comment: >
  
  
  Just give them what they need to finish this. Yes the US have given the most, but they are still holding back.
  
  An Ukrainian journalist recently posed following question at a White House news conference.:
  “[...] And now Ukraine desperately needs more capabilities, including long-range missiles ATACMS. Maybe I sound naïve, but can we make a long story short and give Ukraine all the capabilities it needs and liberate all territories, sooner rather than later?”
  Biden replied as follows.: 
  “[...] Now, you say, “Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give?“ […] And the idea that we would give Ukraine materiel that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and breaking up the European Union and the rest of the world. […] I’ve spent several hundred hours face-to-face with our European allies and the heads of state of those countries, and making the case as to why it was overwhelmingly in their interest that they continue to support Ukraine.
  They understand it fully, but they’re not looking to go to war with Russia. They’re not looking for a third World War. And I think it can all be avoided by making sure that Ukraine is able to succeed in the battlefield. So, anyway, there’s more to say, but I probably already said too much. Thank you.“
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Western countries must be prepared to provide long-term support to Ukraine as Russia shows no signs of relenting, Nato's secretary general has said.
  Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that military support would ensure the survival of Ukraine as a sovereign country and force Russia to sit down and negotiate an end to the war.
  "We need to provide support to Ukraine now, including military support, because that's the only way to convince Russia that they have to sit down and negotiate in good faith and respect Ukraine as a sovereign independent nation in Europe," Mr Stoltenberg said.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russia^#2 New^#3 Year^#4 Stoltenberg^#5 >
  
  lol why are the comments a pissing contest for who's helped the most? We should all just agree that we need to continue supporting them. >
  
  B/c the US is doing the right thing, and edgy teenagers on the internet can't handle that. It's hard to be a contrarian and woke at the same time while the US is providing all this much needed support >
  
  Americans want healthcare. >
  
  universal healthcare would cost American less than the current system. There is no financial obstacle to achieving it, its not a binary choice between military spending and healthcare >
  
  It's more complicated than a dollar sign on a piece of paper.
  The current system employees a lot of people and undoing it requires coming up with a plan for the employment vacuum it would create.
  I'm not disagreeing that single payer is a better system, but the current system is so entrenched that unwinding it will require a lot of upfront planning, care and monumental cost. It's really not as simple of a transition as people make it out to be. >
  
  Bernie stans will kill me, but single player is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare 
  Countries like France, Germany, Singapore all have mixed public private healthcare systems with relegated price caps to ensure affordability, and thats probably the path that makes the most sense for the US >
  
  Germany, I think has a private health care system that sets strict limits on how much an individual receiving health care has to pay. In the same way that medicare does in the United States. That seems like an obvious solution. But additional taxes almost constitute a political death sentence in the United States. So Medicare for all is dead on arrival. Which is unfortunate. And short sighted. >
  
  
  Germany, I think has a private health care system that sets strict limits on how much an individual receiving health care has to pay. 
  
  germany has a split public/private health care system. anybody earning above 64,350€ gross (in 2022) has the option to insure themselves privately. certain people also have to insure themselves privately (servants of the state, "beamte"). anybody in a private insurance will get the full preexisting conditions dance - but you still have the option to stay in the public healthcare system.
  for anybody in the public health care system, they will not even know how much the doctor earned off of them, unless it's an optional service, which they pay in full (there are extra insurances that will cover more, most noticably dental). anybody privately insured will see the full bill, pay it, and then get reimbursed by their insurance. the price a privately insured person will pay/get reimbursed usually is higher than the one a public insured person's insurance will pay. the insurance costs itself is deducted from the paycheck every month, automatically by the employer, and paid to the insurance. insurance is not bound to the employer however, it's your own choice. you are also insured when unemployed. >
  
  Thank you for filling in the bits that I'm missing. I'm not familiar with the system, I'm just parroting what I've heard.
  I would ask about the deduction from the paycheck, as some Americans end up with multi million dollar bills. Is that controlled properly, or do some Germans get saddled with uncontrollable debt? Is medical debt a common force towards bankruptcy in anywhere but America? >
  
  
  I would ask about the deduction from the paycheck, as some Americans end up with multi million dollar bills. Is that controlled properly, or do some Germans get saddled with uncontrollable debt?
  
  For the public health care, it's entirely based on your income (capped at 58,050€). It is not depended on the costs of your medical treatment. It is covered half by yourself, half by your employer. On your paycheck, in addition to income tax, you'll find the following, always in percent of the after-tax income:
  
  half of 14.6% healthcare, + extra costs of your insurance of roughly 1.2%
  half of 3.05% long term care (i.e. if you need help doing things because of age or illness, this will pay for either professional help or a family member)
  half of 18.6% pension ("Rente", capped at 84,600€ income)
  half of 2.6% unemployment insurance
  
  so for a person that did not hit any caps, they'll be deducted roughly an additional 20% of their after tax income.
  for the privately insured I can't really answer. What I do know is that the are much cheaper when younger, but once you get older get more expensive (or outright impossible) and it's very difficult or impossible get back into the public variant. So it can get quite problematic when you aren't working anymore and the rates are rising.
  
