2019:
Ukraine: We need some fucking Javelins
US: Here’s nothing
2021:
Ukraine: We need some fucking F-16s
US: Here’s some Javelins
2023:
Ukraine: We need some fucking artillery shells
US: Here’s more nothing
2024:
US: Hey we got you some F-16s
We keep electing illiterate bible mongering morons because they accuracy represent our large population of dip-shits. Don't expect the paperwork to be done in a timely manner.
I noticed you skipped 2022, when the U.S. approved $100+ billion in aid.
The U.S. support hasn't been perfect, but ragging on the U.S. without even acknowledging 2022 when they supplied billions on billions worth of aid, and downplaying other aid just reeks of wanting to be negative no matter what.
I'm not trying to say they're not giving aid. They're keeping Ukraine alive, and God bless them for it.
The point that I'm making is they have a habit of waiting months or years before they give the type of aid that's required, and don't really seem to be making a crash priority about it, in the way they would if Americans were dying by the thousands and cities being destroyed. Zelensky actually specifically said that they didn't seem to want to give enough aid to "win" particularly, just enough not to lose, and sometimes specific types years after it was the specific type that it was needed (F-16s being an example).
Looking at American politics, I can kind of understand it, in that we have one wing that's specifically trying to sabotage Ukraine and make sure they lose, and one wing that's trying to fight to get them the aid that's needed, and they're fighting a pitched battle. On the other hand, looking from the Ukrainian side, I can sympathize quite a lot with the viewpoint that fuck all that, IDK what you're talking about, we're dying out here can you please just fucking help us.
Zelensky actually specifically said that they didn’t seem to want to give enough aid to “win” particularly, just enough not to lose
Not to stir up too much, but it's Zelensky's job to constantly ask for more and more and more, and to push and prod and guilttrip and use every angle for every piece of aid. I don't think there's any level of aid given right now where he wouldn't turn around and ask for more, saying what he's getting isn't enough. He's a politician who is trying to leverage for maximum aid rather than an objective source. That's not a knock, just saying that that's his job right now.
America isn't putting the weight of its military in as if it were being invaded, but it is and has been sending hundreds of billions worth of equipment, and people online only seem grateful for about 5 minutes when each shipment arrives, before going back to knocking the U.S. The U.S. didn't invade Ukraine; the U.S. has advised and helped train them, and given them aid.
The earlier above comment wasn't meant to say it isn't giving aid, but it did downplay it and thanks only came when that was noted.
Fair point also
Not really directly related, but one of my favorite takes on it is from "Sky Over Kharkiv" by Serhiy Zhadan, some commentary on the day to day, from an ordinary Ukrainian watching his country full of normal people get dumped wholesale into a sustained hot war. Here's his take on Ukraine's mentality, as compared with the US's and Russia's:
And I'd like to make another point. I was rather skeptical of the current government. I was struck by one particular thing. The elections of 2019 brought a lot of young people to power -- not my peers (I'm a far cry from being young) but a bunch of political youngsters who didn't belong to dozens of parties or hadn't worked for all kinds of shady cabinets of ministers. "But why do these young people," I thought, "act like old functionaries from the Kuchma era? Where did their childish urge to make a quick buck and flaunt it come from? Why aren't they trying to be different?" Thing is, I personally had the chance to do what I still consider rather constructive, useful things with a lot of them -- everyone from ministers to mayors and governors. Nonetheless, I'd look toward the Parliament building and ask myself, "Why aren't you trying to be different?"
Now [in wartime] with the naked eye you can see them trying to be different. Advisers, speakers, ministers, negotiators, officers, mayors, and commanders -- these forty-year-old boys and girls whose generation has been dealt the cruel lot of having to stand up for their country. And this applies no less (and possibly even more) to the millions of soldiers, volunteer fighters, and just regular people pitching in, people shedding the swampy legacy of the twentieth century, like mud falling off new, yet well-chosen combat boots. Young Ukrainian men and women -- that's who this war of annihilation is being waged against. And then, in contrast, are the heads of Russia, Belarus, America, and Germany. The first two are old delusional geezers from the past century who look a lot like old Russian armored vehicles, but they're old. And they're Russian, which, in itself, does little to recommend a vehicle. Then there are the latter two -- they're cautious office clerks, retired capitulators who aren't brave enough to admit that they, too, are involved in what's going on.
Emphasis is mine
(And, I just wanna make it clear that I love that America is supporting Ukraine in the war; I'm not trying to talk any shit about the aid for Ukraine or its genuineness. Just I feel like even now there's still a disconnect between views of the aid on the US and Ukrainian side and I want to stick up for the Ukraine viewpoint in that)
Well to be fair half of our government at any given time is currently a bunch of spineless fucks who'd rather let Putin win than the Democrats.
Well, Ukraine should have all the weapons they want in order to keep those dirty invading orcs out of their sovereign nation.
Maybe it is time to send Ukraine some nukes so Pootin has incentive to stop the slaughtering.
It's a dumbfire system. Very similar warhead diameter, but a lesser effective range than the guided Javelin and it lacks the top down attack of the Javelin, meaning it can not practically engage with as heavy armored targets.
