• masterofn001@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Unfortunately, the target audience also wear shirts which say “I’d rather be Russian than democrat”

    They may take it as an attack against themselves.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      But if you can reframe Ukraine as sticking it to those democrats who don’t like military, they might be on board.

    • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      The target audience are independents and the few sane (but denialist) Republicans left. I think the ad’s goal is to drive them away from the republican party.

      It’s also a social media only ad.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Unfortunately, the target audience also wear shirts which say “I’d rather be Russian than democrat”

      You can tell them “take your conscription”

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Whatever happened to “Better dead than red”?

      Liberty Prime needs to make a comeback.

  • Carl Graham@esq.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    @Wilshire I cannot think of a time in recent history when we have gotten more bang for our military buck than supporting #Ukraine against #Russia .

    Not only are we doing the right thing by helping a democratic nation fight an invasion by an expansionist regime, but this aid has helped weaken one of our two main adversaries, and serves as a warning to China.

    This is truly one of those win/win situations where the only debate should be the degree of military aid, not whether we support Ukraine.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Besides. Ukraine gave up nukes because we promised to protect them. There’s a tremendous cost to going back on our word for soooo many reasons.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        We didn’t promise to protect them. But Russia and the US both promised not to invade.

        Of course, we should still help them because it’s the right thing to do AND is harmful to our average.

        But I do think the worst thing about this war from a geopolitics standpoint is Russia going back on its word. They’ve essentially proven that no nation should ever give up their nukes.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          I feel like that was a huge oversight of the Budapest memorandum. You get promises that the two global powers would not invade you, but you get nobody to actually enforce it. And Russia showed that those promises are empty. I get that having guarantees to defend opens another can of worms, but it’s probably better than the situation we’re in now where we’re now unlikely to see anyone else give up nukes.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I am from Russia and I say it win/win/win for USA, Ukraine and Russia.

        “I’m rooting for you[ukrainians], because Ukraine’s victory is Russia’s chance”,

        “You are fighting and dying for them[Putin and oligarchs], not for Russia”,

        “This is not war of Russia and Ukraine. I am against such definition. This is Putin’s war.”

        - Boris Nemtsov, before he was shot on bridge near Kremlin wall

    • neolib@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      10 months ago

      I am emphatically in favor of supporting Ukraine but you should be aware that Zelensky has suspended elections. I wouldn’t call Ukraine totalitarian but a true democracy never suspends elections, even when they’re inconvenient. The United States has never done it despite always being at war and I don’t think we should give a pass to other nations just because they’re at war.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Zelensky didn’t suspend elections. The Ukrainian constitution suspended elections–the country is under martial law due to invasion, and their constitution disallows elections under martial law. In order to hold elections, Zelensky would have to disregard the constitution.

        Assuming every nation’s constitution is the same as the United States and then judging actions based on that error is some high-level cultural arrogance.

      • Omgpwnies@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        ‘At war’ is not the same as defending yourself from an invasion, which the US has not had to do since it has existed in it’s current form. Also, governments have suspended elections in the past when necessary. For instance, the UK suspended elections during WW2 via the ‘Prolongation of parliament’ bill, while they were defending themselves from a German invasion.

        https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1944/oct/31/prolongation-of-parliament-bill

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        10 months ago

        America has never been invaded to the level that its existence as an independent country has been threatened, at least not since the war of independence.

        During WWII the UK postponed elections. We even have explicit rules for how this can be done, when required. Wartime is one of the situations where it can be required. The complexity of holding an election under wartime conditions is huge. It is also a serious distraction from actually winning the war, and so costs lives. Finally, changing leadership, mid war is risky at best. The time for a new leader to settle in is paid for in lives lost.

      • BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        US has never been at war in the homeland. That would make a huge difference. Plus it would probably be much easier during the chaos for Russia to subvert the Ukrainian elections. But that’s just me talking out my ass. Definitely good to be aware though. If the US did it, it would at least be through congressional action.

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah fuck off with that. We’ll supply with Ukraine with so many weapons it’ll destroy putlers hateful regime. The idiot fascist only understands violence. So violence is what he will get.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        AFAIK he suspended elections in Donetsk, Lughansk and Zaporizhzhia for obvious reasons.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah, but the USA fights all its wars a long way from home.

        If the Rocky Mountains were swarming with Reds, you might find the election cycle interrupted somewhat.

      • Gamey@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There is something new that tends to get in the way of things, it’s called war!

    • SomeDude@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why are republicans afraid of russia?

      When making an attack ad, always generalize. Never put things in relation or specify. Make it simple, make it general and it will make it true.

    • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      They are not afraid of Russia they are enthralled by Russia. They serve Putin because they are indebted to him.

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Republican politicans are corrupt fucks.

          Russia saw Republicans could be bought.

          Republicans saw their voter base is dumb as bricks and they could safely take Russian money and go against American interests as long as they hide behind culture wars.

          Russia 🤝 Republicans

    • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Actually I think this is one of the keys to freeing the minority of the country that insists on being stupid as shit. They love trump but loyalty to the military runs far deeper. Find me a right leaning fuck who doesn’t at least pay lip service to the military. Of course they don’t actually support them, but it’s a potent motivator that they at least feel like they’re doing so.

      So not unlike when you have to work certain angles to get a toddler to take a bath or go to bed, so must steps be taken to try and pry these people out of their death cult spiral. The alternative is to likely be dragged down with them.

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Does this include giving them old equipment which they’d have to dispose of anyway? Because that’s not exactly “spending”. Some even say that it saves money because they have no disposal cost.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Thats assuming the republicans and tankies WANT Putin’s army destroyed. To them, this sounds like what a normal person would hear if we said: “We’ve used 5% of our defense budget to arm the IRA and 50% of Britain’s army has been destroyed.”

      • randon31415@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes, but only $6,500 per person, and it is only tax deductible if you don’t give it to a guy named Roth.

        • Vent@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          Roth is a true homie, you take that back! His tax deductibleness is way better in the long run in most circumstances.

    • shasta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s only Republican politicians who are in love with Russia. Everyone else still hates them due to Cold War propaganda.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, Republicans are in love with Putin. Putin hates Russia, Republican do the same.

  • Ilovethebomb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    10 months ago

    I fucking hate computer generated voices, the cadence is always fucking weird. This one is far too fast, and the pause between words is too short.

    It’s just weird.

    • at_an_angle@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I haven’t watched it yet. Guessing it’s the one male voice used on all those TikToks that I can’t stand.

      Update: it wasn’t but it was damn close.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Thinking out loud, I wonder if it’s better to aim computer generated voices to be understandable and pronounce words correctly, but place them firmly on the lower side of the Uncanny Valley. In other words, let them be noticeably different, but otherwise comprehensible.

      For ads and movies and such, obviously those companies want the most realistic voices they can. But for voice assistants, maybe it’s better if we don’t.

    • TiKa444@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s hard to say, that it’s prooved. Probably even the US Ministry of Defence has no totaly exact lists.

      But there are good estimations based on reports and leaked footage.

      For example oryx has a list with destroyed vehicles and equipment based on photographic or videographic evidence. The real numbers are probably significantly higher.

      After this list the russian army lost more than 2000 tanks. Ukrainian sources says that the Invasion started with more than 3000 tanks.

      Ca. 1000 of the 2000 lost tanks were T-72 (the most common tank in the russian army). According to estimations russia has 2000 T-72 in active service and maybe 10.000 or more as reserves. The reserves are mostly remnants of the soviet Union and old models that are never modernized. Satellite pictures show that a big part of this reserves are stored in open depots with no weather protection. Maybe russia could make some of this vehicles usable, it will cost Billions to repair and modernize them.

      So, no there is no proof, that the ukrainian army destroyed 50% of the russian forces. But there are proofs that russia lost a significant part of its active forces (probably something close to this claim) and that they definitly lost much more value than the americans, the europeans, ect. invested in the ukrainian army.

      https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1

      https://inews.co.uk/news/world/tanks-russia-how-many-putin-military-ukraine-leopard-2-abrams-2108097

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72

    • jatone@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      wikipedia napkin math. with 1.15 million and at least two million reserve personnel.

      ~3.15 million personelle. ukraine hasnt killed that many; probably around 300k. their probably talking about the number of troops in ukraine. which is probably around 700k for the duration of the war.

    • Mouette@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      10 months ago

      50% is absolutely outrageous, I mean it’s clearly war propaganda they could have said 200% who cares.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          5% of the defense budget. Which is definitely worth it even for a 10% decrease, since the US usually has to spend more than its adversaries.

          And Russian casualties are generally estimated to be in the range of 100K to 300K, which is more than 10%.

          For comparison, there were about 50K Taliban KIA in Afghanistan, and the US spent a lot more money there.

        • 73 million seconds@infosec.exchange
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I don’t think the point here is that the US 5% contribution has single handedly led to Russia losing 50%. The point is that the coalition as a whole are each spending relatively little compared to what the total cost to the Russians is. Ukraine is of course also paying a much heavier price than any of its western supporters who help it keep fighting.

          @Zuberi @Mouette
          @ukraine

          • outstanding_bond@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            You and I already agree with the sentiment of this message and interpret this claim charitably, which the intended recipients of this message (US Republicans) will mostly not do. This message needs to convince them, not us, and it would be a far stronger argument if it cited a source.

    • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      There’s enormous amounts of anti-russian comments and Russia phobia on the English speaking parts of the internet to where unbiased information is extremely hard to find.

      You should check out “red effect” on YouTube. He’s the closest thing I’ve found to being unbiased

      EDIT: found OPs source lol https://vid.pr0gramm.com/2023/09/25/187e9f46663d04ee.mp4

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        Lmfao yeah get your advice from the worst fucking video platform out there, who’s notoriously had issues with fake news and conspiracy theory nutjobs.

        Also please go look up what it means to be biased

        Maybe then you’ll understand why being unbiased against a global threat is fundamentally impossible. You will always have a bias, the difference is being objective and following good media practices like using several, diversified resources that have minimal bias and thus provides a more comprehensive picture.

        It’s similar to AI training, you want to retain the orthogonal items that are unique to preserve the best image

      • 15liam20@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        When you see “russophobia” are you really seeing disapproval of a dictatorship?

      • Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.comM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s no such thing as unbiased. At best you’ll get considerate analysis. Even publications renowned for their lack of bias (Reuters for example) will have some bias in favour of things like free speech and freedom of the press, because ofc they do. That said, proper sources should both be professional, ethcial journalists and strive to be unbiased as much as possible. Also, FTR just because an article is critical of russia doesn’t mean it is biased. Information can be objectively bad. News that informs about say a mass murder spree is not (necessarily) pro-murder and there is very little one can objectively say is Good about russia unless you get into the realm of arguments like ‘Tyrants are better than anarchy’.

        • soggy_kitty@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          You have no idea who I am or what my views are. You probably romanticise with the idea I’m a russia sympathiser but I hope vladdy the baddy is killed and also the war ends immediately. I’m just one of those people who can see the western bias for what it is, the circle jerk is cringe on both sides

  • FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you could reason with them they wouldn’t be republicans.

    We should stop trying to convince them with logic, and start paying off the far right talking heads to change their talking points. If fox and newsmax pundits, and the shitty far right members of congress (like bimbobert and MTG and minor-lover matt gaetz) did an about face overnight, so would the entire republican base.

    • snownyte@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Republicans are really beyond trying to logic, reason with and even barter with. It’s their way or the highway, all of the time, about anything.

      Give them an inch, they want miles. Give them something, they’ll want everything.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        “Meet me in the middle,” said the unjust man.

        You take one step forward, he takes one step back.

        “Meet me in the middle,” said the unjust man.

        — A. R. Maxon

    • someguy3@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      They don’t want money (which they already have anyway), they want power and control over others - which is why they project that onto Democrats.

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is mostly true but in politics you constantly deal in partial success . If 5 percent of the audience are swayed to not vote over voting GOP even that is worth it.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not only that, but it will take decades and a lot of money to get back to their original military strength.

    • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      It would have taken a decade and a lot of money just to achieve the strength we (and they) thought they were at before the war started.

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Is this an AI generated ad? It seems like they tried to fit as many talking points as possible.

      • TheWoozy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        They also edited out any breath pauses from the narrator. I’ve heard that voice over many years of political ads. They may have modled a cg voice from a real person, or they edited the hell out of a genuine voice over.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    If you want to sell conservatives on supporting Ukraine, just tell them “it’s for the children.”

    That seems to work for everything with them wether it has anything to do with children or not. Also, you could say that Ukraine hates gays. It’s clearly not true, but since when did facts ever matter to them?

    Otherwise, they’ll see no benefit in supporting Ukrainian as the personally get nothing from it- and we all know that conservatives don’t care about anything unless it serves them in some way.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Things like discounted preschool, daycare and kindergarten for all = evil & despicabl

        also, free school lunches and CHIP = eViL sOcIaLiSm

    • ginerel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Also, you could say that Ukraine hates gays. It’s clearly not true, but since when did facts ever matter to them?

      They do not hate them, but as a part of Eastern Europe it’s not so gay-friendly, at least on the grassroot level, so you could get some facts in to support this if you wish to do so. They’ll be in tears of joy when they will hear that the government will be supporting a nation with true men and stuff like this.

  • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    I doubt it will get their support seeing as they’re in bed together.