Paywall removed. https://archive.ph/BkIad
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.
NATO. Not the UN. Russia has no say into nato since it was designed to fit Russia.
designed to fit Russia.
Luckily Russia isn’t fit.
Down voted for a joke based on someone else’s typo… what a world we live in
Edit: that’s more like it
I’m doing my part!
Never ask a man their wage, never ask a woman their age, never ask who started NATO and why.
Russia isn’t in NATO, but they are it’s most successful recruiter.
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.
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.
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.
yup.
Wasnt the US involved in SA long before the CMC?
Well yea, the US has had imperial ambitions since its founding, but they definitely doubled down when their primary adversary set up camp in their backyard
Removed by mod
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?
Which happened first? NATO expansion, or Russian invasion?
There’s your answer.
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.
Russia is the biggest reason the baltics joined.
The Baltic states joined in 2004. Long before Putin was made into a pariah, and Russia was still seen as part of the West and publicly aspiring to join NATO
russia, seen as part of the west? what the hell.
NATO lost. They stopped the aggression. You’re going to have to dea with that. NATO is finished now, along with the rest of the west.
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.
NATO not the UN, Russia isn’t a member.
Who gave Russia a veto at NATO?
Turkey 🇹🇷.
/s
Erdoğan would if he could
SO UN FAIR!
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.
what too much finance capital does to a mf
Who said anything about printing money? NATO manages trillions upon trillions of dollars of already in circulation currency.
That money is already allocated, it’s not just sitting there in a big pile collecting dust.
warning to all, this guy does nothing but spread russian propaganda all day. check their post history.
Who ya gonna call?That’s right, I spread Russian propaganda as reported by mainstream western media.
Who goes back and reads new comments in two-day old posts, anyway?
Based on votes, more people than I thought…
Lemmy is still small enough that older posts have a chance to stick around. Another benefit over a huge forum like reddit where the sheer volume of stuff buries things really fast.
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.
lol CNN disagrees with you there bud https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
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.
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.
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.
The munitions themselves are made in the US, but the raw materials, tooling, and various components in more advanced weaponry have complicated supply chains and are sourced from all over.
The US military is going through massive headaches because domestic supply chains arent able to support the construction of new ships, missles, tanks, aircraft, and other equipment like mobile launchers and uniforms because the domestic production of raw materials and skilled labor required for production have been gutted. Just look at the fiasco that AUKUS is currently undergoing trying to produce submarines. Sure the Navy never technically stopped building it’s ships domestically, but allowing the rest of the domestic shipbuilding industry to collapse has lead to the US being comically inept at at producing serviceable ships.
Free market capitalism is incompatible with national security as capital is only interested in quarterly profits and will sacrifice long term security to meet that goal. Defense contractors have de facto monopolies today and use the threat of going out of business to pressure the Pentagon into giving them massive paychecks to fuck around.
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
Ship building and shell production are on the polar opposite ends of time requirements for industrial capacity building…the fact that you used ship building as an example here makes me wonder if you’re being intentionally disingenuous…
Also, you don’t seem to understand how these funding programs actually work if you think this is being allocated to build out Ukrainian domestic production capacity.
Chip production might have different requirements from shell production, but it’s a good example of how difficult it is to bootstrap an industry. Also, nobody is talking about allocating anything to Ukrainian domestic production capacity here. Maybe actually try and read that RUSI article till you understand what it’s saying.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
This thing has already been going on for 2 years and Russia isn’t pulling out. It’s a war of attrition. First side to blink loses. NATO cannot lose Ukraine to Russia. Period.
Removed by mod
We can do both.
That’s 20 billion per year. The EU’s alone defense spending for 2023 was 270bil. This is not a lot of money.
The EU has no defense budget, the member countries have.
deleted by creator
Except there’s no real common strategy behind it, so it’s pointless to look at it as a single defense budget.
Stop talking to ghosts I deleted that reply 4 hours ago.
I’m gonna have to get used to how slow federation can be…
yeaaa 3 days later that post is still there lol, think at this point it ain’t poofing
Obviously.
I get your point about how it compares relatively. But I beg to differ that $100 billion is not a lot of money
Removed by mod
That has a considerable risk of backfiring. If Putin dies, the people right next in line to take the helm are the ultra-nationalist fash in charge of the Russian State. If one of those suddenly takes control of Russia, and realizes that they’re fighting an unpopular war without having the backing of actually being Putin, it becomes far more likely that they do something extremely stupid such as launching nuclear weapons, which would be terrible for everyone.
The US would love to get a fascist like Navalny in charge, because they would let the US reconvene the neoliberal shock therapy plundering of Russia that Putin had put the kibosh on.
In all fairness, Liberal Shock Therapy is only employed in times of crisis. It’s their job to remain crisis free and when they don’t, shit like this happens.
Shock therapy is not a “therapy” in any sense, it’s just neocolonialism.
Ah yes, and knowing that your leader was just killed would also instill fear that they would be next. Right now they all think they are untouchable, that should change
chances are he has dementia
In other news: Zelenskiy signed a bill on Tuesday to lower the mobilisation age for combat duty from 27 to 25 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelenskiy-signs-bill-lowering-mobilisation-age-combat-duty-25-2024-04-02/
So what we have here is nothing else than wholesale purchase of cannon fodder.
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!
lol the NAFO brigades
If I ever need to blow off some steam I’ll go to NonCredibleDefense and start blocking everyone I see. Not quite at that point yet.
😄
Imagine spending 100 billions on something more useful
Removed by mod
Sovereignty of a nation
Donetsk and Luhansk Republics
ethnic group’s right not to be genocided by their neighbor
Ethnic Russians in Ukraine
Donetsk and Luhansk Republics
1991 isn’t real.
Removed by mod
I cannot agree with this statement.
Consider how many genocides have occurred since the 1948 convention and its ratification in 1951. Now consider that three have been legally recognised – and led to trials – under the convention:
Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia (and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre), and Cambodia under the 1975-9 Pol Pot regime.
Israel will have its day to atone for its behavior. They have become what they despise.
Removed by mod
Also, even if it wasnt a war of extermination:
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for protection. Do you think anyone else is going to be dumb enough to do that in the future?
I am pro-Ukrainian in this conflict, but this is untrue. Point to the specific wording in the accord that supports what you’re saying, if you can.
I’ve never read it directly, just seen this referenced, but I remember seeing something about it in a textbook (or something? That kind of paper), and an anti nuclear friend of the family holding Ukraine up as an example back in like the 90s.
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?”.
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.
None of that has anything to do with Ukraine.
Removed by mod
All if it refers to the Ukraine. I know because I typed it.
USA has active military bases with nukes pretty much all over europe, technically they already invaded my country. There’s hundreds of USA military planes alone flying over europe daily. If russia, china or anyone else would give 100 billions to any corrupted fascist government in europe that would still be a bad thing because ultimately it wouldn’t change anything for people.
Do people in your country oppose those bases? Do you have democracy? If the majority of people opposed those bases, they could vote for some other government. Do you understand the difference between an invasion and hosting allied troops?
If a country elects a “fascist” government and then gets invaded, do they not deserve help? So i assume you also supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam? They didnt even have democracy there, unlike Ukraine.
Do people in your country oppose those bases? Do you have democracy?
Not the government. Democracy is a lie as long as private media control public opinion.
So your argument is that since the public in these countries is brainwashed, they arent capable for voting for their leadership, therefore there is no democracy, only the illusion of democracy. Thus an invasion and imposing a new government through violence, maybe one that aligns better with your worldview, is an acceptable thing?
I dont know, i think this is a very slippery slope. I think brainwashed people deserved to be ruled by whoever they vote, thats what democracy is and has always been. Even in ancient Athens, you had demagogues and sophists(even if we ignore that women and slaves couldnt vote). And money could get you a better sophist, to teach you how to debate and manipulate people.
So is democracy a fake system that can never be achieved? And your alternative suggestion is what?
And your alternative suggestion is what?
That you spend 100 billions on something more useful than war
Thats like having your house on fire and saying “this is fine” meme. Do you think that war is never an option? That giving up and letting invaders take what they want is preferable because it “reduces” human suffering?
Would you advocate the same during WW2 and Germany/Italy’s invasions? Should the countries that got invaded not resist and should the UK/US not help those countries? Imagine if you were an american in WW2 and your government was giving hundreds of billions worth of equipment to the russians, in order for Russia to fight the nazis. Would you still say “why are we sending hundreds of billions to the corrupt nation of Russia, when that money could have been used in America instead”?
The isolationist rhetoric benefits the invaders, who can easily take out individual countries(or regions of countries), one piece at a time, while placating the rest.
How else would defense contractors make money?
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty? If they didn’t want to be part of Russia, then they should have just said so. Has Velinsky tried talking to the justly elected Putin? This 100 billion could be spent on rebuilding all the housing in Ukrane that was blown up by Russia DEFENDING its self from the Ukrainian troops invading Ukraine. This could be 100 billion dollars in food aid spread around the world in the form of Ukrainian grain shipments that have been stalled or sunk, but Ukraine has CHOSEN to stop shipping their grain by blocking their own barges and trucks.this could have been 100 billion dollars in CLEAN oil that Russia could have been exporting to help the world with energy, but instead will have to rebuild because the plants keep blowing up. If only there was a solution that would let the world move on and spend their money on better things. If only we would just give in to Russia and let them take what they want at the expense of others- then the world would be a better place.
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty?
Sending 100 billions to the corrupted government of a military state under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave it’s funding whatever is the opposite of democracy.
Seem like ukrainian government choose indeed something when they decided to play international war games. Not that this justify anything but keep in mind where these billions are going to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
I hope my president does the right thing for once and vetos this thing.
Removed by mod
Why would a Russian care?
I’m Turkish and Turkey is in NATO… We have a veto.
