Washington and Kiev are negotiating a bilateral security agreement that mirrors the 10-year commitments Ukraine has entered into with several European powers.
Do conservatives just want us all to give in to our enemies? And then let them take Poland and eventually the US too? Bro. Some people’s kids. The US has been at war in one form or another since the 50’s. We have fought proxy wars against them as recently as Syria in 2019 and please don’t forget that they are regularly attacking the US through ransomware attacks against hospitals, local governments, water bureaus, and banks. They are also attacking our elections through misinformation and bribery. They have directly threatened our country with nuclear war as recently as last year. If conservatives don’t love our homeland enough to defend it than thank Biden for your safety.
Chomsky had a phrase along the lines of: we will fight forever- to the last Ukrainian. Basically switching up the “fight them to the last man”
Realistically, we all know where this war is going to end. At some point in the next couple years it will end in a negotiated settlement where Russia annexes some territory and maybe Ukraine is forced unto neutrality.
The only other possible scenario is a hot war between NATO and Russia.
We know Ukraine doesn’t have the offensive capacity to recapture territory and everyday Russia takes some village or another. Moving like 10 miles a month but moving.
So assuming that’s true, for the sake of discussion, what are the possible benefits and the possible negatives from continuing to support Ukraine?
Pros:
Our MIC gets a nice shot in the arm and shareholders are happy. They get to funnel more taxpayer funds into their portfolios.
Russia has to spend a dramatically increased number of resources in order to capture the land. More Russians will die, more Russian tanks will be destroyed, etc.
Cons:
Ukraine will be destroyed. As of November of last year, costs for reconstruction was estimated at $350B. That has likely increasing dramatically. We can barely pass $60B worth of military aid that mostly benefits our defense contractors. You think we are going to front them $500B?
Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of additional Ukrainians will die. They already lost over a quarter of their population. They won’t recover for a century.
Is it really worth it? Are we really that cynical? It’s not only conservatives that think this way.
it doesn’t have to. main reason for this war being this long is reluctance of western partners to deliver equipment necessary to keep initiative in present state of war. As a result - Ukrainian army get decimated while russians are getting better and everything awful they do: war crimes, defences, offense etc. Time is running out to help Ukraine and calls to “bust give up now” are self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m a pacifist at heart but in this case there is no way of stopping russian expansion (present and future) than to supply Ukraine with all necessary to win. Otherwise 1-2yr after “negotiations” we’ll have v2.0 where russia chomps off next piece of Ukraine (or other bordering country) while the rest of the world will keep repeating “what’s the point? we gave in last time, might as well save ourselves the trouble and give up now”. Solution by escalation is still possible as russia still has upper limit they are bumping against, but they keep on raising it so soon enough nothing will help, and that’s what russians hope for.
The goal was always to help just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win.
It’s because the purpose is to hurt Russia and help our MIC. Everything else is rhetoric and propaganda. Russia has controlled Ukraine for centuries. Nobody actually cares about Ukraine strategically except for Russia. They are willing to sacrifice infinitely more for Ukraine than the West.
The only way to really save Ukraine at this point is to send troops. And that isn’t happening unless we are on the brink of WW3. Which may very well happen, but I think probably not for at least another 5~10 years and Ukraine war will over by then.
there is some truth to what you say, at least “just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win”.
However I would disagree with over-generalised statement “Nobody actually cares about Ukraine except for russia”. Poland, for example, very much does not want to have common border with russia, esp. after this war. While US has a luxury of being able to ignore what’s happening it is not the case for some (most?) EU countries. Which also explains why some contribute enormously when comparing their contributions to respective country’s GDP. Ukraine independence also can be used by US as leverage against russia in the future, so while not humanitarian in principle, US has huge interest in Ukraine status.
There is a chance for Ukrainian win on battlefield without foreign soldiers, but it means lots of equipment. That window is quickly closing and then, yes, the only way to move forward will be foreign intervention.
That is what the West publically says, to the last man. Lindsey Graham said to the effect that giving them money is a great thing because they will fight to the last man. I don’t see how fighting to the last man is a rational choice, given they were much better options than choosing alignment with the EU and NATO. Then again, American foreign policy makes no sense, such as funding and supplying Israel. Israel and Gaza is not an American interest. Just like Ukraine, the US has no need to participate in aiding a country over a region like Gaza. These are purely liabilities for the US.
Not all of us want to believe in lies. Russia is not a threat. Russia seized being a threat when the USSR dissolved. This is why NATO was able to expand despite Russian objections throughout the decades. Ukraine is not an interest to the US; that is to say, there isn’t anything in Ukraine that the US needs that is vital to either economic or national security. Ukraine is a national security concern for Russia. It doesn’t matter what happens to Ukraine, it does not affect the US, but it would affect Russia. The Russians are checking American influence in their own region. NATO is how the US has influence in Europe. European states in NATO have no independent foreign policy. In fact, it is subservient to US foreign policy. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the sanctions, the war, the economic decline, that is the price of being in NATO following US foreign policy.
When a country next door is being armed and trained by the enemy or a distrustful alliance led by the US, that is more than justification to preemptively use military action. The US would do exactly the same if Moscow or Beijing would try to put Mexico or Canada into military alliance. The US is arming Taiwanese against the Chinese. Treaties don’t matter to the US, and they go out the window when there is a threat.
Of course they’re arming Taiwan: Did you see what happened to Hong Kong, after China had signed a deal with Britain to leave them alone? Just like Russia signed up to keep Ukraine safe when they have up their nukes… They’re going out of their way to make it clear that the only authoritarian facist you can trust to hold a deal is the one with a rifle down his throat.
Tell us, what did the evil Chinese do to Hong Kong? Please inform me. Hong Kong belongs to China, that is why the British gave it back to them. It is the British colonialism, the reason why Hong Kong was under British control. China does not take too kindly to Western imperialism by historical experience. You bet they are not giving up Taiwan to the United States.
If you didn’t notice the crackdowns in Hong Kong a couple years back, and haven’t noticed the stream of political refugees from Hong Kong afterwards, I can’t help you.
China signed an agreement when the UK gave up Hong Kong, and they blatantly broke that agreement. There really aren’t that many complicating factors.
Hong Kong people did not want to be ruled by the CCP. There were no human rights abuses regarding the Hong Kong riots. Chinese handled the riots well and the riots subsided. There was no Chinese “crackdown”. What Americans are doing to anti-Israel protestors right now is far worse than what the Chinese supposedly did to the rioters in Hong Kong. You are clearly biased and have no interest in the facts. You are very one-sided; you are presenting speculation and even misinformation to give a false presentation of infallible Western countries. Hillary came up with a term regarding Tucker Carlson, the irony is that “term” is appropriate to people who believe, and follow Hillary Clinton, and the establishment she is a part of; yes, the Deep State is the establishment. Western governments looted Libya, war after war, lies after lies, and you imply I live in rock ignorant to the history of sins of the West. That false story does not work on me. I deal with facts, not hearsay, or semi-truths with great omissions.
