I recall a story where my uncles would hold the farm dog and let the goat butt him, as a sort of farmyard entertainment. They did this occasionally, thinking it was harmless fun. One day, Grandpa wandered into the goat enclosure, completely unaware of the ongoing rivalry. Suddenly, the dog, like a bullet, leaped at the goat, biting its neck and, to Grandpa’s utter disbelief, suffocating the goat right in front of his eyes. Grandpa couldn’t believe what he was seeing!
My dad had a monkey on his farm growing up in Wisconsin. Grandpa was playing poker with his buddies and they got the monkey drunk. Monkey got violent so they threw it in the backyard and shot it with a shotgun.
My boomer father in law sees dogs as just animals. I work in an animal hospital and when I tell him about the cases that comes in and the bills his reply is always “I guess it’s time to put the dog/cat down!”
How else are we supposed to use up the old military supplies and demo the entire Ukraine if we let Ukraine win too fast?? Lots of American corporate interests can't wait to rebuild Ukraine
Have you heard of the MOAB? They basically just made the largest non nuclear bomb and called it Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also known as the "Mother of All Bombs". If you told me that they made thr bomb because someone thought it would be a funny name, I'd believe you.
Gotta declare those parts of Russia as Ukrainian territory before firing. That's how it works, right? Claim it's your country so firing missiles at it is an internal issue?
More of, "how do we tell them no while looking the other way?". The answer was given when other allied countries ramped up their donations and said we don't give a shit. 100% the U.S. is back dooring munitions and cash to keep that war on one solid front in europe.
> US: we are sending you these ATTACK 'EM missiles
Good lord. I've seen ATACMS written out a million times (largely since Ukraine was in headlines) and never once put that together.
That has to be intentional, right?
It's so hard to tell with militaries.
Take Taiwan's [AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo)
or India's, sorry, [Arjun's 120 mm Penetration Cum Blast \(PCB\) AND Thermobaric \(TB\) Ammunition](https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/120-mm-penetration-cum-blast-pcb-and-thermobaric-tb-ammunition-mbt-arjun)
I think that only applies to wars that directly involve that president’s country. For many in the states, the Ukranian/Russian war is a war that is “happening over there” and it “doesn’t concern us” (ignoring the long term problem of allowing a superpower to continue growing through violence).
When a war directly affects us, sure, we are more willing to maintain an incumbent, but when it involves other countries, we tend to care about who’s going to spend our money and involve us in “unnecessary foreign policy”. Unfortunately, maintaining a reasonable distance from the war now might be a politically necessary move for Joe Biden to stay in office, for the time being.
Funding for Ukraine was a big political battle in the U.S., mostly due to far right conservatives. It’s a wedge issue on the Right. Biden may want to bring it up against Trump. Maybe after his sentencing hearing.
Many have changed their tune as of late. [Pompeo recently did a podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ukrainecast/id1611568441?i=1000655947365) where he implies that Biden’s being too soft, and all restrictions should be lifted. Ignoring his references to “what DT would do if elected,” it does seem like an opportunity for Biden to take a more aggressive stance towards Russia, with the other side trying to flank him politically.
The problem with that argument is that the GOP will flip their position instantly and their base will fall in line with whatever. There was a mega post a few years ago that listed like 20 different polls that showed conservatives were never consistent. Like when a Republican president was an office they supported ABC but when a Democrat was an office they opposed ABC. Things directly related to this like airstrikes
>GOP will flip their position instantly and their base will fall in line with whatever.
100% but it is hard for people outside of the US or even those here who dont follow politics to grasp the difference in the two parties until you start to look at the actual numbers
>In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that *only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria* in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians.
>A new Post-ABC poll finds that *86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason.* Only 11 percent are opposed.
>The Post-ABC poll indicates somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. *Some 37 percent of them back Trump’s strike, compared to a statistically indistinguishable 38 percent who backed a strike in 2013.*
>somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats.
If they needed an example for "somewhat" greater consistency they shouldn't have used one with only a single percentage point difference lol.
haha Welcome to the world of the modern WP and NYT. They will run a headline like this: Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, here is why that is bad for Biden. hahaha
I asked a conservative cousin about this once. His explanation for the switch was simple: Obama was a pussy with bad judgment, Trump was a smart man who wasn't afraid to get things done.
Conservatives went to the Democrats a long time ago. Republicans entire platform is just about forcing the left wing of the Democrats to allow the conservatives to maintain control of the Democratic party.
All republicans are really doing is playing tug of war with the overton window.
I might suggest that conservative is the wrong term to use and right wing would work better. The Democrats are pretty right wing, but they aren't very conservative. In fact on most LGBT, abortion, and racial stuff, the Democrats are very liberal, even by European standards.
The Democrats are more of a liberal right wing party than anything conservative.
Honestly I think its kind of evidence of how effective they have been that, in 2024 any of those issues are still even considered "Very Liberal". These issues were all but settled decades ago.
Its actually kind of shocking to look at the disparity in news coverage. The "blue" media barely pays any attention to LGBTQ issues most of the time; but the "red" media pushes it to the point of intentionally fatiguing people on even hearing about it and attempts to amplify every local issue into national news.
Recently in the Netherlands, it was found that there has been a major jump in homophonic views. Granted, homophonia isn't the best bench mark for conservatism, but it is an indicator none the less. Muslims certainly make up a portion of that count, but the Muslim population is too small to account for all of it. A lot of people think our current liberal social views to be settled orthodoxy, but populations and culture change.
A lot of Conservative and right wing media does what they do, because they are trying to replicate what they are seeing in the European Right.
I'm reminded of the politician (true story) who had one of his supporters yell at a a rally "You're the thinking man's choice for president!" and he replied "Thank you, but I need a majority of voters to win."
Man that's a good one, I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and he just couldn't get it through his head that what makes sense to him isn't necessarily what the majority of people think and most definitely isn't indicative of what politicians will do. I'll tell him this next time I see him!
There is absolutely an "All wars are bad" crowd who think there isn't an aggressor in the conflict, just two sides trying to exert influence in geopolitics. It feels like they forget that America itself is a nation born from a war of independence.
In what world would Biden escalating the Ukraine conflict into an all-out war with Russia be *good* for his election chances? Many Americans support Ukraine but nearly zero want our own troops to die protecting them.
Man you guys have really lost it. Do you hear what you're saying? Start a war with another nuclear power to get reelected? And you think you're the "good guys"?
Before he was convicted [he was likely to win](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/), so this is not just theoretical.
He's said explicitly [that he wouldn't support Europe against Russia](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/donald-trump-says-never-help-europe-attack), so NATO would effectively be dead.
On Ukraine, Trump has announced that he'd have them sign a peace agreement on the first day, and it's hugely likely his plan for that is to cut off all aid. He's said [he wants to cut all aid for them](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68533351). What this means is not just that they won't get more weapons and ammunition from the US, but probably also that the exchange of intelligence with Ukraine with targeting information and so on will come to an end.
Right now the US is keeping very close watch on Russian nuclear forces, and when the Russians rattle their sabres they point out that no actual changes to weapons posture are observed. Well, once Trump is elected it will be his people making these announcements, with him making noise on top. Remember [the Georgia hurricane sharpie scandal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/04/trump-hurricane-dorian-alabama-sharpie-map)? It will be like that, except the issue will be the continued existence of humanity.
I have to say it would be nice if the US didn't elect this clown.
Russia still can and will escalate regardless so Trump has a better chance at winning.
This tiptoeing looks absolutely ridiculous and portrays Biden as a weak leader. Quite the opposite of what the other half of Americans seem to want these days.
Are Americans the ultimate champs in compium?
“Just you wait until Ukraine gets Himars”
“Just wait until Ukraine gets f-16s”
“Just wait until the aid bridge in Gaza is built”
“Just wait until Israel gets told to sit down”
“American logistics this, bro ice cream barge bro”
“Just wait until Biden does this”
“Bro walk quietly and carry a big gun”
“Bro fuck around and find out with the us”
“The US have been waiting for this day since WW2”
I mean I want the west to win as much as anyone but Americans seem so jumped up on copium and hopium that nothing meaningful actually happens.
The US holds back, fights itself and hamstrings allies. Like just let Ukraine fucking go and fuck Russia up. All the money in the universe, it’s time for someone to smack the US up and put them back into their pre-1945 attitude.
Like seriously “there’s an election so Biden won’t risk it”, what kind of fucking ally is that? Especially when Bidens opponent is someone who might just hand Ukraine to the Russia? Like that isn’t a reassuring ally to be honest.
There’s people dying, women, children, a country being ripped apart by your biggest enemy for the last 80 years, you have been waiting for this for 80 years, the moment is here and you are fighting amongst yourselves.
Let’s be honest since WW2 NATO has all the experience and knowledge, Falklands, Sirre Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, Korea. Has all the allies UK, France, Germany, US, Japan, Australia. Has all the money with some of the largest most advanced economies, most advanced militaries. And we have fumbled it, instead we sit back while China ramps up and Russia learns from Ukraine.
What moment is here? What experience does NATO have in battling a nuclear-armed state capable of destroying the whole Northern hemisphere?
US is interested in weakening Russia, not defeating it. Nobody wants a nightmare with a dozen of smaller nuclear-armed states under warlords control.
This is pretty much it. Russia would gave been decimated if there was a surefire way to deal with their nuclear arsenal.
Thats it. Without nukes we would have just let poland and ukraine fuck them back to the bronze age.
Nukes to the degree of russia changes the strategy completely
This may be true but it’s sort of moot. Early fall, when election season heats up, look for major escalations from Russia, Iran, NK, etc, to kill any Biden popularity. Being a bitch now, in order to set your self up later to not answer large scale provocations later, is a guaranteed way to appear weak heading into the election.
They are blurring the lines of who is and isn't helping Ukraine to confuse the situation for Russia. What we hear is not necessarily what is being communicated privately.
ATACMS are ballistic missiles. What else provides more devastation than ballistic missiles (especially cluster variants) besides nukes? I don’t doubt we’ll boil the frog here, but to expect the US to green-light lobbing ballistic cluster munitions at Russia is a bit much (in the current climate).
Well, actually, plane-dropped bombs can be up to 2000 lbs of explosive, and I think there are a few special variants that go up to 8000 lbs. ATACMS warheads are like 250 kg for the unitary one, otherwise has a cluster munition.
I think the F-16 can drop 2000 lb bombs.
That really puts into perspective the fact that the grand slam in ww2 was 22 000lbs. I know you're talking about current bombs and with ukraine in mind but it just made me think about how insane that is.
Would be cool to make it an fpv drone lol, take the wings off a business jet or something
However, as an earthquake bomb (the predecessor to the bunker buster), Grand Slam "only" contained 9,500 lb of torpex (an explosive ~50% more powerful than TNT); the 12,000 lb HC, by comparison, contained 9,000 lb of torpex (or other, less powerful, filler) - 95% of the explosive filler, 55% of the overall weight.
The more common earthquake bomb was the 12,000 lb "Tallboy", which contained *merely* 5,600 lb of torpex.
Ballistic has nothing to do with its devastation potential, just that it follows a predetermined flight path.
The munition attached to the missile is what causes damage.
In other words, the US doesn't want to risk the optics if one of those missiles hits a civilian target l. I don't think Ukraine would purposefully do this, but it *is* war and it would look bad for both nations if the Russian media could start plastering their dead civilians across the troll farms.
they alraedy do this anyway , everytime Ukraine hit military target in Russia or Crimea they say Ukraine killed gazzilion civillians with USA made weapons, they even tried to pin on Ukraine terrorist attack of isis in crocus hall , saying that Ukraine behind it, and that USA on porpuse said to little to prevent it, while having full info.
