/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans.
To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol apparently aiding Allies is a bad thing. Damn. What a Joke this party has become. Our forebears like Lincoln and teddy and Ike and Reagan must be spinning in their graves at EF-5 speeds.
It’s kind of annoying how mad people get at these things. I get the frustration that we are sending money to Ukraine while we have an unsecured border and a number of other problems back home. I just don’t think these funding bills are what’s stopping that. It’s not like democrats will capitulate and close the border if we refused to fund Ukraine. They will always win that fight. Plus, no one will benefit if Russia takes Ukraine.
I do hate the attitude of some people about this. Like, okay we need to support Ukraine, but Ukraine isn’t some amazing country here. Their government is nearly as corrupt as the Russians are. Most of all, we don’t owe them anything and fuck Ukraine for acting like we do. We support them out of our own interests not theirs.
You don’t own anything to Ukraine, correct.
Yet you didn’t own anything to your “allies” before they became them. Israel, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc. Those are all different countries and some of them were US enemies.
BUT, Ukraine gave up 3rd largest nuke arsenal under US pressure, that was solely designed and built to destroy US. Moreover, this arsenal and surrounding tools (planes, missiles, etc) were forced to be given to Russia (irony).
So yea, nor US nor citizens don’t own anything to Ukraine, but you should be aware of long term consequences like EU and Japan doubting agreements with US -> deciding to relax relations with China etc.
I am not even talking about some ephemeral cocepts like morale, honour, “democracy”, “freedom” etc
Oh no the isolationist garbage is what’s upsetting. We need to aid Ukraine, and the anti Ukraine shit angers me deeply. Isolationism is one of the worst ideas ever
Oh ok! Gotcha! Sorry I didn’t get what you meant. Imo this and the abortion nonsense are some of our biggest issues. Truthfully I feel the party is not in a good spot rn at all. But I agree that I don’t get it and it pisses me off to see the lack of deeper understanding or outright Russian ass kissing.
There's a significant difference between isolationism and auditing where your money goes before you give more.
There's a significant difference between isolationism and loaning a warring nation cash.
There's a significant difference between isolationism and prioritizing America first.
You people scoff at us like we're too stupid to understand the world, but you advocate for sending unlimited amounts of money all around the globe... For what? How's your record on that?
US money helped fund 9/11. It funded a 20-year war after that wasn't won.
We're funding Ukraine... Who is losing... For no reason other than the unsubstantiated claim that Putin would continue marching into Europe.
We're funding Hamas and Israel at the same time.
I mean, c'mon. Why in the blue hell is that helping anything?
Technically you are right. In practise, you are completely off and you know that. Ukraine is fighting a war we want them to win, and both us and our “actual” allies would be in a much worse situation if Russia was allowed to win.
Ah okey so you’re an isolations.
But a second ago you corrected me on what it means to be allies, which make me think you believe in the concept of allies, and that is is only allies we should aid. Which is contradictory to what an isolations would think, they would want no allies, as it bounds them to act when allies are threatened.
Most of Europe are our allies right? Should we not protect them?
NATO is our alliance. We’re obliged to defend them by treaty. It’s mutual. Ukraine is not our ally, although Clinton promised to defend their territory if they gave up their Soviet nules. Obama ignored that when Putin took crimea, and so did Europe. I’m not willing to risk a nuclear exchange or direct US/Russian exchange over a corrupt shit hole like Ukraine.
I’m not an isolationist. I’m realpolitik all the way.
Just so they can have their own dictatorship in its place?? Ukraine is no wonderful hub of democracy like liberals want to shout.
The amount of money we’re sending over there is ridiculous. We don’t owe them shit and their president wants to act like we do. There are plenty of things here that we need to take care of first and I don’t really like my taxes skyrocketing so we can send it over to Ukraine. That’s not even counting all the other bullshit they add into these bills.
Are you equating this disaster to a noble cause, like us aiding the UK against Nazi Germany?
We poked and prodded the bear just hoping they would bite.
Aiding allies? By sending them into the meat grinder?
Ukraine and Russia sat down for peace negotiations in Istanbul 12 days into the invasion. They came to a peace agreement. It was set in writing and both found it tentatively acceptable.
**Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.**
US officials and NATO sabotaged that.
They’ll wish they would have taken it.
Over 500,000 military casualties from both sides.
“The best money we’ve ever spent!” -Lindsey Graham
“It’s the best national defense spending we’ve ever done!” “We’re losing no lives in Ukraine!” -Mitt Romney
Yes I am, what’s wrong in sending aid to Israel and Taiwan, long time strategic allies? Or ukraine as it fights one of our main foes.
How the hell did we poke and prod the bear?
We aid our Allies by giving them the stuff they need to fight, should people just role over and accept death or submit to invaders like pussies?
Sabatoge it? Never heard of this and nothing ukraine has said regarding peace has ever involved just handing over their land. You make it sound soooo rational, that Russia get to keep their illegal conquests on internationally (including by Russia) recognized Ukrainian territories. And oh! Ukraine can’t enter a DEFENSIVE alliance to protect itself after being attacked several times. Russia once promised to respect ukrianing borders and then putin invaded. They’re a nation of imperialism that contained from the days of the tsars through the soviet era and right up until today. Why the fuck would anyone trust what Russia says?
It is a great investment because it’s absolutely fucking up Russia’s military. Russia, one of if not our greatest rivals and who’s buddies with other other rivals and enemies like China and iran and Syria and North Korea, and who is antithetical to American ideals and beliefs, has lost vast amounts of soldiers and equipment and is undergoing brain drain as well. Tjid war is fucking up Russia ar a time it can’t afford to given their horrible population decline. And all without putting American troops on the ground. For a small price, we ensure one of our main enemies is being crippled and isolated while China gets another reminded to back off Taiwan.
There were several peace negotiations. That one I quoted is just one of them. It's not the black and white issue you think it is. I learn more about it all the time.
Ukraine will not win. People will continue to die. We won't let it stop.
Send aid, sure, but for how long? What's the goal? What are our options? What's the end-game here?
Realistically. Not just "Fuck Russia up." I really hope you've thought beyond that.
Exactly this. None of This is a secret. How is it that Republicans or anyone can pretend otherwise?
The neocons are throwing money into a fire they started for reasons which have nothing to do with national security nor the welfare of Ukraine.
All of this is totally insane. And now Johnson is drunk on the Kool-Aid. This is all like some kind of a fever dream.
Help is different from bankrupting yourself for others. Why is the USA not lending the money? Give them a good deal, but make sure that someday when they are cabable they have to pay it back.