Lol. You apparently do live under a rock… Like, have you actually spoken to anyone that was there? I have, and they’ve either experienced more or less severe police brutality and dissappearings, or claim that the Chinese government is full of saints that could never do harm. You know, if you don’t mistreat your population, you won’t have to spend resources on undercover out-of-country police stations, and on sending people to other countries to report on “disloyal citizens”.
That could save you quite some resources in the long run, just a tip.
Also, I don’t know why you involve Trump. Trump is a non-establishment candidate. He is not a warmonger. Joe Biden is a warmonger, and he was part of the team that was deeply involved in Ukraine. Crimea was lost under Obama, not Trump. Remember, Quid Pro Quo Joe, and “**** the EU” Victoria Nuland? Why would Victoria Nuland say “**** the EU”? If you could explain that part.
Russia invaded after Ukrainian nationalist and US operatives, Victoria Nuland, and her associates were involved in a coup. This is a fact. We have a leaked recording of her and her colleague discussing which person they want to groom for public office in Ukraine. There is no denying that. The question is, how deep was the US involved in Ukraine? That, we don’t have hard evidence that is currently available for public and scholarly consumption.
When a country next door is being armed and trained by the enemy or a distrustful alliance led by the US, that is more than justification to preemptively use military action.
funny, that didn’t start until russia INVADED THEM.
so great logic there.
boy you just side with all the invading types don’t you? Ever make you wonder perhaps you have it wrong, if you’re attacking people for supporting Ukraine and Taiwan instead of Russia and China?
Because the elites don’t want to be conquered by NATO via color revolutions and geostrategic advantage. Survival is rational. Ukrainians dying to the last man is not rational because they want to join NATO and the EU so bad. A next door country that is being militarized by a political alliance is more than enough justification to invade a neighboring country. NATO is a political alliance, it not a defensive alliance that it use to be when there was security competition between the USSR and the US. USSR collapsed because military control of an empire is expensive. Needing the military to have a presence to quell rebellion and maintain control is expensive. Ruling over people who don’t like you, doesn’t work in the long run. This is why the Russians gave up the business of imperialism over other countries/nations. Ukraine is a very big exception because of the history of Russia and Ukraine. Russian and Ukrainian history is intertwined. Crimea was won over by Catherine II the Great from the Ottomans. The Donbas has a lot of Russian history. The industry of the Donbas was developed from the years of Russian investment under the Soviet Union. New Russia would become part of Ukrainian Soviet Republic, which was incorporated by Russia in 1917. Then, the name New Russia was disused after incorporation. If you want to be a pendant of who has a great claim to the land, neither Russia nor Ukrainians have the greatest claim because it is conquered land by the Russians. That is like saying Texas, California, etc. does not belong to the United States, they belong to Mexico. What about Hawaii? What about Diego Garcia? The Russians don’t care about the Baltic States. Russians have no interest in Estonia or the rest of Europe. They gave that up in 1991. Ukraine, however, has a special place in the history and culture of Russia, not just geopolitical balance of power politics.
you’re either misguided or malicious. Have you been to Ukraine? Have you seen what Russia has done to Ukraine over decades? What “special link”? It is as special as link between Jack The Ripper and his victims. russia is very much interested in restoring empire that includes Baltic states and middle asia etc.
russia had a chance at retaining Ukraine in it’s orbit prior to 2014. If they’d spent same amount of money they did on destabilisation of the country, on development instead, promoting Ukrainian culture etc. they could’ve had Ukraine forever. Honest. Before 2014 there was plenty of pro-russian sentiment in the country to pull it off as old crimes got forgotten and pain dulled. But from 2014 onward it became impossible.
At present if russia wins, either retaining stolen territories or grabbing some more - it will create destabilized zone that nobody in Europe wants in their backyard. russia is not there on humanitarian mission, and itls been made clear - they are on extermination mission. Like they have been multiple times before.
You have no evidence to back up your claims, and let me debunk the claim that the US and NATO obey any semblance of rules. The 1991 agreement for the sovereign statehood of Ukraine was based on the condition that they remain a neutral country. When the EU and NATO came to town, they ignored that crucial portion of the conditions of Ukrainian statehood. You accuse me of soundbites and using propaganda, no sir, you are the one that was fed misinformation. NATO and Ukraine can break the rules, but Russia can’t alter their recognition of the rules that have been violated. You have been propagandized to believe Western countries are the good guys and the Russians, the Chinese, etc., are the bad guys. Your assumption is the West is infallible. You are wrong, sir. Let us examine how much you don’t know. Crimea does not belong to Ukraine. Crimea became independent before Ukrainian independence. It was in fact called the >Republic of Crimea. Let us review evidence, straight from Wikipedia: >With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence in 1991 most of the peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,[25][26] Pro-Russian and pro-autonomy forces dominated the republic’s government until it was forcibly abolished by Ukraine in 1995 with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established firmly under Ukrainian authority.[27][28] A 1997 treaty partitioned the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, allowing Russia to continue basing its fleet in Sevastopol, with the lease extended in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
Ukraine isn’t eligible for EU and NATO membership. They don’t meet the criteria. What the US is doing is manipulating Ukrainian nationalism to fight a suicidal war against Russia, who does not want US influence and power next to its border. There is no way that Ukraine could be part of NATO. Ukraine couldn’t meet the harsh terms to be eligible. You can cry, whine, and yell all you want, but the fact is, Ukraine is destroyed, and whatever you think is an injustice, does not matter. You don’t get to decide what you want to do when a stronger country wants a certain amount of influence. Just like the US thinks it can command “sovereign” countries that they should not do business with Russia. The US thinks it can pressure China, or more like bully China to bend to its will, but establishment actors like Anthony Blinken don’t realize how insignificant he really is against Beijing. International relations are also about diplomacy. Something the US forgot a long time ago.
I am going to assume that you are writing here in good faith and as such i am going to respond to you in good faith.
This is why NATO was able to expand despite Russian objections throughout the decades
I disagree. From my european point of view, NATO was able to expand exactly because Russia was still a threat. There’s a Reason why these Countries wanted to join NATO. Because they knew that russia was still a threat and would invade its Neighbours, like it is doing right now in Ukraine.
Ukraine is not an interest to the US; that is to say, there isn’t anything in Ukraine that the US needs that is vital to either economic or national security. Ukraine is a national security concern for Russia. It doesn’t matter what happens to Ukraine, it does not affect the US, but it would affect Russia. The Russians are checking American influence in their own region. NATO is how the US has influence in Europe. European states in NATO have no independent foreign policy. In fact, it is subservient to US foreign policy. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the sanctions, the war, the economic decline, that is the price of being in NATO following US foreign policy.
This Part confuses me a bit. In the first Part you say that Russia has a right to invade and puppet Ukraine because it is a national security interest. But in the second Part, you say that the US wouldn’t have the right to dictate the foreign policy (it doesn’t, i will come to this later on) of its NATO-Counterparts.
I Personally think that your first half is the wrong half. We have to stop looking at the world as pawns in a cold war to be played, but instead as independent parties looking to coexist. I don’t think any country has the right to dictate over another because of “national security concerns”.
Otherwise the US would have the Right to dictate over Europe because they’re in the USs national security concerns. And the US would have never been allowed to declare independence, because that would have gone against the national security concerns of the british empire.
So no, i don’t think that any supposed “national security concerns” of Russia validate any military Action.
Besides i don’t even think they had any valid national security concerns. NATO Bases stayed in the West, the “original” Parts of NATO and never got into the new eastern territorries. And the NATO memeber states in the Baltics are much much closer to St. Petersburg or moscow than Ukraine. So Ukraine really isn’t that important to Russia.
Also Ukraine was never under the Influence of the US. Ukraine wanted to move to the EU, a completely european Institution where the US doesn’t even have an observer Position.
now about the NATO Part:
The Part about the US dictating Foreign Policy:
That is really not true. Look for example at the interactions between Macron (the French President) and the US Presidents. They are constantly bickering about foreign policy. Macron is heavily influential in steering European foreign-policy, more than any US-President.
The Part about Europe being forced into Sanctions:
That also is not true. A lot of the Sanctions come from the EU, a purely european Institution where the US doesn’t even hold ab observatory role.
It was us, the Europeans (yes, I am european, i am from Switzerland), who were so shocked about the first War since WW2 (we ignore the breakup of Yugoslavia, that is more complicated and resembles a civil war) that we demanded sanctions and reprisals against Russia. It was us, the Europeans, who forced the US to join Sanctions against Russia, not the other way round.
I hope i was able to give you some insight into this matter from a european (swiss) perspective and i was able to disprove some of your previously held notions.
I hope you can use what i wrote here :)
If Russia was such a threat, then NATO countries in Europe did not spend enough on their military to meet that said threat. Europeans spent below the NATO mandate of 2.0% of their GDP. They didn’t seem scared then. NATO countries do not have an independent foreign policy. It is not in European interest to bring about sanctions that weaken their own countries and bring instability. You are speculating and have no evidence to back up your claims that European countries joined NATO because of “fear”. Hatred of communism and hatred of Russia is one thing, but fear isn’t one of them. The US provides security for NATO, Europeans saved their money to invest in their economy. It is the US that keeps NATO together, therefore, NATO unified, because there is no competition when one country foots the bill of security.
then NATO countries in Europe did not spend enough on their military to meet that said threat. Europeans spent below the NATO mandate of 2.0% of their GDP. They didn’t seem scared then.
Ah yes, that is a common Misconception if you’re not European. It is very easy to lump Europeans together in one Pot. Often people just look at the Actions of France, Germany and Italy to determine “European” behavior, when the EU is actually a hugely diverse pool of 27 autonomous Nations.
Yes, Western European Nations such as Germany, Italy, Belgium etc (but notably not France) did spend a lot less than the 2% target. These Nations were famously also cozying up to Russia (Nordstream), not seeing it as a Threat. However, if you look at the eastern European Nations that were occupied by and/or border on Russia, the same Nations that joined NATO because of the Threat of Russia, all of these Nations do either match or exceed the NATO-target of 2% of GDP. Poland, in Fact, spends more on its Military than even the US (in %, not total)
NATO countries do not have an independent foreign policy.
Biden wants a tougher Stance on China while Scholz (Germany) wants to maintain good Business Relations
Biden wants a clear Stance on Taiwan while Macron (France) openly disagrees and warns not to flame tensions (and openly calls Bidens Actions unwise and dangerous)
As you can see, European Countries do have and do Excercise independent foreign Diplomacy.
Many Europeans denounced the US’s war on Vietnam. Many Europeans decided not to join the Iraqi War.
All prime examples of sovereign foreign Diplomacy.
It is not in European interest to bring about sanctions that weaken their own countries and bring instability.
which is why we’re enacting Sanctions instead of enacting a full Embargo. Which is why we capped the Price of Russian Gas instead of banning it outright.
Do you know what weakens our countries and brings instability?
A fascist country waging a war of aggression in our own backyard. Russian Spies spying on and planning attacks on military bases. Russian Misinformation.
Those Sanctions are an investment into a Future, into a Europe where the Rule of Law and Peace reside. Where there’s no fascist war of aggression over imperial ambition. Where we Europeans can peacefully coexist and build a peaceful future over wounds of old. Together.
You are speculating and have no evidence to back up your claims that European countries joined NATO because of “fear”.
I am going to have to ask you to remain nice and not make any accusations since i am sacrificing my time and engaging with you in good faith instead of just down-voting you. I could do other Stuff in this Time, but i specifically chose to discuss this with you since you seemed to argue in good faith as well. I am asking you for it to remain this way.
Did you ever talk to someone from this Region who was for enlargement? Because they will tell you very clearly how Russia is a danger to their Nation and livelihood and how this was the main driver on why they joined NATO (and joined it this quickly).
Anyways, just for you, i asked my Estonian friend why they joined NATO and he said “did you see what Russia is doing in Ukraine?” (Translation by me) (I think he’s mad at me for even asking this? I think i should apologize and explain it to him?)
Hatred of communism and hatred of Russia is one thing, but fear isn’t one of them.
I am sorry, i am not sure how to say this nicely, but that is just wrong. the EU and its Members engaged in multiple contracts with Russia over the years and was always looking for Cooperation. There was no hatred. There is, however, a lot of fear. Which is the reason why most nations once occupied by Russia are today Europes biggest Spenders on military.
And russia to day isn’t communist anymore, it’s closest to fascist in government and ideology.
The US provides security for NATO, Europeans saved their money to invest in their economy.
Western Europe did that (again, the exception being France). Eastern Europe has always maintained their Spending, and, as i already said, Poland even outspends the US (in %, not total)
It is the US that keeps NATO together, therefore, NATO unified,
Let me show you my Point of View:
A while back, i think during the Trump Presidency, Macron(France) called NATO brain-dead and useless. A while it seemed like NATO was in an existential crisis and might not survive the decade. But ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, no one has said anything bad against NATO anymore.
It wasn’t the US, that held/put together NATO, it was Putin. Because his invasion destroyed European Peace and showed us again, why we (well, i am Swiss, so not me personally) had NATO in the first place.
We had a name for the Post-WW2 Peace. Pax Europaea (named after the roman Pax Romana).
It was Russia, that destroyed this Peace. This is the Reason why we’re afraid of Russia. Why we’re against Russia. Why we invent new Sanctions. So that one Day we can create a new Pax Europaea, that will last and not be broken. So that my Children can finally live in Peace on this War-Torn Continent.
MOST NATO countries did not pay the mandatory 2% minimum. So, yes, the European states were not that considered their own security. Another thing to consider is the capabilities of Russia; Russia has no ability to project power across Europe. It is physically impossible for the Russians to conquer Europe, and it is illogical that Russia would attack a NATO country. That is a myth created to create hysteria as to garner more support against Russia. Ukraine is a security concern for Russia, not for the United States, or the rest of Europe. The US is more fascist than the Russia, since it wants to control the world and export its culture. Fascist believe in autarky and see every single nation or country as a threat. Balance of power politics is not fascism, it is rational, and common sense. The US has toppled far more governments than the Russians did in their entire history. When you are forcing other countries to become liberal, that is fascism.
How is Ukraine, a country that has spent 10 years fighting a low-intensity conflict on its own land in the Donbas, without strong military allies, and with an economy and political system that were just barely starting to see some stability, a “security concern” to Russia, a country that has soon thrown half a million men, and equipment worth several times Ukraines GDP at a war they can leave whenever they choose?
Ukraine never attacked anyone. They’re literally fighting for their lives. If Russia would just leave them alone this would be over. They didn’t have the capacity for aggression agains russia, but due to this war of Russias choosing, they’ve been forced to spend enormous amounts on scaling up their military.
Putin wanted the civil war resolved, and he thought he could trust NATO to resolve it. Instead, as Angela Merkel pointed out, the Minsk II Accords were merely to buy time to arm Ukraine.
In her interviews with Alexander Osang, which took place over a period of a year and in various locations, Merkel insisted that her stance on the Minsk agreement – which brought a ceasefire after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula – had been right. Key points of the Minsk peace talks, including disarmament and supervision by an international body, were never followed through. But Merkel said the agreement had nevertheless helped buy Kyiv time to arm itself better against the Russian military.
I deal with facts and logic. Putin does not want to fight NATO, but NATO clearly wants to fight Putin without initiating a nuclear war. Using Ukrainians to fight their war for them, which is the reason for arming them in the first place, and to use Ukraine as a NATO bulwark against Russia. Ukraine is in trouble today because of the refusal to handle the situation diplomatically. The motive is obvious, the US wants Ukrainians to fight Russia, and plotted to agitate Russia to invade Ukraine. NATO has absolutely no interest in any peace. They’re not fighting it, and they promote Ukrainians as fighting their war. A war which they can’t win. The US does not care about NATO. Caring would involve saving the lives of Ukrainians and to ensure peace and prosperity through diplomacy. If Lindsey Graham had his way, he would lower the draft age to 14 years old. It is an unhinged foreign policy; it is a war that did not need to be fought if there was a compromise. It is foolish to reject compromise because of valiant defiance. Bravado alone is not enough. The case in Ukraine shows there is irrational leadership in Ukraine. Zelenskyy was naive not acknowledge interests of other countries, especially a neighbor. Ukraine was ill-equipped, by all metrics, weaker than Russia. Russia was weak in the first year of the war, because the military was not prepared to go to war, but now Russia has a much better military, and they have the resolve to win. This shows a lack of reason on the part of the Ukrainians who seem romantically obsessed of joining NATO, which is a political alliance, and the EU, which has a military component.
You keep twisting to talking about NATO, and the EU, when an elected government in Ukraine is choosing to keep fighting. Remember that the majority of western support came after Ukrainians showed in the first weeks/months of the war that they were willing to fight- even without support.
Then you talk of how it is “irrational” for Ukraine to try to defend itself. In what world is it rational for Russia to spend so many lives and so much equipment on a war of choice?
Ukrainians wanted, and want, to live peacefully and in harmony with their neighbours. They never had any intention of hurting Russia. The Russian attack showed the whole world why any country that wants to be left alone needs to arm itself.
Hell, Russia was on its way into the good company of Western Europe, relations had never been better, with more cooperation and international trade than ever, when they decided that they had to attack and subdue Ukraine, because Ukraine was becoming a bit “too good” friends with the west.
You know you have a problem when NATO and the EU can just have a half open door, and countries actively seek to join, while Russia has to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in order to force others to be “friendly nations” towards them.
We are not talking about “most” Nato countries. We are talking about the ex-soviet countries.
You didn’t believe that ex-soviet countries were afraid of russia because Nato countries didn’t spend a lot of money on Military. But when you look at the individual countries, not at nato as a whole, those ex-soviet countries that joined Nato meet the 2% minimum (and like i said Poland even doubles it with 3.98%)
Another thing to consider is the capabilities of Russia
Russia has invaded Ukraine and bombed it to Rubbles. Russia is very much capable of attacking and destroying its Neighbours. Just take a Plane to Ukraine if you don’t belive it.
and it is illogical that Russia would attack a NATO country
Good. That means NATO is working in keeping the Russians away.
And btw, 2 years ago i personally would have declared you crazy if you told me that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. The Facts have been laid open to us. We can adapt and change to live in the new reality or live in denial.
Ukraine is a security concern for Russia, not for the United States, or the rest of Europe
Ukraine is a independent Country that is allowed to decide for itself what it wants
And yes it is a security concern for Europe since it’s right in its backyard, right on its Border.
And it is even a security concern since it’s a huge producer of Food, and if that food doesn’t get to Africa etc, those regions could become unstable and global terrorist attacks could rise again.
Now, does that allow the EU or the US to dictate Ukraine what it should do? NO! because Ukraine is a independent Country that is allowed to carve its own way! The same way that Russia isn’t allowed to interfer in Ukraine because of its supposed “security interests”
Do you support the Blockade on Cuba?
since it wants to control the world and export its culture
Russia literally is invading its Neighbours because it can’t control them. Russia is the one that spend decades forcefully “russoficating” eastern Europe.
Fascist believe in autarky and see every single nation or country as a threat
Go onto russian State TV. Quote from Russian State TV: “We have no friends in the World, only Enemies”
The US constantly talks about how important it is to work with their Allies. Who is the Fascist now?
The US has toppled far more governments than the Russians did in their entire history
excuse me what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_involvement_in_regime_change
lets not forget all the eastern block.
Well, technically you’re correct, they didn’t topple the baltics, ukraine, eastern Poland, they flat out annexed it. But I’m pretty sure that’s actually worse
When you are forcing other countries to become liberal, that is fascism.
What? i think you don’t know what fascism means, is that possible?
I think you also don’t know what “liberal” means?
I think you also don’t know how countries become liberal?
