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.
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.
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.
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".
I wonder what media do you consume to get this absolutely ridiculous idea? baltic states have no beef with Russia (except petty provocations which Russia seem to dismiss), Putin never ever said he will do anything like that and actively emphasised he won't. Where the idea of Russia attacking Baltic states or any other european nation to that matter, have stemmed from (besides nonsensical statements of unelected EU bureaucrats like ursula, who have vested interest in stealing money through warmongering)?
E.g. France24[1], they have all sources linked. Then there are individual governments, like e.g. the Latvians[2], warning that Russia is preparing for a confrontation with NATO. Or the German DoD[3]. Yes, no politician is explictily saying "Russia will invade country Y in X years", but "Russia prepares all resources they need to invade, and NATO confrontation is not unlikely" is good enough for me, at least as long as Russian state TV shows nukes exploding over Western Europe or battlegroups invading the Baltics.
The Baltics have no beef with Russia, but Russia with the Baltic states[4], according to e.g. Medwedjew, who thinks they literally belong to Russia. Or Россия 1[5].
Russians have been saying the same about attacking Ukraine all the way until they actually did attack.
There are many signs Baltic states are next in the Russian annexation list. And if Russia going to win control over Ukraine - mobilized to Russian army Ukrainians will be in the first wave of Russian cannon fodder troops advancing through Baltic states.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can just pretend 100% of your tax dollars goes to services you use then. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that? I understand you personally don't want to spend on those things, but in our system our representatives voted to send that aid. It's not Trump's to withhold.
>. For those of us who want to support Ukraine, why can't we choose to spend our tax dollars on that?
This is what I'm proposing. Eliminate aid, that filters back into Americans not being forced to pay for it. Those who want to can use their savings to donate or fly over and fight.
For reference, I have no police service, no fire service, no public roads where I live. Road access for miles and miles are private easements which works without taxes -- I first built my road with an axe and a shovel with no government assistance. I have privately drilled water, a privately made sewer, and private electric for which I personally funded the power poles. I pay for private education for my children, on top of taxes for public school. Any remaining scraps of public services you might claim I get, I assure you it would be cheaper for me to buy privately than pay ~30% of my income as I do now in tax.
I don't want your tax money or services. You have a deal.
And yet, here you are on the Internet, built with public dollars. You're happy to purchase goods delivered by public infrastructure. You're happy to use a cell phone and a computer which are designed and engineered largely by people educated with public dollars. When your kids are sick, you take them to a doctor who was educated at public institutions, whose education was funded with public loans, who will prescribe medicine developed using public research grants.
And the idea that your wife and children could be raped and murdered (along with yourself of course) by an invading horde is so far from your mind that you don't even register it as something you're paying for, but if we all weren't paying for other people to protect your liberty, you might be just as unfortunate as the Ukrainians right now, who are facing that very threat.
You think you can fund an army yourself with 30% of your income? Really?
Your mistake here is to believe that if something is public the alternative it must be privately funded by a single individual. I cannot pay engineers to design a car, but a bunch of people can get together and pay for it then me and others will pay a little when they buy them.
I share my private well with several people who cannot afford a well on their own -- i cant afford it on my own withot them. It's all done privately without government. Thus can happen with militias, with healthcare, other infrastructure, the whole shebang. There is no need for private defense to be entirely funded by one person, for instance as I mentioned previously in the militia I fought in against isis everyone beside me there was on their own dime for a collective defense.
Your ideal doesn't scale. You want the luxuries of modern society without having to fund the bureaucracy and the overhead that comes with it. Your idealized homesteading way of life is incompatible with the existence of cell phones and computers, which are the result of a highly modernized society that does require a large government to function.
Militias don't protect against invading armies. If you want to protect against an army, you need to fund an army.
What's interesting is every time I suggest American taxpayer mustn't pay for Ukraine, this is the rabbit hole those of your opinion seem to go down.
What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on. My opinion on other taxes notwithstanding, this rabbit hole of cell phones and modern society falling apart and my wife being raped (seriously wtf) because I didn't spend jonnies Christmas money on Ukraine is unraveling. This is why Trump won, and the aid will end. We're done being blackmailed with apocolyptic threats, and the false dichotomies.
> What's more likely if aid stops to ukraine is that US taxpayers stop paying and life goes on.
It kind of doesn't matter how you feel about it though.
The way we resolve our difference of opinion is our system of representatives. You elect representatives to champion your cause, I elect representatives to champion mine, and then they figure out a compromise memorialized as a bill.
So when you say "well I don't want to spend money on this"... so what?? Your opinion was counted. The decision was that money would be sent but not as much as we would like -- a compromise. This is what enables us to live in harmony.
If you want to throw out the compromise, you're also going to throw out the harmony.
> my wife being raped (seriously wtf)
See? You think this possibility so remote, you just scoff at it. If you had asked Ukrainians in 2021 if it was a possibility it would be happening to them today, some would say yes, but most people felt it was not a possibility. Then it happened.
Your position is just as precarious as theirs was before the war, because you are dependent on distant people to protect your liberty. That's what you pay taxes for.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure. Make your own nation, defend your own land against stronger neighbors (the USA in this case), and actually be independent.
You won't do it though because deep down you know you depend on the rest of us, you're just salty you're asked to contribute anything at all.
Funding for Ukraine has been stopped and it wasn't through my unilateral decision. So far I haven't been attacked by the US army or anything like that and my cell phone is still working.
Somewhere in your calculation you are wrong. And it's not my 'feeling' that got us here, your feeling we ought to fund Ukraine is contradicting reality right now. Either US institutions don't function as you think or they are working as you intended with a different mandate than you like. Either way your monologue about renouncing and fighting the USA serves only as your own personal entertainment to distract from that.
> Funding for Ukraine has been stopped and it wasn't through my unilateral decision.
It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
> Either US institutions don't function as you think
US institutions do function like I think, because I learned how they function, it's pretty straight forward: Congress has the power to how spend money, and the President spends it. That he chooses not to is an abuse of power, and violates the law [1], the Constitution [2], and his oath of office [3].
Congress voted for that money to be spent, and the former President signed it into law. Not spending it unlawfully usurps Congress' Article I "power of the purse", and violates the Article II "take care" clause.
I think it's pretty clear, can you cite where the law and Constitution supports your argument?
>It was through Trump's unilateral decision, which is illegal. The money was appropriated by our representatives from our tax dollars, and we want it to go. The President doesn't have the right under the Constitution and the law to halt it.
This is a shortcutted, half correct view.
Impoundment Is generally illegal and/or unconstitutional.
However,
IF a Congressional directive to spend were to interfere with the President’s authority in an area confided by the Constitution to his substantive direction and control, such as his authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and his authority over foreign affairs . . . a situation would be presented very different from [a domestic impoundment]. [0]
The basis of this is used in Supreme Court opinion of [1] as discussed in [2]:
If the president may impound appropriations that invade his recognition power, it follows that he may likewise do so when Congress infringes on other exclusive powers, such as that of chief diplomat. ... Similarly, the impoundment power may extend to the president’s core and exclusive powers as commander-in-chief.
The trouble here is youre trying to shut off powers that intersect congress and the president by assuming congress can override article 2 [3] powers through military aid funding mandates. Military impoundment goes all the way to Jefferson. There is strong basis to believe Trump's military aid impoundment is constitutional exercise of the mandate of the democratic voice electing him.
Okay so I read all of [2] -- it doesn't support your argument like you want it to.
The author argues for impoundment pertaining to exclusive powers, which are very few and limited in the Constitution. I actually agree with the argument laid out in the piece, but I don't think it supports the idea that Trump is within his legal right to impound Ukraine aid.
The core argument is that Congress can't legislate the President's exclusive powers away, and I agree with that. The author then applies a "gloss" test which is used by legal scholars to help interpret the Constitution by taking into account a variety of historical and contemporary contexts.
They apply this test to the idea that POTUS is within his right to impound funds that intersect with this exclusive power as CIC. And they show historically it has been the case that POTUS has impounded WPC funds - military weapons, personnel, and construction.
Key arguments here are that Jefferson did it in the past, and the President is better situated as the head of the executive branch to identify waste in the huge defense complex than Congress, so he should be able to say "Actually we have enough, thanks." despite Congress wanting to spend more.
So we can agree that POTUS has a narrow impoundment power within his exclusive executive authority. The operative word there is exclusive, because where this argument fails is that we're not talking about WPC funding, so Ukraine aid is out of scope for this argument.
However, they do provide this argument. Some choice quotes from the piece you linked:
Curtiss-Wright did not hold that the President is free from Congress’ lawmaking power in the field of international relations . . . . In a world that is ever more compressed and interdependent, it is essential [that] the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. For it is Congress that makes laws, and in countless ways its laws will and should shape the Nation’s course. The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue . . . . It is not for the President alone to determine the whole content of the Nation’s foreign policy.155
The dissenters, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Antonin Scalia, did not agree that the president’s recognition power was exclusive, arguing instead that it was a shared power with Congress.156 Like the majority, they also repudiated Curtiss-Wright. 157 Only Justice Clarence Thomas clung to a Curtiss Wright conception of presidential power in foreign policy.158 Therefore, eight Justices agreed that Congress has substantial legislative authority in the foreign policy sphere.
In the words of Justice Kennedy, “[W]hether the realm is foreign or domestic, it is still the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch, that makes the law.”
With Ukraine aid, we're not talking about WPC impoundment, we are talking about foreign aid impoundment, and a very recent Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed that can't be done unilaterally by the President, because it's not within his exclusive powers.
The US and Europe doesn't send them arms because they're a "proud independent people." The arms deals are to maintain international order, that no country should invade and annex another. If you just allow that to happen, everybody will be worse off. That's why there is so much resistance to paying for Israel to annex Gaza and so much support for Ukraine to fight off Russia.
Taxes fund civilization and the world we've built. The IRS collects a percentage of our money to build roads and infrastructure, defend our nation's interests, provide income in retirement, provide health care, and so much more good stuff.
Part of that is ensuring that the world is stable so that our nation doesn't have to go to war. We do that with alliances, investment in military force, investment in diplomacy, and investment in building economic opportunity globally so people don't turn to violence.
It doesn't always work; no system is perfect.
But Ukraine is the perfect example of a democratic nation that has been invaded by a dictatorship and needs our support. They have already destroyed most of the Russian army and economy with our support, and we need to finish the job.
If we don't give them the resources to finish the job, it is just a matter of when the next dictator does similar, and we are forced to send our people to fight. Do you want to go fight in Tawain? Do you want to find in Estonia?
History has shown us that isolationism doesn't work, nor does giving into naked aggression from dictators and autocrats.
> Well we've voted representation against funding Ukraine and in this case it aligns with personally not consenting to funding Ukraine.
No we didn't. We may have voted for a president who is against funding Ukraine, but notably his role is not to spend money - that is reserved for Congress, and our representatives did vote to spend this money. Meaning, we voted to spend it, so he has no right to hold it up. That he has withheld it is anti-democratic, because it's contrary to Congress' spending directive, and therefore against the people.
If you feel you're getting a raw deal, then you and your militia can renounce your citizenship, declare your independence and fend for yourself. Forego access to our banking system, our defense, our welfare, our hospitals, our communication infrastructure, our factories, our ports, our air infrastructure.
Comments are supposed to get more substantive as the conversation goes on. Do you have something substantive to add? Because mocking me ain't that. Especially when it doesn't even make sense -- I'm not the one saying taxes are theft, pretending I'm rugged and independent.
I provided a substantial reply as to why you're wrong about military impoundment in our other thread where you asked for citations.
Instead you bypassed that, and start proselytizing about mockery after threatening my wife with a raping. Let's not pretend your conversation has decorum. I am being extremely charitable to you after your threats about my family.
>independent
And yet my initial comment was on Ukraine being independent. The irony here is your Jackyll and Hyde treatment of independence -- you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
I didn't bypass anything I'm reading the sources you left, they're over 50 pages long...
> after threatening my wife with a raping
I didn't threaten your wife with anything. I said you aren't worried about such a thing because an army protects her from that literal fate, and Ukrainians experience that fate because they foolishly trusted others to protect them. It's beyond me how you interpret that as a threat.
> you don't hold Ukraine to such demands of never using US ports or services.
Because they don't pay taxes to benefit from such things. Instead they are the recipients of aid that was given to them. Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward.
>Why would they use our ports? You benefit from our ports, so you pays taxes. It's straightforward
They use more than half of the things you mentioned. Banking services, airports (how does zelensky get here?), defense articles. Wasn't that your demand of independence, not to use them, or shall you walk that back?
>didn't threaten your wife with anything
You didn't threaten you would personally do it. It wasn't an illegal threat, but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped. I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
> hey use more than half of the things you mentioned.
You have to start over and make a cogent argument. I'm not following you. Zelensky is allowed to land in the US because the US allows it. Same with banking, defense, and anything else. If you declare your independence as a nation, you'll have to gain the same recognition, which will be very expensive. Or you can join another nation that has that recognition. Or you can stay a citizen of this nation. But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources.
> but it was a threat -- pay up for X or else your wife stands to be raped.
