• President Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine would lose the war if the US didn’t send it more aid.
  • House Republicans have been stalling on a $60 billion aid package for Ukraine.
  • “It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose,” he said.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Sunday that his country “will lose the war” against Russia if Congress does not act to send it more aid, Agence France-Presse reported.

“It is necessary to specifically tell Congress that if Congress does not help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war,” he said, per AFP.

For months, House Republicans have stalled on a bill containing $60 billion in aid for Ukraine, stipulating that it should also include increased funding for security at the US southern border.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s Zelenskyy’s job to say that. But if he doesn’t get it he’ll be in a tough situation with his troops assuming he tries to backpedal that and encourage them to keep fighting.

    I don’t understand why Europe isn’t more involved in shutting this situation down. It’s your goddamn borders at risk if this smoldering fire isn’t put out.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Europe CANT do more. They don’t have the military strength due to perpetual underfunding. It’s precisely what every US President since Bill Clinton has been bitching about. The wolf is at the door and they’re every bit as unprepared as has been claimed for the last 30 years.

      • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        We’ve relied too heavily on NATO and the US and it’s biting is in the ass right now. A European army would be great in this exact kind of situation. But then everyone in Europe will be “but muh sovereignty”, like Europe didn’t do in 50 years what people tried to do for centuries, which is preventing us from killing each other.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          We’ve relied too heavily on NATO and the US and it’s biting is in the ass right now.

          Europe has a long term problem with it’s reliance on the US that I haven’t heard discussed. The demographics of the United States are shifting away from people of European background due to immigration from South America and Asia. Over the next 50ish years support from the US will not be a given because so many of the people simply won’t have the cultural ties.

          Why would masses of people whose backgrounds are from Venezuela, Vietnam, Sudan, or Mexico want to send billions of dollars of military aid, or enter a war, on the European continent?

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.lu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            Every European country has its own army but there are no central command center, just a few countries are cooperating with each other but that’s about it I believe. And with Brexit, only France is nuclear capable now.

      • ManniSturgis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yup, we have mostly tried to befriend Russia, even after they took the Crimea. Hell, there are right wing parties who’d love to buy russian gas again even now.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      He’s not joking. They need more ammo but the truth is the United States can’t produce it fast enough.

      Europe is doing a lot but they don’t want to risk nuclear war for Ukraine.

      Really this showed nato can’t sustain long term military operations without running out of ammo. I’m pro-military but damn , I didn’t realize how little we could produce.

      • avater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        you do realize that Nato is not at war, right?

        I’m not saying Europe shouldn’t do more, but at the moment we provide Ukraine with ammunition and equipment while we also have to make sure that our own forces have enough for a possible war with russia.

        If this would be an actual war, Russia would loose it in a few weeks, no need for a long time military operation…

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          6 months ago

          Woosh. You seemed to have missed what I said trying to push your own agenda.

          We blew through years of stockpiled ammo in under a year and can’t produce enough to sustain one war.

          The United States use to have a policy of 2.5 wars at a time. We changed it to two I believe and we can’t even handle one.

          And no Russia wouldn’t lose in a couple of weeks. It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.

          • avater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It took a months for us to take Iraq or Afghanistan.

            Yep they are also much more capable than the Russians. Remind me, how many days does the three days to Kyiv war now last? Also the Afghanistan beat the fucking Russians, to there is that.

            • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s naive to think the Iraqi army is more capable than the Russian army.

                • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Yes. The two are not comparable. Russia has a lot more equipment and people than Iraq. They also have nuclear weapons and a large chemical arsenal. Also the size of Russia is immense. Just getting to Moscow would take weeks and securing all of Russia months.

                  • avater@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    hopefully we will never see that but I highly doubt that Russia has a chance against the full force of the NATO.

      • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, I mean I’m not 100% sure, but I would bet that the USA has more ammunition than anyone else on the planet. We are just hoarding it.