  Is medical debt a common force towards bankruptcy in anywhere but America?
  
  It's not in germany. All things a doctor can do are billed based on a comprehensive list of individual routines. while there is a multiplier the doctor can use when billing each item, it's not obscene. privately insured persons generally will be billed more, as their insurances will pay it. >
  
  Stop Russia here. Now. 
  They will make us regret any other decision. >
  
  I mean the war crimes alone, the children... >
  
  He is simply making a left-handed reference for the wait 
  Ukraine has has been waiting to be accepted into Nato. Nato won't officially acept until the war is settled, and Nato has been around for over 60 years, that's pretty long term. >
  
  NATO will never accept Ukraine until it takes back all the territories as well as Crimea. >
  
  
  until the war is settled
  
  that's pretty much the same to this >
  
  The United States has by far provided the most military assistance to Ukraine, more than every other country combined.
  
  Wikipedia >
  
  The US mostly provides aid in the form of weapons. The US spends more on its military budget than the next 5 countries combined. What do you expect? >
  
  
  The US mostly provides aid in the form of weapons.
  
  Also worth noting is that it isn't a one-way street either. The US is picking up plenty of lucrative export orders too resulting from this live fire sales demonstration
  The US spent plenty in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria only for their proxies to run away or sell their weapons to the highest bidder. The world laughed at them, and America's inability to train and equip an army might have been one of many factors that weighed on Putin's final decision
  This is the first time in decades that America has supplied a country with weapons who have proven willing to stand and fight and use them, and now Republican's are still moaning (after having committed America to spending a lot more in other theatres) that American sponsorship is in danger of embarrassing their ideological role model
  Edit - should have added that it's not just arms sales that America is getting money back on from this war either. America now exports 70% of their LNG to Europe, effectively replacing Russia as the primary supplier and allowing them to overtake Qatar as the largest exporter in the world. Now that's a significant slice of any pie. 
  For all those Republicans moaning about the supply of weapons to Ukraine, you'll probably find that America's doing quite well on the net balance of payments resulting from this war. Sadly though, its a very easy sell to simplistic voters >
  
  Those diehard republicans moaning about Ukraine are few and far between. Most seem to understand the deep implications involved in this war and support it, and by most I mean a majority of republicans. Did you watch Zelensky's visit? Most republicans clapped and yes, there were a few notable holdouts but that number was very low all things considered... less than double digits, regardless of whatever story Tucker Carlson is crooning about. >
  
  
  Those diehard republicans moaning about Ukraine are few and far between. Most seem to understand the deep implications involved in this war and support it
  
  Their support will be worth buttons and quickly evaporate if Trump wins the Whitehouse again. They'll do what ever he tells them to, because they're essentially feckless. 
  On that very same day Don Jnr described Zelensky as "an ungrateful international welfare queen", and Trump himself described Putin as "smart" and "savvy" on Feb 24th. 
  The problem  here is the de facto Republican leader is a Russian sympathiser, and the congressional GOP has frankly got a risible track record of standing up to Trump. 
  Any Republican's who have a genuine concern about the fate of Ukraine and Russian expansion is duty bound to vote against Trump. Let's see how many will do? >
  
  I personally think Trump is done and dusted; he's pissed off too many of his own base. He may try to bully his way into another nomination but he will not win. Again, he's pissed off too many republicans in too many key battleground states. I live near Trump country and I see only like 10% of the flags up I used to see, he's an embarrassment at this point. >
  
  Sadly, I've heard all this before circa 2015/16, that Trump was an embarrassment and Trump stood no chance etc The bottom line is there are many more Americans sympathetic to Trump's world view than American is comfortable about acknowledging. Americans also seem to be the most oblivious to it as well, and the poorest judges of his latent popularity 
  I want to see some proper evidence that he's 'done' before I start to believe it. Too many Redditors offered their opinion, a few years ago, and nearly every single one of them was wrong >
  
  It's not like any proof I can give you will change your mind, but, just keep an open mind with regards to republicans supporting Ukraine. The Senate support was unanimous, doesn't that count as a show of bipartisanship? Have some faith man, the nomination is still a long ways away and that is the only proof you'd likely accept. 
  I'd like to remind you most Republicans are older and remember the Cold War perfectly well. Supporting Ukraine is a no-brainer. >
  
  Yes, we must continue to make it clear to all that this war will not end until Russia withdraws. NATO and the West will not be bluffed out of helping Ukraine by Russian fearmongering and lies. >
  
  A few will complain about it, but the majority of people are strongly supportive of Ukraine. >
  
  NATO is there long term support I thought? And it's mutually beneficial, everyone wins (except Putin) >
  
  It would be if Ukraine was a Nato member, but alas it is not. >
  
  Care to explain? >
  
  Ukraine is not part of NATO. What is there to explain? >
  
  So you think that just because Ukraine is not in nato, that they won't get long term support? >
  
  They will get support for as long as it's beneficial to the US and NATO. >
  
  Exactly, and that's not going to change any time soon. >
  
  Don't be so sure about that. If the politics change in America, funding will most likely get cut. >
  
