- President Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the US didn’t send it more aid.
- House Republicans have been stalling on a $60 billion aid package for Ukraine.
- “It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose,” he said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday that his country “will lose the war” against Russia if Congress does not act to send it more aid, Agence France-Presse reported.
“It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war,” he said, per AFP.
For months, House Republicans have stalled on a bill containing $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, stipulating that it should also include increased funding for security at the US southern border.
As an American, it is infuriating and heartbreaking to see these psychotic dipshits in Congress actively working to consign an entire fucking country of 60 million people who WANT to integrate more closely with the US and Europe to being one of Putin’s puppet states.
I sincerely hope the GOP either lets this go through or loses power in the next couple weeks. Both outcomes are actually realistic possibilities at this point.
It’s Zelenskyy’s job to say that. But if he doesn’t get it he’ll be in a tough situation with his troops assuming he tries to backpedal that and encourage them to keep fighting.
I don’t understand why Europe isn’t more involved in shutting this situation down. It’s your goddamn borders at risk if this smoldering fire isn’t put out.
He’s not joking. They need more ammo but the truth is the United States can’t produce it fast enough.
Europe is doing a lot but they don’t want to risk nuclear war for Ukraine.
Really this showed nato can’t sustain long term military operations without running out of ammo. I’m pro-military but damn , I didn’t realize how little we could produce.
you do realize that Nato is not at war, right?
I’m not saying Europe shouldn’t do more, but at the moment we provide Ukraine with ammunition and equipment while we also have to make sure that our own forces have enough for a possible war with russia.
If this would be an actual war, Russia would loose it in a few weeks, no need for a long time military operation…
Woosh. You seemed to have missed what I said trying to push your own agenda.
We blew through years of stockpiled ammo in under a year and can’t produce enough to sustain one war.
The United States use to have a policy of 2.5 wars at a time. We changed it to two I believe and we can’t even handle one.
And no Russia wouldn’t lose in a couple of weeks. It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.
It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.
Yep they are also much more capable than the Russians. Remind me, how many days does the three days to Kyiv war now last? Also the Afghanistan beat the fucking Russians, to there is that.
That’s naive to think the Iraqi army is more capable than the Russian army.
is it though?
Yes. The two are not comparable. Russia has a lot more equipment and people than Iraq. They also have nuclear weapons and a large chemical arsenal. Also the size of Russia is immense. Just getting to Moscow would take weeks and securing all of Russia months.
Well, I mean I’m not 100% sure, but I would bet that the USA has more ammunition than anyone else on the planet. We are just hoarding it.
Republicans are going to cost this country and theirs fucking everything . Whatever happens to Ukraine I hope the GOP receives 10 fold
As conservatives cheer.
Conservatism is death.
Republicans doing typical Republican things to no one’s benefit.
That said, I don’t think aid in the form of sending more arms over is right. The proper humanitarian course of action would have been to send a coalition of troops over to Ukraine to forcefully shut the situation down. So many lives would have been saved had we done this earlier.
Instead we have chosen to let the war drag on by sending weapons and supplies, letting both Ukrainians and Russians(many of which who aren’t there by choice) slaughter each other.
Sending troops over runs a huge risk of causing the war to spread, bring more, wider-spread suffering. The us would love to do just that, but it comes with such a massive risk which is why they aren’t.
The USA sending troops would basically cause WWIII to kick off. No one wants that.
Could help Palestine in the same fashion. Send in a coalition from everywhere except key players. Get serious with retaliatory attacks on aggressors.
It’s possible yes, but you also have to consider that perhaps Russia might not have ever invaded if we had shown that we were willing to fight.
A large part of the invasion was the fact that they knew they could get away with it. They know that we’re just going to watch on the sidelines, providing some support from time to time. The people scared of a World War seem to forget that World War II started while the major powers at the time allowed Poland to be conquered before doing anything.
Except we haven’t done nothing. We’ve provided Ukraine with a ton of aid, which has to this point paralyzed Russia. And I think we should continue to do so for the reasons you point out.
Send troops in actually starts a war between us an Russia. That’s not a good thing that will decrease suffering.
Are we not in a proxy war with Russia already by providing Ukraine with aid?
If Russia truly refuses to back down when the other major superpower of the world getting directly involved, then that says much more about the future of our world.
You’re right that we’ve done a great deal of damage to Russia. We’ve decimated their birthrate for generations I imagine, but that came at the cost of Ukrainian blood. If we can take preventative measures then we should take them whenever possible, and even if it causes a major war it will possibly prevent more in the future.
The difference between a war and a proxy war is huge. You want to see Russian bombers over Anchorage?
It’ll happen eventually surely? You can’t keep standing down from them. They will continue to take more and more if you do. At some point you will have to tell Russia no much more firmly and risk a confrontation or nuclear war. It’s inevitable.
At some point you will have to tell Russia no much more firmly and risk a confrontation or nuclear war.
That point is Ukraine.
These are Russian talking points under the guise of practical middle path. Fuck you. Slava Ukraine. Don’t blame them for fighting back and ignoring the fact foreign boots equal Putin’s finger on the button. “Just give them a little farming land, the locals want it”
Can’t tell if you’re being ingenuine intentionally or just misunderstanding.
This is far from a middle path. This is the path of aggressively standing between Russia and Ukraine. No where did I ever say that I blame Ukraine for fighting back either. They’re doing what is necessary, but the fighting shouldn’t have ever been necessary if other countries from around the world were willing to put their troops down and tell Russia no.
