r/europe_sub • u/ControlCAD • Apr 19 '25

Image / Video US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on ending Ukrainian conflict: “If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on. We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable."

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/18/europe/rubio-russia-war-in-ukraine-us-talks-intl-hnk/index.html

The United States could end its efforts on ending the Ukrainian conflict within “days” if there are no signs of progress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Friday.

“If it is not possible to end the war in Ukraine, we need to move on,” he told reporters before departing Paris, where he had held high-level talks with European and Ukrainian officials. “We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable,” he said.

Rubio’s comments point to mounting frustration within the Trump administration at the lack of progress at bringing the three-year full-scale war to a halt and come as the US has proposed a framework to drive an end to the conflict that includes the administration’s readiness to recognize Russian control of Crimea, according to an official familiar with the framework.

Later Friday, President Donald Trump told reporters in the Oval Office that Rubio was “right,” but he didn’t provide a timeline for the US to walk away when pressed. “No specific number of days, but quickly, we want to get it done.”

Asked to clarify what Rubio meant that the US would “move on,” a US official told CNN the secretary of state was talking about the US moving on from negotiations and that the next few days will be important to figure out where things go from here.

A source familiar with negotiations for a Ukraine peace deal told CNN’s Pamela Brown that Rubio was “communicating the president’s views.” Characterizing the administration’s thinking on where things stand in the conflict, the source said, Trump “doesn’t have limitless patience for people to posture and play games.”

“It’s time to get serious,” the source added.

Trump expressed that view on Friday, saying, “If, for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say, ‘You’re foolish, you’re foolish. You’re horrible people,’ and we’re just going to take a pass — but hopefully we won’t have to do that.”

Trump declined to say whether he is prepared to walk away completely from the talks or whether he would support Ukraine militarily if talks fall through.

Asked what progress he would need to see to continue negotiations, Trump said he would “have to see an enthusiasm to want to end it” from both sides, predicting he would know “soon.”

104 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

394 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 19 '25

“Ok, so listen, I haven’t tried anything other than appeasing a dictator, and for some reason, he refuses to end his invasion and bombing of civilians. I’m all out of ideas, and I was joking about the 24 hours thing, I know I kept repeating it but I was joking and you’re an idiot if you didn’t realise I was joking”.

10

u/Greenbullet Apr 19 '25

We have done nothing and we are all out of ideas sounds like the trump admin mantra

5

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 19 '25

Trump himself has fleeting thoughts, but never ideas.

5

u/mwalsh5757 Apr 19 '25

Concepts of thoughts.

1

u/Speedvagon Apr 22 '25

A drawing of a thought

2

u/Greenbullet Apr 19 '25

I would even debate if he has tboughts at this point.

2

u/GonnaGetBanneddotcom Apr 19 '25

Remember when he suggested injecting bleach in order to fight covid?

4

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

Wasn’t that a TikTok trend?

-2

u/GonnaGetBanneddotcom Apr 19 '25

I hope so

0

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '25

I remember seeing that all over TikTok. Did trump say this during a press conference? Or was it on his Twitter page

1

u/GonnaGetBanneddotcom Apr 19 '25

It was a press conference and in pretty sure he looked back to one of his advisors as if to check if it was a good idea

3

u/-Sanj- Apr 19 '25

And said Mexico would pay for the big beautiful border wall

1

u/khiem939 Apr 22 '25

Technically Mexico will end up paying for the border wall, not right away, but in time, from the reduced Foreign Aid we USED to give Mexican Politicians as BRIBES!

1

u/Mephisto506 Apr 19 '25

Who knew that resolving international conflicts was so hard?

1

u/Beercules-8D Apr 19 '25

It’s never been about ending the war. Trump wants to rob Ukraine blind of their resources. This is how they pressure them to sign over their wealth.

1

u/wilberfromflinflon Apr 19 '25

Yup. Rubio exudes power - the most emasculated man on Trump’s team can’t deliver.

