Should they?

  • happybadger [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    For all the expense, none of these massive bombardments has yielded any decisive results in degrading Ukrainian military potential. This is largely because Ukraine’s strategic depth is not in Ukraine. Stocks of Ukrainian arms and ammunition and the facilities that produce them are shielded beneath the American nuclear umbrella in Europe and the United States. Russia as a combatant in the conflict does not enjoy this advantage. Ukraine has increasingly threatened Russian industry through its acquisition and development of longer-range missiles and its expanding sabotage operations.

    The arms agreements that are being held up, compromised on, and becoming increasingly unpopular as Ukraine continues to prove it’s an incompetent Nazi failson. I would vote for any candidate who says they’re not only going to cut all funding to Ukraine, but they’re going to take back what’s been given with interest. If that war of attrition is to be won by surviving an overwhelming artillery bombardment long enough to beg for one more missile in the hopes that it will disable a single factory for a few weeks, the only thing I agree with in that strategy is that more Nazis die before they can do blowback. Otherwise that’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve heard in at least half an hour and it really shows that the author hinges his credibility on his success in Afghanistan.