• President Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the US didn’t send it more aid.
  • House Republicans have been stalling on a $60 billion aid package for Ukraine.
  • “It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose,” he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday that his country “will lose the war” against Russia if Congress does not act to send it more aid, Agence France-Presse reported.

“It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war,” he said, per AFP.

For months, House Republicans have stalled on a bill containing $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, stipulating that it should also include increased funding for security at the US southern border.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    As an American, it is infuriating and heartbreaking to see these psychotic dipshits in Congress actively working to consign an entire fucking country of 60 million people who WANT to integrate more closely with the US and Europe to being one of Putin’s puppet states.

    I sincerely hope the GOP either lets this go through or loses power in the next couple weeks. Both outcomes are actually realistic possibilities at this point.

    • eardon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ukraine can’t win without foreign troops on the ground.

      Any additional aid is a sunk cost if you think Ukraine can defend itself or take back lost territory.

      The only reason we send aid to Ukraine is to weaken Russia and strengthen the MIC.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ukraine can’t win without foreign troops on the ground.

        What’re you basing this on? What’s your warfighting experience?

        • eardon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You wouldn’t be asking this if I said the same thing about Russia 😬

          Just shows how much you’ve succumbed to propaganda.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It would be a completely different statement then so my response would likely be different, no shit. I’d still be curious if you were basing your statement on anything or if you were just talking out of your ass.

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    We gave the Republicans a version with everyone they asked for, and they still voted against it.

  • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Republicans are going to cost this country and theirs fucking everything . Whatever happens to Ukraine I hope the GOP receives 10 fold

    • eardon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wait a minute. Ukraine never had a chance of winning without foreign troops on the ground.

      Did you also think they had a chance at taking back Crimea?

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s Zelenskyy’s job to say that. But if he doesn’t get it he’ll be in a tough situation with his troops assuming he tries to backpedal that and encourage them to keep fighting.

    I don’t understand why Europe isn’t more involved in shutting this situation down. It’s your goddamn borders at risk if this smoldering fire isn’t put out.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Europe CANT do more. They don’t have the military strength due to perpetual underfunding. It’s precisely what every US President since Bill Clinton has been bitching about. The wolf is at the door and they’re every bit as unprepared as has been claimed for the last 30 years.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        We’ve relied too heavily on NATO and the US and it’s biting is in the ass right now. A European army would be great in this exact kind of situation. But then everyone in Europe will be “but muh sovereignty”, like Europe didn’t do in 50 years what people tried to do for centuries, which is preventing us from killing each other.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          We’ve relied too heavily on NATO and the US and it’s biting is in the ass right now.

          Europe has a long term problem with it’s reliance on the US that I haven’t heard discussed. The demographics of the United States are shifting away from people of European background due to immigration from South America and Asia. Over the next 50ish years support from the US will not be a given because so many of the people simply won’t have the cultural ties.

          Why would masses of people whose backgrounds are from Venezuela, Vietnam, Sudan, or Mexico want to send billions of dollars of military aid, or enter a war, on the European continent?

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Every European country has its own army but there are no central command center, just a few countries are cooperating with each other but that’s about it I believe. And with Brexit, only France is nuclear capable now.

            • maynarkh@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              There is, and the EU has participated in over a dozen conflicts under its own flag. There is no standing army, but there are EU Battlegroups.

      • ManniSturgis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yup, we have mostly tried to befriend Russia, even after they took the Crimea. Hell, there are right wing parties who’d love to buy russian gas again even now.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      He’s not joking. They need more ammo but the truth is the United States can’t produce it fast enough.

      Europe is doing a lot but they don’t want to risk nuclear war for Ukraine.

      Really this showed nato can’t sustain long term military operations without running out of ammo. I’m pro-military but damn , I didn’t realize how little we could produce.

      • avater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        you do realize that Nato is not at war, right?

        I’m not saying Europe shouldn’t do more, but at the moment we provide Ukraine with ammunition and equipment while we also have to make sure that our own forces have enough for a possible war with russia.

        If this would be an actual war, Russia would loose it in a few weeks, no need for a long time military operation…

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          3 months ago

          Woosh. You seemed to have missed what I said trying to push your own agenda.

          We blew through years of stockpiled ammo in under a year and can’t produce enough to sustain one war.

          The United States use to have a policy of 2.5 wars at a time. We changed it to two I believe and we can’t even handle one.

          And no Russia wouldn’t lose in a couple of weeks. It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.

          • avater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.

            Yep they are also much more capable than the Russians. Remind me, how many days does the three days to Kyiv war now last? Also the Afghanistan beat the fucking Russians, to there is that.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’s naive to think the Iraqi army is more capable than the Russian army.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Yes. The two are not comparable. Russia has a lot more equipment and people than Iraq. They also have nuclear weapons and a large chemical arsenal. Also the size of Russia is immense. Just getting to Moscow would take weeks and securing all of Russia months.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Truth is that Russia had more time to prepare and the USSR stockpile to fall back on. They also do heavily rely on unguided shell artillery because of the Soviet heritage, as does Ukraine, which makes it the weapon of choice. So Russia can outpace the West in this one item, dumb artillery shells, for a year.

        Europe and the US are ramping up production, and are scheduled to outpace Russia by the end of the year. The truth is, the West was not preparing to fight this war, it was preparing to fight a war where it has overwhelming air superiority, but air capabilities take a ton of time to build with training pilots and whatnot.

        Point is, Russia has this year to push this edge as much as possible, if nothing else changes, 2025 will be heavily stacked against them. That said, shit can happen, like with the US election, but on their side as well - remember Prigozhin?