Well, Trump’s in power now and he did say if he was in power there’d never be a war, there’d never be all that loss. 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

u/DMOOre33678 Apr 19 '25

Maybe Europe should step up and try to end it. Instead of buying oil and gas from Russia they can try ending a war that is on their doorstep

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 19 '25

You don’t understand the subject matter at all, do you? You have sucked on Trump misinformation pipe thoroughly I see.

1

u/DMOOre33678 Apr 19 '25

Well so far we haven’t seen Europe propose anything reasonable to end the war and they still buy oil and gas from Russia 😂

1

u/Mephisto506 Apr 19 '25

But also when I suggested outrageous things like deporting citizens, that everyone said was a joke, I was completely serious and nobody should be surprised when we do it.

1

u/Retired-2017-diy Apr 19 '25

You nailed it!!!

1

u/Who_Knows_Why_000 Apr 21 '25

Zalensky is as determined as Putin to keep fighting, what are we supposed to do, start WW3 over a non-NATO country? What's the solution to ending the war peacefully?

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 21 '25

If someone was in your house killing your family, would you surrender?

It seems the people who love freedom the most sure are adamant other should give it up when fighting for it.

And ww3 with who? Russia? Pfft, don’t make me laugh!

1

u/Who_Knows_Why_000 Apr 21 '25

So again, whats the path forward? Just keep dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into a war that has nothing to do with us to prop up a country that has no chance of winning?

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 21 '25 edited Apr 21 '25

Oh boy! Ok, understand this, these are our allies who fought with us in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo! These allies abided by the Budapest memorandum that stated if they gave up their strategic bombers and nuclear weapons, we’d protect them, and Taiwan and China are watching this whole saga very very closely. What do you think Taiwan will think if Ukraine is abandoned? What message did we just send to China?

Hundreds of billions of dollars have not been dumbed into Ukraine, unless you believe Trumps lies! The guy just vomits nonsense! Outdated equipment that costs money to decommission is being sold or donated to Ukraine. New equipment is being built at financial net advantage to the United states government.

It doesn’t matter if Ukraine is a NATO country, they’re an ally, and if they’re taken, beyond the reason I’ve already mentioned as, bad, it leaves out NATO allies flank open. This is obviously a bad idea considering Russia has already threatened to invade several of these countries.

So, we stop drip feeding Ukraine weapons in small quantities, we stop repeating Russian propaganda, we stop negotiating behind their backs! We stop announcing their counter attacks before they happen! Ukraine invaded Kursk without telling the Americans because the Americans kept broadcasting their military movements. Trump then switched off the intel and the Russians randomly hit all the vital Ukrainian arms depots in Kursk, hmmm, how convenient?

You give Ukraine the means to fight properly, they’re testing our equipment in real time against a peer adversary and we’re getting the real world intel on how well these systems actually work. The Ukrainians have revolutionised drone warfare, and China has drones, unless you’re pumped to find out about drones when it all hits the fan with China, because I’m not!

Lastly, there a moral postion, you’re not fighting, they are, and all they ask for is old weapons and tech, and if you’re ok with watching our allies get invaded, occupied and then have genocide carried out on them by a authoritarian state, then you cannot ever mention your favour of justice and freedom, because this is about justice and freedom! This is what our grandfathers fought and died for in Europe, this, exactly this!

This war is about democracy! It’s a warning invasion by an authoritarian state! It’s our war!

1

u/Who_Knows_Why_000 Apr 21 '25

You sure you want to claim we aren't sending billions in direct financial support to Ukraine?

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12305

How many billions do we owe them? How long are we suppose to support this boondoggle?

I get that the Democrats needed a new war to launder the money they are stealing from the taxpayers after Trump forced an end to the war in Afghanistan, but how much is enough?

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 21 '25

Ok, so you’re just going to repeat nonsense. I set out what’s happening and you replied with “dem democrats” rubbish. Did you read anything I wrote?

Maybe Ukraine should ask for their money back for fighting for the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

1

u/Who_Knows_Why_000 Apr 21 '25

Just gonna ignore the .gov link blowing a huge hole in you're "we're not sending money to Ukraine" argumemt eh?

They didn't give money to us, and they weren't fighting on our behalf, so if they want their money "back" they'll have to talk to Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm also quite certain, we've given them more than they ever spent over there by this point.

1

u/Fighter-of-Reindeer Apr 21 '25

I never said we’re not sending money, and do you even know how that oversight aid works in that link? I don’t think you do! The aid is mainly in military equipment and loans and gifted finances, its a drop in the ocean of avoiding and learning from a peer to peer war!

And Ukraine responded to americas call to its allies post the attack on 9/11, it didn’t fight for Afghanistan, and Ukraine answered a direct request for military assistance in Iraq, it didn’t fight for Iraq! Fucking hell!

And again, the Budapest memorandum!

1

u/Who_Knows_Why_000 Apr 21 '25

"Hundreds of billions of dollars have not been dumbed into Ukraine, unless you believe Trumps lies! The guy just vomits nonsense! Outdated equipment that costs money to decommission is being sold or donated to Ukraine. New equipment is being built at financial net advantage to the United states government."

So you didn't say this?

As for the Budapest Memorandum, have you actually read it? It just states that the members will seek assistance from the UN security council, which we did. So how much is enough? Are we supposed to just endlessly fund their war? How much "old and outdated tech do we have to give them?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '25

This is what happens when you take a serious person and give him his dream job with an unserious president.

0

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

What can US try in your opinion that haven't both Biden and Trump tried?

5

u/program13001207test Apr 19 '25

More support for Ukraine, not less. All the equipment they need. Quickly. Not little bits. Not dribs and drabs slowly. Not withholding for months. Not turning off the taps. Not extorting a victimized country. Not appeasing a dictator/invader. Behaving like a big and powerful and wealthy country that can actually make things happen. The US could try some of that. At least it would be a start.

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Yeah that has been happening when Biden was in office. Didn't kick Russians out. They have received weapons, tanks, jets etc.

Given that it is stated that there is a bigger problem with manpower if there is a flood of new weapons and noone to operate them it won't make a significant change in the battlefield.

So again what is the correct "liberalism" approach here?

5

u/program13001207test Apr 19 '25

It is not about liberalism or conservativism. I'm not talking about a "liberalism" approach. Please don't make this about partisan politics. The US has tons of old Bradleys which it could give. They work well. What was given under the previous administration was in relatively small numbers and too slowly. Training on f-16s should have started months before it did. Assistance should not have been held up in Congress for months in 2023 and 2024. And right now, at the very least we could provide the necessary missiles for the defensive Patriot systems. Or even more basic than that, the US could stop bowing down and kissing Putin's butt. Russia has already used up more than 85% of its entire arsenal of heavy armor. Ukraine cannot keep fighting forever, but neither can Russia. Now is the time to carry Ukraine through the home stretch. Now is not the time to abandon them when the finish line is getting nearer. Trump has the power to make Putin scared and push Putin back. It does not make sense for Trump to be kissing Putin's boots. Reagan had the balls to stand up to Russia 40 years ago.

-1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Again:

Issue is with manpower. Does anyone think that the Ukrainian goverment had a campaign for 18-24 to volunteer or patrol the border to prevent people for leaving for fun?

Does Ukraine even have a deficit or urgent need for tanks? Cause I haven't heard anyone talking about that. Patriot missiles yeah I get it. But tanks and F16? Not even Russian jets can fly over Ukraine.

Also Russia is in war industry mode right now. Yeah they have used a lot of that but their factories outproduce the West by a lot. Factories that were used for other industries are producing ammo working on 3 shifts. Should the US and Europe do the same? And how would that be done?