As for Putin and the nukes, I really don’t get it. It’s always going to be this way with Russia. Are you just going to let them take more and more? If Russia invades the rest of Europe are they just not going to fight back because Putin has the capacity to nuke them? At some point there will be a confrontation between Russia and other countries from the world. How much are people going to be willing to give up out of fear that nuclear weapons will be used?
Understood. I’m never going to do that, unless I’m overtly using sarcasm, so apologies for appearing to be provocative for the sake of it.
I probably misread your previous comment, now that I’m seeing you elaborate. I apologize for the vitriol, ending Russian genocide and terrorism of the free world is emotional for me.
We pretty much agree. That tone is just very apologist IMHO. Like abuse victim language - “look, you’re right, wife, it sucks I’m attacking you but if everyone else didn’t put me in this situation, I wouldn’t be slapping you around” - it’s an extreme example for simplicity but I hope it’s not such a stretch that my point is lost.
Russia’s already lost. They traded their entire military export market for a piece of land.
Their trade with China, Iran and North Korea is through the roof. It may not be as diverse or lucrative as western trade, but it’s good enough to keep them in decent shape.
Physical destruction needs to be visited upon Putin. The financial pressure will not be enough.
Since 2023 Russia has dropped from the world’s number 2 arms exporter, to 6th place.
That’s good. Sorry to hear they export anything at all at the moment, but a major drop like that is good.
More weapo… aid
Weaponaid? Is that what Chuck Norris drank instead of Gaatorade? ;)
How long until either Hamas or Russia decides to go for the snake’s head?
EDIT: why the downvotes? Y’all too young to remember 9/11?
Russia’s new strategy is to take it slow. Hence why they just created two new army for defense in Ukraine. They aren’t looking to risk trying to finish this quickly.
Makes complete sense. If they get Trump soon then all support will be pulled from Ukraine, possibly US Removal from NATO, and if they are super lucky they might even get US intelligence passed on to help them…
The hard truth is it doesn’t matter how much aid we send, Ukraine is in a losing position. They need more than aid to win and that’s the problem
The war could have ended if we gave Ukraine all the weapons it needed. We just gave them enough, not to win, but rather, not to lose in fear russian escalation (whatever that means). Russia has declared it’s at war with NATO and we’re just pussyfooting around and not taking it seriously.
Yep the problem is that people don’t play enough Age of Empires. Basically the worst thing you can do in that game is to send a knight to the enemy’s base, wait a bit, then send another knight, wait, send next one, … etc. One by one each of the knights dies without achieving anything because he will be massively outnumbered. The correct thing to do is to muster a group of the knights and then send them all at once. That way you will have the advantage and have an actual chance of winning.
Going back to the real world Ukraine “The West” is almost comically stupid. They are arguing over how much help should be sent to Ukraine and always sending just enough to get by but not enough to give Ukraine an advantage. Instead of spending a lot of money during a short period of time to actually get some results, “The West” decided to slowly throw away money in the infinite pit of frozen conflict.
The way I, the self proclaimed internet war expert, see it, there are 3 possible solutions for “The West” to the Ukraine problem.
-
Decide to send a lot of money to flip the tides. (that won’t happen)
-
Decide that they aren’t stupid to feed an endless war and decide to exchange half of Ukraine’s territory for Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Kinda crap but honestly better than the 3rd option.
-
A nothing burger. AKA doing what they are doing right now. The optimistic vision is that over the next decade “The West” will get rich enough that even with these small scraps here and there Ukraine will be able to win in the end. The realistic one is that the scraps won’t be enough and Ukraine will slowly but surely lose territory, ending with some kind of crap treaty including Ukraine both losing a lot of territory and not being in NATO. “a lose-lose”
Ukraine is in a bad position. They’re currently being out produced, out funded, out maneuvered, and out manned. The time for an offensive was before the Russians dug in. I don’t know what Ukraine can do now outside of direct foreign confrontation and engagement. But that won’t happen until Ukraine is essentially lost, if it does happen at all.
imo the time for offensive was never. The offensive should happen “naturally”. If they had enough resources, they would be slowly pushing Russia back just like they are being pushed back currently. The whole “spring offensive” was just as dumb as Russian plan to conquer Kiev in 5 days or whatever insanity they had in mind.
Agreed, but staging operations to open up an offensive haven’t been going well either. There’s been some success with downing some jets and ships but it’s not nearly enough to punch big enough holes in the Russian defenses. The kerch bridge would be a fantastic win if Ukraine can get anywhere near it.
That comes down to the “they are being out-everything” from your earlier comment. Europe needs to start spending much more money on the war, but that wouldn’t be popular amongst the Europeans and therefore won’t happen, sadly.
-
The most likely best case scenario is a frozen conflict. But Zelensky doesn’t want this because such an outcome would call into question everything he did politically up to now. As for Putin, I’m not sure.
I think there’s a widespread implicit hope among Western policy makers that if they keep propping Ukraine up, and get Ukrainians to hold out long enough, Russia will suffer a sudden internal collapse and be forced to withdraw. That may be, but it seems equally (more?) probable that Ukraine will be the one that suffers a collapse.
Ukrainians want to defend their homes. Zelensky has support to continue fighting off the invasion.
I hope so, they’re in it for the long haul. The Vietnamese basically sacrificed two generations to beat back the US; Ukraine will need a similar level of long term commitment. The recent wobbling over mobilization is not a good sign in this respect.
