Ukraine defeat Russia sooner, without the need for a prolonged resistance campaign, and that reduces the loss of life.

      • ToxicDivinity [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        When you say that Ukraine will defeat Russia do you mean Ukraine will occupy the Donbass and impose a government on them that those people don’t want?

        You do know that there’s a region called Donbass that is involved in this right? And they’ve been fighting for their lives since 2014. Why don’t you care about those people?

        • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It seems unlikely that the people of Donbass do want to be a part of Russia now that they’ve had a taste of occupation.

          Being conscripted, given third rate equipment or no equipment at all and being send to die is not generally an endearing act.

          • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            11 months ago

            Being conscripted, given third rate equipment or no equipment at all and being send to die is not generally an endearing act.

            This is what Ukraine’s coup government has been doing for over a year at this point.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              You don’t get to instigate a rebellion using your own intelligence and military assets, and then invade your neighbor and claim that you never did, that’s just bullshit.

              This entire conflict was instigated by Russia.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’s very hard to invent a movement in another country. Were they backed by Russia from the outset? Obviously, but they had real reasons to be upset with what the new administration was doing. This is a little like dismissing the people who disagree with you as bots, it lets you avoid needing to consider that some people might have good reason for opposing your favored side.

                • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Yes, absolutely it was. There have been many books and publications featuring interviews and even video footage of Russian soldiers from the outset of the war. Here’s an interview:

                  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/i-was-a-pro-russian-separatist-fighter-in-ukraine/374411/

                  And Russia seized crimea right afterwards. Coincidence? Nope.

                  And let’s not forget how they"separatists" somehow were operating Russian military air defense systems.

                  Igor Girkin was found responsible for shooting down MH17 by a Dutch cour.

                  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63637625

                  … But he was a Russian commander who controlled the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic armed forces.

                  Russian authorities on Friday detained Igor Girkin, a former Russian commander in Ukraine and prominent war blogger, reportedly on charges of promoting extremism — marking the first time Moscow has taken action against a fervent supporter of the war in Ukraine but one who voiced loud criticism of Russian leaders and their often botched military strategy.

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/21/russia-arrests-igor-girkin-ex-security-officer-who-led-operations-ukraine/

                  “Girkin, who is also known by his nom de guerre Igor Strelkov, is an ex-officer of the Federal Security Service, or FSB. He played a role in Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and then served as a commander in Russian-controlled areas of Donbas in eastern Ukraine, where he helped foment a separatist war and was accused of extrajudicial killings.”

                  Russia used their guys to instigate a rebellion. If you think all rebellions are free from outside influences, you are sorely mistaken and shows complete naivete regarding the current conflict.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why won’t Russia stop the war?

      Why did Vladimir Putin claim that Ukraine isn’t a country?

      Why does Russia purchase Iranian suicide drones, and launch drone and cruise missile attacks on Ukrainian cities every week?

      Why do Russians want to kill all Ukrainians when they were considered brothers 2 years ago?

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    11 months ago

    How about 40 billion to support getting some bitches… on a Single Payer Healthcare program.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    11 months ago

    Is this actual money in this case or is this more designated monetary amounts of goods, ie the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

    Because that’s what most of the past monetary support was. No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

    • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      11 months ago

      the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here?

      Use of reserves motivates replacement. Just because you’re giving them weapons that were produced in the past, and therefore whose (production) cost has already been incurred, doesn’t mean that occurs in a vacuum. With stock running low, contemporary money goes in to replenishing that stock. In effect, there’s no difference whether you send old or new equipment, because both incur costs in the present.

      No actual money was involved and so didn’t really cost us anything.