That is illogical to claim that NATO is keeping Russia at bay, then claiming that they are a threat. If Russia was a threat, then the majority of NATO did spend according to the threat level.
The US is far more fascist than Russia. Explain the difference between Russia and US, and what makes one fascist compared to the other.
That is illogical to claim that NATO is keeping Russia at bay, then claiming that they are a threat
If i am using a spear to keep a Wolf at bay, is that Wolf not a threat anymore?
If someone wants to rob me and i point a gun at them go keep them at bay, are they not a threat anymore?
I rest my case, your honour.
why is russia fascist?
idk, wanting to conquer your neighbours and ethnically cleanse them isn’t good enough for you? Not having any elections, political voilence and assasinations, no deviation from party-line, force-conscripting young men, absolutely no regard for human live (ukrainian or russian), dreams of a greater russian Reich
Do conservatives just want us all to give in to our enemies? And then let them take Poland and eventually the US too? Bro. Some people’s kids. The US has been at war in one form or another since the 50’s. We have fought proxy wars against them as recently as Syria in 2019 and please don’t forget that they are regularly attacking the US through ransomware attacks against hospitals, local governments, water bureaus, and banks. They are also attacking our elections through misinformation and bribery. They have directly threatened our country with nuclear war as recently as last year. If conservatives don’t love our homeland enough to defend it than thank Biden for your safety.
Chomsky had a phrase along the lines of: we will fight forever- to the last Ukrainian. Basically switching up the “fight them to the last man”
Realistically, we all know where this war is going to end. At some point in the next couple years it will end in a negotiated settlement where Russia annexes some territory and maybe Ukraine is forced unto neutrality.
The only other possible scenario is a hot war between NATO and Russia.
We know Ukraine doesn’t have the offensive capacity to recapture territory and everyday Russia takes some village or another. Moving like 10 miles a month but moving.
So assuming that’s true, for the sake of discussion, what are the possible benefits and the possible negatives from continuing to support Ukraine?
Pros:
Our MIC gets a nice shot in the arm and shareholders are happy. They get to funnel more taxpayer funds into their portfolios.
Russia has to spend a dramatically increased number of resources in order to capture the land. More Russians will die, more Russian tanks will be destroyed, etc.
Cons:
Ukraine will be destroyed. As of November of last year, costs for reconstruction was estimated at $350B. That has likely increasing dramatically. We can barely pass $60B worth of military aid that mostly benefits our defense contractors. You think we are going to front them $500B?
Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of additional Ukrainians will die. They already lost over a quarter of their population. They won’t recover for a century.
Is it really worth it? Are we really that cynical? It’s not only conservatives that think this way.
it doesn’t have to. main reason for this war being this long is reluctance of western partners to deliver equipment necessary to keep initiative in present state of war. As a result - Ukrainian army get decimated while russians are getting better and everything awful they do: war crimes, defences, offense etc. Time is running out to help Ukraine and calls to “bust give up now” are self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m a pacifist at heart but in this case there is no way of stopping russian expansion (present and future) than to supply Ukraine with all necessary to win. Otherwise 1-2yr after “negotiations” we’ll have v2.0 where russia chomps off next piece of Ukraine (or other bordering country) while the rest of the world will keep repeating “what’s the point? we gave in last time, might as well save ourselves the trouble and give up now”. Solution by escalation is still possible as russia still has upper limit they are bumping against, but they keep on raising it so soon enough nothing will help, and that’s what russians hope for.
The goal was always to help just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win.
It’s because the purpose is to hurt Russia and help our MIC. Everything else is rhetoric and propaganda. Russia has controlled Ukraine for centuries. Nobody actually cares about Ukraine strategically except for Russia. They are willing to sacrifice infinitely more for Ukraine than the West.
The only way to really save Ukraine at this point is to send troops. And that isn’t happening unless we are on the brink of WW3. Which may very well happen, but I think probably not for at least another 5~10 years and Ukraine war will over by then.
there is some truth to what you say, at least “just enough to keep Ukraine alive as long as possible but not to actually let Ukraine win”.
However I would disagree with over-generalised statement “Nobody actually cares about Ukraine except for russia”. Poland, for example, very much does not want to have common border with russia, esp. after this war. While US has a luxury of being able to ignore what’s happening it is not the case for some (most?) EU countries. Which also explains why some contribute enormously when comparing their contributions to respective country’s GDP. Ukraine independence also can be used by US as leverage against russia in the future, so while not humanitarian in principle, US has huge interest in Ukraine status.
There is a chance for Ukrainian win on battlefield without foreign soldiers, but it means lots of equipment. That window is quickly closing and then, yes, the only way to move forward will be foreign intervention.
That is what the West publically says, to the last man. Lindsey Graham said to the effect that giving them money is a great thing because they will fight to the last man. I don’t see how fighting to the last man is a rational choice, given they were much better options than choosing alignment with the EU and NATO. Then again, American foreign policy makes no sense, such as funding and supplying Israel. Israel and Gaza is not an American interest. Just like Ukraine, the US has no need to participate in aiding a country over a region like Gaza. These are purely liabilities for the US.
Not all of us want to believe in lies. Russia is not a threat. Russia seized being a threat when the USSR dissolved. This is why NATO was able to expand despite Russian objections throughout the decades. Ukraine is not an interest to the US; that is to say, there isn’t anything in Ukraine that the US needs that is vital to either economic or national security. Ukraine is a national security concern for Russia. It doesn’t matter what happens to Ukraine, it does not affect the US, but it would affect Russia. The Russians are checking American influence in their own region. NATO is how the US has influence in Europe. European states in NATO have no independent foreign policy. In fact, it is subservient to US foreign policy. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the sanctions, the war, the economic decline, that is the price of being in NATO following US foreign policy.
ceased.
No, they didn’t. If they can invade ukraine, VIOLATING THE TREATY THEY SIGNED TO PROTECT AND GUARANTEE UKRAINE’S SECURITY, they’re a threat to regional stability.
Why is it ok for Russia to attack a country they’ve promised to keep secure? Why do you stan for putie?
When a country next door is being armed and trained by the enemy or a distrustful alliance led by the US, that is more than justification to preemptively use military action. The US would do exactly the same if Moscow or Beijing would try to put Mexico or Canada into military alliance. The US is arming Taiwanese against the Chinese. Treaties don’t matter to the US, and they go out the window when there is a threat.
Of course they’re arming Taiwan: Did you see what happened to Hong Kong, after China had signed a deal with Britain to leave them alone? Just like Russia signed up to keep Ukraine safe when they have up their nukes… They’re going out of their way to make it clear that the only authoritarian facist you can trust to hold a deal is the one with a rifle down his throat.
Tell us, what did the evil Chinese do to Hong Kong? Please inform me. Hong Kong belongs to China, that is why the British gave it back to them. It is the British colonialism, the reason why Hong Kong was under British control. China does not take too kindly to Western imperialism by historical experience. You bet they are not giving up Taiwan to the United States.
