5 ms·

We need them to give to Ukraine, no? I would suggest they are preventing harm in that case. Edit: The mods here apparently think responding to the Russian in

We need them to give to Ukraine, no? I would suggest they are preventing harm in that case. Edit: The mods here apparently think responding to the Russian influence campaigns on their site is worthy of a shadow ban.

yasp 3y ago
Why do we need to give them to Ukraine?
- bioemerl 3y ago
  Because Ukraine is a democratic state/western ally being invaded by it's much bigger and meaner neighbor and will cease to exist if we do not help them defend themselves. We don't have to give them to Ukraine, but doing so generally furthers our interests.
  - qbasic_forever 3y ago
    Is Ukraine actually a democracy right now? Last I read all of Zelensky's opposition parties were arrested and made illegal. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-cons...
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      This a misreading. Specific pro-Russian parties were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine > On 20 March 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a ban on 11 political parties for ties with Russia: Opposition Platform — For Life, Party of Shariy, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Leftists, Derzhava, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc. Quite a few other parties remain in Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine#Political_parties_in_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine#P... Given history - one such party helped Russia take Crimea in 2014, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Unity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Unity - that seems reasonably prudent in the pursuit of still being able to be a proper democracy in the future.
      - qbasic_forever 3y ago
        But if the people vote for a party, should they not be allowed to be in power? I mean that is the definition of democracy, right? The people in Donbas, Crimea, etc. voted for many of these claimed pro Russian parties.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        No, during a war and martial law, it’s best not to let enemy sympathizers run your government. No one gets free elections if Russia annexes you. Democracy isn’t a suicide pact; you don’t have to let Hitlers take power in a crisis. Ukrainian law provides for martial law, and their Supreme Court upheld the bans. That’s democracy functioning too.
        qbasic_forever 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - x3874 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - murkt 3y ago
        > Ukraine is a democracy the same way that Vietnam or Iraq or Kosovo are a democracy. Says who exactly? Ukraine’s democracy is by no means perfect, but it’s not an autocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index places Ukraine much higher on the list than Iraq or Vietnam. Couldn’t find Kosovo there.
        x3874 3y ago
        Ukraine disposed of an regularly elected president, and is instead steered now by an ex-comedian who danced for the stars.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  Ukraine got invaded by a foreign power that is committing war crimes, taking territory that isn't theirs and repeatedly threatening other neighboring countries.
  - x3874 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - bioemerl 3y ago
      The Russians have interests in holding a security border around themselves which extends to about a dozen American allies and trading partners Russia extends their security border to those allies and trading partners, they will almost certainly stop being so. The Russian plans don't stop at Ukraine, they extended to Moldova, Poland, and lots of other nations. Is it viable for them to do that in the long term? You never know. Right now it seems clear that the answer is no, they can barely take Ukraine so how are they going to handle Poland and the other countries when they've already expended their economic tools that could have done so? But it's generally in our better interest so make sure that they are as incapable as possible of expanding those borders. We would be fools to allow them to expand those security borders because it means losing those allies and a huge amount of trade and resources that come with them. They are either in our circle, or they are in Russia's. Russia treats these countries as former colonies, so as long as they are given freedom of choice they're going to ally themselves strongly with the west. For the relatively low price of funding Ukraine we slow down Russia's advance at worst, and we totally halt it at best. If we manage to totally halt Russian advances and equip Ukraine to be competitors for Russia, we've now got a country that has just survived a war with Russia sitting on their borders armed to the teeth and angry at them. They are literally fighting the war for us, without risking nuclear conflict. Why shouldn't we be interested in this tragedy? > You always have to take responsibility for your actions, and Ukrainians pay for these now. We aren't defending Ukraine because we are nice people, or defending them because we quite like the consequences of Ukraine's decision, and we're more than happy to support and ensure that those consequences are as minimal as possible, while ensuring the consequences of Russia's decision are as high as possible.
  - 3y ago
- optimalsolver 3y ago
  To kill Russian invaders.
