randon31415,

Thats assuming the republicans and tankies WANT Putin’s army destroyed. To them, this sounds like what a normal person would hear if we said: “We’ve used 5% of our defense budget to arm the IRA and 50% of Britain’s army has been destroyed.”

TheTetrapod,

Now hold on, is funding the IRA on the table?

randon31415,

Yes, but only $6,500 per person, and it is only tax deductible if you don’t give it to a guy named Roth.

Vent,

Roth is a true homie, you take that back! His tax deductibleness is way better in the long run in most circumstances.

shasta,

It’s only Republican politicians who are in love with Russia. Everyone else still hates them due to Cold War propaganda.

dragontamer,

Plenty of leftist-Tankies here on Lemmy’s federation where I’ve had to explain that yes, Russia is a problem and what they’re doing to Ukraine should be stopped.

The left is doing a good job preventing the Tankies from taking over their party however. Republicans are letting the far-right dictate politics and are likely going to (try to) cut Ukraine out of the budget this week. So the far-right is a bigger problem, if only because Republicans are failing to rise up and counter the threat from their own party.

uis,
@uis@lemmy.world avatar

No, Republicans are in love with Putin. Putin hates Russia, Republican do the same.

vaultdweller013,

The IRA deal sounds nice, can we add that to the budget?

someguy3,

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.

uis,
@uis@lemmy.world avatar

Cluster shells

clutchmatic,

Work smart, not hard. That’s still a winning argument for me

pennomi,

Hopefully Ukraine keeps “disposing” all of our ammunition in the general direction of the invaders.

FleetingTit,
@FleetingTit@feddit.de avatar

That stuff has a limited shel(l)f life anyways.

jasondj,

Don’t forget that the old gear has to be replaced. That’s good American jobs right there.

mushroom,

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

Bonesince1997,

I forgot about that name. It suits that frozen mummy.

someguy3,

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

FUCKRedditMods,

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.

nova_ad_vitum,

This is mostly true but in politics you constantly deal in partial success . If 5 percent of the audience are swayed to not vote over voting GOP even that is worth it.

snownyte,
snownyte avatar

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,

“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,

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.

agent_flounder,
@agent_flounder@lemmy.one avatar

So I can start warming up the tar and pluck some feathers now? /s

Pratai, (edited )

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,
ginerel avatar

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.

IHaveTwoCows,

The irony of that is that Rush Limbaugh spent 35 years telling his conservative audience that Democrats sell everything by saying “it’s for the children!”, and that it was evil and despicable.

PersnickityPenguin,

Things like discounted preschool, daycare and kindergarten for all = evil & despicabl

also, free school lunches and CHIP = eViL sOcIaLiSm

postnews,

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)

https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/65cc6e2d-3944-4295-b441-09ae4120886b.png

CumBroth, (edited )
@CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

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

Further reading: …stlouisfed.org/…/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-i…

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

Burstar,
@Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

citation please

CarlG,
@CarlG@esq.social avatar

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

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,

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.

Gamey,

There is something new that tends to get in the way of things, it’s called war!

crispy_kilt,

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.

neolib,

Where did I indicate that I oppose any of that?

HoustonHenry,

Considering that out of 3 posts, 2 have been pro-russia…maybe you should just STFU

neolib,

Can you not read?

HoustonHenry,

Hey, you deleted your comment! Don’t be shy about your opinions, just know if they are pro-russia you won’t get a lot of support

neolib,

I deleted the duplicate comment because it was a duplicate? Once again if you could read you might have realized that.

HoustonHenry,

😆 you have a good one

BingoBangoBongo,

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.

PersnickityPenguin,

We have, but it was back during the war of 1812. Canadians burned the capital to the ground as a warning.

Karyoplasma,

Didn’t Bush Jr. try to delay elections back when starting the Iraq war? I forgot what his reasoning was (if any).

WoahWoah, (edited )

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.

Blackmist,

Yeah, but the USA fights all its wars a long way from home.

If the Rocky Mountains were swarming with Reds, you might find the election cycle interrupted somewhat.

ilikekeyboards,

How are people going to vote for a new president when half the population is on the front?

uis,
@uis@lemmy.world avatar

AFAIK he suspended elections in Donetsk, Lughansk and Zaporizhzhia for obvious reasons.

Omgpwnies,

‘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.

api.parliament.uk/…/prolongation-of-parliament-bi…

cynar,

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.

Kushan,
@Kushan@lemmy.world avatar

It’s not win/win…if you’re Russia 😂

uis, (edited )
@uis@lemmy.world avatar

I am from Russia and I say it win/win/win for USA, Ukraine and Russia.

