3 ms·

> we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die. This is a straw man: nobody asked you to. > the minerals deal was actually a pretty

> we do not have enough of an interest to go send young Americans to die. This is a straw man: nobody asked you to. > the minerals deal was actually a pretty fair offer the way it was worked out There was nothing fair in that mineral deal: the US would get resources and Ukraine was getting... nothing. No security guarantees, no military support, nothing. Trump said it himself: he wanted it to get back what the US spent helping Ukraine so far. Getting something for nothing is fair to you? > as dress for the occasion The is the King of Saudi Arabia at the white house: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/president-obama-meets-with-king-salman-bin-abdulaziz-al-saud-of-saudi-arabia-at-the-white-house https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/president-obama-meets-wit... This is the pope at the white house: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/09/25/photos-pope-francis-visits-white-house https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/09/25/photos-... This is Elon Musk giving an interview in the oval office: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/12/tech/elon-musk-x-oval-office/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/12/tech/elon-musk-x-oval-off... Did they all disrespect the US? Ukraine is sending its youngs to die to keep Russia (the west common enemy) at bay and your concern is... Zelinsky wearing a tie?

_bin_ 2y ago
it's not a straw man. the security guarantees zelensky requested and used to hold up the deal extend to that. US state dep't lawyers have generally understood "security assurance" to mean that we won't violate someone's territorial integrity, while "security guarantee" implies the use of military force to defend the security of a nation and her territorial integrity. unless and until we have a fully-autonomous military, this does, in fact, necessitate putting American servicemen at risk of death. this is why i think your analysis is a misread of the situation; i haven't seen media report this distinction well and it's hard to keep track of which treaty terms are vague sympathies with a general direction of action and which promise specific actions. it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent and to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid they still want. since we are already well into the twelve figures w.r.t. aid to Ukraine it seems pretty reasonable. but i don't particularly think a minerals deal is worth sending young men to die halfway across the world in a border war over land the size of west virginia. the saudi king was in his own cultural formalwear. the pope did the same. if zelensky wanted to dress down and call it "cultural formalwear", he should have tried an adidas tracksuit. what he did was simple disrespect. it's not the end of the world but i think he owes us more than this "great value steve jobs" routine. i dress better than that for a normal workplace. "parroting russian talking points" isn't a good response or critique. i don't read RT or alt-right twitter. i agree we have some interest in keeping russia contained and it's generally a good move to put resources behind that. i do not think there's this odd moral obligation to do whatever it takes and back ukraine to the hilt. this is sort of a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know just made a good point" situation.
- usernomdeguerre 2y ago
  Given Ukraine has now been invaded multiple times by Russia it seems entirely right and reasonable for it to ask for guarantees, and not an imposition if the other nation was truly an Ally, in the formal definition of the word, no?
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    it seems like a huge imposition to ask someone to kick off a great power war that would likely leave millions of her children dead, yes. that's true in any case, but especially when one's entire geopolitical relevance is as a border state. not all alliances are or must be "we will do literally anything possible to protect your territorial integrity". it probably wouldn't make sense for us to make such an alliance since our territorial integrity hasn't been threatened in substance since the war of 1812. and because such an alliance would be a charity program where we give away young American lives to enable one political entity, rather than another, to govern scraps of low-value land an ocean and a continent away. the whole "sending ukraine materiel is going to cause WWIII" thing is sort of bs russian propaganda. the idea that direct American military intervention isn't risking that is very much not. again, how many Americans do you think it's appropriate for their own government to sign up to die for this cause? i think the number is zero. if you think it's higher, i'd very much like to understand why and how many you think is a reasonable number. i understand it'd be a ballpark figure, not a bright line, but i'd like at least an order of magnitude grasp of what people think is appropriate and why they think so.
    - usernomdeguerre 2y ago
      By your own admission a defensive security guarantee will "kick off a great power war..." which is a way of saying Russia can't be trusted to keep the peace, no? Not that I disagree but I'm not sure it's as strong an argument against Ukraine's request as you think it is. It may have even been part of Neville Chamberlain's notes on the subject.
      - _bin_ 2y ago

_bin_ 2y ago

it's not a straw man. the security guarantees zelensky requested and used to hold up the deal extend to that. US state dep't lawyers have generally understood "security assurance" to mean that we won't violate someone's territorial integrity, while "security guarantee" implies the use of military force to defend the security of a nation and her territorial integrity. unless and until we have a fully-autonomous military, this does, in fact, necessitate putting American servicemen at risk of death. this is why i think your analysis is a misread of the situation; i haven't seen media report this distinction well and it's hard to keep track of which treaty terms are vague sympathies with a general direction of action and which promise specific actions. it was, in fact, a fair deal. the minerals deal was to ensure we got some sort of repayment for all the aid we've already sent and to make us a bit more comfortable with the additional aid they still want. since we are already well into the twelve figures w.r.t. aid to Ukraine it seems pretty reasonable. but i don't particularly think a minerals deal is worth sending young men to die halfway across the world in a border war over land the size of west virginia. the saudi king was in his own cultural formalwear. the pope did the same. if zelensky wanted to dress down and call it "cultural formalwear", he should have tried an adidas tracksuit. what he did was simple disrespect. it's not the end of the world but i think he owes us more than this "great value steve jobs" routine. i dress better than that for a normal workplace. "parroting russian talking points" isn't a good response or critique. i don't read RT or alt-right twitter. i agree we have some interest in keeping russia contained and it's generally a good move to put resources behind that. i do not think there's this odd moral obligation to do whatever it takes and back ukraine to the hilt. this is sort of a "heartbreaking, the worst person you know just made a good point" situation.

usernomdeguerre 2y ago
Given Ukraine has now been invaded multiple times by Russia it seems entirely right and reasonable for it to ask for guarantees, and not an imposition if the other nation was truly an Ally, in the formal definition of the word, no?
- _bin_ 2y ago
  it seems like a huge imposition to ask someone to kick off a great power war that would likely leave millions of her children dead, yes. that's true in any case, but especially when one's entire geopolitical relevance is as a border state. not all alliances are or must be "we will do literally anything possible to protect your territorial integrity". it probably wouldn't make sense for us to make such an alliance since our territorial integrity hasn't been threatened in substance since the war of 1812. and because such an alliance would be a charity program where we give away young American lives to enable one political entity, rather than another, to govern scraps of low-value land an ocean and a continent away. the whole "sending ukraine materiel is going to cause WWIII" thing is sort of bs russian propaganda. the idea that direct American military intervention isn't risking that is very much not. again, how many Americans do you think it's appropriate for their own government to sign up to die for this cause? i think the number is zero. if you think it's higher, i'd very much like to understand why and how many you think is a reasonable number. i understand it'd be a ballpark figure, not a bright line, but i'd like at least an order of magnitude grasp of what people think is appropriate and why they think so.
  - usernomdeguerre 2y ago
    By your own admission a defensive security guarantee will "kick off a great power war..." which is a way of saying Russia can't be trusted to keep the peace, no? Not that I disagree but I'm not sure it's as strong an argument against Ukraine's request as you think it is. It may have even been part of Neville Chamberlain's notes on the subject.
    - _bin_ 2y ago