  And NATO should force a vote in Ukraine.  If you want long term support you need to join >
  
  I always have thought the rest of the world hated the United States… Unless money is involved. >
  
  Not really I love American people but I feel like their government messed up so much in the middle east and other parts of the world without any consequences, I don't think that's fair at all. However I know how corrupt the political system is in the US especially because of corporate interests and lobbying groups.
  I also know that the international system is not fair, and some countries get to do what they want with impunity and without accountability.. Sad world if you're from a poor or 3rd world country that's been wronged by the US and it's allies cuz basically you will never see justice for crimes committed against your people. I hope one day the US would actually own up to all the terrible things it did but I dream.. >
  
  Americans want a better election system and lobbying system. Politicians should not be involved in the financial market, any involvement should be at most participation in a blind trust. Politicians should not be allowed to accept large donations from companies. Why should a company have a bigger influence over politicians rather than the general public who is electing them? If these issues are addressed in an amendment, then the United States may start to improve and elect deserving politicians who are not driven by greed. Both parties in the united states operate by greed. Politicians should not be exiting office at a profit of millions of dollars. They are public servants, not the other way around. >
  
  I totally agree.. I also think if any country did bad things, they must be held accountable for their actions and I have never ever seen the US or any Western countries actually get held accountable for their fuck ups. I think this is really unfair and sad. >
  
  Everything not Russian or Chinese is bad, and people that house Ukrainian refugees are racist, and only like white people, according to your past posts.
  Your posting history is... something one would expect out of a Chinese or Russian troll.
  I wonder why that is.
  Also interesting that your account is... shall I say... rather new? >
  
  The problem is we live in democracies. And if the cost of living gets worse, people get fed up, and a party will come along promising to stop aid and put home first, and will get into power because of it, and the parties that promise to put home first are usually fascist. >
  
  I thought Russia was running out of ammo? >
  
  If they continued spending ammo at the rates they were back in June, and did not further increase production, or increase imports, then they would be running out of ammo. 
  As it is they will be forced to divert more resources to ammunition production, and will be forced to use less artillery, but they aren't actually going to simply run out of ammo >
  
  Putin is destroying his country, not the west. U.S. is all in. Just some with the American GOP nationalist right are not, which is mystifying but not at the same time. De-Putinizing his tentacles will take time and even longer every day Putin holds power. >
  
  Yes they absolutely must. Prob won't stop at Ukraine, let alone 4 oblasts. He won't stop until you stop him. No country can believe they can just conquer all or parts of their neighbors, especially when they have nukes and their neighbor doesn't. That will just start a wave of nuclear proliferation. 
  This won't end with Ukraine, not will it and with Russia. The world is watching. >
  
  Support for Ukraine must be given for many years until ukraine will say we can now support our self and destroy any future Russian attack.
  If a lot of my tax money goes to defend Ukraine for a better world then i will feel the money is well spent. >
  
  Dont worry, the latest bill passed by the US congress has billions earmarked for their rescue. >
  
  Make it happen cap'n >
  
  Does anyone really expect this war to last longer than Putin stays alive? If not, how many more years do you think we could expect out of him?
  I'm surprised that we haven't heard of any attempts to 'hurry things along'. He's only one guy. >
  
  My thinking is he’s impossible to get to. I mean think about how hard it was to get osama bin Laden. There’s a reason Putin hasn’t been at any public events. >
  
  Plus, if you want to be “cold and calculating” about it, it’s better Ukraine survives and remains sovereign otherwise it encourages Russia to do more dumb shit >
  
  Just give them what they need to finish this. Yes the US have given the most, but they are still holding back. Let Ukraine retake their borders please. >
  
  
  Just give them what they need to finish this. Yes the US have given the most, but they are still holding back.
  
  An Ukrainian journalist recently posed following question at a White House news conference.:
  “[...] And now Ukraine desperately needs more capabilities, including long-range missiles ATACMS. Maybe I sound naïve, but can we make a long story short and give Ukraine all the capabilities it needs and liberate all territories, sooner rather than later?”
  Biden replied as follows.: 
  “[...] Now, you say, “Why don’t we just give Ukraine everything there is to give?“ […] And the idea that we would give Ukraine materiel that is fundamentally different than is already going there would have a prospect of breaking up NATO and breaking up the European Union and the rest of the world. […] I’ve spent several hundred hours face-to-face with our European allies and the heads of state of those countries, and making the case as to why it was overwhelmingly in their interest that they continue to support Ukraine.
  They understand it fully, but they’re not looking to go to war with Russia. They’re not looking for a third World War. And I think it can all be avoided by making sure that Ukraine is able to succeed in the battlefield. So, anyway, there’s more to say, but I probably already said too much. Thank you.“ >
  
  So basically NATO and European allies are pushing back against more US military aid to Ukraine? Am I interpreting that correctly? >
  
  No.    
  There are some (or all, or many?) who are afraid that if you give Ukraine too offensive weapons then Russia will go "fuck it" and begin attacking other neighbours as well.    
  Hungary might be against any aid at all, but mostly it's countries afraid to push Russia too hard, not that they are against more US military aid. >
  
