• Carl Graham@esq.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    @Wilshire I cannot think of a time in recent history when we have gotten more bang for our military buck than supporting #Ukraine against #Russia .

    Not only are we doing the right thing by helping a democratic nation fight an invasion by an expansionist regime, but this aid has helped weaken one of our two main adversaries, and serves as a warning to China.

    This is truly one of those win/win situations where the only debate should be the degree of military aid, not whether we support Ukraine.

    • neolib@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am emphatically in favor of supporting Ukraine but you should be aware that Zelensky has suspended elections. I wouldn’t call Ukraine totalitarian but a true democracy never suspends elections, even when they’re inconvenient. The United States has never done it despite always being at war and I don’t think we should give a pass to other nations just because they’re at war.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        America has never been invaded to the level that its existence as an independent country has been threatened, at least not since the war of independence.

        During WWII the UK postponed elections. We even have explicit rules for how this can be done, when required. Wartime is one of the situations where it can be required. The complexity of holding an election under wartime conditions is huge. It is also a serious distraction from actually winning the war, and so costs lives. Finally, changing leadership, mid war is risky at best. The time for a new leader to settle in is paid for in lives lost.

      • Omgpwnies@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        ‘At war’ is not the same as defending yourself from an invasion, which the US has not had to do since it has existed in it’s current form. Also, governments have suspended elections in the past when necessary. For instance, the UK suspended elections during WW2 via the ‘Prolongation of parliament’ bill, while they were defending themselves from a German invasion.

        https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1944/oct/31/prolongation-of-parliament-bill

      • BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        US has never been at war in the homeland. That would make a huge difference. Plus it would probably be much easier during the chaos for Russia to subvert the Ukrainian elections. But that’s just me talking out my ass. Definitely good to be aware though. If the US did it, it would at least be through congressional action.

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah fuck off with that. We’ll supply with Ukraine with so many weapons it’ll destroy putlers hateful regime. The idiot fascist only understands violence. So violence is what he will get.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Zelensky didn’t suspend elections. The Ukrainian constitution suspended elections–the country is under martial law due to invasion, and their constitution disallows elections under martial law. In order to hold elections, Zelensky would have to disregard the constitution.

        Assuming every nation’s constitution is the same as the United States and then judging actions based on that error is some high-level cultural arrogance.

    • SomeDude@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why are republicans afraid of russia?

      When making an attack ad, always generalize. Never put things in relation or specify. Make it simple, make it general and it will make it true.

  • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately, the target audience also wear shirts which say “I’d rather be Russian than democrat”

    They may take it as an attack against themselves.

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

      Actually I think this is one of the keys to freeing the minority of the country that insists on being stupid as shit. They love trump but loyalty to the military runs far deeper. Find me a right leaning fuck who doesn’t at least pay lip service to the military. Of course they don’t actually support them, but it’s a potent motivator that they at least feel like they’re doing so.

      So not unlike when you have to work certain angles to get a toddler to take a bath or go to bed, so must steps be taken to try and pry these people out of their death cult spiral. The alternative is to likely be dragged down with them.

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does this include giving them old equipment which they’d have to dispose of anyway? Because that’s not exactly “spending”. Some even say that it saves money because they have no disposal cost.

      • someguy3@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It was going to be replaced regardless of Ukraine, that’s the point. It was to be junked anyway.

      • mushroom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m pretty sure the Abrams is made in Kentucky. Another big reason Moscow Mitch is on board with sending aid.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I fucking hate computer generated voices, the cadence is always fucking weird. This one is far too fast, and the pause between words is too short.

    It’s just weird.

    • glimpseintotheshit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since i work in media i can tell you with 99.9% certainty that’s not an AI-generated voice. It’s just cut a bit too tightly and the super low quality of the audio track doesn’t help either.

  • FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you could reason with them they wouldn’t be republicans.

    We should stop trying to convince them with logic, and start paying off the far right talking heads to change their talking points. If fox and newsmax pundits, and the shitty far right members of congress (like bimbobert and MTG and minor-lover matt gaetz) did an about face overnight, so would the entire republican base.

    • snownyte@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans are really beyond trying to logic, reason with and even barter with. It’s their way or the highway, all of the time, about anything.

      Give them an inch, they want miles. Give them something, they’ll want everything.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Meet me in the middle,” said the unjust man.

        You take one step forward, he takes one step back.

        “Meet me in the middle,” said the unjust man.

        — A. R. Maxon

    • someguy3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t want money (which they already have anyway), they want power and control over others - which is why they project that onto Democrats.

    • TiKa444@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s hard to say, that it’s prooved. Probably even the US Ministry of Defence has no totaly exact lists.

      But there are good estimations based on reports and leaked footage.

      For example oryx has a list with destroyed vehicles and equipment based on photographic or videographic evidence. The real numbers are probably significantly higher.

      After this list the russian army lost more than 2000 tanks. Ukrainian sources says that the Invasion started with more than 3000 tanks.

      Ca. 1000 of the 2000 lost tanks were T-72 (the most common tank in the russian army). According to estimations russia has 2000 T-72 in active service and maybe 10.000 or more as reserves. The reserves are mostly remnants of the soviet Union and old models that are never modernized. Satellite pictures show that a big part of this reserves are stored in open depots with no weather protection. Maybe russia could make some of this vehicles usable, it will cost Billions to repair and modernize them.

      So, no there is no proof, that the ukrainian army destroyed 50% of the russian forces. But there are proofs that russia lost a significant part of its active forces (probably something close to this claim) and that they definitly lost much more value than the americans, the europeans, ect. invested in the ukrainian army.

      https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1

      https://inews.co.uk/news/world/tanks-russia-how-many-putin-military-ukraine-leopard-2-abrams-2108097

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

    • jatone@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      wikipedia napkin math. with 1.15 million and at least two million reserve personnel.

      ~3.15 million personelle. ukraine hasnt killed that many; probably around 300k. their probably talking about the number of troops in ukraine. which is probably around 700k for the duration of the war. if you count just the 1.15mil is probably close to it now.

    • Mouette@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      50% is absolutely outrageous, I mean it’s clearly war propaganda they could have said 200% who cares.

      • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean it very clearly matters to me. Hence why I’m asking.

        5% of the budget for a 10% decrease in Russia’s troops is 100% not worth it in my mind. Not from an American standpoint.

        It matters because 5% for 50% is propaganda. I want the real numbers.

        I can ASSURE you the dumbfucks on the right will also notice that these numbers are fake.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          5% of the defense budget. Which is definitely worth it even for a 10% decrease, since the US usually has to spend more than its adversaries.

          And Russian casualties are generally estimated to be in the range of 100K to 300K, which is more than 10%.

          For comparison, there were about 50K Taliban KIA in Afghanistan, and the US spent a lot more money there.

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lmfao yeah get your advice from the worst fucking video platform out there, who’s notoriously had issues with fake news and conspiracy theory nutjobs.

        Also please go look up what it means to be biased

        Maybe then you’ll understand why being unbiased against a global threat is fundamentally impossible. You will always have a bias, the difference is being objective and following good media practices like using several, diversified resources that have minimal bias and thus provides a more comprehensive picture.

        It’s similar to AI training, you want to retain the orthogonal items that are unique to preserve the best image

      • 15liam20@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you see “russophobia” are you really seeing disapproval of a dictatorship?

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no such thing as unbiased. At best you’ll get considerate analysis. Even publications renowned for their lack of bias (Reuters for example) will have some bias in favour of things like free speech and freedom of the press, because ofc they do. That said, proper sources should both be professional, ethcial journalists and strive to be unbiased as much as possible. Also, FTR just because an article is critical of russia doesn’t mean it is biased. Information can be objectively bad. News that informs about say a mass murder spree is not (necessarily) pro-murder and there is very little one can objectively say is Good about russia unless you get into the realm of arguments like ‘Tyrants are better than anarchy’.

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You have no idea who I am or what my views are. You probably romanticise with the idea I’m a russia sympathiser but I hope vladdy the baddy is killed and also the war ends immediately. I’m just one of those people who can see the western bias for what it is, the circle jerk is cringe on both sides

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is this an AI generated ad? It seems like they tried to fit as many talking points as possible.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If you want to sell conservatives on supporting Ukraine, just tell them “it’s for the children.”

    That seems to work for everything with them wether it has anything to do with children or not. Also, you could say that Ukraine hates gays. It’s clearly not true, but since when did facts ever matter to them?

    Otherwise, they’ll see no benefit in supporting Ukrainian as the personally get nothing from it- and we all know that conservatives don’t care about anything unless it serves them in some way.

    • ginerel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also, you could say that Ukraine hates gays. It’s clearly not true, but since when did facts ever matter to them?

      They do not hate them, but as a part of Eastern Europe it’s not so gay-friendly, at least on the grassroot level, so you could get some facts in to support this if you wish to do so. They’ll be in tears of joy when they will hear that the government will be supporting a nation with true men and stuff like this.

  • postnews@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    5% you say…

    80% of all US dollars in existence were printed in the last 22 months (from $4 trillion in January 2020 to $20 trillion in October 2021)

    • CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s worth noting that the definition of M1 changed in 2020, which accounts for the significant jump in that year.

      Further reading: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-the-m1-money-supply/

      Edit: Linked article also has the complete graph going all the way to 2023, which shows that spike dropping again within one year.

      TL;DR :

      Another measure of the money supply adds these savings deposits and checkable money funds to M1: It’s known as, you guessed it, M2. From the graph, we see that the growth rate of M2 has remained relatively stable since May 2020. This suggests that the rapid acceleration in M1 since May 2020 is mainly from money moving out of the non-M1 components of M2 into M1, rather than reflecting any acceleration in the demand for transaction balances.

      Edit: Quoted wrong paragraph(s) in TL;DR

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not only that, but it will take decades and a lot of money to get back to their original military strength.

    • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would have taken a decade and a lot of money just to achieve the strength we (and they) thought they were at before the war started.