32 ms·

The USA stands in miserable disgrace.

by DidYaWipe 2y ago

jesterson 2y ago
[flagged]
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  Calling it "the endless war" makes this a loaded question. You might get a more productive response without that.
  - jesterson 2y ago
    Not sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    - olivermuty 2y ago
      So you want to achieve that the illegal agressor wins…? The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.
      - hulitu 2y ago
        > illegal agressor Are there any "legal agressors" ?
        willmarch 2y ago
        Yes
    - fractallyte 2y ago
      Because the weapons were drip-fed, preventing Ukraine from achieving any decisive, quick victory. Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
      - bwb 2y ago
        Nuclear weapons are a scary prospect, that def plays into what can be done. Finding that line is not something that is easy.
    - stuffoverflow 2y ago
      Ukraine has retained its independence. That's a big achievement on its own.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        If they are independent then they won't need to rely on being propped up by American taxpayers to survive. Because if they did, they'd be dependent not independent.
        bwb 2y ago
        With that logic, any country too small to fight its neighbors should be taken over, their citizens killed, their women defiled. What planet are you from? Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
        ty6853 2y ago
        [flagged]
        DecoySalamander 2y ago
        This argument makes no sense - you have never been asked to pay a special "Kurdish" tax, or a special "Ukrainian" tax. You will still pay the same amount (or more) of taxes even if the US becomes completely isolationist.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Unless the cost is zero the tax is paid, either directly, by inflation, or one of the two later to settle the debt. The fungibility of money means no special separate tax is assessed. Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
    - zfg 2y ago
      Russia's stated intention is to destroy the Ukrainian nation and to erase Ukrainian identity. Putin believes Ukraine is not a real country and Ukrainians are not a real people: https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russian-empire-says-ukraine-not-real-country-2022-2?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia... Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong. Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map. America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and in becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.
    - schroeding 2y ago
      If France had hold out until 1943, with the Wehrmacht only making a few hundred yards progress per day, it would have been a massive success, don't you agree? Without western help, Ukraine would have had no chance in hell to survive that long. It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing". The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter. And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next). The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Someone was coming to bail out France. I don't see a D day for Ukraine. If it is coming a European nation needs to step up right fuckin now and say it. If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
        schroeding 2y ago
        The US wasn't active part of the war until December 1941, though. For the first years, no boots on the ground were coming. And if Germany didn't declare war against the US, which they weren't forced to do by the tripartite pact, it's questionable they would have come at all (in 1944). Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot? Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different? But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".
    - throwaway290 2y ago
      "Nothing achieved" is exactly right. Russia did not achieve in 3 years what it thought it could achieve in 1-2 weeks. Tons of people died on both sides (though no civilians in Russia). The only reason russia is continuing is because west while is perfectly equipped militarily desperately lacks balls and succumbs to putin's propaganda.
    - ap-hyperbole 2y ago
      Nothing achieved for you but for example my mother and some relatives don't have to live under forced occupation. Her city was under siege for a number of weeks during initial invasion and totally cut off from any basic human needs like water, electricity and food supplies were limited. Not to mention constant rocket attacks and some shelling. There are millions of people like my mother who are greatful for what Ukrainian army has achieved and are still fighting for. The containment of further expansion and the fact that there is very little progress Russian army is making is also an achievement. Russian Soviet stock piles are depleted, their economy is on a downward spiral, untill a few weeks ago they were totally isolated from the rest of the civilised world, that's another achievement.Exposing Russia's bluff of their military might is another achievement. The fact that USA can now "focus on China" is thanks to Ukraine. Everyone in the world was united against the aggressor. What is happening right now is that some of those achievements are being undone and may I ask for who's benefit? So that Trump can make a deal that he promised and restore the economic relations with Russia? It might stop the deaths and fighting now but you are simply taking a "peace debt" from Putin.
- nicbou 2y ago
  My understanding is that you are outsourcing the work of grinding Russia’s military down. You get to deplete a geopolitical foe at a bargain, without spilling American blood. There is also the moral argument that you are supporting Ukraine in a war of aggression started by Russia. My fear is that conceding anything to Russia just gives it an opportunity to regroup, rearm and finish the job. Appeasement has not worked before. Then there is the whole minerals thing. Now you’re not merely abandoning an ally, but kicking it while it’s down. It’s not a reassuring message for anyone thinking of allying with America. As a national of a country Trump has threatened to annex, I am wondering how many more allies America can antagonise and how long and costly it will be to rebuild a good reputation.
  - thenthenthen 2y ago
    I recently had a discussion with someone more senior than me and they were convinced that the whole deal was about resources in the first place. If anyone has some references and thoughts about this, please share.
    - throwaway290 2y ago
      I have thoughts. Maybe biased because I'm Russian. Imagine I maimed a guy on the street because he was walking too slowly. Was "the whole deal" about him walking too slowly? Yes and no. He was walking slow. But also I was a violent psycho. Imagine I killed my wife because she was wearing the wrong skirt and looked at another man. Was the whole deal about my wife behaving how I don't like? Yes and no. She was behaving in some way. But also I was a violent psycho. People come up with all sorts if rationalizations and I definitely heard both "Ukraine had resources Russia needed" and "Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US". Resources? Excuse me, look at the map? You know that tiny Netherlands beats Russia in agriculture exports. Russia has the most reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world. The country has insane resources already and its corrupt government is unable to make good use of them. But anyway. They say Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US (those people like to use loaded phrases like "US wanted to siphon resources from Ukraine") and Putin didn't like it? Well there's a well known way to solve this "problem": offer a better deal, don't be a dick, invest, stuff also called "diplimacy". Resources, NATO, US military complex, whatever, mostly those things are bullshit, maybe they did motivate Putin, who knows. It's just mentioning those things with a solemn face full of insight as if they explain something is what paints a person as Putin supporter and aggression apologists in my eyes. Because none of those things justify the choice of mass murder by a violent psycho.
- lawn 2y ago
  > Mind to elaborate why fueling the endless war is a "miserable disgrace"? Helping Russia by giving them what they want (time to rebuild their military and economy while lifting sanctions) is what will actually fuel an "endless war" as Russia will simply continue the war at a later stage. Don't confuse a temporary peace on paper with actual peace.
- ponector 2y ago
  Not stopping an aggressor is an actual fueling endless war. Looks like people forgot "deals" with Nazis, "Peace for our time" history lesson.
- chimpontherun 2y ago
  The history of your posts, oh my... But I will attempt to provide an answer in earnest. All sane people are against an endless war. Or, any war for that matter. The only state that can be compared with an endless war is a mid-war period: the time when both sides know that the war is coming, and they live in misery, entrenching and militarizing, while the rest of human development stands still: economy is military-spending driven, birthrate falls, population flees, etc. Do we agree on that or do you need examples? So, taking your question at its face value: the alternative is lasting peace. The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership. Again, examples are a legion: both positive (Finland, Baltics, Turkiye), and negative (Georgia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya to a certain degree). The only path for lasting peace for Ukraine is to humiliate Russia on the battlefield. For that to happen they need weapons
  - gghhzzgghhzz 2y ago
    "The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership" 20th century history unfortunately tells us the answer is containment, not direct engagement. From handing over Poland and eastern europe to Stalin in 1945, or refusing to protect Hungary in 1956 or interfere explicitly in the soviet sphere of influence, in exchange for them not interfering explicitly in western sphere of influence. It's not a nice lesson, but that was how we achieved some form of peace for decades.
- tim333 2y ago
  The opposite would be protecting democracy from fascist invaders. In my opinion the west/Biden were too wishy washy and should have stopped the thing from the start.
- DecoySalamander 2y ago
  Putin's capacity to wage war is by no means unlimited. This war has the potential to bankrupt Russia (just look at its 21% key rate) and the US already has experience in pushing an adversary to collapse.
- mrighele 2y ago
  You are assuming that stopping the aid will stop the war. It won't, not soon at least. Unless one of the two party wins the war, the way a peace agreement is reached is for both parties to consider it a better outcome than continuing the war, which means that the quickest way to reach is to make it harder for both countries to continue the war, and more palatable the result of an agreement. This is not what Trump is doing. He is not doing harder for Russia to continue the war, in fact it is going to make it easier. He is not going to make the peace agreement more palatable for Ukraine, in fact it made it even harsher. In other words, Trump is not looking for a "deal" is looking for a capitulation of Ukraine, and to offer it to Putin, probably behind some agreement. Ukrainian people are not going to like the idea, so they will not surrender soon. Putin will see this as a victory, so he will not stop there (he is trying to get US troops out of Eastern Europe, and I am sure Trump will obey), so any "peace" will be short-lasting. Eastern Europe countries already see this, so they will not stop helping Ukraine because the US did.
- Vlemio 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
bradhe 2y ago
Amazing to see Russia win the Cold War—one we didn’t even know we were in. Their propaganda network is so strong that it took 3 weeks to go from “Russia is the enemy” to “eh, we have other problems” amongst the folks who…subscribe accordingly. Absolute masterclass in projecting power in the digital age.
- orbital-decay 2y ago
  Amazing to see posters still managing to blame an external enemy for their own humongous trillion-dollar consent machine working as designed in a direction they don't like this time.
- tim333 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nprateem 2y ago
    They've probably got video of him being whipped by some hookers or something. Or worse...
    - spiderfarmer 2y ago
      I think they have so much compromat that the entire GOO would seize to exist.
    - kadoban 2y ago
      He had a decades-long, close friendship with Epstein, and a documented, admitted history of vile behavior with women and girls. You can guess what kompromat would look like.
      - PeterStuer 2y ago
        [flagged]
        2y ago
jisnsm 2y ago
I can imagine the very same thing being said if the USA had pulled out of the War on Terror. B-but they have WMD! The NYT said so!
- herculity275 2y ago
  It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. What's the "WMD" equivalent here - what do you think the media is lying to you about? That there's an ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is something all involved parties acknowledge.
  - kamaal 2y ago
    once bitten, twice shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%20twice%20shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%...
  - kelipso 2y ago
    There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.
    - smac__ 2y ago
      The USA was part of the Budapest Memorandum. This is a pretty strong reason for the USA to provide support for Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
      - kelipso 2y ago
        It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.
yubblegum 2y ago
The PTB in US have decided to divy up the world into zones. This was likely already set in motion when the Brexit thing started in UK. "We want Canada, American Gulf, Panama Canal" is Monroe Doctrine 2.0 on steroids. UK is likely going to be in the 'Oceania' camp (as will be the rest of the Common Wealth) and we can all look forward to a 1984 future living under authoritarian regimes using "AI" and pervasive surveillance. The rest is smoke for plebes.
gershy 2y ago
I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time. Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?
- KittenInABox 2y ago
  I guarantee you that Russia could've been reasoned with if it was forced to face Ukraine with the full might of US support for another 4 years. Maybe there would need to be some concessions so Putin can look like he came out with a win to the Russian media, but Putin wouldn't have kept going as he was.
  - gedy 2y ago
    > with the full might of US support Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)? I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      As opposed to what alternative? A full-scale NATO invasion of Russia? Nuclear war? The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
      - motorest 2y ago
        > Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal. True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.
belter 2y ago
Red Runway: Chaos - https://youtu.be/xJ2Zg8JqfAk https://youtu.be/xJ2Zg8JqfAk
protocolture 2y ago
Yeah thats their favourite place to stand, I have never seen them anywhere else.

The USA stands in miserable disgrace.

jesterson 2y ago

[flagged]

AlecSchueler 2y ago
Calling it "the endless war" makes this a loaded question. You might get a more productive response without that.
- jesterson 2y ago
  Not sure why you are trying to veer the convo in another direction, but to address it - it's been 3 years, hundreds of thousands died, and absolutely nothing achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong.
  - olivermuty 2y ago
    So you want to achieve that the illegal agressor wins…? The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.
    - hulitu 2y ago
      > illegal agressor Are there any "legal agressors" ?
      - willmarch 2y ago
        Yes
  - fractallyte 2y ago
    Because the weapons were drip-fed, preventing Ukraine from achieving any decisive, quick victory. Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
    - bwb 2y ago
      Nuclear weapons are a scary prospect, that def plays into what can be done. Finding that line is not something that is easy.
  - stuffoverflow 2y ago
    Ukraine has retained its independence. That's a big achievement on its own.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      If they are independent then they won't need to rely on being propped up by American taxpayers to survive. Because if they did, they'd be dependent not independent.
      - bwb 2y ago
        With that logic, any country too small to fight its neighbors should be taken over, their citizens killed, their women defiled. What planet are you from? Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
        ty6853 2y ago
        [flagged]
        DecoySalamander 2y ago
        This argument makes no sense - you have never been asked to pay a special "Kurdish" tax, or a special "Ukrainian" tax. You will still pay the same amount (or more) of taxes even if the US becomes completely isolationist.
        ty6853 2y ago
        Unless the cost is zero the tax is paid, either directly, by inflation, or one of the two later to settle the debt. The fungibility of money means no special separate tax is assessed. Even under fiction I have seen claimed that these are all surplus old arms, the US left them in Afghanistan last time precisely because logistics alone is expensive.
  - zfg 2y ago
    Russia's stated intention is to destroy the Ukrainian nation and to erase Ukrainian identity. Putin believes Ukraine is not a real country and Ukrainians are not a real people: https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russian-empire-says-ukraine-not-real-country-2022-2?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia... Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong. Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map. America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and in becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.
  - schroeding 2y ago
    If France had hold out until 1943, with the Wehrmacht only making a few hundred yards progress per day, it would have been a massive success, don't you agree? Without western help, Ukraine would have had no chance in hell to survive that long. It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing". The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter. And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next). The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Someone was coming to bail out France. I don't see a D day for Ukraine. If it is coming a European nation needs to step up right fuckin now and say it. If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
      - schroeding 2y ago
        The US wasn't active part of the war until December 1941, though. For the first years, no boots on the ground were coming. And if Germany didn't declare war against the US, which they weren't forced to do by the tripartite pact, it's questionable they would have come at all (in 1944). Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot? Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different? But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    "Nothing achieved" is exactly right. Russia did not achieve in 3 years what it thought it could achieve in 1-2 weeks. Tons of people died on both sides (though no civilians in Russia). The only reason russia is continuing is because west while is perfectly equipped militarily desperately lacks balls and succumbs to putin's propaganda.
  - ap-hyperbole 2y ago
    Nothing achieved for you but for example my mother and some relatives don't have to live under forced occupation. Her city was under siege for a number of weeks during initial invasion and totally cut off from any basic human needs like water, electricity and food supplies were limited. Not to mention constant rocket attacks and some shelling. There are millions of people like my mother who are greatful for what Ukrainian army has achieved and are still fighting for. The containment of further expansion and the fact that there is very little progress Russian army is making is also an achievement. Russian Soviet stock piles are depleted, their economy is on a downward spiral, untill a few weeks ago they were totally isolated from the rest of the civilised world, that's another achievement.Exposing Russia's bluff of their military might is another achievement. The fact that USA can now "focus on China" is thanks to Ukraine. Everyone in the world was united against the aggressor. What is happening right now is that some of those achievements are being undone and may I ask for who's benefit? So that Trump can make a deal that he promised and restore the economic relations with Russia? It might stop the deaths and fighting now but you are simply taking a "peace debt" from Putin.
nicbou 2y ago
My understanding is that you are outsourcing the work of grinding Russia’s military down. You get to deplete a geopolitical foe at a bargain, without spilling American blood. There is also the moral argument that you are supporting Ukraine in a war of aggression started by Russia. My fear is that conceding anything to Russia just gives it an opportunity to regroup, rearm and finish the job. Appeasement has not worked before. Then there is the whole minerals thing. Now you’re not merely abandoning an ally, but kicking it while it’s down. It’s not a reassuring message for anyone thinking of allying with America. As a national of a country Trump has threatened to annex, I am wondering how many more allies America can antagonise and how long and costly it will be to rebuild a good reputation.
- thenthenthen 2y ago
  I recently had a discussion with someone more senior than me and they were convinced that the whole deal was about resources in the first place. If anyone has some references and thoughts about this, please share.
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    I have thoughts. Maybe biased because I'm Russian. Imagine I maimed a guy on the street because he was walking too slowly. Was "the whole deal" about him walking too slowly? Yes and no. He was walking slow. But also I was a violent psycho. Imagine I killed my wife because she was wearing the wrong skirt and looked at another man. Was the whole deal about my wife behaving how I don't like? Yes and no. She was behaving in some way. But also I was a violent psycho. People come up with all sorts if rationalizations and I definitely heard both "Ukraine had resources Russia needed" and "Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US". Resources? Excuse me, look at the map? You know that tiny Netherlands beats Russia in agriculture exports. Russia has the most reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world. The country has insane resources already and its corrupt government is unable to make good use of them. But anyway. They say Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US (those people like to use loaded phrases like "US wanted to siphon resources from Ukraine") and Putin didn't like it? Well there's a well known way to solve this "problem": offer a better deal, don't be a dick, invest, stuff also called "diplimacy". Resources, NATO, US military complex, whatever, mostly those things are bullshit, maybe they did motivate Putin, who knows. It's just mentioning those things with a solemn face full of insight as if they explain something is what paints a person as Putin supporter and aggression apologists in my eyes. Because none of those things justify the choice of mass murder by a violent psycho.
lawn 2y ago
> Mind to elaborate why fueling the endless war is a "miserable disgrace"? Helping Russia by giving them what they want (time to rebuild their military and economy while lifting sanctions) is what will actually fuel an "endless war" as Russia will simply continue the war at a later stage. Don't confuse a temporary peace on paper with actual peace.
ponector 2y ago
Not stopping an aggressor is an actual fueling endless war. Looks like people forgot "deals" with Nazis, "Peace for our time" history lesson.
chimpontherun 2y ago
The history of your posts, oh my... But I will attempt to provide an answer in earnest. All sane people are against an endless war. Or, any war for that matter. The only state that can be compared with an endless war is a mid-war period: the time when both sides know that the war is coming, and they live in misery, entrenching and militarizing, while the rest of human development stands still: economy is military-spending driven, birthrate falls, population flees, etc. Do we agree on that or do you need examples? So, taking your question at its face value: the alternative is lasting peace. The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership. Again, examples are a legion: both positive (Finland, Baltics, Turkiye), and negative (Georgia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya to a certain degree). The only path for lasting peace for Ukraine is to humiliate Russia on the battlefield. For that to happen they need weapons
- gghhzzgghhzz 2y ago
  "The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership" 20th century history unfortunately tells us the answer is containment, not direct engagement. From handing over Poland and eastern europe to Stalin in 1945, or refusing to protect Hungary in 1956 or interfere explicitly in the soviet sphere of influence, in exchange for them not interfering explicitly in western sphere of influence. It's not a nice lesson, but that was how we achieved some form of peace for decades.
tim333 2y ago
The opposite would be protecting democracy from fascist invaders. In my opinion the west/Biden were too wishy washy and should have stopped the thing from the start.
DecoySalamander 2y ago
Putin's capacity to wage war is by no means unlimited. This war has the potential to bankrupt Russia (just look at its 21% key rate) and the US already has experience in pushing an adversary to collapse.
mrighele 2y ago
You are assuming that stopping the aid will stop the war. It won't, not soon at least. Unless one of the two party wins the war, the way a peace agreement is reached is for both parties to consider it a better outcome than continuing the war, which means that the quickest way to reach is to make it harder for both countries to continue the war, and more palatable the result of an agreement. This is not what Trump is doing. He is not doing harder for Russia to continue the war, in fact it is going to make it easier. He is not going to make the peace agreement more palatable for Ukraine, in fact it made it even harsher. In other words, Trump is not looking for a "deal" is looking for a capitulation of Ukraine, and to offer it to Putin, probably behind some agreement. Ukrainian people are not going to like the idea, so they will not surrender soon. Putin will see this as a victory, so he will not stop there (he is trying to get US troops out of Eastern Europe, and I am sure Trump will obey), so any "peace" will be short-lasting. Eastern Europe countries already see this, so they will not stop helping Ukraine because the US did.
Vlemio 2y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]

bradhe 2y ago

Amazing to see Russia win the Cold War—one we didn’t even know we were in. Their propaganda network is so strong that it took 3 weeks to go from “Russia is the enemy” to “eh, we have other problems” amongst the folks who…subscribe accordingly. Absolute masterclass in projecting power in the digital age.

orbital-decay 2y ago
Amazing to see posters still managing to blame an external enemy for their own humongous trillion-dollar consent machine working as designed in a direction they don't like this time.
tim333 2y ago
[flagged]
- nprateem 2y ago
  They've probably got video of him being whipped by some hookers or something. Or worse...
  - spiderfarmer 2y ago
    I think they have so much compromat that the entire GOO would seize to exist.
  - kadoban 2y ago
    He had a decades-long, close friendship with Epstein, and a documented, admitted history of vile behavior with women and girls. You can guess what kompromat would look like.
    - PeterStuer 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - 2y ago

jisnsm 2y ago

I can imagine the very same thing being said if the USA had pulled out of the War on Terror. B-but they have WMD! The NYT said so!

herculity275 2y ago
It really sucks that "Saddam has WMDs" broke an entire generation of Americans into knee-jerk contrarianism regarding any global conflict US is involved in. What's the "WMD" equivalent here - what do you think the media is lying to you about? That there's an ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine is something all involved parties acknowledge.
- kamaal 2y ago
  once bitten, twice shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%20twice%20shy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once%20bitten%2C%...
- kelipso 2y ago
  There is absolutely no requirement that the US has to get involved in every regional conflict in the world. Let the Ukrainians and Russians deal with their mess. There are plenty of other regional conflicts we ignore.
  - smac__ 2y ago
    The USA was part of the Budapest Memorandum. This is a pretty strong reason for the USA to provide support for Ukraine. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
    - kelipso 2y ago
      It's a reason but it's not a strong reason. Back then Ukraine was indistinguishable from Russia, basically a small breakaway country from the USSR. So the intent was more likely that the US wouldn't attack Ukraine. Besides which, the nukes in Ukraine were never under Ukraine's control or possession, so the agreement looks to be more for optics than anything.

yubblegum 2y ago

The PTB in US have decided to divy up the world into zones. This was likely already set in motion when the Brexit thing started in UK. "We want Canada, American Gulf, Panama Canal" is Monroe Doctrine 2.0 on steroids. UK is likely going to be in the 'Oceania' camp (as will be the rest of the Common Wealth) and we can all look forward to a 1984 future living under authoritarian regimes using "AI" and pervasive surveillance. The rest is smoke for plebes.

gershy 2y ago

I'm not sure what to think. Ukraine can't militarily defeat russia or reclaim its lost territory, and as long as it continues to try to do so, there will be war and the world will be less stable. But if a line is not drawn against russia, I think we have every reason to believe putin will continue to conquer more land over time. Russia is the source of instability, but it can't be defeated or reasoned with. What to do?

KittenInABox 2y ago
I guarantee you that Russia could've been reasoned with if it was forced to face Ukraine with the full might of US support for another 4 years. Maybe there would need to be some concessions so Putin can look like he came out with a win to the Russian media, but Putin wouldn't have kept going as he was.
- gedy 2y ago
  > with the full might of US support Wasn't the time for that 3 years ago (or 11)? I'm not pro Russia, but a war of attrition has always seemed a bad play and half-assed. Especially when Europe is still buying gas from Russia...
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    As opposed to what alternative? A full-scale NATO invasion of Russia? Nuclear war? The West has gone to great lengths to provide the absolute minimum response to Russia's invasion (no troops, even withholding certain weapons classes) and leaders have repeatedly expressed concerns about the danger of an outright Russian collapse. Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal.
    - motorest 2y ago
      > Weakening Russia's military without imploding the government has always been the obvious goal. True, but the collective West would do much better if the volume of support allowed Ukraine to furtherincrease Russia's attrition rate. Knocking down the Crimean bridge alone would wreak havoc to Crimea's logistics.

belter 2y ago

Red Runway: Chaos - https://youtu.be/xJ2Zg8JqfAk https://youtu.be/xJ2Zg8JqfAk

protocolture 2y ago

Yeah thats their favourite place to stand, I have never seen them anywhere else.