3 ms·

> but politicians paid from my taxes should serve me first and foremost, not foreign entities That's short-sighted. I'm not trying to say here whether this cas

> but politicians paid from my taxes should serve me first and foremost, not foreign entities That's short-sighted. I'm not trying to say here whether this case was the right direction or not, but sometimes helping another country is in your longer term interest. Cases like: Do you want to spend money helping the other country or get flooded with refugees in a year? Do you want to help defend a country or face the same enemy on your ground soon? Do you want to sponsor foreign infrastructure and stimulate trade, or hand over a potential partner to start producing ammo for your enemy?

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>or get flooded with refugees in a year We already are flooded. Everyone from Ukraine who can leave (and even those who theoretically can't but have money/connections) has already moved or is trying to move to the EU. The borders are already open for them anyway. So that argument is moot. Better would be to keep Ukrainians in their country so they can keep fighting for it since they can't defend it all the way from Belgium. >Do you want to help defend a country or face the same enemy on your ground soon? What proof is there that Russia can attack NATO? If they're struggling with 1% of NATO what argument is there they'll want to face 100% of NATO.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  They can attack the Baltic states, believing (mistakenly or not) that NATO won't defend them. There aren't really proofs in geopolitics, only risks and unknowns.
- viraptor 2y ago
  I'm talking about the general case of "why spend money in a foreign country instead of locally". There's more than one example here, not everything's about straight up war and not all about Ukraine.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  > We already are flooded. Everyone... In headlines and emotions, "flooded" can be a boolean. In on-the-ground-reality - not so much. There are still lot o' millions of people in Ukraine, who'd be "eager & available" to flood westward if Russia won.
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]

FirmwareBurner 2y ago

>or get flooded with refugees in a year We already are flooded. Everyone from Ukraine who can leave (and even those who theoretically can't but have money/connections) has already moved or is trying to move to the EU. The borders are already open for them anyway. So that argument is moot. Better would be to keep Ukrainians in their country so they can keep fighting for it since they can't defend it all the way from Belgium. >Do you want to help defend a country or face the same enemy on your ground soon? What proof is there that Russia can attack NATO? If they're struggling with 1% of NATO what argument is there they'll want to face 100% of NATO.

inglor_cz 2y ago
They can attack the Baltic states, believing (mistakenly or not) that NATO won't defend them. There aren't really proofs in geopolitics, only risks and unknowns.
viraptor 2y ago
I'm talking about the general case of "why spend money in a foreign country instead of locally". There's more than one example here, not everything's about straight up war and not all about Ukraine.
bell-cot 2y ago
> We already are flooded. Everyone... In headlines and emotions, "flooded" can be a boolean. In on-the-ground-reality - not so much. There are still lot o' millions of people in Ukraine, who'd be "eager & available" to flood westward if Russia won.
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]