Even as recently as this past week the United States Navy has tracked down and seized Russian "shadow fleet" tankers which are operating despite American and European sanctions, and did so with Russian naval vessels nearby and despite strong protests and anger from Moscow. Hopefully Europe can step up its game and do so too.
But do you know who is helping Russia besides China? India. Iran, South America (Brazil, &c.), plenty of other countries. They've given no money, no aid, and are all too happy to buy illicit Russian oil.
By only giving Ukraine $175,000,000,000, instead of $500B? Or $1T and American boots on the ground? When has American done enough to fight Ukraine’s war for them?
It was 30 years of rot, neglect, theft and corruption that did the majority of the damage to Russia's post-USSR military. The army they have today in Ukraine is only a fraction of what they were capable of in the 1980s.
30 years from today? The army they had in the 80's was such a shadow of post WWII the country was essentially bankrupt, and why Gorbachev let the USSR satellites leave. They had no problem crushing change until they ran out of money. Russia today is much stronger than when the wall came down.
No they didn't. Militarily is was a clear and easy win. Politically it made no sense after a while and USSR decided to leave. Militarily they could have continued staying there for the eternity. The same situation as with the American/Nato forces, with the difference of Soviets controlling significantly more of the country than Nato (only major urban centers, a small part of the country).
Most of the money "given" to Ukraine was older stockpiled weapons that were approaching EOL or at least "refresh cycle" anyway and needed to be replaced. Instead of throwing it away or selling it, they gave it to Ukraine, and most of the actual money spend went to US armaments companies.
The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
We have neither the money (see national debt) nor production capacity (see 155mm shells, missile production, howitzer barrels, etc) to give billions away for somebody else’s war.
Furthermore, the weapons had a cost when they were new, and replacing them now carries a higher cost.
Saying the price tag is fictional is like saying my dinner is free because the steak was already in my fridge.
The money that was paid to build those weapons went into the American economy, to all the companies that built them, to the employees that work for those companies, etc. Nobody is saying they were "free", but the military industrial complex has always been a jobs program. It employs plenty of Americans, it pays the bills when weapons get made. So we had a bunch of old stock that needed to be replaced, and giving them to Ukraine is an easy win, for a lot of reasons. If Ukraine fell quickly and then Putin goes after Poland and other countries, it's going to cause a lot worse problems for the US and the world. So, giving these older weapons to Ukraine is saving money in the long run. Some people have no ability to see how actions (or inaction) have consequences, and they never think about the wider perspective, only their own little pocketbooks, so it might appear that giving weapons to Ukraine is somehow stealing money from you personally. And if that steak in the fridge is already freezer burned, do you really want to eat it? We're not talking about a brand new steak here.
A) I absolutely was not. I was refuting that we sent $175B to Ukraine. We sent weapons, and spent money in the USA. Basic reading comprehension would be a useful skill for you to have in this thread... see I literally declared the US spent money in both posts. I was just saying where the money was spent.
To quote Wikipedia on the broken window fallacy: The money spent on the war effort (or peacetime defense spending), for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, or other sectors of the economy. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct – but hidden – cost (via foreclosed production possibilities) to other sectors.
A basic understanding of economics would be useful for you to have in this thread.
We are sending Ukraine something of value: cash, weapons, whatever. That value leaves the US and therefore cannot be used for something else, fired in defense of US interests, or used to deter threats to the taxpayer who bought it.
Your initial point that “it’s fine to send this value to Ukraine because now we get to spend more money” to replace it is ridiculous.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say. And further, you're lying about what I actually said. Please consider having remotely honest discourse if you want to discuss something. I don't want to engage anymore with propagandists who can't even respond the points being made.
Some of the weapons sent have negative monetary value, as in they were to expire and this process of recycling would cost a lot of money. So you should be thanking Ukrainians for taking this burden on themselves without US having to pay for the rendered services. You don't sound thankful enough.
Yea but those weapons are still highly valuable and effective. If you need help you aren't going to be super picky whether the apples and potatoes come from Whole Foods or Kroger.
> The price tag you quote is the same as the "an $X value thrown in for free" you see in "deals" from shady companies.
So I don't think this is very accurate. Unless you want to suggest that funding, equipment, and more given under the Biden Administration, never mind US actions like sanctions, are the product of "shady deals".
>I'm inclined to think Ukraine is fighting our war for us.
Is there a war we needed to fight with Russia in this decade, the next decade, or the last, and if so, is Ukraine even damaging the parts that matter?
Russia nukes hold America at threat, not a bunch of conscripts and some old BMPs. America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties, and there’s even an argument that a destabilized, volatilized Russia would be more dangerous for America.
> America isn’t safer if Ukraine scores another 100K Russian casualties
Europe is safer though, so there's that at least. Russia can't invade the United States of course, but it can invade other countries in Europe, and it is actively taking action to do so.
Depends. Is he actually fighting 450,000,000 in the EU? Is Portugal going to send troops to the front lines in Estonia? Will Germans accept being drafted to go fight in Ukraine? These are serious questions. Meanwhile Putin is very much able to draft Russians to fight wars, and god-forbid he takes over Ukraine he'll send Ukrainians too.
And in this case the US participation should come. Wouldn't be better to fight a Putin's Russia that was weakened in Ukraine? Perhaps weakened so much, that Putin's won't attack at all. Perhaps weaken so much, that the US can scale down its European military force deployment (saving money) and concentrate on other things (China).
So yeah, US investments in Ukraine directly benefit America. Ukrainians are fighting for Americans. So much so, that they are destroying Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities (destroying radars, strategic bombers, submarines and ships, weapons arsenal, ballistic rockets, carriers of nuclear weapons like Iskanders).
Good thing NATO has consistently hit the 2% funding target, and Europe more broadly hasn’t neglected to maintain their defense spending in favor of profligate social welfare spending.
I have seen multiple high level leader say that the shooting was warranted and ok. They expressed happiness over the killing. That includes Trump, Vance and Kristi Noem. They praised the shooter and threatened others.
> You can't take one tragic mistake or bad-apple cop and draw conclusions about the fate of the country from it.
It was not bad apple. It was logical conclusion of ICE tactic and strategy. They also kidnap people, beat them up, throw them out somewhere else on the street. They throw tear gas into insides of cars or just randomly as bye package to citizens. They intentionally ram cars and cause traffic accidents.
Also, concretely, the lower level ICE members have seen to:
1.) do stuff like pointing a gun at a woman and saying "you did not learned from it".
2.) Destroyed memorial of the killed woman.
3.) Been heard to say she was "fucking bitch".
It was not bad apple. He is their hero and exactly where their tactic will go.
I mean, it looks like ordered Hegseth both war crimes and murders and America is not even at war. He is a guy who thinks bullying is being masculine and killing people due to feeling bad is how you prove that men more rational then women.
So, it makes 100% sense that he teams up with nazi billionaire to give him secrets in exchange of allowing him to more effectively mistreat people.
The guy went to a conference for Republican Women and drugged and raped the conference organiser who stepped in to stop him sexually harassing two other women attendees.
And this was probably considered a plus when hiring him into the current government.
> You have the agency to let the person in front of you have a more enjoyable flight without judging them for it.
No, being doormat that never judges assholes is not necessary in order to be a decent person.
In fact, there is special category of decent person heroes who do the uncomfortable thing, judge assholes and even protect and help others when assholery becomes too much. Both when talking about recliners and like, terrorizing thugs in streets.
> Are you talking about agency and not being an asshole, or are you just being selfish about your space?
It is not being selfish to not want to give your space to an asshole who decided to take it. That person is still an asshole. And again, both when we are talking about recliner and when certain government sends violent thugs.
Minnesota occupation is not about illegal immigration. It is about terrorizing a blue city. It is about terrorizing non whites regardless of citizenship.
I agree that Trump voters want that. But, we should not lie about them caring about illegal immigration or "not caring about the method".
They care. If Trumps thugs murder, beat or kidnap people, if non whites and suspect liberals suffer, they actually prefer it. Trump voters prefer it when an agent throws a tear gas into a car or on the crowd just as a goodbye package.
> They also want cheap oil
Oil is so cheap, oil companies are slightly at loss when producing it.
> It shouldn't change anything, but Trump yelled it louder,
No, he did not. This is simply not true. The thing about Trump being pro peace was just one more pure bad faith lie. And people who voted for Trump did not believed in Trump for peace thing.
Maybe we should stop projecting positive motivations on people who were about something else entirely
>The thing about Trump being pro peace was just one more pure bad faith lie.
Okay, the reverse logic works as well. People didn't trust either candidate so it came down to all the above, superficial factors or much deeper, unspoken motivations.
My main point is more on "people already knew who they wanted" more than whatever their outward facing words say.
> People didn't trust either candidate so it came down to all the above, superficial factors or much deeper, unspoken motivations.
They liked trump, because he promissed to harm trans, liberals, dominate women, dominate international politocs and because he is proper masculine per conservative outlook.
Nothing unspoken about that.
> Okay, the reverse logic works as well.
It does not. You need to ignore what candidates said, what people supporting them said, what poloticians said and what people wrote on social media.
You need to literally ignore what republicans, conservatives and were saying praising and doing, just so you can whitewhash and sanewash their choices and opinions.
> My main point is more on "people already knew who they wanted" more than whatever their outward facing words say.
They wanted to cause harm to people they dislike. They want to liberals others suffer as they watch how "proper manly men" mistreat people.
Becoming conspiracy theorist yourself is not a way to prevent dangers of conspiracy theorist. It will make the issue worst - instead of one conspiracy theorist, we now have too.
This talking point never contains international comparison nor historical comparison. Most people using it do not even know what "sixth grade level" actually is. They just know it means "a little".
Who cares how they're doing it in Albania? It used to be better in America, now it's worse and it's taken our entire society with it.*
I DO know exactly what sixth grade level is. It means they can read simple paragraphs, but not critically. These people lack the ability to think critically because they never learned it. They're the ones that open phishing emails and get taken by shady real estate con-men and Nigerian prince scammers.
You can be semi-literate and be a good person. You can't be semi-literate and make good decisions. Not in the modern world.
* To clarify - Reading levels in the United States have been declining at an alarming rate for a long time. They peaked in 1992 and have been steadily decaying since. You'll also note that 1992 was the year Dan Quayle was disqualified from the presidency because he couldn't spell potato. Imagine applying those standards to a modern politician.
It would be interesting comparison, actually. As interesting as French, Germany or whatever.
> It used to be better in America, now it's worse and it's taken our entire society with it. [...] They peaked in 1992 and have been steadily decaying since.
So, yeah, this would be an interesting historical comparison. It was worst most of the time.
> These people lack the ability to think critically because they never learned it. They're the ones that open phishing emails and get taken by shady real estate con-men and Nigerian prince scammers.
You are confusing two different things here. First off, highly educated people are in fact vulnerable to scammers ... frequently because of their own confidence.
> You can be semi-literate and be a good person. You can't be semi-literate and make good decisions. Not in the modern world.
But issue in modern world are not people just dont make good decisions. It is people who make immoral decisions. Vance have good reading skills, but he is still a fascist.
> You'll also note that 1992 was the year Dan Quayle was disqualified from the presidency because he couldn't spell potato.
This is not an example of mass of people using critical thinking and acting rationally. This is an example of blown up reaction ala Twitter mob latching on something trivial and making a big deal out of it. This is example of what happen when soundbite wins over substance.
It is totally ok to blame Trump voters. They literally wanted this to happen and it happened. OK, they did not wanted the "bad thing A" to happen, they only wanted the "evil things B and C" to happen. Usually based on what affects them personally.
> People vote for the least worst option, or for a candidate that shares at least some of their values.
Voting for Trump because you share his values is not exactly defense, something positive or even respect worthy. Yes, equally people voted for Hitler because they shared values. This commonality of values is why they are culpable and we can blame them.
> Have you really never voted for a candidate who went on to do things you didn't agree with?
If we are talking about past culpability, this one does not works at all. Trump is being exactly who he was and what he campaigned on. This is not the case of someone switching up after being elected. This is case of who openly or tacitly supported Trump, because they thought they will personally benefit on top of having fun of watching liberals suffer.
By tacitly I mean all those bad faith "both sides" and "Trump is dove, Harris is aggressive". As an example, Latino Trump voting men were attracted by the misogynistic and male dominance content. They thought they wont be personally affected. Rural people still cheer to occupation and terrorization of cities ... and still think they are the only true Americans. They though they will be able to keep their farms like the last time. And so on and so forth.
People knew full well what is going on when they were hiding behind euphemisms about conservatives and blamed liberals when those said the truth. They just liked the project and thought they will be affected only a little.
The most compelling and resounding message of his campaign was that he promised to grief MAGA's perceived enemies.
Whatever stuff he said in his stump speeches about foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, whatever, was largely ignored by his base. The real reason they voted for him (and the reason they still support him) was his promise of cruelty and to hurt people they didn't like, and that's the one promise he is delivering on and boasting about every day.
When brown immigrants' doors are kicked in, people are black-bagged and dragged away in an unmarked van, when families are torn apart, when "city people" get shot and are crying on TV, that's what really gets MAGA motivated and that's what keeps them excited about politics.
America is helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine.
reply