  Let's supply them with what would be called offensive weapons and give them the green light to start targeting Moscow and other places inside Russia.  That is how you defend yourself - by hitting back, not just blocking punches.  The rope-a-dope doesn't work without punching back when the opponent is weakened, >
  
  This is what I said. 5x the amount of money to Ukraine, so 4 trillion over next few years. Plus nation building a following 10 years. Every Ukrainian affected should get minimum 500k the. We can fund and rebuild their housing and buildings. We US have iPhones and cars, why not send extra to Ukraine people? Selfishness is not a virtue. >
  
  
  Every Ukrainian affected should get minimum 500k 
  
  From Russia's oligarchs. >
  
  I think Ukraine should “get” 100% of all russian military hardware >
  
  The Russians have been the biggest ‘donors’ of military hardware to the Ukrainians.  Though it’s been involuntary donations - as their troops ran away, leaving equipment behind. >
  
  Translation: Raytheon and Lockheed Martin must get long term subsides to ensure their profits continue to rise. >
  
  Doesn’t sound like a warning >
  
  No no no, we can't adopt another country. What do you think this is a shelter for countries. They're better off on the wild. Let them free. >
  
  Honest question: what support is needed so that Ukraine can support itself and ween itself from needing external help (besides Russia stopping it’s attacks, of course)? I’m all for helping them where needed, but I’d like to see them a bit more self-sufficient >
  
  This sub is massively riddled with propaganda accounts. The real answer is never. If funding aka supplies ends then ukraine will lose. 
  My bet is US and nato will be involved in ukraine far into the future. These big hunks of money going to Ukraine will continue, not to mention the rebuilding after. If I were a small federal contractor I’d start leaning Ukrainian/Russian and get a plan ready for when the rebuilding processes starts. Similar to the ME but much less dangerous I’d suppose once things are settled. Get a fat contract and walk away as a multimillionaire. >
  
  Yes indeed. >
  
  Americans just want healthcare but they can’t get it because it’s “too expensive” but people never have that mentality with military spending. >
  
  Healthcare is only brought up by people like you who are spiteful when people in need get humanitarian aid. >
  
  Humanitarian aid? This is about weapons. >
  
  Hahaha these people actually think america cares about Ukraine and it’s people >
  
  Yeah NATO step it up. America can’t carry your ass all the damn time. >
  
  As raw numbers America is doing the most but you can't genuinely expect certain countries to even reach that amount. As % of gdp a number of countries are doing more/similar than the USA no doubt some need to step it up but you need to see the bigger picture when it comes to countries economies. >
  
  Fuck That. I’m tired of paying to defend Ukraine. Let the rest of NATO take over paying for it. Why should my economy suffer so other NATO country’s economies don’t suffer. >
  
  37 day old account, mostly trolling. And now you’re here complaining about standing up to Russia. 🙄 >
  
  I love it when people make this claim. I’m sure at some point your account was 37 days old. No trolling. Just things you don’t like. You can either make a productive argument or get out of the way and stop being a bigoted gatekeeper. >
  
  
  I love it when people make this claim. I’m sure at some point your account was 37 days old. No trolling. Just things you don’t like. You can either make a productive argument or get out of the way and stop being a bigoted gatekeeper.
  
  I called you a troll because all your comments are trolling, not because your account is 37 days old. But the fact that you post so much and still have such a new account suggests that you’re a heavy Reddit user whose last account got deleted. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…
  EDIT: And now troll redditor/Putin bootlicker “u_salsaconflattulance” has blocked me to prevent replies. A classic troll move. And right after calling me a troll, lol. >
  
  LoL. Nice assumptions there. I guess you are the real troll >
  
  No, that would still be you. Just because you blocked the user doesn't mean you won an argument. >
  
  Make ukraine a vasal state of the US. Problem solved. >
  
  It didn't do them much good being a vassal state of the USSR  so they don't want to do that again 
  Start with reading about the Holodemor for further information why they really don't like Russia! >
  
  He's right, but honestly I strongly doubt Putin would take more land even if NATO stops supporting Ukraine. He's literally having to rush in untrained civilians in foot wraps, with tampons for first aid kits and vintage T62 tanks for support to keep his front lines stable.. meanwhile Ukraine has loads of battle hardened troops to throw at him.
  Not exactly a recipe for success if you ask me. I mean Ukraine already routed his first guard tanks division and his paratroopers, the very best he had to offer.. how is he gonna win with cannon fodder?? >
  
  Without more support Ukraine runs out of munitions and slowly dies in a war of attrition, which is Russia's long time speciality >
  
  I'm not saying we should stop supporting Ukraine. I'm just unsure of what Russia's hoping to achieve currently. What they're doing makes no sense. >
  
  
  I'm just unsure of what Russia's hoping to achieve currently. What they're doing makes no sense.
  
