Public sentiment is highly polarized regarding military aid to Ukraine, with a notable number supporting increased assistance, while others express skepticism and criticism of Western involvement. Many voices are frustrated with political leaders, particularly Trump, while others advocate for peace and caution against escalation. The overall sentiment ranges from strong support for Ukraine's resilience to concerns over the potential for increased conflict and the motivations behind arms aid.

Ukraine

Western Allies

Donald Trump

Russia

The long held antiwar position is that one can support personal individual, voluntary aid - especially of the humanitarian variety (food/medical supplies) - while opposing the US govt giving military equipment, intelligence, supplies, weapons to Ukraine.

tocano

The thing with war is, its always the peasants who die and get maimed. Politicians will be just fine, and so will be those businesspeople whose morals dont hinder war profiteering.

Raytheon, Lockheed, Boeing etc

&gt;Ukraine War is great for the portfolio, as defense stocks enjoy a banner year

[2023 article in Responsible Statecraft](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/02/24/war-is-great-for-the-portfolio-as-defense-stocks-enjoy-a-banner-year/)

The military aid to Ukraine is pouring gasoline to a fire. Its pretty simple, even if intentions are pure (but misinformed).

Correct antiwar position is to support diplomacy. Unfortunately the Ukraine situation has been cooking for more than a decade. It showed again that if theres no detente, escalation will eventually lead to war. When the shit hits the pants its already too late.

Risunaut

Oppose. 

Every conflict has at least two sides to the histories. Cambodia/Thailand? India/China? Israel/Palestinians?   The western govt and MSM have tried very hard to keep one side from being heard. I recall the most recent EU sanctions included 4 blggers who wrote the wrong things. I recall they cannot travel into or out of the EU. Germany and UK previously seize bank accounts of citizens who wrote the wrong things. 

Scott Horton of [antiwar.com](http://antiwar.com) has some good videos on youtube giving some concise history leading up to the conflict.

silver_chief2

Oppose. 


This is a war fueled by Western dollars and weapons but paid for with the blood of Ukrainians. 


In April 2022, weeks after this mess started, Russia and Ukraine had a peace deal outlined that both sides had initialed. Then Zelensky was told to walk away because the West would not support this deal, and to keep fighting. 


This is not about what's best for Ukraine but about selling weapons. As Julian Assange said, the point of all of America's military disasters isn't to win, it's so sell weapons. When looking at America's foreign policy through this lens, it makes so much more sense. As long as the weapons manufacturers are happy, it's mission accomplished. 

Polyethylene8

AbolishtheDraft

"aid" is food and medicine; not bombs, guns, and ammunition.

"lethal aid" is a euphemism for "military assistance"

[deleted]

I'm not an expert, but whether you support it or not, Ukraine will still be in the position of a victim of a barbaric act of violence, with millions of lives destroyed and families torn apart for no reason. Technically, there is no limit to the potential Chinese support for Russia, which means the utilization of human resources from both parties for an indefinite period.

Those who can stop the war are directly benefiting from its continuation and prefer to continue it until they reach target metrics, which could be tied to macroeconomic stability or even the income of specific weapons and components manufacturing and distribution companies.

Additional weapons for Ukraine will prolong the war. The absence of weapons will make it even more miserable and destructive for Ukraine.

So, in my opinion, it's not a matter of sending weapons or not. It's a matter of dedicating financial resources to intelligence operations that could influence the decisions of high-level stakeholders who can finish this war in hours.

With the US surveillance power, I literally can't believe that there is insufficient information about WHO can stop this war or HOW pressure can be applied to those people. Therefore, it's a matter of priorities and a conscious collective choice of third parties, which are obviously not committing enough to high-level operations similar to those that ended the Cold War with almost no violence.

SuchVanilla6089

Secure-Apple-5793

shaggy237

A correct antiwar stand is to understand the geopolitical motives and the profit driven weapons sales.

It takes an effort to identify propaganda that manufacturers consent for war. One also must learn how to identify the savagery that foreign policy manages.

Modern warfare now includes economic war with invisible bullets and silent destruction.

When the Maidan protests rose up against Yanukovic. USAns rallied with the protesters. When the news hid the Nazis bringing violence to the streets and blamed the violence on the elected leader who agreed to exit in a legal process. USAns refused to see the coup Victoria Nuland staged and the Nazis she used because USAn propaganda told a different story.

boiled_frog23

Asatmaya

The one that doesn’t involve getting into a proxy war with a nuclear power.