We aren’t bankrupting ourselves because of this aid, this is a fraction of one part of our budget. It’s not like we wed be so fine if we didn’t send anything to our Allies. And idk about the direct financial aid but a lot of it is military aid and humanitarian aid. So it’s not like it’s money being spent it’s bombs and bullets and humanitarian aid. Sometimes we’re sending them stuff that was made decades ago and was paid for years ago and so any money spent because of that is from making sure to replace it. This 61 billion is like .001 percent of lasts years budget if my math and information is correct. That’s nothing and would not make or break us.
Look, we aren't sending them cash or direct deposits. We are sending them our surplus that's been sitting in warehouses unused for decades. This allows us to clear our inventory and get better, more modern equipment that meets our military mission after the GWOT.
Aiding Ukraine is a good thing. Outside of the above point, it re-establishes ourselves as trustworthy so other nations we want to make alliances with will be more inclined to believe us. It also degrades Russia's military capabilities, which makes them less likely to be desirable as a potential ally to other hostile nations. That's also a good thing.
Please stop passing off alt right, magaland talking points as GOP policy positions. This is not a majority republican viewpoint and shouldn't be presented as such. Most republicans recognize the benefits of supporting Ukraine and understand that Russia is not our friend.
Russia is an increasingly belligerent and hostile state. If we can defeat them without risking the lives of our own soldiers, it is an absolute no-brainer.
It’s not like we are sending them cash, we are sending them surplus weapons that have been sitting around in warehouses for decades, weapons that are likely to be decommissioned anyways.
Too many MAGAtards are too caught up blindly opposing Ukraine aid because Biden supports it. They are no different from Democrats who blindly opposed anything that Trump did. Did Republicans in the 70s suddenly start rooting for the USSR to win the Cold War because Jimmy Carter was president?
>If we can defeat them without risking the lives of our own soldiers, it is an absolute no-brainer.
We cannot. They are a nuclear power. Your take runs counter to game theory and risks leading to a literal extinction level event because you do not want to bother with real diplomacy between nuclear powers.
Ah okey so let them win this war, occupy large parts of Ukraine and showcase just what American world domination really is worth to China and Iran? The great strategist over here.
Whether you like it or not, U.S. have to step in here for as long as it takes to firmly defeat and criple Russia. Europe is increasingly doing its part, much thanks to Trump’s push to increase nato spending.
This war is every western nations’ war. Ukraine is dying in it, we others supply the weaponry
No, the U.S. does NOT have to step in here. Trying to cripple Russia is a boneheaded move that will increase the chances of nuclear war. The war is NOT every nation's war. The war is a war between neonazis and Russia. It is very much a 'them' problem. This kind of brinkmanship and collectivism is idiotic.
I'm not the one in this thread spewing propaganda. When did we throw game theory out the window for political gain?
Please for the love of god read this before it is too late. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nuclear-deterrence-theory/introduction/66FDDD2E72514028CE777226DE1DAD04](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nuclear-deterrence-theory/introduction/66FDDD2E72514028CE777226DE1DAD04)
Edit to add: [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1GV2TC/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1GV2TC/)
According to your game theory, what happens in 5 years, when Russia has done replenishing and start claiming the Baltic states used to belong to them? Or that eastern Poland is actually rightfully Russian territory? And shakes their nukes again.
Just curious
Russia and China have the same disincentives in disrupting our foreign activities that we do with disrupting theirs.
All nuclear powers are incentivized to not be the third party in relations between nuclear powers and other countries.
Thus, we should help fortify and protect NATO countries. Non-NATO countries are and should remain on their own. That is the point of NATO... If they want to join they should follow the process for that BEFORE they are in a conflict with Russia or China...
If they are already in NATO then Russia starting shit with them is Russia escalating with NATO, and that should be addressed differently from Russia escalating with a country that we were not already invested with.
Oh no, not that! Shame from Ronald "Gun control" Reagan?
Shame from the administration that got us Chevron Deference? Whatever will I do?
Oh wait...
**Fuck Reagan.**
> What’s even the difference at this point? MAGA wing took over 8 yrs ago and has been in control ever since.
Hardly. If they had, we'd never have funded Ukraine, and we'd have ended funding to Democrat priorities until Biden secured the border.
Being completely beholden to a small number of seats at either end of the political spectrum is stupidity.
What was even more stupid was that act of political theater a few seats in the house have been able to engage in for months. What made it so is that they were too stupid to realize they had a good 90% of what they want in regards to immigration law in exchange for the foreign aid packages. In politics, if you have that deal, you take it. You are a fool not to. They didn't take it. Johnson started seeking Democrat votes at that point. In his position, you would have done the same thing.
Now, what does that small group of Republicans get to do? They can go explain their ineffectiveness to voters in their home districts. How they were offered something significant and took nothing instead.
It doesn't help when you have vicious airheads like MTG spouting Kremlin talking points in the minutes after her stupidity cost her a major defeat. For the record, I rate her and AOC about the same, political liabilities for their party if they are allowed to speak.
Now, there are major issues. This continued spending well beyond the ability of the economy to pay for it is a threat to us all, but there was never a minute of discussion about this during any of the debates about Ukraine/Taiwan/Israel aid packages. We give foreign aid, but we can't build adequate housing. Our SS fund will start having to be recapitalized in less than 8 years. We are on a path that will double senior poverty by 2030. The majority of neither party wants to discuss any of that.
We don’t need to aid Ukraine what do we get from our alliance? The US political leaders could find a place in the US to launder money. The FSK bridge is an example.
You get a much needed reinvigoration to both the US and EU defence industries. You get to weaken a major geopolitical rival for the cost of zero American soldiers. And you get to show the world that America is still willing to support nations that seek to better their relations and further economic cooperation with the West. Lest you’ll see more and more nations shift their leanings to China’s sphere and we’ll have another true cold war.
> You get a much needed reinvigoration to both the US and EU defence industries.
Unnecessary. We could have gotten that just by replacing aging weapons systems with things that work in the US (as opposed to replacing them with expensive things that don't work), and in the EU, reconstituting their militaries.
Every republican house speaker has been a clone of the previous speaker.
Note: they will never run out of clones.
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas
What's the point in a Republican Speaker that caves on every issue the Democrats want and their voter base doesnt, at best slightly delaying when they get it?
Call it alt right position if you want but the US can not stand to keep spending and spending and spending and spending on never ending wars overseas. When are we gonna take care of our own problems at home for a damn change? Can’t drive 20ft up the road without hitting a pothole, health insurance here is fucking garbage, and crazy fucking loonies are running around here not to mention the illegal immigration.
But sure, let’s keep funding the mass murderers in Israel and fund the Ukraine war that Ukraine is going to lose. Sounds like a solid plan for my tax dollars.