A good way imperialists discovered to launder money from european and americans taxpayers. Fuck Zelensky ( don't mistake with Ukrainian people)
Those damn imperialists providing weapons to a sovereign country in order to protect itself from it's imperialist neighbor trying to annex it!
I don't think Russian imperial warfare in Ukraine is necessarily contradictory with American imperial interest in Ukraine
to think this conflict involves "the good guys" in some way is laughable
Multiple things can be true. Both of these claims are true.
It benefits NATO countries to curb the expansion of a rival power without losing a single soldier.
Assisting in a sovereign country in resisting annexation by a genocidal occupier is a good thing.
You don't always have to suffer to help someone else, some situations can be win-win.
If you forget all the death and destruction caused by this war, then yes. I'm sure it's very profitable.
It's not being caused by the ones providing weapons, but the attackers though?
Are you the kind of people that thells people not to help the bullied kid against the bully because it will just make them take more hits? Just surrender to the bully, easy.
Thing is, a total military defeat of Russia has seemed very unlikely for all the duration of the conflict. It's been ongoing for more than two years, and the only results so far are more Ukrainian territories occupied, and more death and destruction. Peace negotiations should be kept open at all times, and it should be up to Ukrainian people to decide the terms they agree to. Sadly, it has surfaced in an investigation from Foreign Affairs that some western powers like the UK or the US pushed Ukraine to stay in the war, for reasons that we can only speculate about. So, what's the best course of action now?
It benefits NATO countries to curb the expansion of a rival power
"Rival" power is a matter of choice though, isn't it? The EU could as easily have chosen to align with Russia as with they've done with the US. In the same way that both France and Germany are powers but they're not really rival. EU should have gone its own way after 1991, NATO stopped making sense after the communist block was dissolved, and the fact that it kept growing and moving further towards the east in violation of the agreements reached last century, kinda shows that it's not a defensive alliance as much as it is subservience to US's geopolitical interests.
This isn't to say the EU should be aligned to Russia or that the war in Ukraine isn't primarily Putin's fault, or that there shouldn't be a military alliance in Europe, I'm just saying the US shouldn't belong to it, let alone dictate its terms.
"Um yes I understand that one side is a genocidal dictatorship which invaded unprovoked and the other side is a democratic state whose primary wish is not to be genocided, but let's not divide this into good and evil!"
It's insane what distances people will go to simp for fascism.
It’s rather misleading to portray Ukraine as a democracy in any sense of the word,
How bizarre.
I do not operate under the terms “the saviors” and “the baddies”, nor do I believe that the US should cease military aid to Ukraine. I’m just committed to dispelling the image of normalcy that a “good vs evil” portrayal creates.
Well, this might be controversial, but most people regard "A nation not wanting to be genocided" as pretty anodyne, and "Government wanting to commit genocide" as pretty evil, so you'll have to forgive me for not finding your "Um aktually" statements all that compelling in light of this situation, which is one of the least morally ambiguous conflicts of the 21st century.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine's self defense. What I don't agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of "aid" that never gives anything to anyone for free.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine’s self defense.
How curious, because you began by stating
to think this conflict involves “the good guys” in some way is laughable
It's almost like a classic motte-and-bailey argument.
What I don’t agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of “aid” that never gives anything to anyone for free.
Yes, here we have the horrible motivation of [checks notes] not wanting Ukraine, a country who we have fairly close ties with, annexed by an authoritarian dictatorship who constantly causes trouble for us. Truly, we are vile opportunists here.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
Russia. And if you believe this conflict is something best described in 'shades of gray', then I still regard you as simping for Russia, in the same way that Juche apologists sometimes admit fault with North Korea, but always immediately pivot to "But South Korea Just As Bad(tm)". Playing "Bothsides!" games is old hat. It's been overused. No one falls for it anymore. Sorry.
It's crazy that this isn't even the first comment I've seen this week arguing that the Ukraine war is somehow a conspiracy by the West to sell more weapons, as if Russia didn't just roll up and invade them, illegally and unprovoked
It's not a conspiracy, it's a colossal arms industry that will bankrupt the West and Russia the day wars around the world end.
Do you recognize being invaded by a foreign country is a legitimate problem a country might have to face? If you do, and you oppose private military industry, that means you support public military industry, right?
Ofc there are situations that require military defense expenses. Once said that, using the military expenses to cross all the red lines drawn in the aftermath of WW2 is not to prevent a foreign invasion, but to instigate the chapter 3.
Do you think Russia will patiently wait until every country bordering it is pointing missiles at it? Then you understand nothing about big-scale military conflicts.
By "crossing the red lines" do you mean ex-Eastern block countries joining NATO? Those countries joined out of their own free will BECAUSE they feared Russia might want to attack them. And, oh surprise, Russia did attack the one country not sucking up to them that didn't join NATO. Why should Russia's security be sacred above that of all its neighbours?
If by red lines you don't mean that, then they've clearly not been crossed. Russia and US or EU troops have not directly fought each other, and no country has used nuclear weapons so far.