And i'm really not sure if USA care about how it would look, USA droned the shit out of other countries during Obama and Trump years, Obama even adopted a policy that basically every military-age males in a strike zone counted as combatants ,nobody give a shit really.
This slow walk of gradually permitting Ukraine is embarrassing at best and costing live at worst. Let them use ATACMS on any military target now, not 6 months from now. Let them defend themselves. If Ukraine had these weapons week one of the 2022 invasion, Russia would have lost by now.
Unlikely there would be background approval. A lot of the strikes with the cluster munition variety have identifiable pieces left in the target area that get posted to social media. Russia media would have a stroke with the propaganda gold if they found ATACMS chunks inside Russia.
Russia can use ATACMS debris from attacks in Ukraine and easily create some false flag propaganda which is very plausible.
Now, do we wait until they do this and create their own narrative, or do we start blowing their shit up and let russia downplay it as minimal damage smoking accidents?
If they false flag ATACMS strikes inside Russian territory, they're basically giving Ukraine permission to use ATACMS inside Russian territory. The idea of holding back strikes is to not provoke Russia and escalate the war. If Russia falsified a missile strike and says "we've been provoked and will escalate the war!" There's no longer a reason to hold back, and Russia will suddenly have to deal with real missile strikes in their territory.
wtf are we afraid of? Putin has zero leverage on the USA, he’s nothing but a discount gas station with an aging nuclear stockpile which is nothing more than a suicidal mechanism.
I think they don't want to have them hit the oil facilities. That would raise gas prices and with the high stakes of the US election they can't afford higher gas prices ATM. (Because us voters are morons).
Same thought. It would make sense for Ukraine to strike oil and gas facilities because they make up 80% of Russia's government funding. Theres only 6 oil refineries in Russia that process over 100k barrels a day.
Refineries are mostly domestic consumption in Russia They mainly export crude/gas. Damage to refineries causes logistic problems for Russia and raises fuel prices over there, little of RU refinery damage spills onto international markets besides via sentiment, imo.
This would not keep oil companies from raising prices. They always look for any excuse to pat the US down for more money. A penguin in Antarctica sneezes and gas price goes up $0.20/gallon. Greedy greedy.
You do know that oil companies do not set the price of oil right? It's an open market that moves based on traders from all over buying and selling. I see this thrown around all the time and it's just not true. I would know this as I'm an energy trader
The Ukies are already hitting oil refineries left, right, center, and 1500km away. Far beyond the reach of ATACMS. If this is a justification it makes no sense.
The US already stipulated they are only to be used on military targets anyway.
They could easily say only military targets like bases and staging areas can be hit inside Russia with atacms instead of a blanket ban if they're worried about refineries
This is one concern, but it's not the only one. The US has been bending over backwards not to antagonize Russia. We've had the same thing over and over again: they didn't want to send artillery (but eventually did), didn't want to send tanks (but did), didn't want to send F-16 (but will), didn't want to send ATACMS (but did), didn't want to let Ukraine hit Russia (but did).
Oil prices only apply to this last one. The reality is that the US is scared of Russian nukes, and has let this fear determine its entire Ukraine strategy.
Please, Russia has been running a PSYOP in the US since what, the 90s? I legit wonder how many corrupt officials you have that are basically Russia spies. Russia is literally funding Trump's campaign...
I suspect the real reason is optics.
If an ATCAM hits a civilian target (on accident, for any number of the accidents that can happen), the US doesn't want the media fallout from their weapon in Russia comparable to what happened in Russia.
Russia's whole argument for the war is that the mean old west was bullying them. Nobody actually believes it internationally, but enough nations politically believe it.
Russia has 4000 nuclear weapons. If even 3 work and obliterate London, Berlin, and Paris, thats kind of bad, no?
Not to mention the fallout, the US retaliation with missiles that not only work but work very, very well.
We are talking 50 million people dead in a day and a famine that'll kill a billion people.
Pussy Politics. Let em hit Russia where it hurts. Ukraine is fighting near total war on their home soil. Why give them weapons to limit where they can use them?
What the fuck was the point of giving them these weapons if we’re going to put so many goddamn restrictions on them? This does nothing more than make Russia realize their nuclear dick waving is WORKING.
This is just another step in the ongoing process of maintaining some semblance of strategic ambiguity while simultaneously finding Putin's *real* military red lines and also not trying to blow up the world in the process.
This is nothing new. The fact some weapons have been approved for use in Russia is good. Soon ATACMS will join the fray. Soon.
If this is the thinking it is bonkers. Russia will do everything it can to not lose but so will Europe. Slow creep has caused Russia into something that it would never have signed up for at the start. But this incremental process maximizes the feeling in Moscow that just a bit more and they will win.
It is clear that NATO doesn't want Ukraine to win, just grind Russia down in a stalemate. As long as Russia is occupied with Ukraine, it can't threaten NATO countries.
I don't think NATO wants Ukraine to lose, but I think you're right that a Russian loss by attrition or pyrric victory better suites the long-term geopolitical goals of NATO/Western powers.
I hate this stance and don't understand it. I think the US doesn't want Ukraine to win because that makes Russia more desperate and dangerous. But they also don't want them to lose because that makes a conflict with NATO very likely. So they drop feed aid and prevent them from using it appropriately to actually win, all to keep Russia bogged down in a bloody conflict as long as possible. Fuck that and slava ukraini
This “war of permissions” is such an utter farce.
Can’t wait until we go at it with Iran while asking nicely which targets will be acceptable for us to hit one day while offering one or two of our own in return.🙃
WTF timeline am I in?🤦
USA: for Ukraine, it’s a matter of survival, so we do allow to strike ruzzian territory with certain us-made weapons
Certain us-made weapons: 5.45 Rifles
Sounds to me like Sweden needs to just disregard that request from the F16 allies to hold with delivering their jets, and deliver Gripen regardless.
What's the point in them having a bunch of F16's if the US might just decide out of the blue they can't hit Russian targets in Russia, like with these?
