6 ms·

> Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indi

> Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight. > This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? > Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.

dralley 2y ago
>Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible. Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  So do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire? > Russia will keep the war going with or without us Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
  - dralley 2y ago
    That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones. It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did. It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others. Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies. Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      And now there 100s thousands of Ukrainians dead. The deal was not favourable for Ukraine because unfortunately they are facing against a stronger opponent and no country wanted to back Ukraine militarily wise. > Black Sea grain initiative was Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed. As per Minsk, Ukraine also violated it. There were a lot of violations from both sides. It was not an agreement that would have worked long term. https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842 https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/5... > Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians. > promises of arms supplies From US and UK? Aka pressure from them? > Your narrative is propaganda Your narrative is propaganda. > and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one. Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly? And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
      - dralley 2y ago
        >Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed. There were violations. They used the "inspections" process to continually delay & block ships from going to Ukrainian ports. "Ukrainian Deputy Renovation Minister Yuriy Vaskov accused Russia of a "gross violation" of the agreement. All ships are inspected by a joint team of Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and U.N. inspectors, but Vaskov said the Russian inspectors had refused to inspect ships bound for Pivdennyi since April 29." https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-russia-prevents-black-sea-grain-deal-port-operating-2023-05-23/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-rus... And then of course it wasn't renewed, followed up by immediate missile strikes on Ukraine's grain infrastructure over the following couple of days. Which does speak in some sense to Russia's willingness to do deals and hold them. (That didn't end up working out for them as expected, because Ukraine subsequently sank half of what remained of their Black Sea Fleet). I notice you don't address all the other deals they violated either. > Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians. What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence. >Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly? Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you. >And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire? No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    Everyone wants the war to end. As John Stewart put it, Hitler wanted the war to end. It’s the terms of how it ends that need to be reasonable.
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      and do you think WW2 ended reasonably?
      - LPisGood 2y ago
        Yes, as reasonably as it could have. The aggressors lost and were punished. Do you think the allies should have just given the axis the territory they demanded to prevent war? I am finding it tremendously hard to take you seriously.
        arandomusername 2y ago
        And instead of Axis controlling the territory, the Soviet Union did. Eastern Europe suffered for decades under USSR's rule. This is a reasonable ending? Millions of lives lost just so that instead of Hitler controlling Poland, it's Stalin. And for UK, it also became the end of their empire.
        LPisGood 2y ago
        This has to be a joke. You’re saying the right move in WW2 would have been for the allies to just allow the axis to seize land?
        arandomusername 2y ago
        No, I said WW2 did not end reasonably because that land was just seized by SU instead. The right move would have been to push back against SU, IMO. Why are you okay with USSR controlling those territories but not the axis?
LPisGood 2y ago
> US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? In international relations, power is relative (see: the security dilemma). A weaker adversary means a more powerful USA. USA Spends much more than that every year on its military. I claim the ROI is much better here. > Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back? Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.
- arandomusername 2y ago
  and why does Russia have to be USA's adversary with constant proxy wars against each other? > We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back? Mexico is considerably weaker. Here's a more accurate analogy; if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? against a significantly stronger opponent? > Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”. The aid should only be until a deal can be made, like one with Trump. It should not be given to prolong the war indefinitely. I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.
  - LPisGood 2y ago
    > and why does Russia have to be USA's adversary with constant proxy wars against each other? I can’t figure out if you’re being serious. They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads. Russia is the adversary of USA because wars of conquest in Europe are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States. > if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? It’s up to the invaded country to decide how long. I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders. > I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory. Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points. To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.

dralley 2y ago

>Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible. Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.

arandomusername 2y ago
So do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire? > Russia will keep the war going with or without us Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
- dralley 2y ago
  That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones. It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did. It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others. Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies. Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    And now there 100s thousands of Ukrainians dead. The deal was not favourable for Ukraine because unfortunately they are facing against a stronger opponent and no country wanted to back Ukraine militarily wise. > Black Sea grain initiative was Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed. As per Minsk, Ukraine also violated it. There were a lot of violations from both sides. It was not an agreement that would have worked long term. https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512842 https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/5... > Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians. > promises of arms supplies From US and UK? Aka pressure from them? > Your narrative is propaganda Your narrative is propaganda. > and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one. Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly? And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
    - dralley 2y ago
      >Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed. There were violations. They used the "inspections" process to continually delay & block ships from going to Ukrainian ports. "Ukrainian Deputy Renovation Minister Yuriy Vaskov accused Russia of a "gross violation" of the agreement. All ships are inspected by a joint team of Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and U.N. inspectors, but Vaskov said the Russian inspectors had refused to inspect ships bound for Pivdennyi since April 29." https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-russia-prevents-black-sea-grain-deal-port-operating-2023-05-23/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-rus... And then of course it wasn't renewed, followed up by immediate missile strikes on Ukraine's grain infrastructure over the following couple of days. Which does speak in some sense to Russia's willingness to do deals and hold them. (That didn't end up working out for them as expected, because Ukraine subsequently sank half of what remained of their Black Sea Fleet). I notice you don't address all the other deals they violated either. > Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians. What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence. >Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly? Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you. >And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire? No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  Everyone wants the war to end. As John Stewart put it, Hitler wanted the war to end. It’s the terms of how it ends that need to be reasonable.
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    and do you think WW2 ended reasonably?
    - LPisGood 2y ago
      Yes, as reasonably as it could have. The aggressors lost and were punished. Do you think the allies should have just given the axis the territory they demanded to prevent war? I am finding it tremendously hard to take you seriously.
      - arandomusername 2y ago
        And instead of Axis controlling the territory, the Soviet Union did. Eastern Europe suffered for decades under USSR's rule. This is a reasonable ending? Millions of lives lost just so that instead of Hitler controlling Poland, it's Stalin. And for UK, it also became the end of their empire.
        LPisGood 2y ago
        This has to be a joke. You’re saying the right move in WW2 would have been for the allies to just allow the axis to seize land?
        arandomusername 2y ago
        No, I said WW2 did not end reasonably because that land was just seized by SU instead. The right move would have been to push back against SU, IMO. Why are you okay with USSR controlling those territories but not the axis?

LPisGood 2y ago

> US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? In international relations, power is relative (see: the security dilemma). A weaker adversary means a more powerful USA. USA Spends much more than that every year on its military. I claim the ROI is much better here. > Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back? Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.

arandomusername 2y ago
and why does Russia have to be USA's adversary with constant proxy wars against each other? > We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back? Mexico is considerably weaker. Here's a more accurate analogy; if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? against a significantly stronger opponent? > Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”. The aid should only be until a deal can be made, like one with Trump. It should not be given to prolong the war indefinitely. I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  > and why does Russia have to be USA's adversary with constant proxy wars against each other? I can’t figure out if you’re being serious. They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads. Russia is the adversary of USA because wars of conquest in Europe are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States. > if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? It’s up to the invaded country to decide how long. I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders. > I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory. Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points. To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.