If you didn’t notice the crackdowns in Hong Kong a couple years back, and haven’t noticed the stream of political refugees from Hong Kong afterwards, I can’t help you.
China signed an agreement when the UK gave up Hong Kong, and they blatantly broke that agreement. There really aren’t that many complicating factors.
Hong Kong people did not want to be ruled by the CCP. There were no human rights abuses regarding the Hong Kong riots. Chinese handled the riots well and the riots subsided. There was no Chinese “crackdown”. What Americans are doing to anti-Israel protestors right now is far worse than what the Chinese supposedly did to the rioters in Hong Kong. You are clearly biased and have no interest in the facts. You are very one-sided; you are presenting speculation and even misinformation to give a false presentation of infallible Western countries. Hillary came up with a term regarding Tucker Carlson, the irony is that “term” is appropriate to people who believe, and follow Hillary Clinton, and the establishment she is a part of; yes, the Deep State is the establishment. Western governments looted Libya, war after war, lies after lies, and you imply I live in rock ignorant to the history of sins of the West. That false story does not work on me. I deal with facts, not hearsay, or semi-truths with great omissions.
Lol. You apparently do live under a rock… Like, have you actually spoken to anyone that was there? I have, and they’ve either experienced more or less severe police brutality and dissappearings, or claim that the Chinese government is full of saints that could never do harm. You know, if you don’t mistreat your population, you won’t have to spend resources on undercover out-of-country police stations, and on sending people to other countries to report on “disloyal citizens”.
That could save you quite some resources in the long run, just a tip.
West taiwan is under illegitimate rule tho.
And Russia invaded Ukraine before USA got involved.
In fact trump let them take crimea already so you’re pretty misinformed here.
Also, I don’t know why you involve Trump. Trump is a non-establishment candidate. He is not a warmonger. Joe Biden is a warmonger, and he was part of the team that was deeply involved in Ukraine. Crimea was lost under Obama, not Trump. Remember, Quid Pro Quo Joe, and “**** the EU” Victoria Nuland? Why would Victoria Nuland say “**** the EU”? If you could explain that part.
Russia invaded after Ukrainian nationalist and US operatives, Victoria Nuland, and her associates were involved in a coup. This is a fact. We have a leaked recording of her and her colleague discussing which person they want to groom for public office in Ukraine. There is no denying that. The question is, how deep was the US involved in Ukraine? That, we don’t have hard evidence that is currently available for public and scholarly consumption.
funny, that didn’t start until russia INVADED THEM.
so great logic there.
boy you just side with all the invading types don’t you? Ever make you wonder perhaps you have it wrong, if you’re attacking people for supporting Ukraine and Taiwan instead of Russia and China?
guess putin pays you more.
Because the elites don’t want to be conquered by NATO via color revolutions and geostrategic advantage. Survival is rational. Ukrainians dying to the last man is not rational because they want to join NATO and the EU so bad. A next door country that is being militarized by a political alliance is more than enough justification to invade a neighboring country. NATO is a political alliance, it not a defensive alliance that it use to be when there was security competition between the USSR and the US. USSR collapsed because military control of an empire is expensive. Needing the military to have a presence to quell rebellion and maintain control is expensive. Ruling over people who don’t like you, doesn’t work in the long run. This is why the Russians gave up the business of imperialism over other countries/nations. Ukraine is a very big exception because of the history of Russia and Ukraine. Russian and Ukrainian history is intertwined. Crimea was won over by Catherine II the Great from the Ottomans. The Donbas has a lot of Russian history. The industry of the Donbas was developed from the years of Russian investment under the Soviet Union. New Russia would become part of Ukrainian Soviet Republic, which was incorporated by Russia in 1917. Then, the name New Russia was disused after incorporation. If you want to be a pendant of who has a great claim to the land, neither Russia nor Ukrainians have the greatest claim because it is conquered land by the Russians. That is like saying Texas, California, etc. does not belong to the United States, they belong to Mexico. What about Hawaii? What about Diego Garcia? The Russians don’t care about the Baltic States. Russians have no interest in Estonia or the rest of Europe. They gave that up in 1991. Ukraine, however, has a special place in the history and culture of Russia, not just geopolitical balance of power politics.
you’re either misguided or malicious. Have you been to Ukraine? Have you seen what Russia has done to Ukraine over decades? What “special link”? It is as special as link between Jack The Ripper and his victims. russia is very much interested in restoring empire that includes Baltic states and middle asia etc.
russia had a chance at retaining Ukraine in it’s orbit prior to 2014. If they’d spent same amount of money they did on destabilisation of the country, on development instead, promoting Ukrainian culture etc. they could’ve had Ukraine forever. Honest. Before 2014 there was plenty of pro-russian sentiment in the country to pull it off as old crimes got forgotten and pain dulled. But from 2014 onward it became impossible.
At present if russia wins, either retaining stolen territories or grabbing some more - it will create destabilized zone that nobody in Europe wants in their backyard. russia is not there on humanitarian mission, and itls been made clear - they are on extermination mission. Like they have been multiple times before.
You have no evidence to back up your claims, and let me debunk the claim that the US and NATO obey any semblance of rules. The 1991 agreement for the sovereign statehood of Ukraine was based on the condition that they remain a neutral country. When the EU and NATO came to town, they ignored that crucial portion of the conditions of Ukrainian statehood. You accuse me of soundbites and using propaganda, no sir, you are the one that was fed misinformation. NATO and Ukraine can break the rules, but Russia can’t alter their recognition of the rules that have been violated. You have been propagandized to believe Western countries are the good guys and the Russians, the Chinese, etc., are the bad guys. Your assumption is the West is infallible. You are wrong, sir. Let us examine how much you don’t know. Crimea does not belong to Ukraine. Crimea became independent before Ukrainian independence. It was in fact called the >Republic of Crimea. Let us review evidence, straight from Wikipedia: >With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence in 1991 most of the peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,[25][26] Pro-Russian and pro-autonomy forces dominated the republic’s government until it was forcibly abolished by Ukraine in 1995 with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established firmly under Ukrainian authority.[27][28] A 1997 treaty partitioned the Soviet Black Sea Fleet, allowing Russia to continue basing its fleet in Sevastopol, with the lease extended in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea
Ukraine isn’t eligible for EU and NATO membership. They don’t meet the criteria. What the US is doing is manipulating Ukrainian nationalism to fight a suicidal war against Russia, who does not want US influence and power next to its border. There is no way that Ukraine could be part of NATO. Ukraine couldn’t meet the harsh terms to be eligible. You can cry, whine, and yell all you want, but the fact is, Ukraine is destroyed, and whatever you think is an injustice, does not matter. You don’t get to decide what you want to do when a stronger country wants a certain amount of influence. Just like the US thinks it can command “sovereign” countries that they should not do business with Russia. The US thinks it can pressure China, or more like bully China to bend to its will, but establishment actors like Anthony Blinken don’t realize how insignificant he really is against Beijing. International relations are also about diplomacy. Something the US forgot a long time ago.
