ZhouDa

ZhouDa t1_je2nrs2 wrote

America is not a single entity, and what you attributing to them isn't even a representative of the opinion of a majority of Americans (whom don't have equal democratic representation in the US government).

As I said in another comment here, the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq sparked one of the biggest protests in modern history and Bush would leave office as the least popular president since they started keeping track of public opinion. There is still a lot of injustice in the US, and everywhere you find it you also find Americans fighting against it as well.

We all have a couple of options here. We can make the Russian invasion of Ukraine about the US and it's ongoing fight against it's own injustices or just accept that Americans are highly valuable allies needed to help stop Russia in its tracks and talk about that, and leave the discussion of US politics to the politics subreddit.

2

ZhouDa t1_je2kugg wrote

The civil war killed those people, which was roughly half a million give or take 100K or so. The Bush administration was still responsible because of their careless invasion, but it's more of a case of negligent homicide rather than murder. When the Iraq invasion happened it sparked one of the one of the biggest worldwide protests ever seen, except people didn't know that because it wasn't covered. But that was twenty years ago, there is little we can do about that now. Even if Bush and Cheney is brought to the Hague (which would be awesome if it did happen), it won't bring back any of the dead in Iraq or change the political situation there. What we can change is what is happening in Ukraine now, where Russia is actively murdering Ukrainians in the name of imperialism. Which is what this article is about before you derailed into US history as if it has any relevance.

7

ZhouDa t1_j2de19u wrote

I mean Ukraine pretty much managed to turn around the war with a handful of himars system. They went from losing Sievierodonetsk from overwhelming artillery barrages to destroying all their logistics with Himars and taking back Kherson and Kharkiv. The damage to Ukraine's infrastructure meanwhile is getting repaired pretty quickly, minimizing the effectiveness of missile strikes that are costing them like half a billion each.

4

ZhouDa t1_j2d1m4f wrote

I mean Ukraine is already shooting down like 80% of rockets launched at them, it's just a matter of getting those percentages up while Russia goes through their limited stock of missiles.

As for Russian artillery, the solution has been implemented with HIMARS. Massive artillery barrages take massive amounts of ammo, and that requires good logistics and storing all that ammunition. You hit their ammo depots as Ukraine has been doing and all that artillery is dead in the water. And even if do avoid this fate, artillery barrels have a limited lifespan before they become useless and need to be replaced, which is another point of failure for a country with underwhelming logistics.

0

ZhouDa t1_j29hfqz wrote

Eh, as someone who doesn't watch football only a handful of names of football players have seeped into my awareness, and this is the first I've heard of Matuszak. Goonies on the other hand is likely in the top ten most well known 80's movies.

1

ZhouDa t1_j1yn89c wrote

Leaving aside that most of the aid is in military equipment and only some of it is financial support, after the war Ukraine will be able to support themselves just like they did before the war, particularly if the west does the right thing and gives them some of that Russian oligarch money they seized in order to rebuild.

Ukraine's economy didn't depend on their oil reserves before the war since Russia made sure they couldn't be tapped with the seizure of Crimea and creation of LNR/DNR, but as long as Ukraine gets their cut they'll still benefit as well if gas companies come and start pumping crude as long as oil continues to hold value.

1

ZhouDa t1_iuan6hd wrote

Early in the war Lukashenko showed a battle map showing all the places where Russian was planning to attack Ukraine from, and one those place was a Russian controlled Moldova. In reality Russia needed a Ukrainian land bridge to Transnistria to make an invasion possible but Ukraine never let Russia take that much territory.

There's another interesting idea I heard that Putin was actually planning on conquering or subduing Ukraine, then he was going to mobilize Russia to get the military he needed to take on the other countries on his list (Moldova and Belarus would have been the safest bets for the next two countries he would have annexed), but in either case Ukrainian resistance forced him to move up his mobilization schedule before he was ready.

6