Exept you do understand that if the US and NATO doesn't help Ukraine they are very likely to fall to Russia. If Russia is controling Ukraine how is that leaving them to their own fate? That's leaving them to Russia's fate. Also what about elites like Putin? It's an easy trope to throw out that Ukraine is being fougth for "Global Elites" ignoring that there are a lot of elites in Russia who stand to gain from Ukraine. There have been Congressional votes authorizing support for Ukraine https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7691 The people of Afghanistan weren't willing to fight the Taliban. The people of Ukraine are willing to fight the Russians. Also we're not in Ukraine. We're giving them aid but we're not occupiers of Ukraine like we were of Afghanistan.
And would this be the case if not for Ukrainians weren't able to fight back and bleed the Russians? Could Ukraine on their own with their own resources from February 2021 been able to bleed the Russians like this?
Thoughts and prayers! Works to asuage your feelings of guilt over gun violence. Should protect Ukraine from the Russians as well.
The logic is simple. It takes infinitely more resources to support a country that has a weak government (the Afghan gov) that isn't motivated to fight for itself vs a strong government (the Ukrainian gov) that would never give up fighting for its country. That bunch of tribes you refer to were fighting for their homeland and also never gave up. They defeated the Soviets in the 10 years Soviet-Afghan war. This is direct historical evidence that a motivated fighting force can win a war against a major power (Vietnam is another example). This should give hope to Ukrainian especially given that they have defended themselves well and that the Soviets had a much more competent fighting force and military than today's Russian military. In addition, the Soviet was in a proxy war with the US and not all of Europe, the Soviets were not under enormous economic sanctions, and the "warlords" were given basic weapons and training while the US and EU are giving much more advanced weapons to Ukraine and have issued major sanctions against Russia. Although no one can predict how long or how this war will end, the historical evidence suggests that it can be relatively short and that the Ukrainians can win. The argument that this is a "forever" war that cannot be won is very weak. I don't know much about how Russia's natural resources play in the long term. But from what I read, it seems that has already been factored in. Russia is a major exporter of gas and oil, and they are already manipulating the world market. Europe has said they are moving away from Russia's oil and gas within 3 years. How they execute that, who knows. This is a price of war and one that the EU has readily accepted given the threat to their peace. The return on this spending is preserving peace in the EU region and our NATO allies.
Doubtful. That doesn’t mean there can be no criticism of the US involvement. There are other countries in the world that can pay for things. The US tax payer has disproportionately born the responsibility for defending the West for decades. The war in Ukraine is merely the latest installment. You can want Ukraine to succeed and also not be taken advantage of.
Sure the US shouldn't be the arsenal of the World. That is the reality though. The US military spending has greatly outpaced every other country for decades now. That has happened under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Whether the US shoudl be or not it's not practical now if we want Ukraine to not be part of Russia to rely on other countries besides the US.
Yes, that's been pointed out a number of times why the US-Taliban war is not like the Russia-Ukraine war. The Soviet-Afghan war was not a civil war thought. It was a major power against a "group of warlords" and the warlords won.
Hot Take: Tanks will not be that important in shifting the tide and Russia will continue to act in the same belligerent manner it has this whole time. That is if Ukraine does not start openly hitting Russian cities.
The Soviet-Afghan war was still a civil war. The Afghan government, with the Russians, fighting against the Mujahideen. Much akin to the Vietnam War.
The tank thing is military speak for saying we are planning to go on the offensive to take territory on the ground. Think about the final act of saving private ryan. The US platoon and the German forces would have just sat on either side of the river shelling each other for years if not for the Germans rolling in the Tiger tanks. On a much larger scale the Ukrainians need to be able to move and not just be held up in a city holding ground… without air support of course. So it’s significant in the fact that it signals that one way or another nobody except for Putin is okay with a drawn out decade long stalemate and things will happen this Spring for better or worse for Ukraine and Russia.
And coincidentally the US has had the most economic growth in the West among the major economies. Until 2016, you conservatives were all aboard on being business friendly/free market… And how do you realistically hope for Ukraine to succeed while “not being taken advantage of”. Lots of pretty words, but not much meat on the bones.
So what you suggest the US does to have the Europeans meet their treaty obligations regarding military spending and more specifically now spend more in Ukraine? We’ve been asking for the former for decades. European military leadership has been asking for the former for decades. It’s extremely clear they won’t do it unless they are forced to. Which I’m willing to do. We’re being blackmailed/held hostage and you won’t do anything about it.
And since Russian invaded Ukraine.... spending pledges have gone up and now most of the major militaries are spending 2%. What else ya got? https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...by-nato-members-since-russia-invaded-ukraine/
I doubt you even read this article. 1. A pledge isn't the same thing as actually doing something. Talk is cheap. 2. 2% GDP spending is a minimum. Put in place because other NATO members were neglecting their militaries so badly already. 3. "Despite all NATO members agreeing to the 2% guideline, few countries have adhered to it." - From the article. 4. "As shown in the chart below, only nine out of 30 member states are expected to meet the 2% spending target in 2022, up from three members in 2014." - Also from the article. So, less then 1/3rd of NATO countries are even expected to meet the bare minimum. And this is an important point: 5. 73 years of neglect compounds on itself. Germany has never met the 2% minimum and most European countries have let things get so bad that merely achieving the bare minimum isn't going to put their military in a proper place. To make up for 73 years of underfunding, you don't just repair that by one year suddenly meeting the bare minimum. You need to spend far more. Good grief. The U.S. Tax payer has been taken for a ride ever since NATO was established. We've asked them to do more constantly since then. They have been absolutely horrible about it. Asking isn't going to do anything. We have to actually do something or this state of affairs will continue perpetually.
Stability of the largest country in Europe and worlds 4th largest wheat exporter. Overthrowing a dictator and weakening an unstable global power. More countries to join NATO. Isolation of Russia. Lower western dependency on Russian resources. etc. And letting them have Ukraine would make them more powerful. They have taken parts of Georgia and Ukraine without consequence why would they have stopped after taking the whole of Ukraine. This doesn't make any sense. Russia attacked the largest country in Europe. Should Ukraine and the rest of the world sit by and let it happen. If Russia uses nukes, it and a Putin will cease to exist. This won't last 2 decades. The Soviet Union fell after 10 years fighting in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was more powerful than current Russia and Afghanistan was weaker than Ukraine. Putins' Russia won't last 5 years, probably not even another two. Russia's military and economy are in shambles. It can't disrupt anything. But letting them have Ukraine would make their military and economy stronger, so they could disrupt the globe even more in your scenario. Your point doesn't make sense. The objective is clear. Beat Russia in Ukraine without boots on the ground. We invaded Afghanistan, we are not invading Ukraine. Afghanistan was not a proxy war, Ukraine is. It seems you are the one that doesn't understand the concept. And the 80's proxy war with the USSR is kind of a blueprint on how to stop a major country.
Just want to point out for the group that the US promised 31 main battle tanks, while Germany promised 112, the UK another 14, France will probably follow with their own promise, and some Eastern Europe countries have already supplied several hundred Soviet-designed tanks. Ukraine also started with over 900 tanks and has also captured and redeployed hundreds of Russian tanks. So, yeah we're doing our part, but its not like the American taxpayer is providing all of Ukraine's weaponry. Europe has a significant role in financing the war effort.
