3 ms·

It's not just the money the US govt is spending in the US. The US and western military export industry is also getting a huge boost. Russia played a big part in

by jemmyw 2y ago

It's not just the money the US govt is spending in the US. The US and western military export industry is also getting a huge boost. Russia played a big part in exports before the war. The combination of needing to use their factories for the war in Ukraine and their equipment being demonstrably not great has decimated their export market. > There are even people who believe that the US government does not want Ukraine to win, because the war is causing so much damage to the economy of Russia. The US has absolutely, cynically, benefited from this war. It could have been stopped diplomatically, the US made no secret they believed Russia was preparing for an invasion. It was either calculated or pussyfooting, in my opinion.

r618 2y ago
> It could have been stopped diplomatically no - you have no idea what you're talking about search for VVX post invasion speech on YT - it's about an hour long - in full - the insanity is clearly on display there
- kreetx 2y ago
  Yup. You would think it can be stopped by diplomacy in the West, while this only allows mr Putin to continue to expand, and "save us from nazis".
  - jemmyw 2y ago
    I did not mean negotiation. Diplomatically can be showing force but not using it. Like publically saying if Russia invades then The US and UK will close and defend the airspace as their commitment to the Budapest agreement, while moving some forces around the area. Russia wouldn't have dared if the west had made moves they believed.
    - r618 2y ago
      moving troops to show decision/support is already not (well - just) diplomacy, though otherwise yes - on all your points above, but the current rasha leader counted exactly on lack of all of those steps - similarly as before/after annexation of crimea (and even after some limited physical display of western armed forces support would have happened that wouldn't have stopped him IMHO - this is based on extremely bad intel about overall mood towards invaders/occupiers of common ukrainians and his own mad delusion)
racional 2y ago
It could have been stopped diplomatically By agreeing to Russia's demands for a "friendly" regime to be installed in Kyiv, and that Russia be allowed to annex whatever regions of Ukraine it set its fancy on. Would you have been in favor of such a "solution"?
- jemmyw 2y ago
  No, why would you assume that? I mean diplomatically like publically saying if Russia invades then The US and UK will close and defend the airspace as their commitment to the Budapest agreement, while moving some forces around the area. Russia wouldn't have dared if the west had made moves they believed.
  - racional 2y ago
    Why would you assume that? Because in the vast majority of cases, when someone posts some version of "The US/West could have prevented this war if they wanted to" (or "It could have ended with the March 2022 negotiations") that's exactly what they mean (territorial concessions), either tacitly or explicitly. But of course I'll take your word that this wasn't the sense you were intending. As to what you're now saying: For one that doesn't like a diplomatic solution, but an overtly military one. More importantly, the Budapest Memorandum doesn't establish that the US has any "commitments" to come to the aid of any of the 3 countries (BY, UA, KZ) should they come under attack (and Russia would never have signed it if it did). It merely asks that the signatory powers respect the newly established sovereign status of these countries; to refrain from using force or economic coercion against them; and to not nuke them, please. And that the signing powers will consult each other in situations that pertain to these commitments. That's why the language was specifically chosen to read "Security Assurances" and not "Guarantees". The latter implies a commitment to some kind of a military response, like NATO's Article 5. But the former does not. You can still maintain the position that the US/UK should have done something different in 2014 or 2022 -- but the simple fact is, there was no commitment expressed in the Budapest Memorandum which required them to do so. And this is probably the main reason they ultimately did not. This, and a perfectly reasonable desire not to stumble into a direct and intrinsically risky confrontation with their main nuclear rival. Or a protracted / large-scale conflict of any kind with no clear signal of public support.
fjfaase 2y ago
How could it have been stopped diplomatically? When Russia took Crimea in 2014, the western world include the USA did nothing except for some rather symbolic sanctions. Before the invasion of 2022, not a single threat was expressed. There was nothing of threat of a closed airspace. And even now there is non such things, while almost daily Russia throws heavy glide bombs civilian building and infrastructure killing civilians on a daily basis. International companies, including many from the USA, are still free to operate in Russia and serve the wealthy in Moscow. [1] [1] https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies

by jemmyw 2y ago

r618 2y ago

> It could have been stopped diplomatically no - you have no idea what you're talking about search for VVX post invasion speech on YT - it's about an hour long - in full - the insanity is clearly on display there

kreetx 2y ago
Yup. You would think it can be stopped by diplomacy in the West, while this only allows mr Putin to continue to expand, and "save us from nazis".
- jemmyw 2y ago
  I did not mean negotiation. Diplomatically can be showing force but not using it. Like publically saying if Russia invades then The US and UK will close and defend the airspace as their commitment to the Budapest agreement, while moving some forces around the area. Russia wouldn't have dared if the west had made moves they believed.
  - r618 2y ago
    moving troops to show decision/support is already not (well - just) diplomacy, though otherwise yes - on all your points above, but the current rasha leader counted exactly on lack of all of those steps - similarly as before/after annexation of crimea (and even after some limited physical display of western armed forces support would have happened that wouldn't have stopped him IMHO - this is based on extremely bad intel about overall mood towards invaders/occupiers of common ukrainians and his own mad delusion)

racional 2y ago

It could have been stopped diplomatically By agreeing to Russia's demands for a "friendly" regime to be installed in Kyiv, and that Russia be allowed to annex whatever regions of Ukraine it set its fancy on. Would you have been in favor of such a "solution"?

jemmyw 2y ago
No, why would you assume that? I mean diplomatically like publically saying if Russia invades then The US and UK will close and defend the airspace as their commitment to the Budapest agreement, while moving some forces around the area. Russia wouldn't have dared if the west had made moves they believed.
- racional 2y ago
  Why would you assume that? Because in the vast majority of cases, when someone posts some version of "The US/West could have prevented this war if they wanted to" (or "It could have ended with the March 2022 negotiations") that's exactly what they mean (territorial concessions), either tacitly or explicitly. But of course I'll take your word that this wasn't the sense you were intending. As to what you're now saying: For one that doesn't like a diplomatic solution, but an overtly military one. More importantly, the Budapest Memorandum doesn't establish that the US has any "commitments" to come to the aid of any of the 3 countries (BY, UA, KZ) should they come under attack (and Russia would never have signed it if it did). It merely asks that the signatory powers respect the newly established sovereign status of these countries; to refrain from using force or economic coercion against them; and to not nuke them, please. And that the signing powers will consult each other in situations that pertain to these commitments. That's why the language was specifically chosen to read "Security Assurances" and not "Guarantees". The latter implies a commitment to some kind of a military response, like NATO's Article 5. But the former does not. You can still maintain the position that the US/UK should have done something different in 2014 or 2022 -- but the simple fact is, there was no commitment expressed in the Budapest Memorandum which required them to do so. And this is probably the main reason they ultimately did not. This, and a perfectly reasonable desire not to stumble into a direct and intrinsically risky confrontation with their main nuclear rival. Or a protracted / large-scale conflict of any kind with no clear signal of public support.

fjfaase 2y ago

How could it have been stopped diplomatically? When Russia took Crimea in 2014, the western world include the USA did nothing except for some rather symbolic sanctions. Before the invasion of 2022, not a single threat was expressed. There was nothing of threat of a closed airspace. And even now there is non such things, while almost daily Russia throws heavy glide bombs civilian building and infrastructure killing civilians on a daily basis. International companies, including many from the USA, are still free to operate in Russia and serve the wealthy in Moscow. [1] [1] https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies https://leave-russia.org/staying-companies