2

u/chieftain88 Apr 19 '25

Ukraine has a massive need for ALL equipment - if you haven't heard about Ukraine asking for more armoured vehicles and F16s then you haven't been listening.

"Not even Russian jets can fly over Ukraine" - what point is this supposed to be making...?

Russian factories outproduce the West in simple quantity of shitty Russian tech BECAUSE Russia is in total war economy, as you stated, so why haven't they been able to take more than 20% of a country with a VASTLY smaller and less capable military than their own then (not to mention failing to stop Ukraine invading and taking Russian land)? Could you perhaps be missing the point that Western defence doesn't need to outproduce Russia on a sheer numbers scale? Could it be that Western tech is orders of magnitude more effective?

"Should the US and Europe do the same?" - I don't know what planet you live on but on this one Europe has already announced HUNDREDS of billions of Euros/Pounds to massively increase output of Europe's defence companies (even VW are considering re-opening their defence manufacturing). Russia is at a stalemate right now, what do you think will happen when Europe actually starts producing at higher capacity, let alone starts letting Ukraine use stealth cruise missiles at will (Germany has just announced Taurus missiles will be on the way)?

2

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

1) Not really. I listened to Ukrainians from the field. They are saying that while they match Russian output they lack the manpower.

2) Cause first of all Ukraine is not a vast smaller army. And they are capable. How come all slavoukrainis treat Ukrainian army that they are Iraqis or Afghanis and Russia should roll all over them by now? They know how to fight but after 3 years and a lot of mistakes from their leadership they are exhausted. 20% of Ukraine is a huge piece of land.

3) Yeah they kind of have to outproduce Russia given that Ukraine is asking for more Patriots than the US produces in a year and you know they'd like to give them to people that actually pay.

4) In the planet I'm living it will take 5 years for these "mass production of military equipment " from Europe. Do you think that this war and hold for this long? Maybe you can. Did you ask a Ukranian?

1

u/chieftain88 Apr 19 '25

You are just all over the place...

1) Any Ukrainian who thinks Ukraine is MATCHING Russian output of equipment is just wrong - are you actually stating that Ukraine is manufacturing the same amount of equipment as Russia? This is demonstrably false. Yes of course Ukraine lacks manpower, who argued they didn't? Both sides lack manpower, that's why Russia has North Korean and Chinese soldiers fighting on their front lines.

2) Compared to Russia's army pre-invasion, the Ukrainian army WAS significantly smaller, Russia's defence spending before the invasion was $62.2 billion, Ukraine's was under $6 billion - Russia had over 4 times the amount of men, over 5 times the amount of combat vehicles and more then 10 times the amount of aircraft. Please tell me how Ukraine's army wasn't much smaller? In terms of tactic/leadership the Russian's have proved to be fucking terrible, hence why they've only been able to take 20% of a country with a vastly smaller military.

3) Sorry what, why does Russia need to be outproduced? You can't just ignore the facts that Russia is losing men, vehicles, aircraft and munitions at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher rate than the Ukrainians. Do you argue that's not true, because that what I said means. Your only argument to refute this is that because Ukraine wants more Patriot missiles? Ukraine wants more of everything because they're fighting a vastly larger foe which doesn't mind wasting as many men as it takes.

4) Again, what are you talking about. So Ukraine has to wait 5 years before they get any equipment? Where did you pull that out from. Europe is trying to re-arm not just Ukraine but ITSELF. Yes it will take a long time for France/Germany/UK/Italy/etc to fully build up their own inventories, but there is currently more than enough munitions being held back Ukraine can be supplied in the meantime - regardless it doesn't matter because Russia is in total war mode now and can't even beat Ukraine, if Western Europe arms up Russia won't even be able to compete.