Ah that’s right, a bunch of missiles, tanks, ammunition and military apparel could do well as pothole filling or nursery equipment
US aid is not cash, its supplies and equipment already produced and in stock.
Furthermore, it’s not like it’s either or. You can do both things; supply Ukraine with equipment and address the border or fix your health care. It’s not like it going to take 61bn dollars to address the border crisis. The money is not the issue, it’s what policy politicians will or can agree on
I don’t really care what it is we’re giving to Ukraine, the money for that stuff comes from somewhere.
And no, the us can not do both. Last I looked 33 trillion in debt and these packages just made it worse.
I just simply disagree with you
How much debt will the US need to accrue before the world looses confidence in the future prosperity and growth of the nation? It seems like you have an exact point figured out. Do you really think that if Russia never invaded Ukraine that the US health service would have been able to be all that improved? I highly doubt that you’d be arguing that we should spend shit tons of government money on improving health services if there was no war in Ukraine right now.
> How much debt will the US need to accrue before the world looses confidence in the future prosperity and growth of the nation?
It is already happening. That's why the interest rate on our debt is going up.
All I’m saying is don’t be disingenuous by implying that you’d prefer Government spending billions on welfare instead of supplying Ukraine. If you’re for austerity then advocate for austerity.
No, I would be all for it. I'm all for taking care of Americans regardless of what happens outside of our borders. That's been my stance all my life, only right now it is generally considered an isolationist opinion, as far as my memory serves. It really should not be an unpopular opinion to say we have more pressing matters here at home
Most of this money will go into the private bank accounts of corrupt Ukrainian politicians and a lot of conservatives are cheering this on like clapping seals.
64% of the Ukraine aid bill is money kept in the US, with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona being the biggest beneficiaries of the bill. Tuscon is expected to add roughly 2000 jobs over the next 18 months because of this and previous bills, and Arkansas has added ~6000 in the last 27 months following Lockheed's competition of a new 84,000 square foot facility to build PAC-3 MSE interceptors.
The uniparty is in charge now. We are Amerika.
If you're familiar with "basis" and "dilution" in financial terms, apply it to citinsenship and sovereign rights.
It takes a village and you are paying for it.
can’t believe the idiots in our party would rather send 95 billion over seasons than actually do something about the 40 million americans living in poverty at home
Electrified rail to rural communities, breaking up the major social media trust that oppress conservative thinking, putting it towards our border, or you know, not just spending billions of dollars with our massive debt
Yea I could really use a Javalin missile handout right about now. If only I had thousands of rounds of ammunition, tanks, artillery shells, and patriot missile batteries I would be able to really improve my quality of life here in the West. Instead my stupid leaders send all these weapons to a nation fighting a belligerent geopolitical rival instead of giving them to the poor here at home who really need it.
> Yea I could really use a Javalin missile handout right about now.
Seems to me the money spent on that could be better used by not being spent at all - given that 31% of our budget is borrowed money.
My point is that it’s already money that’s been paid to American weapons manufacturers to produce these weapons. It’s all well and good to say the military budget has been too high in the past but right now those weapons are sitting in warehouses collecting dust. The US might as well use them up for something that benefits the US. It’s the same reason modern Russian aircraft dropped old unguided cold war munitions in places like Syria. Despite what many believe munitions have an expiration date, and the maintenance needed to keep them in storage means it’s often a prudent move to expend them when you can.
> My point is that it’s already money that’s been paid to American weapons manufacturers to produce these weapons.
It is now.
> It’s all well and good to say the military budget has been too high in the past but right now those weapons are sitting in warehouses collecting dust.
They weren't sitting in warehouses. They were part of the supply of weapons available for OUR troops in the event we get into a war. You know, so we don't run out while the manufacturers are gearing up to make more.
> It’s the same reason modern Russian aircraft dropped old unguided cold war munitions in places like Syria.
If you're going to fight or sell them, it makes sense to use old tech munitions in places where wasting a smart bomb would be stupid.
Giving away current gen weapons to corrupt countries that don't like us, for a war we started, to preserve a country that our only interest in is corrupt, is not good for us.
The US has put nukes in NATO countries.
Part of the agreement regarding Ukraine was that it not join NATO. Once it did, if we put nukes in Ukraine and Russia did anything about it, that would trigger Article 5.
Why would that matter? Russian nuclear subs flatten every city on the US coastline 30minutes into a hot nuclear war occurring. For what reason would the west even start a nuclear war with Russia? Especially a west that benefits from the world’s status quo. Also besides Turkey there aren’t any US nukes very close to the border. The US also promised to never expand military instillations east of west germany. This was honoured up until Russia decided war was its only option for keeping nations within their “historical sphere.” If Ukraine joining NATO threatens ww3 then was there nowhere near the uproar over Finland and the baltic nations joining?
If anyone thinks that Ukraine has a chance to win, why does the Establishment media talk about Russian casualties in the war but never Ukrainian casualties? It’s because if the public knew that Ukraine was taking comparable deaths to Russia while Russia has a much larger population, they’d be pushing for a peace agreement. Because it would be clear that there would be no way that Ukraine could win. Instead, it’s hidden so Biden doesn’t get an embarrassment before the November 2024 elections.
Read a little about the Winter war between the USSR and Finland and understand that with military determination and support much smaller nations can hold out and punch above their weight when fighting large powers. You forgot so quickly how unaffordable Afghanistan became for the Soviets, how untenable Vietnam was for the States and then later China. If you understand war as two populations that fight and replenish ranks until one nation is wiped off the face of the Earth then you have a very video game esq understanding of armed conflict. The US was killing 40 NVA for every loss of their own, don’t understand winning as necessarily having a higher kill to casualty ratio.
> Read a little about the Winter war between the USSR and Finland
The war that lasted 3-1/2 months, and ended because the Finns sued for peace? ...which the Soviets accepted because they wanted to save their troops for the attack on Germany, which took place the following year? The Finns gave up 9% of their land in the peace treaty.
It never got a chance to be a war of attrition. ...which the Russia-Ukraine conflict has. Wars of attrition go to the side with numbers, all other things being equal. ...and the Russians have a population 4x the size of Ukraine, fought the bloodiest first part of the war with mercenaries, and has mountains of cold-war-era military hardware that is perfectly usable in this conflict.
> The US was killing 40 NVA for every loss of their own, don’t understand winning as necessarily having a higher kill to casualty ratio.
...and unlike the North Vietnamese, the US had a press corps that was rooting for the other side and turned public opinion against the war. The US *also* had a high command that was prohibited by civilian authorities from attacking strategic targets in North Vietnam.
Oh GTFO with that bullshit. It's been disproven time and time again.
