this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
2228 points (97.7% liked)
me_irl
5212 readers
1164 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Give Ukraine everything they need to kick the Russians off their soil. Tomahawks, F35s, a million artillery shells a week, etc... lift all usage restrictions with the exception of civilian targets and infrastructure. Once every square inch of Ukraine is back in Ukrainian hands full NATO membership and a Marshall like recovery plan.
Or assassinate Putin. As long as Putin lives Ukraine is under threat.
No. That has to go. The war will end a lot sooner, if there aren't any bridges and rails left, the Russkies can use to ship ammo and cannon fodder.
I meant civilian infrastructure. So like power stations or shipping centers that handle civilian goods or subways etc.... If it carries a single artillery round it's fair game.
How did we reach a point where the most hawkish warmongering psychos think they're left-leaning?
Fighting fascists is a long standing tradition of the left. Pick up a history book idiot.
Why did the US install a fascist government in Russia?
Cause the US government has always been more comfortable with fascist regimes. Again, pick up a history book idiot.
I see. So the reason you, as a "leftist," are clamouring for WWIII is because you want to support our pro-fascist government against another pro-fascist government. I'm not sure that's as valid of a cause as you think it is, idiot.
Did appeasing Hitler stop ww2? I'm advocating to stop ww3. That's very reductionist of you, and not the truth at all. But you know that.
Literally every single war since WWII has been justified by accusing the other side as being Hitler and being committed to endless expansion, including Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Every single time, supporters of war deployed the exact same rhetoric you're using now, despite the fact that in hindsight, no longer being immersed in the propaganda of the time, such claims were obviously untrue and absurd. It's just a generic go-to that anyone can use to justify any war.
But this time it's different
That’s unsustainable, brainless and unrealistic, who is going to pay and fight if the war continues for 5 more years, what about 10 more years?
Russia does not have the capacity to fight 5 or 10 more years (unless the US backstops them). Ukraine does not need the resources to go 10 years. They need the resources to outlast the Russians. That is probably more like 18 to 24 months. It could be less.
In my view, that is not only affordable but quite inexpensive given the benefits.
Europe and the US have contributed about $250 billion collectively over the last 3 years (Europe has contributed more). That is a small amount of money for either of them. Most of the $120 billion the US counts as Ukraine aid has been spent on new weapons systems for the United States for the US military. The US builds themselves new weapons, sends Ukraine old ones, and counts the value of the old weapons as Ukraine aid. The thing is, most of these weapons would have been decommissioned in a few years without being used (assuming the US does not enter any major wars). So, the “real” cost to the US is actually far less.
Both the US and Europe not only can sustain their current commitment. They could easily increase it without breaking a sweat. I lay no claim to it but Norway alone has a $1.7 trillion dollar pile of cash.
In my view, the real question is who is going to pay for the aftermath of Russia’s continued aggression if they are allowed to invade Ukraine?
Was it cheaper to have World War II or to stop Germany in Poland or Czechoslovakia? What would we have done in 1945 if given the chance to do it again?
Perhaps you are right that it is unrealistic. That is more an opinion than a demonstrable fact and my opinion is no better than yours.
I am not sure I can agree that it is brainless. While that is also an opinion, there are lots to facts to counter that argument.
Supporting Ukraine no matter what it takes seems like the clear and obvious choice. I guess that is why it is what every country that matters is doing (except the US—now).
Do you have a better argument?
Looks like we’ll meet again here in a few years, after thousands more will die and more territory will be lost to argue again about how this war can hypothetically end, just because Zelensky’s ego was too big.
Don't pretend like you give a shit about Ukrainian lives.
Don’t pretend like you give a shit about Ukrainian lives
Ohhhh. Nice comeback
Russia is importing North Koreans to fight. You think if Ukraine gets unlimited weapons the war will last 5 more years? What day of the 3 day invasion are we on now?
The only reason the war has lasted this long is because of the drip feeding of weapons. which was probably a ploy to extend the war and make defense contractors more rich. So yeah, end it quickly by giving Ukraine what it needs to win.
So, what's your "totally realistic"TM solution?
And if you’re wrong and the war can indeed go on for 10 more years are you prepared to deal with the consequences of the destruction of Ukraine, potentially nuclear war and destabilization of Europe?
So you don't actually want to talk solutions. I asked what is your solution? I will answer no more questions until you answer mine.