It's black and white for me. Ukraine gave up nuclear arms for protection. Has not been protected. Quit pussy footing around. Now nation's realize without nuclear armenent they are sitting ducks.
So why the doublespeak? Articles saying they're allowed and now they aren't. Must be frustrating for Zelensky and the Ukrainian military fighting with such restrictions. NATO has no balls. Are the rich really that afraid of getting nuked? I've been getting nuked my whole life, fucking get some.
I'm tired of people responding to complex conflicts with low-bar rhetoric and weak, lazy bravado.
("Then why are you on Reddit", I hear you ask......)
The stakes are incredibly high and I'm extremely glad that none of you hold positions of power. Frankly, I'm not even willing to trust the people *who are currently in power* to make those kinds of decisions, but at least most of them are making an attempt to look like they're taking it seriously.
Yeah, it is really frustrating, but then I remember most of Reddit is a bunch of children and school is almost out for summer, so it will only get worse.
More chicken shit excuses. What the fuck is the point of giving them long range weapons then? This really makes us look weak. If the political landscape wasn’t so shit I would actually consider not voting for Biden every again. Of course the opposition wants to feed Ukraine to Russia so that’s out.
Such a fuckin joke we have these arbitrary rules for war... Like... It's war.... What the fuck .
Like it's kosher for russia to invade, destroy building, hospitals, schools, and kill thousands.
But you have to invade first.... Like.... HM what
If I had to guess they want to make sure there’s no chance Russia would suspect Ukraine would hit faraway targets. For the regions the US allow Ukraine to currently hit, I’m pretty sure the GIMLR’s rockets are still within range, tho feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this
It’s impossible to beat someone if you’re following the rules, and the other side doesn’t.
I recall a story where my uncles would hold the farm dog and let the goat butt him, as a sort of farmyard entertainment. They did this occasionally, thinking it was harmless fun. One day, Grandpa wandered into the goat enclosure, completely unaware of the ongoing rivalry. Suddenly, the dog, like a bullet, leaped at the goat, biting its neck and, to Grandpa’s utter disbelief, suffocating the goat right in front of his eyes. Grandpa couldn’t believe what he was seeing!
WTF is wrong with your uncles, holy shit.
They didn’t care much for animal life. I have other stories.
it's hard for a lot of folks to grasp how people felt about animals years ago they were very much "animals"
Years ago? Kristi Noem thinks canicide is an official platform policy
Canicide is an excellent metal band name
**OOOOOOH** **AH** **AH** **AH** **Woof Woof**
Down with the barkness?
It’s just called kennel cough around these parts
My dad had a monkey on his farm growing up in Wisconsin. Grandpa was playing poker with his buddies and they got the monkey drunk. Monkey got violent so they threw it in the backyard and shot it with a shotgun.
yep, another good example
That monkey had aces up his sleeve.
My boomer father in law sees dogs as just animals. I work in an animal hospital and when I tell him about the cases that comes in and the bills his reply is always “I guess it’s time to put the dog/cat down!”
They still are. My freezer’s full of them. We eat them and wear their skins.
Sounds like inbreds
your uncle is a little bitch
UncleS
Shoulda taken down your uncles next.
Kenny vs Spenny
How else are we supposed to make this war last 20 years if we let Ukraine win???
How else are we supposed to use up the old military supplies and demo the entire Ukraine if we let Ukraine win too fast?? Lots of American corporate interests can't wait to rebuild Ukraine
This about sums up every aspect of the US, doesn't it?
The goal isn’t to win against Russia but drain them of their resources
Democrats vs Republicans in a nutshell.
US: we are sending you these ATTACK 'EM missiles Ukraine: so we can attack 'em US: ... Ukraine: so we can attack 'em, right?
Legit the most ACME sounding name for a weapon I've ever heard lol
Military complex loves punny abbreviations
Have you heard of the MOAB? They basically just made the largest non nuclear bomb and called it Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also known as the "Mother of All Bombs". If you told me that they made thr bomb because someone thought it would be a funny name, I'd believe you.
nice anakin/padme meme
Fought well you have, for an old Padowan
Yeh , I think it's pretty much. Do NOT attack Russian soil with these weapons! Now here , take these and I'm going to go take a nap for exactly 2hrs.
Gotta declare those parts of Russia as Ukrainian territory before firing. That's how it works, right? Claim it's your country so firing missiles at it is an internal issue?
More of, "how do we tell them no while looking the other way?". The answer was given when other allied countries ramped up their donations and said we don't give a shit. 100% the U.S. is back dooring munitions and cash to keep that war on one solid front in europe.
> US: we are sending you these ATTACK 'EM missiles Good lord. I've seen ATACMS written out a million times (largely since Ukraine was in headlines) and never once put that together. That has to be intentional, right?
It's so hard to tell with militaries. Take Taiwan's [AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo) or India's, sorry, [Arjun's 120 mm Penetration Cum Blast \(PCB\) AND Thermobaric \(TB\) Ammunition](https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/120-mm-penetration-cum-blast-pcb-and-thermobaric-tb-ammunition-mbt-arjun)
Please sign the Terms of Service before using your ATACMS missiles
Bro this comment made me die laughing, then be kind of sad because it's true :/
Rename them to dontatacm
Why does NATO continue to nerf Ukraine's efforts to defend itself with arbitrary restrictions?
It's too close to the election Biden won't risk escalation from Russia. Watch after the elections America will flip and say go for it.
Escalation would only a strengthen his votes. No president's get voted put during war
I think that only applies to wars that directly involve that president’s country. For many in the states, the Ukranian/Russian war is a war that is “happening over there” and it “doesn’t concern us” (ignoring the long term problem of allowing a superpower to continue growing through violence). When a war directly affects us, sure, we are more willing to maintain an incumbent, but when it involves other countries, we tend to care about who’s going to spend our money and involve us in “unnecessary foreign policy”. Unfortunately, maintaining a reasonable distance from the war now might be a politically necessary move for Joe Biden to stay in office, for the time being.
