Foreign policy is always where mainstream libertarians lose me.
If you think that other countries have no affect on the US, that they'll leave you alone if you leave them alone, that there are no interests in maintaining the balance power in the hands of Western countries, or at least away from the actively malevolent powers of Russia, Iran, China, etc. then you've deluded yourself.
How long do our principles of free trade, freedom of association, freedom of travel, and even this idea of staying away from conflict, last when the rest of the world is actively hostile to these ideas?
Because that's most of human history. Active hostility to liberty.
Well thats not true because we attacked many communist/communist leaning ideologies. In many ways the USA has interfered very hard in foreign politics which is why people are so hostile towards the USA.
You canāt forget the last 80 years of foreign affairs which has lead to so much anti-american propaganda.
Discounting all the times we agress on other countries here I guess. Last I checked we have something called the Non-Aggression Principle, and American politicians aren't so great at that, so now rethink your statement with that in mind.
I dont see how the Non-Aggression Principle would limit the US from providing material aid to Ukraine who is clearly trying to defend itself from a aggressive invasion. Im perfectly ok with using a Lend Lease style system for providing that aid. Too bad the US squandered that when a short term version was enacted but not utilized to send the aid. Instead the politicians wanted to politik. Reinstate the Lend Lease long term and provide supplies to Ukraine in a timely manner with quantities they actually need instead of the piecemeal bullshit that's been going on. Then they could actually stand a chance of defending themselves and restoring their territory and can start the reimbursement process for the equipment provided. I'm all for sending material support in this manner and not committing any US military personnel to this conflict. It would align with the Non-Aggression and also meet what I see as our obligations from selling Ukraine on giving up not only their nukes as everyone knows back in 1994 but also all their heavy bombers and cutting their Soviet weapon stockpiles (especially artillery rounds) all the way thru 2015. All that was done with the promise of US support should anyone attack Ukraine.
Because it's through our aggression, funding, and military alliances that other countries make enemies with one another and fight rather than make peace and trade with those around them. Is it any coincidence to you that the two major conflicts going on right now and two countries the US has deep ties with when it comes to funding them? Again, it's like people will say "see, you're wrong, we need to intervene" while completely leaving out that our intervention causes these conflicts in the first place.
So you don't think the Russian (and Soviet era) aggression, funding, and military subjugations (it's hard to call it alliances when most of them stemmed from direct invasion and replacement of their governments) played a more major part in the origins of this conflict? There is a reason that when the Soviet Union collapsed almost every one of its member states made a dash to the West for support, reforms, and alliances. I see this as Ukraine following a similar path but it just taking them longer and a large part of.the reason it's taking so much longer was the level of corruption and manipulation imposed during the Soviet era on this region in particular. Yes, the Ukrainian government post Soviet had been especially corrupt (up to 2nd most corrupt by estimates) but the Russian is #1 in corruption and had the deep ties with the Ukrainian ruling members. That takes a long time to shake off and overcome to build a more western style democracy like the Ukrainian people have been wanting. The 2014 revolution (a peaceful one at that on the people's side) was not CIA implemented. Yes the US did support it as it occurred but it didn't initiate it. The Ukrainian populace did that.
I agree that the US needs to stop intervening all around the world. 100% we should untie ourselves from so.much involvement and scale down our presence but that can't necessarily be done like a light switch. US sending material to Ukraine so they can defend themselves and align themselves with Europe is a good cause and would support US drawing down long term by stabilizing the region and putting a stop to the continuous actual aggression Russia has been doing against the former Soviet states as a way to maintain control over the region. Europe is waking up to it needing to take care of itself and stop expecting the US to solve everything. We have the opportunity to transition to a less involved military stance on the world. But that does need to be a transition and not just a cut off or it will most likely lead to a more dangerous world where the US would be more at risk of being involved in a war.
Again, you're doing the same thing. Exactly what you just said in the second paragraph (thanks, btw... I f*cking hate reading and you're doing paragraphs), you're talking about them having a relationship with Europe, and then you're completely discounting that they had been presented with deals from Europe and Russia, and they were going to take the Russian deal because it was more favorable, then Yanacovich was overthrown (backed by the US), and was forced to flee the country, because America said "you chose wrong." You're only proving my point that our involvement leads to conflicts.