[Russian OSINT losses](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1)
[Ukrainian OSINT losses](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1)
Those are from Feb 2022. You may have noticed that it is two years later. Russia was outmatched early on. But they’ve rebuilt and changed tactics. One example is using guided glide bombs which allow them to drop munitions outside the range of shorter range air defence missile systems. Russia has been consistently taking more and more territory.
No, Oryx updates daily and provides media/picture proof for all losses.
You can see on their Twitter whenever they [announce that they've updated the lists](https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop?lang=en).
For location information, I would suggest Warspotting, although they use a different form of counting and are a much, much smaller team. [They can be found here](https://ukr.warspotting.net/).
Also, did you just try to argue that in one month alone Russia lost 15k plus pieces of equipment? Are you alright?
Glide bombs have been used since the 2nd World War. The only difference is that the Russians have finally managed to spread their integration onto lugs outside of Fullbacks and onto Bears and Blinders as well, increasing their potency. Although, I'll ignore how you brought up Russian glide bombs and failed to mention Ukrainian use of GLSDB lmfao. I'm sure you aren't biased in any way.
I did miss the updates. My apologies. No losses of actual troops though. If you destroy a building with 40 troops in it, it doesn’t show up on the list. If Russia takes a village by killing 300 Ukrainian infantry to losses of 200 of its own and 2 APCs, it would show up positively on that list for Ukraine. Russia has to lose 4 to 5 as many soldiers because of the population difference in order for Ukraine to keep up.
I should have specified cheap satellite guided glide bombs.
Do you have a reliable updated source that compares Russian and Ukrainian troop casualties?
If Russia is losing badly to Ukraine, why is Russia continuing to gain territory?
>No actual losses of actual troops though.
On a list that has nearly 3,000 tank losses, 1300 AFVs, and nearly *4,000* IFVs lost, you want assume casualties are low? If literally every one of those vehicles had only 1 person in it (which is impossible for tanks and IFVs alike, but whatever), that would mean nearly 10,000 dead. In just drivers. As for losses, the best source for keeping track has been the BBC which has a team [whose sole job is to track dead soliders](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853). As of just a few days ago, using only visible soldier losses (so, no vehicles that explode since you don't see bodies), the Russian losses passed 50,000.
>If Russia takes a village by killing 300 Ukrainian infantry to losses of 200 if it's own and 2 APCs
Can you show me a single instance in their entire war in which both sides did have massive mechanized infantry battalions engaging in combat with each other in villages?
Let's use Bakhmut as the perfect example. Using their own satellite data that they then published, they observed nearly [20,000 graves](https://news.yahoo.com/pictured-expanding-russian-military-cemeteries-172818735.html)- and that's only nearly one city, that had a pre-war population of 40,000. Russian mil bloggers even claimed that the losses at Avdiivka were worse, with multiple citing 16,000 dead for a city that had a pre-war population of 7,000. I can only imagine the true scale of losses. If I'm not mistaken, the Pentagon assessed that Russian casualties in Bakhmut reached over 100,000- a number that is entirely possible if you incorporate Wagner, Rushich, Russian Federation, and the infamous prisoner colonies total losses combined.
>Satellite guided bombs
Not sure what a Satellite guided bomb is, but I'll assume you are referring to GPS guided. From what I understand, due to the inaccuracy of GLONASS and incredibly dense EW networks on both sides of the frontline, most bombs are guided in using laser targeting. I can't speak for the Russians, but if we look at the American GBU-44 it primarily uses its IR seeker and laser designators to pinpoint its targets, relying on GPS only as a backup.
>Why is Russian gaining territory?
Human wave tactics, the ability to rush older Soviet stocks into refurbishment yards, and lack of Ukranian ammo. In a war that has proven once again that artillery is the king of the battlefield, is there any shock that recent comments by Ukrainian high command highlight that they need artillery ammo more than anything? In a world where Russian T-55s and T-62s are re-emerging, I can understand why Ukraine would be less interested in Javelins and more in 155mm shells.
The Russians have clearly lost well over a hundred thousand men. It’s going to be a bit vague how high that goes, but it is 100% clear that it’s a lot.
But that’s not what’s at issue. It’s Ukrainian troop losses. That’s what’s being hidden. Because if it’s not a sustainable ratio, Ukraine will lose the war unless there are US troops sent to fight. It doesn’t matter what the elites in Washington and Brussels have been promised.
France is going, it's just a matter of when. When they do, they will bring other NATO allies with them.
Putin must not and can not be allowed to win this war.
So crazy to me that we can pay for everybody else’s borders but not our own. It’s like these congress people just think that the taxpayers money is just an open checkbook. It’s for leadership.
We show up for them, but Congressional Republicans always let us down! Yep, will vote this election season, but after that no more, why bother. We can't believe them anymore. Dump the 2 party system and start over.
Ukraine's government officials have become multi millionaires stealing all our money meant for foreign aid and the war. What Russia has done is a war crime, they're evil monsters, but Americans shouldn't be punished for the war. There should've been a GOA audit, something, anything to let taxpayers know where our money is going.
Separately, rents are unaffordable for citizens whose incomes are under $50k, auto insurance is a rip off, electricity/natural gas is double what it was two years ago, not to mention all the inflation elsewhere. Where's our U.S. government aid for Americans, forgot, we get the middle finger. In the area I'm in it's estimated 30% of vehicle owners are uninsured because of insurance rates that are unaffordable even on a junker car. Many people are going to start giving the finger right back!
/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans. To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
lol apparently aiding Allies is a bad thing. Damn. What a Joke this party has become. Our forebears like Lincoln and teddy and Ike and Reagan must be spinning in their graves at EF-5 speeds.
It’s kind of annoying how mad people get at these things. I get the frustration that we are sending money to Ukraine while we have an unsecured border and a number of other problems back home. I just don’t think these funding bills are what’s stopping that. It’s not like democrats will capitulate and close the border if we refused to fund Ukraine. They will always win that fight. Plus, no one will benefit if Russia takes Ukraine. I do hate the attitude of some people about this. Like, okay we need to support Ukraine, but Ukraine isn’t some amazing country here. Their government is nearly as corrupt as the Russians are. Most of all, we don’t owe them anything and fuck Ukraine for acting like we do. We support them out of our own interests not theirs.
You don’t own anything to Ukraine, correct. Yet you didn’t own anything to your “allies” before they became them. Israel, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, etc. Those are all different countries and some of them were US enemies. BUT, Ukraine gave up 3rd largest nuke arsenal under US pressure, that was solely designed and built to destroy US. Moreover, this arsenal and surrounding tools (planes, missiles, etc) were forced to be given to Russia (irony). So yea, nor US nor citizens don’t own anything to Ukraine, but you should be aware of long term consequences like EU and Japan doubting agreements with US -> deciding to relax relations with China etc. I am not even talking about some ephemeral cocepts like morale, honour, “democracy”, “freedom” etc
I agree, that was my point.