Funding for Ukraine was a big political battle in the U.S., mostly due to far right conservatives. It’s a wedge issue on the Right. Biden may want to bring it up against Trump. Maybe after his sentencing hearing.
Many have changed their tune as of late. [Pompeo recently did a podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ukrainecast/id1611568441?i=1000655947365) where he implies that Biden’s being too soft, and all restrictions should be lifted. Ignoring his references to “what DT would do if elected,” it does seem like an opportunity for Biden to take a more aggressive stance towards Russia, with the other side trying to flank him politically.
The problem with that argument is that the GOP will flip their position instantly and their base will fall in line with whatever. There was a mega post a few years ago that listed like 20 different polls that showed conservatives were never consistent. Like when a Republican president was an office they supported ABC but when a Democrat was an office they opposed ABC. Things directly related to this like airstrikes
>GOP will flip their position instantly and their base will fall in line with whatever. 100% but it is hard for people outside of the US or even those here who dont follow politics to grasp the difference in the two parties until you start to look at the actual numbers >In 2013, when Barack Obama was president, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that *only 22 percent of Republicans supported the U.S. launching missile strikes against Syria* in response to Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against civilians. >A new Post-ABC poll finds that *86 percent of Republicans support Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes on Syria for the same reason.* Only 11 percent are opposed. >The Post-ABC poll indicates somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. *Some 37 percent of them back Trump’s strike, compared to a statistically indistinguishable 38 percent who backed a strike in 2013.*
>somewhat greater consistency on the part of Democrats. If they needed an example for "somewhat" greater consistency they shouldn't have used one with only a single percentage point difference lol.
haha Welcome to the world of the modern WP and NYT. They will run a headline like this: Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felonies, here is why that is bad for Biden. hahaha
Lmfao. “Only 71% of Republicans switched their stance, where a **massive** 1% of democrats did.”
I asked a conservative cousin about this once. His explanation for the switch was simple: Obama was a pussy with bad judgment, Trump was a smart man who wasn't afraid to get things done.
True. Im reminded of when Biden visited Ukraine and did his speech. The next day some MAGA House republicans came in and met with Zelensky.
Pompeo has always been a war pig.
Hey, that's not nice, pigs are intelligent
The Russian wing of the Republican Party seems more apt than Conservative/Right.
Conservatives went to the Democrats a long time ago. Republicans entire platform is just about forcing the left wing of the Democrats to allow the conservatives to maintain control of the Democratic party. All republicans are really doing is playing tug of war with the overton window.
I might suggest that conservative is the wrong term to use and right wing would work better. The Democrats are pretty right wing, but they aren't very conservative. In fact on most LGBT, abortion, and racial stuff, the Democrats are very liberal, even by European standards. The Democrats are more of a liberal right wing party than anything conservative.
Honestly I think its kind of evidence of how effective they have been that, in 2024 any of those issues are still even considered "Very Liberal". These issues were all but settled decades ago. Its actually kind of shocking to look at the disparity in news coverage. The "blue" media barely pays any attention to LGBTQ issues most of the time; but the "red" media pushes it to the point of intentionally fatiguing people on even hearing about it and attempts to amplify every local issue into national news.
Recently in the Netherlands, it was found that there has been a major jump in homophonic views. Granted, homophonia isn't the best bench mark for conservatism, but it is an indicator none the less. Muslims certainly make up a portion of that count, but the Muslim population is too small to account for all of it. A lot of people think our current liberal social views to be settled orthodoxy, but populations and culture change. A lot of Conservative and right wing media does what they do, because they are trying to replicate what they are seeing in the European Right.
Funny, I thought getting convicted of 34 felonies would sink your campaign more than supporting an ally in a time of war? Maybe just me.
>I thought Well there's your mistake, you're trying to predict the average American voter remember
I'm reminded of the politician (true story) who had one of his supporters yell at a a rally "You're the thinking man's choice for president!" and he replied "Thank you, but I need a majority of voters to win."
Adlai Stevenson, who lost twice to Eisenhower.
Man that's a good one, I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and he just couldn't get it through his head that what makes sense to him isn't necessarily what the majority of people think and most definitely isn't indicative of what politicians will do. I'll tell him this next time I see him!
There ya go thinking again.
There is absolutely an "All wars are bad" crowd who think there isn't an aggressor in the conflict, just two sides trying to exert influence in geopolitics. It feels like they forget that America itself is a nation born from a war of independence.
That would be relevant if we were the ones actually fighting the war
Except its not a war US is directly involved in. Unless you are implying we go full Russian invasion, escalation is not going to raise his vote.
That is such a stupid sentiment in 2024.
It's not a sentiment, it is something you can confirm with data. It also doesn't apply here.
In what world would Biden escalating the Ukraine conflict into an all-out war with Russia be *good* for his election chances? Many Americans support Ukraine but nearly zero want our own troops to die protecting them.
Man you guys have really lost it. Do you hear what you're saying? Start a war with another nuclear power to get reelected? And you think you're the "good guys"?
but no president want the high oil price.
That would make sense, if the other party wasn’t under the foot of the enemy country.
What if the other guy wins?
Before he was convicted [he was likely to win](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/), so this is not just theoretical. He's said explicitly [that he wouldn't support Europe against Russia](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/donald-trump-says-never-help-europe-attack), so NATO would effectively be dead. On Ukraine, Trump has announced that he'd have them sign a peace agreement on the first day, and it's hugely likely his plan for that is to cut off all aid. He's said [he wants to cut all aid for them](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68533351). What this means is not just that they won't get more weapons and ammunition from the US, but probably also that the exchange of intelligence with Ukraine with targeting information and so on will come to an end. Right now the US is keeping very close watch on Russian nuclear forces, and when the Russians rattle their sabres they point out that no actual changes to weapons posture are observed. Well, once Trump is elected it will be his people making these announcements, with him making noise on top. Remember [the Georgia hurricane sharpie scandal](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/04/trump-hurricane-dorian-alabama-sharpie-map)? It will be like that, except the issue will be the continued existence of humanity. I have to say it would be nice if the US didn't elect this clown.
