The US doesn't want to give more aid to Ukraine (i.e.

The US doesn't want to give more aid to Ukraine (i.e. giving ATACMS and modern tanks) because they don't want them to win too quickly.

Not because they fear nuclear escalation but because if Russia lost some decisive battles against a Ukraine armed with Abramses and F-16s, they would just withraw quickly and could rebuild their forces. The US wants a drawn-out war that will kill as many Russians as possible, destroy their demographics and cripple the economy, so Russia will cease being a threat in the long-term.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    that's a pretty retarded take considering russia is a nuclear state

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why? Them losing quickly would be more dangerous.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      allegedly

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If they lose slowly enough they might just nuke themselves as they Balkanize and descend into sectarian violence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >as they Balkanize and descend into sectarian violence.
        Literally the outcome the US wants the least, They have thousands of nukes scattered all across Russia, leaving these nukes in the hands of various warlords etc. would be a catastrophe.
        Not because the new states would be a threat, but because there would be almost no control over the weapons, and they would spread to Iran, terrorist movements or various African countries.

        If Russia collapse, the US will begin propping up the central government of Russia to prevent balkanization. Or the very least to slow down the process to ensure there is some control with the nuclear weapons in Russia.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >$end_of_string

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sounds dumb, just glass Moscow

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >if Russia lost some decisive battles against a Ukraine armed with Abramses and F-16s, they would just withraw quickly and could rebuild their forces
    Do you have anything to back up that theory?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    For most of those countries, the budget is actually higher since the nuclear warhead and missile tech division are commonly part of the ministry of energy/ repsective space agencies.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >destroy their demographics and cripple the economy, so Russia will cease being a threat in the long-term.
    But that's already a thing and has been for like 4 decades. Opinion discarded.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's true they want a drawn out war, but it's so they can kill the country with sanctions, steal the wealth the Russians have stored in the west, destroy all of Russia's industry and its armour for 20+ years.
    This war isn't killing that many Russians, or even Ukrainians, demographics are technically able to keep up with the losses taken even if they were 500k/year, which they aren't.
    The reality is it serve two functions, weakening both Russia and the EU due to oil and gas stopping Russia weakening is good for all parties as its an oil state that's too able to dictate terms.
    Now the Chinese are considering a rail network through Turkey instead while hostilities are ongoing, crippling the commercial attempt at China trying to connect to Europe through Russia with its rail network.

    It's all geopolitics, but also from what I understand they have probably ran models on Putins behaviour using their inside sources, ATACMS probably crossed the line in their predictions.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Most of Russia's demographic losses come from young men fleeing the draft. For every man killed in Ukraine, 10 others immigrate.

      The longer the war and the draft lasts, they more likely those people will settle abroad and never return to Russia. Very soon Russia will face a bigger aging crisis than Japan, the difference is that Russia has no high-value-added industries to cover pensions (really, this was going to happen anyways, the war just accelerates the process).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Many of these men will soon return to Russia. Only people with actual drafts papers can seek asylum, but many are just going to Georgia and Kazakhstan where they can stay visa free for a while. But when that period ends, they'll be deported and sent back to Russia.
        Russia's real, long term losses of people who flee is probably much smaller than the number of people who have fled.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It's true they want a drawn out war
      See, if you open with some sorry ass, docile, cocksucking bargaining statement it completely destroys whatever point you were trying to make. You don't have to agree with the loudest retard, you don't have to be a moron. You're not fitting in anywhere, this isn't a social club.
      Stop being disgusting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Both are false. The US doesn't want to destroy the future of Russia or the Russian demographics. In fact, the US wants the complete opposite. It wants Russia to lose with as little attrition or losses as possible.

      Why? Because Russia isn't the geopolitical foe of the US, China is. And a weak Russia is favorable for China.

      The best case scenario for the US is for the Putin regime to collapse and for Russia to fall into the US or EU sphere of influence so that the Russian civilization can be primed as the front of the next big geopolitical push on the Taiwan conflict.

      I honestly think the Putin regime is a walking corpse right now and its death is already a done deal, we're just waiting for it to finally die. The only "dragging out" the US is doing is just trying to reduce causalities for both sides and for the Putin regime to dissolve as quickly as possible while having to make sure that no nationalist like Dugin is able to grab power in the ensuing power struggle.

      If Navalny or another liberal democratic leader rises up then the US can fulfill its geopolitical goal in Russia while hampering China.

      China is really REALLY dangerous right now because Xi Jinping revealed last weak that China is pivoting away from global trade and an economic focus onto an ideological and military focus. Xi also had very aggressive remarks towards Taiwan and "Chinese sovereignty". It's possible that China winds up invading Taiwan much earlier than people expect.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's possible that China winds up invading Taiwan much earlier than people expect.
        unironically just listen to what the US DoD is saying. remember that they were spot on about when the ukraine invasion would take place.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The best case scenario for the US is for the Putin regime to collapse and for Russia to fall into the US or EU sphere of influence
        Russia has to many conflict zones, the border with China, several million chinese living in eastern Russia. There are multiple states within Russia with strong secession sentiments, not to mention the fluid borders - almost all Russias neighbors have large Russian minority populations.
        All these potential conflicts will drag the US into large scale involvement in northern Asia, and all of these conflicts are unwanted at best.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > muh china
        Just block Malacca strait and chinkshit will starve.
        No need to pump billions into russhit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          China is exactly trying to break that chain by attacking Taiwan, breaking out of this potential containment.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whenever someone makes one of these retarded charts, they always fail to account for the fact that the USA pays decent wages to factory workers, whereas Russia and India basically practice slave labor to a degree that would make even China hesitate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wage discrepancy can explain a bit, but not in this order of magnitude...

      And wage slaving nuclear silo personal is the best way to ensure maintenance issues and secrecy leaks...

      You perfectly can force some schmuck to work semi efficiently in cotton, wheat, etc where results are easily observed... Keeping them efficient when science stuff ? Not so much....

      Look on how spoiled the post nazis scientists had to be to collaborate efficiently with victors?

      In the Us : with new ids, reunited with families and a cozy ( wired and taped) house, all expenses paid by the DoD? Yeah sure !

      In France/ Alsace where they were seen as servile clown by the Mulhouse arms plant? Ehhh most of them blueballed the frenchies and went to Spain and then h&k afterwards.

      In USSR where they were forced to have results with literally a fun on their temple? Lol nope, they were barely on the french level of efficiency...

      Now apply this to "p, perestroika, embezzlement and vranyo 101" Russian military

      Tl, dr : Science is hard, crunch is dumb, slave crunch is even dumber when in critical fields...

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ah yes the mighty f 16 that got shot down by a fucking s 200

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the US doesn't
    Let me stop you right there. I rate your thread
    Hide/10

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Uh uh, I'm so demoralized now. Fuck NATO and fuck Biden!

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >because they don't want them to win too quickly.
    yeah because they want EU to collapse. they aren't destroying shit. even if they killed every russian solider there, russians would lose like 2% of their max army.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Loving this deranged new Russian cope, it's just wild and this idiot kid probably believes it fully.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think they don't give us modern tanks and Bradleys because losing them on camera would be a PR disaster. Americans are very sensitive to their losses, and they don't want to see hundreds of photos with destroyed a Abrams posted by the Chinese propagandists and tankies all around the world.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then don't send them. Send the export version of Abrams which is nowhere near that the US version is. They didn't care those Abrams got destroyed. Or send them the upgraded M60's. Or M1A1's or something. If it's all about PR, there is something they can give that will help but won't 'embarrass them' if they're lost. Finally, you can always argue that crews are different, language barrier, experience and training programs being rushed, which is why there are losses. In Gulf War, the US lost 2 Bradley's to Iraq. They lost 17 to friendly fire.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think the slow rollout of new kit to Ukraine is a combination of time needed for training and to build logistics networks, and the desire to have many rungs of escalation available to keep Putin constrained. There are still many ways for the West to escalate simply by providing more kit: ATACMS, Western fighting vehicles (Leopards or Strykers or whatever), F16...

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Stupid khokhols why aren't u beating us FASTER
    This is the newest kacap cope and it's downright adorable.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And who the fuck would fly F-16 and drive abramses?
    Do you think Ukraine is just chock full of pilots, tank crews, mechanics to maintain them, logistics to supply them?
    How long would it take to train all these people?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Better get started then? Because 'simple stuff' clearly isn't enough to push Russia out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Because 'simple stuff' clearly isn't enough to push Russia out.
        It's literally doing that as we speak.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >'simple stuff' clearly isn't enough to push Russia out.
        TIL russia considers basic NATO operators advanced

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Supposedly F16 pilots are already being trained. Poland alone could do it, but I believe the US has that as part of an aid package to train in the US.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It wants to save the ATACMS for China because burgers invented an antiship mode for it.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Intelligent and correct take and intelligent and correct strategy.
    Is it the most empathic strategy in the short term? No.
    Is it the most effective strategy for long term global security? Yes. It's best for long term global security if the geopolitical power of Russia is next to nothing. Russia is one of the most deranged states on Earth and if they have any power they use it to cause trouble. They've been cut low by this whole debacle, but not low enough to never be able to grow into any kind of problem ever again. Not yet.

    PrepHole seems extra extra retarded today. Are we being brigaded from somewhere?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Seems based on the news getting out that Bakhmut is getting its teeth kicked in by the Ukies. The shills are doing double shifts.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >destroy their demographics and cripple the economy
    Putin is way ahead of you, burgerfriend.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The US doesnt want to give more aid because the Republicans, who have been through some sort of weird evolution, fucking hate the fact that they are pushing America deeper into debt to solve what is essentially a European problem.

    Its not complicated.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The US has many weapons on the verge of decommissioning (such as fuckton of Bradleys). At this point, they would actually save money by gifting them to Ukraine instead of stockpiling them.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, when the US introduces a new upgrade - like Bradley mk xxxx or whatever - they pull old hulls from storage and upgrade them and then send the hulls currently in use into storage. This means you maintain a modern fleet both active and reserve and mothballed. Thats why they are hesitant to send stuff over, it would fuck with they way they manage their armored fleets.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ah, the old "blame America for Russia's war."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      OP here, not blaming the US for it. What I'm saying is that if they wanted to, the Yanks could give Ukraine military aid that would allow them to kick the Vatniks out from the Donbas and Crimea in weeks.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The payoff for a protracted war is that ukies will get Crimea back too. If NATO just kicked Russia's ass they'd be at the negotiating table right away and no way Crimea makes it onto that table yet.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia's demographics are already terminal; all your "strategy" would do is to advance the date of their cultural death by a decade or two.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *