Initially I read this title as like, popular support % in the US, not percentage of aid. Had to parse the article first.
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
54 points (100.0% liked)
news
24703 readers
661 users here now
Welcome to c/news! We aim to foster a book-club type environment for discussion and critical analysis of the news. Our policy objectives are:
-
To learn about and discuss meaningful news, analysis and perspectives from around the world, with a focus on news outside the Anglosphere and beyond what is normally seen in corporate media (e.g. anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, Marxist, Indigenous, LGBTQ, people of colour).
-
To encourage community members to contribute commentary and for others to thoughtfully engage with this material.
-
To support healthy and good faith discussion as comrades, sharpening our analytical skills and helping one another better understand geopolitics.
We ask community members to appreciate the uncertainty inherent in critical analysis of current events, the need to constantly learn, and take part in the community with humility. None of us are the One True Leftist, not even you, the reader.
Newcomm and Newsmega Rules:
The Hexbear Code of Conduct and Terms of Service apply here.
-
Link titles: Please use informative link titles. Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed.
-
Content warnings: Posts on the newscomm and top-level replies on the newsmega should use content warnings appropriately. Please be thoughtful about wording and triggers when describing awful things in post titles.
-
Fake news: No fake news posts ever, including April 1st. Deliberate fake news posting is a bannable offense. If you mistakenly post fake news the mod team may ask you to delete/modify the post or we may delete it ourselves.
-
Link sources: All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. If you are citing a Twitter post as news, please include the Xcancel.com (or another Nitter instance) or at least strip out identifier information from the twitter link. There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance, such as Libredirect or archive them as you would any other reactionary source.
-
Archive sites: We highly encourage use of non-paywalled archive sites (i.e. archive.is, web.archive.org, ghostarchive.org) so that links are widely accessible to the community and so that reactionary sources don’t derive data/ad revenue from Hexbear users. If you see a link without an archive link, please archive it yourself and add it to the thread, ask the OP to fix it, or report to mods. Including text of articles in threads is welcome.
-
Low effort material: Avoid memes/jokes/shitposts in newscomm posts and top-level replies to the newsmega. This kind of content is OK in post replies and in newsmega sub-threads. We encourage the community to balance their contribution of low effort material with effort posts, links to real news/analysis, and meaningful engagement with material posted in the community.
-
American politics: Discussion and effort posts on the (potential) material impacts of American electoral politics is welcome, but the never-ending circus of American Politics© Brought to You by Mountain Dew™ is not welcome. This refers to polling, pundit reactions, electoral horse races, rumors of who might run, etc.
-
Electoralism: Please try to avoid struggle sessions about the value of voting/taking part in the electoral system in the West. c/electoralism is right over there.
-
AI Slop: Don't post AI generated content. Posts about AI race/chip wars/data centers are fine.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As a Layman.
I just dont buy Russia invading NATO countries when they are legit struggling with Ukraine. Even if Russia somehow conquers all of Ukraine they are gonna have to leave a sizeable force there to just keep it under control. Like attacking another country while they just conquered Ukraine and barley control it ,sounds like all kinds of trouble.
I would say Russia is currently gaining combat experience on the largest and most modern battlefield in the world. So the Ukraine conflict does have value for its military if there are future conflicts. However, I feel that Russia will likely want a fairly lengthy period of peace afterward.
Also possible im completely and utterly wrong and Putin attacks Finland while I go for breakfast.
I don't think Russia is struggling in Ukraine. They intentionally chose to fight the war as a low intensity conflict with minimal impact on the civilian population. Although, that's now changing with the dismantling of the energy infrastructure. A war with Europe would look very different. Russia would not be holding back the way they do in Ukraine.
That said, the idea of Russia invading Europe is fantastical. There is no rational reason for Russia to do that. NATO build up in Ukraine was a threat to national security that Russia had to respond to.
Furthermore, people tend to think of security in a one dimensional fashion. Military invasion is just one vector. Look at how the US operates, open invasions are rare. Most of the time it's destabilizing the economy, interfering in politics, etc. That's precisely what Russia will do. Europe had already destroyed its own economy in pursuit of the war. There's political discontent in all the major countries with mainstream parties hovering around 10-20% approval. Russia will simply support the opposition and promise economic benefits from cooperation.
Russia is also driving a wedge between the US and Europe by having dialogue with the US. Russia's ultimate goal remains the break up of NATO, and that's looking increasingly likely The US wants to focus on China, and they now see Europe as a liability.
Once NATO falls apart, the EU is likely to follow, and then Russia will be able to negotiate with individual countries from a position of strength.
the denial of russia having any reason to invade ukraine other than putin waking up and choosing evil is critical to the fearmongering that they would likewise irrationally attack the rest of europe.
The West say Russia wants to annex all of Europe. The west also says Putin cant possibly take over Ukraine succesfully. Why am I being lied to 
THE ENEMY IS BOTH VERY WEAK AND VERY STRONG 
Oh absolutely, and it's impossible for the west to admit that Russia might have a legitimate reason because that would open up a lot of uncomfortable questions regarding what led to the war and what could've been done differently.
We maybe have different definitions of struggling but considering the amount of Russian lifes lost by even conservative estimates I dont consider this an easy conflict. Similar to the amount of lost material. Im sure a lot of that is just hyped up by the west but im sceptical the numbers look good. Coming from someone who thinks Ukraine will see some form of defeat. Ofc on the Ukranian site the numbers are probably also not peachy.
But im right to understand that Russia considers this conflict existential. So there will be some form of victory eventually.
The only numbers I know that have any methodology behind them were ones published by meduza, which is UK/Ukrainian collaab project. They looknat public data such as obituaries, and only account for around 100k losses. In absolute numbers that's a lot of people dead of course, but im the context of Russian population overal, it's a tiny percentage.
A big reason the conflict is dragging on so long is precisely because Russia refuses to do big offensives which would be costly. They slowly and methodically use attrition to grind down the AFU.
Ah, but you're not thinking like a lib! You see, conquering a country is like in a Paradox map painting game, once you conquer all their territory it transforms into your country's colour and is automatically considered a part of your country, there is usually some kind of "devastation" or "unrest" penalty for newly conquered territory, but Putin has probably min-maxxed to make sure that they are as minor as possible so he can take advantage of the new territory's resources to conquer more places ASAP.
My armchair perspective is that Russia absolutely could take Ukraine, but there's no desire to and no benefit to anyone. The conflict didn't start because of a desire to conquer Ukraine but to intervene in a genocide that was happening on the Russian border. It seems that Russia has the means to disable all of Ukraine's energy, water, and rail infrastructure any time they want, and to kill Zelensky, but they're not trying to do that level of American style emisseration.
Norway and UK are a bit different (I'm not exactly sure how though) but in the monetary context there's a huge difference between Europe providing money and the US providing money. European nations have a limit on deficit spending (30% of GDP) and not the letter-rip-world-reserve-currency-yeehaw-brrrrrr of the US central bank, so Europen countries providing funding for this cause takes directly from each nation's population, whereas in the US it does not. The US ruling class denies resources from it's own population by choice (freedom), not by monetary policy (authoritarian). For example, does Denmark want to give 2% of GDP to Ukraine and 5% of GDP to NATO? That's 7% of GDP that will not go to Danish citizens for healthcare, education, and all public services. This will contribute to destroying Europe.
And almost all of theh money is being spent on US production orders, so much so that it might even be reducing US missile stocks for air defence against Iran lmao