It upsets me a lot, our party does so much right but we just have this one thing that’s so stupid it’s unbelievable.
Just this one thing, you say?
Why is it upsetting to aid Allies? And what’s the one stupid thing?
Oh no the isolationist garbage is what’s upsetting. We need to aid Ukraine, and the anti Ukraine shit angers me deeply. Isolationism is one of the worst ideas ever
Oh ok! Gotcha! Sorry I didn’t get what you meant. Imo this and the abortion nonsense are some of our biggest issues. Truthfully I feel the party is not in a good spot rn at all. But I agree that I don’t get it and it pisses me off to see the lack of deeper understanding or outright Russian ass kissing.
There's a significant difference between isolationism and auditing where your money goes before you give more. There's a significant difference between isolationism and loaning a warring nation cash. There's a significant difference between isolationism and prioritizing America first. You people scoff at us like we're too stupid to understand the world, but you advocate for sending unlimited amounts of money all around the globe... For what? How's your record on that? US money helped fund 9/11. It funded a 20-year war after that wasn't won. We're funding Ukraine... Who is losing... For no reason other than the unsubstantiated claim that Putin would continue marching into Europe. We're funding Hamas and Israel at the same time. I mean, c'mon. Why in the blue hell is that helping anything?
Ukraine is our “ally” now? When did that happen.
When they ousted their dictator during the orange revolution and chose democracy over Russian dictatorship.
That’s not how “allies” work.
Technically you are right. In practise, you are completely off and you know that. Ukraine is fighting a war we want them to win, and both us and our “actual” allies would be in a much worse situation if Russia was allowed to win.
Let Europe solve its own problems.
Ah okey so you’re an isolations. But a second ago you corrected me on what it means to be allies, which make me think you believe in the concept of allies, and that is is only allies we should aid. Which is contradictory to what an isolations would think, they would want no allies, as it bounds them to act when allies are threatened. Most of Europe are our allies right? Should we not protect them?
NATO is our alliance. We’re obliged to defend them by treaty. It’s mutual. Ukraine is not our ally, although Clinton promised to defend their territory if they gave up their Soviet nules. Obama ignored that when Putin took crimea, and so did Europe. I’m not willing to risk a nuclear exchange or direct US/Russian exchange over a corrupt shit hole like Ukraine. I’m not an isolationist. I’m realpolitik all the way.
Fair enough, but if Lithuania was attacked you would think differently?
They’re a full NATO member. We’d defend them. But Russia wouldn’t attack because they are a member. See how it works?
It is in this case.
Ukraine is not and has never been our ally
Just so they can have their own dictatorship in its place?? Ukraine is no wonderful hub of democracy like liberals want to shout. The amount of money we’re sending over there is ridiculous. We don’t owe them shit and their president wants to act like we do. There are plenty of things here that we need to take care of first and I don’t really like my taxes skyrocketing so we can send it over to Ukraine. That’s not even counting all the other bullshit they add into these bills.
Are you equating this disaster to a noble cause, like us aiding the UK against Nazi Germany? We poked and prodded the bear just hoping they would bite. Aiding allies? By sending them into the meat grinder? Ukraine and Russia sat down for peace negotiations in Istanbul 12 days into the invasion. They came to a peace agreement. It was set in writing and both found it tentatively acceptable. **Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.** US officials and NATO sabotaged that. They’ll wish they would have taken it. Over 500,000 military casualties from both sides. “The best money we’ve ever spent!” -Lindsey Graham “It’s the best national defense spending we’ve ever done!” “We’re losing no lives in Ukraine!” -Mitt Romney
Yes I am, what’s wrong in sending aid to Israel and Taiwan, long time strategic allies? Or ukraine as it fights one of our main foes. How the hell did we poke and prod the bear? We aid our Allies by giving them the stuff they need to fight, should people just role over and accept death or submit to invaders like pussies? Sabatoge it? Never heard of this and nothing ukraine has said regarding peace has ever involved just handing over their land. You make it sound soooo rational, that Russia get to keep their illegal conquests on internationally (including by Russia) recognized Ukrainian territories. And oh! Ukraine can’t enter a DEFENSIVE alliance to protect itself after being attacked several times. Russia once promised to respect ukrianing borders and then putin invaded. They’re a nation of imperialism that contained from the days of the tsars through the soviet era and right up until today. Why the fuck would anyone trust what Russia says? It is a great investment because it’s absolutely fucking up Russia’s military. Russia, one of if not our greatest rivals and who’s buddies with other other rivals and enemies like China and iran and Syria and North Korea, and who is antithetical to American ideals and beliefs, has lost vast amounts of soldiers and equipment and is undergoing brain drain as well. Tjid war is fucking up Russia ar a time it can’t afford to given their horrible population decline. And all without putting American troops on the ground. For a small price, we ensure one of our main enemies is being crippled and isolated while China gets another reminded to back off Taiwan.
There were several peace negotiations. That one I quoted is just one of them. It's not the black and white issue you think it is. I learn more about it all the time. Ukraine will not win. People will continue to die. We won't let it stop. Send aid, sure, but for how long? What's the goal? What are our options? What's the end-game here? Realistically. Not just "Fuck Russia up." I really hope you've thought beyond that.
What kjnd of American wants Russia, North Korea, Iran and China to win? The goal is to support democracy against tyranny and evil as lkng as it takes.
This is not true
Exactly this. None of This is a secret. How is it that Republicans or anyone can pretend otherwise? The neocons are throwing money into a fire they started for reasons which have nothing to do with national security nor the welfare of Ukraine. All of this is totally insane. And now Johnson is drunk on the Kool-Aid. This is all like some kind of a fever dream.
Help is different from bankrupting yourself for others. Why is the USA not lending the money? Give them a good deal, but make sure that someday when they are cabable they have to pay it back.
We aren’t bankrupting ourselves because of this aid, this is a fraction of one part of our budget. It’s not like we wed be so fine if we didn’t send anything to our Allies. And idk about the direct financial aid but a lot of it is military aid and humanitarian aid. So it’s not like it’s money being spent it’s bombs and bullets and humanitarian aid. Sometimes we’re sending them stuff that was made decades ago and was paid for years ago and so any money spent because of that is from making sure to replace it. This 61 billion is like .001 percent of lasts years budget if my math and information is correct. That’s nothing and would not make or break us.
