4 ms·

It still seems wild to me that almost 5 years into this war, Europe is still relying on America to help them with Ukraine. Should be pretty obvious by now that

It still seems wild to me that almost 5 years into this war, Europe is still relying on America to help them with Ukraine. Should be pretty obvious by now that Americans have no real interest in this war one way or the other.

epistasis 10mo ago
The US stopped all aid this year, except for intelligence sharing. It's wild that people in the US think this war is not their war. They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago, and barely followed through for three years, then as soon as Trump took office they completely broke their promise. By breaking their promise, the US is encouraging nuclear proliferation throughout the world. It's extremely shortsighted and stupid to not be providing the miniscule amount of current military budget that could stop this war permanently. The US and Europe have been too timid and stupid from the start, causing massive bloodshed. But Europe is getting smarter and stronger as the US gets stupider and weaker.
- TMWNN 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - epistasis 10mo ago
    What a weird and unsupported accusation. Claims without evidence do not require evidence to rebut. The US is threatening Ukrainian territory, claiming "it's already been lost." The US is not respecting the sovereignty of the borders of Ukraine. And that's not even getting into the US breaking its promise to respond strongly to Russia should Russia ever violate the memorandum during the Obama administration. I do not know what you consider the lie, but I do know that the US has completely tarnished its reputation over the course of many presidential administrations and has put its own interest in the world at risk due to its weakness.
- wakawaka28 10mo ago
  >It's wild that people in the US think this war is not their war. They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago, and barely followed through for three years, then as soon as Trump took office they completely broke their promise. We did defend Ukraine to the best of our ability, given that we will not risk an apocalypse or bankruptcy over it. There is a limit to everything. Don't be naive. >By breaking their promise, the US is encouraging nuclear proliferation throughout the world. Would you rather have a nuclear war now, instead of mere proliferation? >But Europe is getting smarter and stronger as the US gets stupider and weaker. If Europe was smart, they would back a peace plan asap. They are not prepared to win a war with Russia, especially if China sides with Russia.
  - spacedcowboy 10mo ago
    This might have more credibility as a post if the current "president" of the USA wasn't very obviously (a) compromised by Russia, (b) mentally incompetent, or (c) a fascist whose only interest was personal gain.
    - wakawaka28 10mo ago
      [flagged]
  - tim333 10mo ago
    >We did defend Ukraine to the best of our ability The US under Biden defended them in a very wishy washy way. He could have said do not invade or we'll send jets to stop the invading troops. But he actually said something like if it's only a small invasion the US is unlikely to get involved, and refused to allow other people's F16s to be used until a couple of years in. If he'd just said we are not fighting but we'll send the NATO surplus stuff over 20 years old to Ukraine freely at the start that likely would have been enough. But no. "Escalation management" - Ukraine not allowed to win incase it upsets the invaders.
- Youden 10mo ago
  Inspired by the other (somewhat aggressive) replies, I looked into what the US promised exactly and unfortunately, it looks like there was never a promise to defend Ukraine. The relevant document is the Budapest Memorandum [0]. Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the USA are signatories and essentially each agree to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty and not to engage in certain hostile acts. However the only obligation in the event of a breach is that if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine, or Ukraine is threatened by them, the signatories must seek immediate action from the UN Security Council. I hate to say it but it looks like the US and UK are adhering to the agreement as-written. The problem as I see it is that Ukraine accepted the agreement without stronger security guarantees. [0]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  - tim333 10mo ago
    Maybe, but Bill Clinton recently: >“We forced Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. We promised to protect Ukraine from Russia. We made Ukraine vulnerable. So yes, this is our war.” He was the one who did the deal.
    - paleotrope 10mo ago
      He should be the one to enforce it then.
      - mcphage 10mo ago
        Are you saying you want to put him back in charge?
        tim333 10mo ago
        He had decent approval ratings and was the last president to run an actual budget surplus rather than the huge deficits of late so you could do worse.
- Ericson2314 10mo ago
  Morally, I think the US should be involved, but practically, we have shown ourselves to be baffoons, and Europe really needs: 1. A common enemy 2. Reason for further integration (EU-level federation is woefully incomplete) 3. Reason for heavy deficit spending, to heat up their sluggish economies So practically, I do hope Europe does it themselves

epistasis 10mo ago

The US stopped all aid this year, except for intelligence sharing. It's wild that people in the US think this war is not their war. They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago, and barely followed through for three years, then as soon as Trump took office they completely broke their promise. By breaking their promise, the US is encouraging nuclear proliferation throughout the world. It's extremely shortsighted and stupid to not be providing the miniscule amount of current military budget that could stop this war permanently. The US and Europe have been too timid and stupid from the start, causing massive bloodshed. But Europe is getting smarter and stronger as the US gets stupider and weaker.