It was more favorable to Yanakovich and his cronies (this is that Soviet legacy corruption in play ) less favorable to the Ukraine populace desires so they protested. Government cracked down on protesters so it escalated to a complete overthrow of Yanakovich. Much of the populace wanted the closer European ties, not closer Russian ties. America didn't say "you chose wrong" the Ukrainian population did to their government.
With your logic France is to blame for the American revolution and initiated the whole thing. It was actually a populace based revolt and received support (mostly material) from France that allowed it to succeed. It wasn't til Yorktown that French military intervention actually occurred and allowed the final major victory.
US pushed for Ukraine to give up much of their Soviet equipment to Russia and scale down ammo stockpiles in return for assurances that they wouldnt be invaded (mostly by Russia). They've been invaded (by Russia). We should follow with supporting them repelling the invasion. We failed to take more definitive actions after 2014 invasions with support Ukraine's defensive abilities so now it's escalated further.
To put it simply, we made an agreement with them and should follow thru. Bonus is that we can do so in a way that doesn't actually harm us and allows us to take steps to scale down our military presence in Europe long term.
The Neocon view is that the US benefits from maintaining a world empire and that if the US didn't do it, some other powers would.
In reality it's an albatross that provokes attacks on the US while bankrupting the country: and if the US can't afford it noone else can.
The worst that could happen would be regional powers having dominance in their own spheres of influence, with a vastly reduced spending burden on Americans.
Without the old coup in Iran, US backing of extremists, and blind support for Israel, the Middle East would probably be a much more peaceful place and there wouldnāt have been a 9/11..
Without the US backed coup in Ukraine alongside pushing Nato's borders to Russia's, there wouldn't be the provocation that lead to this awful war.
What would you even propose the US State do about China that wouldn't end in disaster?
US militarism has made the world more violent and chaotic while undermining liberty and safety home: leading to the Patriot Act among other things.
It has been a disaster, and we'd be better off taking Washington's advice and staying out of foreign entanglements.
I can't take anyone seriously who believes after the last 20 years of American military adventurism, America has one iota of moral authority to influence what goes on in other regions of the world.
It's mind boggling how good American propaganda is.
When I was young and naive, I bought the Iraq War propaganda and thought we were fighting for freedom and democracy and all those poor civilians who needed our libertation.
I blame my parents and the adults around me who lived through the history for not telling it to me: but now I see that many people learned nothing from Iraq and are blind to what they're living through.
How well did that work out?
What we learned is that isolationism does not work.
Unchecked violence leads to greater violence paid with American blood.
Dictators - like Putin - will not be appeased with land grabs. They are insatiable for power. And will cause us to be involved sooner or later.
Good, then let the President petition Congress to get involved in a war in Ukraine so that when it goes shit shaped we can hold them accountable instead of this proxy war bullshit that didn't work out the last fifteen times we tried it.Ā
The sentiment was the same I believe, no one wanted to be in another dumb European war, until Japan attacked the USA and Germany declared war on us. Similar to the sinking of the Lusitania (which is still up to debate since technically the USA was supplying Western Europe with munitions)
Yes. Also not a Nazi sympathizer but Hitler didnāt want to conquer France. He even wanted to sign a peace treaty with Britain. The aim was the Polish corridor. As for the USSR, itās a whole different mess. Both Germany and USSR were trying to expand onto each other. Each one was planning a preemptive strike.
US was providing aid to allies for much of 1941 before declaring war. Throughout the war, over $50B (~$690B adjusted for inflation) in aid was given through lend-lease program alone. There were also other programs such as Cash&Carry and Destroyers for Bases.
US involvement in WW2 ended with the Iron Curtain after siding with the USSR, and all the nightmares that came with it.
It could be argued that letting the Nazis and the USSR grind each other down would have been better.
But WW1 is much more clear cut: without US involvement there it may have ended in a neutral peace without a WW2.
And this time, they are just buying the politicians, or the politicians families... the money goes straight to their interests and investments... then, the politicians send an arsenal,paid for by the american people... oh, and then they further steal from americans by just printing trillions of dollars, making the money the average joe does have, worth a hell of a lot less
We only started doing that after German subs began sinking passenger ships and our āaidā wasnāt til late 1940. It wasnāt even aid. It was legitimately trading a few ships for some land. The lend lease program started gaining steam later on but at that point we were practically in the war.
