I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.
Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?
Of course they can defeat Russia, if they’re tenacious enough. Just look at Afghanistan (against both Russia and USA). If the costs ends up being too high, eventually the attacker loses the will to continue the fight.
Russia is running out of equipment. What they have left is in an increasingly bad state. Ukraine’s recent strategy of targeting refineries is working fairly well.
Ukraine now has domestic laser weapons for taking down Russian drones.
Afghanistan is an awful example because there was a large number of civilians dead as a result (many times more that foreign soldiers), country having to live through several devastating wars, poverty, and a terrorist group became the government in the end. This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine.
> This was much worse thing than what is happening in Ukraine.
The only reason Ukraine is yet to be as worse for civilians as Afghanistan is the fact that Ukraine successfully routed and defeated Russia's initial invasion push.
Look at Bucha to see a real world example of what expects Ukraine if they capitulate.
It can be (locally) defeated. You can defeat it in wars of choosing, not in a war of annihilation (as Napoleon and others have learnt).
But in Crimea? Or the Russo-Japanese War? Or WW1? Whenever the stakes are less than existential, superpowers lose.
Saying Russia can't lose is just defeatism. With a few dozen F35s and better capabilities and ammunition, Ukraine would likely have won this war already.
We've burned up Russia's military equipment, we've killed and wounded thousands of Russian soldiers, all ostensibly w/o sending a single USA soldier into combat. The neocons have drained off Russia's conventional firepower and male population for a generation by merely poking the bear repeatedly. The Russians can claim victory but it was a Pyrrhic victory.
Russia is now militarily a hollow shell, except for nukes. They're like North Korea but they eat better (they always did, though). Neither of those nations could engage the USA in a conventional conflict for longer than a half hour. This is sometimes termed "victory" or "success", and I don't think its a bad outcome.
Of course you can imagine fairy tales where the Russians are abjectly defeated and humiliated and such fairy tales would give you more happy Social Media discussions. But such viewpoints also cause multi-generational problems in peoples of Slavic mindsets who view history as a list of wrongs against their ancestors going back centuries.
Here's an excerpt from The The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters
Volume 53, Number 3 (2023) Autumn [1]
The Russia-Ukraine War is exposing significant vulnerabilities
in the Army’s strategic personnel depth and ability to withstand and replace
casualties. Army theater medical planners may anticipate a sustained
rate of roughly 3,600 casualties per day, ranging from those killed in action
to those wounded in action or suffering disease or other non-battle injuries.
With a 25 percent predicted replacement rate, the personnel system will
require 800 new personnel each day. For context, the United States sustained
about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same
number of casualties in two weeks.
The Russia-Ukraine War makes it clear that
the electromagnetic signature emitted from the command posts of the past
20 years cannot survive against the pace and precision of an adversary
who possesses sensor-based technologies, electronic warfare, and unmanned
aerial systems or has access to satellite imagery; this includes nearly every
state or nonstate actor the United States might find itself fighting in the near
future. The Army must focus on developing command-and-control systems
and mobile command posts that enable continuous movement, allow distributed
collaboration, and synchronize across all warfighting functions to minimize
electronic signature. Ukrainian battalion command posts reportedly consist
of seven soldiers who dig in and jump twice daily; while that standard will
be hard for the US Army to achieve, it points in a very different direction than
the one we have been following for two decades of hardened command posts
> Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory,
Allow for long-distance strikes, allow for usage of Starlink without gps limits, send modern equipment. Russian army is barely moving forward even though UA has one of its arm tied on the back.
> Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country?
Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage.
> All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave.
And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.
> Ultimately, worst case scenario Ukraine can simply keep Russian in a war of attrition while eating away at it's economic base.
While losing hundred of thousands of young men and decimating their population. Russia has more men. They can stand a war of attrition a lot longer - and they value soldier's lives less than we do in the west.
> Russia is already sending it's soldiers with crutches riding donkeys into battle. They are scraping the bottom of the barrel for resources.
Similarly, Ukraine is kidnapping people on the streets to send them to the front lines.
> Russia has more men
This is true in general. But not true for soldiers. They have more so many men willing to fight in Ukraine. If they have so many men - why the are Korean soldiers fighting for Russia? Or Africans?
From Russian perspective it doesn't matter because they value Korean life the same: zero. Koreans are expensive, though. God knows what putin is trading for their troops. Probably rocket and nuclear technologies.
From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder for to the language barrier and unaware of modern combat full with FPV drones.
I'm not sure of the accuracy of this, so take it with a grain of salt, but I did hear that rocket and nuclear technology is indeed part of the deal - terrifying. NK will also provide artillery shells.
> From military perspective Koreans are useless cannon fodder
Well, that's the soviet doctrine. Men are useless cannon fodder. It does give the NK the chance to catch up on modern combat.
and maybe you echo reddit too much, or some biased Ukrainian news site. It is no secret that Russia has more fighting men. It's just logical, since they have a significantly higher population.
Ukraine has so many men willing to fight that they have to kidnap them on the streets?
There's Korean soldiers fighting in Kursk only, as far as I'm aware. None in Ukraine. It's free man power for Russia. Both sides have merceneries from Africa and South America, among others.
They are not overwhelming the Ukrainian side. They are making very slow, grinding advances, and taking massive casualties in the process. Between five and ten times as many as the Ukrainian casualties, because this has turned into a war that heavily favors defense.
How much land on average have the Russians gained over the last 12 months? What is the projection of time until they take all of it? I recall the calculation bring 20+ years.
The Russian war machine cannot replace its losses, thus they rely on NK men and equipment, amazing job by the Ukrainians and the West destroying the Russian army twice and depleting all the old Soviet stock.
I think it might be even more than 20, it is slow but they are gaining. I don't think their objective is to get whole of Ukraine but the eastern oblasts (which they do have most of already) and maybe a buffer zone. But that's my speculation.
NK men are only in Kursk / Russian region. I don't think there's any confirmed NK men fighting in Ukraine.
According to iiss [1], Russia does not have man power issues, unlike Ukraine.
> amazing job by the Ukrainians and the West destroying the Russian army twice and depleting all the old Soviet stock.
I only wish it wasn't at the cost of hundreds of thousand of Ukrainian men.
> And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning.
Winning, but winning very slowly. Unless Ukraine collapses, Russian victory is likely years away (depending of course on what Russia decides to consider “victory”)
Although Ukraine is outnumbered, the fact they are mostly playing defence not offence gives them an advantage
If Ukraine drags this out for long enough, there is the possibility Russia may lose its patience with the war before Ukraine does, and Ukraine may suddenly gain the upper hand. If Trump forces Ukraine into a peace deal in which Russia gets most of what it wants, that won’t happen
Russia controls large portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts. I imagine walking away with those areas would be a huge victory for them.
How long can Ukraine drag this out? They are suffering manpower issues more than Russia. I don't think it's likely that Russia will lose its patience before Ukraine. I wish, but I don't see it. Their economy is somewhat dependent on their military-industrial complex.
Is this the goal? To slowly lose land and lives to Russia, in hopes that they get bored, or that Ukrainians magically get a wonder weapon?
I think the Ukrainian hope is the war eventually becomes so unpopular in Russia that it endangers Putin’s rule. Then political instability strikes Moscow - Putin is removed in a coup or assassinated - and faced with the chaos in Moscow, Russian battlefield morale collapses, frontline troops are withdrawn to Moscow to fight over who is Putin’s successor, etc - suddenly Ukrainian troops massively advance
How plausible is that scenario? I don’t know. It isn’t impossible. More likely to happen in a few years time (assuming the war lasts that long). Probably not happening this year, but one never knows - who predicted Prigozhin‘s abortive coup in June 2023? Who knows if or when such an event might happen again - maybe next time more successfully?
Trump’s recent moves arguably reduce the odds of such a development by increasing Russian perceptions that the war is likely to be resolved on terms they’ll find favourable. However, Trump is fickle, and it isn’t impossible that with time he’ll move to a position the Russians will find less encouraging (it isn’t guaranteed, of course)
Prigozhin's "coup" was probably the closest thing to it. Unfortunately I do not share your optimism in here - Putin planted him self well and surrounded himself by loyal men.
Continuing to send men to die in a losing battle without an actual plan, hoping that the opponent's leadership falls, seems like an awful idea to me. It gives me similar vibes to "our scientists are on the verge of creating a wonder weapon" that is often propagated on losing sides, e.g Germany in WW2.
It's hard to see that as a huge victory at the cost of more than 900.00p casualties for something Russia has plenty of - land.
Also economic collapse (high inflation, high interest rates, and no industry).
Ukraine just needs to continue to chip away at them, the bigger they are, the bigger the fall, and Russians aren't paying the price for this blunder yet.
> Been waiting for that economic collapse for 3 years. How many more Ukrainian men must die before we get it? How many more are you okay with dying?
What possibly leads you to believe that Ukraine capitulating will end Russia's push to kill Ukrainians? Russia is engaging in a massive ethnic cleansing campaign, as documented in cases such as Bucha. Do you honestly believe that will stop if Ukraine surrendered as Trump is demanding them to?
Try to think about it: why do you think Zelenski is so adamant in demanding security guarantees?
The regions that Russia is after, has some vague historic link to Russia, had a high pro Russian population percentage or provided land connection to Crimea as well as water supply that was blocked by Ukraine. I do believe that there is a good chance Putin would be satisfied with the eastern oblasts. It would also be a lot more difficult holding western part of Ukraine as their population is much more anti-Russia. I don't know for certain, and it is speculation, but that's what I think.
I completely understand why Zelenskyy wants security guarantees. I would too in his place. I don't blame him for that at all - but I don't think it will happen and I would not want my country to provide any security guarantee for Ukraine. I personally would not go to war for Ukraine.
> The regions that Russia is after, has some vague historic link to Russia, had a high pro Russian population percentage or provided land connection to Crimea as well as water supply that was blocked by Ukraine.
Huge red flag here and a big lie. Let's break it down:
Those "pro russia regions" voted for Zelensky, which was very clear about Ukraine's independence and sovereignty.[0]
> I personally would not go to war for Ukraine.
At the rate you're spreading disinformation here, one does start to wonder if you're even in a Western country lmao
Zelenskyy didn't run on anti Russian. He gained support because he ran on anti corruption and ending the wars in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. He was less anti Russian than Petro Poroshenko, which is why Zelenskyy received more share than Poroshenko in those regions as opposed to more western parts of Ukraine.
I'm not saying those regions are more pro russia than Ukraine, but that there is non minor population in there that is pro russia, ethnically russian or speaks russian - which is why russia wants them.
What do you think the russian's end goal here is? To capture all of Ukraine? And then go to Europe?
> At the rate you're spreading disinformation here, one does start to wonder if you're even in a Western country lmao
My country shares the border with Ukraine - I'm not separated from them by an ocean. Just because you don't like facts, doesn't make it disinformation.
I'm not saying those regions are more pro russia than Ukraine, but that there is non minor population in there that is pro russia, ethnically russian or speaks russian - which is why russia wants them.
That's a very weak argument. For example, Kherson, one of the four officially annexed regions of Ukraine, is 82% Ukrainian and only 14% Russian. Even Brighton Beach and a number of other Brooklyn neighborhoods have more Russians than that. And Russian ethnic background does not mean that they support the war: over 80% Russians in Ukraine say that Russia has no right over any part of Ukraine.
Polling leaked from Russian authorities running the occupied territories revealed the same thing: even after hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians had fled as refugees, and the remaining had been subjected to terror, nowhere did the support for joining Russia exceed 30%.
This fits nicely with the pre-war polls that showed support ranging from 1% in Kherson to 13% in Luhansk.
Theres enough ethnic russians in there, plus history, for russia to justify (to its citizens / to its allies) the invasion. I dont think the invasion is justified, but do think that russia will stop at the 4 eastern oblasts.
I dont see any good reason why russia would want to take the rest of Ukraine unless they posed a threat (e.g hosting NATO bases/missiles, which wont happen)
Maybe Im wrong. But in my opinion, it's worth the risk to stop the deaths of Ukrainian men.
My whole reasoning is that it's the best choice given the circumstances. I've said my reasons why I think Russia may be satisfied with the eastern oblasts and not seek more. User disagrees, not much I can discuss against "There's always some excuse".
My original point, was that Ukraine is losing and in my opinion, it is in their best interest to give those away if it means peace. Given that we can't agree on if Russia will be satisfied with those regions, I thought it best to shift the discussion to what options they have. I wouldn't advocate for Ukraine surrendering those territories if I thought they had better options / a chance to win the war.
I've said my reasons why I think Russia may be satisfied with the eastern oblasts and not seek more.
Exactly the same reasons apply to other oblasts of Ukraine as well (land bridge to Transnistria), and to Poland and Lithuania (land bridge to Kaliningrad).
The alternative is stopping this comedic drip-feeding of tanks in batches of 4 out of misplaced expectation that Mr. Hitler will surely stop at Poland, and giving Ukraine the full support of European militaries and industries. This is by far the cheapest option. Thankfully, the latest developments indicate that things are heading exactly this way. Today, the EU agreed on increasing defense spending by 800bn. To put this into perspective: so far, Ukraine has received 64bn of military aid from the US and 62bn from Europe.
Are you suggesting that EU is purposefully limiting the military aid to Ukraine, maybe to drag out the war? I hope that's not the case.
> misplaced expectation that Mr. Hitler will surely stop at Poland
Well, US/UK did it once with USSR. They allowed SU control over Poland and east Germany.
According to iiss [1], Ukraine is "Equipped but not staffed" although they do mention "they will likely need significantly more weapons".
It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that their main shortage is artillery shells, which is mainly because EU can't actually produce enough, and have been ramping up.
The 800bn sounds exciting, and hopefully we do actually get 800bn increase since 650bn is
> “allow member states to significantly increase their defense expenditures without triggering” punishing rules aimed at keeping deficits from going too far into the red [2]. It is my understanding that countries may choose not to increase their defense as much, but hopefully they do as it's greatly needed in EU.
Well, US/UK did it once with USSR. They allowed SU control over Poland and east Germany.
You have forgotten the Cold War. The Russians stopped only where they were forced to stop. Western European countries set up an entire new international organization, NATO, for cooperation in case of a Russian attack on any of them, and permanently maintained massive armies to until the very end of the Soviet Union to prevent any further Russian creep west.
The US, UK, and others did not pack things up and go home at the end of WWII, believing that the Russians had their belly full with Eastern Europe and wouldn't push for more. The UK, for example, withdrew its last forces from continental Europe only in 2010. The US withdrew last combat forces in 2013.
Looks like Russia took that as an invitation to invade Ukraine the very next year.
It's not that hard and even no troops required. Send more weapons without restrictions to use them against Russians, tight real sanctions and they will be defeated
First russians came for Ichkeria and I did nothing because I'm not a Chechen.
Then russians came for Georgia and I did nothing because I'm not a Georgian.
Then they came for Ukraine...
We don't need to fight. We only need to hand over to Ukraine the weapons they have been asking for since 2022. A few Taurus with the gloves off and Ukraine instantly gets far closer to prevent Russia from continuing their whole war effort.
I'ts no less terrifying for Russian men when the goons show up to take you away I assure you.
Sadly my family in Russia has been impacted by this, not in being conscripted forcefully themselves, but needing to destroy their own livelyhoods so that it is not possible for them to facilitate the the sending of others to the front line.
Those videos are amplified greatly by Russian propaganda bots, one thing to put them in check is to ask how many hundreds of thousands of young Russian men fled and climbed through walls once the mobilization was announced by the regime.
I think it was 1.000.000+ men lmao
Now that's trying to escape war. In every war there's people avoiding conscription, and Russians do it by orders or magnitude we probably haven't seen on record.
Those videos are amplified by russian bots, but it doesn't make them any less true.
A lot of Russian men did flee, but they no longer conscript, while Ukraine still does. And Ukraine forces men into vans to send them to the frontlines. Russia just keeps increasing the pay.
Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.
> And Ukraine forces men into vans to send them to the frontlines. Russia just keeps increasing the pay.
It would be honest of you to mention the flood of videos on Russian social media showing crippled Russian soldiers on crutches dragged into trucks, driven to the frontline, and forced to attack. Some of them are featured here: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/22/europe/russia-wounded-tro... And this is how they end up, absolutely incredible sight, one "attacking" on crutches, the other next to him crawling on all fours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CQcftiP3jQ
I have not seen anything this wild on the Ukrainian side.
> Those videos are amplified by russian bots, but it doesn't make them any less true.
I never said they ain't true, as I said - not everyone wants to be in a war, and this happens literally in every war. I just pointed out that in the case of Russia it occurred in an unprecedented manner, while what happens in Ukraine is what's more in line with war.
> A lot of Russian men did flee, but they no longer conscript, while Ukraine still does.
Conscription would probably lead to the final collapse of the Russian economy, they are resorting to the misery of the population which are joining the war with entrepreneurial ambitions (getting well paid... which is a sad event given the high interest rates and inflation). Russia hasn't declared war, and probably never will as that would be a threat to the regime.
> Ukraine had to close borders to men because so many were trying to flee. Millions of Ukrainians sought refuge throughout Europe.
Like in any country being invaded with Martial Law in place.
Ukrainian bots amplify pro-Ukrainian narratives, NATO bots amplify pro-NATO narratives, Russian bots amplify pro-Russian narratives. Every country participates in propaganda.
> I just pointed out that in the case of Russia it occurred in an unprecedented manner, while what happens in Ukraine is what's more in line with war.
Russia did not kidnap man from the streets to force to the frontline, at least not that I'm aware of, and certainly not in the numbers that Ukraine does. Conscription happens in wars, but forcing men off the street to go to the frontline?
> Conscription would probably lead to the final collapse of the Russian economy
I've been hearing that Russian's economy is on the brink of collapse for the last three years. It's awful compared to the West, but they have transitioned into war-fueled economy well, and are still doing well enough despite the war and all the sanctions.
> Like in any country being invaded with Martial Law in place.
So same like Russia? Men want to flee from getting conscripted.
In a coordinated operation, Russian authorities conducted raids on three of Moscow’s largest and most popular nightclubs on Friday night, detaining hundreds of men and taking them to military conscription offices.
According to witnesses, dozens of police vehicles, including paddy wagons, lined up outside the nightclubs as enforcement personnel, accompanied by police K9 units, systematically entered the establishments. Clubgoers described the scene as chaotic, with people being escorted out in groups. The authorities focused their efforts on male patrons, detaining many of them and subsequently transporting them to local military conscription offices. Women, on the other hand, were eventually released after their passports were photographed.
One attendee, who wished to remain anonymous, described the atmosphere inside as tense and surreal. “It was like nothing I’ve ever experienced. They came in and started checking IDs, taking the men away without much explanation. The music stopped, and everyone just froze,” the witness said.
Human rights activists advise young men to live somewhere else than their official address and to avoid public transportation, because raids at metro stations are commonplace, as the local news report:
After the beginning of the autumn call, the police regularly conduct raids in which deviators are identified from military service. Security forces come to the hostels for migrants and warehouses in Moscow and the region, as well as check passengers in the subway. Over the past day, the police conducted raids near the metro station “Electrozavodsk”, and also presented 26 subpoenas to the army in the Krasnogorsk hostel.
> Ukrainian bots amplify pro-Ukrainian narratives, NATO bots amplify pro-NATO narratives, Russian bots amplify pro-Russian narratives. Every country participates in propaganda.
Yeah, except Russian propaganda is composed mainly by lies (truth be told, terrible lies that would only work in people with very poor cognitive capacity).
> Russia did not kidnap man from the streets to force to the frontline, at least not that I'm aware of, and certainly not in the numbers that Ukraine does. Conscription happens in wars, but forcing men off the street to go to the frontline?
Another lie.
Not only they kidnaped men, they kidnapped foreign workers.[0]
> So same like Russia? Men want to flee from getting conscripted.
Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization, here's one example of what happened just at the border with Georgia (Russia is a big place): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzv5fM1LWXk
> Not only they kidnaped men, they kidnapped foreign workers.[0]
From your source:
> were lured by agents with the promise of money and jobs, sometimes as "helpers" in the Russian army.
So where's the kidnapping? Seems like you lie just as much as this "russian propaganda". There is no kidnapping.
> Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization
How about the millions in Europe? I see Ukrainian men everyday in my country.
> In an analysis of figures from EU statistics agency Eurostat in November, BBC Ukrainian found that some 768,000 Ukrainian men aged 18-64 had left the country for the EU alone since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion.
It doesn't look good when you start arguing about semantics when English is not your main language, so let me help you here: When you take someone against their will, it's called kidnapping.
Here's the definition:kidnapping, criminal offense consisting of the unlawful taking and carrying away of a person by force or fraud or the unlawful seizure and detention of a person against his will.[0]
So clearly they were kidnapped and held by force, some were lured which is also kidnapping by definition, and it's well known by the way, another example: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64582985
So not only are you lying, you're doubling down spreading misinformation, and you're accusing others of providing you with sources of being liars.
In my original post, I did say kidnapping from the street. Luring them in with promises or fear of deportation isn't exactly that - but semantics. I got carried away, I do consider that morally wrong just like the Ukrainian ones. I will concede and agree with you that Russians are kidnapping. I don't think anyone should be pressured or forced to the frontline like that. Ukrainian, Russian, or otherwise.
> You're talking about refugees, of which 2 thirds are women and children?[0] Then you refer to millions of men in Europe, showing a 768.000 figure.
