this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
894 points (97.5% liked)

World News

38500 readers
2727 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Russia has lost a staggering 87 percent of the total number of active-duty ground troops it had prior to launching its invasion of Ukraine and two-thirds of its pre-invasion tanks, a source familiar with a declassified US intelligence assessment provided to Congress told CNN.

Still, despite heavy losses of men and equipment, Russian President Vladimir Putin is determined to push forward as the war approaches its two-year anniversary early next year and US officials are warning that Ukraine remains deeply vulnerable. A highly anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive stagnated through the fall, and US officials believe that Kyiv is unlikely to make any major gains over the coming months.

The assessment, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday, comes as some Republicans have balked at the US providing additional funding for Ukraine and the Biden administration has launched a full-court press to try to get supplemental funding through Congress.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 53 points 9 months ago (4 children)

That's doesn't seem sustainable

[–] [email protected] 138 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Frankly I don't care. The US wastes trillions of dollars on military spending. We have the most advanced military in the world by a mile but all too often it ends up using it to defend someone else's financial interests or to pad the pockets of people that make their money through a war economy.

Russia can get fucked. Every cent spent on the defense of Ukraine is a fully realized fuck you to our enemy. Ukraine did what we could never do. They essentially removed Russia from the equation. Yeah they have many poorly maintained nukes but they know we will fuck their ass if they touch them. They will not be posing a real threat to anyone for generations.

We aren't spending this money on the American people and we never were going to do that anyway. Our choices are we fund people actually fighting for their life or we allow that money to get sucked into the military industrial complex for no real return. They're already getting theirs out of this, the only question that remains is do you back Republicans that have made up a nothing burger about this money because they've arbitrarily decided this is the 96th hill they'll die on, or do you you want to see the money you pay in taxes actually get put to a meaningful purpose.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Saying that it doesn't go to the American people isn't strictly true. It's not like it's cash shipped across the Atlantic. The money spent on weapons to Ukraine is injected into local American economies where weapons are produced, as wages that let people consume products which goes to the wages of people who sell those products wages in turn.

[–] gravitas_deficiency 42 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Frankly, it may come to be seen as, in terms of bang for the buck, the single most effective use of US military funding in history.

Think about it: Russia went from being considered a peer-state of the US to the second most effective army currently conducting combat operations in Ukraine. That’s embarrassing any way you spin it. They have utterly destroyed any real vestige of conventional military power they had, and Ukraine is the one who shattered not only that reputation, but also the capability.

And not just in terms of physical assets - Putin called up training officers and sent them to the front. You just… you don’t do that. It means that instead of taking another year or two to train a new generation of officers to competence… it takes 10, and even then they’re not very good, because all the institutional knowledge those instructors had was lost. The only reason they’re even considered these days is because they’re a nuclear state.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

All while letting Rob who works at Lockheed Martin buy a new truck from all the overtime he can clock since the defence industry is working full time. It's not perfect, but it's literally injecting money into the American economy to show Russia what is what without sending any troops whatsoever.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

I had not heard that. That is just madness. Its got to be one of the worst cases of unchecked hubris in history. I mean in the 1600s someone would have plunged a dagger into his neck by now. Usually people see the writing on the wall and get to finding a more competent leader but he's spent decades building this impenetrable circle of loyalists that know they must be absolutely devoted or they're going to be next on the defenestration block.

No one dares tell these men about their collosal fuck ups. Nope, everything's going great, we will have this done in 2 more months sir!

If not for nukes I think he would have been long dead by now. If not by the Russian people then surely nato would have rolled over Russia and we would be well into the process of 'denazifying' the country.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 9 months ago

It really is the cheapest way to destroy an enemy.

  1. You don't need to send your own men to die.
  2. You don't need to a full scale invasion, just let them bleed dry.
  3. Be the "good guy" in supporting Ukraine.

There really is only win win for the US.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago

We also got to see what Russia was capable of in a war, which was priceless.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We spent 5% of our military budget to help Ukraine take out most of our biggest adversary's army, and the Republicans think it's not worth the cost.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

I think he meant not sustainable for Russia

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

or to pad the pockets of people that make their money through a war economy.

It's only about that. Inbetween was some "foreign interests" (called "oil") but that's history now.

Well, that and kicking China.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 9 months ago

That money still goes to the military industrial complex. It’s used to buy US equipment and ordnance for Ukraine. And the government ain’t buying it at cost. People in the US military industrial complex are getting richer of this war.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Depends on how many citizens you can threaten/coerce into replacing them.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's easier when you "recruit" from your prisons.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Or trick foreigners into enlisting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Unfortunately it is

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

It's certainly biodegradable.