  Attempting to buy time with cannon fodder. >
  
  That's the terrifying thought I am unwilling to accept.. are they seriously trying to soak up Ukraine's ammunition bolstered by NATO with their own civilians?? Is Putin seriously using his own people as human shields?? >
  
  Lol how is this surprising to you? >
  
  Because i thought that was too low even for a complete pathetic waste of human flesh like Putin. >
  
  How much money do they want now?  sigh >
  
  Does it matter? It's breadcrumbs compared to what it will cost if Russia wins. >
  
  Fuck what Ukrianians want you mean? >
  
  Honest question I literally can't find the answer to: How much money are other NATO countries funneling into Ukraine? I know the US has sent something like 150 billion, but is NATO also sending money or are they happy to just let the US foot the bill like usual? >
  
  How much money in goods and services have other nations given to Ukraine in aid compared to the U.S.? >
  
  USA is the founder of NATO and the richest country in the world by far. It’s natural that they provide the most support, especially since it’s especially in America’s strategic interests to defend Ukraine from Russia.
  There’s no controversy here unless you’re a simp for Putin. >
  
  12 founding members >
  
  When NATO was founded, the USA was by far the most significant member not recovering from the devastation of WW2. NATO was founded by Americans to protect American interests. >
  
  You know what sure those 11 other founding members fuck em 0 credits all murica #1 babyyyy >
  
  please no >
  
  Stop simping for Putin. Support Ukraine! >
  
  I never mentioned Putin, I just don't like the amount of tax dollars being sent across the planet when we got serious domestic issues.
  I don't dislike funding to Ukraine, but wish I had more of a choice. >
  
  
  I never mentioned Putin, I just don't like the amount of tax dollars being sent across the planet when we got serious domestic issues.
  I don't dislike funding to Ukraine, but wish I had more of a choice.
  
  When your comments repeat Kremlin talking points, you’re repeating Putin whether you mean to or not.
  Most of the aid being sent from the USA to Ukraine is old weapons, not money. The “tax dollars” you’re worrying about were spent years ago to buy missiles, and those missiles have been sitting in warehouses until now. Missiles and weapons cost 1000x (or more!) more than the cost of food or clothing, which is why the amount of aid looks so massive—they report the total dollar value of the aid package, not the specific numbers of each weapon sent.
  USA still has literally trillions of dollars of newer, better missiles at home. Ukraine is getting USA’s hand-me-downs. So what else should they be used for? They’re just collecting dust in the USA.
  As for funding other issues at home, the USA is literally so wealthy that it can fix healthcare and homelessness and education right now even within changing the military budget. Fact is that America can afford to help Ukraine and itself at the same time… if the ruling class (esp. Republicans) wanted to. These people could fix it today, but no that Ukraine needs help they say “Oh we need to fix ourselves instead!” but they didn’t care before and they don’t care now—it’s all a lie. So when someone says “We should fix our own problems first!” I never believe them anymore.
  As for your choice, fact is that nowhere has ever let its people decide which wars to get involved in. Lots of Russians are dying pointlessly for Putin’s genocidal conquest of Ukraine right now 🤷🏻‍♂️ >
  
  The war is good for our economy. Producing lots of disposable weapons that need to be renewed. NATO will stay out of this so our economy will flourish. It’s all working as planed. >
  
  A handful of oligarchs will make money off the war, that’s it, no one else will benefit. >
  
  Buy stocks in Raytheon, Boeing, and other weapon makers and make money with them. It’s all good. >
  
  Or ya know we could stop profiting off of mass murder. >
  
  Why is this treated as news? The same statement was made last year. Months ago. Repeatedly. We know this already. This is not news. >
  
  The Nato chief always warns or fears, and some times condemns. couldn't they come out with something nicer, like suggests, or encourages, or perhaps even "brings up during a round of baking". >
  
  At the same time, right-wing trolls are actively engaging in persuasion tactics due to Ukraine having a big neo-nazi presence, as that somehow justifies Russias invasion. >
  
  I know this is a minute point to bring up, but why are some news sources no longer capitalising acronyms? I'm seeing 'Nato' almost as much as 'NATO' these days. >
  
  y’all should take some writing courses because these comments are literally fucking essays🤯 >
  
  Give the Ukraine back their nukes. >
  
  No need for "the" it's,just Ukraine. >
  
  But there is a need for the nukes. People seem to have a bigger issue with the "the" than the nukes. >
  
  There isn't really a need for nukes either. Ukraine never asked for them back, Ukraine doesn't have infrastructure and personnel for keeping the arsenal running and Ukraine doesn't really have military usage for nukes at the current stage. >
  
  Try Canada or Mexico this time. >
  
  Doesn’t matter. Ukraine won’t last much longer if the Russians push on through the winter. >
  
  The Ukrainians have better winter gear than the russians what are you talking about >
  
  Folks this forever war is good! It’s a good one! >
  
  It really sucks that no politicians on the left are taking any precautions whatsoever about this whole ordeal.  I mean just completely ignoring what billions and billions of dollars could do to help salvage our healthcare, education etc….  Ukrain is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and to just give away billions of dollars of the top of the line weaponry with no foresight is just scary.   Do people not realize the whole fiasco lasting decades in the Middle East was started because America armed and trained the population to drive out Russia giving birth to some of the most oppressive and vile atrocities in recent history?   Why is America the farthest country from Ukrain in the UN the only country contributing?   It’s all BS. >
  
  
  It really sucks that no politicians on the left are taking any precautions whatsoever about this whole ordeal. I mean just completely ignoring what billions and billions of dollars could do to help salvage our healthcare, education etc….
  
