It's important though that it's called out that even comments made here, are ultimately framed in a way that services the Putin narrative. I can appreciate your attempt here to moderate, and try to find a gap for agreement. And to honest, there is a ton we agree on here. However even in this post, you state that you essentially say that you don't want to go back in time, and point fingers at Putin/Russia for the war. See to me, that "lets look forward" sentiment, is serving Putin. Continual whataboutisms with Iraq/Afghanistan/US invasion is serving Putin's narrative. Even when you try to find common ground here... which I appreciate... you are still seeding in these soft patches that serves the interest of the aggressor, and the sole person that made this happen. I just need you, and others here who have your back to understand why I feel the need to call it out. Maybe you don't live in Russia, and you are just a dude from the Woodlands who happens to read Noam Chomsky, or RT Today. Either way, it's important to me that the facts don't get lost in time. ..... That being said, to respond to some of your points: -Yes Europe needs to unite, and have the lead in standing up to Putin. Belarus, and Hungary are the two big problem childs as well as some countries being too reliant on Russia for natural gas, etc. However this war is going to impact them first if and when it starts to spill over if Russia is left unchecked. However we are a vital part of NATO, and that's not going to change anytime soon, nor should it. -The Russian people live in a totalitarian government. They have no ability to protest, and create change like the US had during Vietnam, and the later stages of the Iraq war which led to Obama being elected over McCain more than anything. There is no Obama figure there to challenge Putin in the next election. Obama would be poisoned, or sent to prison in Russia. The West and especially Europe cannot just sit around hoping that the Russian people will rise up, and create any meaningful change. I believe most of them will not sacrifice their livelihoods. Unfortunately the only thing that'll eventually bring change is going to be leadership turnover through means we do not have any foresight into. NOT ADVOCATING for regime change from the US FYI.... which I'm sure you'd read into that statement. No... I don't support a coup of Putin. I am saying that Russia probably won't change until Putin dies of natural causes, there is then a game of thrones style vying for the throne, and maybe... just maybe things shake up in a way that brings Russia back to the fold. Wishful thinking but it's possible although unlikely to benefit the Russian people, and then the world by bringing Russia back to the world stage on positive footing. -You're right there's no easy answer with Ukraine. Throwing 10's of billions into Ukraine isn't preferable to using 10's of billions instead here to pay for a public option for health insurance, or rebuilding bridges like the Francis Scott Key Bridge, etc. I don't know why you think that Liberals, or Democrats here in the US are excited about choosing to spend US budget on this over that. Which is why when you bring this up, it is very much in line with a simple gaslighting technique, and ticks people off. Please stop doing that.
Avoiding doing the right thing just because you did the wrong thing in the past is not the path forward towards peace, freedom, or a better way of life around the world. American Guilt is a real thing, and it is mostly deserved. America has done some Fcked up things that we need to atone for still. That being said, if we let the American Guilt gaslight us into inaction to do the right thing in the future, we've ultimately made the world an even worse place than we left it after we did the bad thing. Do NOT let people gaslight you as an American because Bush lied us into Iraq, or LBJ caved to pressure to send troops to Vietnam, etc. etc. Two wrongs don't make a right, and American Guilt should gaslight us into benching our influence around the world to brutal dictators.
FACT: The reaction of Putin "driving the narrative" (his aggression): NATO has expanded to include Sweden and Finland and is increasing defense spending. BBS TAKES: The probability is that NATO will continue to expand, given its fundamental mission to defend against Russian aggression. Why would it fragment in the face of Putin's hostility? The one scenario where this unlikely scenario gains traction is if Trump becomes POTUS, as his open invitation to Putin to do as Russia pleases demonstrates a disregard for NATO's collective defense.
Not sure what you are talking about with the gaslighting (well, I actually do). What amazes me is the simple fact that we aren't sending any troops into Ukraine. And the simple calculation that we are helping Ukraine to prevent sending troops into NATO countries. The ROI here is huge for us and it shouldn't be a hard calculation, yet it is for so many. I have to give Putin credit for being quite successful at propaganda.
Russia's population being 3x the size of Ukraine's makes it all the more critical that the Ukrainian population serves at a much higher rate then Russia. People don't like to be negative on Ukraine so we're getting some head in the sand folks in here about this. Ukraine will assuredly lose this war if Ukrainian men don't start serving at a much higher clip, which seems unlikely.
