6 ms·

We’ve heavily weakened a global rival and with no losses to our own people. Any large power’s military would love to beat their enemies like this. We also got

by lovich 3y ago

We’ve heavily weakened a global rival and with no losses to our own people. Any large power’s military would love to beat their enemies like this. We also got a sent a lot of this aid in the form of old hardware we had rotting in yards and getting our allies to send their old Soviet systems to Ukraine which they are replacing by buying American weapon platforms which is juicing our economy and giving us more negotiating leverage over those allies. How could you actually believe we’ve gotten nothing out of it?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I dont think that weakening our rival and escalating hostilities is actually in the US or global interests, and I dont think 500K casualties and 6 million refugees is worth the price. Eastward expansion of NATO does little to advance western security, increases the chance of more hostility, and brings us closer to MAD. Finally, we arent "Juicing" our economy by spending our own money to bomb Ukraine and kill some slavs. It generates no lasting growth and leaves debt.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  How exactly is providing support for the defence of a country being invaded by another “escalating hostilities”?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    not sure how to answer that. Funding Ukraine and giving them weapons is obviously more hostile position towards Russia than just about every other option besides going to war.
    - lovich 3y ago
      You’re going to have lay out a strong argument here if you want anyone to believe that ignoring the situation would lead to less hostility. We ignored russias land grabs Georgia which was followed up by Crimea being taken. We ignored that and it was followed up by a full scale invasion into Ukraine. The idea that we are at fault for the hostility here and, separately, that we should have stayed out of it is ridiculous
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I dont think you understand what I am saying. I am talking about US-Russian relations and hostilities between US and Russia.
        lovich 3y ago
        If we want to be frank, I think you’re being disingenuous by talking about hostilities between nations while referencing Ukraine and then walking it back to USA-Russia relations. I think you’re either using a motte and Bailey fallacy or you’re so pro Russia you are discounting Ukraine as a state with agency. Feel free to prove me wrong by laying out a solid argument but right now everything you’ve posted seems like it’s not reliable
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I dont think there is anything disingenuous in prioritizing US-Russia relations more and US-Ukraine relations less. Ukraine has 100% agency, but that is independent of US support. The US has agency too. I hear this ignored a lot with respect to NATO. The US can unilaterally deny any country entry- all it takes is a vote - but people in this thread act like it is helpless and has no control over admittance.
        lovich 3y ago
        Ok, well taking you at face value, Russia opposes us on a global stage and Ukraine is trying to align with us as an ally. Why the fuck would we not back up Ukraine against Russian in this situation then, other than for the fact that Russia is threatening massive damage to us? That is a reasonable enough question to pause on, but if Russia is threatening that for land gains in opposition to values we support(democracies) then we might as well roll over and show our bellies. We have a significantly stronger military and capitulating to their threats is a net negative to us in both the short and long term. If someone threatens to kill you unless they get everything they want, you either need to decide to live with them as your master or call their bluff
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      It's a far less hostile position toward Ukraine, though.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        absolutely.
    - CogitoCogito 3y ago
      By that argument, why doesn't the US just join the war with Russia against Ukraine? Anyway I think I'll avoid getting sucked into this. I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position.
      - ultimafan 3y ago
        >I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position. To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. It's a country directly in their backyard so the threat (real or imaginary) is much more magnified than say, if this was a proxy war on the other side of the world. Their problems with Ukraine are closer and more real to them there than they are here halfway across the globe to us in the US now. In their eyes we are going actively out of the way to meddle in affairs that they perceive as being indirectly hostile towards them. Maybe when someone claims this is an act of hostility, they might mean that this opens up the standard to reciprocal action further down the line? Say, the possibility of the next boots on the ground conflict the US finds themselves involved in seeing the enemy side funded and equipped by the Russians by weapons we've seen to be not ineffective in modern warfare, when in a climate with better relations they'd have chosen not to do so. We'd probably still "win" by whatever metric we set but it'd undoubtedly lead to more loss of US lives than it could have otherwise, and they could hide behind the moral defense of "supplying an underdog with arms, equipment, training, and military intelligence in someone else's backyard is not an act of hostility."
        mopsi 3y ago
        > To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But instead of solidifying peace, bowing in to Russian demands only encouraged Russia to go further. They invaded Georgia the same year, and parts of Ukraine six years later, and attempted a full take-over of Ukraine in 2022, sparking the largest war in Europe since Hitler. What lesson does it teach?
- cafard 3y ago
  What would be the status of those six million refugees (not to mention those who haven't left) under the Russian regime?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That depends on the alternate history we are imagining.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > I dont think 500K casualties and 6 million refugees is worth the price. The people actually being invaded think it's worth fighting and dying to keep their country. It's not for you to say it's not. I mean, you sound all humanitarian and everything, but it's also quite paternalistic. > Eastward expansion of NATO does little to advance western security Compared to what? Compared to letting Russia roll over countries one by one, countries that want to be our friends, countries who would become hostile to us? Is that going to advance western security? > increases the chance of more hostility Russia's going to invade Finland because they joined NATO? Yes, they've talked about it. But their hands are a bit full right now, and they have no ability to conduct such an operation against all of NATO. And why are these countries wanting to join NATO? Because they are already threatened by Russia. The more Russia attacks places like Georgia and Ukraine, the more other countries on Russia's border decide they need allies. So NATO membership decreases the chance of more hostility, because Russia is not eager to get into a shooting war with NATO. > and brings us closer to MAD. Russia's going to go nuclear as part of invading Finland? No way.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    >The people actually being invaded think it's worth fighting and dying to keep their country. It's not for you to say it's not. I mean, you sound all humanitarian and everything, but it's also quite paternalistic. They can fight and die all they want. Im not making any claims what they should or should do. Im making claims about what I want to support or be a part of. >Compared to what? Compared to letting Russia roll over countries one by one, countries that want to be our friends, countries who would become hostile to us? Is that going to advance western security? I think my ideal would be a demilitarized boarder countries, and a joint agreement against expansion or military funding for those countries.
- brnt 3y ago
  NATO doesn't expand eastwards any more than my bookclub. Stop attributing agency where there is none. Free and independent countries, formerly under Soviet occupation, freely and voluntarily are signing up for NATO.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I dont really understand the confusion. There is agency in accepting members or not. Do you let anyone in your bookclub? How about your house? Even NATO's open door policy is a choice. Doubly so when NATO provides weapons, funds, and training to non-NATO States.
    - brnt 3y ago
      The rules for NATO membership didn't change, they were what they always were. 'Expansion' implies that is a goal. It simply isn't. The goal of the book club isn't to become large either, it is simply to share an interest in books. Better question is why every single former occupied country wants to sign up. It is not a complicated answer.
  - sn0wf1re 3y ago
    "Signing up for NATO" aka blackmailing their way into NATO in Poland's case. They really wanted into NATO. There wasn't an eastward expansion from NATO, the east came to NATO.
    - brnt 3y ago
      It doesn't require much study of that part of Europe's history to understand and fully agree that joining NATO is a precondition for any kind of long term national security for these countries. When things get existential, you will cut any corner you can.
      - sn0wf1re 3y ago
        Yeah, if I was polish I would be pro-(whatever would save me from Russia).