      It cost you exactly the amount it cost to produce them. Just because it was produced in the past, doesn’t mean it was free. You paid for it X years ago, and are only now seeing it used. You paid for it. Moreover, you’re now going to pay to replace it.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        11 months ago

        Except a bunch is old stock or overstock. The US was sitting on stockpiles of 203mm artillery rounds from the m110 that they would’ve had to pay someone to decommission, but it turns out that there’s a soviet arty piece that can use them, and guess what? Ukraine has em. Not to mention they chronically overproduced M1A1 Abrams to the point that generals were begging for it to stop, simply because it would be more expensive to shut down and restart production than simply keep making tanks nobody wanted or needed. Plus, a significant portion of the old inventory was DESIGNED to blow up russian equipment. So the US is clearing out old shit, crippling the Russian military, and aiding a new democracy. The only downside is the fresh money that is probably going to be dumped into the MIC to fill those clean shelves, but (and this is basically NCDposting but here we go) the fact that the US can almost singlehandedly provide Ukraine the resources to hold out against fucking Russia for over a year and that equioment still being only a tiny fraction of their total might? Holy shit. Grab the money shovels boys.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Plus it helps clear out shelf space for new shiny shit, why have massive stocks of old obsolute junk sitting in the Sierra army Depot when you can empty it out and fill it with shiny new junk!

          Also its interesting how the Ukrainians have used some of the equipment which gives new data for R&D.

        • Łumało [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Who are you kidding thinking they don’t want to have a constant state of excess? It will be replaced, it has to be bought.

          • zackwithak@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Idk I guess if the military budget increases significantly more in budget to back fill I’ll believe this. But im pretty sure we’re just giving away old shit that is already being replaced with newer models

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yea we just have billions of dollars of military equipment that popped out of thin air and of course will not be replenished in the next trillion dollar military budget.

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        We have billions of dollars of military equipment that was made 10+ years ago and has been sitting around since then because we have no reason to use any of it.

        To the point where military commanders are begging Congress to not make the military budget so big because it’s being wasted on building more assets that aren’t seeing any use.

      • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        You have trillions of dollars worth of military equipment from the cold war mothballed or in storage.
        Most of it will never see use because it’s outdated technology. There are thousands of planes, tanks and miscellaneous vehicles just sitting out in the desert waiting to be scrapped or reactivated.

    • Echo71Niner@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      your answer to your question

      the worth of the guns and tanks and other things we’ve been giving them that were just collecting dust over here

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Also what amounts are going where? Could be 39 billion to the border and 1 billion to Ukraine.

      They intentionally lump these sums together so that they can distribute it as they desire. There is no reason to do this other then to hide funding.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I mean you could have just read the article.

        13B for defense support and 8B in Humanitarian aid for Ukraine. 12B for federal disaster funding. ~7B for border funding, Fentanyl seizure Ops, and other stuff. So the 7B is vague, but it’s a budget. You could probably just go to the house or senate page once it’s released to get the details.

  • TheMage@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    11 months ago

    More money being pissed away on Ukraine? Wow. That Zalensky guy must have photos of a naked Biden with some White House aide or whatever. This is a joke and a massive abuse of US taxpayer money. When does this end? How is the US benefitting from this? Oh, we aren’t at all. Hmmm. I wonder if there is something behind the scenes going on here? Like some other motive? I mean, it’s the Biden’s…… sort of a shady track record.

    And don’t gimme a bunch of whataboutisms either. Don’t care. This Ukraine thing is a farce. Enough. We’re done.

    • Assian_Candor [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      How is the US benefitting from this?

      Draining the resources of geopolitical rival without dead troops, weapons exports and lucrative contracts for reconstruction.

      You should read war is a racket https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

      The guy who wrote it, smedley butler, was a highly decorated major general

      Capital loves war which is why the US has been at war for something like 92% of its miserable existence. Of course the average person gets fucked

    • Sasuke [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      11 months ago

      How is the US benefitting from this?

      well it’s making europe reliant on US energy, for one (with all the ramifications that entails)

          • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            57
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, invasions are out of fashion. All the West does is make a country’s development contingent on their willingness to let the West exploit their natural resources and labor and then cut said development if they fund a social program or coup them if the “locals” are uncooperative. All after gutting these countries for hundreds of years via colonialism. You don’t need to do an invasion when you can just put a noose around the neck of a country.

            Oh and the West still does invasions look at Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. And UK special forces have been in Syria, the Sudan, Nigeria, and others as recently as last year.

            https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/23/uk-special-forces-have-operated-secretly-in-19-countries-since-2011

            • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah neocolonialism the thing Russia is attempting right now. If you oppose neocolonialism you should oppose Russia.