ItsGotThatBang

I do not think that a border dispute in the former Soviet Union is America's problem.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken\_Kiev\_speech](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Kiev_speech)

On August 1, 1991 George HW Bush said

"Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism."

"They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."

"We will not try to pick winners and losers in political competitions between republics, or between republics and the center."

"That is your business, and not the business of the United States of America."

[https://archive.is/vnQuS](https://archive.is/vnQuS)

npw_noperfectworld

There's a video of John McCain and Victoria Nuland standing in a hotel window watching the Maydon Square Coup below them.  If anyone thinks the US wasn't responsible for this war, I have a bridge to sell you.  Here's a link to the video. You judge.  [https://x.com/sethharpesq/status/1893583858378936792](https://x.com/sethharpesq/status/1893583858378936792)

ProfessorAntique616

I oppose my tax dollars going to any cause that is not directly benefiting America and Americans. There is zero benefit for the US to send any aid or assistance to Ukraine or Israel. There's also zero benefit for the US to send money to a litany of countries, including Pakistan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, etc.

R0NiN-Z3R0

nuance is everything.  
 
you think there's a single position that covers every situation? never.

stealing to feed your family is ok. so, stealing from another poor family is ok? uhhhhhhh.
 
you can oppose war but support a people's right to defense. the fuckery of the US military industrial complex muddies how one can support it, but so does everything about our system. there's no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism, yet we must consume.

ephingee

It is better to allow the state of Russia to crush the state of Ukraine than it is to allow the state of Ukraine to feed the people of Ukraine into the meat grinder.

DSA_Member

You can oppose it while being logically consistent. There are three options with variants of each.

1. Support Russia
2. Support Ukraine
3. Oppose war from both parties

How you decide which option to choose is up to you and your own personal ethos.

BeenisHat

No.  We should do it all.  Military aid medical food bulldozers.  Anti war is diplomacy letting them know we did not start this.  Putin is indifferent to human life.  All communist are.  So we must answer him with better than him.

Big-Woodpecker-2536

Yes, Ukraine can not win on the battle field. We’re essentially using them as a meat shield against Russia, it creates needless suffering by perpetuating it.

detrimentallyonline

There is no problem with humanitarian aid that helps the lives of the ordinary people who suffer the consequences of war. However "aid" that is sent to help more people killed, like inteligence or equipment etc. is bad

Huzf01

You’re getting downvoted for asking questions because that’s how warmongers operate. They’ve done a great job selling this particular war to the typical Reddit audience (who would generally oppose), except in this case. 

The Ukraine war supporters don’t want to answer basic questions about the conflict the same way Israel supporters don’t want to, and if you ask them you’ll be called a vatnik, Russian shill, terrorist sympathizer etc.

Impossible-anarchy

If you are anti-war you must prioritize cease-fire talks, and any help should be contingent on ukraine seeking cease-fire terms, but without military aid, Russia may not be interested in negotiations either, so those perspectives must weighed against eachother.

Historical-Pen-7484

It's ok to send aid to Ukraine, but then there must still be good faith efforts to try to end the war.

Anton_Pannekoek

Ukraine has no shortage of means of striking but shortage of people.

Ukrainian drones are surprisingly effective and much cheaper.

It's impossible to launch a complete surprise attack. Russia has its own reconnaissance systems. They will know of an incoming attack with some advance. It may not be long enough to completely limit losses, but it will be enough to launch a counterstrike on a similar scale.

In the territories occupied by Russia, along with the soldiers is a large civilian population. Some of them are undoubtedly people who have been forced to relocate from other regions of Russia. We should not follow Israel's path and normalize mass civilian deaths as perfectly acceptable collateral damage.

The Russians certainly have numerous units stationed on standby near the border in Russian territory. Even if the strike were able to decimate the forces in the occupied territories, the losses could certainly be quickly compensated by support forces.

sh00l33

There is absolutely, positively, no singular way to ensure that you’ve decimated every single Russian weapon system and combat unit short of nuclear weapons. 

Everything after that is a moot point, because you’ll still have very dangerous Russian units, dug in, on the defensive, that Ukraine simply does not have the infantry to attack on a broad front.

Moosebabe51

This sounds like the kind of thing a teenager who was far too into playing war games would come up with. The kicker for me was writing "Now for the actual fun" under "Killing phase."

I can't comment on the specific tactics and weaponry that you've outlined. Phrases like "a lot of Redditors thing GMLRS rockets are named HIMARS" tells me that you're imagining an audience of military enthusiasts will be responding to this. What I can say is that there's a lot in your fantasy tactics, like destroying "100% of the electrical grid," destroying railway infrastructure, and fuel pipelines that would lead to civilian suffering at Gaza-level tragedy. 

When you get to the part about threatening nuclear escalation, well, yeah, I give up.

If there were a quick and easy way to end the war from a military strategy perspective, I have confidence that somewhere in the ranks of admirals, generals, prime ministers, premiers, and presidents worldwide, it might have come up at some point.

Honestly, this sounds more like a fantasy scenario for a game than a plausible real-world proposal. Right down to the oddly specific detail about ransoming POWs for a pound of gold. That's utterly illegal under international law, by the way. But so is intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure, attacking civilian shipping, using POWs as forced labor, and using cluster munitions. 

Very little about this is plausible, advisable, or even legal. What you've basically done is outline a list of potential war crimes and provocations for nuclear escalation.

AppendixN

As of August 2025, Ukraine has received over $400 billion in aid commitments from various countries and institutions since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Why would 10 billion be more than a splash in the bucket at this point?

Tr3sp4ss3r

The impediment isn’t that Ukraine hasn’t received enough dollars or variety of aid. It’s much more that Ukraine is exhausted and at an insurmountable disadvantage in terms of manpower, territory and strategic possibilities.

RIP_Greedo

So it’s of your opinion that the U.S. should almost go all in militarily to essentially still lose the war of attrition?

You’d need to transport this stockpile from whichever location there at, to the Ukraine. With the guarantee that it will all reach its destination without being compromised.

To then train their troops on how to use them all, with a guarantee that while they’re placed in battle none get compromised.

And hope there are enough troops to then execute on the use of it, without it being compromised.

Meanwhile, cross your fingers that Russia doesn’t escalate with a NATO member, because you’re risking the biscuit for a non NATO member?

Sounds pretty surface level and reckless if you ask me.

Edit:

Russia just drafted an additional 100k troops to throw into the meat grinder.

RevolutionaryBug7588

&gt;100 HIMARS launchers ($500 million)

&gt;100 M270 launchers ($500 million)

&gt;20,000 GMLRS rockets ($3.5 billion)

&gt;2,000 ATACMS missiles ($3 billion)

&gt;200 Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) ($1.75 billion)

US has LCSO or large scale combat operations against China as a near peer adversary on their immediate agenda. 

There are issues with this. Its a nice to have list but fundamentally war comes down to someone having to get out a trench, cross nomans land and get someone else out of a trench to hold and hold it.  Since 1914 that has been broadly the main problem with large scale combat operations: getting enough men across to force the decision. Artillery and today drones make that very hard to get the mass together and take the ground. What you have listed would be a huge help, but there is a lot in the "kill chain" missing to make full use of them, they will not replace the armoured vehicles youd need to cross the ground, they will not remove the mines that caused so much trouble in the summer of 2023. They will not remove the drones and drone operators. 

&gt; Ukraine would take thousands of GMLRS plus hundreds of ATACMS (especially cluster bomb) and just kill. They would fire them in a way that kills as many Russian combat troops as possible and destroys

A man with a good trench is really hard to move. The volume of artillery that was used in WWI and WWII is vastly greater than being used in Ukraine today and it still did not get men out the trenches, you needed a laddie with his bayonet to do that. Those are mostly interdiction systems, some might be handy if or when you can spot something like S-400 systems or so on, but they are not going to get the lads across the fields. 

They need the heavy metal, they need serious air defence coverage, they need a solution to the mass of drones. They likely also need more up to date radars for their planes, the Russians are using low observability planes that the F16 radars have zero chance of seeing from the distances the SAMs keep them.

IndividualSkill3432

OP doesnt know what hes talking about

Ukraine dont lack money in fact many is missing, Zelensky refunded funded Onlyfans ukrainian girl and it was exposed. 

Ukraine lacks Men, Men too many have Died, they claim 40k died when its all BS, over 800+k died already

Still_Bison_883

Counter-proposal: literally any other plan on a smaller budget that directly leads to regime change in Russia with fewer losses of life. Certainly you can imagine such scenarios, so why pick this one as your frontrunner?

poorestprince

The russian logistics and most artillery are based inside Russia. If you attack inside Russia using US weapons, will be taken as act of war and it will be declared against USA. Nuclears will be used by Russia against Kiev

Puzzled_Muzzled

This is a pretty disgusting and tone-deaf post. You seem gleeful and giddy at the thought of killing 700,000 people who were functionally forced into a war. You even describe it as “fun”. 

You’re using the same language as neocons and defense contractors from the early 2000s to prop up the military industrial complex. 

You made no attempt to actually explain the WHY for this prompt that America should throw $10 billion at Ukraine, or how that is in America or Ukraine's best interest. This is just larping as a mass murderer, which is disturbing to be quite honest. 

BlasphemousRykard

OP, I share your delightful vision for the future of the Russian army in occupied Ukraine. That said, I don't think $10B in hardware is enough

1. The RF's soldiers are not sitting around in lawn chairs in open fields waiting to be obliterated. They are hunkered down in foxholes, trenches, bunkers, IFVs. And some of them are in civilian areas, busying themselves with war crimes. So it's going to cost a lot more to get these criminals and murderers out

2. We shouldn't disclose an upper limit on aid to Ukraine "$10 billion" because then Putin gets to decide whether to pay the price in casualties.  Much better that we keep bidding higher and higher.

Let Russia feed an entire generation of Russian men to Ukrainian and American weapons. It will make the world safer. Every dollar spent on aid to Ukraine is much more efficiently spent than a dollar on hardware that sits at a base.

Lauffener

It won't be a game changer as it lacks depth and persistence. The annual Russian military budget is 200 billion USD in nominal terms and 600 billion USD in terms of purchasing power parity.

ObjectiveMall

Totally unnecessary. Ukraine has a strategy to win the war, which is using the drones that they have gotten very good at building to attack Russia's oil and other infrastructure that is being used / sold to fund Russia's war (story from The Atlantic - [Ukraine’s Plan to Starve the Russian War Machine - The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/09/ukraines-strategy-to-win-the-war/684356/)) written by Anne Applebaum, who a serious/knowledgeable international news reporter.

CallMeCorona1

The problem is this is asking for the US to deliver 10% of its stock to Ukraine. This would compromise US capabilities. To do this style program the US would have to ramp up launcher production which is in progress but will still take years.

One_Shallot_4974

Stealing from people to finance sports wars / empire building around the world. Sure thing, Dick Cheney. How about you go volunteer to die in a trench instead of war mongering to get others to die and finance it for you? 

The US army should be eliminated and replaced with nothing. 50% of all government theft (inflation / taxes) go towards this mercenary force.

Full-Mouse8971

Why would Russia losing the war be bad, and why would it warrant holding back aid because of it?

hackinghippie

Macron: “Russia must not be humiliated in Ucraine”.

Yeah, they remember right. Europe and Usa are scared Russia could collapse creating chaos in Asia and Europe. Cina will be the winner of this chaos, nobody want it

Proudofhisname

I agree with Ukraine.  We really held back on the military aid.  We could have made this a lot more painful for Russia in the last 3 years.   Probably painful enough that Putin would have been forced to return home.

ProtonPi314

We are pussies, that’s why. USSR collapsed just fine, we convinced them to give up their nukes in return of our guarantees… oh wait!

No_Conversation_9325

ridnovir

They aren’t wrong.  Even under Biden, the policy seemed to be ‘give Ukraine enough not to lose, but not enough to win’.

Not just recently either.  This seems to have been the case since 2014.

This seemed to have been due to both economic benefits from Russia (especially for Europe) and, since 2022, fear of what would happen if Russia dramatically lost.

Plus this war has destroyed Russias warfighting capability in the short term.  Although the drawback is that it’s taught them valuable lessons that will make the Russian military far more dangerous long term.

BruceAENZ

The fall of the rotten Russian Empire will be one of the greatest days of humanity, but for some reason they refuse to realize it. As for nuclear bombs, they can always be bought.

Ok-Anxiety8171

I think most governments in Europe just want to see Russia neutered, not taken down. ‘The west’ is no more by the way.
It’s clear Trump simply don’t want Putin to lose face.

praetorian1111

Only fifty percent… I’ve often wondered the same

Larrynative20

This is true. This became especially true after the successful Kharkiv operation in 2022 and Prigozhin's rebellion. When the West really began to weaken aid to Ukraine.

yenneferismywaifu

I think that's correct. We Europeans have given you guys enough support to hold the line, but not enough to push it back. I'm sorry, many of our politicians are pussies.

LohtuPottu247

At this point, everyone with half a brain is well aware that this conflict is meant not to save Ukraine, but to bleed the Russians as much as possible, using Ukraine as a proxy.


Even Boris Johnson admitted it out loud.

sidestephen

DemoneScimmia

There is no such thing as the West and one unifying reason.

This is all too simple and unnuanced.

The European countries simply do not have the stocks and do not want to give everything away because it would leave themselves defenseless. It would also mean you lose actual capabilities (if you give away all/most of your tanks then your soldiers cannot practice with them).

The US under Biden did not want Russia to lose too much and fall apart (a disastrous strategy). Their stated goal was to give Ukraine the best position at the negotiation table. They also did not want escalation and saw that their biggest threat was China so they did not want to risk getting into a fight with Russia.

The US under Trump does not care about the rules-based international order and thinks this conflict is just bad for business. They truly fear getting pulled into this and ww3 starting and they don't think it's worth it.

simulacrum79

AffectionateBus672

In my opinion this is not it. It's fear of escalation to the point of nuke threats and now it's various russian puppets that try to destabilize, Trump, Musk, Orban, Fico, Georgescu etc.

Scuipici

The answers in this thread is dumb. There was direct threat of Russia using a nuclear bomb in the. Ukrainian offensive of 2022 when Russian divisions were getting surrounded. The west fears what Putin would do if they lose in spectacular fashion, because our intelligence knew they were actually debating doing it. These crazy fucks are all in, so it’s a bit of an issue more than reddit probably understands.

Calm-Phrase-382

Well, they're right. The West would rather see Ukraine continuing being destroyed and Ukrainians killed than Russia losing. They can't imagine a different scenario for this region than Russia being the dominating, stabilizing force.   
And of course, they're terrified by the scenario of Russia collapsing to smaller countries having access to nukes.  


The question is, does Russia itself really give you an option to stay in these beliefs? For Eastern Europe the answer is obvious - no. Russian imperialism woke up again for the 30th time and it won't stop, until it's stopped be force. We have to take the risk and fight back with all force, when Russia attacks us.  
But the West would rather just keep giving Russia what they want, pretend like nothing happend and keep going back to normal trade relationships. It's easy for them, because they aren't directly threatened by Russia. They think they're safe behind the meat wall made of Slavs, Baltics, maybe Scandinavians too.

axelkoffel

Article is misleading. By West they mean US only and not EU countries.

The poll was conducted when U.S. President [Donald Trump's](https://kyivindependent.com/tag/donald-trump/) administration took a number of steps widely seen as friendly toward Russia.

US was the only country that are withholding military aids to Ukraine while EU stepped up to increase military aids to Ukraine after US stopped.

Desperate-Hearing-55

Did you come up with that percentage all by yourself?

2ontour

Fits = https://github.com/mfreeze77/DJT/blob/main/Current_Working_Tmanch_Conclusion.md

mfreeze77

anonymous_matt

We made them held back for most of the conflict, because of fears of escalation, they could've actually achieved more and sooner without caveats, but still they would not have achieved more than a stalling.

freeksss

Or there was credible intel that Russia would one shell their own troops. And two drop a nuke on them as they were about to lose. 


Just a thought. (Second one may or may not be the one that happened in 2022) just sayin

Roach-_-_

That's not the reason the Biden administration was holding back arms 

If you believe their open statements they were afraid of an escalation that might have resulted in pushing Russia to use a nuke

If you believe the conspiracy theory, the US wanted Ukraine to drag out the war with Russia as long as possible so that Russia would expect as much resources in Ukraine as possible until Ukraine was used up.

toeknee88125

Ok_Income_2173

I think the idea is letting Russia lose the war due to economical collapse rather than a defeat on the battlefield. Some European politicians are still in fear of Russians escalating if hit too hard militarily. If they fold from inside out less chance of nukes flying.

Reckless_Waifu

At least there was a time, when this was the case. I don't think it's the same today.

Bauzi

Makes sense, an unstable fracturing Russia would cause a huge stability and security concern, likely beyond even the present, at least that seems to be the argument.

I think the plan was to stall them out, cause enough turmoil that Putin concedes or gets deposed but the state doesn't collapse.

AssFasting

I believe it. A collapsed Russia into multiple warlords is a worst case scenario.


A few years of pause and Russian reconstruction while Europe inevitably fails to unify and rearm is a bad scenario.

PanickyFool

Now that Trump has resumen the aid and intell is he gonna help Ukrainians MORE to bring Putin to the table?

angelorsinner

This is partially true. There are genuine fears of a dislocation of Russia, especially because of the nuclear stocks. Just imagine a nuclear Islamic Republic Dagestan.

You would tell me: they already did it once with Ukraine, which surrendered its nuclear arsenal. Well, it did not go too well did it?

The other reasons are: keeping it for themselves in fear they are next, or they are stuck in a political quagmire preventing them from producing/exporting more. Or they were just waiting for the next government to be formed for the past 6 months to end up with a cretin as defence minister. I will not name and shame that country, I will just say this country has regularly issues forming a government to the point of having the world record.

Krek_Tavis

urmomiscringe12

FJCReaperChief

dalucy65

Today, I assume by "west" we mean The USA. It gets used differently literally every time it's being used. Not really sure who the west is supposed to be but most of "the West" is very much in favor of Russia losing the war.

I mean, that is correct. For some reason the west seems to fear russia. I don’t get it.

Karlinel-my-beloved

In from the West think this is the reason as well. German Scholz is scared of Putin loosing, Macron said Putin needs to able to save face.

fatface4711

Having multiple new countries with a nuclear arsenal can be a legitimate fear.

lulzcam7

Funny how this coincides about the same time putin is trying to amass 100k troops. Very funny timing indeed.

Revenga8

What can you do?

If you're American, contact (preferably call) your representatives. The American Coalition for Ukraine has a form &amp; text you can use: [https://ujoin.co/campaigns/3912/actions/public?action\_id=5670](https://ujoin.co/campaigns/3912/actions/public?action_id=5670) \- it will take you two minutes.

abitStoic

For those who say that they are ruzzian agents or traitors, I don't think so. 

While I thought so previously, I actually think these are people who are vile, craven short sighted fools who are so full of hubris that they cannot comprehend that America's any sort of greatness is dependent on the good will of its allies.

I've talked to these people and they are so convinced that the USA can withstand completely against the world and somehow come up on top. They believe that America can take advantage of anybody and everybody, that they can break their agreements and their word to everyone, that they are the most capable and the best and strongest and the richest and .... THAT THIS WILL CONTINUE TO BE SO.

What they can't comprehend, is that their shortsighted actions today poison people against them in the future. A ton of lead is as heavy as a ton of feathers. And they keep accumulating the feathers.

kozak_

AFAIK, Trump hasn't approved a single new aid package to Ukraine since being elected. Everything that has gone to Ukraine was already pre-arranged, or simply having them sign off on foreign transfers (EU owned US stuff). 

155 shells is very concerning. We now have 2 factories almost fully operational with 24/7 production. The long term plan for these was to always produce enough not just to maintain the fight in ukraine, but also produce excess for our own reserves that have been emptied.

Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦🇺🇦 
NEVER SURRENDER

ubo17

If the US is negotiating new arms sales in the Middle East, are we to assume those contracts can't be filled because of "low inventory"? If Ukraine can't even BUY US-made ordinance, something doesn't square up with the US government's military hardware business.

MeasurementMobile747

We know it’s not about depleted stockpiles. Putin called his minions in Washington and there you go. Washington is now for sale to the highest bidder.

MindPitt314

We know, it’s just Trump’s excuse to get out of helping Ukraine.

StrengthDazzling8922

This current Trump administration is absolutely vile. Probably paid-off by Russians.

jvo203

Keep calling, keep hitting up their social media! This is unforgivable, they know that and still don't give one damn! Look at that bill yesterday, that affects his people the most! He doesn't even care about the idiots that put us all in this situation.

If you're like me and your senators support Ukraine, then start calling everybody else's, be relentless and don't stop! If you're on this sub and you're American, I still believe we will get through this, but not without a lot of noise and a lot of good trouble.

Dwayla

It's because there's a Russian asset in the white house

Scottyd737

The fact that it has nothing to do with deleted stocks was obvious - honestly by now I read news from US admin about the same as I do from kremlin: a disregarding "yeah right". 

But what I didn't expect and appreciate is your analysis. Thanks for clarity.

DryCloud9903

&gt;This decision is just another example of Trump Admin officials actively working against the President's own agenda.

It is not. Trump isn't keen on letting Ukraine win, or help in any kind. This is yet another happenstance of "Trump lied again, in public"

NoCardiologist615

Ok_Tie_7564

Ukrainian President Zelensky seeks increased weapon support from allies amid a shifting battlefield with a focus on drone warfare.

Ukraine War and Weapons Aid

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want