Context matters I think though. Up until just the 2014, Ukraine had been one of the few former Soviet countries that still had deep ties to Russia, and it's president up until 2014 was essentially a Russian puppet akin to Lukashenko is with Belarus now. Think of it like a much larger version of Costa Rica (or compare Costa Rica to Crimea) and it's relationship with the United States where they are reliant on our military since they are tied so heavily with our country to where they do not have a standing army. Then in comparison look at Finland who for generations now have had a relationship with Russia that is divorced, and seen as on guard from Russian aggression. They for generations have required that every man in Finland serve in the military in some capacity for a time because of the need to keep readiness due to that relationship with Russia, and previously them not being part of NATO where they can rely on help if needed. That's also probably a big reason why Putin targeted Ukraine too. Russia has just as many if not more reasons to bring Finland back into the Soviet umbrella, but they are battle ready from years of building up their capacity, and literally generations of trained forces. So I wouldn't use the lack of military readiness of the male population as an indictment of the war effort, or their sense of duty to Ukraine. It's more likely that if you of age before 2014, you've carved out a professional career, and lifestyle that is very far from being battle ready. People forget that it really hasn't been that long since Ukraine became an independent Democracy that does not have a Russian puppet for president.
How does this context matter? Even if everything you said was taken as true, it doesn't change the cold hard reality here regarding Ukraine's need for soldiers and if those soldiers don't arrive, the end of Ukraine as an independent state.
Well I would assume that a intelligent and objective person would seek to understand why. There are reasons why Ukraine likely does not have the battle ready fighting force that a country like Finland has. My guess is that you are focused on a narrative that fits your political agenda so you know... context, and history does not matter. Only your worldview.
No. You said “context is important” now you’ve given some context and I’ve read it. It doesn’t change anything at all. Why is this context important? “Understanding why” doesn’t change anything. Ukraine needs men, without them they will be subjugated.
Average age for a frontline Ukrainian soldier is 43. That isn't sustainable. https://cepa.org/article/ukraine-struggles-to-find-troops-for-the-frontline/
If we’re talking about gaslighting there were a lot of people, including the Republican Party as a whole. Who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq and advocated the idea that it was the US’s duty to defend and spread democracy even through the use of force. Many of those people now argue that the US has no duty to defend democracies and that it’s up to other countries to protect themselves.
I was told talking about Iraq and Afghanistan in relation to Ukraine was whataboutisms and Ukraine is something completely different. Sorry, I dont make the rules.
Throughout history, the size of the army, while important, isn't the sole deciding factor on winning or losing the war. I think that premise is wrong based on historical facts. There are so many other factors - defensive advantages, international support, moral, attrition of resources (human and material), military strategy, .... It's absolutely a problem and one that Ukraine is trying to solve, but I reject the premise that they will assuredly lose the war if the Ukrainian don't' serve at a much higher clip (or have less fighting men than the Russian)
The majority of Republicans in Congress support Ukraine. But as we have seen, congressional Republicans have an issue legislating by majority rule within their own party, often being ruled by the demands of the MAGA wing and Trump's dictates.
And if you opposed the war in Iraq and criticized the U.S. for being "world police" 20+ years ago you surely wouldn't advocate U.S. involvement in Ukraine now right?
Not really. We made up a false premise to invade Iraq so I opposed it. We have a legitimate reason to defend Ukraine's sovereignty so I support it.
Its not incumbent on the United States to defend every other countries sovereignty. and yes, Americas role as “world police” was widely and regularly denounced in that time.
It's always been a war of attrition for both sides, which is why the win condition of Ukraine retaking everything back is unrealistic and foolhardy to bank upon. I don't think Putin is in danger of losing control anytime soon, but he's cutting deep into his funds to pay for this war and also to stem any bleeding or hyperinflation with the ruble. 100B is comparatively cheap for the payback they heaped on us with 2 elections, Wagner in syria and africa, plus a host of other chaos he's responsible for in NATO and the EU. I think our position with Ukraine sucks from a humanitarian standpoint. Too much success by them would open odds of destabilizing Putin, which would make him more prone to the idea of using nukes. Politicos has been talking about a cold war between us and china, but it's been in everyones faces with russia since the failed western coup in Syria with Assad retaining power. No one will openly admit it because of the stakes and because of Putin's propaganda and narrative to his people.
I agree with all that. But you'd just asserted that everyone who opposed the Iraq war and opposed US' desire to be the world police should therefore oppose the war in Ukraine. So, I raised my hand to say it isn't so. I fit that definition but support Ukraine. Its because I don't see Ukraine's fight as a world police action, I see it as a US strategic national interest.
A statement so vague and indefinite you could use it to justify American intervention in any conflict around the world. Including the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
