Just to be clear, the US hasn't provided any money. They've provided that much value in assets. Those assets already existed and we're sitting around in storage, which required money to maintain anyway. They were constructed with the idea of fighting both China and Russia at the same time. They are being used to fight Russia, which decreases the level of stock that needs to be maintained to fight both of those nations at once. It's quite possibly saving money, or at least not costing nearly the price tag that is said.

[–] duderium@hexbear.net 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US has been rather open about funding the entire Ukrainian government more or less since the war began (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/28/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-request-to-congress-for-additional-funding-to-support-ukraine/), which cannot be done entirely by sending them old military equipment. And the idea that we are saving money by provoking a nuclear power has got to be one of the craziest things I have read in quite some time.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's largely arms and ammunition.

And the idea that we are saving money by provoking a nuclear power has got to be one of the craziest things I have read in quite some time.

What does them having nuclear weapons have to do with anything? Either they're in the wrong for invading a sovereign country or not (although international politics is never about right and wrong, but it's about power). Just because they have nuclear weapons they should be allowed to do whatever they want? So the US should be free to invade any other nation without consequences too, right? What a joke.

If we're removing the need to maintain old equipment, it's removing a cost. The cost was maintained to fight Russia, and this weakens Russia, so future costs are decreased. It saves money, right? It doesn't matter who is provoked. It doesn't change that fact. Sure, we're also sending aid and other things, but the goal is to create a good outcome for the US. Ukraine produces a lot of food, so securing them is in our benefit, along with any other agreements. You can disagree with this if you want, but that's international politics. Russia wanted the same except with total annexation and subservience. I'd say remaining autonomous is a better outcome for them.

[–] duderium@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does them having nuclear weapons have to do with anything?

Oh I don’t know, their ability to drive the human species to extinction? You can’t enjoy your treats if you’ve been incinerated in a nuclear blast 😉

Just because they have nuclear weapons they should be allowed to do whatever they want?

Remind me again which country developed these weapons first, and then used them against civilian targets when their enemy had already been begging to surrender for six months?

So the US should be free to invade any other nation without consequences too, right? What a joke.

Did you know that history didn’t actually begin with the Ukraine War? Are you aware of how many governments the USA has overthrown worldwide since WW2?

and this weakens Russia

Weakness is when the enemy occupies a third of your territory and most of your productive capacity (Ukraine) and builds or strengthens alliances with other growing world powers (China, India, Brazil, and others). Weakness is when even liberals begin to understand the term “dedollarization,” which has the potential to be as devastating to the USA as a nuclear war.

It saves money, right?

Once again, you don’t seem to understand that you can’t save money when you’re dead. You would also save far more money if you took a break from deep-throating the capitalist boot.

Russia wanted the same except with total annexation and subservience

Where did any Russian official announce that the total conquest of Ukraine was the goal of the Special Military Operation? The goal was the denazification of Ukraine and the protection of Russian-speaking populations in the east. So long as Nazis keep committing suicide by hurling themselves into Russian artillery bombardments, I don’t see how these goals are difficult to achieve.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are implying I agree with US invasions, which I don't.

You're also implying that since the US did it Russia should be allowed to. Is it bad when the US does it or not? If the US doing it is bad, then Russia doing it must also be bad (unless you don't actually care about invasions, but just like Russia/don't like the US). Be consistent or your opinion doesn't have any value.

[–] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago

Russia is "allowed" to do it for the same reason the US was "allowed" to invade Iraq.