3 ms·

Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe?

krige 2y ago
Weaning Europe off Russian energy supply used to be seen as a strategic goal for US, and Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  > Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply? Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
  - krige 2y ago
    Eastern bits of Ukraine have very large untapped stores of hydrocarbons. It is unknown what exactly were/are the goals for the ongoing invasion (assuming there are any plausible ones in the first place) but one of the more reasonable guesses is denying Ukraine access to those stores in order to maintain russian supremacy in providing cheap gas and oil to Germany etc. both as a source of revenue and a political tool.
mopsi 2y ago
> Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest. US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.) The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more? It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other. I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time? European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.
- tkdg1257 2y ago
  Yes, Ukraine can fulfill the role of West Germany during the cold war. That means we have to stop the hot war, which just gets people killed and has caused at least 10 million refugees all over Europe. So, like Germany, it can give up territories in the East for practical reasons. The fortifications need to be build, the borders need to be secured and Ukraine has to be armed. Ukraine can then live well like Germany and Austria (not in NATO) during the cold war. Continuing the hot war is insane.
  - aredox 2y ago
    And Ukraine gets to keep the Russian territories it holds? And also Ukraine gets under a Nuclear umbrella? The US was already supposed to protect Ukraine's borders according to the Budapest memorandum. What proof do you have the US will now commit to protect Ukraine like it protected West Germany during the Cold War?
  - AtlasBarfed 2y ago
    Refugees is another way of saying "demographic infusion". Europe is in such desperate need of immigration to offset their population decline. And Russians/Ukrainians are generally a lot better at integrating that Middle Eastern muslims or Africans because of the religious divide. In the short run if I was the EU I would send troops to comprehensively defeat the Russians in Ukraine, including taking Crimea back, and then take Belarus. The westernization of Belarus and Ukraine would make a mighty wall of defense against Russia and allow the EU to wait out the fall of Putin and the massive chaos it will cause.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - hollerith 2y ago
      Poland and Romania also make a mighty wall of defense against Russia without causing an expected tens of millions of deaths like your plan would cause. Till the invasion of Ukraine, I did not know so many people were so eager to kill young men and civilians.
m000 2y ago
> Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It's primarily the American MIC. And following a peace deal, the American companies that will do the "reconstruction" of the country.
aredox 2y ago
>Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Do you want to have nuclear proliferation? Because if countries can redraw borders by brute force, then nukes are necessary for every state that want to survive.
- tayo42 2y ago
  I feel like almost no one understands this. The US Russia and few other countries made an agreement with Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons. This just demonstrates to every country to get your nuclear weapons to protect your self, each country is on its own.
- throw0101a 2y ago
  > Do you want to have nuclear proliferation? "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately": * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-need https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n... Originally posted last year, but re-upped now due to the new US stance to Ukraine/Russia and Poland may wish to consider things more seriously.
throw0101a 2y ago
> It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe? All the money that the US sent "to Ukraine" has actually mostly gone to US defence manufacturers that are building weapon systems and ammunition to shoot at Russia. This resurgence in defence building is a primary benefit to the US as it has been a convenient excuse to get is procurement act together against the larger threat of China.
pjc50 2y ago
The first answer is "the Ukranians". The second answer is all the bordering states; support for the war is extremely high there, as they understand they might be next. This is particularly true in countries that were occupied by Russia in the last century. In these places there is lots of grassroots suppport like the Radarom campaign. https://radarom.lrt.lt/en https://radarom.lrt.lt/en

krige 2y ago

Weaning Europe off Russian energy supply used to be seen as a strategic goal for US, and Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas.

ChocolateGod 2y ago
> Ukraine could have done just that with what was in the occupied areas Didn't Ukraine switch to Europe as it's energy supply? Imho the Russian invasion pushing Europe to secure its energy supply has been a positive impact from the war.
- krige 2y ago
  Eastern bits of Ukraine have very large untapped stores of hydrocarbons. It is unknown what exactly were/are the goals for the ongoing invasion (assuming there are any plausible ones in the first place) but one of the more reasonable guesses is denying Ukraine access to those stores in order to maintain russian supremacy in providing cheap gas and oil to Germany etc. both as a source of revenue and a political tool.

mopsi 2y ago

> Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Everyone who values peace and cooperation over war and conquest. US military spending is currently at a historic low, at 2.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP). During the Cold War, military spending never fell below 4.5%. Chart: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... As of 2024, 1% of US GDP equals approximately 290 billion dollars per year. A return to Cold War era baseline would mean 1.8% increase or about 520 billion more spent on the military each year. (Probably even more, since the US entered the Cold War with a massive WWII-era army and the industry to support it. The US isn't currently capable of producing a new main battle tank every 20 minutes like back then.) The US has spent 120 billion in all forms of aid (military, financial, humanitarian) to Ukraine over three years. That's 40 billion dollars per year on average. Why would anyone throw away the current support for Ukraine that effectively keeps Russia in check, only to replace it with renewed Cold War standoff in the middle of Europe that is bound to cost at least ten times more? It's as if some people have fallen into collective amnesia and forgotten what the world looked like just 40 years ago. Germany was split in half by barbed wire and minefields, and civilians were gunned down from machine gun nests if they tried to flee from totalitarian oppression in East Germany to the free West Germany. Along the border that separated free people of Europe from those under Moscow-controlled dictatorships, massive armies stood facing each other. I understand why Putin wants it all back. This was the world he was born into, the system he grew up with and indoctrinated into at the KGB. These were the glory days of the Russian empire of his time. But why on earth would any European or American want to turn back time? European countries closest to Russia have already started increasing military spending to about 5%, and even countries as far west as France have floated the same idea. With the return of Cold War era threats that the sitting American president is cheerleading, it's just inevitable.

tkdg1257 2y ago
Yes, Ukraine can fulfill the role of West Germany during the cold war. That means we have to stop the hot war, which just gets people killed and has caused at least 10 million refugees all over Europe. So, like Germany, it can give up territories in the East for practical reasons. The fortifications need to be build, the borders need to be secured and Ukraine has to be armed. Ukraine can then live well like Germany and Austria (not in NATO) during the cold war. Continuing the hot war is insane.
- aredox 2y ago
  And Ukraine gets to keep the Russian territories it holds? And also Ukraine gets under a Nuclear umbrella? The US was already supposed to protect Ukraine's borders according to the Budapest memorandum. What proof do you have the US will now commit to protect Ukraine like it protected West Germany during the Cold War?
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  Refugees is another way of saying "demographic infusion". Europe is in such desperate need of immigration to offset their population decline. And Russians/Ukrainians are generally a lot better at integrating that Middle Eastern muslims or Africans because of the religious divide. In the short run if I was the EU I would send troops to comprehensively defeat the Russians in Ukraine, including taking Crimea back, and then take Belarus. The westernization of Belarus and Ukraine would make a mighty wall of defense against Russia and allow the EU to wait out the fall of Putin and the massive chaos it will cause.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Poland and Romania also make a mighty wall of defense against Russia without causing an expected tens of millions of deaths like your plan would cause. Till the invasion of Ukraine, I did not know so many people were so eager to kill young men and civilians.

m000 2y ago

> Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? It's primarily the American MIC. And following a peace deal, the American companies that will do the "reconstruction" of the country.

aredox 2y ago

>Who benefits from the defense of Ukraine? Do you want to have nuclear proliferation? Because if countries can redraw borders by brute force, then nukes are necessary for every state that want to survive.

tayo42 2y ago
I feel like almost no one understands this. The US Russia and few other countries made an agreement with Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons. This just demonstrates to every country to get your nuclear weapons to protect your self, each country is on its own.
throw0101a 2y ago
> Do you want to have nuclear proliferation? "Japan, South Korea, and Poland need nuclear weapons immediately": * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-need https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/japan-south-korea-and-poland-n... Originally posted last year, but re-upped now due to the new US stance to Ukraine/Russia and Poland may wish to consider things more seriously.

throw0101a 2y ago

> It seems to me that both the US and Europe see some benefits, but it's primarily Europe? All the money that the US sent "to Ukraine" has actually mostly gone to US defence manufacturers that are building weapon systems and ammunition to shoot at Russia. This resurgence in defence building is a primary benefit to the US as it has been a convenient excuse to get is procurement act together against the larger threat of China.

pjc50 2y ago

The first answer is "the Ukranians". The second answer is all the bordering states; support for the war is extremely high there, as they understand they might be next. This is particularly true in countries that were occupied by Russia in the last century. In these places there is lots of grassroots suppport like the Radarom campaign. https://radarom.lrt.lt/en https://radarom.lrt.lt/en