Theory that more weapons wins is based on Russia being overextended and not outproducing west by itself. Your point on "endless war being perfect US policy" is the right one. Wining a war is always terrible. It means an end to war, and just look at how sad everyone around here is about that prospect. That Ukraine could suffer far more destruction, as retaliation for the special weapons it uses for terrorism inside Russia, is far more likely, as is striking western nations as punishment for "breaking the script of a slow war of attrition with eventual Russian victory".
ATCMS got Ukraine electricity sector destroyed, instead of winning. US can produce 60 per year.
Out producing the west by itself? Bwahaahhahahahaa.
3 times the artillery shells as US+Europe combined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry_of_Russia#%3A%7E%3Atext=As+of+2024%2C+Russia+produces%2Cfrom+the+US+and+Europe.
Your propaganda bubble is not there to help you.
There is what we are currently vs. what we can. We CAN produce a lot more. We have the resource advantage, the population advantage, the money advantage, the heavy industry advantage.
It's not a propaganda bubble. It's basic fucking math
Russia is now 4th in PPP GDP. They have the heavy industry and resources. Most importantly, demonic permawar for weapons and oil profits is happiest to extort the most money from idiots to oligarchs, compared to survival necessity of believe it or not a far less corrupt country.
So yes, like I said. The resource advantage. The money advantage. The population advantage. Etc... keep slicing that pizza into thinner slices though. "Look, Russia has this 1 whole slice! And look, a big part of this other slice!" Meanwhile the west and NATO have 7/8s of the rest of the pizza. Russia's barley holding on with the woefully inadequate weapons we've been sending to Ukraine. But sure, keep telling yourself that Russia stronk.
Weapons don't win wars, people do, and Ukraine has a severe troops shortage right now that will only get worse as the war goes on. You can give them all the weapons in the world, if there's no one there to fire them, they'll still lose
Guess India just lacked the manpower to kick out the Brits. Same with the Japanese and *checks notes, 4 American ships.
Weapons absolutely matter.
I never said weapons don't matter, I said people do matter, and if the war goes on long enough then ukraine won't have any to fight the war.
The weapon difference between colonial India and Britain is nowhere near that between Russia and Ukraine. This has become a war of artillery and drones, both sides have them and can produce them at scale. This isn't some colonial era imperial war where one side has machine guns and the other has a couple muskets and swords.
Why don't you look to more modern examples where overwhelming firepower and technological superiority was supposed to win a war, like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Hell look at Korea, China was able to force the Americans to a draw after it's economy was in ruins after a decade of Japanese occupation and civil war while the u.s. had half the worlds production capacity. The Russian economy is leagues better then China was in the early 50s, and the u.s. isnt nearly as dominant.
Modern example. Sure. Desert storm 1991. The Kuwaitis sure didn't have to deal with an insurance after the Iraqis were kicked out.
And that's one thing all your examples have in common. A guerrilla insurgency fighting an invading or occupying force. That's not what will happen in Ukraine.
Give them what they need to win
The Korean war didn't involve an insurgency to a large extent. Or russias last conventional war, which they won through attrition and throwing bodies at the line.
The thing about the gulf war, and the six day war, was they relied on overwhelming aerial superiority and a quick end to the conflict. That strategy only works for so long because eventually the enemy can take out your aircraft and modern planes are hard to build so it takes a while to build up again, so you have to use them sparingly. Even if we gave ukraine f22s the Russians have jets of there own and SAMs to take them down. Both sides have ramped down there air campaigns because both sides have ways to take down the planes which are very expensive. Again this is a war of artillery, drones and armor, both sides have them and no magical million dollar weapons system from Lockheed Martin will change that.
Shock and awe only works for so long, and once it's worn off you can find yourselve in a quagmire and running out of troops.
Didn't Iraq have jets of their own? Didn't Iraq have the latest SAM systems?
I love how you're just making shit up and moving the goalposts
That is fundementally wrong. Firepower absolutely makes up for numbers disadvantage.
if a hundred Russians, Norks and other Mercenaries and their vehicles get smoked in a battle by a single cluster bomb. Rinse and repeat
These people are delusional, the liberation of Ukraine can only happen if NATO troops land on the battlefield. And we all know that means nuclear war.
It only means Nuclear War if Putin decides he's ready to die.
its not a gaurantee he flips a switch and decides to unleash fire the second NATO starts shooting at him, good chance he scuffles off and cuts his losses, if the fighting is contained to Ukraine and the border, its not a given that he'd condemn himself and his empire to death over the wasteland that is the Donbas