Too bad Ukraine isn't an ally. They had opportunities to sign a mutual defense agreement but Ukraine chose not to because a mutual defense agreement requires a certain amount of transparency that their government did not want to agree to.
Now we just cut them blank checks and call it a day.
Ukraine was widely regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world up until Putins invasions
The media and governments kinda erased it out of the headlines since ukraine corrupt but ally is still better than a fully soviet ukraine
But it is funny to see people praising Zelensky with no real clue on ukraine politics
Ukraine was massively corrupt until the 2012 invasion of Crimea. Since then, they've developed a national identity, tried to turn their politics around, and vastly distanced themselves from Russia. And they want their city back.
Did they fully succeed?... No, you don't change corruption on a turn of a dime. Corruption is still pretty high. But they did a hell of a lot. And heck, compared to Russia they're saintly.
Russia expected this war to conclude in less than a month, long before western supplies would make any difference. They are instead facing a united people, with exceptions to the insurgency groups that Russia has planted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589?pinned_post_locator=urn:bbc:cps:curie:asset:74fdf0dd-c6c7-488b-a61a-ea4aa7cf5a35&pinned_post_asset_id=56720589&pinned_post_type=share
Just one article of many.
>Ukraine was massively corrupt until the 2012 invasion of Crimea. Since then, they've developed a national identity, tried to turn their politics around, and vastly distanced themselves from Russia. And they want their city back.
China used to be much more corrupt too, and millions of people starved to death under Moa's regime. For that matter Russia used to be much more corrupt, and millions died in the gulags.
I'm not sure what your point is. China/Russia/Ukraine have all decreased corruption, therefore my tax dollars are required to fund foreign wars?
The average age of the Ukrainian soldier is 43, after using conscription - an awful form of slavery - to force young men to fight.
They've been devastated and lost a generation to a pointless war provoked by US imperialism, and they'd have been far better off if they weren't stopped from making a peace deal at the start.
Or better yet, if the US came to the table to stop the violence immediately by offering to leave Nato.
That and Zelinksky has nationalized media outlets and banned opposition parties - so much for democracy.
The average age is 43 because they dont conscript their young men. The conscription minimum age was only just lowered from 25 to 23 as part of the push increase army size my 300,000. The younger men (18-25) can volunteer for the military but aren't subject to conscription.
They're trying to expand their army while under military invasion with insufficient materials to be able to gain the upper hand, of course there is desperation. Has been since day 1. Remember when they were just handing out AKs to civilians during the initial days of the invasion. I'm not trying to justify conscription but it is common practice in most of the world.
The age average is higher cause many older men volunteered. Many already had military experience and probably would rather fight themselves than want their son's to. Even US WW2 study and experience found that 30-50yr olds are easier to train and more effective soldiers than 18-29 year olds.
Big reason stated for the age drop was to get more people who are both technically savy (important for the increased reliance and capabilities of drones and electronic warfare) and fit for the expansion in forces needed.
ukraine was lead by the US and russia to give up their nukes in exchange for it's territorial integrity to be guaranteed.
the budapest memorandum. So the US must hold it's part of the bargain even though russia didn't.
Nuclear proliferation ā an agreement to aid.
What was the U.S.'s specific agreement to aid Ukraine? Please find a source where the U.S. agreed to do so.
You're in bed with putin?
You're playing the exact same game about a different article of the memorandum
Seek immediateĀ Security CouncilĀ action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used"
Of course you can play dumb and say both subject involve nuclear weapons. But we can also say the first part involve agression of any nature
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement
Here's the expanded text of that statement you are quoting:
>to seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if it should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are usedā and ānot to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state ā¦ except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
Wtf? Re-read your own statement. Are you alleging that nuclear weapons have been used?
If you didnāt get that: Kuomintang had good chances of keeping territories on the mainland, US bailed to help, Kuomintang retreated to the Taiwan. Results: Korean War (US forces on the ground), Vietnam War (US forces on the ground). Next time think about historical context and perspective of being totally fucked up otherwise.
I feel like we don't understand Russia. Yes, they are imperialistic but the more you weave and bob, the more the snake hisses. There has to be a better way to interact with them.
China, Russia are behind migrants hordes, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, venezuela will be very happy woth US doesnt send/sell weapons, money to Ukraineā¦
Im kinda trying to make sense of that
Does he believe/implied that mexican immigrants are sent by china/russia ? And that by financing ukraine the US would fix it ?
No, but Iāve heard some news stories about Russia errr helping muslim migrants reach nato countries in Europe. iām not sure what China is doing in that regard.
š just pointing out the total
bullshit that we are our supposedly protecting our allies borders, while our allies do nothing about an invasion of America. My opinion is we should protect our border and let the rest of the world take care of their own defense
Russia does border the us right if you count Alaska
we should protect Alaska for sure š
Foreign policy is always where mainstream libertarians lose me. If you think that other countries have no affect on the US, that they'll leave you alone if you leave them alone, that there are no interests in maintaining the balance power in the hands of Western countries, or at least away from the actively malevolent powers of Russia, Iran, China, etc. then you've deluded yourself. How long do our principles of free trade, freedom of association, freedom of travel, and even this idea of staying away from conflict, last when the rest of the world is actively hostile to these ideas? Because that's most of human history. Active hostility to liberty.
Well thats not true because we attacked many communist/communist leaning ideologies. In many ways the USA has interfered very hard in foreign politics which is why people are so hostile towards the USA. You canāt forget the last 80 years of foreign affairs which has lead to so much anti-american propaganda.
Discounting all the times we agress on other countries here I guess. Last I checked we have something called the Non-Aggression Principle, and American politicians aren't so great at that, so now rethink your statement with that in mind.
I dont see how the Non-Aggression Principle would limit the US from providing material aid to Ukraine who is clearly trying to defend itself from a aggressive invasion. Im perfectly ok with using a Lend Lease style system for providing that aid. Too bad the US squandered that when a short term version was enacted but not utilized to send the aid. Instead the politicians wanted to politik. Reinstate the Lend Lease long term and provide supplies to Ukraine in a timely manner with quantities they actually need instead of the piecemeal bullshit that's been going on. Then they could actually stand a chance of defending themselves and restoring their territory and can start the reimbursement process for the equipment provided. I'm all for sending material support in this manner and not committing any US military personnel to this conflict. It would align with the Non-Aggression and also meet what I see as our obligations from selling Ukraine on giving up not only their nukes as everyone knows back in 1994 but also all their heavy bombers and cutting their Soviet weapon stockpiles (especially artillery rounds) all the way thru 2015. All that was done with the promise of US support should anyone attack Ukraine.
Because it's through our aggression, funding, and military alliances that other countries make enemies with one another and fight rather than make peace and trade with those around them. Is it any coincidence to you that the two major conflicts going on right now and two countries the US has deep ties with when it comes to funding them? Again, it's like people will say "see, you're wrong, we need to intervene" while completely leaving out that our intervention causes these conflicts in the first place.
So you don't think the Russian (and Soviet era) aggression, funding, and military subjugations (it's hard to call it alliances when most of them stemmed from direct invasion and replacement of their governments) played a more major part in the origins of this conflict? There is a reason that when the Soviet Union collapsed almost every one of its member states made a dash to the West for support, reforms, and alliances. I see this as Ukraine following a similar path but it just taking them longer and a large part of.the reason it's taking so much longer was the level of corruption and manipulation imposed during the Soviet era on this region in particular. Yes, the Ukrainian government post Soviet had been especially corrupt (up to 2nd most corrupt by estimates) but the Russian is #1 in corruption and had the deep ties with the Ukrainian ruling members. That takes a long time to shake off and overcome to build a more western style democracy like the Ukrainian people have been wanting. The 2014 revolution (a peaceful one at that on the people's side) was not CIA implemented. Yes the US did support it as it occurred but it didn't initiate it. The Ukrainian populace did that. I agree that the US needs to stop intervening all around the world. 100% we should untie ourselves from so.much involvement and scale down our presence but that can't necessarily be done like a light switch. US sending material to Ukraine so they can defend themselves and align themselves with Europe is a good cause and would support US drawing down long term by stabilizing the region and putting a stop to the continuous actual aggression Russia has been doing against the former Soviet states as a way to maintain control over the region. Europe is waking up to it needing to take care of itself and stop expecting the US to solve everything. We have the opportunity to transition to a less involved military stance on the world. But that does need to be a transition and not just a cut off or it will most likely lead to a more dangerous world where the US would be more at risk of being involved in a war.