“I’m rooting for you[ukrainians], because Ukraine’s victory is Russia’s chance”,

“You are fighting and dying for them[Putin and oligarchs], not for Russia”,

“This is not war of Russia and Ukraine. I am against such definition. This is Putin’s war.”

  • Boris Nemtsov, before he was shot on bridge near Kremlin wall
Rockyrikoko,

…Or one of the Russian owned GOP congressmen

samus12345,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

They helpfully have (R) by their name.

tacosplease,

Besides. Ukraine gave up nukes because we promised to protect them. There’s a tremendous cost to going back on our word for soooo many reasons.

chiliedogg,

We didn’t promise to protect them. But Russia and the US both promised not to invade.

Of course, we should still help them because it’s the right thing to do AND is harmful to our average.

But I do think the worst thing about this war from a geopolitics standpoint is Russia going back on its word. They’ve essentially proven that no nation should ever give up their nukes.

AssPennies,

no nation should ever give up their nukes

No nation within invasion distance of Russia, anyway.

GoodEye8,

I feel like that was a huge oversight of the Budapest memorandum. You get promises that the two global powers would not invade you, but you get nobody to actually enforce it. And Russia showed that those promises are empty. I get that having guarantees to defend opens another can of worms, but it’s probably better than the situation we’re in now where we’re now unlikely to see anyone else give up nukes.

Zuberi,

Nobody answered me. Is there PROOF of the 50% claim here?

How can I view non-biased information about the war?

Mouette,

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

soggy_kitty,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • Gamey,

    *The few upvotes are from Hexbear!

    Zuberi,

    deleted_by_moderator

  • Loading...
  • FlowVoid,

    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.

    73ms,

    I don't think the point here is that the US 5% contribution has single handedly led to Russia losing 50%. The point is that the coalition as a whole are each spending relatively little compared to what the total cost to the Russians is. Ukraine is of course also paying a much heavier price than any of its western supporters who help it keep fighting.

    @Zuberi @Mouette
    @ukraine

    outstanding_bond,

    You and I already agree with the sentiment of this message and interpret this claim charitably, which the intended recipients of this message (US Republicans) will mostly not do. This message needs to convince them, not us, and it would be a far stronger argument if it cited a source.

    hamid,

    Of course not because it is total and complete nonsense

    soggy_kitty, (edited )

    There’s enormous amounts of anti-russian comments and Russia phobia on the English speaking parts of the internet to where unbiased information is extremely hard to find.

    You should check out “red effect” on YouTube. He’s the closest thing I’ve found to being unbiased

    EDIT: found OPs source lol vid.pr0gramm.com/2023/09/25/187e9f46663d04ee.mp4

    15liam20,

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

    Apollo,

    Or the closest thing you’ve found to your own bias?

    soggy_kitty,

    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

    LogarithmicCamel,

    Of course, YouTube, the ultimate source of unbiased and reliable information.

    soggy_kitty, (edited )

    Those are your words not mine…

    Did you know the video sharing website has users who are capable of stating external sources within the video and description?

    LogarithmicCamel,

    Cite those sources then.

    soggy_kitty,

    Lmao

    stevedidwhat_infosec,

    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

    Burstar,
    @Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    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’.

    PersnickityPenguin,

    Do you know what happened to unbiased journalists in Russia? They go to jail. They do not exist in Russia.

    Compactor9679,

    No proof, just rambles.

    jatone,

    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.

    TiKa444,

    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.

    oryxspioenkop.com/…/attack-on-europe-documenting-…

    inews.co.uk/…/tanks-russia-how-many-putin-militar…

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

    Wrongleverkrunk,

    Give em 20%

    bradorsomething,

    We need an attack ad: “Why are some republicans afraid of russia?”

    ProcurementCat,

    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.

    TheWoozy,

    They are not afraid of Russia they are enthralled by Russia. They serve Putin because they are indebted to him.

    Bonesince1997,

    I’d like to know how all of this came about!

    madcaesar,

    Republican politicans are corrupt fucks.

    Russia saw Republicans could be bought.

    Republicans saw their voter base is dumb as bricks and they could safely take Russian money and go against American interests as long as they hide behind culture wars.

    Russia 🤝 Republicans

    tsonfeir,
    @tsonfeir@lemm.ee avatar

    I doubt it will get their support seeing as they’re in bed together.

    Ilovethebomb,

    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.

    frezik,

    Thinking out loud, I wonder if it’s better to aim computer generated voices to be understandable and pronounce words correctly, but place them firmly on the lower side of the Uncanny Valley. In other words, let them be noticeably different, but otherwise comprehensible.

