3 ms·

It’s obviously talking about the cost of the US’s support, if you read the first sentence > The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovert

It’s obviously talking about the cost of the US’s support, if you read the first sentence > The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovertible

thfuran 4y ago
And wouldn't averting the war have been even better support for Ukraine?
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Sure if doing so ends with a self determining Ukraine. It ain’t the US who is to blame for not averting a war Russia started
- kova12 4y ago
  Are you saying USA provoked the war, or somehow haven't done enough to avert it? If you remember events before the beginning of confrontation, it seems that USA was bending outwards trying to prevent invasion. What else could we do?
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >Are you saying USA provoked the war, No > or somehow haven't done enough to avert it? Well, it's patently obvious that the war wasn't averted. >If you remember events before the beginning of confrontation, it seems that USA was bending outwards trying to prevent invasion. I don't remember the US doing much at all when this started several years ago.
    - dahdum 4y ago
      You seem to be arguing for more aggressive American interventionism, a perennial national political debate of rather global concern. I think you can rest assured it will be on quite the rise for the foreseeable future.
    - Ralfp 4y ago
      What you consider a possible action to avert the war then?
      - thfuran 4y ago
        It seems likely that this recent invasion wouldn't have happened had severe sanctions been levied after Crimea was invaded. Or if Ukraine had been admitted to NATO. There were probably other more diplomatic avenues available. But it's hardly my area of expertise.
  - jemmyw 4y ago
    Well, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, so the US could have given them a security guarantee for if Russia invaded further than Crimea. Russia never wants to be seen as the ones causing escalation, even when they are, so it seems unlikely they'd have tested that guarantee. Would have saved a lot of lives. Looking at what happened, it would also have saved a lot of lives if the US and allies had used their air forces to remove Russia at the beginning of the conflict. Never agreed with the assessment that would lead to ww3 or nuclear exchange, Russia would lose or everyone would lose in both cases.
    - kova12 4y ago
      You are not only arguing with benefit of hindsight, many of your "if A then B" statements are highly speculative
- eCa 4y ago
  Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014, and now they wanted more. What strategy should Ukraine have taken that leads to all of: 1. No full-on invasion in feb’22 2. The full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine and the restoration of the pre-2014 borders. 3. Ukraine being free to seek to join Nato and/or EU.

It’s obviously talking about the cost of the US’s support, if you read the first sentence > The cost-benefit analysis of US support for Ukraine is incontrovertible

thfuran 4y ago

And wouldn't averting the war have been even better support for Ukraine?

edgyquant 4y ago
Sure if doing so ends with a self determining Ukraine. It ain’t the US who is to blame for not averting a war Russia started
kova12 4y ago
Are you saying USA provoked the war, or somehow haven't done enough to avert it? If you remember events before the beginning of confrontation, it seems that USA was bending outwards trying to prevent invasion. What else could we do?
- thfuran 4y ago
  >Are you saying USA provoked the war, No > or somehow haven't done enough to avert it? Well, it's patently obvious that the war wasn't averted. >If you remember events before the beginning of confrontation, it seems that USA was bending outwards trying to prevent invasion. I don't remember the US doing much at all when this started several years ago.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    You seem to be arguing for more aggressive American interventionism, a perennial national political debate of rather global concern. I think you can rest assured it will be on quite the rise for the foreseeable future.
  - Ralfp 4y ago
    What you consider a possible action to avert the war then?
    - thfuran 4y ago
      It seems likely that this recent invasion wouldn't have happened had severe sanctions been levied after Crimea was invaded. Or if Ukraine had been admitted to NATO. There were probably other more diplomatic avenues available. But it's hardly my area of expertise.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  Well, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, so the US could have given them a security guarantee for if Russia invaded further than Crimea. Russia never wants to be seen as the ones causing escalation, even when they are, so it seems unlikely they'd have tested that guarantee. Would have saved a lot of lives. Looking at what happened, it would also have saved a lot of lives if the US and allies had used their air forces to remove Russia at the beginning of the conflict. Never agreed with the assessment that would lead to ww3 or nuclear exchange, Russia would lose or everyone would lose in both cases.
  - kova12 4y ago
    You are not only arguing with benefit of hindsight, many of your "if A then B" statements are highly speculative
eCa 4y ago
Russia has occupied parts of Ukraine since 2014, and now they wanted more. What strategy should Ukraine have taken that leads to all of: 1. No full-on invasion in feb’22 2. The full withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine and the restoration of the pre-2014 borders. 3. Ukraine being free to seek to join Nato and/or EU.