Well, if 2/3 are women out of 6 million then 2 million would be men. But semantics, we can confirm that theres atleast 768k according to Eurostat. Which I think satisfies your claim: (somewhat, unless you get picky about the "upon the announcement of mobilization")
> Oh please do show the records of hundreds of thousands of men fleeing a country just upon the announcement of mobilization
Nearly every country that has been attacked has forced conscription. The US did during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and we weren't even attacked in 3 of those.
Vietnam wasn't a war of defense, so it's not a great comparison. Maybe better to compare UK conscription in WW2. Which I can't really say whether it's immoral or not.
> Calling everything that doesn't paint Ukraine in a good light "Russian propaganda" is tiring.
It doesn't make it less Russian propaganda though, and from the same blend of the gay Nazi biolabs nonsense that's constantly spewed around. A telltale sign is the duality of criteria.
You have a lot of really bad takes such that I think you're intentionally trying to misunderstand or dishonestly represent an unbalanced take.
I don't know what your motivation is but I hope you'll stop. It will be more convincing as well if it looks like you're making a fair point in earnest.
User A: forced conscription of men is authoritarian and should be critiqued.
User B: that is russian propaganda!!
What am I misunderstanding, or dishonestly representing? If you don't want to have a discussion, you don't have to participate, but those cheap takes contribute nothing to a discussion.
The need to transport items through forests comes from the new unjammable wire-guided drones. Anything on roads within 5+ kilometers of the frontline is easily spotted and destroyed.
I guarantee you that Russia could've been reasoned with if it was forced to face Ukraine with the full might of US support for another 4 years. Maybe there would need to be some concessions so Putin can look like he came out with a win to the Russian media, but Putin wouldn't have kept going as he was.
Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)?
I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...
As opposed to what alternative? A full-scale NATO invasion of Russia? Nuclear war?
The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
> Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.
> I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time.
What makes you think that? Historically, Ukraine has been conquered by various countries in the region (Russia, Poland, Lithuania) because of its strategic location.
Clearly, western europe doesn’t think that’s true judging by their defense spending.
But there’s geographical limits to expansion based on that principle, right? It wouldn’t affect any place that directly affects America?
Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?
> Say India decided to relitigate the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent and take over Bangladesh. Say India keeps going into Pakistan. Does the U.S. get involved? Why should America care?
India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If a conflict between them escalates, then even a limited nuclear exchange would lead to tens of millions of casualties, mass starvation, widespread electronic outages, and releasing millions of tons of black smoke into the atmosphere; crop yields worldwide would be severely reduced.
There have been a few studies on a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, although as you'd expect, they're mostly from antinuclear advocacy groups. There are many unknown factors and a wide range of estimates, so I'd take all numbers with a grain of salt.
> Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?
Russia can be easily defeated; especially at this point. Their armies are demoralized, their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys), and their budget is running out. The only reason they do not crumble is their sheer size against Ukraine. They would easily be wiped out by a more modern western military. Conservatives in the US now like Russia because they ban LGBT and Europe does not want to pay for a likely 2 year attack and show of force.
And don't talk to me about using nuclear weapons against the west. Russia won't use them. They haven't use them for 3 years despite threats to the west if they don't stop funding Ukraine. The second they use them against the west; the west uses them right back. All the money, power, and influence the elites have in Russia disappears. They won't let Putin launch them.
...their equipment is terrible (they are using donkeys)...
I protest: donkeys are NOT terrible!
In fact donkeys are absolutely one of the best means of transport in the Ukraine conflict: donkeys maintain themselves, are loyal to their trainers and are reliable. If you allow them to guide themselves, they will almost always move you away from regions of conflict (i.e., they are self-guided and smart).
Furthermore donkeys are by their nature not instruments of war: there are no "attack donkeys" in this or other conflicts. Donkeys are animals of peace.
Russia cannot be defeated - it is a Putin narrative. Russian has been defeated many times in history. Even in this war Russian lost few battles, lost control of few cities.
In fact they are so powerful army, they are using civil vehicles and motorcycle as infantry vehicles for assault. Tanks made in Stalin's era also used.
Even donkeys are used for logistics!
Cannot be defeated? True, if western countries restrict usage of their weapons against Russian army.
In theory West could offer something in exchange for peace, so that Russia will not want to break it, for example: withdrawing NATO forces from Eastern Europe, withdrawing nuclear weapon from Europe, lifting sanctions, paying a compensation for losses due to sanctions etc. There is actually a whole spectrum of options for negotiations.
The problem is any of those things are effectively a reward for Russia for starting the war and invading Ukraine in the first place. Why should Russia get any advantage out of the war that they 100% started?? And pay them compensation! What a suggestion!
Russia is a bully. What do you think will happen if we have to pay the bully off each time they start smashing up their neighbors stuff up or just making threats?
And as for withdrawing NATO forces - NATO is a purely defensive organization. Its purpose is to defend against just the sort of shit Russia has pulled with Ukraine. If Ukraine was part of NATO the war would not have happened.
NATO is not a threat to Russia. Never has been, never will be. This is equivalent to a local crime lord complaining about being threatened by the police station down the road and demanding that the police station shuts down.
Are nuclear missiles located in Europe and pointed to the East also "purely defensive" weapon? It doesn't help good relations when you have a gun pointed at your face.
Yes, they are exactly that. The only (current) working deterrence/defensive strategy against an attack from nuclear weapons is the threat of a nuclear reprisal.
This has stopped a war directly between the major powers for the last 70 years and is known as MAD - Mutually assured destruction.
Its not a situation which anybody is comfortable with, but it works.
Honestly, this is basic cold war history stuff. Your question above shows you are either completely naïve or you consume way too much Russian propaganda.
Defensive weapon is something of an oxymoron, apart from technologies like missile defense [1]. Putting that to one side, rational deterrence theory[2] suggests that:
(Probability of deterrer carrying out deterrent threat × Costs if threat carried out) > (Probability of the attacker accomplishing the action × Benefits of the action)
You could argue that Russia successfully destabilising the US (via Trump) and Europe (via Brexit and far right) is proof that nuclear missiles "pointed to the east" worked at defending against direct conflict and forced an alternative.
Eastern Europe contains many NATO countries, and many European countries feel an increased rather than decreased need for nuclear weapons. Compensation for losses due to sanctions would also effectively legitimize the war, as if though Russia were in the right.
Lifting sanctions could maybe be done, if Russia actually left Ukraine entirely, including Crimea.
I think what's really interesting at the moment, at least to me as a European, is a proper war where we simply go in and pound the Russian positions in Ukraine with bombers, strike all sorts of factories, plants, gas conduits, electrical infrastructure etc., in Russia so as to ensure a reasonable outcome.
This is a very large and difficult to defend country, relative to its population. The Russians are incredibly vulnerable and increasing the violence level to something more appropriate is the going to be the only alternative.
We're planning to borrow money to get weapons. This will be interesting, considering today's interest rates. I think it might be we who must be given something that we can agree is some kind of 'win', rather than the Russians, if the world is to be orderly.
Sounds like your strategy is giving Russia all they want so that they can prepare for the next attack in a few years. If you’re on Russia’s side I guess it makes sense
The carrot is that Russia will probably be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains in Ukraine. Some sanctions relief might be on the table as well. Dealing with a stupid, yet dangerous state like Russia, a carrot only works with a stick. All your suggestions effectively allow Russia to be even more brazen in its imperial ambitions going forward. That would be a big mistake. Conquering land needs to be prohibitively expensive. And for the sacrifice Ukraine is giving,they need proper assurances that they won't be attacked again a few years down the line.
European troops in Ukraine, adding them to a new European nuclear umbrella, and giving them a pathway towards EU membership and a "Marshal Plan" to rebuild are the kinds of things Ukraine needs to feel any kind of confidence in a ceasefire or peace agreement.
Amazing to see Russia win the Cold War—one we didn’t even know we were in. Their propaganda network is so strong that it took 3 weeks to go from “Russia is the enemy” to “eh, we have other problems” amongst the folks who…subscribe accordingly. Absolute masterclass in projecting power in the digital age.
Yeah, man. I have emigrated from Russia to EU five years ago and it is heartbreaking to see the developed US and some European countries go through the same bullshit we were going since 2011. Like half the country starts living in wild, completely imaginary world, and you can always tell what is the current agenda of the propaganda machine just by talking to some relatives who fell through that rabbit hole
As someone who lives in the EU and has the same kind of relatives, what I find frustrating is how little actual engagement with the Russian narratives there is from official sides. There is presented "evidence" for US influence in Ukraine long before the war, like the Victoria Nuland video, yet there seems to be no attempts at debunking those arguments, short of a catch-all labeling of all of it as disinformation (which, I can testify from personal experience, does absolutely nothing to dissuade people who already believe it).
The Selinskyji/Trump spat felt like an extreme version of this, where Selinskyji essentially argued with the Western/Ukrainian narrative of the war and Trump argued with the Russian narrative.
The strategy of "ignore the Russian narrative and hope not many people will latch on to it" evidently failed, so I think if we want to have a hope of solving this conflict and countering Trump (and maybe get back the parts of the population that follow the narrative), we at least have to engage with it and provide counterarguments.
Twitter community notes are popular and pretty effective at calling out misleading information that has gone viral (organically or inorganically). I think writing off facts and arguments is premature.
Is that sort of stuff actually effective against propaganda though?
I'd assume that by the time a disclaimer is written up, submitted, and accepted according to whatever the criteria is, the original un-disclaimered message has been received and digested by its target audience.
There are a few things working in favor of community notes there
1. Viral tweets have a longer-than-average time window between the time they start to go viral and the time the median viewer sees them, so a community note can get there before the median viewer.
2. Users who interacted with a tweet before it got a community note will get a notification when the community note is added.
3. Community note writers can leave a note on a piece of media. If a tweet with a video gets a community note, and that note is about the video rather than about the tweet, that note will show on all other tweets that show that video.
Source: this excellent interview with the Community Notes team (https://asteriskmag.com/issues/08/the-making-of-community-no...), in the section that starts with "Asterisk: Another thing I wanted to talk about is speed". Really that whole interview is great, highlights how deliberate and thoughtful the Community Notes team was regarding everything about the feature. Which is, I think, why community notes have succeeded where a lot of previous fact-checking attempts have failed.
Plus, the propaganda also strongly paints fact checking as a mere ploy by other_team to try to cheat and win. So even if the community notes get to them, they will chalk it up to "liberals trying to hide the real truth."
Well, in "real politics" terms, the Russian narrative becomes "we stole this fair and square - we conquered this much territory, it has historically been ours, so you should make a treaty giving us this and we're done" whereas the Ukraine's narrative is basically "Russia holding that territory is unjust and fundamentally violates the democratic aspirations of the people there, so we need X many years of war and X thousand dead to regain that land".
Which is to say Ukrainian narrative is hard to embrace unless someone is already energized by a need for justice to nations, which might not be certain segment of America.
