“Because in 2024, Ukraine is no longer facing Russia. Soldiers from North Korea are standing in front of Ukraine. Let’s be honest. Already in Ukraine, the Iranian ‘Shahedis’ are killing civilians absolutely openly, without any shame,” said Zaluzhny, adding that North Korean and Chinese weapons are flying into Ukraine. Zaluzhny urged Ukraine’s allies to draw the right conclusions. “It is still possible to stop it here, on the territory of Ukraine. But for some reason our partners do not want to understand this. It is obvious that Ukraine already has too many enemies. Ukraine will survive with technology, but it is not clear whether it can win this battle alone,” he said.
By this logic, we should allow the conflict to persist at the expense of the Ukrainian people—so long as it provides a sense of moral satisfaction for the lemmy community.
You’ll need to join the dots for me on that piece of insanity, champ.
Or you could just contribute to toss a bunch of surplus military equipment at them, helping them fight off invasion by a now embarrassed enemy of the US without costing significant resources or US lives.
Most people around here seek vindication over the genuine impact of saving lives.
The United States appears to have prioritized escalating the situation, thereby creating a demand for weapons—emphasizing profits over humanitarian concerns. Let’s be clear—the United States is not acting purely out of altruism. We live in a world where harsh realities often prevail.
Yep - that’s about as coherent as I expected.
A quick end to the war via a cessation of aid will see Ukraine annexed. There’s a reason Ukraine went to war to stop that.
Manufacturing a situation to dump surplus military hardware doesn’t meaningfully help the US - using what amounts to garbage and foreign troops to undermine a hostile state actor clearly does. There’s no altruism necessary here.
Your desperation to leap to moral purity testing and American diabolism is leading you to some atrocious positions. Fuck me - take a win when there’s one to be taken rather than throwing Ukraine to the bears.
The concern that peace could lead to Russia annexing Ukraine is valid, and it is something that good-faith diplomacy could potentially address. Simply sending weapons to Ukraine and encouraging escalation, such as bombing Moscow, only exacerbates the conflict. I cannot overlook the dangers of escalation, even if it is framed as assistance to Ukraine. The primary strategic interest of the U.S. appears to be sustaining the military-industrial complex, rather than pursuing lasting peace. My argument is that a permanent peace is possible, but it requires collaboration and a commitment to working together, rather than perpetuating conflict.
There was peace, then Russia invaded, then they’re was peace, then Russia invaded, then there was peace, then Russia invaded. This military doctrine pre-dates Russia in the region. How is peace to be established and preserved when Russia pisses all over every treaty it signs, and demonstrates time and again that they only value peace as an opportunity to regroup? Maybe you could remind us why Ukraine gave up the nukes that would have deterred conflict today.
If you keep insisting that dumping decades-old military garbage that would otherwise be scrapped doesn’t meaningfully aids the military industrial complex, I’m going to need to ask you how.