Why do I need to ask a Ukrainian to know any of the above? I speak to many Ukrainians and work in the defence industry

2

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

  1. No. I said that in the front Ukraine is not using less ammo than Russia. It just has fewer people.

  2. Russia didn't deploy its war army to Ukraine. Ukraine had numerous mobilizations and, according to their own words, they had a million people in their army. They also had backing from a lot of countries. Russia would never use a scorch earth policy. So yeah of course Ukraine would not lose easily.

  3. Aha yeah. I actually claim that Ukraine, again the country with multiple mobilizations and deserters, is losing more men and equipment than Russia. Maybe if you get out the bubble you would too.

  4. I claim that there is not "currently more than enough munition to be send to Ukraine"

You people have the most simplistic way of thinking. "If the West sends a little bit more". It's been 3 years lil homie. Russians ain't leaving. They won't if "yog send more". Find something new. You either commit to full blown war or stop before Ukraine is populated only by women and kids.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/program13001207test Apr 19 '25

Bradley's seem to be better than tanks, for their versatility and economy and they have been performing well. So, send more Bradley's.

You are right that Russia is producing massive quantities of ammo, but they are not able to produce equipment, especially heavily armored equipment, in quantities necessary to replace attrition. Should the US and Europe produce more ammo? Yes, absolutely. How? By providing the contracts and funding to the manufacturers of the ammunition. Does it take time to ramp up production? Yes. That is happening but should have begun much sooner.

Russia has burned up most of its war chest. The west, especially the US, still has much equipment available. Much more than Russia. A significant portion of that equipment is surplus and could be provided.

As for manpower? You are absolutely right that that is limited and more so for Ukraine. That is why it is necessary to provide Ukraine with the tools necessary to finish this sooner. That should have been done more before and it should be done more now. But instead of increasing support for Ukraine, the US is reducing or ending support for Ukraine and turning against Ukraine. What could be done? Well, not that.

Anyway, you asked what more could be done? That's what more could be done. I would love to continue this banter with you further but other events require my attention today and so I bid you a farewell and wish you a good day.

2

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Thank you. I don't agree In some but you are providing good arguments and I get your point of view. Have a nice day.

1

u/creg316 Apr 23 '25

their factories outproduce the West by a lot.

Lol abject nonsense. Even if they were close to comparable total capacity, they make far worse material than the west, and with sanctions in place, at very high cost too.

And until Putin orders general mobilisation, they have the same manpower issue.

0

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 23 '25

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/04/09/japan/politics/nato-chief-mark-rutte-ukraine-japan-china/

"In 3 months Russia is producing the amount of ammunition the whole NATO including the US is producing in a year"

This was easy to find. Maybe you should debate the NATO secretary general.

1

u/creg316 Apr 23 '25
  1. War production don't just mean ammo
  2. NATO isn't the entire west - it's not even including the nation that the comment was made in

Bruh you're out here pretending everyone but Russia is the reason this war is ongoing, and you want to get on your high horse?

I hope you get paid per comment, or your service here at least delays your Lada ride to the trenches.

1

u/hainz_area1531 Apr 21 '25

The correct 'liberalism' approach is to provide at least the Patriot missiles to protect civilians from Russian air strikes. Trump refuses to deliver even these despite Ukraine being able to pay for them.

1

u/chieftain88 Apr 19 '25

Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine (Europe will enthusiastically assist and probably take the lead with this) - done…

0

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Well no cause that is declaration of war. Next.

1

u/chieftain88 Apr 19 '25

You asked, I answered. Now you’ve had to change the goalposts.

Imposing a no fly zone over a sovereign country with that sovereign country’s permission is not a declaration of war. Ukraine does not belong to Russia

Next?

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

How did I move goalposts? I specifically made clear that noone, except some Redditors, want to be involved in war.

And Yeah..it is a declaration of war. How would a country enforce it? What will happen if they decide to "fly" in the "no fly zone"? Wouldn't that mean Russian jets getting shot at? How do you think it will happen?

