Russia lacks troops, ammunition for major offensive in Ukraine, NATO official tells Reuters
Russia lacks troops, ammunition for major offensive in Ukraine, NATO official tells Reuters
Speaking ahead of the NATO summit in Washington, the official told reporters that Russia has suffered "very high" losses as it attempts to utilize limited territorial gains.
You're viewing a single thread.
The thing is, I'm not sure whether we have troops and ammo for any sort of defensive in Ukraine. I would like to hope that with foreign help we can outlast russians, though
The US can by practical means drive Russia out of whatever Ukrainian territory they wish, anytime they wish, and covertly if they wish.
The US goal isn't to win quickly. They'll drag out the war to drain the resources of the enemy. It's Afghanistan again, except:
- power disparity is greater and more transparent
- backlash similar to Afghanistan is likely avoided with NATO membership
As long as it hurts russia, I'm in. But I'd also rather not have so many of our people dead, soldiers or civilians
Inadequate.
Military-Industrial Complex
The US allocates a lot of money to defense. The spending boosts the economy. Capitalism requires increase in consumption to support mandate of economic growth. The weapons must be consumed such that more can be produced.
A proxy war allows the consumption of weapons without the publicly-objectionable consumption of American lives. A proxy war can be artificially extended for an economic boost.
Afghanistan
However, the people of the nation fighting with US weapons will eventually figure out the scam. They'll get really fucking righteously angry and have no viable means to communicate. They send a message by running airplanes into skyscrapers. So, we consume more weapons.
Ukraine
The US will avoid the consequences of a proxy war by recruiting the victims into NATO.
Winners
The only people winning are the stockholders of US defense corporations.
That's only partly true. Its half of what America wants, but you completely ignore that there are other actors and factors in the situation.
No matter how much weapons Ukraine gets, it's still better for them to get a few than none.
That's only partly true. Its half of what America wants, but you completely ignore that there are other actors and factors in the situation.
If I provide a synopsis you'll simply expand the scope once again. Good faith would've been listing those factors and why they're important.
No matter how much weapons Ukraine gets, it's still better for them to get a few than none.
I provided reason for my position. You've a thesis statement.