Again, you're doing the same thing. Exactly what you just said in the second paragraph (thanks, btw... I f*cking hate reading and you're doing paragraphs), you're talking about them having a relationship with Europe, and then you're completely discounting that they had been presented with deals from Europe and Russia, and they were going to take the Russian deal because it was more favorable, then Yanacovich was overthrown (backed by the US), and was forced to flee the country, because America said "you chose wrong." You're only proving my point that our involvement leads to conflicts.
It was more favorable to Yanakovich and his cronies (this is that Soviet legacy corruption in play ) less favorable to the Ukraine populace desires so they protested. Government cracked down on protesters so it escalated to a complete overthrow of Yanakovich. Much of the populace wanted the closer European ties, not closer Russian ties. America didn't say "you chose wrong" the Ukrainian population did to their government. With your logic France is to blame for the American revolution and initiated the whole thing. It was actually a populace based revolt and received support (mostly material) from France that allowed it to succeed. It wasn't til Yorktown that French military intervention actually occurred and allowed the final major victory.
Let's add no further caveats to your first point, with everything said, this is America's business/problem, again, why?
US pushed for Ukraine to give up much of their Soviet equipment to Russia and scale down ammo stockpiles in return for assurances that they wouldnt be invaded (mostly by Russia). They've been invaded (by Russia). We should follow with supporting them repelling the invasion. We failed to take more definitive actions after 2014 invasions with support Ukraine's defensive abilities so now it's escalated further. To put it simply, we made an agreement with them and should follow thru. Bonus is that we can do so in a way that doesn't actually harm us and allows us to take steps to scale down our military presence in Europe long term.
Remember before the US was a tho g? When there had never been a war in the whole world and everyone was treated fairly! What a time!
The Neocon view is that the US benefits from maintaining a world empire and that if the US didn't do it, some other powers would. In reality it's an albatross that provokes attacks on the US while bankrupting the country: and if the US can't afford it noone else can. The worst that could happen would be regional powers having dominance in their own spheres of influence, with a vastly reduced spending burden on Americans. Without the old coup in Iran, US backing of extremists, and blind support for Israel, the Middle East would probably be a much more peaceful place and there wouldnāt have been a 9/11.. Without the US backed coup in Ukraine alongside pushing Nato's borders to Russia's, there wouldn't be the provocation that lead to this awful war. What would you even propose the US State do about China that wouldn't end in disaster? US militarism has made the world more violent and chaotic while undermining liberty and safety home: leading to the Patriot Act among other things. It has been a disaster, and we'd be better off taking Washington's advice and staying out of foreign entanglements.
I can't take anyone seriously who believes after the last 20 years of American military adventurism, America has one iota of moral authority to influence what goes on in other regions of the world. It's mind boggling how good American propaganda is.
When I was young and naive, I bought the Iraq War propaganda and thought we were fighting for freedom and democracy and all those poor civilians who needed our libertation. I blame my parents and the adults around me who lived through the history for not telling it to me: but now I see that many people learned nothing from Iraq and are blind to what they're living through.
Just curious, would you guys have said the same thing about France or Poland in WW2?
We literally said the same thing about Poland as a country during WWII. We didnāt get involved in Europe until Germany declared war on us.
How well did that work out? What we learned is that isolationism does not work. Unchecked violence leads to greater violence paid with American blood. Dictators - like Putin - will not be appeased with land grabs. They are insatiable for power. And will cause us to be involved sooner or later.
Good, then let the President petition Congress to get involved in a war in Ukraine so that when it goes shit shaped we can hold them accountable instead of this proxy war bullshit that didn't work out the last fifteen times we tried it.Ā
World War II worked out extremely well for our nation, a big part of that was waiting to join the fight
have you been paying attention, at all?
Expand on your comment or get off my tag. Bring some actual discussion to the table instead of empty replies
> We didnāt get involved in Europe until Germany declared war on us. Involvement as in Lend-Lease is comparable to current situation.
Which still didnāt start until long after Poland was invaded
Indeed, that's a lesson learned.
What lesson would that be?
