“These guys” held their own against the supposedly second largest army in the world for quite some time before receiving any significant help, and has now, despite all the headlines, regained quite a bit of their own territory which was lost to the Russian invasion, despite the fact that current military technology clearly favours defense over offense (in a scenario without air superiority).
They have also severely depleted the Russian military capability and most likely hindered Russia in invading and bullying their other neighbours for a long time. All for the price of some old hardware that was gathering dust anyway as well as a fraction of a bloated US military budget.
Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin! Then ask yourself what that means for Europe. Finally ask yourself what upheaval of a European market will do to an American economy and America’s ability to make its influence felt across the world.
Did North Vietnam win over the USA? There’s a good communist counter-example for my hexbear comrades!
And also, whether Ukraine can win (probably not) is less consequential to Europe than it is to Ukraine. But the cost of Russia’s assumed victory is helping to determine whether Russia wants to try again, against another country.
I see a lot of geopolitical calculus in your response - to what extent is the influence of the US over Europe and European markets limited by a Russian victory. You present something of a US-centric point of view but sure it’s a valid one. If Russia wins then yes likely the geopolitical influence of the USA will be knocked back to where it was in the 1980s with true multipolar politics, and it’s also true that if Europe wasn’t sanctioning Russian energy then they’d likely be buying that much cheaper energy, thereby reducing the geopolitical influence of the USA over Europe.
So I think I agree with most of what you say. But your perspective leaves something very important out of the equation:
Where does the will of the people who live in Donbas and Lubansk and Crimea factor into your math? Do we respect their right to self-determination? If not, why not?
Well my answer was in reference to why it was in the US’ interest to pump money into Ukraine so it will invariably be US centric. I’m not American by the way.
The right of self-determination is important but it is not sacrosanct and unassailable. Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, Åland, Greenland - there are many areas around the world, where there is disagreement about where a region should belong. These are hard problems to solve, in some cases there’s been votes, in some places violent, minority resistance movements have arisen.
In no case has a region unilaterally declared independence and been invaded by a large neighbour. This just isn’t how we should play.
So if you’re hoping to use “the right to self-determination” as a justification for Russia’s actions, then I definitely reject that argument.
It’s not ‘helping’, it’s using generations of Ukrainian men for draining Russian resources and manpower. US provoked this war and they want to prolong it as much as possible because it drains Russia and the EU.
or it couldve been russia being such a shitty neighbor that ukrainians are tired of dealing with them. so ukraine has a revolution and turns westward.
who could figure out why when the country was being looted by putins puppet. or russia invades its neighbors many times before 2014 and 2022. why wouldnt they want to be another vassal state to russia again?
Would US cheerily let Mexico or Canada join e.g. Warsaw pact or present-day CSTO? I sure as hell believe they would intervene militarily. Look at what happened during the Cubon missile crisis. It puts the westoid rambling about ‘crazy Russia’ in a proper perspective, doesn’t it?
Kiev regime is openly nazi by promoting banderism and nazi ideology. They even have nazi insignia (wolfsangel) used for official military units. Not to mention nazi insignia running rampant in all sorts of units and even swastikas and balkenkreuzes on military vehicles and such.
Why is NATO helping these guys if they can’t get their shit together?
“These guys” held their own against the supposedly second largest army in the world for quite some time before receiving any significant help, and has now, despite all the headlines, regained quite a bit of their own territory which was lost to the Russian invasion, despite the fact that current military technology clearly favours defense over offense (in a scenario without air superiority).
They have also severely depleted the Russian military capability and most likely hindered Russia in invading and bullying their other neighbours for a long time. All for the price of some old hardware that was gathering dust anyway as well as a fraction of a bloated US military budget.
There are better ways to spend the budget.
Why did the US support the Allies in early WW2 when France was overrun in 6 weeks and allied convoys got wrecked in the Atlantic?
Because the Allies paid the US with money for their arms? If NATO was selling arms to Ukraine, that’d be totally different.
why is nato helping a country fight russia?
Exactly!
Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin! Then ask yourself what that means for Europe. Finally ask yourself what upheaval of a European market will do to an American economy and America’s ability to make its influence felt across the world.
Helping Ukraine is far cheaper.
Ask yourself if there is a possibility of Ukraine winning.
Did North Vietnam win over the USA? There’s a good communist counter-example for my hexbear comrades!
And also, whether Ukraine can win (probably not) is less consequential to Europe than it is to Ukraine. But the cost of Russia’s assumed victory is helping to determine whether Russia wants to try again, against another country.
I see a lot of geopolitical calculus in your response - to what extent is the influence of the US over Europe and European markets limited by a Russian victory. You present something of a US-centric point of view but sure it’s a valid one. If Russia wins then yes likely the geopolitical influence of the USA will be knocked back to where it was in the 1980s with true multipolar politics, and it’s also true that if Europe wasn’t sanctioning Russian energy then they’d likely be buying that much cheaper energy, thereby reducing the geopolitical influence of the USA over Europe.
So I think I agree with most of what you say. But your perspective leaves something very important out of the equation:
Where does the will of the people who live in Donbas and Lubansk and Crimea factor into your math? Do we respect their right to self-determination? If not, why not?
Well my answer was in reference to why it was in the US’ interest to pump money into Ukraine so it will invariably be US centric. I’m not American by the way.
The right of self-determination is important but it is not sacrosanct and unassailable. Catalonia, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Quebec, Åland, Greenland - there are many areas around the world, where there is disagreement about where a region should belong. These are hard problems to solve, in some cases there’s been votes, in some places violent, minority resistance movements have arisen.
In no case has a region unilaterally declared independence and been invaded by a large neighbour. This just isn’t how we should play.
So if you’re hoping to use “the right to self-determination” as a justification for Russia’s actions, then I definitely reject that argument.
You can finance this slaughter yourself, thank you very much.
I don’t know which country you think I’m from, but all the countries I have a citizenship in are financing Ukraine plenty.
I know, mine as well, which is a total shame!
You can finance this slaughter right now, or you can finance your own slaughter later.
Your choice.
Indeed, but I would much rather finance the other side…
Because it’s the right thing to do. Because they’re getting invaded by a fascist dictatorship.
It’s not ‘helping’, it’s using generations of Ukrainian men for draining Russian resources and manpower. US provoked this war and they want to prolong it as much as possible because it drains Russia and the EU.
or it couldve been russia being such a shitty neighbor that ukrainians are tired of dealing with them. so ukraine has a revolution and turns westward.
who could figure out why when the country was being looted by putins puppet. or russia invades its neighbors many times before 2014 and 2022. why wouldnt they want to be another vassal state to russia again?
Would US cheerily let Mexico or Canada join e.g. Warsaw pact or present-day CSTO? I sure as hell believe they would intervene militarily. Look at what happened during the Cubon missile crisis. It puts the westoid rambling about ‘crazy Russia’ in a proper perspective, doesn’t it?
we wouldnt put them in a position to consider it. were all too reliant on each other.
That’s what Russia and Ukraine thought, until US started to interfere. It took them 20+ years to finally ignite the war.
right. so thats why russia invaded to “denazify” ukraine. sure buddy.
Kiev regime is openly nazi by promoting banderism and nazi ideology. They even have nazi insignia (wolfsangel) used for official military units. Not to mention nazi insignia running rampant in all sorts of units and even swastikas and balkenkreuzes on military vehicles and such.
Sure sure whatever you say.