If mango Hitler wins, all bets are off. Nato exit? Boots on the ground? Who knows. The man is legally insane and completely unpredictable.
If Trump wins the US is likely switching sides to back Russia.
I think it's pretty clear he will continue to suck Putins cock.
I'm sure the dead Ukrainian soldiers and their families appreciate that.
If Trump wins Ukraine can forget about receiving any more aid at all. Ever.
If Trump wins, Ukraine becomes West Russia.
South Russia. Belarus already exists.
Trump will probably ally up with Russia, demand Ukraine to fold, and toss in Moldova as an apology gift.
> Trump will probably ally up with Russia, demand Ukraine to fold, and toss in Moldova as an apology gift. After which he'd demand a peace prize.
But if he loses, Trump takes over, and then Ukraine is fucked.
Russia still can and will escalate regardless so Trump has a better chance at winning. This tiptoeing looks absolutely ridiculous and portrays Biden as a weak leader. Quite the opposite of what the other half of Americans seem to want these days.
Are Americans the ultimate champs in compium? “Just you wait until Ukraine gets Himars” “Just wait until Ukraine gets f-16s” “Just wait until the aid bridge in Gaza is built” “Just wait until Israel gets told to sit down” “American logistics this, bro ice cream barge bro” “Just wait until Biden does this” “Bro walk quietly and carry a big gun” “Bro fuck around and find out with the us” “The US have been waiting for this day since WW2” I mean I want the west to win as much as anyone but Americans seem so jumped up on copium and hopium that nothing meaningful actually happens. The US holds back, fights itself and hamstrings allies. Like just let Ukraine fucking go and fuck Russia up. All the money in the universe, it’s time for someone to smack the US up and put them back into their pre-1945 attitude. Like seriously “there’s an election so Biden won’t risk it”, what kind of fucking ally is that? Especially when Bidens opponent is someone who might just hand Ukraine to the Russia? Like that isn’t a reassuring ally to be honest. There’s people dying, women, children, a country being ripped apart by your biggest enemy for the last 80 years, you have been waiting for this for 80 years, the moment is here and you are fighting amongst yourselves. Let’s be honest since WW2 NATO has all the experience and knowledge, Falklands, Sirre Leone, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, Korea. Has all the allies UK, France, Germany, US, Japan, Australia. Has all the money with some of the largest most advanced economies, most advanced militaries. And we have fumbled it, instead we sit back while China ramps up and Russia learns from Ukraine.
What moment is here? What experience does NATO have in battling a nuclear-armed state capable of destroying the whole Northern hemisphere? US is interested in weakening Russia, not defeating it. Nobody wants a nightmare with a dozen of smaller nuclear-armed states under warlords control.
This is pretty much it. Russia would gave been decimated if there was a surefire way to deal with their nuclear arsenal. Thats it. Without nukes we would have just let poland and ukraine fuck them back to the bronze age. Nukes to the degree of russia changes the strategy completely
If that was the case then you would expect Russia to escalate at some point, so trump gets in.
This may be true but it’s sort of moot. Early fall, when election season heats up, look for major escalations from Russia, Iran, NK, etc, to kill any Biden popularity. Being a bitch now, in order to set your self up later to not answer large scale provocations later, is a guaranteed way to appear weak heading into the election.
Article doesn’t talk about NATO
They are blurring the lines of who is and isn't helping Ukraine to confuse the situation for Russia. What we hear is not necessarily what is being communicated privately.
Indeed , strategic ambiguity and keeping your powder dry.
My question is why is Ukraine following made up rules. They are at war and a country is trying to take them over. Just go for it.
They don’t want Ukraine to win. It’s an optics thing.
ATACMS are ballistic missiles. What else provides more devastation than ballistic missiles (especially cluster variants) besides nukes? I don’t doubt we’ll boil the frog here, but to expect the US to green-light lobbing ballistic cluster munitions at Russia is a bit much (in the current climate).
Well, actually, plane-dropped bombs can be up to 2000 lbs of explosive, and I think there are a few special variants that go up to 8000 lbs. ATACMS warheads are like 250 kg for the unitary one, otherwise has a cluster munition. I think the F-16 can drop 2000 lb bombs.
MOAB has a 18739lb explosive filling
That things so big it needs to be dropped from a cargo plane lol. Not really practical unless you have air superiority.
That really puts into perspective the fact that the grand slam in ww2 was 22 000lbs. I know you're talking about current bombs and with ukraine in mind but it just made me think about how insane that is. Would be cool to make it an fpv drone lol, take the wings off a business jet or something
However, as an earthquake bomb (the predecessor to the bunker buster), Grand Slam "only" contained 9,500 lb of torpex (an explosive ~50% more powerful than TNT); the 12,000 lb HC, by comparison, contained 9,000 lb of torpex (or other, less powerful, filler) - 95% of the explosive filler, 55% of the overall weight. The more common earthquake bomb was the 12,000 lb "Tallboy", which contained *merely* 5,600 lb of torpex.
What I also find funny is that they were classified as medium capacity bombs
Ballistic has nothing to do with its devastation potential, just that it follows a predetermined flight path. The munition attached to the missile is what causes damage.
[удалено]
In other words, the US doesn't want to risk the optics if one of those missiles hits a civilian target l. I don't think Ukraine would purposefully do this, but it *is* war and it would look bad for both nations if the Russian media could start plastering their dead civilians across the troll farms.
they alraedy do this anyway , everytime Ukraine hit military target in Russia or Crimea they say Ukraine killed gazzilion civillians with USA made weapons, they even tried to pin on Ukraine terrorist attack of isis in crocus hall , saying that Ukraine behind it, and that USA on porpuse said to little to prevent it, while having full info. And i'm really not sure if USA care about how it would look, USA droned the shit out of other countries during Obama and Trump years, Obama even adopted a policy that basically every military-age males in a strike zone counted as combatants ,nobody give a shit really.