              Or do you just hate western countries for fashy past grievances reasons?

              • Bakzik [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                27
                ·
                11 months ago

                Hey, Space Neoliberalist. If you ever touch some real theory (instead of reading Harry Potter and The Washington Post), like Lenin. You would know that this is an inter-capitalist conflict (you know what that means?). If you think that USA is helping in good faith (and not in the interest of colonialism exploitation in the long run), you are an idiot.

                “fashy past grievances reasons”

                So denouncing the crimes of the west is fascist now?

                -“Hey USA shouldn’t have supported dictatorships in Latin America with their Plan Cóndor, or helped in the coup against the democratic elected Salvador Allende. Or dropped two atomic bombs in two civilian cities, or having the highest incarcerated population doing slave labor, or burn with napalm villages, or puting children in cages in the border, or….”. I could be all night talking about USA crimes. A whole month with the Nato members crimes.

                -”Shut up fascist.”

                Is always projetion with you liberals. Scrath a liberal, and a bloodthirsty nafo fascist bleeds.

                • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  The problem with “both sides” arguments is you tacitly admitting your side is wrong when you do that.

                  Yeah sure the US shouldn’t have done those things in the past. But these are past grievances, which is the cornerstone of fascist thinking. “Our present day horrible actions are justified because of the horrible things others have done in the past!”

                  Whatever US and any other NATO members did wrong in the past doesn’t make what Russia is doing today right.

                  Also, why should Ukrainians suffer so that Russia can expand their empire?

                  I have no doubt about the ability of fascists to go on and on about past grievances. But what grievance do you have with Ukraine specifically?

              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                26
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Holy shit at least look the fucking word up in a dictionary before you try to turn it around on someone else you buffoon

                Even if you were going to butcher the term ‘colonialism’ THAT’S the one that’s relevant if a country is being occupied militarily.

                WHY DO YOU SPEAK AT ALL. YOU NEED SO MUCH READING AND LISTENING BEFORE YOU STOP SPEAKING NONSENSE. INVESTIGATE WHAT YOU SAY AAAAAAAA stalin-stressed

          • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            41
            ·
            11 months ago

            Tell that to Yemen.

            Also ‘we haven’t invaded anywhere in the very immediate past (though the genocidal war criminals who perpetrated our last invasion are still important and celebrated public figures)’ is a pretty fucking weak justification from a country insisting on being world police.

      • RonJonGuaido [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s kind of funny seeing these kind of comments on Lemmy and playing the “alt-right or tankie” game before you see someones instance.

        huh, i see comments like yours and i think “lib moron” and then i don’t give it another thought.

      • ZapataCadabra [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        11 months ago

        that it sends a message to other dictators

        What message is America sending to the dictators that we bankroll while they perform genocide using US equipment and training?

      • Bobby_DROP_TABLES [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        11 months ago

        won’t just sit back and let them plough into another country

        Do you think the west has a genuine interest in consistently enforcing this or do you just not care when people you like do it?

      • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah we’ve really cultivated a lot of prestiege on this one, the west definitely hasn’t absolutely embarrassed itself and unified large swathes of the world against it. And hey, it only took like three rounds of sabotaged peace talks and and multiple generations of Ukranians fed into a big novelty Northrop-Grumman branded meat grinder.

      • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        11 months ago

        it sends a message to other dictators around the world that we won’t just sit back and let them plough into another country,

        You mean like the collective west did to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya? Who’s supposed to send the message to our dictators when it’s time to stop?

      • UnhealthyPersona@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        For some people, everything has to be a conspiracy. Logical, easily verifiable reasons for things can’t possibly be the truth to them. Especially if it comes from the opposing political party, it is automatically false to them. Even if verifiable.

        Honestly I wasn’t sure of the benefit either, but your response makes so much sense. I don’t know why there always has to be conspiracies for obvious stuff.

    • Zoboomafoo@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      We’re giving Ukraine our table scraps that are too nice to toss, but too expensive to keep. They’re using them to defeat a long-standing geopolitical foe at no costs to American lives.

      Ukraine doesn’t need dirt to get our help, this is the best money the US has spent since Lend-Lease.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      When does this end?

      When Russia is defeated.

      How is the US benefitting from this?

      It’s sending a message to authoritarians. Don’t invade countries or we’ll send the other country stuff to make it go badly for you. This has a chilling effect on authoritarians, making them refrain from this kind of activity. This improves global security, which results in better trade, which improves the global economy. The US being on the globe benefits from this.

      Also, do you like how much you’re paying for groceries? Could it be this war is causing a disruption in grain supply? You know that stuff that goes into bread, the feed that cows eat, etc? Yeah, I know people on the internet are all blaming their own governments (in basically every country, LOL) for high grocery prices, because no one wants to say that’s it’s Putin. Sure there is probably some assholes jacking up the prices more than necessary, but do you think all the corporations and all of the governments got together and decided to do this? Nope the inflation, the high grocery prices, it’s because of Putin’s bullshit.

      Not to mention all of the influence campaigns Russia is running on the internet. You know where you’re constantly being influenced by the internet towards burning down the capital of your own country? That’s a disinformation campaign designed to destabilize NATO countries. Taking down Putin will lessen that buillshit. I say lessen because after seeing Russia’s success other countries like China are getting in on that game now too. But one asshole at a time.

    • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      The high energy prices mean its no longer profitable to run heavy industries in europe. So the us is cannibalizing some of german industry. Thats the profit the us gets.

      • TheMage@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Right, because there isn’t possibly any other motives here or objectives. Like the circus guys said: There’s. Sucker born every minute.

          • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The fact that you’re assuming this person is a Fox “News” consumer is emblematic of the overall media’s coverage of the war in Ukraine. A person can be anti-war and still part of the left. But not according to you, or others who immediately jump to things like, “go back to licking Putins boot, watching Fox News, etc.” You are shutting down any sort of constructive conversation.

            The media has made the war in Ukraine a moral imperative by making it democratic Ukraine vs authoritarian Russia. War makes everything black and white. So it becomes impossible to say something like, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong” while also saying “The US should not support Ukraine with weapons.”

            I am anti-war. I do not think the US should support Ukraine with weapons. To me, I am extremely skeptical of the simplistic idea that we are aiding democracy and staunching authoritarianism. I think that kind of of rhetoric pervaded the conflicts in the Middle East, and I think in those cases, it was more accepted by the public that the US was acting in a more imperialistic manner. I think that fits closer to the mark here, too.

            For one thing, the US was directly involved in Ukraine’s revolution in 2014, trying to position people in power who had a more EU friendly demeanor. And they helped expand NATO bases closer to Russian borders. These two things, while they certainly do not justify Russia’s invasion, I’m sure made them feel threatened. Now, I don’t have much historical knowledge of Ukraine or Russia, but certainly they’ve had more than just a geographic relationship over the past century or so. If Russia was involved in a Mexican revolution, trying to make them friendlier to Russia rather than the US, I’m sure the US would have a problem with that. Still, the US would not be justified in invading Mexico, as Russia is not justified in invading the Ukraine. This is just to point out the same type of meddling that the US does all across the globe in the name of “democracy” or “free market capitalism”, we were doing here, too.

            I think it’s doubtful that this is all purely in the name of democracy. After all, look at what is happening to Palestine. They are a country occupied by the authoritarian state of Israel, and we do nothing. So, to me, there are other factors at play in Ukraine. One, I think, is that war is profitable. “Defense” companies like Raytheon and BAE actually have an interest in perpetuating war, as it brings in profits. So big firms are going to support giant aid packages, as it means they’re going to get business.

            Another, I think, is that war is politically profitable. When you can get your party to demonize an individual or country and unite around the noble war effort, it’s just another issue you’ve manufactured to get their vote.

            Anyways. I just don’t buy that this war is about democracy or any higher moral value. I think it’s about money, to be honest, and politics. Mostly money. It’s a proxy war between the US and Russia and I think the media has pushed the narrative that it is a morally imperative war between Ukraine and Russia because it is financially interested in perpetuating the conflict. I don’t think the US has an interest in actually ending the war.

            And overall, I just think war is one of the greatest evils, and I will almost never support it. Real people are dying for fucking what? If that makes me a Fox News watcher, or conservative, or Putin lover, or whatever name you want to sling my way, I guess so be it. It’s dumb, but so be it.

            Edit: if you’re downvoting me without a rebuttal, you’re part of the problem that I’m referring to – a complete dismissal of dissenting opinion on the war. If you disagree with what I’ve said, please comment why because I’d like to hear your viewpoint so that I can adjust mine appropriately. I’m not interested in name-calling, but an actual conversation about this topic would be cool.

            • Anomander@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              Edit: if you’re downvoting me without a rebuttal, you’re part of the problem that I’m referring to – a complete dismissal of dissenting opinion on the war. If you disagree with what I’ve said, please comment why

              People on the internet don’t owe you a debate.

              Especially when the prompt is a somewhat sanctimonious effort-dump sealioning “we should let Russia have Ukraine” as if its a reasonable liberal imperative, all in response to a stupid one-liner.

              • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Thank you for the insults, I guess the point of my effort dump is moreso that I dont think it’s really as black and white as people make it, I think it deserves some nuance. Which is a little ironic because you summed the whole thing up in six words! Haha

                But no, I don’t think it’s very unreasonable to be against a war. You do? I do not support Russia. But I don’t think the US should be sending military aid to Ukraine.

                Edit: or, I mean against this war

            • pedalmore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Your entire rant boils down to “I disagree with Russia’s invasion, but since they did it anyway they should have no consequences, even when they commit genocide”. A conversation isn’t required to counter this dogshit position.

              • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                Well, I actually didn’t say any of that, but thanks for stripping any nuance from what I said, creating a strawman, and then attacking that, instead.

                • pedalmore@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  No amount of nuance will make your core position tenable to those that think Ukraine deserves outside (e.g. NATO) support to protect them from the Russian invaders. You simply don’t think Ukraine deserves support, condemning them to genocide. Everything else you said is weird posturing to try and disguise your actual point. It’s not our first rodeo, we can all see right through this.

          • TheMage@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            When you stop watching The View, MSNBC & The Rachel Madcow show, Ill consider dumping Fox News. :).

            • Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I already don’t watch any of that drivel so you got yourself a deal buddy. You just go ahead and let me know when you want to uphold your end and dump fox news.

              • TheMage@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                My end? Did we make some sort of pact? Please. Face it: everyone has their favorite sources for stuff and it’s always based on what they agree with. You’re not above this.

                • Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You said you’d consider dumping fox news when I stopped watching the programs you mentioned. That sounded like a pact to me.

                  The problem with all news media these days is it no longer gives you the facts without it also telling you how you should feel about the facts based on their particular biases. If you only look to the sources that confirm your bias you’re not getting properly informed on the issues, you’re simply existing in an echo chamber having your views reaffirmed by the others that share them without ever hearing or considering there might be more to the story.

                  I never claimed to be above being affected by this myself, but I am consciously aware of how serious a problem it is. I do the best I’m able to see all sides of an issue, from multiple sources, the more non-biased the better (though this is getting increasingly more difficult), and then I make up my own mind as to what I think without allowing the media to tell me how I should feel.

                  Fox news is one of the worst sources for biased news as it is the only news network that was started with the agenda of specifically appealing towards a conservative audience. They have even won defamation lawsuits by arguing their shows are performances and shouldn’t be taken as fact. They’ve always cared more about ratings than the truth… MSNBC is a close second on spewing drivel catering to liberals. I wouldn’t trust anything either of them say without first doing some independent research on my own.

    • Saganastic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Supporting free and democratic Ukraine is preferable to letting fascist Russia become neighbors with NATO.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree wholeheartedly with supporting Ukraine, but Russia has had a land border with NATO for twenty years at this point. They just pretend they don’t so that they can cry “NATO expansionism!”

        • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          51
          ·
          11 months ago

          “Wow, I wish Biden would spend 40 billion on US priorities”
          “Here’s how Biden helped cancel 66 billion in student debt.”
          “Actually that’s a red herring.”

          Like, I don’t love Biden either and wish he were more progressive in a WIDE variety of areas, but we should also give credit where credit is due. Also between the Inflation Reduction Act ($400b), American Rescue Plan ($1.9t), and the Infrastructure bill ($1t) there are literally trillions of dollars in additional domestic spending that would not have existed otherwise.

          • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            Are those trillions going into the pockets of Americans? Even calling the student debt relief a win compared to the original promise is disingenuous.

            All I’m saying is: every politician will have a few wins. Normally it’s just enough to satiate the base. Biden has done that. But that doesn’t make him a progressive and realistically we need more than that, as a country.

            Corpo leader for a corpo country, but it’s not where most people actually want to be.

            • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              11 months ago

              No, I agree those trillions won’t go directly to people and time will tell how well it’s spent. Some of that money has gone to individuals, some has gone to companies and orgs that build things like roads, and some has been and will be skimmed off the top because of course it will be. I think the overall benefits will outweigh the costs and it’s better to do something rather than nothing but who knows.

              Also, he did try to cancel 400b in student debt which was shot down by the conservative Supreme Court, and so he’s used the legal tools he has left to cancel as much as he can.

              Can definitely agree on asking more from our leaders, and I think the good things Biden has done definitely come from the voter base shifting left on a lot of issues, and not because he’s some sort of progressive champion.

              • Torvum@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                It was “shot down” because congress was not allocating the funds he wanted to spend to enact the relief. How dare the court actually uphold the constitution in respect to checks and balances and not let the president use executive power to supersede congressional debates and hearings.

                It’s so disingenuous to fight for something because you find it morally right in idea without understanding every nuance of the path it follows. I’d like young adults relieved of the debt economy we’re building just as much as anyone else, but not at the expense of our institutional sanctity. Bad precedent is a slope.

                E: meanwhile our dipshit congressmen that wouldn’t allow the funds allocated are allowing 40 billion to foreign aid and repeatedly fueling our debt economy. Unironically indict Congress on corruption charges.

                • czech@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  40 billion to foreign aid

                  It’s disingenuous to frame the best defense budget ROI we’ve seen in decades as “fueling our debt economy”.

                  Bad precedent is a slope

                  I’m not sure you’re very up do date on current events of the last century if you think this is setting a precedent.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              A lot of those trillions are funding business expansion, which will fund high paying jobs so more of economic stimulus, a bit like the progress administration from the 1930s. But in this case, we are building domestic manufacturing capabilities which will employ people as well as help with decarbonization.

              Business is generally won’t get the money unless they spend it, so it is much better than trickle down.

            • wrath-sedan@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              11 months ago

              He’s been a mixed bag on the environment, opening up more oil and gas leases on federal land (although he did just create a new national monument around the Grand Canyon to create more protected land which was a big win for Arizona tribes and environmentalists). I also wish that he would make a harder voting rights push if only to make the issue more visible even if he can’t do much without congress. And while the border policy is an improvement (not saying much compared to Trump lol), there is still a lot of capricious and arbitrary enforcement against asylum seekers and immigrants that the Biden admin has purposefully continued. Tbf border policy is ultimately something Congress needs to deal with, so it’s not going to see any specific changes for awhile.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Medicare

              Packing the courts

              Regulating student loans

              Providing more urban housing

              Fighting domestic drug use

              Addressing homelessness

              More transit

              Fund schools

              Unions

  • Parsani [love/loves, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    11 months ago

    An expansion of the Child Tax Credit that focuses on the 19 million children who are shut out of the full credit because their families’ incomes are too low would come at a modest cost. For example, making the current law $2,000 credit fully available to these children would cost roughly $12 billion per year in 2022, according to the Joint Tax Committee estimates.

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can we go ahead and just declare a state of emergency on the climate crisis? Or do we need the rest of the states to burn down as well? Shit’s getting me frustrated