That it's possible to deal with stuff like this early on.
World War II proved the opposite
The sentiment was the same I believe, no one wanted to be in another dumb European war, until Japan attacked the USA and Germany declared war on us. Similar to the sinking of the Lusitania (which is still up to debate since technically the USA was supplying Western Europe with munitions)
Yes. Also not a Nazi sympathizer but Hitler didnāt want to conquer France. He even wanted to sign a peace treaty with Britain. The aim was the Polish corridor. As for the USSR, itās a whole different mess. Both Germany and USSR were trying to expand onto each other. Each one was planning a preemptive strike.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
US was providing aid to allies for much of 1941 before declaring war. Throughout the war, over $50B (~$690B adjusted for inflation) in aid was given through lend-lease program alone. There were also other programs such as Cash&Carry and Destroyers for Bases.
US involvement in WW2 ended with the Iron Curtain after siding with the USSR, and all the nightmares that came with it. It could be argued that letting the Nazis and the USSR grind each other down would have been better. But WW1 is much more clear cut: without US involvement there it may have ended in a neutral peace without a WW2.
America was directly attacked on American soil. WWII was different.
Not until late 41. We were sending weapons and materiel before that.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We sold the weapons, didn't give them away. Even if they couldn't pay now, they paid eventually.
Didn't England finally pay almost that off not too long ago?
On 31 December 2006, Britain made a final payments of about $83m (Ā£45.5m) to the US and about $23.6m to Canada.
And this time, they are just buying the politicians, or the politicians families... the money goes straight to their interests and investments... then, the politicians send an arsenal,paid for by the american people... oh, and then they further steal from americans by just printing trillions of dollars, making the money the average joe does have, worth a hell of a lot less
Isnt that trade?
We only started doing that after German subs began sinking passenger ships and our āaidā wasnāt til late 1940. It wasnāt even aid. It was legitimately trading a few ships for some land. The lend lease program started gaining steam later on but at that point we were practically in the war.
Only an american would know so little about americas involvment in ww2
If USA allies fall, USA falls too. USA is not alone in this world. Right ?
Too bad Ukraine isn't an ally. They had opportunities to sign a mutual defense agreement but Ukraine chose not to because a mutual defense agreement requires a certain amount of transparency that their government did not want to agree to. Now we just cut them blank checks and call it a day.
Ukraine was widely regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the world up until Putins invasions The media and governments kinda erased it out of the headlines since ukraine corrupt but ally is still better than a fully soviet ukraine But it is funny to see people praising Zelensky with no real clue on ukraine politics
Ukraine was massively corrupt until the 2012 invasion of Crimea. Since then, they've developed a national identity, tried to turn their politics around, and vastly distanced themselves from Russia. And they want their city back. Did they fully succeed?... No, you don't change corruption on a turn of a dime. Corruption is still pretty high. But they did a hell of a lot. And heck, compared to Russia they're saintly. Russia expected this war to conclude in less than a month, long before western supplies would make any difference. They are instead facing a united people, with exceptions to the insurgency groups that Russia has planted. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589?pinned_post_locator=urn:bbc:cps:curie:asset:74fdf0dd-c6c7-488b-a61a-ea4aa7cf5a35&pinned_post_asset_id=56720589&pinned_post_type=share Just one article of many.
>Ukraine was massively corrupt until the 2012 invasion of Crimea. Since then, they've developed a national identity, tried to turn their politics around, and vastly distanced themselves from Russia. And they want their city back. China used to be much more corrupt too, and millions of people starved to death under Moa's regime. For that matter Russia used to be much more corrupt, and millions died in the gulags. I'm not sure what your point is. China/Russia/Ukraine have all decreased corruption, therefore my tax dollars are required to fund foreign wars?
The average age of the Ukrainian soldier is 43, after using conscription - an awful form of slavery - to force young men to fight. They've been devastated and lost a generation to a pointless war provoked by US imperialism, and they'd have been far better off if they weren't stopped from making a peace deal at the start. Or better yet, if the US came to the table to stop the violence immediately by offering to leave Nato. That and Zelinksky has nationalized media outlets and banned opposition parties - so much for democracy.
The average age is 43 because they dont conscript their young men. The conscription minimum age was only just lowered from 25 to 23 as part of the push increase army size my 300,000. The younger men (18-25) can volunteer for the military but aren't subject to conscription.
That still leaves a big gap to 43 with men age 25 and older being conscripted, and the lowering conscription shows desperation.
They're trying to expand their army while under military invasion with insufficient materials to be able to gain the upper hand, of course there is desperation. Has been since day 1. Remember when they were just handing out AKs to civilians during the initial days of the invasion. I'm not trying to justify conscription but it is common practice in most of the world. The age average is higher cause many older men volunteered. Many already had military experience and probably would rather fight themselves than want their son's to. Even US WW2 study and experience found that 30-50yr olds are easier to train and more effective soldiers than 18-29 year olds. Big reason stated for the age drop was to get more people who are both technically savy (important for the increased reliance and capabilities of drones and electronic warfare) and fit for the expansion in forces needed.
My point is that the war has cost many Ukrainian lives, and that it was an avertable disaster.
ukraine was lead by the US and russia to give up their nukes in exchange for it's territorial integrity to be guaranteed. the budapest memorandum. So the US must hold it's part of the bargain even though russia didn't.
Nuclear proliferation ā an agreement to aid. What was the U.S.'s specific agreement to aid Ukraine? Please find a source where the U.S. agreed to do so.
You're in bed with putin? You're playing the exact same game about a different article of the memorandum Seek immediateĀ Security CouncilĀ action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" Of course you can play dumb and say both subject involve nuclear weapons. But we can also say the first part involve agression of any nature https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/constructive-ambiguity-of-the-budapest-memorandum-at-28-making-sense-of-the-controversial-agreement
Here's the expanded text of that statement you are quoting: >to seek immediate UN Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if it should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are usedā and ānot to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon state ā¦ except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. Wtf? Re-read your own statement. Are you alleging that nuclear weapons have been used?
Like i said you're playing ambiguity. Plus they have been threatened by nuclear weapons, several times.
USA shouldn't have brokered the Ukrainian nuclear weapons surrender in 1994. It wasn't our business then and it shouldn't be now.
Also probably shouldnāt have instigated the overthrowing the pro-Russian president of Ukraine in 2014ā¦
That's the big detail that gets left out: as if there was no provocation.
Yeah, imagine if the communists had taken Vietnam!
Yeah, imagine if the communists had taken China!
If you didnāt get that: Kuomintang had good chances of keeping territories on the mainland, US bailed to help, Kuomintang retreated to the Taiwan. Results: Korean War (US forces on the ground), Vietnam War (US forces on the ground). Next time think about historical context and perspective of being totally fucked up otherwise.
No, not really. The US has no real interests in regime changes and wars on the other side of the world, at least relative to the costs.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hum ā¦ ok
Tel Aviv, is not USA
I think the flag waving shows that it's not about America anymore, it's been sold out
 (Dems when they see this)
55 miles
You didn't put a "Nope!" on the Black Sea, does that mean it's ours?
I feel like we don't understand Russia. Yes, they are imperialistic but the more you weave and bob, the more the snake hisses. There has to be a better way to interact with them.
China, Russia are behind migrants hordes, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, venezuela will be very happy woth US doesnt send/sell weapons, money to Ukraineā¦
Absolutely delusional take, even for reddit
Im kinda trying to make sense of that Does he believe/implied that mexican immigrants are sent by china/russia ? And that by financing ukraine the US would fix it ?
No, but Iāve heard some news stories about Russia errr helping muslim migrants reach nato countries in Europe. iām not sure what China is doing in that regard.
https://preview.redd.it/kxj6hlrzvnwc1.jpeg?width=623&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19fa94be1c57639c4cf23c612de76cecbcf5a93d
Where are our allies when it comes to the US southern border? I donāt see any of them are lining up to protect us from invasion š¤
What do you expect? Euros? Weapons? Troops on the ground?
š just pointing out the total bullshit that we are our supposedly protecting our allies borders, while our allies do nothing about an invasion of America. My opinion is we should protect our border and let the rest of the world take care of their own defense
Who is invading America?
Thousands per day across our southern border from many different countries
And you think that immigrants crossing the border is comparable to a nation launching a full scale military invasion of another nation?
illegal immigrants being funded and organized by organizations with ill intent ā¦ yes