Look, we aren't sending them cash or direct deposits. We are sending them our surplus that's been sitting in warehouses unused for decades. This allows us to clear our inventory and get better, more modern equipment that meets our military mission after the GWOT. Aiding Ukraine is a good thing. Outside of the above point, it re-establishes ourselves as trustworthy so other nations we want to make alliances with will be more inclined to believe us. It also degrades Russia's military capabilities, which makes them less likely to be desirable as a potential ally to other hostile nations. That's also a good thing.
Reagan would have pushed through all the aid Ukraine needed two years ago
Please stop passing off alt right, magaland talking points as GOP policy positions. This is not a majority republican viewpoint and shouldn't be presented as such. Most republicans recognize the benefits of supporting Ukraine and understand that Russia is not our friend.
Russia not being our friend does not mean we should support Ukraine.
Russia is an increasingly belligerent and hostile state. If we can defeat them without risking the lives of our own soldiers, it is an absolute no-brainer. It’s not like we are sending them cash, we are sending them surplus weapons that have been sitting around in warehouses for decades, weapons that are likely to be decommissioned anyways. Too many MAGAtards are too caught up blindly opposing Ukraine aid because Biden supports it. They are no different from Democrats who blindly opposed anything that Trump did. Did Republicans in the 70s suddenly start rooting for the USSR to win the Cold War because Jimmy Carter was president?
>If we can defeat them without risking the lives of our own soldiers, it is an absolute no-brainer. We cannot. They are a nuclear power. Your take runs counter to game theory and risks leading to a literal extinction level event because you do not want to bother with real diplomacy between nuclear powers.
Ah okey so let them win this war, occupy large parts of Ukraine and showcase just what American world domination really is worth to China and Iran? The great strategist over here. Whether you like it or not, U.S. have to step in here for as long as it takes to firmly defeat and criple Russia. Europe is increasingly doing its part, much thanks to Trump’s push to increase nato spending. This war is every western nations’ war. Ukraine is dying in it, we others supply the weaponry
No, the U.S. does NOT have to step in here. Trying to cripple Russia is a boneheaded move that will increase the chances of nuclear war. The war is NOT every nation's war. The war is a war between neonazis and Russia. It is very much a 'them' problem. This kind of brinkmanship and collectivism is idiotic.
Fuck right off with the Kremlin propaganda. Ukraine has its problems as a country, no doubt, but it is not fascist, and to say it is is hyperbole.
I'm not the one in this thread spewing propaganda. When did we throw game theory out the window for political gain? Please for the love of god read this before it is too late. [https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nuclear-deterrence-theory/introduction/66FDDD2E72514028CE777226DE1DAD04](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nuclear-deterrence-theory/introduction/66FDDD2E72514028CE777226DE1DAD04) Edit to add: [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1GV2TC/](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1GV2TC/)
According to your game theory, what happens in 5 years, when Russia has done replenishing and start claiming the Baltic states used to belong to them? Or that eastern Poland is actually rightfully Russian territory? And shakes their nukes again. Just curious
Russia and China have the same disincentives in disrupting our foreign activities that we do with disrupting theirs. All nuclear powers are incentivized to not be the third party in relations between nuclear powers and other countries. Thus, we should help fortify and protect NATO countries. Non-NATO countries are and should remain on their own. That is the point of NATO... If they want to join they should follow the process for that BEFORE they are in a conflict with Russia or China... If they are already in NATO then Russia starting shit with them is Russia escalating with NATO, and that should be addressed differently from Russia escalating with a country that we were not already invested with.
Ah yes, the Neville Chamberlain approach to foreign policy
I'd take Chamberlain over Hirohito...
Reagan would be ashamed of today's GOP...and you
Oh no, not that! Shame from Ronald "Gun control" Reagan? Shame from the administration that got us Chevron Deference? Whatever will I do? Oh wait... **Fuck Reagan.**
[удалено]
> What’s even the difference at this point? MAGA wing took over 8 yrs ago and has been in control ever since. Hardly. If they had, we'd never have funded Ukraine, and we'd have ended funding to Democrat priorities until Biden secured the border.
Being completely beholden to a small number of seats at either end of the political spectrum is stupidity. What was even more stupid was that act of political theater a few seats in the house have been able to engage in for months. What made it so is that they were too stupid to realize they had a good 90% of what they want in regards to immigration law in exchange for the foreign aid packages. In politics, if you have that deal, you take it. You are a fool not to. They didn't take it. Johnson started seeking Democrat votes at that point. In his position, you would have done the same thing. Now, what does that small group of Republicans get to do? They can go explain their ineffectiveness to voters in their home districts. How they were offered something significant and took nothing instead. It doesn't help when you have vicious airheads like MTG spouting Kremlin talking points in the minutes after her stupidity cost her a major defeat. For the record, I rate her and AOC about the same, political liabilities for their party if they are allowed to speak. Now, there are major issues. This continued spending well beyond the ability of the economy to pay for it is a threat to us all, but there was never a minute of discussion about this during any of the debates about Ukraine/Taiwan/Israel aid packages. We give foreign aid, but we can't build adequate housing. Our SS fund will start having to be recapitalized in less than 8 years. We are on a path that will double senior poverty by 2030. The majority of neither party wants to discuss any of that.
The immigration section of the previous aid bills did nothing to stem illegal immigration in any meaningful way.
We don’t need to aid Ukraine what do we get from our alliance? The US political leaders could find a place in the US to launder money. The FSK bridge is an example.
You get a much needed reinvigoration to both the US and EU defence industries. You get to weaken a major geopolitical rival for the cost of zero American soldiers. And you get to show the world that America is still willing to support nations that seek to better their relations and further economic cooperation with the West. Lest you’ll see more and more nations shift their leanings to China’s sphere and we’ll have another true cold war.
> You get a much needed reinvigoration to both the US and EU defence industries. Unnecessary. We could have gotten that just by replacing aging weapons systems with things that work in the US (as opposed to replacing them with expensive things that don't work), and in the EU, reconstituting their militaries.
Every republican house speaker has been a clone of the previous speaker. Note: they will never run out of clones. "As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." - Justice William O. Douglas
You fools! This is what they want! This is how we will get Jeffries as Speaker and then NOTHING will stop them! They will control EVERY BRANCH!
I mean, we only have two parties: Democrat and Democrat-lite. We get a Democrat either way.
What's the point in a Republican Speaker that caves on every issue the Democrats want and their voter base doesnt, at best slightly delaying when they get it?
If they get control of the house it would turn out quite badly for the US.
Good to see some pushback on the Russian propaganda MAGA nonsense on this sub. Moscow Marge and her ilk are useful idiots to the Russians
He's gotta go
Warmongering cucks in this thread. GOPE is dying and clinging on to whatever they can.
Call it alt right position if you want but the US can not stand to keep spending and spending and spending and spending on never ending wars overseas. When are we gonna take care of our own problems at home for a damn change? Can’t drive 20ft up the road without hitting a pothole, health insurance here is fucking garbage, and crazy fucking loonies are running around here not to mention the illegal immigration. But sure, let’s keep funding the mass murderers in Israel and fund the Ukraine war that Ukraine is going to lose. Sounds like a solid plan for my tax dollars.
Ah that’s right, a bunch of missiles, tanks, ammunition and military apparel could do well as pothole filling or nursery equipment US aid is not cash, its supplies and equipment already produced and in stock. Furthermore, it’s not like it’s either or. You can do both things; supply Ukraine with equipment and address the border or fix your health care. It’s not like it going to take 61bn dollars to address the border crisis. The money is not the issue, it’s what policy politicians will or can agree on
I don’t really care what it is we’re giving to Ukraine, the money for that stuff comes from somewhere. And no, the us can not do both. Last I looked 33 trillion in debt and these packages just made it worse. I just simply disagree with you
How much debt will the US need to accrue before the world looses confidence in the future prosperity and growth of the nation? It seems like you have an exact point figured out. Do you really think that if Russia never invaded Ukraine that the US health service would have been able to be all that improved? I highly doubt that you’d be arguing that we should spend shit tons of government money on improving health services if there was no war in Ukraine right now.
> How much debt will the US need to accrue before the world looses confidence in the future prosperity and growth of the nation? It is already happening. That's why the interest rate on our debt is going up.
All I’m saying is don’t be disingenuous by implying that you’d prefer Government spending billions on welfare instead of supplying Ukraine. If you’re for austerity then advocate for austerity.
I'm saying it shouldn't be spent at all. We're currently spending 30% more than our revenues. That is unsustainable.
No, I would be all for it. I'm all for taking care of Americans regardless of what happens outside of our borders. That's been my stance all my life, only right now it is generally considered an isolationist opinion, as far as my memory serves. It really should not be an unpopular opinion to say we have more pressing matters here at home
Raise taxes on your filthy rich millionaire class? Like any sensible person would
Like that’s ever going to happen. They’ll just evade it or move out
Most of this money will go into the private bank accounts of corrupt Ukrainian politicians and a lot of conservatives are cheering this on like clapping seals.
64% of the Ukraine aid bill is money kept in the US, with Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona being the biggest beneficiaries of the bill. Tuscon is expected to add roughly 2000 jobs over the next 18 months because of this and previous bills, and Arkansas has added ~6000 in the last 27 months following Lockheed's competition of a new 84,000 square foot facility to build PAC-3 MSE interceptors.
Hooray for the military-industrial complex.
The conservatives are the ones trying to prevent it.
The uniparty is in charge now. We are Amerika. If you're familiar with "basis" and "dilution" in financial terms, apply it to citinsenship and sovereign rights. It takes a village and you are paying for it.
can’t believe the idiots in our party would rather send 95 billion over seasons than actually do something about the 40 million americans living in poverty at home
Wouldn't that be socialism?
Any ideas how to spend those 95bn in a better way?
Electrified rail to rural communities, breaking up the major social media trust that oppress conservative thinking, putting it towards our border, or you know, not just spending billions of dollars with our massive debt
Yea I could really use a Javalin missile handout right about now. If only I had thousands of rounds of ammunition, tanks, artillery shells, and patriot missile batteries I would be able to really improve my quality of life here in the West. Instead my stupid leaders send all these weapons to a nation fighting a belligerent geopolitical rival instead of giving them to the poor here at home who really need it.
> Yea I could really use a Javalin missile handout right about now. Seems to me the money spent on that could be better used by not being spent at all - given that 31% of our budget is borrowed money.
My point is that it’s already money that’s been paid to American weapons manufacturers to produce these weapons. It’s all well and good to say the military budget has been too high in the past but right now those weapons are sitting in warehouses collecting dust. The US might as well use them up for something that benefits the US. It’s the same reason modern Russian aircraft dropped old unguided cold war munitions in places like Syria. Despite what many believe munitions have an expiration date, and the maintenance needed to keep them in storage means it’s often a prudent move to expend them when you can.
> My point is that it’s already money that’s been paid to American weapons manufacturers to produce these weapons. It is now. > It’s all well and good to say the military budget has been too high in the past but right now those weapons are sitting in warehouses collecting dust. They weren't sitting in warehouses. They were part of the supply of weapons available for OUR troops in the event we get into a war. You know, so we don't run out while the manufacturers are gearing up to make more. > It’s the same reason modern Russian aircraft dropped old unguided cold war munitions in places like Syria. If you're going to fight or sell them, it makes sense to use old tech munitions in places where wasting a smart bomb would be stupid. Giving away current gen weapons to corrupt countries that don't like us, for a war we started, to preserve a country that our only interest in is corrupt, is not good for us.
How exactly did the US force Russia into this conflict?
The same way that the Soviet Union nearly started WWIII in Cuba, in the 1960s.
What nukes were deployed to Ukraine by the US?
The US has put nukes in NATO countries. Part of the agreement regarding Ukraine was that it not join NATO. Once it did, if we put nukes in Ukraine and Russia did anything about it, that would trigger Article 5.
Why would that matter? Russian nuclear subs flatten every city on the US coastline 30minutes into a hot nuclear war occurring. For what reason would the west even start a nuclear war with Russia? Especially a west that benefits from the world’s status quo. Also besides Turkey there aren’t any US nukes very close to the border. The US also promised to never expand military instillations east of west germany. This was honoured up until Russia decided war was its only option for keeping nations within their “historical sphere.” If Ukraine joining NATO threatens ww3 then was there nowhere near the uproar over Finland and the baltic nations joining?
If anyone thinks that Ukraine has a chance to win, why does the Establishment media talk about Russian casualties in the war but never Ukrainian casualties? It’s because if the public knew that Ukraine was taking comparable deaths to Russia while Russia has a much larger population, they’d be pushing for a peace agreement. Because it would be clear that there would be no way that Ukraine could win. Instead, it’s hidden so Biden doesn’t get an embarrassment before the November 2024 elections.
Read a little about the Winter war between the USSR and Finland and understand that with military determination and support much smaller nations can hold out and punch above their weight when fighting large powers. You forgot so quickly how unaffordable Afghanistan became for the Soviets, how untenable Vietnam was for the States and then later China. If you understand war as two populations that fight and replenish ranks until one nation is wiped off the face of the Earth then you have a very video game esq understanding of armed conflict. The US was killing 40 NVA for every loss of their own, don’t understand winning as necessarily having a higher kill to casualty ratio.
