this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
207 points (99.5% liked)

politics

24584 readers
2110 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The move blindsided the State Department, Ukraine, European allies and members of Congress, who demanded an explanation from the Pentagon.

The Defense Department held up a shipment of U.S. weapons for Ukraine this week over what officials said were concerns about its low stockpiles. But an analysis by senior military officers found that the aid package would not jeopardize the American military’s own ammunition supplies, according to three U.S. officials.

The move to halt the weapons shipment blindsided the State Department, members of Congress, officials in Kyiv and European allies, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.

Critics of the decision included Republicans and Democrats who support aiding Ukraine’s fight against Russia. A leading House Democrat, Adam Smith of Washington, said it was disingenuous of the Pentagon to use military readiness to justify halting aid when the real reason appears to be simply to pursue an agenda of cutting off American aid to Ukraine.

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ReallyAngryNerd@europe.pub 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's because they want Russia to win. If you haven't figured that out by now you're not paying attention.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Greenland, Russia, Canada, the US, as a unified landmass using the USA's might, dominating the arctic sea as the world heats up and the icebergs melt. The arctic sea will be a powerhouse of a trade route while everyone scurries north to survive.

Shits bleak, yo.

[–] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)
  1. Budapest Accords. They had the third largest nuclear arsenal and turned it in for our guarantee that WE WOULD STOP RUSSIA. 🤬 We’ve proven to the world that we can’t be trusted.
[–] CAVOK@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

The nukes were in Ukraine, but the launch codes and control of them were in Moscow. Also Ukraine were in no position financially to keep them. Getting rid of them were the best option for Ukraine at the time.

The fact that the Americans voted for a demented felon who appointed Kegsbreath the alcoholic is the real problem.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They are trying to hurt Ukraine and help Russia.

[–] madlian@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 day ago

Did you ever watch the show The Americans?

The Republican Party (and many Dems) are just Russian assets and paid actors.

Maria Butina is the kind of thing that’s happening all over. She was just bad at it.

[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The weapons we've given to Ukraine are outdated weapons that likely would have been disposed of eventually. We aren't sending them our most advanced weapons.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Effectively hand-me-downs the military has no active use for.