I agree it’s a huge disgrace and half of the US is living in a fantasy land. However polls show that Americans don’t like Putin. A poll two weeks ago[0] actually showed 81% of Americans do not trust Putin. Finding 81% agreement about anything is hard.
This is something that is unique to the administration and those who deeply agree with what it’s done.
Not that it matters… clearly people don’t care enough to vote for it. My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine.
That poll in isolation means nothing. A person who "does not trust Putin" but nevertheless subscribes to Russian propaganda is still doing his work.
I see plenty of people in social media (enough to be convinced that they aren't all bots) who appear to believe that continuing to support Ukraine with aid would bankrupt the US, would be equivalent in effect to fighting Iraq or Vietnam again, would lead to WW III, and so on and so forth. The conspiracy theories about Ukraine's leadership are elaborate as well. I imagine almost all these people would tell you they don't like Putin.
> However polls show that Americans don’t like Putin.
Out of that 81%, how many believe in appeasing Putin to "Avoid world war III" despite their animus? Too many, IMO, and Putin doesn't care for how the American populace feel about him personally, as long as he can achieve his foreign policy goals without hindrance from American bombs, intelligence or funding, which has become the status quo as of yesterday.
You're talking about domestic propaganda. The parent blames external propaganda, instead of doing something or at least admitting that the domestic propaganda pipeline backfired. It's usually extremely hard to make people see their own issues. It's always someone else, not them.
Yes, in Russia it happened largely in the same way, and it started much earlier than in 2011 (in 2012 we already had literal Putin cultists marching down the streets). Some people blamed an external enemy for their troubles (both troubles and the enemy were usually imaginary, with the enemy usually being the US), others who rejected the idea blamed the other half and generally had their heads in the sand, but neither wanted to admit their issues or do anything substantial, leaving the Kremlin do what they wanted to do.
I agree mostly, but the mechanisms of domestic and external propaganda are basically the same, it's just that autocratic regimes have a "home field advantage" domestically via repressions. And yes, it started before 2011, but this is approximately the year when IMO the tide really started to change for worse. Before that there were some more or less free press and a semblance of political discourse in the country, but since the peak of election fraud protests it progressively got weaker, and by now it feels like the "opposition" is completely destroyed
I’m not going to be surprised to read he plans on sending weapons to Russia in the near future. I’m also not going to be surprised when the cult cheers it on as well. Russia has done a great job, good for them I guess?
His cult justifies and allows him to do anything he wants. He could go on TV tomorrow and announce that the US and Russia are merging into one country, and his followers will get right to work spinning how this is actually good, and it's really a 5D chess move, and a genius tactic, and how smart this is for the USA. They (and he) are all incapable of admitting anything he does is wrong.
Some of us knew we were in this information war, and we've been fighting it for 10 years. Remember in 2016 when Trump colluded with Russia to with that election? And everyone who knew what was going on at the time said Trump and Putin were allies? Those people were mocked incessantly for a decade. Authors like Seth Abramson predicted what's happening now years ago, just by treating the facts seriously, and for that he was treated like a crazy person.
I mean, they were caught meeting with a Russian spy in their campaign HQ, told us they got most of their money from Russia, and then told us for 10 years we were being crazy conspiracy theorists by claiming they were aligned with Russia. It's not a hard puzzle if you have the pieces.
So hearing today that "this is such a surprise" is especially frustrating, because this has been the topic of congressional reports written by Republican , impeachment trials, DOJ reports, reports from federal agencies, warnings from the FBI, CIA, and also international intelligence agencies. People like Christopher Steele correctly called this a decade ago and he was demonized. Australia brought it to the attention of the FBI.
Like... people knew this was happening, and warned, and not just nobodies like people on the Internet. What happened over the last 10 years is that Russia won the information war, and the general public decided to trust Russian state media over Democrats when it came to Trump's support of Russia. Which, I think at long last we can all admit this is the case without calling anyone a conspiracy theorist yeah?
He had a decades-long, close friendship with Epstein, and a documented, admitted history of vile behavior with women and girls. You can guess what kompromat would look like.
Well there's not much conspiracy theorizing. Politico article:
>The top level of the Soviet diplomatic service arranged his 1987 Moscow visit. With assistance from the KGB. It took place while Kryuchkov was seeking to improve the KGB's operational techniques in one particular and sensitive area. The spy chief wanted KGB staff abroad to recruit more Americans... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/19/trump-fir...
Which doesn't prove Trump did bad stuff but does kind of show the KGB were trying.
Cultivating is maybe a bit strong but befriending maybe. After that trip he ran ads opposing US overseas military spending so not so different to what we have now.
That recites a book from a Trump hating Guardian reporter.
Why would the CIA let him become president if they actually had something on him? Why would they let Gabbard (also called a "Russian asset") become DNI if they had something on her?
I disagree that the KGB played a meaningful part in the Civil Rights Movement, rather they saw the race schism like everybody else did and tried to aggravate it - but it backfired and the Civil Rights Act remains a pivotal victory in American history.
It’s now illegal to teach that perspective in Florida however as it falls under recent CRT laws and administrators are now fearful of any adjacent curriculum.
Regardless it’s really important to mention the Civil Rights movement now in the context of the Department of Education which was formed in part to enforce the Civil Rights Act (and later the Americans with Disabilities Act). Republicans are now tearing down the Department of Education. Effecting research and medical student loans TODAY (in my family) and much more TOMORROW.
I’ve seen that interview, but I’m surprised anyone watching it following the fall of the Berlin Wall and Glasnost would find it remotely credible. Soviet attempts to turn Americans and Western Europeans into Marxist-Leninnists who supported Communism were abject failures. The “brainwashing” went overwhelmingly in the other direction: citizens of Communist countries ended up wanting, by and large, to adopt the Western capitalist way of life.
That’s not to say that the KGB didn’t have some degree of influence on certain movements. But the overall picture that Bezmenov paints is laughably false with hindsight. The interview is from 1984, and I’m sure many in the KGB at that time really believed that their cunning plan to brainwash the West was working.
Western countries were full of communists before the liberal-tankie split. After ww2 the communists almost won the elections in Italy. It wasn't until the communists started pasting protesters with tanks that it became no longer socially acceptable to be a communist.
After the failure of world revolution only the subversion program remained. This was widely successful and is still ongoing.
A bunch of Americans went to join the communist experiment in the 20s and 30s. They saw what a disaster it was but the newspapers covered it up. The NYT famously declared that there was no famine in ukraine while millions starved. Of course the journalists were friends with Stalin.
As all conspiracy theories, this provides a simple explanation to circumstances that otherwise require complex answers, but it holds no water. The KGB was ineffective and inept. It didn't reach the masses, it didn't influence public opinion. Of course a former KGB agent selling his story must tell you otherwise, but most of these guys spent their whole career feigning successes to their superiors.
While they may feign success to their supervisors you need to look at the tangible results. They got germany to shut down their nuclear power plants and got the civil rights act passed. That's not ineffective.
And did "getting the Civil Rights Act passed" do anything to weaken America, or to strengthen the Soviet Union or expand its influence? No, it didn't. It made America more true to its ideals, thereby undercutting a Soviet propaganda point. It probably increased American influence with third-world countries, especially in Africa. All in all, a Soviet self-own, if they're going to take the credit.
If you think Chernobyl was orchestrated by the KGB, then yes. Sadly, I knew right away were this was heading. Ironically, Russia is more involved in pushing this false narrative than they were ever involved in the anti-nuclear power movement. And it only works by twisting facts. The Soviet Union tried to bolster the anti-nuclear arms movement, emphasize on arms, to stop the Americans from stationing nuclear weapons in Europe, which worried the Soviet leaders greatly - how Europe generates electricity was none of their worry. Lastly, nuclear disarmament is neither a KGB invention nor a KGB success.
Chernobyl was a result of cost cutting and incompetence. KGB just tried to cover it up.
Why would Russia push the 'false narrative' that they supported the anti nuclear power movement? They benefit enormously from replacing nuclear with their gas.
> They got germany to shut down their nuclear power plants
Huh, so do they have an earthquake machine that caused Fukushima? Quick, someone tell that Jews-Space-Laser-Congresslady!
(Fukushima happened a few days before a German state election. Merkel, ever the opportunist and fearing a loss to the Green Party, finally said "We should accelerate the nuclear shutdown". The Greens won anyway).
it's interesting that you use the word "adult" here. my father was also a violent narcissist, and appearance was the most important thing. he too would invent causes to be offended about when reason wasn't sufficient to crush somebody. I'm very familiar with the kind of adult you're referring to.
I don't think the Republicans, who champion freedom above all else usually, are making a whole lot better showing of themselves championing occupation, while simultainously making asinine arguments about how not doing so is a mere performative battle against Trump (supposedly), or runs contrary to peace itself. Mind you, these are the same people who want guns everywhere for people to "protect themselves" with, and will share around security footage from shops cackling, where the shop owner turns the third robber in a year into swiss cheese.
It really makes me wonder what kind of moral background is required to find supporting subservience through disgusting remarks less despicable than a hypocritical-or-not supporting of a hopeless fight. Like genuinely, how does one get to that point?
Although to be honest with you, the pushback using this argument doesn't seem nearly thought through enough for this. Instead, it's a mere spasmic reaction where people found a catchy clapback to the peace quote, and then end-of-proof right there. Great job indeed...
WTF? Battle against Trump? Oh right, being on the reasonable side of anything makes one a "never-Trumper". Trump has nothing to do with it. He's not relevant to every decision everybody makes, and every opinion they have, just because you think he's the second coming.
Both parties are. Republicans support Israel and the genocide they are doing for example. So don't have any illusion that Trump and his party are doves.
The reason people are living paycheck to paycheck is not because of military aids, the system is not going to spend saved money on people, and people will be the ones fighting the incoming wars.
You need unions and Universal Healthcare like the rest of the developed world to fix those problems.
The reason Americans can't afford healthcare or housing isn't because we spend 3.4% of our GDP on military spending, but decades of terrible policy. Americans have the second highest disposal income in the world, only behind a tiny tax haven. And before anyone mentions it, it measures the median, is PPP adjusted, and takes into account social services.
Good news! If you make more than $320,000 / year you'll benefit from a couple trillion dollars in tax cuts! That'll fix everything once it "trickles down"! Thank god we live in an era when we get to witness this genius in action.
Nevermind that the reason Ukraine can't defend itself is because the US guaranteed their security in exchange for them giving up their nukes. I mean, that was so 30 years ago.
Only those who are incapable of reasoning would think that will change by electing the people who defend corporations abilities to underpay, overcharge for healthcare, and to not pay taxes.
"lol" is not evidence. There is no evidence IRI is getting anything from RF.