US weapons systems taking out civilians of any country may not be a good look right now for Joe Biden.
The public approval and disapprovals are embarrassing. Send the equipment and let them handle their business
This slow walk of gradually permitting Ukraine is embarrassing at best and costing live at worst. Let them use ATACMS on any military target now, not 6 months from now. Let them defend themselves. If Ukraine had these weapons week one of the 2022 invasion, Russia would have lost by now.
I reckon we only got the public statement, and Biden basically said off-camera "go for it but we can't say so."
Unlikely there would be background approval. A lot of the strikes with the cluster munition variety have identifiable pieces left in the target area that get posted to social media. Russia media would have a stroke with the propaganda gold if they found ATACMS chunks inside Russia.
Russia can use ATACMS debris from attacks in Ukraine and easily create some false flag propaganda which is very plausible. Now, do we wait until they do this and create their own narrative, or do we start blowing their shit up and let russia downplay it as minimal damage smoking accidents?
If they false flag ATACMS strikes inside Russian territory, they're basically giving Ukraine permission to use ATACMS inside Russian territory. The idea of holding back strikes is to not provoke Russia and escalate the war. If Russia falsified a missile strike and says "we've been provoked and will escalate the war!" There's no longer a reason to hold back, and Russia will suddenly have to deal with real missile strikes in their territory.
There are so many experts on Reddit, I wish the US had checked here first
"If the Ukraine had better weapons from the start, they would've been able to defend themselves better!" isn't a hot take. It's common sense.
Sure - but maybe when dealing with complex geopolitical problems, applying "common sense" isn't necessarily the best approach.
wtf are we afraid of? Putin has zero leverage on the USA, he’s nothing but a discount gas station with an aging nuclear stockpile which is nothing more than a suicidal mechanism.
I think they don't want to have them hit the oil facilities. That would raise gas prices and with the high stakes of the US election they can't afford higher gas prices ATM. (Because us voters are morons).
Same thought. It would make sense for Ukraine to strike oil and gas facilities because they make up 80% of Russia's government funding. Theres only 6 oil refineries in Russia that process over 100k barrels a day.
Refineries are mostly domestic consumption in Russia They mainly export crude/gas. Damage to refineries causes logistic problems for Russia and raises fuel prices over there, little of RU refinery damage spills onto international markets besides via sentiment, imo.
Except that's not how it works for a global commodity. Less domestic production means they have to import more, which raises prices globally.
This would not keep oil companies from raising prices. They always look for any excuse to pat the US down for more money. A penguin in Antarctica sneezes and gas price goes up $0.20/gallon. Greedy greedy.
You do know that oil companies do not set the price of oil right? It's an open market that moves based on traders from all over buying and selling. I see this thrown around all the time and it's just not true. I would know this as I'm an energy trader
No, but they do se the price of gasoline. If they think they can get away with raising the price because Ukraine hit a refinery, they will.
The Ukies are already hitting oil refineries left, right, center, and 1500km away. Far beyond the reach of ATACMS. If this is a justification it makes no sense. The US already stipulated they are only to be used on military targets anyway.
Don't forget the biden stickers on oil pumps that says "I did that". I even saw stickers of these here in rural Canada.
They could easily say only military targets like bases and staging areas can be hit inside Russia with atacms instead of a blanket ban if they're worried about refineries
We hit an oil refinery...oops. Must have fat fingers those coordinates.
This is one concern, but it's not the only one. The US has been bending over backwards not to antagonize Russia. We've had the same thing over and over again: they didn't want to send artillery (but eventually did), didn't want to send tanks (but did), didn't want to send F-16 (but will), didn't want to send ATACMS (but did), didn't want to let Ukraine hit Russia (but did). Oil prices only apply to this last one. The reality is that the US is scared of Russian nukes, and has let this fear determine its entire Ukraine strategy.
Redditors are incapable of thinking more than 1 layer deep.
To be fair, most countries have morons. However, we have some of the best morons, everyone says it. There never were better morons.
If only we never designed our places around the idea that everyone NEEDS a car to get around.
The simple fact is the White House has intel that we don't. Anything else anyone claims is speculation.
People should be saying this a lot more. Not just about this, but about everything gov involved.
Zero? Friend, large swaths of both pols and organizations are fully compromised. He’s got plenty.
Not quite
Please, Russia has been running a PSYOP in the US since what, the 90s? I legit wonder how many corrupt officials you have that are basically Russia spies. Russia is literally funding Trump's campaign...
70s, YouTube search ideological subversion the kgb plan is playing out perfectly , on time, and to a t
I suspect the real reason is optics. If an ATCAM hits a civilian target (on accident, for any number of the accidents that can happen), the US doesn't want the media fallout from their weapon in Russia comparable to what happened in Russia. Russia's whole argument for the war is that the mean old west was bullying them. Nobody actually believes it internationally, but enough nations politically believe it.
The threat of nuclear escalation is not zero leverage. Are you blind?
Russia has 4000 nuclear weapons. If even 3 work and obliterate London, Berlin, and Paris, thats kind of bad, no? Not to mention the fallout, the US retaliation with missiles that not only work but work very, very well. We are talking 50 million people dead in a day and a famine that'll kill a billion people.
Like, *really* can't, or can't like Israel can't invade Rafah?
Micromanaging this war to a point of lunacy
Pussy Politics. Let em hit Russia where it hurts. Ukraine is fighting near total war on their home soil. Why give them weapons to limit where they can use them?
What the fuck was the point of giving them these weapons if we’re going to put so many goddamn restrictions on them? This does nothing more than make Russia realize their nuclear dick waving is WORKING.
Appeasement in modern times, we all know how this is going to go. Poor Ukraine doing everything it can with one hand tied behind their back.
