Summary

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the U.S., its primary military supporter, cuts funding.

Speaking to Fox News, he stressed the importance of unity between the U.S. and Ukraine as Russia accelerates its territorial gains.

Zelensky acknowledged Ukraine’s challenges on the battlefield, despite new U.S. weapon supplies, including long-range missiles and anti-personnel land mines.

He criticized German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for engaging with Putin, calling it a risky move.

Trump has pledged to end the war quickly but offered no specifics.

  • krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    This issue is a great example of the insane double think that most of Europe has about the US. We are too involved in world affairs until someone needs to take military action and then all of a sudden we’re the only ones who can address it. Ukraine is your neighbor, not ours. You should be the ones funding Ukraine’s defense because if you don’t Russia is on your doorstep. Ukraine should have so much money that it doesn’t matter what the US does but instead all of Europe is looking on like “it’s a shame a country on the other side of the world isn’t doing enough to stop this”.

    Edit: lots of people proving my point for me below. Downvote if you like but Europe is gonna have to step up or watch Ukraine fall. There isn’t a third option no matter how much you wish there was.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Sure, the US will at the same time see a lot of their international soft power evaporate. The US is showing what it means if they for decades keep riling up a country, rattling sabers only to not be home when it counts. Taiwan and whole of Asia Pacific is watching this.

      Also the US will see their intelligence networks dry up, humint will become less reliable and less likely to reach them. Tulay gabbard as head of the national intelligence in the US means a lot of countries cannot share their intelligence with the US anymore.

      That will surely help the US prevent their next international tragedy.

      And if the US emboldens dictators around the world and make the whole less stable, what happens to the world economy and all these countries the US sells to… they can’t afford… or shop elsewhere. Especially the EU fending for themselves will probably mean short term gains for the US in weapons sales, and then they stop. The EU will have been forced to do everything in house and the US will lose a massive customer base. And create a larger competitor at the same time.

      The examples of this short sighted way of thinking are endless. But it is true the EU needs to do more in terms of re-armament. Because the US is an untrustworthy Partner.

      Just like Putin proved to be when our leaders made him too important in our energy market… he leveraged his power. Now trump will do the same.

      I hope you people in the US will be OK, because if you think we will have it bad because if this, if only a part of what maga says they will actually happen, you’ll be in for a heck of a ride.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        We’re definitely not looking at a good time on the home front that’s for sure. I agree with the rest of what you said as well. People don’t seem to like it being pointed out to them though. Perhaps they think Trump will not pull funding from Ukraine but if I had to bet on all the things Trump will do over the next four years that would be in my top 3.

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Well, I wonder if the US defense contractors and Trumps team will play nice. Because Biden gave them a shit ton of extra billions. I wonder if the dynamic duo will try and play rough with the defense sector to save the 2 trillion of waste.

          The US defense had a huge stockpile of equipment that was aging out or even needed decommissioning.

          And a new generation of tech needed to be battlefield tested.

          By doing this the US was able to:

          • funnel extra cash into the defense sector (the US version of welfare)
          • give the military the extra cash to buy new stuff
          • get rid of old and unwanted stock
          • save money on storage, maintenance and decommissioning of old stock.
          • Show their allies they are the arsenal of democracy and can be counted on… while showing their adversaries they will go to bat for their allies.
          • Be on the right side of history.

          What I mean to say is the US got a bargain on crippling one of their main geopolitical adversaries. It only cost them old military stuff they did not want anymore, while boasting about billions… that never left the US and stimulates the US economy.

          I honestly don’t get how the Dems can do such awesome things in the last 4 years and are unable to tell people about it.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      That being said, it’s not crazy to ask the country who has been developing anti-Russian weapons for 50 years to donate those weapons to an anti-Russian cause. That’s what they were built for after all.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        20 hours ago

        More than anything your statement just makes me wonder why the phrase “the country who has been developing anti-Russian weapons for 50 years” does not refer to a European country. They seem to have been content to outsource defense spending for the last half century at least and now are acting surprised that they have to rely on someone else for defense.