Khamenei studied as a student in USSR prior to the revolution. He is likely a Russian asset. Nothing else can explain the decisions of that "ayatollah". The other day an Isreali news site reported Iran is not on the list of invitees to the May 9 goose stepping show in Moscow. (Israel is invited). IRI got sanctioned for giving drones to RF and now Russia will get off the list while IRI sanctions remain. Russia supports UAE regarding their bs claims on 3 strategic micro-islands in the Persian Gulf. The fabled S-400 have never ever been offered to IRI, and IRI previously had to sue (yes) Russia to finally get the S-300s that they had long ago paid for, which then promptly got bombed by Israel. The list goes on and on ..
"Back to school now" for Ali Khamenei - I bet you didn't know this. In fact curious as to where you even get actual news about IRI if you don't speak Persian ...
Trump just raised military spending by $150 billion, but he's dismantling every government agency that "fulfils basic needs" like education, health, and safety.
Thank you. This is what people with privilege don't get.
There are concentric circles of giving a fuck: first in the center is yourself, then your family, then your friends, then your community, then your city, then your country, then other countries on the planet.
It's impossible to get people to care about the outermost circle when their inner circles are not satisfied, so they won't be happy to see their elected officials being generous to foreigners with their own tax money.
Yet somehow the US is continuing to send tons of expensive military aid to Israel.
Which shows this isn't actually about the cost.
If this had anything to do with money and caring about domestic spending first, then you'd see aid to Israel cut off as well. Funny how that's not happening.
And it’s not lost on me that both Starmer and Macron represent a minority of the electorate in their respective countries—having won due to a deeply fractured electorate.
Well, it seems that at least according to the article, Finland, Scandinavia, the Baltics, Poland etc. weren't even asked for our opinions.
Unfortunately typical that we just get ignored here in the eastern flank. One can only hope that we weren't mentioned because it's obvious that we'd back these operations, since an ascended Russia is an existential threat to everyone here, but alas.
Of course there are ideas like the one from President Stubb, wherein any peace treaty could be dive such that a future attack on Ukraine by Russia world mean Ukraine's automatic ascension to NATO (and/or the EU, depending on just how far America is willing to backstab its allies) and basically having the organisation(s) guarantee Ukraine's independence. Although that would require taking northern and eastern Europeans seriously, and I'm somehow not convinced of that happening.
But yeah, hopefully they get the peacekeepers at the very least.
It occurred to me that backstabbing is a common tactic of war historically, and increasingly of a certain group of power-seeking individuals specifically. A trait that The Apprentice and it's similar ilk of reality TV shows like Survivor invariably promoted.
My comment today on a YT video;
"Trump never apologizes or shows contrition (Roy Cohn's 'always deny' doctrine) as it shows weakness, similar to Putin perceiving appeasement as weakness. He then sets up a scenario (he called it "great television") where he expects Zelenskyy to apologize and say thankyou for the 100th time. He told Zelenskyy he had no cards, so apologizing or showing appreciation-on-demand (for nothing in exchange) would be submitting to being a loser in Trump's own mindset, which is the point of the whole fake deal on offer. No different to the "deal" he made with Afghan government for natural resources, before he sided with the Taliban to withdraw US troops in betrayal of that very agreement. When Zelenskyy pointed out that Putin can't be trusted for any ceasefire, Trump then raised his voice cos his own betrayals (nearly everyone who worked for him that wasn't paid, or went to prison by following instructions, or was summarily fired as per his catchphrase) are viewed as his favorite playing card."
Treachery has been his default modus operandi throughout his personal life (cheating and divorce) as well as in business and politics ("hang Mike Pence"). Reality TV then normalized it to the level of mass-entertainment as he suggested.
> both Starmer and Macron represent a minority of the electorate in their respective countries—having won due to a deeply fractured electorate.
Yet MAGA types keep claiming that Donald Trump supposedly got an "overwhelming mandate" from the American people even though he got just under 50% of the popular vote.
Starmer’s party won the House by a vote share that in the previous election resulted in a landslide loss. Macron’s party came in third and no longer controls their parliament.
Then why did they vote against themselves, family, friends, community, city, country, and other countries? Uneducated people make uneducated votes. Privileged people get it, they just want you to be more educated, but you keep voting against that too.
Regular blue collar working class people from less developed areas don't want to be lectured by privileged big-city people that they're uneducated and only they know better than them what the correct candidate to vote for is.
That patronizing attitude you showed is exactly the one the Democrats had and is exactly what got Trump elected. Until their attitude changes they will keep losing votes out of sheer spite.
Only time will tell if those Trump voters end up being ok with the inevitable cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. If that comes to pass, I expect some bipartisan screeching.
Poor people and working class were gonna be fucked either way no matter the candidate that won, because while America has 2 political parties, it only has one economic party which caters to the wealthy established elite. Do you think Kamala would have done anything more for the poor in practice?
The only savior of the poor and vulnerable would have been Bernie Sanders, that's why the democrats have avoided nominating him, because he's a man of the people, not the man of established corporate interests.
So given two bad options, the poor and working class have picked the candidate not insulting and patronizing them based on gender, race and identity politics, while also being able to form a coherent sentence[1]. Democrats are so high on their own self-righteous elitist farts, they still don't realize why the majority of people hate them.
There’s no “propaganda network.” America has a president that overthrew the GOP leadership by destroying Jeb Bush over the Iraq War: https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=ZawKMFFY3LmAhYMr. After the mistakes of the last two decades, there is little appetite in America to do anything in foreign countries americans can’t find on a map beyond empty virtue signaling.
Leaving aside the Iraq war discussion for a moment (that war, by the way, was America’s Pickett’s Charge, the high tide of the US) it’s amazing remembering how anti-Trump the Republican crowd was. A complete world of difference from today.
Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They hate electric cars, but all of a sudden the guy who popularized them is a hero.
Zelensky is invited here and shows incredible restraint and decorum only to be shouted down and vilified. Meanwhile, Netanyahu comes over here and CHASTISES Congress for not delivering weapons FAST ENOUGH. This after we've propped up Israel's apartheid regime and filled warehouses with weapons for decades.
You think random factoids are driving Trump’s viewpoint?
Trump overthrew the Bush dynasty by eviscerating Jeb over the Iraq War: https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=Y3nWQeiui8KJhj8b. Now, neocons want to chalk that up as bad execution of an otherwise sound ideology. But you don’t think that Trump’s supporters could genuinely disagree with that assessment—think that the underlying problem is that america is too willing to intervene militarily in places that don’t directly affect the U.S.? You think that view is driven by Russian propaganda?
The way I see it, Ukraine is the test case for the foreign policy populist Democrats have long supported. The Cold War is over. The likelihood that Putin will invade Germany or France next is low. Regional wars are just that, and we should let them play out without getting involved.
Otherwise you’re still subscribing to Reaganite neoconservatism—you’re just quibbling about the details of whether to involve the american military empire in any particular skirmish.
> According to the Washington Examiner, McMaster said on Tuesday that Gary Cohn, Trump's former top economic adviser, did steal documents off the president's desk to prevent Trump from pulling the US out of key trade deals.
> Cohn told colleagues at the time that the theft was necessary and that Trump would forget about the idea, according to the book, released earlier this month. Woodward reported that Cohn also snatched a document that would have pulled the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement from the president's desk.
He has a long history of parroting the last thing someone said to him.
I always wonder how is it that you are allowed to post so much in controversial political threads, yet your posts are usually significantly voted down. Does the rate limiting not apply to you?
Also is anyone seriously suggested France or Germany would be next? Wouldn't it be more like Poland? And your perspective reeks of the weeks prior to the Ukraine invasion, where so many swore Russia would never do it, it was just Biden-antagonism. And this isn't me being pro Biden. These are just facts.
I voted for Biden, and while I was unhappy with the result for many reasons, I thought he did an okay job keeping us from getting more deeply involved in the Ukraine war.
Many people seem to take it as axiomatic that the U.S. has an obligation to use force to maintain pre-existing borders. And we simply don’t agree with you about that. The standard for me is whether it’s going to significantly affect the daily life of someone in Iowa.
So maybe I’d care if anyone was seriously saying France and Germany could fall to Russia. But short of that?
How is that even a response to my post? At all? I didn't express any opinion if the US should use force... so I'm not sure what you could agree or disagree with about that.
I think personal animosities drive Trump's viewports, otherwise you wouldn't call a president a dictator because he didn't held an election during a war what's exactly that what the Ukrainian constitution says.
You wouldn't appease a dictator who imprisoned and killed his opposition.
And Putin wouldn't attack openly, nowadays you attack per online sabotage, something the US will see rising, or won't see because Trump suspended the cyber operations.
Strangely enough he has no problem sending money to Israel after Hamas attacked them, despite the Israel army is much more powerful than the Hamas.
So Trump has no problem being involved in wars he knows his supported side will win or has already won.
Trump gos for the easy wins, he is a low-hanging fruit harvester.
Same with DOGE. Firing people doesn't reduce bureaucracy, changing laws and regulations does. But that's not what they do.
BTW people said the same about the likelihood of Putin attacking Ukraine, or about the likelihood of Ukraine withstanding the attack more than weeks.
Seems like likelihood is a bad measure for reality.
And pissing of your allies and victim blaming the president of an invaded country is bad politics, unless you are the villain.
I honestly don’t get the impression that Trump is that strategic. He also usually doesn’t care if something is right or wrong, but only whether it supports his interests.
Ukraine's parliament overwhelmingly supported the EU-UA agreement. It had the support of the populace. Yanukovych was going to be replaced at the next election because of it, and his violent suppression of the protests only sped that up. There was no need for western involvement to make that happen, and your belief that there was is an evidence-free conspiracy theory. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/report/us-launched-euromaidan-to-weak...
It wasn't then nor now a legitimate parliament. Please refer to the 2014 Victoria Nuland phone leaks to see for yourself how the United States chooses who is a member of the Ukrainian government.
Nothing in that leak shows that the US chooses members of the Ukrainian government, only that they work with them. All of them were democratically elected, just like Zelensky. Next you're going to tell me that Yatsenyuk grew a beard and joined a Chechen gang in the 90s and cite the DNC leaks as proof. https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-yatsenyuk-chechnya-russia-...
Like most Asians and most Muslims, I have been opposed to the “rules based international order” my entire adult life. American proxy wars have caused tremendous damage around the world. And I’m incredibly proud we finally have an American President who realizes they don’t serve American interests either.
This is not a new sentiment and it caused by Russian social media propaganda: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4473508,00.html. I cite Chomsky less these days than I used to, but I recall back when I was a Gore-supporting Democrat and we were mocking “Team America: World Police” he was seen as pretty respectable. Is he Russian propaganda?
American proxy wars propping up illegitimate governments that rule without the consent of the governed have caused problems. The US is supporting a legitimate government against an invading dictatorship. The broad brush you paint with would have had the US not support the allies with weapons in WW2 all the way through 1941.
That was true of Vietnam and South Korea too. And in Iraq we were toppling a brutal dictatorship and in Syria we would’ve been doing that. The U.S. shouldn’t have been getting involved in any of those. Democracy promotion is not a legitimate foreign policy—because for many countries (maybe most countries) authoritarianism is better than a dysfunctional democracy.
Once again, your argument is in favor of not helping the Allies against the Axis powers. This is not about democracy promotion. It's about repelling an invasion from a dictatorship. Invading a nonexpansionist Third Reich is a different proposition from helping other countries fight off an invasion from a Morgen die Welt conqueror. As I said, I agree the US shouldn't install and prop up illegitimate governments like the RVN. The people ruled by the illegitimate government won't appreciate it. That's not what's going on here.
> And I’m incredibly proud we finally have an American President who realizes they don’t serve American interests either
Seriously? The current president is even more on-board than the previous ones with using Israel as a U.S. proxy. Just because he's also in bed with Putin doesn't mean he opposes American imperialism.
Amazing to see posters still managing to blame an external enemy for their own humongous trillion-dollar consent machine working as designed in a direction they don't like this time.
The PTB in US have decided to divy up the world into zones. This was likely already set in motion when the Brexit thing started in UK. "We want Canada, American Gulf, Panama Canal" is Monroe Doctrine 2.0 on steroids. UK is likely going to be in the 'Oceania' camp (as will be the rest of the Common Wealth) and we can all look forward to a 1984 future living under authoritarian regimes using "AI" and pervasive surveillance. The rest is smoke for plebes.
Not sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If France had hold out until 1943, with the Wehrmacht only making a few hundred yards progress per day, it would have been a massive success, don't you agree? Without western help, Ukraine would have had no chance in hell to survive that long.
It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing".
The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter.
And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next).
The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.
Someone was coming to bail out France. I don't see a D day for Ukraine. If it is coming a European nation needs to step up right fuckin now and say it.
If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
The US wasn't active part of the war until December 1941, though. For the first years, no boots on the ground were coming. And if Germany didn't declare war against the US, which they weren't forced to do by the tripartite pact, it's questionable they would have come at all (in 1944).
Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot?
Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different?
But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".
I wonder what media do you consume to get this absolutely ridiculous idea? baltic states have no beef with Russia (except petty provocations which Russia seem to dismiss), Putin never ever said he will do anything like that and actively emphasised he won't. Where the idea of Russia attacking Baltic states or any other european nation to that matter, have stemmed from (besides nonsensical statements of unelected EU bureaucrats like ursula, who have vested interest in stealing money through warmongering)?
E.g. France24[1], they have all sources linked. Then there are individual governments, like e.g. the Latvians[2], warning that Russia is preparing for a confrontation with NATO. Or the German DoD[3]. Yes, no politician is explictily saying "Russia will invade country Y in X years", but "Russia prepares all resources they need to invade, and NATO confrontation is not unlikely" is good enough for me, at least as long as Russian state TV shows nukes exploding over Western Europe or battlegroups invading the Baltics.
The Baltics have no beef with Russia, but Russia with the Baltic states[4], according to e.g. Medwedjew, who thinks they literally belong to Russia. Or Россия 1[5].
Russians have been saying the same about attacking Ukraine all the way until they actually did attack.
There are many signs Baltic states are next in the Russian annexation list. And if Russia going to win control over Ukraine - mobilized to Russian army Ukrainians will be in the first wave of Russian cannon fodder troops advancing through Baltic states.
If they are independent then they won't need to rely on being propped up by American taxpayers to survive. Because if they did, they'd be dependent not independent.
With that logic, any country too small to fight its neighbors should be taken over, their citizens killed, their women defiled. What planet are you from?
Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
This argument makes no sense - you have never been asked to pay a special "Kurdish" tax, or a special "Ukrainian" tax. You will still pay the same amount (or more) of taxes even if the US becomes completely isolationist.
Unless the cost is zero the tax is paid, either directly, by inflation, or one of the two later to settle the debt. The fungibility of money means no special separate tax is assessed.
Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
You can just pretend 100% of your tax dollars goes to services you use then. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that? I understand you personally don't want to spend on those things, but in our system our representatives voted to send that aid. It's not Trump's to withhold.
>. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that?
This is what I'm proposing. Eliminate aid, that filters back into Americans not being forced to pay for it. Those who want to can use their savings to donate or fly over and fight.
For reference, I have no police service, no fire service, no public roads where I live. Road access for miles and miles are private easements which works without taxes -- I first built my road with an axe and a shovel with no government assistance. I have privately drilled water, a privately made sewer, and private electric for which I personally funded the power poles. I pay for private education for my children, on top of taxes for public school. Any remaining scraps of public services you might claim I get, I assure you it would be cheaper for me to buy privately than pay ~30% of my income as I do now in tax.
I don't want your tax money or services. You have a deal.
And yet, here you are on the Internet, built with public dollars. You're happy to purchase goods delivered by public infrastructure. You're happy to use a cell phone and a computer which are designed and engineered largely by people educated with public dollars. When your kids are sick, you take them to a doctor who was educated at public institutions, whose education was funded with public loans, who will prescribe medicine developed using public research grants.
And the idea that your wife and children could be raped and murdered (along with yourself of course) by an invading horde is so far from your mind that you don't even register it as something you're paying for, but if we all weren't paying for other people to protect your liberty, you might be just as unfortunate as the Ukrainians right now, who are facing that very threat.
You think you can fund an army yourself with 30% of your income? Really?
Your mistake here is to believe that if something is public the alternative it must be privately funded by a single individual. I cannot pay engineers to design a car, but a bunch of people can get together and pay for it then me and others will pay a little when they buy them.
I share my private well with several people who cannot afford a well on their own -- i cant afford it on my own withot them. It's all done privately without government. Thus can happen with militias, with healthcare, other infrastructure, the whole shebang. There is no need for private defense to be entirely funded by one person, for instance as I mentioned previously in the militia I fought in against isis everyone beside me there was on their own dime for a collective defense.
Your ideal doesn't scale. You want the luxuries of modern society without having to fund the bureaucracy and the overhead that comes with it. Your idealized homesteading way of life is incompatible with the existence of cell phones and computers, which are the result of a highly modernized society that does require a large government to function.
Militias don't protect against invading armies. If you want to protect against an army, you need to fund an army.
What's interesting is every time I suggest American taxpayer mustn't pay for Ukraine, this is the rabbit hole those of your opinion seem to go down.
What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on. My opinion on other taxes notwithstanding, this rabbit hole of cell phones and modern society falling apart and my wife being raped (seriously wtf) because I didn't spend jonnies Christmas money on Ukraine is unraveling. This is why Trump won, and the aid will end. We're done being blackmailed with apocolyptic threats, and the false dichotomies.
> What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on.
It kind of doesn't matter how you feel about it though.
The way we resolve our difference of opinion is our system of representatives. You elect representatives to champion your cause, I elect representatives to champion mine, and then they figure out a compromise memorialized as a bill.
So when you say "well I don't want to spend money on this"... so what?? Your opinion was counted. The decision was that money would be sent but not as much as we would like -- a compromise. This is what enables us to live in harmony.
If you want to throw out the compromise, you're also going to throw out the harmony.
> my wife being raped (seriously wtf)
See? You think this possibility so remote, you just scoff at it. If you had asked Ukrainians in 2021 if it was a possibility it would be happening to them today, some would say yes, but most people felt it was not a possibility. Then it happened.
Your position is just as precarious as theirs was before the war, because you are dependent on distant people to protect your liberty. That's what you pay taxes for.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure. Make your own nation, defend your own land against stronger neighbors (the USA in this case), and actually be independent.
You won't do it though because deep down you know you depend on the rest of us, you're just salty you're asked to contribute anything at all.
Funding for Ukraine has been stopped and it wasn't through my unilateral decision. So far I haven't been attacked by the US army or anything like that and my cell phone is still working.
Somewhere in your calculation you are wrong. And it's not my 'feeling' that got us here, your feeling we ought to fund Ukraine is contradicting reality right now. Either US institutions don't function as you think or they are working as you intended with a different mandate than you like. Either way your monologue about renouncing and fighting the USA serves only as your own personal entertainment to distract from that.
> Funding for Ukraine has been stopped and it wasn't through my unilateral decision.
It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
> Either US institutions don't function as you think
US institutions do function like I think, because I learned how they function, it's pretty straight forward: Congress has the power to how spend money, and the President spends it. That he chooses not to is an abuse of power, and violates the law [1], the Constitution [2], and his oath of office [3].
Congress voted for that money to be spent, and the former President signed it into law. Not spending it unlawfully usurps Congress' Article I "power of the purse", and violates the Article II "take care" clause.
I think it's pretty clear, can you cite where the law and Constitution supports your argument?
>It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
This is a shortcutted, half correct view.
Impoundment Is generally illegal and/or unconstitutional.
However,
IF a Congressional directive to spend were to interfere with the President’s authority in an area confided by the Constitution to his substantive direction and control, such as his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and his authority over foreign affairs . . . a situation would be presented very different from [a domestic impoundment]. [0]
The basis of this is used in Supreme Court opinion of [1] as discussed in [2]:
If the president may impound appropriations that invade his recognition power, it follows that he may likewise do so when Congress infringes on other exclusive powers, such as that of chief diplomat. ... Similarly, the impoundment power may extend to the president’s core and exclusive powers as commander-in-chief.
The trouble here is youre trying to shut off powers that intersect congress and the president by assuming congress can override article 2 [3] powers through military aid funding mandates. Military impoundment goes all the way to Jefferson. There is strong basis to believe Trump's military aid impoundment is constitutional exercise of the mandate of the democratic voice electing him.
The US and Europe doesn't send them arms because they're a "proud independent people." The arms deals are to maintain international order, that no country should invade and annex another. If you just allow that to happen, everybody will be worse off. That's why there is so much resistance to paying for Israel to annex Gaza and so much support for Ukraine to fight off Russia.
Taxes fund civilization and the world we've built. The IRS collects a percentage of our money to build roads and infrastructure, defend our nation's interests, provide income in retirement, provide health care, and so much more good stuff.
Part of that is ensuring that the world is stable so that our nation doesn't have to go to war. We do that with alliances, investment in military force, investment in diplomacy, and investment in building economic opportunity globally so people don't turn to violence.
It doesn't always work; no system is perfect.
But Ukraine is the perfect example of a democratic nation that has been invaded by a dictatorship and needs our support. They have already destroyed most of the Russian army and economy with our support, and we need to finish the job.
If we don't give them the resources to finish the job, it is just a matter of when the next dictator does similar, and we are forced to send our people to fight. Do you want to go fight in Tawain? Do you want to find in Estonia?
History has shown us that isolationism doesn't work, nor does giving into naked aggression from dictators and autocrats.
> Well we've voted representation against funding Ukraine and in this case it aligns with personally not consenting to funding Ukraine.
No we didn't. We may have voted for a president who is against funding Ukraine, but notably his role is not to spend money - that is reserved for Congress, and our representatives did vote to spend this money. Meaning, we voted to spend it, so he has no right to hold it up. That he has withheld it is anti-democratic, because it's contrary to Congress' spending directive, and therefore against the people.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure.
Comments are supposed to get more substantive as the conversation goes on. Do you have something substantive to add? Because mocking me ain't that. Especially when it doesn't even make sense -- I'm not the one saying taxes are theft, pretending I'm rugged and independent.
I provided a substantial reply as to why you're wrong about military impoundment in our other thread where you asked for citations.
Instead you bypassed that, and start proselytizing about mockery after threatening my wife with a raping. Let's not pretend your conversation has decorum. I am being extremely charitable to you after your threats about my family.
>independent
And yet my initial comment was on Ukraine being independent. The irony here is your Jackyll and Hyde treatment of independence -- you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
I didn't bypass anything I'm reading the sources you left, they're over 50 pages long...
> after threatening my wife with a raping
I didn't threaten your wife with anything. I said you aren't worried about such a thing because an army protects her from that literal fate, and Ukrainians experience that fate because they foolishly trusted others to protect them. It's beyond me how you interpret that as a threat.
> you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
Because they don't pay taxes to benefit from such things. Instead they are the recipients of aid that was given to them. Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward.
>Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward
They use more than half of the things you mentioned. Banking services, airports (how does zelensky get here?), defense articles. Wasn't that your demand of independence, not to use them, or shall you walk that back?
>didn't threaten your wife with anything
You didn't threaten you would personally do it. It wasn't an illegal threat, but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped. I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
> hey use more than half of the things you mentioned.
You have to start over and make a cogent argument. I'm not following you. Zelensky is allowed to land in the US because the US allows it. Same with banking, defense, and anything else. If you declare your independence as a nation, you'll have to gain the same recognition, which will be very expensive. Or you can join another nation that has that recognition. Or you can stay a citizen of this nation. But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources.
> but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped.
That's not a threat, it's the law of the jungle. That's just the natural order of things, and it's why there's such a strong incentive to spend billions on defense. It's not even an abstract thing because we see it happening in real time.
> I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
The only thing I ask is you adhere to the HN site guidelines, which is we are here for debate. I called out your last reply not because it was offensive but because it degraded the thread by not providing anything to respond to, so it was thought-terminating. Our other thread got more substantive over replies, which is the ideal. If you have an argument, make it. Snark isn't needed, I've caught myself doing it too, so when you're called out on it just stop and move on.
I'm not bringing up your family to break decorum, I'm bringing it up as my actual argument for why you need to gladly pay taxes, and why you're not as independent as you think. The topic of this whole thread, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the case-in-point of that, so it's not even an abstract problem people face in the year 2025.
>But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources
Which brings me back to the double standard you present. The premise is Ukraine is independent, "but you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources."
So we come full circle. Either they're independent and needn't freeload off American taxpayers, or they're actually dependent. I am very happy with the execution of the former and pleased you've come to agree with my point.
That's not my premise. Ukraine isn't freeloading, we voted to give them money because we understand they are the frontline of defense against Russian aggression -- they are paying in blood.
What I'm more concerned about is your hypocrisy as a fellow citizen, where you seem to believe you are fiercely independent (and therefore shouldn't be expected to pay into the system) but conveniently ignore all the ways it benefits you and the comforts it brings.
... I pay into the system. That's what your sort of disingenuous argument leads to, I'm against funding Ukraine therefore you think this merits I must prove the case of the entire fucking tax system. You're horribly mistaken, de funding Ukraine is not going to lead to a libertarian utopia that you switched up to arguing against.
That is why your kids will eventually fight in World War 3, because you won't invest in a system to establish real peace globally by standing up to dictators who invade other countries.
It is not illegitimate in any way, and I think you are making a bad-faith argument.
American stands strong with Ukraine. The only Americans who have left the chat are those who were never American to begin with.
I admire that you put yourself in dangers way for what you think was right.
However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility. Your prescription is in the same vein as saying those worried about climate change should recycle more, when it is clear their utmost efforts would not make a dent in the global scheme of things. As such, no amount of motivated militia is going to make a dent in a war against an industrialized military.
Just come out and say I don't want to pay for to support Ukraine's war against Russia. Your opinion is valid and should be taken into account. However you don't get to dodge your responsibilities if the outcome doesn't go your way, just like a Democrat has to live with Trump's policies whether they like it or not. It's pathetic to try garnering sympathy with cage analogies.
"Nothing achieved" is exactly right. Russia did not achieve in 3 years what it thought it could achieve in 1-2 weeks. Tons of people died on both sides (though no civilians in Russia). The only reason russia is continuing is because west while is perfectly equipped militarily desperately lacks balls and succumbs to putin's propaganda.
Nothing achieved for you but for example my mother and some relatives don't have to live under forced occupation. Her city was under siege for a number of weeks during initial invasion and totally cut off from any basic human needs like water, electricity and food supplies were limited. Not to mention constant rocket attacks and some shelling. There are millions of people like my mother who are greatful for what Ukrainian army has achieved and are still fighting for. The containment of further expansion and the fact that there is very little progress Russian army is making is also an achievement. Russian Soviet stock piles are depleted, their economy is on a downward spiral, untill a few weeks ago they were totally isolated from the rest of the civilised world, that's another achievement.Exposing Russia's bluff of their military might is another achievement. The fact that USA can now "focus on China" is thanks to Ukraine. Everyone in the world was united against the aggressor. What is happening right now is that some of those achievements are being undone and may I ask for who's benefit? So that Trump can make a deal that he promised and restore the economic relations with Russia? It might stop the deaths and fighting now but you are simply taking a "peace debt" from Putin.
Russia's stated intention is to destroy the Ukrainian nation and to erase Ukrainian identity. Putin believes Ukraine is not a real country and Ukrainians are not a real people:
Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map.
America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and in becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.
Because the weapons were drip-fed, preventing Ukraine from achieving any decisive, quick victory.
Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
> Mind to elaborate why fueling the endless war is a "miserable disgrace"?
Helping Russia by giving them what they want (time to rebuild their military and economy while lifting sanctions) is what will actually fuel an "endless war" as Russia will simply continue the war at a later stage.
Don't confuse a temporary peace on paper with actual peace.
The history of your posts, oh my... But I will attempt to provide an answer in earnest.
All sane people are against an endless war. Or, any war for that matter. The only state that can be compared with an endless war is a mid-war period: the time when both sides know that the war is coming, and they live in misery, entrenching and militarizing, while the rest of human development stands still: economy is military-spending driven, birthrate falls, population flees, etc. Do we agree on that or do you need examples?
So, taking your question at its face value: the alternative is lasting peace. The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership. Again, examples are a legion: both positive (Finland, Baltics, Turkiye), and negative (Georgia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya to a certain degree).
The only path for lasting peace for Ukraine is to humiliate Russia on the battlefield. For that to happen they need weapons
"The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership"
20th century history unfortunately tells us the answer is containment, not direct engagement.
From handing over Poland and eastern europe to Stalin in 1945, or refusing to protect Hungary in 1956 or interfere explicitly in the soviet sphere of influence, in exchange for them not interfering explicitly in western sphere of influence.
It's not a nice lesson, but that was how we achieved some form of peace for decades.
You are assuming that stopping the aid will stop the war. It won't, not soon at least.
Unless one of the two party wins the war, the way a peace agreement is reached is for both parties to consider it a better outcome than continuing the war, which means that the quickest way to reach is to make it harder for both countries to continue the war, and more palatable the result of an agreement.
This is not what Trump is doing. He is not doing harder for Russia to continue the war, in fact it is going to make it easier. He is not going to make the peace agreement more palatable for Ukraine, in fact it made it even harsher.
In other words, Trump is not looking for a "deal" is looking for a capitulation of Ukraine, and to offer it to Putin, probably behind some agreement.
Ukrainian people are not going to like the idea, so they will not surrender soon. Putin will see this as a victory, so he will not stop there (he is trying to get US troops out of Eastern Europe, and I am sure Trump will obey), so any "peace" will be short-lasting. Eastern Europe countries already see this, so they will not stop helping Ukraine because the US did.
My understanding is that you are outsourcing the work of grinding Russia’s military down. You get to deplete a geopolitical foe at a bargain, without spilling American blood.
There is also the moral argument that you are supporting Ukraine in a war of aggression started by Russia.
My fear is that conceding anything to Russia just gives it an opportunity to regroup, rearm and finish the job. Appeasement has not worked before.
Then there is the whole minerals thing. Now you’re not merely abandoning an ally, but kicking it while it’s down. It’s not a reassuring message for anyone thinking of allying with America.
As a national of a country Trump has threatened to annex, I am wondering how many more allies America can antagonise and how long and costly it will be to rebuild a good reputation.
I recently had a discussion with someone more senior than me and they were convinced that the whole deal was about resources in the first place. If anyone has some references and thoughts about this, please share.
I have thoughts. Maybe biased because I'm Russian.
Imagine I maimed a guy on the street because he was walking too slowly. Was "the whole deal" about him walking too slowly? Yes and no. He was walking slow. But also I was a violent psycho.
Imagine I killed my wife because she was wearing the wrong skirt and looked at another man. Was the whole deal about my wife behaving how I don't like? Yes and no. She was behaving in some way. But also I was a violent psycho.
People come up with all sorts if rationalizations and I definitely heard both "Ukraine had resources Russia needed" and "Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US".
Resources? Excuse me, look at the map? You know that tiny Netherlands beats Russia in agriculture exports. Russia has the most reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world. The country has insane resources already and its corrupt government is unable to make good use of them.
But anyway. They say Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US (those people like to use loaded phrases like "US wanted to siphon resources from Ukraine") and Putin didn't like it? Well there's a well known way to solve this "problem": offer a better deal, don't be a dick, invest, stuff also called "diplimacy".
Resources, NATO, US military complex, whatever, mostly those things are bullshit, maybe they did motivate Putin, who knows. It's just mentioning those things with a solemn face full of insight as if they explain something is what paints a person as Putin supporter and aggression apologists in my eyes. Because none of those things justify the choice of mass murder by a violent psycho.
Martyrmade had a really solid episode about Ukraine that explained the Russian motiviations in a more understandable way.
If I remember correctly, a lot of the problems come down to broken promises of stopping NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia made concessions, NATO did not. This is the Russian case as I vaguely remember it.
This is a reminder that geopolitics are wildly complicated and that the waters are too muddied for laypeople to make sense of in real time.
Your analogy holds. The psychopath must be stopped, but it's good to remember that the west provoked it when it had a chance to tame it.
I see your last paragraph but I am still triggered by attempts to explain "Russian" (they are Putin's) motivations, it gives them a pleasant aura of "this caused that so..." that makes my skin crawl. Also it's tempting to think in terms of resources, numbers, strategy game stuff, but as Russian I am aware of enough wild takes and rhetoric by people in Putin's circles to suspect it's mostly about his legacy, ego and desire to be in history.
NATO expansion was not really a threat to Russia beyond Putin's pretense. Putin pulled forces from Finland border after it joined. I hope the wrong lesson won't be learned.
Most of this narrative comes from Mike Benz who is a former State Department employee that has began trying to educate people on some of the shadier aspects of US Diplomacy. A major facet that he talks about is how the US combines NGOs and non-government investment in order to achieve diplomatic goals.
After the 2014 invasion, the US realized that breaking EU dependence on Russia natural gas would put a serious dent in Putin's wallet.
In response, various groups within the military industrial complex decided to invest into Burisma, where Hunter Biden was oddly a board member with little experience. Burisma's goal was to develop the mineral and natural gas deposits in the Donbas region. Ultimately, Burisma was prevented from this mission because of the 2022 war.
The opposite would be protecting democracy from fascist invaders. In my opinion the west/Biden were too wishy washy and should have stopped the thing from the start.
Putin's capacity to wage war is by no means unlimited. This war has the potential to bankrupt Russia (just look at its 21% key rate) and the US already has experience in pushing an adversary to collapse.
It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. What's the "WMD" equivalent here - what do you think the media is lying to you about? That there's an ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is something all involved parties acknowledge.
The best explanation for people who obsess over 'Saddam has WMDs' is that they were gullible enough, at the time, to believe it.
On a related note, a lot of the morons who gave GWB a second term seem to be populists now. They would be more helpful to America if they stopped trying to understand the world around them, and instead just voluntarily stopped voting.
It was the half dozen other adventures in the sandbox with nothing to show for it that made people put down their foot and say no more and stick to it even when it's a cause they may support (Ukraine for some, Israel for others). That's how fed up with it the American public is.
Unlike the wmd lie which was generated completely by the USA, all of Europe seems pretty concerned to the point they just approved another 650 billion in debt TODAY, something Europe REFUSED to do for what 40 years?
Because X happened in the past does not mean that Y is X. Only people reaching hard to push an agenda would claim any similarity.
I think both are similar in that they obfuscate real discussion on the purpose of war and tradeoffs.
If the goal is to be global police, that is a conversation worth having. Same if the goal is to show solidarity with our EU allies for its own sake. I think these other topics are manufactured consent.
"I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine."
Because now all of the sudden you are saying something totally different and nebulous 'world police' BS.
Why are your trying to equate Europe dramatically and instantly shifting their spending and EU policy to some nebulous 'global police' comment instead of addressing your original point, that you state no one actually believes 'Russia moving on Europe' is a real thing, and trying to equate it to the WMD lie?
You original point is BS, Europe believes to the tune of 650 billion just committed and breaking all of their long standing norms when it comes to defense that it is a real issue. Hense you having to move to some nebulous 'world police' nonsense.
I am asking what the core purpose and rationale for USA involvement is, and saying that this should be the center of discussion, whatever it is. It seems like nobody can agree or articulate what this is in a coherent way.
Everything else is a sideshow and distraction.
I don't see how Europe spending 650 billion answers this question either. The US spending money because Europe is with no deeper logic elementary school thought.
You really can't back your original statement can you? You made a specific claim:
"I think the "wmd equivalent" is the idea that Russia will move on Berlin if they're not contained in Ukraine."
Ie, that Russia being a threat to Europe is a convenient lie used to manipulate actions, and Russia isn't a threat.
Europe spending 650 billion and upsetting their long standing defense posture (especially Germany's post WW2 one) shows they didn't/don't view/weren't using the threat Russia poses as a lie to manipulate the USA into being 'World Police' and they are up ending their entire order to defend against Russia (actions with ZERO 'world policing' upside for them).
You tried to downplay Russia as a threat using a comparison to the WMD lie to lend false strength to your position that Russia is not a threat and you failed so miserably you completely pivoted from it.
Edit: News is now reporting that Germany is literally changing their constitution because they don't believe your position that Russia's threat to Europe is a lie.
I'm not pivoting from it. I think Russian tanks in Berlin are only slightly more plausible than Russian tanks in Washington DC. That is to say, I don't think it is a credible threat. I don't even think Europeans believe that. Germany has twice the population and 20 times the GDP of Ukraine, and Russia can't even conquer it. EU has a hundred times the GDP of Ukraine, and several nuclear-armed countries. Do you actually believe that?
If that is a real concern, I haven't seen anyone articulate how it is supposed to work. Just hand wavy threats that if Russia isn't stopped in Ukraine, the rest of the continent will be next. Somehow the same people speak out of the other side of their mouth that Russia is simultaneously the sick man of Europe, incompetent, and ready to implode any moment at the slightest breeze.
Reread my posts. I brought up global policing not as an example of a wmd lie, but as a more logical reason to support Ukraine.
Last, the USA spent six trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spending money isnt proof that they posed up legitimate threat of conquering the USA.
Strong 'Putin won't invade Ukraine' 2022 vibes. Russia will stop with what they took in Georgia. Sorry, I mean they will stop with Crimea. Sorry, I mean they will stop with what they took in eastern Ukraine (plus we also have to give them Kherson). But yes, through history including with Russia, appeasing and giving land ends any future land grabs.
Putin has explicitly stated he's getting the USSR back together. He was worked in the eastern Germany KGB. His actions/current proof leans to he wants it all back. Zero leans to he doesn't. You argue you don't think he could take it. Again, that has nothing to do with it. The question is will he try/does he intend to, and everything points to yes. The same people said 'He won't invade Ukraine, he can't' that are now saying 'He won't try to take more, he can't'.
If that is all it comes down to, then yeah, I dont think he will try to take eastern Germany, no matter what he would like. Regarding the various attributions, I dont know what people you are talking about.
If protecting Germany is your final answer for why support the war, I think it is fine for the US to sit it out until article 5 is invoked.
It is kind of like expecting Europe to be ride or die in a US war with China over Taiwan.
There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Ukraine was the victim of an act of aggression from Russia. Pretty obvious that the US gave its word it would protect them.
> Nevermind the fact that threats of nuclear aggression came much later.
The threats of nuclear aggression were there from the start. What other thing do you think prevents the EU from raining death on the Russians from above.
It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.
It's just the US word signed in an agreement. Meaning the US word is now of the same value of Russia.
Saying Ukraine is a "small breakaway country from the USSR", while being the largest country in Europe is one of the most detached takes I've seen on this subject lmao
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
> Did you even know the difference between Ukraine and Russia four years ago?
Yes, ~7 years into the current war, I think a lot of people did.
> Much less 30 years ago.
Yes, I knew the difference, then -- when the breakup of the USSR was relatively recent and the issues in and between post-Soviet states were frequent news items. Again, I think a lot of people did.
Heck, I knew the difference when I was in grade school and both were part of the USSR. There's probably a fair number of people outside the US who have some understanding of the differences between Texas and California, too.
> They were considered basically the same country.
Four years ago was seven years after Putin annexed part of Ukraine. This was considered a news story at the time. So it's not as if Ukraine has only been in the news since 2022.
The US didn't end up in this position by fluke. It was a deliberate policy reaction to the nuclear weapons age. If you don't want everyone from Croatia to Canada equipping themselves with nuclear weapons and starting border skirmishes over water rights, the states that maintain a nuclear arsenal and international network of military bases have to step up and enforce the rules.
And yes, the invasion of Iraq on a paper thin pretext arguably was the beginning of the collapse of this equilibrium, and it's no surprise that North Korea reacted by doubling down on their nuclear program.
With great power comes great responsibility. For generations, Americans preferred having a monopoly on geopolitical power. The USA can certainly give up its great responsibility, but beware the consequences, because the global calculus changes accordingly.
>There is a good reason why the USA was called "world policeman".
And Europeans and leftist shit talked the US for it for decades. They called for the US to close military bases around the world, shit talked the amount the US spends on defense, etc.
Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
> Now that the US is packing up and going home, the same people are screaming for the US to stay and continue being the exact thing they shit talked the US for. What a spectacle.
On the contrary, Russian tanks rolling into Eastern Europe is something many people on the left and right in the United States have always taken seriously, and judged to be worthy of the US's intervention, even if they judged some of our other interventions to be bullshit. The strange part - the real change - is that there are people now who do not.
Haven't they been proven right? What was the point of decades of military spending on Europe, all those bases and other expenses, if in the end, the US simply lacked the willpower to use them as intended to stop a Russian invasion and simply gave in to Russian demands without getting anything in return? The US is losing its superpower status without firing a single shot.
Heck yeah bro, we're owning the Europeans! What a win for the USA! Love basing our geopolitical policy, and breaking our honor in keeping commitments on that. So much winning.
The US provoked the war, the US can finish the war. It is that simple.
Don't dump your wars and middle eastern refugees on the EU. What if the EU started a war in Mexico, drove 40 million refugees to the US, then left and let the US clean up the mess?
This is all done in close cooperation with Germany and France and probably other EU countries too. Who was celebrating the Maidan revolution the most? Americans were barely aware of it.
>Now educate yourself about RAND policy papers on US influence in the Caspian sea and the Black sea.
Ah yes, papers that incorrectly judged the energy landscape of the future and the hilarious inaction of Europe.
>Educate yourself on the perennial desire of the US to weaken Russia and keep Germany down.
Germany has done enough self-owning to keep themselves down. Don't worry though, they'll just import a few million more third-worlders! That'll do the trick!
>Educate yourself about Nuland's involvement in the Maidan revolution.
As stated by another commenter, overwhelming support from Germany, France, and the EU.
>Watch Lindsey Graham on YouTube giving militaristic pep talk speeches to Ukrainian soldiers way before 2022.
Immaterial.
>But it is easier to rewrite the narrative after Trump's win and downvote dissenters.
It's not rewriting, it's a retelling of facts.
>you need rockets, let German scientists build them.
Or Elon Musk LOL!
>If you need LLMs, let Russian developers build them.
No, if the US considers it be a regional conflict, then that's all it will be in terms of repercussions or interests. Maybe in terms of vague geopolitical concerns that might be relevant decades from now, though even that is unclear, but the US is too powerful to have repercussions from not being involved in this conflict.
China and other countries don’t see it that way. They are looking for signals as to what they might be able to get away with, now that the US has decided that it chose the wrong team during the Cold War.
If China seizes Taiwan, we're going to do exactly squat about it. The best thing the USA can do in regard to that situation is stay quiet, and let the status remain unchanged without goading China into doing something to save face.
And that means no more moronic field trips by grandstanding senators.
China would have seized it already if they were sure there’d be no US response. But if the US continues to wink at Putin’s crimes, they may change their mind.
You’re misapprehending the logic of the discussion. OP suggests that this is a regional conflict without implications for US interests (see their response to my comment if you think my interpretation is off). I said, “Really?” My questioning that claim doesn’t imply any commitment to the claim that the US must intervene in all conflicts that have implications for US interests.
Rarely do I see a commenter who blames Ukraine for the war, explain their position or elaborate on what the next 5-10 years of geopolitics will look like.
