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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Add comment