• RampageDon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Doesn’t it take only 1 of the counties with veto power to shut this down? Why would Russia ever approve?

    Edit: Had a brain fart. Thanks for the corrections. Leaving my dumb comment anyway.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Which is why I’m baffled why people still spread the myth that Russia invaded to ‘stop nato aggression.’

        Like, firstly you’re fucking wrong, but if you want to wear that L like a medal then go for it. Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.

        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Because that’s what Russia has been repeating for the past two years. Some people believe lies whan they’re repeated often enough.

          A major reason may have been to stop Ukraine’s entry in Nato though.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’, but it’s not hard to imagine it as a some kind of response to NATO’s continued expansion around them.

          NATO hasn’t been in any direct operations against Russia but they have been involved in the ME where they have been active.

          I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

          • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            I’m not sure who would say that it was to ‘stop NATO aggression’

            I think the line might be “in response to” or similar, but it’s parroted by tankies and russophiles.

            NATO’s continued expansion around them.

            Can we imagine any reasons why Russia’s neighbors might want to join a defensive pact to protect against Russia? No? Oh well, must be US imperialism then.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not saying there isn’t reason for those countries to want to joint an alliance against their imperialist neighbor, but honestly it’s kinda hard not to see how NATO’s influence has been abused for purposes other than defense.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Nato: Invades the entire middle east and fucks it up to steal oil

              You: “What a great defensive alliance”

              Where those WMD’s in Iraq at?

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think of it a lot in the same way as the US’s pacific ocean and Caribbean territorial expansion and involvement in central america as a response to the Cuban Missile crisis and Soviet posturing.

            The “Cuban” missile crisis was started by USA putting nukes in Turkey.

  • NIB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    That’s 20 billion per year. The EU’s alone defense spending for 2023 was 270bil. This is not a lot of money.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah, this is less the cavalry is here and more “we’ve committed 3 peanuts, which is better than no peanuts”. It’s probably enough to help Ukraine a bit, assuming they can agree to it and fund it as committed.

      It’s unclear if this is humanitarian, non-lethal or general military aid, from the non-paywalled section of the article.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Every dollar that goes to funding nazis in Ukraine for a war they have no chance of winning is a dollar that can’t go towards funding genocide in the middle east. Of course that money should be going into public services instead, but as if they are ever going to allow that to happen.

    EDIT: NATO nazis were fast to pounce on this one, HA!

    • StarMage@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That condescending tone of yours paints the whole Ukraine with a nazi brush. While I believe it does reach azov battalion, the vast majority of Ukrainian army and goverment are not nazis, despite what RT might call them. In fact, I think funding to Ukraine should Increase so it can finally defeat Russia. Not only it would likely destabilize russian goverment, which consists of oil billionaires with a past of crime, corrupt bootlickers and, honestly, unapologetic nazis. But it also would disrupt russian funding for alt-right groups all over the world, which would be a major win against nazism.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That would have been a good point when the war was just started going, but we know better than that now. If you can’t see what Ukraine was all about at this point than i’m afraid there’s nothing I can say to change your mind.

        • StarMage@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The only thing that changed since the start is western faith in Ukrainian victory. I doubt it too. Perhaps something inside Russia has to happen, otherwise the human cost would be too great. NATO intervention could turn it around, but it would be very risky, I don’t think it would happen.

          As for the goverments from my point of view, Ukrainian goverment seems to be more impatient and anixious meanwhile the Russian goverment is getting more shameless and ruthless. I haven’t seen any major revelations about either one that would somehow prove that Ukrainian gov are nazis and Russia is a better option.

          The main reason I want Ukraine to win is not my belief that countries deserve to be independent and not have their land taken away by nearby imperialist powers. I do believe that, but the main reason is I want the current russian goverment to weaken and possibly depose Putin and reject imperialist ideas, to stop the money from crippled russian economy from going to war instead of public services. That would lay the ground work for further reforms, maybe finally make russia free. It would not be easy, but it is the best realistic option.

          I fear if Russia wins it would be more isolated and more tyranical than ever, akin to Iran or North Korea. The cult of war will completely take over society and individual freedoms will be lost. And the economy will not bear for much longer, that is for sure.

          Living in Russia is terrible and I will probably emigrate to another country soon. Luckly my english skills are good enough.

          What I fear most besides staying in Russia is that I will grow old and never see it prosper.

          • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The only thing that changed since the start is western faith in Ukrainian victory.

            They’ve lost 20% of their country forever man. Get your head out of your ass.

          • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You can’t take over a country that used to belong to you and is literally at your border and call that imperialism. You are being lied to.

