reuters.com/world/europe/putin-cancels-russian-plans-storm-mariupol-steel-plant-opts-blockade-instead-2022-04-21

Absolutely wrecked in what sense?

We’ve done this exact same thing in places like Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq and “absolutely wrecked” would not begin to describe the conditions those countries were left in. I’d rather the US left these countries alone than initiate dirty wars to destabilize and tie up people trying to deal with issues so they could project power

As in Ukraine would've lost most of its territory by now, Russia would've installed a new pro-Russian regime and would've killed off or jailed Zelensky. Even more of the country would've been destroyed, more deaths, maybe even more refugees

Without those weapons there would be no Ukraine anymore. Russia will still 'win' in a sense since they will easily hold the east. But at least Ukraine holds some sovereighnty over the rest of the country. I hope they eventually can agree on giving up the east and end this war

Do you truly think fewer people are dying because there’s more weapons that are now getting lost?

I don’t care if borders are different. I don’t care if one despot replaces another. That won’t change how many people are dying. Sending missiles and not caring who gets them while both sides are rife with neo Nazis is what I care about. Because that’s where historical precedence of people dying lies.

Like you really can’t sit here and tell me you care about the lives of innocent people then tell me that we HAVE to fund militaries

Did that work out anywhere else we mentioned? Over 10 million dead civilians, would they have died if we didn’t send missiles and guns and bombs to shady splintered militias ?

They're saying they can't know what the Ukranian military uses them for and where they eventually end up. Now the Ukranian forces use them, but you never know what happens if this war prolongs and ends up in a guerilla war. They're afraid it can eventually end up in the hands of militias. But again, what's the alternative cause i didn't hear that yet

The alternative is not sending weapons you can’t keep track of?

So sending no weapons at all cause boots on the ground mean WWIII

When have we ever sent billions in weapons in a proxy war and it didn’t devolve into a decade long s*** flinging fest with a million+ dead civilians

Give me one example @Y0rn

Do you think the US can’t keep track of the weapons they send and put conditions on who touches those weapons?

Red Dawn and Call of Duty have rotted y’all minds

I'm not necessarily agreeing with it either, but i see no alternative

Then these governments shouldn’t be sending weapons, and at minimum ordinary people should not be supporting such measures

feel like nothing in terms of military a***ysis is worth reposting as we cant actually verify or falsify anything. could be entirely accurate, and at the same time be literally useless information.

wait and see name of the game

The liability of these weapons being insecure in their distribution has been all but confirmed by multiple officials in the US government

cnn.com/2022/04/19/politics/us-weapons-ukraine-intelligence/index.html

The USA mostly fund militias and foreign fighters in those cases anyway, here it's a state actor (with extremist elements i give you that)

You're actually saying US/Europe should never send weapons to a country that gets invaded. It's also a country where they trained military, so theres a certain relationship

Or would it be different for you if it was a country with not as many extremists (since every country has them) being invaded? If my country wasn't part of NATO I would hope US/rest of Europe supports us if we're invaded by a neighbour cause otherwise we're f***ed, just like Ukraine

That the USA does it mostly for own gain we can confirm, since they're only escalating and don't seem to give af about consequences.

But most Ukranians want that help. It's a diffucult position. If a country that gets invaded asks for help are you gonna deny it cause those same weapons might end up in militias hands in some years?

sorry was not speaking about your convo, havent read that

my post was prompted by a tweet about igor girkin

Oh sorry

A. A state actor means nothing if it distributes weapons to civilians and militias at near random ( which we’ve seen with evidence)

B. I’ve never said that. Im saying they should never send weapons they can’t account for (which they’ve always done)

C. Yes, a country that doesn’t enable and support far right extremists would have my support (The Ukrainian government doesn’t have my support)

D. If your country was being invaded, the US turning it into a forever war would only f*** you even more, because they’re not there for your interests, they have their own as you said.

E. Give “most Ukrainians” five years. You should see how Syria turned after two years

If u actually care about the TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF UKRAINE in Donbass u lost bro tbh

The people there don't wanna be part of Ukraine, at that point it's up to them two to fight it out as an outsider, who am i to decide whether their territorial integrity is more important than their claim to self-determination

But ofc geopolitics it's territorial integrity for your friends, self-determination of minorities for your enemies. But imagine actually buying into that acting like it's some principled stance for somebody not even from there lol

They could and they have, then they walked back their ban on giving weapons to Nazis in Ukraine lol

Except the Ukrainian military gives those weapons to political prisoners and to militias, some of which are officially integrated into the military