TMWNN 10mo ago
[flagged]
- epistasis 10mo ago
  What a weird and unsupported accusation. Claims without evidence do not require evidence to rebut. The US is threatening Ukrainian territory, claiming "it's already been lost." The US is not respecting the sovereignty of the borders of Ukraine. And that's not even getting into the US breaking its promise to respond strongly to Russia should Russia ever violate the memorandum during the Obama administration. I do not know what you consider the lie, but I do know that the US has completely tarnished its reputation over the course of many presidential administrations and has put its own interest in the world at risk due to its weakness.
wakawaka28 10mo ago
>It's wild that people in the US think this war is not their war. They promised to defend Ukraine's territory decades ago, and barely followed through for three years, then as soon as Trump took office they completely broke their promise. We did defend Ukraine to the best of our ability, given that we will not risk an apocalypse or bankruptcy over it. There is a limit to everything. Don't be naive. >By breaking their promise, the US is encouraging nuclear proliferation throughout the world. Would you rather have a nuclear war now, instead of mere proliferation? >But Europe is getting smarter and stronger as the US gets stupider and weaker. If Europe was smart, they would back a peace plan asap. They are not prepared to win a war with Russia, especially if China sides with Russia.
- spacedcowboy 10mo ago
  This might have more credibility as a post if the current "president" of the USA wasn't very obviously (a) compromised by Russia, (b) mentally incompetent, or (c) a fascist whose only interest was personal gain.
  - wakawaka28 10mo ago
    [flagged]
- tim333 10mo ago
  >We did defend Ukraine to the best of our ability The US under Biden defended them in a very wishy washy way. He could have said do not invade or we'll send jets to stop the invading troops. But he actually said something like if it's only a small invasion the US is unlikely to get involved, and refused to allow other people's F16s to be used until a couple of years in. If he'd just said we are not fighting but we'll send the NATO surplus stuff over 20 years old to Ukraine freely at the start that likely would have been enough. But no. "Escalation management" - Ukraine not allowed to win incase it upsets the invaders.
Youden 10mo ago
Inspired by the other (somewhat aggressive) replies, I looked into what the US promised exactly and unfortunately, it looks like there was never a promise to defend Ukraine. The relevant document is the Budapest Memorandum [0]. Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the USA are signatories and essentially each agree to respect Ukraine's borders and sovereignty and not to engage in certain hostile acts. However the only obligation in the event of a breach is that if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine, or Ukraine is threatened by them, the signatories must seek immediate action from the UN Security Council. I hate to say it but it looks like the US and UK are adhering to the agreement as-written. The problem as I see it is that Ukraine accepted the agreement without stronger security guarantees. [0]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine_Memorandum_on_Securit...
- tim333 10mo ago
  Maybe, but Bill Clinton recently: >“We forced Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and strategic bombers. We promised to protect Ukraine from Russia. We made Ukraine vulnerable. So yes, this is our war.” He was the one who did the deal.
  - paleotrope 10mo ago
    He should be the one to enforce it then.
    - mcphage 10mo ago
      Are you saying you want to put him back in charge?
      - tim333 10mo ago
        He had decent approval ratings and was the last president to run an actual budget surplus rather than the huge deficits of late so you could do worse.
Ericson2314 10mo ago
Morally, I think the US should be involved, but practically, we have shown ourselves to be baffoons, and Europe really needs: 1. A common enemy 2. Reason for further integration (EU-level federation is woefully incomplete) 3. Reason for heavy deficit spending, to heat up their sluggish economies So practically, I do hope Europe does it themselves