6 ms·

I really don't understand this take, any other European country could fund the Ukraine war to continue. The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is

I really don't understand this take, any other European country could fund the Ukraine war to continue. The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get. Plus it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing.

coffeemug 2y ago
It isn't about funding. It's about denigrating our allies and attacking the victim of aggression, while praising our adversaries and aggressors. Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter.
- pdpi 2y ago
  > Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter. Realpolitik is, first and foremost, about (arguably ruthless) pragmatism. What's going on — the US antagonising all its allies and forging new alliances with unreliable partners —— is not pragmatic in the least.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
earthnail 2y ago
The US is undermining the very institutions it built, like the UN, and the rule based world order. That’s what the outcry is about. As of today, the US is no longer the leader of the free world. The economic impact for the US in the long run will be significant. Trust is hard to build but easy to destroy.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  The behaviour makes them at best a laughing stock but at worst a liability. Who wants to keep their money in the US anymore? Trump could announce next week he's freezing all European assets to fund his annexation Greenland.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Swenrekcah 2y ago
The US did nothing but benefit from the war really. So any talk about ending support being in the United States' interest is a serious misreading of the situation. The US was sending old equipment. To replace it they were and spending money on R&D and manufacturing of current and next-gen equipment for the US military, not Ukraine. The US got to observe and study the use of it's older equipment in an actual land war against a geopolitical adversary. The war has demonstrated US equipment superiority over Russian equipment. The US did not send any troops, only old equipment and some money. Regarding "hopes to end the killing". The killing can end today if Putin withdraws. He is the aggressor who attacked without any justification or provocation. If somebody invades your neighbour's apartment and starts looting and hurting them, do you just say "give up, it's easier"? Some might but those are not people we respect.
- dmix 2y ago
  The US and the west as a whole are already a very big winner for the war and it was 100% worth the investment. But for how long should it continue? Ignoring Trump's terrible negotiation strategy I still think there's value in some sort of ceasefire. Continuing a brutal stalemate is not something we should take lightly just to burn through a few more Russian tanks. It's mostly just T-60s and cheap Iranian drones left anyway. They've been thoroughly embarrassed. The history of war is full of unhappy truces and compromise. WW2 type victories are extremely rare and take massive sacrifice.
  - Swenrekcah 2y ago
    Of course, but it is extraordinarily optimistic, naive even, to think that freezing the conflict now without any security guarantees for Ukraine is anything but a gift to Russia, who will turn to preparing the next invasion. And keep in mind, we're not doing the sacrificing. It is Ukraine who is doing the fighting and should be calling the shots here, with our material support since we don't want to send troops (until now).
    - dmix 2y ago
      > freezing the conflict now without any security guarantees for Ukraine From what I've read I think the only plan put forward is to have Europeans run the DMZ? The US having troops there would probably be a no-go since that's the primary power-conflict (even above NATO). I don't think there's any other option as historically there's always a third party regulating it. Maybe a subset of UN where possibly even China could have troops there. Not sure what guarantees would exist for breaking the ceasefire though, besides the usual full sanctions/weapons/maybe troops. Who knows what happens now though :/
2thumbsup 2y ago
Not just does the US no longer want to support Ukraine, it is basically siding with Russia by not taking a stand and criticising Ukraine. It’s neglecting the interests of it’s ally by only including Russia in negotiations. On top of it all, it’s extorting Ukraine into giving up it’s minerals while giving no assurances in return. And finally, most important for long term, it’s a complete policy reversal to its NATO allies, which will have a long term impact on US transatlantic relations for decades to come. Before, US was the only country to invoke Article 5. Now its recognising a weak moments for its allies and is exploiting that opportunity.
openasocket 2y ago
Europe doesn’t have the resources in a lot of cases. To start, a lot of what the US gave isn’t cash, it’s old equipment that was in long term storage. You can’t just place an order for 100 infantry fighting vehicles and get them in a month. For other forms of equipment, the US has a ton of industrial capacity that Europe simply can’t make up for. > it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing. There is currently no funding for Ukraine from the US. Trump has dangled offers of assistance “with conditions” but nothing concrete. Even this minerals deal didn’t actually include any security assistance or funding for weapons.
NalNezumi 2y ago
Maybe I can't expect an answer from you but maybe someone that agree with your comment can clarify for me: Why did suddenly "end the killing" become a talking point for the people supporting this/Trump? "End the Killing of *american soldiers*(outside US)" seems like an consistent message but when this group didn't give 2 shits about Iraqi, Afgani, Vietnam, Libya, Syria, and even essentially justify warcrimes and killings, how can the movement stay morally consistent to "Oh we are doing this to save Ukrainean life" as a slogan? "We don't want to spend our money on other nationals, but we are ok in having colonies or natural resource exploitation at your expense" is the only sensible interpretation of current presidents behavior. A stance that seems pretty aligned with every war since 9/11, just more explicit and any pretense such as "spreading democracy" or "WMD", and less willing to commit (american lives) for profit. Wasn't support for Trump against deepstate and all this "benefiting deepstate at the expense of the common people" wars? Why can't the movement just own up to it all.
- aeternum 2y ago
  I think many were also against those wars. I would prefer much more surgical strikes rather than war, ultimately those special ops were the ones that were successful against those involved in 9/11. There also was no forced conscription in those. The military members knew what they were getting into and made a choice to sign up anyway. That's no longer the case in Ukraine, the border is closed, citizens cannot leave, they are being rounded up and forced into a few weeks of bootcamp then to the front-lines to die. That's the antithesis of freedom.
rurp 2y ago
We are burning generations of alliances, goodwill, and our own enormously successful system of government for what? Absolutely nothing. Our entire country is being sold out so a few corrupt billionaires can make out like bandits. This it the end of an 80 year era. The US will never have as much influence and prosperity again.
philjohn 2y ago
The US hasn't put as much in compared to Europe as they'd have you believe. Whilst Europe has sent fewer weapons, they've been supporting monetarily. And the US was sending stockpiled weapons, marking them at book value, and then reinvesting that money into US defence firms to buy new weapons.
- an_guy 2y ago
  War is fought with weapons. If EU cannot provide weapons, Ukraine won't be able to fight the war.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    And how does one obtain weapons if a country doesn't just have thousands of tanks they were going to scrap anyway?
    - an_guy 2y ago
      Exactly why monetary donation from EU is useless in battle field. Ukr could buy weapons with that money, sure but what if no one is selling? Without US, EU cannot fulfill Ukrainian needs with their current arsenal.
- ziotom78 2y ago
  And let's remember that most of the Ukrainian refugees have been hosted in Europe [1], something for which I am proud of being European. This has a monetary cost that Trump's administration seems to ignore when they keep saying that the US have spent far more than Europe to help Ukraine. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refugee-cost-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refuge...
- misja111 2y ago
  Also Europe took millions of Ukrainian refugees, and it took the hardest blows from the sanctions against Russia.
lm28469 2y ago
Your take would make sense if the world was an excel sheet that needed to be balanced. I think geopolitics are a tad more complex...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JPKab 2y ago
[flagged]
- c0ndu17 2y ago
  Interesting, I’d like to understand your argument. What exactly are you trying to say? I’d say what you see as kindness and generosity, was not so much that as a tool, to create and maintain an American economy that far outweighs its actual importance. Aid, Commoditised people, Petrodollar, Reserve currency. One thing, I’d like to understand is do regular Americans think that the country, following an isolationist policy will out compete the rest of the world?
ActorNightly 2y ago
I don't really understand this take, Russia can just withdraw from Ukraine and end all the killing in the first place.
- zardo 2y ago
  Why would they do that? They're winning the war.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  And Jeff Bezos could make me rich by parting with just one of his many billions. But alas, let's both get back to reality.
  - maigret 2y ago
    His ex-wife did, she's the better human.
  - marsovo 2y ago
    Did Jeff Bezos enter your home and annex your attic?
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      Has nothing to do with it. I wrote my comment to create an equally absurd and meaningless point to illustrate how silly that "the war would end if Russia would leave" mantra is. Like my comment, it's technically true and completely not worth discussing, because it will never happen.
      - anonymars 2y ago
        By that logic, the world should have just given Hitler everything he wanted too, right, because Germany leaving would never happen. The Soviet Union left Afghanistan when the costs got too high. So did the US. Under what basis do you aver that Putin leaving Ukraine can never happen? There is a legitimate debate as to what cost is worth paying, if any (as well as what cost comes from not doing anything - ask the Baltics), but to present the situation as fait accompli?
quelup 2y ago
I agree with you. You put on your own oxygen mask before you can help others. The US has debt interest payments of over a trillion dollars a year - totally unacceptable. We can't keep funding a war that can be willingly ended.
- matsemann 2y ago
  When you say "willingly ended" what you really mean is "surrender". Don't mince the words.
  - quelup 2y ago
    No that's not what I mean. Don't put words in people's proverbial mouths.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  1. learn how the deficit works. It's not the same as private interest 2. Learn how we are funding the war. It is helping us instead of costing a bunch of money.
  - quelup 2y ago
    Learn how to make a point without sounding like you don't know what you're talking about about. Spending money on this isn't helping 'us' in any positive way.
Juliate 2y ago
> The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get It _was_ also their war, because it's Europe that's attacked through Ukraine, and... Europe (and Ukraine, actually) used to be allies. Well, here we are: the USA is _not_ anymore an ally to Europe, and is objectively becoming, as a state, an adversary, so here is the most likely survival plan available to Europe now: 1/ find new partners (Canada/Australia of course; as for the big one, will be India and/or China); 2/ increase its own defence and technologies to be more independent from US ones (will hurt, for sure); 3/ close its market to USA (will hurt heavily on both sides); 4/ not even talking about the cultural reframing that will happen. It's not a matter of "if the USA doesn't fix its course within 4 years", it's happening now. And no one wins at this. Certainly not the USA. Trump will be gone and forgotten in a few years. USA will take, at the very best, 40/50 years to fix the damaged trust towards Europe, but also towards any future partner: how do you expect to sincerely partner with a country that behaves so erratically every 4 years, and now even ambushes guest state representatives in front of the media?

coffeemug 2y ago

It isn't about funding. It's about denigrating our allies and attacking the victim of aggression, while praising our adversaries and aggressors. Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter.

pdpi 2y ago
> Realpolitik is (correctly) in vogue as a correction to bad policies, but ideas and justice still matter. Realpolitik is, first and foremost, about (arguably ruthless) pragmatism. What's going on — the US antagonising all its allies and forging new alliances with unreliable partners —— is not pragmatic in the least.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

earthnail 2y ago

The US is undermining the very institutions it built, like the UN, and the rule based world order. That’s what the outcry is about. As of today, the US is no longer the leader of the free world. The economic impact for the US in the long run will be significant. Trust is hard to build but easy to destroy.

AlecSchueler 2y ago
The behaviour makes them at best a laughing stock but at worst a liability. Who wants to keep their money in the US anymore? Trump could announce next week he's freezing all European assets to fund his annexation Greenland.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Swenrekcah 2y ago

The US did nothing but benefit from the war really. So any talk about ending support being in the United States' interest is a serious misreading of the situation. The US was sending old equipment. To replace it they were and spending money on R&D and manufacturing of current and next-gen equipment for the US military, not Ukraine. The US got to observe and study the use of it's older equipment in an actual land war against a geopolitical adversary. The war has demonstrated US equipment superiority over Russian equipment. The US did not send any troops, only old equipment and some money. Regarding "hopes to end the killing". The killing can end today if Putin withdraws. He is the aggressor who attacked without any justification or provocation. If somebody invades your neighbour's apartment and starts looting and hurting them, do you just say "give up, it's easier"? Some might but those are not people we respect.

dmix 2y ago
The US and the west as a whole are already a very big winner for the war and it was 100% worth the investment. But for how long should it continue? Ignoring Trump's terrible negotiation strategy I still think there's value in some sort of ceasefire. Continuing a brutal stalemate is not something we should take lightly just to burn through a few more Russian tanks. It's mostly just T-60s and cheap Iranian drones left anyway. They've been thoroughly embarrassed. The history of war is full of unhappy truces and compromise. WW2 type victories are extremely rare and take massive sacrifice.
- Swenrekcah 2y ago
  Of course, but it is extraordinarily optimistic, naive even, to think that freezing the conflict now without any security guarantees for Ukraine is anything but a gift to Russia, who will turn to preparing the next invasion. And keep in mind, we're not doing the sacrificing. It is Ukraine who is doing the fighting and should be calling the shots here, with our material support since we don't want to send troops (until now).
  - dmix 2y ago
    > freezing the conflict now without any security guarantees for Ukraine From what I've read I think the only plan put forward is to have Europeans run the DMZ? The US having troops there would probably be a no-go since that's the primary power-conflict (even above NATO). I don't think there's any other option as historically there's always a third party regulating it. Maybe a subset of UN where possibly even China could have troops there. Not sure what guarantees would exist for breaking the ceasefire though, besides the usual full sanctions/weapons/maybe troops. Who knows what happens now though :/

2thumbsup 2y ago

Not just does the US no longer want to support Ukraine, it is basically siding with Russia by not taking a stand and criticising Ukraine. It’s neglecting the interests of it’s ally by only including Russia in negotiations. On top of it all, it’s extorting Ukraine into giving up it’s minerals while giving no assurances in return. And finally, most important for long term, it’s a complete policy reversal to its NATO allies, which will have a long term impact on US transatlantic relations for decades to come. Before, US was the only country to invoke Article 5. Now its recognising a weak moments for its allies and is exploiting that opportunity.

openasocket 2y ago

Europe doesn’t have the resources in a lot of cases. To start, a lot of what the US gave isn’t cash, it’s old equipment that was in long term storage. You can’t just place an order for 100 infantry fighting vehicles and get them in a month. For other forms of equipment, the US has a ton of industrial capacity that Europe simply can’t make up for. > it doesn't even sound like we're withdrawing all funding, instead we're attaching a few conditions in hopes to end the killing. There is currently no funding for Ukraine from the US. Trump has dangled offers of assistance “with conditions” but nothing concrete. Even this minerals deal didn’t actually include any security assistance or funding for weapons.

NalNezumi 2y ago

Maybe I can't expect an answer from you but maybe someone that agree with your comment can clarify for me: Why did suddenly "end the killing" become a talking point for the people supporting this/Trump? "End the Killing of *american soldiers*(outside US)" seems like an consistent message but when this group didn't give 2 shits about Iraqi, Afgani, Vietnam, Libya, Syria, and even essentially justify warcrimes and killings, how can the movement stay morally consistent to "Oh we are doing this to save Ukrainean life" as a slogan? "We don't want to spend our money on other nationals, but we are ok in having colonies or natural resource exploitation at your expense" is the only sensible interpretation of current presidents behavior. A stance that seems pretty aligned with every war since 9/11, just more explicit and any pretense such as "spreading democracy" or "WMD", and less willing to commit (american lives) for profit. Wasn't support for Trump against deepstate and all this "benefiting deepstate at the expense of the common people" wars? Why can't the movement just own up to it all.

aeternum 2y ago
I think many were also against those wars. I would prefer much more surgical strikes rather than war, ultimately those special ops were the ones that were successful against those involved in 9/11. There also was no forced conscription in those. The military members knew what they were getting into and made a choice to sign up anyway. That's no longer the case in Ukraine, the border is closed, citizens cannot leave, they are being rounded up and forced into a few weeks of bootcamp then to the front-lines to die. That's the antithesis of freedom.

rurp 2y ago

We are burning generations of alliances, goodwill, and our own enormously successful system of government for what? Absolutely nothing. Our entire country is being sold out so a few corrupt billionaires can make out like bandits. This it the end of an 80 year era. The US will never have as much influence and prosperity again.

philjohn 2y ago

The US hasn't put as much in compared to Europe as they'd have you believe. Whilst Europe has sent fewer weapons, they've been supporting monetarily. And the US was sending stockpiled weapons, marking them at book value, and then reinvesting that money into US defence firms to buy new weapons.

an_guy 2y ago
War is fought with weapons. If EU cannot provide weapons, Ukraine won't be able to fight the war.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  And how does one obtain weapons if a country doesn't just have thousands of tanks they were going to scrap anyway?
  - an_guy 2y ago
    Exactly why monetary donation from EU is useless in battle field. Ukr could buy weapons with that money, sure but what if no one is selling? Without US, EU cannot fulfill Ukrainian needs with their current arsenal.
ziotom78 2y ago
And let's remember that most of the Ukrainian refugees have been hosted in Europe [1], something for which I am proud of being European. This has a monetary cost that Trump's administration seems to ignore when they keep saying that the US have spent far more than Europe to help Ukraine. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refugee-cost-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1312602/ukrainian-refuge...
misja111 2y ago
Also Europe took millions of Ukrainian refugees, and it took the hardest blows from the sanctions against Russia.

lm28469 2y ago

Your take would make sense if the world was an excel sheet that needed to be balanced. I think geopolitics are a tad more complex...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

JPKab 2y ago

[flagged]

c0ndu17 2y ago
Interesting, I’d like to understand your argument. What exactly are you trying to say? I’d say what you see as kindness and generosity, was not so much that as a tool, to create and maintain an American economy that far outweighs its actual importance. Aid, Commoditised people, Petrodollar, Reserve currency. One thing, I’d like to understand is do regular Americans think that the country, following an isolationist policy will out compete the rest of the world?

ActorNightly 2y ago

I don't really understand this take, Russia can just withdraw from Ukraine and end all the killing in the first place.

zardo 2y ago
Why would they do that? They're winning the war.
missedthecue 2y ago
And Jeff Bezos could make me rich by parting with just one of his many billions. But alas, let's both get back to reality.
- maigret 2y ago
  His ex-wife did, she's the better human.
- marsovo 2y ago
  Did Jeff Bezos enter your home and annex your attic?
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    Has nothing to do with it. I wrote my comment to create an equally absurd and meaningless point to illustrate how silly that "the war would end if Russia would leave" mantra is. Like my comment, it's technically true and completely not worth discussing, because it will never happen.
    - anonymars 2y ago
      By that logic, the world should have just given Hitler everything he wanted too, right, because Germany leaving would never happen. The Soviet Union left Afghanistan when the costs got too high. So did the US. Under what basis do you aver that Putin leaving Ukraine can never happen? There is a legitimate debate as to what cost is worth paying, if any (as well as what cost comes from not doing anything - ask the Baltics), but to present the situation as fait accompli?

quelup 2y ago

I agree with you. You put on your own oxygen mask before you can help others. The US has debt interest payments of over a trillion dollars a year - totally unacceptable. We can't keep funding a war that can be willingly ended.

matsemann 2y ago
When you say "willingly ended" what you really mean is "surrender". Don't mince the words.
- quelup 2y ago
  No that's not what I mean. Don't put words in people's proverbial mouths.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
1. learn how the deficit works. It's not the same as private interest 2. Learn how we are funding the war. It is helping us instead of costing a bunch of money.
- quelup 2y ago
  Learn how to make a point without sounding like you don't know what you're talking about about. Spending money on this isn't helping 'us' in any positive way.

Juliate 2y ago

> The US no longer wanting to fund someone else's war is about as far from 'forcing' as you can get It _was_ also their war, because it's Europe that's attacked through Ukraine, and... Europe (and Ukraine, actually) used to be allies. Well, here we are: the USA is _not_ anymore an ally to Europe, and is objectively becoming, as a state, an adversary, so here is the most likely survival plan available to Europe now: 1/ find new partners (Canada/Australia of course; as for the big one, will be India and/or China); 2/ increase its own defence and technologies to be more independent from US ones (will hurt, for sure); 3/ close its market to USA (will hurt heavily on both sides); 4/ not even talking about the cultural reframing that will happen. It's not a matter of "if the USA doesn't fix its course within 4 years", it's happening now. And no one wins at this. Certainly not the USA. Trump will be gone and forgotten in a few years. USA will take, at the very best, 40/50 years to fix the damaged trust towards Europe, but also towards any future partner: how do you expect to sincerely partner with a country that behaves so erratically every 4 years, and now even ambushes guest state representatives in front of the media?