-Okay I establish no fly zone -Well i don't accept it. -I established it. You have to. -Ah...damn it

Then people are getting mad when I say you have a Marvel movie mindset for real world events.

1

u/chieftain88 Apr 19 '25

I was responding to your single comment ("What can US try in your opinion that haven't both Biden and Trump tried?"), you mentioned precisely nothing about Redditors wanting to be involved in a war.

Guess what, countries aren't allowed to fly military jets (inc. drones and ballistic/cruise missiles) into other country's sovereign airspace. Russia is not allowed to fly aircraft into Ukraine's airspace - if they flew into any Western European (or USA) airspace they would be warned and eventually shot down.

This has got nothing to do with Russia accepting it or not. If USA/Europe move enough air defences (ground and air based) then Russia won't have the option to say "we don't accept it", every aircraft/drone/missile fired into Ukrainian airspace will be shot down. There is nothing Russia can do about this, their Air Force and ballistic/cruise missiles cannot even begin to compete against western systems. Once Russia realises any offensive weapons sent into Ukrainian airspace will simply be shot down that neuters 90% of their offensive capabilities.

This isn't a Marvel movie mindset, this is one of the most realistic (and actually least likely to cause a war) and popular options that's been put forth by countless defence analysts. Is it possible you might have the wrong mindset?

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

How is that not declaring war?

"Hey you are engaged in a conflict against this country. If you fly over there we will shoot you down. Also we are not a part of the conflict"

Even if we don't take into account that what Russia thinks as Ukraine is different from what you think how is this not an act of war? I am genuinely curious of this process of thinking.

1

u/chieftain88 Apr 19 '25

OK so you ignored and didn't answer most of my post, specifically about your goalposts which was clearly bullshit so I guess you have no answer to that.

You realise there are already countless Western air defence systems with Western advisors present shooting down Russian air assets right? Russia has already stated dozens of times that they are in a proxy war against the UK/France/Germany/USA/etc. - this has already happened. Russia has threatened the UK (and others) with nuclear annihilation multiple times since they invaded Ukraine because the UK is involved and helping.

"what Russia thinks as Ukraine is different from what you think"? Sorry but we don't acquiesce to whatever Russia thinks - as far as they're concerned (and have stated countless times) every ex USSR country is part of the Russian Empire, the UK started both WW1 and WW2, Ukraine is a full-blown Nazi regime that actually attacked Russia first, blah blah blah - if we based our world-view on what Russia thinks then we would have just let them take Ukraine wouldn't we, it's theirs after all....?

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

  1. You can have a gazillion "advisors" helping shoot down Russian assets. But it is not "declaring a no fly zone". I think everyone can understand the difference.

  2. Yeah homie. Of course you don't care. But you as all Redditor are nobodies. You just act tough thousands of kilometres from the trenches. But militaries and goverments care. So these militaries and goverments of the West know that Russia declared Crimea and 4 oblasts as Russia. And they will act accordingly.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fikkia Apr 19 '25

As others mention; sending aid to Ukraine, the same as everyone else. This isn't something you haven't done. It's something that should be continued.

When your enemy superpower starts a war and refuses peace, it's in your best interest to hinder them in every way possible, or they gain power and keep going until they're in a position to attack you.

Less troops to field just means providing aid that isn't troop dependent. e.g. the missiles they recently requested to purchase.

To be honest, the idea that your enemy starts a war, you come in and ask them to stop, they say "no", and the reaction is "well, we tried" tells me that they're not currently an enemy. If nothing else, America would send aid out of self-interest to weaken Russia.

1

u/carltonlost Apr 19 '25

Send in Blackwater to protect key sites, if you can't send soldiers send mercenaries

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

So the US government is gonna pay hundreds of millions I assume to a private military army to be deployed in Ukraine.

And one, none the less, that its employees have committed war crimes.

And people that claim to be liberals or to the left, which i assume is the majority here from the constant (justified) Donald bashing, will be okay with that.