I am going to assume that you are writing here in good faith and as such i am going to respond to you in good faith.
I disagree. From my european point of view, NATO was able to expand exactly because Russia was still a threat. There’s a Reason why these Countries wanted to join NATO. Because they knew that russia was still a threat and would invade its Neighbours, like it is doing right now in Ukraine.
This Part confuses me a bit. In the first Part you say that Russia has a right to invade and puppet Ukraine because it is a national security interest. But in the second Part, you say that the US wouldn’t have the right to dictate the foreign policy (it doesn’t, i will come to this later on) of its NATO-Counterparts. I Personally think that your first half is the wrong half. We have to stop looking at the world as pawns in a cold war to be played, but instead as independent parties looking to coexist. I don’t think any country has the right to dictate over another because of “national security concerns”. Otherwise the US would have the Right to dictate over Europe because they’re in the USs national security concerns. And the US would have never been allowed to declare independence, because that would have gone against the national security concerns of the british empire. So no, i don’t think that any supposed “national security concerns” of Russia validate any military Action. Besides i don’t even think they had any valid national security concerns. NATO Bases stayed in the West, the “original” Parts of NATO and never got into the new eastern territorries. And the NATO memeber states in the Baltics are much much closer to St. Petersburg or moscow than Ukraine. So Ukraine really isn’t that important to Russia. Also Ukraine was never under the Influence of the US. Ukraine wanted to move to the EU, a completely european Institution where the US doesn’t even have an observer Position.
now about the NATO Part:
I hope i was able to give you some insight into this matter from a european (swiss) perspective and i was able to disprove some of your previously held notions. I hope you can use what i wrote here :)
If Russia was such a threat, then NATO countries in Europe did not spend enough on their military to meet that said threat. Europeans spent below the NATO mandate of 2.0% of their GDP. They didn’t seem scared then. NATO countries do not have an independent foreign policy. It is not in European interest to bring about sanctions that weaken their own countries and bring instability. You are speculating and have no evidence to back up your claims that European countries joined NATO because of “fear”. Hatred of communism and hatred of Russia is one thing, but fear isn’t one of them. The US provides security for NATO, Europeans saved their money to invest in their economy. It is the US that keeps NATO together, therefore, NATO unified, because there is no competition when one country foots the bill of security.
Ah yes, that is a common Misconception if you’re not European. It is very easy to lump Europeans together in one Pot. Often people just look at the Actions of France, Germany and Italy to determine “European” behavior, when the EU is actually a hugely diverse pool of 27 autonomous Nations. Yes, Western European Nations such as Germany, Italy, Belgium etc (but notably not France) did spend a lot less than the 2% target. These Nations were famously also cozying up to Russia (Nordstream), not seeing it as a Threat. However, if you look at the eastern European Nations that were occupied by and/or border on Russia, the same Nations that joined NATO because of the Threat of Russia, all of these Nations do either match or exceed the NATO-target of 2% of GDP. Poland, in Fact, spends more on its Military than even the US (in %, not total)
Biden wants a tougher Stance on China while Scholz (Germany) wants to maintain good Business Relations Biden wants a clear Stance on Taiwan while Macron (France) openly disagrees and warns not to flame tensions (and openly calls Bidens Actions unwise and dangerous)
As you can see, European Countries do have and do Excercise independent foreign Diplomacy.
Many Europeans denounced the US’s war on Vietnam. Many Europeans decided not to join the Iraqi War. All prime examples of sovereign foreign Diplomacy.
which is why we’re enacting Sanctions instead of enacting a full Embargo. Which is why we capped the Price of Russian Gas instead of banning it outright.
Do you know what weakens our countries and brings instability? A fascist country waging a war of aggression in our own backyard. Russian Spies spying on and planning attacks on military bases. Russian Misinformation.
Those Sanctions are an investment into a Future, into a Europe where the Rule of Law and Peace reside. Where there’s no fascist war of aggression over imperial ambition. Where we Europeans can peacefully coexist and build a peaceful future over wounds of old. Together.
I am going to have to ask you to remain nice and not make any accusations since i am sacrificing my time and engaging with you in good faith instead of just down-voting you. I could do other Stuff in this Time, but i specifically chose to discuss this with you since you seemed to argue in good faith as well. I am asking you for it to remain this way.
Did you ever talk to someone from this Region who was for enlargement? Because they will tell you very clearly how Russia is a danger to their Nation and livelihood and how this was the main driver on why they joined NATO (and joined it this quickly). Anyways, just for you, i asked my Estonian friend why they joined NATO and he said “did you see what Russia is doing in Ukraine?” (Translation by me) (I think he’s mad at me for even asking this? I think i should apologize and explain it to him?)
I am sorry, i am not sure how to say this nicely, but that is just wrong. the EU and its Members engaged in multiple contracts with Russia over the years and was always looking for Cooperation. There was no hatred. There is, however, a lot of fear. Which is the reason why most nations once occupied by Russia are today Europes biggest Spenders on military.
And russia to day isn’t communist anymore, it’s closest to fascist in government and ideology.
Western Europe did that (again, the exception being France). Eastern Europe has always maintained their Spending, and, as i already said, Poland even outspends the US (in %, not total)
Let me show you my Point of View: A while back, i think during the Trump Presidency, Macron(France) called NATO brain-dead and useless. A while it seemed like NATO was in an existential crisis and might not survive the decade. But ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, no one has said anything bad against NATO anymore.
It wasn’t the US, that held/put together NATO, it was Putin. Because his invasion destroyed European Peace and showed us again, why we (well, i am Swiss, so not me personally) had NATO in the first place.
We had a name for the Post-WW2 Peace. Pax Europaea (named after the roman Pax Romana). It was Russia, that destroyed this Peace. This is the Reason why we’re afraid of Russia. Why we’re against Russia. Why we invent new Sanctions. So that one Day we can create a new Pax Europaea, that will last and not be broken. So that my Children can finally live in Peace on this War-Torn Continent.
MOST NATO countries did not pay the mandatory 2% minimum. So, yes, the European states were not that considered their own security. Another thing to consider is the capabilities of Russia; Russia has no ability to project power across Europe. It is physically impossible for the Russians to conquer Europe, and it is illogical that Russia would attack a NATO country. That is a myth created to create hysteria as to garner more support against Russia. Ukraine is a security concern for Russia, not for the United States, or the rest of Europe. The US is more fascist than the Russia, since it wants to control the world and export its culture. Fascist believe in autarky and see every single nation or country as a threat. Balance of power politics is not fascism, it is rational, and common sense. The US has toppled far more governments than the Russians did in their entire history. When you are forcing other countries to become liberal, that is fascism.