That's not a threat, it's the law of the jungle. That's just the natural order of things, and it's why there's such a strong incentive to spend billions on defense. It's not even an abstract thing because we see it happening in real time.
> I understand what you're saying but I find it exhibits a sort of conversation that isn't adhering to a particularly strict decorum that merely mirroring using your own rhetoric creates.
The only thing I ask is you adhere to the HN site guidelines, which is we are here for debate. I called out your last reply not because it was offensive but because it degraded the thread by not providing anything to respond to, so it was thought-terminating. Our other thread got more substantive over replies, which is the ideal. If you have an argument, make it. Snark isn't needed, I've caught myself doing it too, so when you're called out on it just stop and move on.
I'm not bringing up your family to break decorum, I'm bringing it up as my actual argument for why you need to gladly pay taxes, and why you're not as independent as you think. The topic of this whole thread, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the case-in-point of that, so it's not even an abstract problem people face in the year 2025.
>But you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources
Which brings me back to the double standard you present. The premise is Ukraine is independent, "but you can't just declare your independence, and get to freeload off all our resources."
So we come full circle. Either they're independent and needn't freeload off American taxpayers, or they're actually dependent. I am very happy with the execution of the former and pleased you've come to agree with my point.
That's not my premise. Ukraine isn't freeloading, we voted to give them money because we understand they are the frontline of defense against Russian aggression -- they are paying in blood.
What I'm more concerned about is your hypocrisy as a fellow citizen, where you seem to believe you are fiercely independent (and therefore shouldn't be expected to pay into the system) but conveniently ignore all the ways it benefits you and the comforts it brings.
... I pay into the system. That's what your sort of disingenuous argument leads to, I'm against funding Ukraine therefore you think this merits I must prove the case of the entire fucking tax system. You're horribly mistaken, de funding Ukraine is not going to lead to a libertarian utopia that you switched up to arguing against.
That is why your kids will eventually fight in World War 3, because you won't invest in a system to establish real peace globally by standing up to dictators who invade other countries.
It is not illegitimate in any way, and I think you are making a bad-faith argument.
American stands strong with Ukraine. The only Americans who have left the chat are those who were never American to begin with.
I admire that you put yourself in dangers way for what you think was right.
However it is really disingenuous to try frame a global conflict between super powers in terms of personal responsibility. Your prescription is in the same vein as saying those worried about climate change should recycle more, when it is clear their utmost efforts would not make a dent in the global scheme of things. As such, no amount of motivated militia is going to make a dent in a war against an industrialized military.
Just come out and say I don't want to pay for to support Ukraine's war against Russia. Your opinion is valid and should be taken into account. However you don't get to dodge your responsibilities if the outcome doesn't go your way, just like a Democrat has to live with Trump's policies whether they like it or not. It's pathetic to try garnering sympathy with cage analogies.
"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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
> 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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Martyrmade had a really solid episode about Ukraine that explained the Russian motiviations in a more understandable way.
If I remember correctly, a lot of the problems come down to broken promises of stopping NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia made concessions, NATO did not. This is the Russian case as I vaguely remember it.
This is a reminder that geopolitics are wildly complicated and that the waters are too muddied for laypeople to make sense of in real time.
Your analogy holds. The psychopath must be stopped, but it's good to remember that the west provoked it when it had a chance to tame it.
I see your last paragraph but I am still triggered by attempts to explain "Russian" (they are Putin's) motivations, it gives them a pleasant aura of "this caused that so..." that makes my skin crawl. Also it's tempting to think in terms of resources, numbers, strategy game stuff, but as Russian I am aware of enough wild takes and rhetoric by people in Putin's circles to suspect it's mostly about his legacy, ego and desire to be in history.
NATO expansion was not really a threat to Russia beyond Putin's pretense. Putin pulled forces from Finland border after it joined. I hope the wrong lesson won't be learned.
Most of this narrative comes from Mike Benz who is a former State Department employee that has began trying to educate people on some of the shadier aspects of US Diplomacy. A major facet that he talks about is how the US combines NGOs and non-government investment in order to achieve diplomatic goals.
After the 2014 invasion, the US realized that breaking EU dependence on Russia natural gas would put a serious dent in Putin's wallet.
In response, various groups within the military industrial complex decided to invest into Burisma, where Hunter Biden was oddly a board member with little experience. Burisma's goal was to develop the mineral and natural gas deposits in the Donbas region. Ultimately, Burisma was prevented from this mission because of the 2022 war.
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.
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.