by lovich 3y ago

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I dont think that weakening our rival and escalating hostilities is actually in the US or global interests, and I dont think 500K casualties and 6 million refugees is worth the price. Eastward expansion of NATO does little to advance western security, increases the chance of more hostility, and brings us closer to MAD. Finally, we arent "Juicing" our economy by spending our own money to bomb Ukraine and kill some slavs. It generates no lasting growth and leaves debt.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
How exactly is providing support for the defence of a country being invaded by another “escalating hostilities”?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  not sure how to answer that. Funding Ukraine and giving them weapons is obviously more hostile position towards Russia than just about every other option besides going to war.
  - lovich 3y ago
    You’re going to have lay out a strong argument here if you want anyone to believe that ignoring the situation would lead to less hostility. We ignored russias land grabs Georgia which was followed up by Crimea being taken. We ignored that and it was followed up by a full scale invasion into Ukraine. The idea that we are at fault for the hostility here and, separately, that we should have stayed out of it is ridiculous
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I dont think you understand what I am saying. I am talking about US-Russian relations and hostilities between US and Russia.
      - lovich 3y ago
        If we want to be frank, I think you’re being disingenuous by talking about hostilities between nations while referencing Ukraine and then walking it back to USA-Russia relations. I think you’re either using a motte and Bailey fallacy or you’re so pro Russia you are discounting Ukraine as a state with agency. Feel free to prove me wrong by laying out a solid argument but right now everything you’ve posted seems like it’s not reliable
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I dont think there is anything disingenuous in prioritizing US-Russia relations more and US-Ukraine relations less. Ukraine has 100% agency, but that is independent of US support. The US has agency too. I hear this ignored a lot with respect to NATO. The US can unilaterally deny any country entry- all it takes is a vote - but people in this thread act like it is helpless and has no control over admittance.
        lovich 3y ago
        Ok, well taking you at face value, Russia opposes us on a global stage and Ukraine is trying to align with us as an ally. Why the fuck would we not back up Ukraine against Russian in this situation then, other than for the fact that Russia is threatening massive damage to us? That is a reasonable enough question to pause on, but if Russia is threatening that for land gains in opposition to values we support(democracies) then we might as well roll over and show our bellies. We have a significantly stronger military and capitulating to their threats is a net negative to us in both the short and long term. If someone threatens to kill you unless they get everything they want, you either need to decide to live with them as your master or call their bluff
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    It's a far less hostile position toward Ukraine, though.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      absolutely.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    By that argument, why doesn't the US just join the war with Russia against Ukraine? Anyway I think I'll avoid getting sucked into this. I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position.
    - ultimafan 3y ago
      >I just find it incredible that there are people who actually believe that helping a country in their own defense could actually be an act of hostility. It's really such a nonsensical position. To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. It's a country directly in their backyard so the threat (real or imaginary) is much more magnified than say, if this was a proxy war on the other side of the world. Their problems with Ukraine are closer and more real to them there than they are here halfway across the globe to us in the US now. In their eyes we are going actively out of the way to meddle in affairs that they perceive as being indirectly hostile towards them. Maybe when someone claims this is an act of hostility, they might mean that this opens up the standard to reciprocal action further down the line? Say, the possibility of the next boots on the ground conflict the US finds themselves involved in seeing the enemy side funded and equipped by the Russians by weapons we've seen to be not ineffective in modern warfare, when in a climate with better relations they'd have chosen not to do so. We'd probably still "win" by whatever metric we set but it'd undoubtedly lead to more loss of US lives than it could have otherwise, and they could hide behind the moral defense of "supplying an underdog with arms, equipment, training, and military intelligence in someone else's backyard is not an act of hostility."
      - mopsi 3y ago
        > To play devil's advocate and look at it from the other side of the fence, how someone might reason- Russia + some prominent figureheads in the West have told us over the last two decades that a Western aligned Ukraine is a red line for them and not something they would tolerate lightly. Devil's advocates tend to glance over the fact that these red lines were respected at the time and Ukraine nor Georgia were offered any closer integration with the EU and NATO. But instead of solidifying peace, bowing in to Russian demands only encouraged Russia to go further. They invaded Georgia the same year, and parts of Ukraine six years later, and attempted a full take-over of Ukraine in 2022, sparking the largest war in Europe since Hitler. What lesson does it teach?
cafard 3y ago
What would be the status of those six million refugees (not to mention those who haven't left) under the Russian regime?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That depends on the alternate history we are imagining.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> I dont think 500K casualties and 6 million refugees is worth the price. The people actually being invaded think it's worth fighting and dying to keep their country. It's not for you to say it's not. I mean, you sound all humanitarian and everything, but it's also quite paternalistic. > Eastward expansion of NATO does little to advance western security Compared to what? Compared to letting Russia roll over countries one by one, countries that want to be our friends, countries who would become hostile to us? Is that going to advance western security? > increases the chance of more hostility Russia's going to invade Finland because they joined NATO? Yes, they've talked about it. But their hands are a bit full right now, and they have no ability to conduct such an operation against all of NATO. And why are these countries wanting to join NATO? Because they are already threatened by Russia. The more Russia attacks places like Georgia and Ukraine, the more other countries on Russia's border decide they need allies. So NATO membership decreases the chance of more hostility, because Russia is not eager to get into a shooting war with NATO. > and brings us closer to MAD. Russia's going to go nuclear as part of invading Finland? No way.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >The people actually being invaded think it's worth fighting and dying to keep their country. It's not for you to say it's not. I mean, you sound all humanitarian and everything, but it's also quite paternalistic. They can fight and die all they want. Im not making any claims what they should or should do. Im making claims about what I want to support or be a part of. >Compared to what? Compared to letting Russia roll over countries one by one, countries that want to be our friends, countries who would become hostile to us? Is that going to advance western security? I think my ideal would be a demilitarized boarder countries, and a joint agreement against expansion or military funding for those countries.
brnt 3y ago
NATO doesn't expand eastwards any more than my bookclub. Stop attributing agency where there is none. Free and independent countries, formerly under Soviet occupation, freely and voluntarily are signing up for NATO.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I dont really understand the confusion. There is agency in accepting members or not. Do you let anyone in your bookclub? How about your house? Even NATO's open door policy is a choice. Doubly so when NATO provides weapons, funds, and training to non-NATO States.
  - brnt 3y ago
    The rules for NATO membership didn't change, they were what they always were. 'Expansion' implies that is a goal. It simply isn't. The goal of the book club isn't to become large either, it is simply to share an interest in books. Better question is why every single former occupied country wants to sign up. It is not a complicated answer.
- sn0wf1re 3y ago
  "Signing up for NATO" aka blackmailing their way into NATO in Poland's case. They really wanted into NATO. There wasn't an eastward expansion from NATO, the east came to NATO.
  - brnt 3y ago
    It doesn't require much study of that part of Europe's history to understand and fully agree that joining NATO is a precondition for any kind of long term national security for these countries. When things get existential, you will cut any corner you can.
    - sn0wf1re 3y ago
      Yeah, if I was polish I would be pro-(whatever would save me from Russia).