In what way is it in my interest to give hundreds of billions of my nation's money toward fighting an unwinnable conflict on the other side of the world over which corrupt sex trafficking organization will control a small plot of land? The Cold War propaganda derangement that still exists in the minds of certain people is insane.
The USSR never acted even half as hostile as Russia is acting towards the whole world, including the US and UK right now. Maybe you're not aware of that but Russian state TV routinely discusses the nuclear annihilation of the UK and the US, not just that of Europe. Current rhetoric from the Kremlin is way more hostile than it ever was during Cold War.
You better put a stop to that by showing strength. Unless you want ignore history, that is.
The claim you're making is ludicrous. We don't show strength by giving away all of our resources on pointless conflicts that don't involve us. Even if the USSR was as nice as you pretend, Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and is being just as hostile to American interests.
That's literally what we're doing. Zelensky came to beg for more money, and we're shutting up. I don't really care if Europeans want to go die pointlessly on the frontlines for some reason.
oh, that’s nice. tell me what country was the only one who invoked article 5 of the nato treaty? and which countries helped them? and now the the situation has reversed what does that country do?
"Ukraine was also part of the USSR, and is being just as hostile to American interests."
What does that even mean ... ?
The former Soviet Bloc was under the yoke of the central committee in Moscow. The people involved had no say in the politics of the central committee, they were coerced. But once its power failed, the newly free countries mostly turned their backs on Russia in a hurry. Only Belarus stayed in the orbit.
Contemporary Ukraine (or Lithuania, or Georgia) is not hostile to the US in any meaningful sense.
Reliable estimates put our total spend (over 3+ years) as $120-$180bn.
The annual US military budget, $820bn (13% of the total government budget) or more like $2.4 trillion during that timespan.
But even that purported $100-$200bn spend perhaps overstates the cost. Some was cash, some was equipment. The equipment sent their way was already bought and paid for. Much of it was later in its lifespan. And the US military obviously buys American whenever feasible, so money spent replacing that equipment stays in America. So the amount of money "spent" by America on this venture is highly debatable, with the real number being lower than those $100-$200bn totals.
We don't show strength by blah blah blah
Really? Because Russia looked weak as hell there, unable to conquer a small country that is using a fraction of our old stuff (and a hell of a lot of heart and ingenuity) that was gathering dust in warehouses. It certainly made it clear that in conventional warfare the distance between our two countries is rather vast.
pointless conflicts that don't involve us
I mean, people definitely said that when Germany invaded Poland. We shouldn't get involved in every conflict but we also should not ignore every conflict.
I don't think Russia is trying to conquer Europe, but they are the single largest power and they have proven to be a highly destabilizing force.
We're not giving away all our resources lmao. Support for Ukraine is a relatively small part of our budget and gdp. In return for this we get to significantly weaken and discourage our enemies. For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more. Iran and China's imperialist ambitions are crushed. And none of our people even needed to die for it. You're either a fool or an enemy if you don't see why we should support Ukraine.
For every dollar that we pour in, Russia is losing many more
It also can't be stated enough when dollar amounts are talked about...
Much of the value sent to Ukraine was equipment that was already purchased and was warehoused. In a sense, that cost us nothing. Some of that equipment was already slated for replacement. The equipment that will need to be repurchased is primarily purchased from American companies.
So it burns me up when people talk about how we sent $XYZ billion dollars of aid to Ukraine without understanding that the real cost to America was far far far less.
30% of the US aid goes to ukraine for immediate local purposes, think humanitarian and and economic relief, the other 70% goes to us defense manufacturers, directly supporting american companies who then send their stock of weapons to ukraine. This 70% that goes directly to US companies is counted in the total aid provided
I can think of a hundred things we could have US defense contractors make instead. And it's surprising how quickly Democrats have begun worshiping the Military Industrial Complex. As recently as Bush, it was the boogeyman. Now I'm supposed to support shoveling money into it to burn? Why don't we spend $100B on having American workers build high-speed rail instead, or anything else more useful than drawing out an unwinnable conflict? All that would be purchased with this money is a lot more dead Ukrainians before it's over.
There is currently an air raid siren in Kyiv. Because of US Kyiv has better air defense, so in case of rocket strike some would be intercepted. There are benefits to US aid.
It's clearly not unwinnable. Russia is doing serious structural damage to its economy and can't get enough Russians to fight, so they're pulling North Koreans in (who think they're going to fight South Korea). At worst (for Ukraine), Russia is piling up dead bodies at a 2:1 ratio, and in the process Ukraine is now the world's leading drone combatant. And all the whining that Trump has done about Europe not pulling its weight, is going to be answered with Europe now understanding that US aid is over and they're all publicly pledging to step in.
And the US has more than enough money to build high speed rail and continue or double its support for Ukraine. Available money isn't the problem.
The US has cleared out vast reserves of older armaments that they no longer have to pay to warehouse or retire safely. Besides most of that aid money going into American pockets, the inventory has been cycled for America's benefit.
If the US had chosen to be a steadfast ally and actually help Ukraine win, it could have reaped the same rewards it received after WW2 once Ukraine won: rebuild it as a bastion of capitalism and democracy and let the rising tide lift all boats, especially the leader's. Instead, you're walking away, destroying NATO and transatlantic co-operation in the process. And by doing so, you're making Europe independent of the US, when dependency on the US was the cornerstone of 80 years of peace in Europe as well as a strong world economy. Congratulations on kissing goodbye the very thing that's made America so wealthy and strong for the last 80 years.
This is severe whataboutism. I'm not a fan of the MIC, and much money given to it could be better spent on other things.
But the reality is that money poured into the MIC to replace equipment we sent to Ukraine is not money that leaves the US economy, and it is absolutely essential to understand that when discussing the "cost" of this war to America.
Besides all the good responses you already got demolishing this point of view, there's the direct benefit of testing all sorts of military equipment and strategies in an actual armed conflict. Even if you somehow ignore the massive human losses and the morality of the war with Russia invading a peaceful ally, the telemetry the US obtains is insane and well worth the money invested.
Because you want the world to trust that the US won't turn their backs on agreements especially when it involves a country giving up their nukes. Which would have helped protect them.
Nobody in the US voted for that agreement. I want the world to notice that they need to stop treating my people like daddy's credit card. It's a shame that the previous occupying regime hated its constituents enough to make these insane agreements to try and loot us, but we definitely don't need to stick to them now just because of that.
Yes, in the USA we vote for representatives who then make agreements on our behalf. That we don't have direct democracy on every level does not make our process undemocratic, and does not make all of our agreements null and void.
I want my people to keep their basic agreements and promises so that the rest of the world continues to trust our dollar as a reserve currency and our stock market as a safe place to invest.
> I want my people to keep their basic agreements and promises
I didn't agree to send anything to Ukraine; there is no agreement to keep. Maybe we should just raise taxes on you people who voted for it and send your money if you're so insistent. Go to the front lines, even, if you'd like. I don't support either of the two corrupt oligarchies in this fight and you have no right to bring the other half of the country in it, especially now that you were voted out.
So you don't believe in society? Or only a society with direct democracy has legitimacy? That's the philosophy of a spoiled selfish child.
You believe every agreement out country makes should reset every 4 years? That the recipe for zero legitimacy in the world and especially isn't going to keep our position in the world.
I have EVERY RIGHT to argue that the USA should honors it's obligations, I have morals and honor unlike people who don't believe obligations they don't like should be honored if they can justify weaseling out of them.
So now just loot Ukraine, a country weakened by war. And blame their president in stead of the agressor. Oh and 'he said bad but unfortunately true things over the phone' so let's humiliate him in my only language while he's asking for help in his third language.
"In what way is it in my interest to give millions of my nation's money away to this filthy and corrupt justice system in an unwinnable fight against crime? I mean whether some mostly harmless serial killer offs two or three more people in southern Nebraska is none of my business--I can't possibly see how anything of this is connected or how it could ever affect me."