    For ads and movies and such, obviously those companies want the most realistic voices they can. But for voice assistants, maybe it’s better if we don’t.

    meldroc,

    Make them sort of like cartoon voices.

    CADmonkey,

    “Goofy, navigate to 3325 Main Street”

    “Ahyuck, navigating.”

    Misses an exit

    “Gorsh, rerouting”

    Hossenfeffer,
    @Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk avatar
    Brahminman,

    This would get me to use Google assistant

    glimpseintotheshit,

    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.

    at_an_angle,

    I haven’t watched it yet. Guessing it’s the one male voice used on all those TikToks that I can’t stand.

    Update: it wasn’t but it was damn close.

    Zuberi,

    Is there hard evidence on the 50% destroyed claim?

    KeenFlame,

    No

    jasondj,

    Considering they’ve resorted to lying to Cubans to hire them as mercenaries…probably.

    PatFussy,

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

    figaro,

    They had to keep it to simple, short phrases for the Republicans

    TheWoozy,

    They also edited out any breath pauses from the narrator. I’ve heard that voice over many years of political ads. They may have modled a cg voice from a real person, or they edited the hell out of a genuine voice over.

    Rapidcreek,

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

    Overzeetop,

    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.

    Beanedwizard,

    Does anyone have a source about the Russian attrition rate? I can’t find one

    Getawombatupya,

    Perun did an analysis a couple of weeks ago. In short, Russia is building new stuff, but the mix of losses show a fair bit of stockpile has been used. youtu.be/ctrtAwT2sgs

    1st,

    It's worded in such a way as to be meaningless - half of what? The original number of Russian soldiers, the original number plus Wagner and other extra troops, the current number deployed with/without mercenaries? Plus Russia's numbers don't look like US numbers, don't quite look like Ukraines numbers.

    That said heres the first source I found:

    Russia’s military casualties, the officials said, are approaching 300,000. The number includes as many as 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops. The Russian numbers dwarf the Ukrainian figures, which the officials put at close to 70,000 killed and 100,000 to 120,000 wounded.

    ...

    Russia has almost triple that number, with 1,330,000 active-duty, reserve and paramilitary troops — most of the latter from the Wagner Group.

    Those numbers refer to the current number of deployed and undeployed Russian soldiers plus mercenaries, which is clearly not the numbers the ad is using.

    To be clear, I fully support Ukraine and fully support the US guaranteeing missile manufacturers that we will buy new missiles even if the war ends tomorrow to incentivise greater production. I just think the ad played with the numbers until they said what we want them to say.

    Source for both quotes: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

    fromagemangeur,

    The over 1m stat is a bit of an exaggeration - the more accurate figure is closer to 750,000. See cepa.org/…/russias-military-manpower-crunch-will-…

    Charitably, 300,000 casualties would be ~40%. Of course it’s still very good value for military spending…

    uis,
    @uis@lemmy.world avatar

    are approaching 300,000.

    Sounds legit. Last batch of IDs for families with dead soldiers is slightly more than 300k.

    olafurp,

    Sorry about the other answer being vague. The actual numbers are military secrets and we’ll have to wait for a leak to actually know.

    olafurp,

    They’re conservative about planes and attack helis but have enough. Money is good, oil good, cash reserves ok debt to GDP more than good. Workforce very big but affected

    But still… They’re low on tanks, artillery shells, Combat experience, Air defence systems,

    Russia as a whole is doing fine attrition wise but they’re equipment is being blown back 40 years. On top of that Ukrainians are doing very well and are cost effective. Russia spends multiple $ for every $ sent to Ukraine.

    TheWoozy,

    Sanctions are hurting them so badly that they are importing weapons from China (small arms, armor), Iran (drones) & North Korea (shells).

    uis,
    @uis@lemmy.world avatar

    No, it is result of corruption. If sanctions truly hurt military budget, then Putin could not afford to import.

    Piecemakers3Dprints,
    @Piecemakers3Dprints@lemmy.world avatar

    The decoys alone are costing Russia ~$1mil per, and they cost =/< $1k ea. Those are impressively effective numbers. 🤩🤘🏼

    Nobody,

    The Russians are liquidating the Soviet stockpile that was built while they were a global military superpower. They don’t have the capacity to rebuild that arsenal. Russia is being taken off the world stage as a military power for at least three decades.

    uis,
    @uis@lemmy.world avatar

    They are low on shells, tanks and AA. Combat experience is more than anyone would want.

    olafurp,

    They die before getting any. Newly mobilised soldiers are a massive portion of their army now.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • ukraine@sopuli.xyz
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • ethstaker
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • modclub
  • kavyap
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • JUstTest
  • khanakhh
  • cubers
  • Durango
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines