this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
22 points (76.2% liked)

World News

32326 readers
580 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He [Rep. Andy Harris] said of Ukraine’s springtime offensive that was intended to turn the tide of the war: “I’ll be blunt, it’s failed.” And he was blunt, too, about the prospects for a victory ahead: “I’m not sure it’s winnable anymore.”

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He pointing to the trillion dollar deficit the Republicans created in 2017 when they pushed through the 1.7 trillion tax gift to the mega wealthy?

That one?

That's easily fixed if you undo that financial aid package. And we are sending them old mothballed weapons while making sure we are resuppling with newer better tech. Which also creates jobs, which pumps money back into the economy.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

Don't forget that the "cost in aid" metric is using the original price paid for the gear when originally purchased and not taking into account the cost of storing and/or destroying the old equipment.

As cold hearted as this sounds, aiding Ukraine in their war with Russia is one of the best returns on investment this country has ever had. Ever.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Keeping a competitor bogged down in an "unwinnable stalemate" (I don't think it's unwinnable but he does) is a win for the US at a very low cost to the US. If he believes that the cost in human lives is too high, then maybe providing the resources to facilitate a swift victory is the way to go. The US will not do that because a prolonged conflict is actually the true win scenario for the states.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I disagree, a decisive and crushing defeat for Russia is the best outcome for the US because it's the worst outcome for China, they both lose an effective ally and the west is shown to clearly be able to defend its own.

[–] yata@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but there is no way to achieve a "decisive and crushing" defeat for Russia in the present scenario. That would require NATO to actively participate, which they never would (unless forced by Russia). So this is the best outcome for what is actually possible.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

F16s, and honestly some predators or similar.

Russia is surviving by defense in depth, their only truly functional strategy, but each serious blow, like knocking out artillery or ammo dumps, is a debt from their soviet legacy that cannot be repaid.

While western factories are barely ticking over with technology beyond vatnik dreams.

[–] zkikiz@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That leads straight to open conflict and a reorganization of the status quo though. Some people really like the status quo even if it means keeping the human meat grinder turned on.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The status quo broke last year, we're not getting it back without something happening.

Putin broke an insanely expensive peace, and the only way to get it back is to enforce "you broke it you bought it".

[–] zkikiz@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Oh I agree. I'm saying some people really like the status quo, even if it's broken.