            • StarMage@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah I am being lied to. I have been fed lies my whole life. I was told that Russia is the most just and fair country. That every war waged was in self defence and all the people within its borders joined willingly and were happy.

              But I was able to see through it. I have learnd that all territorial expansion was fueled by ruthless wars and genocides. Russian expanse to the east is no better than USA expansion to the west displacing and subjigating all people who lived there. I have learned of the terrible fates of people who lived here. Not only of strangers, but also those in my family tree who lived through the harshest times of oppression during USSR.

              But most importantly I learned that countries don’t have a right to own other countries. It is the definition of imperialism after all.

              And Ukraine is perhaps one of the most deserving countries to exist. Ukrainians have fought for so long to gain sovereignty and indepndence, but were betrayed. First thrown under the bus by Russian empire, then taken over by USSR during the revolution. And now Russia is trying to subjigate Ukraine again. I can only hope that this time this senseless conquest will fail.

              • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                then taken over by USSR during the revolution. And now Russia is trying to subjigate Ukraine again. I can only hope that this time this senseless conquest will fail.

                Wow, you’re right; you really have been lied to, especially about history.

                Also, don’t whine about the USSR. You got what you wanted; it was forcefully destroyed, and now you’re reaping the consequences.

                • StarMage@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Leave it to the ignorant westeners to teach other people their own history. Surely you know better.

                  Also, the USSR crumbled on its own. Its flawed economic system could not bear all the millitary spending. And we are all better for it. Now its remains are poisoning todays Russia, but it will crumble as well, sooner or later.

  • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I know NATO doesn’t have unlimited resources, but given that this is an explicit proxy war with Russia, doesn’t $100bn seem kind of paltry? That makes it appear that they’re planning on continuing cash infusions from the US.

    • Num10ck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      might be chump change for you but likely its tied to Ukraine’s conceivable ability to pay down such debt. although in reality it would likely be mostly written off when things quiet down… especially since the moneys would be mostly spent on NATO military goods.

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Well IIRC, for America, the funding money amount for Ukraine is usually just an estimate of the worth of already manufactured goods, mainly of weapons that we have stored that we weren’t gonna use in the first place, and only a small portion of the dollar amount is stuff like clothes, food, etc. which would be seen as an actual cost to the US. We have sent Bradleys and M1 Abrams (and some European countries sent Leopard 2A4s? and Leclercs I think), but I’m pretty sure they weren’t in use by the military and weren’t planned to be upgraded for use any time soon (but I’m just guessing, I can’t Google it rn, I may just be completely wrong on that).

    • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      EDIT: I’m saying that the US can’t be relied on to continue supporting the war effort because the GOP in particular has become increasingly opposed to funding it.

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Maybe a little. The US had a bill for providing 60bn so 100bn is quite a bit more, though maybe not significantly considering all the countries involved.

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’d be so much better for everyone if we just took all of the funding going to Israel and redirected it to Ukraine. And then we nuke Israel or smthn idk

    • NIB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say “why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?”.

      • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        If my country was a Nazi shithole then I’d have the same opinion yes. If my country was one of the most corrupt states in the world and run by a puppet fascist government of the USA, then yes, I’d have the same opinion. if my country’s puppet rulers did everything they could to provoke an invasion and then cry about it then I wouldn’t have any sympathy.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sovereignty of a nation and an ethnic group’s right not to be genocided by their neighbor isn’t something worth spending money on?

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The problem NATO has with this proxy war can’t be solved by printing money. The issue lies in the lack of industrial production in the west, and you can’t just create a huge industry for producing weapons and ammunition out of whole cloth.

    This will be a fantastic vehicle for pushing for austerity in Europe though. The oligarchs have been very upset that Europeans enjoy a social safety net and things like pensions. The need for massive military spending will be a perfect justification for stripping these rights away from the workers. Europeans are about to start enjoying American style freedoms.

    • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Industrial production is not a significant issue the collective West has within the context of supplying Ukraine armaments and ammunition.

      The issue is a lack of, or decline in, domestic political capital in key member states, cohesive unified policy, and a long term strategy.

      Now, if the United States was completely removed from the equation, then industrial production capacity constraints, especially around munitions, may become a real issue.

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          US and Western officials insist that although Russia has been able to jump-start its factory lines, in part because it has the advantage of being a managed economy under the control of an autocrat, capitalist western nations will eventually catch up and produce better equipment.

          I mean the article seemingly agrees with CircusCritic, they’re only outproducing because of lack of funding from NATO countries in combination with the control Russia has over its own economy. If NATO, NATO countries, or the US can actually begin to deliver a lot of funds, production will increase rapidly.

          We have industries for creating these armaments, they just don’t have the incentive to create a lot due to a lack of funding.

          The when is of course an important question. Providing 100 billion to Ukraine in funding in 2 years will have a different impact than 100 billion next month.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            As I explained in my original comment, you can’t just create such industries overnight. These require building out supply chains, training workers, and so on. You can just look at how great reshoring chip production is going despite untold billions being poured into that to get an idea of what a monumental task this is.

            Building out an industry on this scale is going to take years if not decades. Providing 100 billion to Ukraine in funding isn’t going to do jack shit. Ukraine is running out of weapons and ammunition. Replacements for any of these don’t exist, and production capacity is insufficient to make any actual difference in the foreseeable future.

            Highly recommend reading this article from RUSI explaining these problems https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine

          • BakerBagel@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Does the west actually have those industries? Turns out decades of outsourcing as much production as possible overseas was a bad idea. Who would have thunk it.

            • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Munition factories aren’t typically outsourced, but a lot were decommissioned after the Cold War ended. That problem is especially acute within European NATO member states.

              But, in the context of NATO, as a whole, just supplying Ukraine for their existing conflict, production isn’t the limiting factor.

        • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not certain if trolling or just unfamiliar, but Republicans politicians are doing what they can to not get in Russia’s way or doing things that benefit Russia. For instance, Republicans aren’t really supporting providing additional funding to Ukraine. Republicans have also used an FBI informant who was bribed by Russia as evidence to try to impeach Joe Biden.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I dont support Russia, but am vehemently against aid to Ukraine for a variety of reasons. American should have never been involved in any of it, just like with Isreal.

            • Rakonat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Russia invaded Ukraine on false pretexts with the intent to use military action to overthrow a democratically elected government after their last attempt at coup/puppet government failed when their patsy fled the country after his failed attempt.

              After the US failed to act in 2014 despite evidence of Russia starting proxy wars against Ukraine and annexing land illegally, and further muddied by Trump’s attempts to withhold defense aid packages he was obligated by law to deliver.

              So yes, US involvement has been justified and Ukraine has not only been happy for the assistance but requested more to ensure their freedom and prosperity doesn’t vanish tomorrow with Putin’s intent to rape the entire country.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                How is the US justified to meddle in the politics of countries on the other side of the planet? What would the US do if china was giving money to Mexico or Cuba?

                • wieson@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Because Ukraine asked.

                  What would be the problem with China giving money to Cuba and Mexico?

            • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              As it is now, Russia controlling as much oil as they do gives them power over us, them controlling Ukraine will also help them affect food prices as well as just encouraging them to continue to attack their enemies. Europe has significant reason to jump to prevent Russia’s advancement, European countries being our allies is another reason to stop Russia’s push into Europe.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Sorry, but these are just propaganda talking points. Russia has very little power over the western nations, and they were never going to invade the rest of Europe. The whole war was completely avoidable, but that is what the government and media will conveniently not mention. The whole narrative is an objective pile of bullshit.

                • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Power over Western nations may have been a strong word, but they do have influence. We don’t know their plan, but we can look at past trends: they’ve attacked Georgia, they’ve attacked and controlled Crimea, they’re attacking and controlling parts of Ukraine. Not fighting Russia hasn’t stopped Russia, so with Russia now at war with Ukraine, stopping them there seems like a necessity. Maybe now they’ll learn that imperialism is dead, and looked badly on by other nations. They shouldn’t be rewarded for this bad behavior against our allies.

                  You’re right, the war could have been avoided, but Russia decided not to avoid war. All they need to do is leave ukraine and it will stop, but they won’t.

            • Rakonat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Marjorie Greene has gone on record supporting Russia. And Trump refuses to criticize Russia.

        • Rakonat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Literally the entire GOP with standouts like Greene going far as to say we should cut all aid to Ukraine and shift to helping Russia. The entire right wing of our government took the red too literally and jumped in bed with former Soviet agents for a pocket full of rubles.

            • kandoh@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              What if chattel slavery was actually net benefit for black people because they got to leave Africa and learn useful skills?

              That’s what you sound like with your ‘maybe Ukrainians would be better off under Vladimir Putin’s control’ rhetorical word poop.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                False equivalence. Literally Ukraine would have been better off if the west had not given them any money at all. The war would have been over and Ukraine would have more territory and more living people. And that doesnt even get into if the war was entirely preventable to start with. Ukraine is about to lose the war and all you guys want to do is give them more money so more ukrainians die.

                • GojuRyu@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Should every country just surrender to aggressors, only those that require aid to defend themselves or some other criteria? This seems like a call for any small state to just give up when a conqueror is at their door ready to oppress them, is that what you believe?

    • PopcornTin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Five years? They need $100 billion at least monthly! It’s ridiculous the way Republicans treat these innocent people