  Most of the aid being sent to Ukraine isn’t money, it’s old weapons sitting in American warehouses gathering dust. It’s not useful for anything but fighting wars; hell most of it was designed for fighting the Soviets. If Americans don’t use it for this, what else should they use it for?
  
  Ukrain is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and to just give away billions of dollars of the top of the line weaponry with no foresight is just scary. 
  
  A huge portion of the corruption in Ukraine is the pro-Russian influence that’s being driven out of the country now.
  The weaponry given to Ukraine is not top of the line, it’s Cold War surplus that’s obsolete. Of the newest stuff sent over, it’s been reported that the Americans won’t even configure some of these missiles for targeting outside Ukraine’s own borders—they’re not useful for offense, only defense.
  
  Do people not realize the whole fiasco lasting decades in the Middle East was started because America armed and trained the population to drive out Russia giving birth to some of the most oppressive and vile atrocities in recent history?
  
  Ukraine is European. It’s on the doorstep of America’s own alliance (NATO) and its closest allies (the EU). The reason for America’s strategic interest in defending Ukraine is obvious.
  
  Why is America the farthest country from Ukrain in the UN the only country contributing?
  
  It’s not the only country contributing at all! But the USA has by far the most weapons, and if you put a price tag on everything contributed, weapons are by far the most expensive type of aid.
  A shipping container full of missiles costs 1000x a shipping container full of food, and the USA has lots of missiles to give—so when Poland takes in 8 million Ukrainian refugees, it’s an illusion to say the USA has contributed more. It’s only contributed more expensive equipment—and it’s not even new stuff.
  
  It’s all BS.
  
  Yes, there’s a lot of anti-Ukrainian bulkshit propaganda being repeated by pro-Russian trolls. Don’t fall for it. >
  
  Interesting take,  can you show me a source about these missiles not being able to target outside of Ukrains borders? >
  
  Think of it this way, as long as there is capital to gain the heavens will always rain steel on whoever needs the means to make war. >
  
  What other countries trade with Russia besides Germany? >
  
  France sent Russia an ass ton of "dual use" tech
  Germany built Russia's new military training center, (which could explain a lot, after seeing the state of the German Army) >
  
  Then let NATO do it. >
  
  As opposed to? >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Western countries must be prepared to provide long-term support to Ukraine as Russia shows no signs of relenting, Nato's secretary general has said.
  Jens Stoltenberg told the BBC that military support would ensure the survival of Ukraine as a sovereign country and force Russia to sit down and negotiate an end to the war.
  "We need to provide support to Ukraine now, including military support, because that's the only way to convince Russia that they have to sit down and negotiate in good faith and respect Ukraine as a sovereign independent nation in Europe," Mr Stoltenberg said.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Russia^#2 New^#3 Year^#4 Stoltenberg^#5 >
  
  lol why are the comments a pissing contest for who's helped the most? We should all just agree that we need to continue supporting them. >
  
  B/c the US is doing the right thing, and edgy teenagers on the internet can't handle that. It's hard to be a contrarian and woke at the same time while the US is providing all this much needed support >
  
  Americans want healthcare. >
  
  universal healthcare would cost American less than the current system. There is no financial obstacle to achieving it, its not a binary choice between military spending and healthcare >
  
  It's more complicated than a dollar sign on a piece of paper.
  The current system employees a lot of people and undoing it requires coming up with a plan for the employment vacuum it would create.
  I'm not disagreeing that single payer is a better system, but the current system is so entrenched that unwinding it will require a lot of upfront planning, care and monumental cost. It's really not as simple of a transition as people make it out to be. >
  
  Bernie stans will kill me, but single player is not the only way to achieve universal healthcare 
  Countries like France, Germany, Singapore all have mixed public private healthcare systems with relegated price caps to ensure affordability, and thats probably the path that makes the most sense for the US >
  
  Germany, I think has a private health care system that sets strict limits on how much an individual receiving health care has to pay. In the same way that medicare does in the United States. That seems like an obvious solution. But additional taxes almost constitute a political death sentence in the United States. So Medicare for all is dead on arrival. Which is unfortunate. And short sighted. >
  
  
  Germany, I think has a private health care system that sets strict limits on how much an individual receiving health care has to pay. 
  
  germany has a split public/private health care system. anybody earning above 64,350€ gross (in 2022) has the option to insure themselves privately. certain people also have to insure themselves privately (servants of the state, "beamte"). anybody in a private insurance will get the full preexisting conditions dance - but you still have the option to stay in the public healthcare system.
  for anybody in the public health care system, they will not even know how much the doctor earned off of them, unless it's an optional service, which they pay in full (there are extra insurances that will cover more, most noticably dental). anybody privately insured will see the full bill, pay it, and then get reimbursed by their insurance. the price a privately insured person will pay/get reimbursed usually is higher than the one a public insured person's insurance will pay. the insurance costs itself is deducted from the paycheck every month, automatically by the employer, and paid to the insurance. insurance is not bound to the employer however, it's your own choice. you are also insured when unemployed. >
  
  Thank you for filling in the bits that I'm missing. I'm not familiar with the system, I'm just parroting what I've heard.
  I would ask about the deduction from the paycheck, as some Americans end up with multi million dollar bills. Is that controlled properly, or do some Germans get saddled with uncontrollable debt? Is medical debt a common force towards bankruptcy in anywhere but America? >
  
  
  I would ask about the deduction from the paycheck, as some Americans end up with multi million dollar bills. Is that controlled properly, or do some Germans get saddled with uncontrollable debt?
  
  For the public health care, it's entirely based on your income (capped at 58,050€). It is not depended on the costs of your medical treatment. It is covered half by yourself, half by your employer. On your paycheck, in addition to income tax, you'll find the following, always in percent of the after-tax income:
  
  half of 14.6% healthcare, + extra costs of your insurance of roughly 1.2%
  half of 3.05% long term care (i.e. if you need help doing things because of age or illness, this will pay for either professional help or a family member)
  half of 18.6% pension ("Rente", capped at 84,600€ income)
  half of 2.6% unemployment insurance
  
  so for a person that did not hit any caps, they'll be deducted roughly an additional 20% of their after tax income.
  for the privately insured I can't really answer. What I do know is that the are much cheaper when younger, but once you get older get more expensive (or outright impossible) and it's very difficult or impossible get back into the public variant. So it can get quite problematic when you aren't working anymore and the rates are rising.
  
  Is medical debt a common force towards bankruptcy in anywhere but America?
  
  It's not in germany. All things a doctor can do are billed based on a comprehensive list of individual routines. while there is a multiplier the doctor can use when billing each item, it's not obscene. privately insured persons generally will be billed more, as their insurances will pay it. >
  
  Stop Russia here. Now. 
  They will make us regret any other decision. >
  
  I mean the war crimes alone, the children... >
  
  He is simply making a left-handed reference for the wait 
  Ukraine has has been waiting to be accepted into Nato. Nato won't officially acept until the war is settled, and Nato has been around for over 60 years, that's pretty long term. >
  
  NATO will never accept Ukraine until it takes back all the territories as well as Crimea. >
  
  
  until the war is settled
  
  that's pretty much the same to this >
  
  The United States has by far provided the most military assistance to Ukraine, more than every other country combined.
  
  Wikipedia >
  
  The US mostly provides aid in the form of weapons. The US spends more on its military budget than the next 5 countries combined. What do you expect? >
  
  
  The US mostly provides aid in the form of weapons.
  
  Also worth noting is that it isn't a one-way street either. The US is picking up plenty of lucrative export orders too resulting from this live fire sales demonstration
  The US spent plenty in places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria only for their proxies to run away or sell their weapons to the highest bidder. The world laughed at them, and America's inability to train and equip an army might have been one of many factors that weighed on Putin's final decision
  This is the first time in decades that America has supplied a country with weapons who have proven willing to stand and fight and use them, and now Republican's are still moaning (after having committed America to spending a lot more in other theatres) that American sponsorship is in danger of embarrassing their ideological role model
  Edit - should have added that it's not just arms sales that America is getting money back on from this war either. America now exports 70% of their LNG to Europe, effectively replacing Russia as the primary supplier and allowing them to overtake Qatar as the largest exporter in the world. Now that's a significant slice of any pie. 
  For all those Republicans moaning about the supply of weapons to Ukraine, you'll probably find that America's doing quite well on the net balance of payments resulting from this war. Sadly though, its a very easy sell to simplistic voters >
  
  Those diehard republicans moaning about Ukraine are few and far between. Most seem to understand the deep implications involved in this war and support it, and by most I mean a majority of republicans. Did you watch Zelensky's visit? Most republicans clapped and yes, there were a few notable holdouts but that number was very low all things considered... less than double digits, regardless of whatever story Tucker Carlson is crooning about. >
  
  
  Those diehard republicans moaning about Ukraine are few and far between. Most seem to understand the deep implications involved in this war and support it
  
  Their support will be worth buttons and quickly evaporate if Trump wins the Whitehouse again. They'll do what ever he tells them to, because they're essentially feckless. 
  On that very same day Don Jnr described Zelensky as "an ungrateful international welfare queen", and Trump himself described Putin as "smart" and "savvy" on Feb 24th. 
  The problem  here is the de facto Republican leader is a Russian sympathiser, and the congressional GOP has frankly got a risible track record of standing up to Trump. 
  Any Republican's who have a genuine concern about the fate of Ukraine and Russian expansion is duty bound to vote against Trump. Let's see how many will do? >
  
  I personally think Trump is done and dusted; he's pissed off too many of his own base. He may try to bully his way into another nomination but he will not win. Again, he's pissed off too many republicans in too many key battleground states. I live near Trump country and I see only like 10% of the flags up I used to see, he's an embarrassment at this point. >
  