- ArnoVW 3y ago
  Because if we don't, Russia will show the world that might makes right. And China will take Taiwan, etc. Like peace in society, international peace exists because aggressive elements make an economic calculation, and stay calm. Once that math changes you get riots and wars. Like when the US gave stingers to the Afghani, we don't support Ukraine for moral reasons (perhaps partly) but mainly because it's in our interest.
  - bioemerl 3y ago
    To be fair, might absolutely does make right in international politics still. The only reason we are even talking about Ukraine is that the Russian 3-day invasion totally failed and open up the opportunity for the west to sanction them and support Ukraine. It weren't for that fact, the ability for countries like Germany to trade oil with Russia still would have totally overridden any possibility of sanctions. And the West very frequently does not get involved in areas where terrible things are happening so long as those areas aren't really in their interests. Which doesn't justify Russia in any form shape or way. Personally, because it's individuals we aren't involved in international politics and we are still perfectly valid in criticizing Russia for being hilariously evil. And because in the world of might makes right, Russia is also losing. So it doesn't really matter. Any Russian who tries to make this argument might be correct in calling out hypocrisy, but their weak and stagnant nation lacks the might to make the right.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > Because if we don't, Russia will show the world that might makes right. America has already shown that.
  - chihuahua 3y ago
    The people who live in Afghanistan are called Afghans. The currency of Afghanistan is called Afghani. Afghans have said that they are annoyed that even after 20 years of U.S. presence in Afghanistan, people still aren't getting this right.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  If Ukraine fights off Russia, then the chances of Russia invading a NATO country would fall to almost zero. It would also substantially reduce the chances that China invades Taiwan. Those would both be very expensive to the US. Much cheaper just to give Ukraine weapons.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Those are the upsides, what are the downsides if Ukraine still loses, or gets split up like Korea, anyways? Is the net balance in favour of supplying weapons? This is the type of analysis I've not seen done yet across thousands of articles, essays, blog posts, etc...
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      I assume you mean downsides geopolitically, because the financial costs are sunk either way. There are several losing states (complete annexation, split like Korea). However, there are only two main ways Ukraine can lose. The world can stop sending free weapons or even with free weapons Ukraine is defeated. It's hard for me to think of any way that "the west stops sending weapons" is not more likely to result in Russian or Chinese aggression. Is China more emboldened by "US arms without US military personnel lost a war" or "the US can be counted on to lose interest in any conflict over 2 years"? So it doesn't matter what the downsides are[0]. It seems like no matter what, the US is better off helping Ukraine. [0] Unless Putin pushes the big red button. But that topic has been written about extensively.
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        It seems possible for the Russian decision makers to be so angered that they will want to take revenge, to spend their built up political/technological/social/cultural capital to intentionally weaken the US, EU, etc. Nuclear weapons are practically an all-or-nothing proposition, but nowadays there a lot of other ways to deliver some intermediate amount of 'revenge'. And it's a lot easier to destroy then create, as the war has shown, I estimate the asymmetry is easily 100 to 1. That is to say $1 of novichok, or whatever nasty means, can easily cause $100 worth of damage, and the combined economic size difference isn't even 20 to 1. Though I'm just spitballing the numbers here.
- InCityDreams 3y ago
  >Why do we need to give them to Ukraine? You don't have to, but I would regard it as prudent: so that the USA - and many other countries - don't become like, or part of, Russia. Think of Ukraine as being somewhat similar to Vietnam. If Ukraine falls, then Taiwan is fucked, North Korea will fuck Japan and just plain say goidbye to Europe (socialist bastards that we are).
  - scythe 3y ago
    Domino theory was false in the Vietnam War. "Contagion" didn't spread further than Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese themselves deposed the Khmer Rouge in favor of moderates due to the latter's extremism and massacres.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > Think of Ukraine as being somewhat similar to Vietnam. You mean that the invasion by America into Vietnam is similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
- VincentEvans 3y ago
  Curious, it appears it’s not as prevalent as I would expected - to see an obvious injustice and cruel atrocity being committed - and feel satisfaction seeing that the victim is getting assistance.

