Donald Trump made clear that his personal grudge with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky hasn’t abated during a phone interview with NBC News.

Speaking with Meet the Press anchor Kristen Welker on Saturday, the president knocked Zelensky for offering assistance to the U.S. and Middle Eastern countries, the latter of which the Ukrainian president said on Friday were seeking his aid in sharing drone detection technology.

The “last person we need help from is Zelensky,” Trump told Welker.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    Haaaaaaang on.

    Are you saykng that Iran has been supplying Russia with drones, and now they’ll be keeping them to use against the USA, for the explicit purpose of being destroyed?

    So, wouldn’t this mean Russia loses their supply? So wouldn’t that mean it’s actually in Zelenskyys best interest to NOT help the USA?

    If USA ends their war quickly, Iran starts supplying Russia again with drones. But until that happens, wouldn’t Ukraine have an easier time in their own war?

    • testaccount372920@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      The USA is rapidly burning through munitions that Ukraine desperately needs. I suspect the loss of those anti air weapons etc is much worse for Ukraine than the small reduction in drones launched at them.

      • fizzle@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I honestly hadn’t realised munitions were so difficult to produce. Everyone concerned about burning through stockpiles. I guess in non-war times you don’t need the capability to produce a lot in a short time.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          20 hours ago

          That’s exactly it, yes. Modern armaments production is geared around low intensity conflicts and maintaining existing stockpiles. It’s not set up for full militarization. That’s a good thing in a lot of ways; economies geared for war end up needing war. But it means that even a nation like the US can only sustain a high intensity conflict for so long.

          Iran is particularly taxing because they’re focused heavily on the use of cheap drone munitions, which the US just does not have a cost effective way of intercepting. US air defense is still designed around shooting down expensive planes and missiles. Patriot is an incredible air defense system, but it’s ungodly expensive. The whole system costs over a billion dollars, and the missiles are 4 million each. If one of those missiles shoots down a $50 million Mig-29, that’s a really good deal. A $20,000 shahed drone… Not so much.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      If USA ends their war quickly

      The only way the US ends this war quickly is by retreating. Drones or not it’s a quagmire.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        War agsinst a non-nuclear state onlu needs 2 things to be quick.

        1. A shitload of nukes

        2. Someone in charge of those nukes who has no morals or empathy.

        At this point, the only thing making the war take more than a day, is the fact that somehow trump thought better of dropping 4,000 nukes spread out over the entirety of Iran. They’d probably call it something like “Operation Scorched Earth”.

          • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            It does to a degree, but also the US would likely call China/Russia beforehand and let them know it’s happening - assuming they go with ICBMs. US also has tactical nukes which are dropped from aircraft the outcry would obviously be huge, but I don’t see it triggering MAD.

            • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Nope but China, Israel, Russia, India and Pakistan all do and its probably unclear who the US would be launching at when they’re all headed towards Iran. Lots of itchy trigger fingers around.

              • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Israel is the only country even marginally close enough to be mistaken for the target.

                And they would know we’re not going to fire upon them. We’re apperently sucking their dick politically.

                None of that would make sense for any of those countries to think it’s aimed at them.

                Let me put it in baseball terms. You’re looking at an infield pop fly, and worried that the outfielders might catch it. Or in the case of Russia, a fan in the upper bowl of the bleachers. The trajectory doesn’t line up for that to make sense.

                MAYBE Israel, but again, they know they’re safe from us.

                • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  Depends on trajectory, to hit Iran, unless your going over the southern hemisphere, you’re either passing over China, Russia or Europe / the middle east. At least for ICBMs launched from the mainland. I suppose there’s nothing stopping a sub from launching a few miles from Iran’s coast.

    • aquovie@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Russia is getting a huge advantage from the Iran-US war. Trump, as a Russian asset, had the excuse he needed to lift sanctions on Russian oil.

      Ukraine needs to cut off Russian oil, which means stopping the Iran threat.

    • AMoralNihilist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      This was my first take too, but I think that was mostly true in the first years when the rot in the russian military was more prevalent. They have been steadily cleaning up and ramping up production across their MIC and they also have local Shahed production now set up by Iranian engineers afaik.

      That means that the main limits on Russias ability to get drones is now primarily financial, rather than production volume. So while they lost some of their effective production, they have made so much money out of this, that even if it ends today, their biggest challenge, their economy, is hugely improved. If it continues, they will be able to afford even more production.

      With the effectiveness of the Shaheds, I wouldn’t be surprised if China is also pumping them out and Russia can buy them there. If NATO dumped a bunch of money into reverse engineering and setting up production, Iranian allies sure as hell should have.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Yes, Russia will lose a part of their supply.

      They will also gain a lot of money they can use to buy things from other places.