The first U.S. Abrams tanks pledged to Ukraine have arrived in the country and are being prepared to send into battle, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced Monday.

“Good news from Defense Minister [Rustem] Umerov. Abrams are already in Ukraine and are preparing to reinforce our brigades. I am grateful to our allies for fulfilling the agreements!” Zelensky wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Zelensky added that Ukraine is “looking for new contracts and expanding the geography of supply.”

The Pentagon confirmed the tanks arrived in Ukraine, with a spokesperson saying “the mere presence of Abrams tanks serves as a potent deterrent.”

“By having these tanks in their arsenal, the Ukrainian army can more effectively discourage aggressive actions,” the Defense Department spokesperson told The Hill. “We will continue to focus on what we can do to help Ukraine succeed on the battlefield and protect its people.”

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s always very inspiring to see what we spent our money on instead of health care.

    Just inspiring.

    • Bread@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      We already had the tanks to use. They aren’t getting used otherewise. While our military budget is ridiculous, if there were ever a great reason to spend it, supporting an ally to help knock down a world power such as Russia for significantly cheaper than we ever could on our own would be it. We don’t even have any American troops dying in this war.

      We need healthcare, yes. But what we gain by helping Ukraine is not insignificant. Also it is the right thing to do, so more points there.

      • agoseris@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m also going to point out that we (US) spend more per person on healthcare than most other countries. There doesn’t need to be a cut to the military to give everyone healthcare, since universal healthcare would probably cost less money

        • Bread@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh I know, but why make a point on my terms when you can make a point with theirs? You can’t deflect as easily when you are hit head on.

    • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US pays more per patient for healthcare than countries with social healthcare.

      Socialised healthcare would actually save money and allow the US to buy more tanks.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know why you’d say that.

        I always feel better about the fact that our people can’t afford to have an injury or illness treated without going into debt, provided I get to see a line of really cool tanks heading off to fight another country’s war.

        • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I said it because we can have both. Not that, you know, maybe we shouldn’t have such a large military budget… But universal healthcare would actually cost less than our current privatized healthcare. It’s efficient. So it is not the cost that’s stopping it from happening.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I said it because we can have both

            Canada has universal health care. Their military budget is 26 billion a year.

            Better things are possible, at least they would be if we weren’t such warmongers.