yasp 3y ago

Why do we need to give them to Ukraine?

bioemerl 3y ago
Because Ukraine is a democratic state/western ally being invaded by it's much bigger and meaner neighbor and will cease to exist if we do not help them defend themselves. We don't have to give them to Ukraine, but doing so generally furthers our interests.
- qbasic_forever 3y ago
  Is Ukraine actually a democracy right now? Last I read all of Zelensky's opposition parties were arrested and made illegal. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-cons...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    This a misreading. Specific pro-Russian parties were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine > On 20 March 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a ban on 11 political parties for ties with Russia: Opposition Platform — For Life, Party of Shariy, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Leftists, Derzhava, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc. Quite a few other parties remain in Parliament: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine#Political_parties_in_Parliament https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Ukraine#P... Given history - one such party helped Russia take Crimea in 2014, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Unity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Unity - that seems reasonably prudent in the pursuit of still being able to be a proper democracy in the future.
    - qbasic_forever 3y ago
      But if the people vote for a party, should they not be allowed to be in power? I mean that is the definition of democracy, right? The people in Donbas, Crimea, etc. voted for many of these claimed pro Russian parties.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        No, during a war and martial law, it’s best not to let enemy sympathizers run your government. No one gets free elections if Russia annexes you. Democracy isn’t a suicide pact; you don’t have to let Hitlers take power in a crisis. Ukrainian law provides for martial law, and their Supreme Court upheld the bans. That’s democracy functioning too.
        qbasic_forever 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - x3874 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - murkt 3y ago
      > Ukraine is a democracy the same way that Vietnam or Iraq or Kosovo are a democracy. Says who exactly? Ukraine’s democracy is by no means perfect, but it’s not an autocracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index places Ukraine much higher on the list than Iraq or Vietnam. Couldn’t find Kosovo there.
      - x3874 3y ago
        Ukraine disposed of an regularly elected president, and is instead steered now by an ex-comedian who danced for the stars.
vorpalhex 3y ago
Ukraine got invaded by a foreign power that is committing war crimes, taking territory that isn't theirs and repeatedly threatening other neighboring countries.
- x3874 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - bioemerl 3y ago
    The Russians have interests in holding a security border around themselves which extends to about a dozen American allies and trading partners Russia extends their security border to those allies and trading partners, they will almost certainly stop being so. The Russian plans don't stop at Ukraine, they extended to Moldova, Poland, and lots of other nations. Is it viable for them to do that in the long term? You never know. Right now it seems clear that the answer is no, they can barely take Ukraine so how are they going to handle Poland and the other countries when they've already expended their economic tools that could have done so? But it's generally in our better interest so make sure that they are as incapable as possible of expanding those borders. We would be fools to allow them to expand those security borders because it means losing those allies and a huge amount of trade and resources that come with them. They are either in our circle, or they are in Russia's. Russia treats these countries as former colonies, so as long as they are given freedom of choice they're going to ally themselves strongly with the west. For the relatively low price of funding Ukraine we slow down Russia's advance at worst, and we totally halt it at best. If we manage to totally halt Russian advances and equip Ukraine to be competitors for Russia, we've now got a country that has just survived a war with Russia sitting on their borders armed to the teeth and angry at them. They are literally fighting the war for us, without risking nuclear conflict. Why shouldn't we be interested in this tragedy? > You always have to take responsibility for your actions, and Ukrainians pay for these now. We aren't defending Ukraine because we are nice people, or defending them because we quite like the consequences of Ukraine's decision, and we're more than happy to support and ensure that those consequences are as minimal as possible, while ensuring the consequences of Russia's decision are as high as possible.
- 3y ago
optimalsolver 3y ago
To kill Russian invaders.