How is Ukraine, a country that has spent 10 years fighting a low-intensity conflict on its own land in the Donbas, without strong military allies, and with an economy and political system that were just barely starting to see some stability, a “security concern” to Russia, a country that has soon thrown half a million men, and equipment worth several times Ukraines GDP at a war they can leave whenever they choose?
Ukraine never attacked anyone. They’re literally fighting for their lives. If Russia would just leave them alone this would be over. They didn’t have the capacity for aggression agains russia, but due to this war of Russias choosing, they’ve been forced to spend enormous amounts on scaling up their military.
Putin wanted the civil war resolved, and he thought he could trust NATO to resolve it. Instead, as Angela Merkel pointed out, the Minsk II Accords were merely to buy time to arm Ukraine.
In her interviews with Alexander Osang, which took place over a period of a year and in various locations, Merkel insisted that her stance on the Minsk agreement – which brought a ceasefire after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula – had been right. Key points of the Minsk peace talks, including disarmament and supervision by an international body, were never followed through. But Merkel said the agreement had nevertheless helped buy Kyiv time to arm itself better against the Russian military.
Angela Merkel says she lost influence over Putin as a lame duck leader https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/25/angela-merkel-says-she-lost-influence-over-putin-as-a-lame-duck-leader Minsk agreements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202212/1281708.shtml No apologies: Germany’s Merkel defends approach to Ukraine https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-politics-berlin-germany-20b29c43618d4d711d62c07b589de4b1
I deal with facts and logic. Putin does not want to fight NATO, but NATO clearly wants to fight Putin without initiating a nuclear war. Using Ukrainians to fight their war for them, which is the reason for arming them in the first place, and to use Ukraine as a NATO bulwark against Russia. Ukraine is in trouble today because of the refusal to handle the situation diplomatically. The motive is obvious, the US wants Ukrainians to fight Russia, and plotted to agitate Russia to invade Ukraine. NATO has absolutely no interest in any peace. They’re not fighting it, and they promote Ukrainians as fighting their war. A war which they can’t win. The US does not care about NATO. Caring would involve saving the lives of Ukrainians and to ensure peace and prosperity through diplomacy. If Lindsey Graham had his way, he would lower the draft age to 14 years old. It is an unhinged foreign policy; it is a war that did not need to be fought if there was a compromise. It is foolish to reject compromise because of valiant defiance. Bravado alone is not enough. The case in Ukraine shows there is irrational leadership in Ukraine. Zelenskyy was naive not acknowledge interests of other countries, especially a neighbor. Ukraine was ill-equipped, by all metrics, weaker than Russia. Russia was weak in the first year of the war, because the military was not prepared to go to war, but now Russia has a much better military, and they have the resolve to win. This shows a lack of reason on the part of the Ukrainians who seem romantically obsessed of joining NATO, which is a political alliance, and the EU, which has a military component.
You keep twisting to talking about NATO, and the EU, when an elected government in Ukraine is choosing to keep fighting. Remember that the majority of western support came after Ukrainians showed in the first weeks/months of the war that they were willing to fight- even without support.
Then you talk of how it is “irrational” for Ukraine to try to defend itself. In what world is it rational for Russia to spend so many lives and so much equipment on a war of choice?
Ukrainians wanted, and want, to live peacefully and in harmony with their neighbours. They never had any intention of hurting Russia. The Russian attack showed the whole world why any country that wants to be left alone needs to arm itself.
Hell, Russia was on its way into the good company of Western Europe, relations had never been better, with more cooperation and international trade than ever, when they decided that they had to attack and subdue Ukraine, because Ukraine was becoming a bit “too good” friends with the west.
You know you have a problem when NATO and the EU can just have a half open door, and countries actively seek to join, while Russia has to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in order to force others to be “friendly nations” towards them.
We are not talking about “most” Nato countries. We are talking about the ex-soviet countries.
You didn’t believe that ex-soviet countries were afraid of russia because Nato countries didn’t spend a lot of money on Military. But when you look at the individual countries, not at nato as a whole, those ex-soviet countries that joined Nato meet the 2% minimum (and like i said Poland even doubles it with 3.98%)
Russia has invaded Ukraine and bombed it to Rubbles. Russia is very much capable of attacking and destroying its Neighbours. Just take a Plane to Ukraine if you don’t belive it.
Good. That means NATO is working in keeping the Russians away.
And btw, 2 years ago i personally would have declared you crazy if you told me that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. The Facts have been laid open to us. We can adapt and change to live in the new reality or live in denial.
Ukraine is a independent Country that is allowed to decide for itself what it wants
And yes it is a security concern for Europe since it’s right in its backyard, right on its Border. And it is even a security concern since it’s a huge producer of Food, and if that food doesn’t get to Africa etc, those regions could become unstable and global terrorist attacks could rise again.
Now, does that allow the EU or the US to dictate Ukraine what it should do? NO! because Ukraine is a independent Country that is allowed to carve its own way! The same way that Russia isn’t allowed to interfer in Ukraine because of its supposed “security interests”
Do you support the Blockade on Cuba?
Russia literally is invading its Neighbours because it can’t control them. Russia is the one that spend decades forcefully “russoficating” eastern Europe.
Go onto russian State TV. Quote from Russian State TV: “We have no friends in the World, only Enemies” The US constantly talks about how important it is to work with their Allies. Who is the Fascist now?
excuse me what? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_involvement_in_regime_change lets not forget all the eastern block. Well, technically you’re correct, they didn’t topple the baltics, ukraine, eastern Poland, they flat out annexed it. But I’m pretty sure that’s actually worse
What? i think you don’t know what fascism means, is that possible? I think you also don’t know what “liberal” means? I think you also don’t know how countries become liberal?
That is illogical to claim that NATO is keeping Russia at bay, then claiming that they are a threat. If Russia was a threat, then the majority of NATO did spend according to the threat level. The US is far more fascist than Russia. Explain the difference between Russia and US, and what makes one fascist compared to the other.
Which Countries Meet NATO’s 2% Spending Target? - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/which-countries-meet-natos-spending-target/
If i am using a spear to keep a Wolf at bay, is that Wolf not a threat anymore?
If someone wants to rob me and i point a gun at them go keep them at bay, are they not a threat anymore?
I rest my case, your honour.
idk, wanting to conquer your neighbours and ethnically cleanse them isn’t good enough for you? Not having any elections, political voilence and assasinations, no deviation from party-line, force-conscripting young men, absolutely no regard for human live (ukrainian or russian), dreams of a greater russian Reich
You want me to go on?
It’s on their own Website. Open the PDF. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm