3 ms·
Good! As a US taxpayer then, that means we should no longer be required to contribute BILLIONS to Ukraine's defense against such a backwards, weak opponent.
by yucky 4y ago
Good! As a US taxpayer then, that means we should no longer be required to contribute BILLIONS to Ukraine's defense against such a backwards, weak opponent.
- jqpabc123 4y agoThanks for the insight comrade.
- yucky 4y agoAh yes, anybody who doesn't want to write blank checks to the military industrial complex must be a secret Russian spy. This isn't Reddit/Twatter, please don't do that.
- PostOnce 4y agoI know I am late to comment, but I just want to point out that the money isn't necessarily solely for Ukraine's defense... it is also in our own self-interest to invest in stabilizing Europe and the global economy by hindering Russia's imperial ambition (and frightening China as to the consequences of any imperial ambition of their own). If Russia had had a cakewalk in Ukraine, the future would look very grim. Instead, because of our dollars and guns, it looks less grim, for Europe, for us, for Ukraine, for Taiwan, we may have prevented a tsunami of blood and violence in the coming decades simply by spending some money sooner rather than all of the money later. The question isn't whether we should protect Ukraine, per se, it is whether we will be worse off if we don't, isn't it?