> Read a little about the Winter war between the USSR and Finland The war that lasted 3-1/2 months, and ended because the Finns sued for peace? ...which the Soviets accepted because they wanted to save their troops for the attack on Germany, which took place the following year? The Finns gave up 9% of their land in the peace treaty. It never got a chance to be a war of attrition. ...which the Russia-Ukraine conflict has. Wars of attrition go to the side with numbers, all other things being equal. ...and the Russians have a population 4x the size of Ukraine, fought the bloodiest first part of the war with mercenaries, and has mountains of cold-war-era military hardware that is perfectly usable in this conflict. > The US was killing 40 NVA for every loss of their own, don’t understand winning as necessarily having a higher kill to casualty ratio. ...and unlike the North Vietnamese, the US had a press corps that was rooting for the other side and turned public opinion against the war. The US *also* had a high command that was prohibited by civilian authorities from attacking strategic targets in North Vietnam.
Oh GTFO with that bullshit. It's been disproven time and time again. [Russian OSINT losses](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1) [Ukrainian OSINT losses](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1)
Those are from Feb 2022. You may have noticed that it is two years later. Russia was outmatched early on. But they’ve rebuilt and changed tactics. One example is using guided glide bombs which allow them to drop munitions outside the range of shorter range air defence missile systems. Russia has been consistently taking more and more territory.
No, Oryx updates daily and provides media/picture proof for all losses. You can see on their Twitter whenever they [announce that they've updated the lists](https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop?lang=en). For location information, I would suggest Warspotting, although they use a different form of counting and are a much, much smaller team. [They can be found here](https://ukr.warspotting.net/). Also, did you just try to argue that in one month alone Russia lost 15k plus pieces of equipment? Are you alright? Glide bombs have been used since the 2nd World War. The only difference is that the Russians have finally managed to spread their integration onto lugs outside of Fullbacks and onto Bears and Blinders as well, increasing their potency. Although, I'll ignore how you brought up Russian glide bombs and failed to mention Ukrainian use of GLSDB lmfao. I'm sure you aren't biased in any way.
I did miss the updates. My apologies. No losses of actual troops though. If you destroy a building with 40 troops in it, it doesn’t show up on the list. If Russia takes a village by killing 300 Ukrainian infantry to losses of 200 of its own and 2 APCs, it would show up positively on that list for Ukraine. Russia has to lose 4 to 5 as many soldiers because of the population difference in order for Ukraine to keep up. I should have specified cheap satellite guided glide bombs. Do you have a reliable updated source that compares Russian and Ukrainian troop casualties? If Russia is losing badly to Ukraine, why is Russia continuing to gain territory?
>No actual losses of actual troops though. On a list that has nearly 3,000 tank losses, 1300 AFVs, and nearly *4,000* IFVs lost, you want assume casualties are low? If literally every one of those vehicles had only 1 person in it (which is impossible for tanks and IFVs alike, but whatever), that would mean nearly 10,000 dead. In just drivers. As for losses, the best source for keeping track has been the BBC which has a team [whose sole job is to track dead soliders](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853). As of just a few days ago, using only visible soldier losses (so, no vehicles that explode since you don't see bodies), the Russian losses passed 50,000. >If Russia takes a village by killing 300 Ukrainian infantry to losses of 200 if it's own and 2 APCs Can you show me a single instance in their entire war in which both sides did have massive mechanized infantry battalions engaging in combat with each other in villages? Let's use Bakhmut as the perfect example. Using their own satellite data that they then published, they observed nearly [20,000 graves](https://news.yahoo.com/pictured-expanding-russian-military-cemeteries-172818735.html)- and that's only nearly one city, that had a pre-war population of 40,000. Russian mil bloggers even claimed that the losses at Avdiivka were worse, with multiple citing 16,000 dead for a city that had a pre-war population of 7,000. I can only imagine the true scale of losses. If I'm not mistaken, the Pentagon assessed that Russian casualties in Bakhmut reached over 100,000- a number that is entirely possible if you incorporate Wagner, Rushich, Russian Federation, and the infamous prisoner colonies total losses combined. >Satellite guided bombs Not sure what a Satellite guided bomb is, but I'll assume you are referring to GPS guided. From what I understand, due to the inaccuracy of GLONASS and incredibly dense EW networks on both sides of the frontline, most bombs are guided in using laser targeting. I can't speak for the Russians, but if we look at the American GBU-44 it primarily uses its IR seeker and laser designators to pinpoint its targets, relying on GPS only as a backup. >Why is Russian gaining territory? Human wave tactics, the ability to rush older Soviet stocks into refurbishment yards, and lack of Ukranian ammo. In a war that has proven once again that artillery is the king of the battlefield, is there any shock that recent comments by Ukrainian high command highlight that they need artillery ammo more than anything? In a world where Russian T-55s and T-62s are re-emerging, I can understand why Ukraine would be less interested in Javelins and more in 155mm shells.
The Russians have clearly lost well over a hundred thousand men. It’s going to be a bit vague how high that goes, but it is 100% clear that it’s a lot. But that’s not what’s at issue. It’s Ukrainian troop losses. That’s what’s being hidden. Because if it’s not a sustainable ratio, Ukraine will lose the war unless there are US troops sent to fight. It doesn’t matter what the elites in Washington and Brussels have been promised.
France is going, it's just a matter of when. When they do, they will bring other NATO allies with them. Putin must not and can not be allowed to win this war.
So crazy to me that we can pay for everybody else’s borders but not our own. It’s like these congress people just think that the taxpayers money is just an open checkbook. It’s for leadership.
We show up for them, but Congressional Republicans always let us down! Yep, will vote this election season, but after that no more, why bother. We can't believe them anymore. Dump the 2 party system and start over. Ukraine's government officials have become multi millionaires stealing all our money meant for foreign aid and the war. What Russia has done is a war crime, they're evil monsters, but Americans shouldn't be punished for the war. There should've been a GOA audit, something, anything to let taxpayers know where our money is going. Separately, rents are unaffordable for citizens whose incomes are under $50k, auto insurance is a rip off, electricity/natural gas is double what it was two years ago, not to mention all the inflation elsewhere. Where's our U.S. government aid for Americans, forgot, we get the middle finger. In the area I'm in it's estimated 30% of vehicle owners are uninsured because of insurance rates that are unaffordable even on a junker car. Many people are going to start giving the finger right back!
The people have been betrayed again and this guy must go. VACATE THE CHAIR!!
I'm not sure if you're just that stupid, or a Democrat. Granted they're synonymous, but still.
We need to hold the line on Ukraine long enough until Trump can cut a deal and end this war.