• JohnDClay
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    263
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a war going on right now in Ukraine, helping them win it will make Russia launching a next war less likely and further off.

    • Quacksalber
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      140
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is exactly what I am thinking as well. Russia is clearly threatening the stability of the EU right now. If the EU wants to send a strong signal against aggression and meddling, it needs support Ukraine in a way that makes it clear to any would-be-adversary, that the EU is willing and capable to defend itself and its allies.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention, it makes them less reliant on the US – which as an American, means we can reduce our defense spending. Which means we can finally have really good welfare programs.

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This has been disproven so many times. You don’t lack social programs because of defense spending. Defense spending is only 3.5% of GDP. Your wildly inefficient private health care system, on the other hand, costs 16.6% of GDP and you still get worse outcomes, on average, compared to other OECD countries. If you brought your health care system in line with other OECD countries with a public health care system at around 11% of GDP, you could literally double the size of your military and still have tons of money left over to improve social programs and wipe out all medical debt (only 0.6% of GDP, but devastating to poorer families).

    • intelshill@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      what are the odds Ukraine actually takes back their territory? The vaunted summer counteroffensive was a complete and abject failure

      • galloog1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They stopped and presented most of their combat power when it looked like it was going to be a waste like Russia’s recent offensives. They shifted to an attritional fight. You are right in line with the Russian narrative though.

      • JohnDClay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        High on taking back northern regions by Kiev, the northern parts and Odessa, medium on eastern territories, and low on Crimea.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ukraine doesn’t have to take back its territory.

        Russia will be forced by NATO to do that, just like how Germany lost so many territories it conquered after WW1.

        • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You do understand that Russia has nuclear weapons and it’s ruled by psychopaths, which sort of make that sort of stuff very costly for literally the entire planet?

      • Eheran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hahahaha. Old Nato Stock is destroying Russian equipment with ease. But sure, Russia with non-existing new weapons (except on paper) is much more powerful. What kind of person are you?

      • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ukraine isn’t part of NATO, which is why you didn’t see Abrams rolling up to the Kremlin a year ago.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This isn’t a black or white “win or lose” scenario. You know that, right?

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        is just much more powerful than them

        Debatable

        even with full NATO support

        Absolutely not lmao. We haven’t seen full NATO support, because it would mean the conflict would be over in an instant. NATO wants to stay formally out of the war however and not put boots on the ground. If Russia invades a NATO country in tandem with Ukraine, it’s all over for them.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah NATO support comes with MAD. NATO support is US troops begin fighting. Ukraine is a target partly because they aren’t NATO

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure thing, not even one hour old account with two comments.

        You totally didn’t use this account to get around being defederated from this instance.

      • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So who’s winning the current 3 day special operation that totally isn’t a war?

        Edit: And by win, I mean who’s sustained more losses? Who’s lost more ground? Who’s conscripting more people?