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Europe and the US are ramping up production, and are scheduled to outpace Russia by the end of the year

          Where did you see that at? America won’t even get close for several years.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            This guy has sources and seems competent and well-regarded. He also is not a click-grabbing clickbaity rah-rah Ukraine person.

            TL;DW seems to be (correct me if I’m reading it wrong here):

            • Russia has a higher production number on their main calibre dumb artillery shells than the West since they had factories where they just had to ramp up production by extending shifts in their existing plants
            • The West was not prepared for this kind of war, so they don’t manufacture main calibre dumb artillery shells at this rate, as their doctrine does not prescribe their use, they prefer air superiority tactics
            • However, both the EU and the US are ramping up main calibre shell production with each scheduled to be where Russia is at now in 18 months (if combined, they will surpass it in 12)
            • In the meantime the Czech have managed to get together a sizeable stop-gap shipment by buying from the open market using joint EU funds
            • Also, Russia has a serious problem with artillery, with the actual cannons, as their arsenal seems to be transforming from a mostly mobile self-propelled one to one dominated by towed units, with alarmingly many WWII D-10 guns, which have an effective range of 10km with very bad accuracy
            • Finally, even though Russia is producing a lot of shells, they are using even more, with them saying they need 4 million per year to sustain what they are doing now, but only producing 1.5 million per year, with a 3 million shell stockpile

            All that says that Russia has a head start on shell production and stockpiles, but it’s getting used up, while the Ukrainians need to hold on, and if both the EU and the US come through, they will be in a shell advantage by this time next year, if either the US or the EU loses political will (khm Trump), they will still be okay by end of next year-ish. On the other side, victories like Avdiivka are not sustainable for Russia either, neither manpower nor production-wise, but they can get a lot of support from China, so that may tilt stuff their way. It’s still all up in the air.

      • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well, I mean I’m not 100% sure, but I would bet that the USA has more ammunition than anyone else on the planet. We are just hoarding it.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    Republicans doing typical Republican things to no one’s benefit.

    That said, I don’t think aid in the form of sending more arms over is right. The proper humanitarian course of action would have been to send a coalition of troops over to Ukraine to forcefully shut the situation down. So many lives would have been saved had we done this earlier.

    Instead we have chosen to let the war drag on by sending weapons and supplies, letting both Ukrainians and Russians(many of which who aren’t there by choice) slaughter each other.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sending troops over runs a huge risk of causing the war to spread, bring more, wider-spread suffering. The us would love to do just that, but it comes with such a massive risk which is why they aren’t.

  • splonglo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Russia’s already lost. They traded their entire military export market for a piece of land.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Their trade with China, Iran and North Korea is through the roof. It may not be as diverse or lucrative as western trade, but it’s good enough to keep them in decent shape.

      Physical destruction needs to be visited upon Putin. The financial pressure will not be enough.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    How long until either Hamas or Russia decides to go for the snake’s head?

    EDIT: why the downvotes? Y’all too young to remember 9/11?

    • 00x0xx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Russia’s new strategy is to take it slow. Hence why they just created two new army for defense in Ukraine. They aren’t looking to risk trying to finish this quickly.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Makes complete sense. If they get Trump soon then all support will be pulled from Ukraine, possibly US Removal from NATO, and if they are super lucky they might even get US intelligence passed on to help them…

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    3 months ago

    The hard truth is it doesn’t matter how much aid we send, Ukraine is in a losing position. They need more than aid to win and that’s the problem

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The war could have ended if we gave Ukraine all the weapons it needed. We just gave them enough, not to win, but rather, not to lose in fear russian escalation (whatever that means). Russia has declared it’s at war with NATO and we’re just pussyfooting around and not taking it seriously.

      • eardon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No it couldn’t have and it’s sad you’re going to go through life thinking otherwise.

        Let me say this louder for the people in the back: Ukraine has no chance of winning without foreign troops on the ground.

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The most likely best case scenario is a frozen conflict. But Zelensky doesn’t want this because such an outcome would call into question everything he did politically up to now. As for Putin, I’m not sure.

      I think there’s a widespread implicit hope among Western policy makers that if they keep propping Ukraine up, and get Ukrainians to hold out long enough, Russia will suffer a sudden internal collapse and be forced to withdraw. That may be, but it seems equally (more?) probable that Ukraine will be the one that suffers a collapse.

        • cyd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I hope so, they’re in it for the long haul. The Vietnamese basically sacrificed two generations to beat back the US; Ukraine will need a similar level of long term commitment. The recent wobbling over mobilization is not a good sign in this respect.

    • eardon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, it’s a hard truth and those indoctrinated by propaganda refuse to realize it.

      Anyone who acknowledges reality in this situation is a ‘tankie’. That’s how bad the tribalism has gotten among these idiots.

      • Kedly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nah, its the sucking Russia off that makes you a Tankie

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well, it is either sending Ukraine some weapons, or WW3.

        I’d go with the former.

        • eardon@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No it’s not and I feel sorry for you if you believe that without any doubt.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            What other option is there?

            Let Ukraine loose its sovereignty? To let them be absorbed into a country they want no part of?

            That would just feed the insatiable hunger of Putin, and they would perform yet an other “military training exercise” in the next country. And then the next until there is nothing left than to attack NATO countries, which brings us back to to my second outcome.

            The only peaceful option can only be chosen by Putin, by just pulling their invasion forces out. Anything we throw at them is self inflicted at this point.