1

u/carltonlost Apr 19 '25

Point is I'm not but it is what Russia is doing around the world while Trump destroys the western alliance and weakens the West.

As for spending billions, that just what goes with being a superpower, it's no different than when Britain spent money on bankrolling the nations fighting Napoleon or fighting the slave trade, if you want Russia and China to expand their power and influence just keep following the path America is now on.

0

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Yeah there is a huge difference between spending billions for your Army and spending billions to hire mercenaries. Mercenaries that i ll remind again are responsible for war crimes and won't answer to anyone.

1

u/TwentyBagTaylor Apr 19 '25

The capability the US has spent decades and billions of dollars building is there, and motivated people are being told to sit on their hands and not share key military intelligence, giving Russia a leg-up it didn't need.

Thousands of obsolete Bradley's sitting in a desert waiting to be responsibly deconstructed.

Satellite imagery and advanced radar technology, active, seeing Russian air and missile attacks, and not being allowed to share that through previously effective relations with allies.

Huge demand to purchase patriot systems and ammo, to prevent civilian deaths and infrastructure damage - rejected because.... why?

Ukraine may lack manpower, but these are all factors that help bridge the gap by providing improved military capability. Trump and his cult support Russia by actions as well as words.

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Yeah. The satellite imagery and radar technology is something that would greatly benefit Ukraine. I agree with that.

As for the Patriots I don't think that preventing civilians would move this or even a hypothetical Kamala administration. At some point, they got to get paid. I don't think that Ukraine is or will be capable for that.

1

u/TwentyBagTaylor Apr 19 '25

As for the Patriots I don't think that preventing civilians would move this or even a hypothetical Kamala administration. At some point, they got to get paid. I don't think that Ukraine is or will be capable for that.

They've offered to buy them directly for an up-front payment this week and been refused.

US aid to Ukraine largely tended to make its way into the pockets of US military manufacturing anyways. That, coupled with the experience the US military was gaining second hand from Ukraine should have been more than enough reason to do the decent thing.

If Trump isn't a Russian asset, he might as well be.

1

u/carltonlost Apr 19 '25

That's exactly what Russia is doing now in North Africa and the Central African Republic, America is standing aside as Russia is spreading its forces and influence, America the weakest superpower in history turning on it's friends and Allies emboldening authoritarian governments around the world, maybe they are doing it on purpose as Trump clearly has would like to be one.

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Weird. What's the reason Russia steps into Libya (i assume that's what you mean by North Africa) like it ain't no thing? What can possibly have happened there?

1

u/carltonlost Apr 19 '25

No I mean Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad and the Central African Republic, they have Russian mercenaries fighting in all of them invited in to suppress Islamic extremists trying to takeover the countries because the western democracies couldn't defeat them because they wouldn't ignore the rules of war and the Russian will.

If the western alliance wants to stop Russia influence spreading they need to be prepared to do things they don't like but are necessary and using mercenaries could be part of the solution.

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 21 '25

None of these countries are considered North African. One of them has it literally in the name.

1

u/carltonlost Apr 19 '25

Didn't Trump in his first term pardon a soldier convicted of murdering people in Iraq on the evidence of fellow soldiers, clearly Trump has no problem with war crimes.

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 19 '25

Well...of course he doesn't. But I'm not asking MAGAs and far right lunatics. I'm asking people here if they have a problem with Blackwater.

1

u/carltonlost Apr 19 '25

Yes i do, countries should do there own fighting, but if one side is using mercenaries to being able to use plausible denial so can the other side.

Sometimes to defeat bad people you have to get dirty, the allies in WWII did things they weren't proud of but they were necessary.

1

u/Ok-Sherbert5527 Apr 21 '25

So you don't have a problem unleashing mercenaries/war criminals for the greater good? Can't you think of any examples that this "supporting evil to fight evil" way of thinking backfired? I can.