16 ms·

The main reasons I've heard for this is that we are weakening one of our main enemies for a measly $100 billion and counting, without having to put boots on the

The main reasons I've heard for this is that we are weakening one of our main enemies for a measly $100 billion and counting, without having to put boots on the ground. Another is that we should support democracies everywhere. This coming from the super power that has meddled with other countries and overthrown more democratically elected governments than any other. These are really BS reasons. Why do you feel it is in the best interest of the US? Especially considering that Ukraine is way more important to Russia than it is to the West, they are willing to fight tooth and nail for it, and possibly risk nuclear war. Is it really worth it?

joxel 4y ago
No use arguing with someone who doesn't understand the geopolitical ramifications of a Putin-entrenched Ukraine.
- sixQuarks 4y ago
  typical
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Typical of what?
roflyear 4y ago
No offense, but it is a really unnuanced situation, so I feel that your "either or" statements are really framing the conversation poorly. It doesn't have to be either or, multiple of these arguments can apply or partially apply. > Why do you feel it is in the best interest of the US? I mostly agree with the state department, their statement can be found here: https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/ https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/ To summarize what I think is important: - We should support sovereignty, as you said. As the US should be against slavery today though they were for it in the past, poor decisions don't make you a hypocrite when you take the correct course of action in the future. - Ukraine is a somewhat ally of the US, though not in NATO. You support your allies. - A weaker Russia is good for the US, especially a weaker Putin. Putin and Russia are not neutral with their actions against the US. - Appeasement doesn't work. You may be correct that Ukraine is more important to Russia than Ukraine is to the west, but it was the same with Poland and Germany during WW2. Things change, but appeasement doesn't work. And before you say that was a long time ago, appeasement already did not work with Russia with Crimea. - The US did win the cold war. The soviet union failed. This was much due to the same tactics being used today with Ukraine: containment and deterrence. - Not good to encourage countries to invade each other.

joxel 4y ago

No use arguing with someone who doesn't understand the geopolitical ramifications of a Putin-entrenched Ukraine.

sixQuarks 4y ago
typical
- roflyear 4y ago
  Typical of what?

roflyear 4y ago

No offense, but it is a really unnuanced situation, so I feel that your "either or" statements are really framing the conversation poorly. It doesn't have to be either or, multiple of these arguments can apply or partially apply. > Why do you feel it is in the best interest of the US? I mostly agree with the state department, their statement can be found here: https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/ https://www.state.gov/united-with-ukraine/ To summarize what I think is important: - We should support sovereignty, as you said. As the US should be against slavery today though they were for it in the past, poor decisions don't make you a hypocrite when you take the correct course of action in the future. - Ukraine is a somewhat ally of the US, though not in NATO. You support your allies. - A weaker Russia is good for the US, especially a weaker Putin. Putin and Russia are not neutral with their actions against the US. - Appeasement doesn't work. You may be correct that Ukraine is more important to Russia than Ukraine is to the west, but it was the same with Poland and Germany during WW2. Things change, but appeasement doesn't work. And before you say that was a long time ago, appeasement already did not work with Russia with Crimea. - The US did win the cold war. The soviet union failed. This was much due to the same tactics being used today with Ukraine: containment and deterrence. - Not good to encourage countries to invade each other.