3 ms·

The claim you're making is ludicrous. We don't show strength by giving away all of our resources on pointless conflicts that don't involve us. Even if the USSR

The claim you're making is ludicrous. We don't show strength by giving away all of our resources on pointless conflicts that don't involve us. Even if the USSR was as nice as you pretend, Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and is being just as hostile to American interests.

jonathanstrange 2y ago
Then your government needs to shut up instead of undermining the efforts of the rest of the free world to save Ukraine. However, it is worth noting that from a geopolitical perspective you're the one who is ludicrous.
- soerxpso 2y ago
  That's literally what we're doing. Zelensky came to beg for more money, and we're shutting up. I don't really care if Europeans want to go die pointlessly on the frontlines for some reason.
  - jonathanstrange 2y ago
    No, unfortunately you're not shutting up. Your government is currently pursuing a crazy pro Russia agenda.
zeroCalories 2y ago
We're not giving away all our resources lmao. Support for Ukraine is a relatively small part of our budget and gdp. In return for this we get to significantly weaken and discourage our enemies. For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more. Iran and China's imperialist ambitions are crushed. And none of our people even needed to die for it. You're either a fool or an enemy if you don't see why we should support Ukraine.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more It also can't be stated enough when dollar amounts are talked about... Much of the value sent to Ukraine was equipment that was already purchased and was warehoused. In a sense, that cost us nothing. Some of that equipment was already slated for replacement. The equipment that will need to be repurchased is primarily purchased from American companies. So it burns me up when people talk about how we sent $XYZ billion dollars of aid to Ukraine without understanding that the real cost to America was far far far less.
zuppy 2y ago
oh, that’s nice. tell me what country was the only one who invoked article 5 of the nato treaty? and which countries helped them? and now the the situation has reversed what does that country do?
inglor_cz 2y ago
"Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and is being just as hostile to American interests." What does that even mean ... ? The former Soviet Bloc was under the yoke of the central committee in Moscow. The people involved had no say in the politics of the central committee, they were coerced. But once its power failed, the newly free countries mostly turned their backs on Russia in a hurry. Only Belarus stayed in the orbit. Contemporary Ukraine (or Lithuania, or Georgia) is not hostile to the US in any meaningful sense.
JohnBooty 2y ago
giving away all of our resources You think $100-$200bn is "all of our resources?" I realize you're not being literal, but it's more like "less than 1% of our resources." https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-the-military/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o Reliable estimates put our total spend (over 3+ years) as $120-$180bn. The annual US military budget, $820bn (13% of the total government budget) or more like $2.4 trillion during that timespan. But even that purported $100-$200bn spend perhaps overstates the cost. Some was cash, some was equipment. The equipment sent their way was already bought and paid for. Much of it was later in its lifespan. And the US military obviously buys American whenever feasible, so money spent replacing that equipment stays in America. So the amount of money "spent" by America on this venture is highly debatable, with the real number being lower than those $100-$200bn totals. We don't show strength by blah blah blah Really? Because Russia looked weak as hell there, unable to conquer a small country that is using a fraction of our old stuff (and a hell of a lot of heart and ingenuity) that was gathering dust in warehouses. It certainly made it clear that in conventional warfare the distance between our two countries is rather vast. pointless conflicts that don't involve us I mean, people definitely said that when Germany invaded Poland. We shouldn't get involved in every conflict but we also should not ignore every conflict. I don't think Russia is trying to conquer Europe, but they are the single largest power and they have proven to be a highly destabilizing force.

jonathanstrange 2y ago

Then your government needs to shut up instead of undermining the efforts of the rest of the free world to save Ukraine. However, it is worth noting that from a geopolitical perspective you're the one who is ludicrous.

soerxpso 2y ago
That's literally what we're doing. Zelensky came to beg for more money, and we're shutting up. I don't really care if Europeans want to go die pointlessly on the frontlines for some reason.
- jonathanstrange 2y ago
  No, unfortunately you're not shutting up. Your government is currently pursuing a crazy pro Russia agenda.

zeroCalories 2y ago

We're not giving away all our resources lmao. Support for Ukraine is a relatively small part of our budget and gdp. In return for this we get to significantly weaken and discourage our enemies. For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more. Iran and China's imperialist ambitions are crushed. And none of our people even needed to die for it. You're either a fool or an enemy if you don't see why we should support Ukraine.

JohnBooty 2y ago
For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more It also can't be stated enough when dollar amounts are talked about... Much of the value sent to Ukraine was equipment that was already purchased and was warehoused. In a sense, that cost us nothing. Some of that equipment was already slated for replacement. The equipment that will need to be repurchased is primarily purchased from American companies. So it burns me up when people talk about how we sent $XYZ billion dollars of aid to Ukraine without understanding that the real cost to America was far far far less.

zuppy 2y ago

oh, that’s nice. tell me what country was the only one who invoked article 5 of the nato treaty? and which countries helped them? and now the the situation has reversed what does that country do?

inglor_cz 2y ago

"Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and is being just as hostile to American interests." What does that even mean ... ? The former Soviet Bloc was under the yoke of the central committee in Moscow. The people involved had no say in the politics of the central committee, they were coerced. But once its power failed, the newly free countries mostly turned their backs on Russia in a hurry. Only Belarus stayed in the orbit. Contemporary Ukraine (or Lithuania, or Georgia) is not hostile to the US in any meaningful sense.

JohnBooty 2y ago

giving away all of our resources You think $100-$200bn is "all of our resources?" I realize you're not being literal, but it's more like "less than 1% of our resources." https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-the-military/ https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o Reliable estimates put our total spend (over 3+ years) as $120-$180bn. The annual US military budget, $820bn (13% of the total government budget) or more like $2.4 trillion during that timespan. But even that purported $100-$200bn spend perhaps overstates the cost. Some was cash, some was equipment. The equipment sent their way was already bought and paid for. Much of it was later in its lifespan. And the US military obviously buys American whenever feasible, so money spent replacing that equipment stays in America. So the amount of money "spent" by America on this venture is highly debatable, with the real number being lower than those $100-$200bn totals. We don't show strength by blah blah blah Really? Because Russia looked weak as hell there, unable to conquer a small country that is using a fraction of our old stuff (and a hell of a lot of heart and ingenuity) that was gathering dust in warehouses. It certainly made it clear that in conventional warfare the distance between our two countries is rather vast. pointless conflicts that don't involve us I mean, people definitely said that when Germany invaded Poland. We shouldn't get involved in every conflict but we also should not ignore every conflict. I don't think Russia is trying to conquer Europe, but they are the single largest power and they have proven to be a highly destabilizing force.