  Sadly, I've heard all this before circa 2015/16, that Trump was an embarrassment and Trump stood no chance etc The bottom line is there are many more Americans sympathetic to Trump's world view than American is comfortable about acknowledging. Americans also seem to be the most oblivious to it as well, and the poorest judges of his latent popularity 
  I want to see some proper evidence that he's 'done' before I start to believe it. Too many Redditors offered their opinion, a few years ago, and nearly every single one of them was wrong >
  
  It's not like any proof I can give you will change your mind, but, just keep an open mind with regards to republicans supporting Ukraine. The Senate support was unanimous, doesn't that count as a show of bipartisanship? Have some faith man, the nomination is still a long ways away and that is the only proof you'd likely accept. 
  I'd like to remind you most Republicans are older and remember the Cold War perfectly well. Supporting Ukraine is a no-brainer. >
  
  Yes, we must continue to make it clear to all that this war will not end until Russia withdraws. NATO and the West will not be bluffed out of helping Ukraine by Russian fearmongering and lies. >
  
  A few will complain about it, but the majority of people are strongly supportive of Ukraine. >
  
  NATO is there long term support I thought? And it's mutually beneficial, everyone wins (except Putin) >
  
  It would be if Ukraine was a Nato member, but alas it is not. >
  
  Care to explain? >
  
  Ukraine is not part of NATO. What is there to explain? >
  
  So you think that just because Ukraine is not in nato, that they won't get long term support? >
  
  They will get support for as long as it's beneficial to the US and NATO. >
  
  Exactly, and that's not going to change any time soon. >
  
  Don't be so sure about that. If the politics change in America, funding will most likely get cut. >
  
  And NATO should force a vote in Ukraine.  If you want long term support you need to join >
  
  I always have thought the rest of the world hated the United States… Unless money is involved. >
  
  Not really I love American people but I feel like their government messed up so much in the middle east and other parts of the world without any consequences, I don't think that's fair at all. However I know how corrupt the political system is in the US especially because of corporate interests and lobbying groups.
  I also know that the international system is not fair, and some countries get to do what they want with impunity and without accountability.. Sad world if you're from a poor or 3rd world country that's been wronged by the US and it's allies cuz basically you will never see justice for crimes committed against your people. I hope one day the US would actually own up to all the terrible things it did but I dream.. >
  
  Americans want a better election system and lobbying system. Politicians should not be involved in the financial market, any involvement should be at most participation in a blind trust. Politicians should not be allowed to accept large donations from companies. Why should a company have a bigger influence over politicians rather than the general public who is electing them? If these issues are addressed in an amendment, then the United States may start to improve and elect deserving politicians who are not driven by greed. Both parties in the united states operate by greed. Politicians should not be exiting office at a profit of millions of dollars. They are public servants, not the other way around. >
  
  I totally agree.. I also think if any country did bad things, they must be held accountable for their actions and I have never ever seen the US or any Western countries actually get held accountable for their fuck ups. I think this is really unfair and sad. >
  
  Everything not Russian or Chinese is bad, and people that house Ukrainian refugees are racist, and only like white people, according to your past posts.
  Your posting history is... something one would expect out of a Chinese or Russian troll.
  I wonder why that is.
  Also interesting that your account is... shall I say... rather new? >
  
  The problem is we live in democracies. And if the cost of living gets worse, people get fed up, and a party will come along promising to stop aid and put home first, and will get into power because of it, and the parties that promise to put home first are usually fascist. >
  
  I thought Russia was running out of ammo? >
  
  If they continued spending ammo at the rates they were back in June, and did not further increase production, or increase imports, then they would be running out of ammo. 
  As it is they will be forced to divert more resources to ammunition production, and will be forced to use less artillery, but they aren't actually going to simply run out of ammo >
  
  Putin is destroying his country, not the west. U.S. is all in. Just some with the American GOP nationalist right are not, which is mystifying but not at the same time. De-Putinizing his tentacles will take time and even longer every day Putin holds power. >
  
  Yes they absolutely must. Prob won't stop at Ukraine, let alone 4 oblasts. He won't stop until you stop him. No country can believe they can just conquer all or parts of their neighbors, especially when they have nukes and their neighbor doesn't. That will just start a wave of nuclear proliferation. 
  This won't end with Ukraine, not will it and with Russia. The world is watching. >
  
  Support for Ukraine must be given for many years until ukraine will say we can now support our self and destroy any future Russian attack.
  If a lot of my tax money goes to defend Ukraine for a better world then i will feel the money is well spent. >
  
  Dont worry, the latest bill passed by the US congress has billions earmarked for their rescue. >
  
  Make it happen cap'n >
  
  Does anyone really expect this war to last longer than Putin stays alive? If not, how many more years do you think we could expect out of him?
  I'm surprised that we haven't heard of any attempts to 'hurry things along'. He's only one guy. >
  
  My thinking is he’s impossible to get to. I mean think about how hard it was to get osama bin Laden. There’s a reason Putin hasn’t been at any public events. >
  
  Plus, if you want to be “cold and calculating” about it, it’s better Ukraine survives and remains sovereign otherwise it encourages Russia to do more dumb shit >
  
  Just give them what they need to finish this. Yes the US have given the most, but they are still holding back. Let Ukraine retake their borders please.