• Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Good news, but why did it take nearly three years?

    The ATACMS, Patriots, F16, modern tanks should have been delivered in the first 12 months to strike russia when they were less organized.

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      nearly three years

      Try 10 years

      This whole shit show kicked off with Russia invading Crimea back in 2014 and it’s been going on ever since.

      Yes, it escalated in a big way a couple of years ago, but if someone were to, for example, invade Florida, we’d consider that to be the unquestionable start of a war, not 8 years later when they tried to move beyond Florida and attack the rest of the country.

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Agreed. I am Ukrainian. Family had to leave Donbas in 2014.

        Yes, arming Ukraine in 2014 with ballistic missiles (among other things) and authorizing strikes deep into russian territory would have been not only the right thing to do, but also a key requirement of the Budapest memorandum.

        My comment was more in the context of real weapon deliveries only starting since the full scale invasion.

        I remember how the Germans put a big stink when Ukraine started using the Bayraktar drones in the line of contact in Donbas before the full scale invasion. What a bunch of spineless cowards.

    • RustyShackleford@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      What happened, is American aide to Ukraine is about to end in January, due to the Trump administration taking over. Plus, aide was likely waiting until the end of the American election system in hopes Democrats won, so less for the Republican side to complain about.

      • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        I think the issue has been that Russia has stated that the US not having limits on the use of their supplied weapons would be seen as a US escalation of the war. And that becomes tricky because Ukraine is not a NATO country, but Russia drawing the US into the war would bring are NATO allies in as well potentially allowing WW3 (although for Trump it would be only WW2).

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          31
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s meaningless. Russia can call it an act of war all they want, it doesn’t actually do anything. The only way for the US to get “drawn into” the war is for Russia to directly attack a NATO country, which there is literally zero chance of Russia doing, because if they can’t win a war against a single country being funded and supplied by NATO, how the fuck would they ever have a chance to prevail against the real thing?

          • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Also remember that Russia has North Korea and China on its side (among others - the dictators Trump loves). Without nukes to kill everyone, that’s a YEARS long war of attrition.

            Also the idea of the US giving Ukraine weapons is to defend itself, so long range missiles for the sole purpose of striking the Russian interior could look to some like the US attacking Russia by proxy. And we don’t want to be in a war, especially one that would surely become a World War. Trump is going to “end the war in a day” though so this discussion is really just moot anyway.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Russia has been claiming that they are functionally at war with all of NATO for the last two years. Did that result in all out nuclear war?

              If not, why would this be any different?

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Nukes. The hesitation is always about who is unhinged enough to actually fire a nuke.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              21 hours ago

              What benefit does Russia get from escalating to nuclear weapons?

              Putin wants to be alive, and have a country to be in charge of. Ukrainian aggression forcing a peace that’s more favorable to them doesn’t cost him either of those things. Deploying nuclear weapons against NATO does.

              It’s not about whether or not Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons in the abstract. It’s about whether he would actually derive any benefit from doing so.

              • copd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                15 hours ago

                Putin is old, if Putin has a health condition which significantly shortens his immediate life span we can all see him saying “fuck it” and press that button.

                We just have to hope for some kind of takeover by younger ambitious dictators at that point to recognise they want to live and stop him

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Because Biden and the rest of the leadership are a bunch of Cold War fossil fucks.

    • zante@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Because global politics and warfare is a bit more nuanced than “give them what they need to win” on day one.