These weapons are not going to change the direction of the war even as the US state department openly admits. What they will do is make the war last longer and ensure more people die. Hope that clears things up for you.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems -5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Giving more weapons and negotiating an end to the war are not mutually exclusive. Biden is Giving Ukraine their best hand possible before the US is likely to duck out.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

Once again, since you appear to have trouble grappling with this concept. More weapons are not going to change the terms because the winner of the war will be dictating them. Either NATO goes and fights Russia directly, which is highly unlikely, or Russia will dictate terms to Ukraine. All these weapons are achieving is to ensure more Ukrainians die in a pointless war, which seems to give a hard on to people like you.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Either NATO goes and fights Russia directly, which is highly unlikely

Yep, that's evidenced by statements going back to 2022 by senior US officials (including John Kirby himself at one point I believe) stating that even if Russia used a tactical nuke within Ukraine, we would not respond with direct military intervention.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/will-biden-putin-goes-nuclear-experts-say-nuclear-response-unlikely-no-rcna32756

If Russia used a nuclear weapon of any type, “I expect (the president) to say we’re in a new situation, and the U.S. will directly enter the war against Russia to stop this government that has not only broken so many international laws and violated human rights but also now violated the nuclear taboo,” said Evelyn Farkas, a former top Pentagon official for Russia and now executive director of the McCain Institute. “Putin will be signing the order on changing the regime.”

But two U.S. officials briefed on the issue did not agree, with one saying, “Unless they use them on NATO we’re probably not going to respond militarily.”

So if the use of nuclear weapons isn't a red line, then what is? And back to your point, what's the point of continuing this war if we're not going to intervene and it's only going to result in my Ukranian deaths? Personally, I think that the answer has been clear from the beginning. We're willing to use the Ukranian people as fodder to dwindle Russia's resources.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

RAND explained the key reason for the war here fairly honestly https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

I'd argue that Europe decoupling economically from the east and falling further into US orbit was a secondary objective that's now been achieved https://www.voronoiapp.com/trade/-US-Becomes-Leading-EU-Trade-Partner-Surpassing-China-and-Russia-3073

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I like how they say their own research is Russian propaganda now.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 hours ago

🤣

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Well since Russia wants to enslave people it seems better to die on your feet.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Enslave… where do people come up with this shit?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Learn about the demographics of Ukraine you imbecile.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems -2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 3 minutes ago)

Reactionaries can't resist injecting sexual innuendo, can they?