ArnoVW 3y ago
Because if we don't, Russia will show the world that might makes right. And China will take Taiwan, etc. Like peace in society, international peace exists because aggressive elements make an economic calculation, and stay calm. Once that math changes you get riots and wars. Like when the US gave stingers to the Afghani, we don't support Ukraine for moral reasons (perhaps partly) but mainly because it's in our interest.
- bioemerl 3y ago
  To be fair, might absolutely does make right in international politics still. The only reason we are even talking about Ukraine is that the Russian 3-day invasion totally failed and open up the opportunity for the west to sanction them and support Ukraine. It weren't for that fact, the ability for countries like Germany to trade oil with Russia still would have totally overridden any possibility of sanctions. And the West very frequently does not get involved in areas where terrible things are happening so long as those areas aren't really in their interests. Which doesn't justify Russia in any form shape or way. Personally, because it's individuals we aren't involved in international politics and we are still perfectly valid in criticizing Russia for being hilariously evil. And because in the world of might makes right, Russia is also losing. So it doesn't really matter. Any Russian who tries to make this argument might be correct in calling out hypocrisy, but their weak and stagnant nation lacks the might to make the right.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Because if we don't, Russia will show the world that might makes right. America has already shown that.
- chihuahua 3y ago
  The people who live in Afghanistan are called Afghans. The currency of Afghanistan is called Afghani. Afghans have said that they are annoyed that even after 20 years of U.S. presence in Afghanistan, people still aren't getting this right.
HWR_14 3y ago
If Ukraine fights off Russia, then the chances of Russia invading a NATO country would fall to almost zero. It would also substantially reduce the chances that China invades Taiwan. Those would both be very expensive to the US. Much cheaper just to give Ukraine weapons.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Those are the upsides, what are the downsides if Ukraine still loses, or gets split up like Korea, anyways? Is the net balance in favour of supplying weapons? This is the type of analysis I've not seen done yet across thousands of articles, essays, blog posts, etc...
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    I assume you mean downsides geopolitically, because the financial costs are sunk either way. There are several losing states (complete annexation, split like Korea). However, there are only two main ways Ukraine can lose. The world can stop sending free weapons or even with free weapons Ukraine is defeated. It's hard for me to think of any way that "the west stops sending weapons" is not more likely to result in Russian or Chinese aggression. Is China more emboldened by "US arms without US military personnel lost a war" or "the US can be counted on to lose interest in any conflict over 2 years"? So it doesn't matter what the downsides are[0]. It seems like no matter what, the US is better off helping Ukraine. [0] Unless Putin pushes the big red button. But that topic has been written about extensively.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      It seems possible for the Russian decision makers to be so angered that they will want to take revenge, to spend their built up political/technological/social/cultural capital to intentionally weaken the US, EU, etc. Nuclear weapons are practically an all-or-nothing proposition, but nowadays there a lot of other ways to deliver some intermediate amount of 'revenge'. And it's a lot easier to destroy then create, as the war has shown, I estimate the asymmetry is easily 100 to 1. That is to say $1 of novichok, or whatever nasty means, can easily cause $100 worth of damage, and the combined economic size difference isn't even 20 to 1. Though I'm just spitballing the numbers here.
InCityDreams 3y ago
>Why do we need to give them to Ukraine? You don't have to, but I would regard it as prudent: so that the USA - and many other countries - don't become like, or part of, Russia. Think of Ukraine as being somewhat similar to Vietnam. If Ukraine falls, then Taiwan is fucked, North Korea will fuck Japan and just plain say goidbye to Europe (socialist bastards that we are).
- scythe 3y ago
  Domino theory was false in the Vietnam War. "Contagion" didn't spread further than Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese themselves deposed the Khmer Rouge in favor of moderates due to the latter's extremism and massacres.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Think of Ukraine as being somewhat similar to Vietnam. You mean that the invasion by America into Vietnam is similar to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
VincentEvans 3y ago
Curious, it appears it’s not as prevalent as I would expected - to see an obvious injustice and cruel atrocity being committed - and feel satisfaction seeing that the victim is getting assistance.