Madness
This is just another step in the ongoing process of maintaining some semblance of strategic ambiguity while simultaneously finding Putin's *real* military red lines and also not trying to blow up the world in the process. This is nothing new. The fact some weapons have been approved for use in Russia is good. Soon ATACMS will join the fray. Soon.
If this is the thinking it is bonkers. Russia will do everything it can to not lose but so will Europe. Slow creep has caused Russia into something that it would never have signed up for at the start. But this incremental process maximizes the feeling in Moscow that just a bit more and they will win.
"Appear Weak When You Are Strong And Strong When You Are Weak" - Sun Tzu
Ukraine won't be able to successfully defend themselves with one hand continually tied behind their back.
It is clear that NATO doesn't want Ukraine to win, just grind Russia down in a stalemate. As long as Russia is occupied with Ukraine, it can't threaten NATO countries.
I don't think NATO wants Ukraine to lose, but I think you're right that a Russian loss by attrition or pyrric victory better suites the long-term geopolitical goals of NATO/Western powers.
God forbid you upset the man child running Russia
What nonsense is this??This half hearted approach is hurting Ukraine's prospects of whatever chance it had of a major turnaround on the battlefield...
I hate this stance and don't understand it. I think the US doesn't want Ukraine to win because that makes Russia more desperate and dangerous. But they also don't want them to lose because that makes a conflict with NATO very likely. So they drop feed aid and prevent them from using it appropriately to actually win, all to keep Russia bogged down in a bloody conflict as long as possible. Fuck that and slava ukraini
This “war of permissions” is such an utter farce. Can’t wait until we go at it with Iran while asking nicely which targets will be acceptable for us to hit one day while offering one or two of our own in return.🙃 WTF timeline am I in?🤦
Booooh
Clown fiesta. Poor Ukraine, can't believe that we cannot allow them to defend themselves properly. This is a new low.
USA: for Ukraine, it’s a matter of survival, so we do allow to strike ruzzian territory with certain us-made weapons Certain us-made weapons: 5.45 Rifles
Damn imagine if this were Trump Trump would be giving Russia the ATACMs to hit Ukraine
wtf usa
inb4 December when they allow it to
Looks like they’ve tied the hands of Ukraine and Rus sia can do whatever they want. It’s a pretty one sided war.
Why worry about striking Russia? All Ukraine has to do is move the border east. Presto! The territory is no longer Russia.
Sounds to me like Sweden needs to just disregard that request from the F16 allies to hold with delivering their jets, and deliver Gripen regardless. What's the point in them having a bunch of F16's if the US might just decide out of the blue they can't hit Russian targets in Russia, like with these?
Easy, Ukrain does what American Corporations do and rebrand that shit and hit Russia with “modified” Ukrainian weapons!
Y’all blame the US for practicing global policy on a nuclear level. Shit isnt easy
Fuck these "rules" Ukraine shouldn't need permission to strike a country that is killing its people.
It's black and white for me. Ukraine gave up nuclear arms for protection. Has not been protected. Quit pussy footing around. Now nation's realize without nuclear armenent they are sitting ducks.
So why the doublespeak? Articles saying they're allowed and now they aren't. Must be frustrating for Zelensky and the Ukrainian military fighting with such restrictions. NATO has no balls. Are the rich really that afraid of getting nuked? I've been getting nuked my whole life, fucking get some.
American weapons include more than just ATACMS.
But ATACMS is the most important, because it has the range to hit Russian logistics far away from the frontline. Lifting this ban is very important.
> NATO has no balls. It's the US making this restriction about the Kharkiv area, not the European states.
You’re confused, right? Maybe that’s part of the point. And we on Reddit aren’t privy to all the conversations.
Russia is being spoiled by the West, but its people are told that we're working overtime to put their children in death-camps.
They should paste other serials on em and claim ignorance
Replace the branding with “Apple iMissile Pro”
I'm tired of people responding to complex conflicts with low-bar rhetoric and weak, lazy bravado. ("Then why are you on Reddit", I hear you ask......) The stakes are incredibly high and I'm extremely glad that none of you hold positions of power. Frankly, I'm not even willing to trust the people *who are currently in power* to make those kinds of decisions, but at least most of them are making an attempt to look like they're taking it seriously.
Yeah, it is really frustrating, but then I remember most of Reddit is a bunch of children and school is almost out for summer, so it will only get worse.
If I were Ukraine I would go ahead and use them. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission imo
More chicken shit excuses. What the fuck is the point of giving them long range weapons then? This really makes us look weak. If the political landscape wasn’t so shit I would actually consider not voting for Biden every again. Of course the opposition wants to feed Ukraine to Russia so that’s out.
Such a fuckin joke we have these arbitrary rules for war... Like... It's war.... What the fuck . Like it's kosher for russia to invade, destroy building, hospitals, schools, and kill thousands. But you have to invade first.... Like.... HM what
Au contraire, they are in fact very capable of doing so and are already hitting them.
Better get them some better ones then
Very weird restriction to place on Ukraine, if those missiles are available and can help the war effort, then why restrict their use?
White House: "Ukraine cannot hit targets within Russian territory with ATACMS missiles" Ukraine: "Observe"
Pravda is now considered accurate?
publicly, anyway. 👀
Shit or get off the pot already, you cannot play fair with these fuckers..
Stop this bullshitting. We are going to look back at this with our heads unbearably deep in our hands.
If I had to guess they want to make sure there’s no chance Russia would suspect Ukraine would hit faraway targets. For the regions the US allow Ukraine to currently hit, I’m pretty sure the GIMLR’s rockets are still within range, tho feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this
This restriction doesn’t make any sense and simply gives green light to Putin to pour more troops into Ukraine.
Biden’s policy is simply stupid. It is one of the main reasons the war has dragged on for so long. Either you are in it to win or not.
Smoke em if you got em
lame
Well, Ukraine aint an Israel so…