105
NYT is now openly talking about a peace deal in which Ukraine would have to remain neutral and give up territory (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/ukraine_war_news@lemmygrad.ml
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I expect that's precisely the narrative we'll get as long as there's anything left of Ukraine in the end. The secondary narrative is going to be that Ukraine would've totally won if not for those darn republicans blocking additional 60b spending.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Ukraine really might have had a much better chance if it could have borrowed an extra $60bn to pay for the same 84 shells, all the stores marked "illegal weapons" 'left over' from before the Geneva convention, and the 3 tanks left in the warehouse. Nobody wants to be at war paying pre-war prices. What will the neighbours think? Don't answer. We already know—it's highly unfashionable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 years ago

    Right, like the elephant in the room is that the west lacks industrial capacity to produce weapons and ammunition at the rate they're consumed. Dumping more money into this doesn't solve that problem. Also, how is another 60b going to accomplish what hundreds of billions they pumped into Ukraine over the past two years couldn't accomplish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent