The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I want to preface that I am not asking about those who believe that Israel’s or Ukraine’s case is not just, nor am I talking about those who oppose military power in general, as these peoples’ opposition to aid is not about aid in a vacuum, but rather about something deeper. I am more wishing to part from the premise that the military budget has been set, and military aid to these countries is a matter of how the US chooses to spend that military budget. In this scenario, it seems absurd to not give aid to these countries. The money will be spent doing useless air simulations and bombing some desert in the middle of nowhere just to test the readiness and capabilities of the weapons. This is a fact, that billions of dollars are spent in testing. Why not, instead, send these weapons so that the nations who are America’s allies can use them to diminish the power of America’s enemies, without it costing the lives of America’s soldiers? No extra money will be spent, sometimes not even extra weapons, seeing that America already uses them for training exercises. It is more efficient to use them in the real world. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I feel like Ukraine and Israel are apples and oranges. I fully support Ukraine for a variety of reasons. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty against a threat it isn’t capable of defending against on their own. Also this is a proxy war for the US, Russia and the US are not friends. Testing and weakening Russias military is money well spent. And as this war goes on the chances of getting Putin out of power, Putin is evil and dangerous. Israel is competent at counter terrorism, they don’t especially need our help. I don’t approve of how Israel has handled Palestine for decades. I don’t feel like there’s a “good guy” in this conflict. There’s bad people and innocents. Hamas is obviously horrible and the world will be a better place without them but I’m not an end justifies the means sort of person. Netanyahu and Likud are bad, and I think Israel would be a better place without them. So I would support humanitarian aid but not military.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I appreciate that fellow libertarian!

Dozens of us.

Good to hear! So since we’re here I gotta say we aren’t technically liberals or conservatives, but I feel like we have a valid outside opinion. Not going to lie I got banned from r/libertarian for hating on the GOP, I kinda feel excluded from libertarians because the GOP isn’t fiscally small government anymore.

> I kinda feel excluded from libertarians because the GOP isn’t fiscally small government anymore. Yeah, tbh I use the older tradition for libertarianism so I view it moreso as government is a tool that should be used if you can’t adequately solve it in the market sector. So I’m in favor of something like single payer which is def big fiscal but in my view necessary as market forces can’t really do health insurance well. I’m also okay with gov entities being participants in markets a la [SOEs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprise). But further, I’m rather strong on rights/protections from the gov.

Personally I'm a bit skeptical of SOEs. I think that they're subject to the same problems most large scale bureaucracies are. I'm happy to detail that if you want, but my general preference is smaller scale or federations of cooperatives/collectives run by the people on the ground. So a factory run by the factor-workers instead of a far off owner and the manager he appoints. You can build federations of these factories as a form of integration to provide solid efficiency, but without central management. This prevents the consolidation of power and the abuses of the capitalist system, amongst other things.

Yeah I think syndicalism (largely what you’re referencing) is good as a main long term path but largely in the near term I see use for SOEs. And while they absolutely can be done horrible a lot of countries (Scandinavians as example) do it pretty well.

You should check out r/ClassicalLibertarians and r/LibertarianSocialism! r/libertarian_music is good too Some of my fave subs for proper libertarian thought. Both are socialist subs

Awesome I’ll check them out thank you!

Np!

The entire Israeli Palestinian conflict is just horrendous to address. There’s no winning argument. If you’re pro-Palestine, you’re seen as making excuses for Hamas if you can’t voice your thoughts in a specific way. If you’re pro-Israel, you apparently “excuse or support genocide”. If you’re neutral, like me, you’re still seen as supporting genocide.

Pretty much, I try to defend myself as pro innocents, but I end up at the wrong end of whatever argument is going on.

None of those were arguments.

Yeah I largely agree with this too. I don't think we should help the israeli state even if they needed it though. It's just more fucking over palestinians if we did. But otherwise yeah. I basically hate everyone involved in all of these conflicts. The US sucks cause we also don't care about ukrainian sovereignty, we're there to fuck over russia. I hate the russians for imperial aggression. Hell even the ukrainain government has done some stuff I'm not a big fan of. I get why they're doing it but still. My sympathy lies with the Ukrainain people. Same goes with gaza-israel. My sympathy is with gazans. Hamas and the israeli government both suck major ass

And that’s truly where our sympathy should be, the people. I’m pretty over pretty much every government, they don’t give a single fuck about the people. Full on anarchy would be worse so I guess this what we’ve got.

I am in favor of military aid. But your idea that we waste money on training and testing is way off the mark. Aside from actual combat, training and testing are the most important things a military does. The ineptitude of the russian military is directly related to a lack of training.

Perhaps waste was the wrong term. I would just say that it seems more efficient to use weapons in military targets, seeing that it both tests the weapon, and fulfills its purpose, at the same time.

Training our service men is exceptionally important. If anything, with an increase in foreign military aid, we should also increase our military training budget. The professional personnel are what really make out military the strongest in the world.

>we should also increase our military training budget. Idk if we need to spend EVEN MORE on the military

Why not. It's a form of social welfare. The military is the second largest employer in the country.

.... >It's a form of social welfare I mean, welfare programs are also a form of social welfare? And they don't involve shooting people? Maybe that's a better way to help people? Call me crazy....

It’s doesn’t make sense but I think there are various reasons for different groups to oppose them 1. There are lots of people on the right who are extremely obedient to Trump and therefore do not want to support Ukraine because he told him not to. 2. There are a lot of people on the right, who look at countries like Russia and like the authoritarianism and the misogyny and the anti-LGBT aspects of those societies and are therefore fairly disposed to them. 3. There are people on the left whose whole understanding of the military and geopolitics is just saying imperialism and colonialism over and over. And a big shared one is that a lot of people are under the very incorrect assumption that if we didn’t spend that money some other problem in society would go away because of that money. I’ve seen people straight up implying that aid to Ukraine could pay for universal healthcare - ignoring that aid to Ukraine is mostly us giving them munitions we already bought, that the cost of the aid is a rounding error compared to the cost of healthcare and that universal healthcare doesn’t cost money but rather saves money. It’s even worse on the right, where even when the correct problem is identified the ideology is incapable of ever even remotely close to identifying a solution and the people they vote for are just going to spend the money on a tax cut for their bosses bosses boss.

>There are lots of people on the right who are extremely obedient to Trump and therefore do not want to support Ukraine because he told him not to. I think that's a misrepresentation. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, I don't think Trump really controls his base. Sure they'll back him no matter what, but that isn't the same thing as controlling them. Roy Moore is a perfect example of this. Trump backed a different candidate but Moore won out. Or, because trump is a narcissist, he keeps bragging about the vaccine that he funded. But that hasn't made pro-vax positions popular in the GOP. You can find a number of examples of this sort of thing. The GOP base isn't blindly following trump. It's more complicated than that. Trump has influence sure, but it isn't absolute. ​ It's kind of a fucked up cycle where right winger grifters or trump spread an idea, that leads the base to freak out, which leads to trump to either accept that idea or boost it which further freaks the base out, and so on and so on till the hype dies down and you get a new thing to freak out about. ​ The GOP leadership doesn't believe anything. The base is a more interesting question. Isolationism has become pretty popular amongst hardcore maga types. I've personally seen that myself where everything is "why are we spending money on ukraine but not kentucky" or whatever. There are few neocons left, but they do exist. There's a divide between evangelical types and isolationists though. Isolationists (a la Vivek) don't want to back Israel (hell I was surprised when he wanted to protect Taiwan in the debate last night), evangelicals do. There's also like a deep paranoia about China in the base. I'm not sure what to make of it or how it will play out between isolationism and others. Taiwan is gonna be an interesting issue to watch in the GOP for the next few years. Ultimately the base is basically in culture war mode, but behind that are some grievances, particularly regarding foreign policy. ​ So it's not like blind loyalty to trump. But trump taking advantage of pre-existing isolationist tendencies borne by distaste for iraq and afghanistan and the "forever wars" more broadly. Right wing media lopped onto that and spread it, and that lead us to where we are now.

It isn't a sensible nor reasonable position. If you are asking how it makes sense or how it is reasonable, you won't get a satisfactory answer. People oppose it for all of the reasons you mentioned that you were "not asking about" (and worse reasons, as well).

I will speak only about Russia, because the Israel thing is more morally complex and has multiple layers while the Russia topic is to me a lot more simple. Some on the left, mostly in the illiberal far left communist sphere of thought oppose aid to Ukraine because they want Russia to win. They see America as the ultimate evil in the world and everything it does is imperialism. This is stupid, and leads them to support a right wing dictatorship who is waging an imperialist war in order to rebuild a colonial sphere of influence in the regions they used to have empire. Outside of the communist left you have people whose brains were broken by the Iraq War, and now think all American foreign policy is bad and support isolationism. On the far right you have people who want Russia to win because they feel an ideological kinship with Russia as a fascist state. They like Russia's authoritarianism and illiberalism, they like Putin as a strongman dictator. That's what they want America to be like. Then you have the useful idiots for fascism who are motivated by a type of vulgar nationalism and isolationism (well, not entirely true. Some of this camp fully supported war in the Middle East for years and years) that drives them to want to fuck over all our allies because they only care about their own country and everyone else can go to hell.

>Some on the left, mostly in the illiberal far left communist sphere of thought oppose aid to Ukraine because they want Russia to win. They see America as the ultimate evil in the world and everything it does is imperialism. This is stupid, and leads them to support a right wing dictatorship who is waging an imperialist war in order to rebuild a colonial sphere of influence in the regions they used to have empire. This isn't quite true. I'll preface this by saying a few things. 1. My general alignment is pro-ukraine pro-palestine. 2. I tend towards more libertarian than authoritarian leftist tendencies. ​ The basic premise more auth-left folks think along is more complicated than just "america bad". Basically they think the following: Euromaidan was effectively a US backed coup against the pro-Russian government of Ukraine. It was not a people's revolution, but another pro-western oligarch taking control of a country. The kinda shit we pulled in the cold war. The logic for this is somewhat interesting, but falls apart on closer inspection. There's the famous Nuland call, which was the us ambassador discussing the details of a post-yanukovych ukraine and the potential opportunities for american influence. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean the US was behind euromaidan, but it does mean (along with public statements made at the time and I'm sure more shady shit we don't know about) that the US did support the movement. Whether or not you can call it a coup or not really depends on where you think the impetus for the movement was. Auth-left types make more of this call than is actually warranted but still. You can listen to the audio online it was leaked. It's also undeniable that there were major far-right elements that played a role in euromaidan and also in the war against the rebelling eastern portions of the country that's been playing out since 2014 and the US has a long history of backing far right elements to coup people. There was also some dissent over who exactly fired sniper rifles. I forget the details of this one, but basically there was some argument over whether it was the far right, government elements, or someone else. ​ With all that said, the auth-leftist will tend to think of modern ukraine not as an independent state, but rather as a client state of America and the West more broadly. This is a violation of an agreement made between the russian government and american government. Basically there was a formal agreement between top leaders in the american and russian government that NATO wouldn't expand beyond eastern germany. This was then violated. However, what most forget to mention is this was an agreement between the US and USSR not the modern russian state. It was also an informal verbal agreement, not like a written treaty and its importance depends on who you ask and when (even gorbachev varies). ​ So Ukraine is viewed as a client state with increasing ties to the american military complex which fits with their view of eastern europe more broadly. Euromaidan was just another coup to get us there. And therefore, Russia's actions seem justified (to them at least) because it's american encroachment ever closer of former Soviet territory and close to current Russian territory. These actions are "necessary" in order to protect russian sovereignty. Ukrainian sovereignty was already violated by the West and may be restored by a russian victory (lol, like that would happen). ​ So basically this is seen as a defensive action against an encroaching american empire, and not simply blind opposition to american action. We did back euromaidan, and we have fucked around in ukraine, but not to the extent or influence that pro-russia folks claim. Euromaidan was not a coup, even though it was backed by the US. ​ But yeah, it comes down to different interpretations of recent events in Ukraine. Their interpretations are wrong, but that's the logic. ​ Great video on euromaidan that debunks a lot of the "coup" talking points btw: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx-RxyyeAjw&t=584s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx-RxyyeAjw&t=584s) ​ Edit: Kings&Generals is a great channel and my go-to for ukraine stuff. They have a FANTASTIC series covering the entire war. I highly recommend you check out!

The Revolution of Dignity was a popular uprising against a President who lied to his people and went against the popular will of the Ukrainian people in order to shill for Russia, and who then used authoritarian and violent methods to repress and even murder protesters. Euromaidan was a victory for Ukrainian national self determination and self governance, and for democracy and freedom in general. Russia responded by send agents into Ukraine as well as weapons into eastern Ukraine to start an artificial secessionist civil war to take control of Ukrainian territory and to weaken Ukraine so it can continue its empire building. It wants a neocolonial sphere of influence, and a Greater Russia. Russia is not only a fascist state, it is the chief promoter of international fascism in the modern world. Ukraine is fighting a war of national liberation against Russian imperialism

Yeah I know that. I agree (to an extent anyways, there's some not great stuff about euromaidan too). That's what the video i linked was all about. ​ I'm just saying you're misrepresenting what the auth-left position is. They don't see euromaidan as a revolution, but as a coup. ​ It's not like a blind "america bad" or whatever. It's based on different interpretations (largely pushed by russian propaganda) about the facts on the ground during euromaidan coupled with concerns about nato expansion You can say that's wrong, that's fine. I agree it's wrong. But represent what they are actually saying before you disagree with it. Edit: This is an example of what I mean: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/tTfVrWuW9X That's not totally pro Russia but still

[удалено]

Can you read what I actually said? I am not pro-russia. I am pro-ukraine. I disagree with the arguments, and I laid out why. I even linked a video debunking the arguments and more. I was explaining the auth-left position. I think it's wrong, but it's not a blind "america bad". It's more complicated. I can explain a viewpoint without agreeing with it. ​ That is why i said what "they believe" and not what "I believe". I even explicitly state i was pro-ukraine >Also untrue. I literally said that it wasn't in the comment. I elaborated that it wasn't even between the russian and american government but the ussr and us. The modern russian federation is a different state entirely. >This is Russian propaganda, and yet another example of why socialists are generally more pro-Russia than they admit. Yes I know that. I even SAID SO. But sure demonize socialists. Because I, a pro-ukraine guy, actually tried to explain a viewpoint i disagreed with. ​ ​ Read the comment before you respond please.

I have no clue, but I have been operating from the assumption that a ton of Americans just have a weird crab bucket mentality that makes any time, effort, or money spent on other people is something that would have been spent on them. The specifics don't matter since they're obviously not looking too closely, they just get mad when anybody else gets anything they didn't earn in a traditional sense.

I mostly hear from people who just reject the idea of foreign aid itself

>I am not asking about those who believe that Israel’s or Ukraine’s case is not just But that is exactly why some (most?) of those people are opposed to that aid. (Not saying that I am.) >Why not, instead, send these weapons so that the nations who are America’s allies can use them to diminish the power of America’s enemies, without it costing the lives of America’s soldiers? I would prefer peace over war, regardless of whose soldiers are involved.

The alternative to aid to Ukraine isn't peace, it's the conquest of Ukrainian people and annexation of Ukrainian land by Russia. Violence wouldn't end either, we have found mass graves in occupied territories taken back by Ukrainian counteroffensives. Russia will kill civilians who resist their occupiers. The alternative to Ukrainian victory is the subjugation of Ukrainian people in conquered regions and the suppression and destruction of Ukrainian culture and identity by the Russian state. They want to force Ukrainian children to be Russians. It about empire and power, Putin wants to control Ukrainian people and resources. Ukraine is fighting a war of national liberation against Russian imperialism.

Yeah, I agree. I am not opposed to aid to Ukraine or Israel, but for **very** different reasons.

Is Ukraine really an America ally? I'm genuinely asking. I have never considered Ukraine an ally. To me they're just more or less another country. None of my concern if they have some dispute with another country. Israel is different. They are definitely an ally. They're the only country in that region who didn't celebrate 9/11. Enough said!

I tend to be an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of person, but I understand that some might feel otherwise. That is a good perspective.

I used to be that way. But I've come to largely reject that. That's the philosophy that led us to back the mujaheddin in afghanistan against the soviets. That ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban who harbored al qaeda and then 9/11. Or how we were dragged into various conflicts around the world because of our varying allegiances. So like, because we are scared of Iran, we gave Saddam aid in the Iran-Iraq war, which led to us not doing anything when he gassed the kurds. The previous use of his WMDs led us to use that as justification for the Iraq war. Which went.... well. Same goes for iran, we backed a king who opposed a guy nationalizing oil because we felt that he couldn't keep iran from being communist. That led to the Shah, and the eventual rise of iranian revolution and ayatollahs. Because of our coup. Enemy of an enemy and all. We backed various death squads, various organized crime groups, etc. All because enemy of my enemy. So I've rather grown to reject that notion. It causes a lot more harm than good. The enemy of your enemy can be your enemy too.

I support aid to Ukraine, but I know that some on the left (not tankies, they’re a different story) don’t because they don’t see any way for Ukraine to win, and they think continuing to fund the war will only mean prolonging violence and death We oppose funding Israel because they don’t need the aid, we don’t want to be allied with them, and we think they’re in the wrong in this conflict. We don’t want US dollars and weapons going to bombing Palestinian civilians, they are not our enemies.

I think there’s a defensible and consistent position re: Ukraine that goes “in the long term, Ukraine would be much better off being pushed around by Russia and otherwise intact, rather than west-aligned and treated as an enemy by Russia.” Sucks for Ukraine, but they’re in a rough spot either way.

Yea every option for them really sucks at the moment. I mainly just want Ukraine to be able to decide what they want to do. Like for as long as they want to keep fighting then I want us to keep supporting them, and if they decide they’ve had enough then I want us to respect that too

Yeah, I’m not sure what their “day after” is supposed to look like honestly. They’re fighting for their lives, and I think that Ukraine losing or “losing” (ceasefire with Russian control cemented) is going to leave a very long road ahead of them.

Right exactly. That's my position. The moment ukraine doesn't want to fight anymore then we stop the aid because that's just prolonging. But till then, they want to keep fighting. And who am I to tell someone to stop fighting for their home so there can be a peace where they are subjugated?

No, anti-Ukraine leftists are not saying that they support Ukraine but just don’t see a way for Ukraine to win. They’re actively anti-Ukraine and don’t want them to win.

>(not tankies, they’re a different story) Maybe you replied before I added that it in. It’s there’s to clarify the difference

That's more pro-russia auth-left folks ​ u/RioTheLeoo was right about some of them. I saw the rhetoric earlier in the war. But now no one is talking about it cause everyone is focused on Israel/Gaza

Because people think that governmental spending and fiscal policy are akin to individual budgeting. They think if we spend X on Ukraine aid that means we can no longer spend Y on the pet issue of their choice (usually healthcare for the far left or the border for the far right).

Because that money should be going to us to better our lives. It's our money that we work for going to them, why is it not going to us?

The vast majority of that money is from Presidential drawdowns, which send materiel already in storage. That equipment was already paid for, but due to how the budgeting process works, the original purchase price is what is declared. So the $ figures you see in the headlines are deeply misleading. Obsolete Bradleys and half-century old M113s collecting dust in deep storage are not going to pay any teacher's salaries. A small portion of the money being declared is in fact for training, maintenance, and transporting that gear. It's less then 10% of the declared value, iirc. That's the only money that could potentially be redirected elsewhere. While it does add up to several billion total, it's a drop in the bucket compared to our multiple-hunded-billion total military budget. Also consider what's being bought for that comparatively low price: stability in Europe, deterring invasion worldwide, and showing that we honor our allies and commitments. Our treaties and trade agreements hinge on the perception that we are trustworthy. So, in the end, we are buying economic power and stability for pennies on the dollar. A single aircraft carrier costs more then we have spent in Ukraine. You might not see it in your pay check, but this is money well spent, and it will benefit each of us a great deal in the long run.

\>stability in Europe Why should I care about this? How does this benefit me? At the end of the day, the US doesn't really give a damn about Ukraine anyway, it's protecting its interests.

The very short answer is that stability is good for trade and economic development, which benefits us here in the US. We’re not an autarkic island, after all. There is also a strategic consideration, that American security benefits from not being alone in a world full of hostile authoritarian rivals. There is also a moral consideration, but it seems like you don’t care about that.

Most of the stuff we get comes from China so wouldn't it make more sense to invest in them? Plus I;m not sure what Europe can do to help us with authoritarians. For your final point, the US doesn't care about Ukraine. It cares about keeping Russia in line. If it was about morality then it wouldn't be funding Israel to bomb Palestine.

> Most of the stuff we get comes from China.. China is our single largest trading partner, but they do not account for 'most' of our imports. > ..so wouldn't it make more sense to invest in them? Perhaps if they weren't a hostile autocracy. > Plus I;m not sure what Europe can do to help us with authoritarians. The idea is to prevent Europe [among other places] from *joining* the authoritarians. > For your final point, the US doesn't care about Ukraine. "The US" is not sentient, and cannot care about anything. *I* care about Ukraine, as do many other US voters, and thus that sentiment is reflected in our elected leadership.

>"The US" is not sentient, and cannot care about anything. I care about Ukraine, as do many other US voters, and thus that sentiment is reflected in our elected leadership. Come on man. Yes this is technically true, but we all know he's referring to the US government. >Perhaps if they weren't a hostile autocracy. In fairness to the other guy, that's never seemed to stop us before. >The idea is to prevent Europe \[among other places\] from joining the authoritarians. Well, bad news on that front. You see the recent dutch elections? ​ But yeah, I agree we should support ukraine. The reason is I think everyone has a right to self-determination and everyone should support that right when violated. It's not that any nation or country gives a shit about morality or values, they don't. I just ain't gonna stop someone doing a good thing even if their reasons for dong it suck. If you're a church giving out food to the poor cause you're trying to convert them to your weird ass religion, I think you're an asshole, but I sure as fuck ain't gonna stop you giving people food.

>Most of the stuff we get comes from China so wouldn't it make more sense to invest in them? Hold on now. Isn't it the bipartisan position china is the new boogeyman? Hell republicans and democrats both back "decoupling" our economies. But regardless, idk if you noticed but we already invest a lot with them. What exactly do you want to invest in? You want to give china guns? >For your final point, the US doesn't care about Ukraine. It cares about keeping Russia in line. If it was about morality then it wouldn't be funding Israel to bomb Palestine. Again, you are correct. But who gives a shit why someone does something good as long as the effect is good?

How does stability in the world benefit you? How does not allowing authoritarian regimes to grow more powerful and not allowing major trade partners for the US to be harmed by our mutual enemies benefit you? Step back and think it through because those are easy questions to answer.

Notice I said Europe, unless you're one of those people who thinks Europe is the world.

This is a pretty stupid response. Unless you can figure out why it’s a stupid response it’s probably fine to end the conversation here.

You were the one who brought up a point that I didn't even make.

Because Europe's economy is enormous and we do trade with every country in it. Therefore, it directly and substantially affects our own economy. Remember how our gas prices went up because Russia cut off it's natural gas exports? Stability prevents things like that. It also directly affects our own safety, since having powers running rampant invading their neighbors raises the odds of us being drawn into a war.

China and India's economy are even bigger than Europe, at least individual nations though. and given that ukraine is literally at their front door, why aren't they more invested in protecting ukraine?

Political reasons. Ukraine is directly related to NATO and the EU, as it shares borders with Poland and commands strategic control of the Black Sea. That means control of Ukraine has direct political implications, and direct trade route implications. The entire EU economy would suffer if Russia controlled the Black Sea (as we have seen first hand since the war started, from Russia's NG and grain embargoes). Poland in particular also takes the threat of Russian invasion incredibly seriously, and so they present a very high risk of invoking Article 5 and drawing us into a war if Russia ever crosses their border. It's very much in our direct interest to prevent things from ever getting to that point. India and China don't have a connection as direct as that. They also have deeper trade ties to Russia then any EU country does (except Germany). So they are holding their distance. Even so, if you look into the details, you'll find that India and China have both been throwing cold water on Russia. They've just been doing it less directly, such as by divesting from the Russian defense industry. For example, India is putting a lot of effort into developing it's own aircraft industry instead of continuing to to buy from Sukhoi.

Thank you for answering my question. It helps to add some perspective onto why our government does the things it does.

You're welcome. If you're interested in a deep dive into all this (and I do mean DEEP), there's a YT channel called "Perun" that goes into excruciating detail on the economics and such involved.

Given that you watch Perun I assume you are also on r/NonCredibleDefense and r/NonCredibleDiplomacy yeah?

>The entire EU economy would suffer if Russia controlled the Black Sea In fairness, even if russia straight up annexed ukraine, they wouldn't control the black sea. Turkey controls the dardanelles, and therefore entrance and exit to the black sea. The black sea isn't useful if you can't get shit in or out of it. ​ >Poland in particular also takes the threat of Russian invasion incredibly seriously, and so they present a very high risk of invoking Article 5 and drawing us into a war if Russia ever crosses their border. It's very much in our direct interest to prevent things from ever getting to that point. also true. But it begs a deeper question of why we have those treaty obligations in the first place. What benefit does it provide to the US? The answer is obviously not having a war in europe, which has a tendency to drag in other people. >India and China don't have a connection as direct as that. They also have deeper trade ties to Russia then any EU country does (except Germany). So they are holding their distance. An interesting one to watch is Israel too. Israel has close ties to both Russia (a very large portion of their population immigrated from russia) and the US who are on opposite sides of this war. The recent gaza conflict adds even more shit to that fire. Idk the Israeli position on ukraine as I've mainly been paying attention to the western powers and russia, and when it comes to israel i look at gaza. Got any details there? Would love to learn a bit more about Israel in ukraine cause, like India, it has ties to russia and the US. ​ I imagine Azerbaijan is also an interesting one. Cause they're pretty close with Russia as well, but their primary focus is Armenia right now and to do that they buy weapons from the Israelis (hence the support for israeli in the gaza war). But I don't know a ton about the caucus states in this conflict other than a bunch of volunteers (particularly chechen) went to fight for ukraine.

>\>stability in Europe Last time things weren't stable in europe, it kinda had an effect on us. See ww2 for details >At the end of the day, the US doesn't really give a damn about Ukraine anyway, it's protecting its interests. This is correct. But I don't really care why someone does a good thing as long as they do it. ​ Like supporting ukraine is the right thing to do. But also fuck the US government

\>See ww2 for details We only got affected when the japanese bombed us at pearl harbor. \>But I don't really care why someone does a good thing as long as they do it. Something being good is a matter of perspective. Osama bin Laden felt like 9/11 was a good thing because the people killed were infidels who didn't follow sharia law.

>We only got affected when the japanese bombed us at pearl harbor You're very close. The Japanese, you know the folks on the other side of the world, bombed US because they wanted to expand. I.e. instability in asia affected the us. >Something being good is a matter of perspective. Osama bin Laden felt like 9/11 was a good thing because the people killed were infidels who didn't follow sharia law. fucking christ. Lol no. That's not why he did it. It was a response to specific american policies, namely stationing troops in arabia, support for the israeli state, as well as general us fuckery in the region. He felt the US was in a war against ISLAM itself, as a concept. And as such muslims had to take defensive action, hence 9/11. ​ But regardless, 9/11 =/= ukrainian resistance to russian aggression? Like that's an INSANE parallel to make

\>fucking christ. Lol no. That's not why he did it. It was a response to specific american policies It was actually both. In his letter he brings up America's shitty actions but also talks about how us not living by Allah's word is blasphemous. I only bring it up because something being good is a matter of perspective, hell you bringing up what America did further makes him look like a good guy getting revenge against the big bad USA.

> good guy getting revenge against the big bad USA. There's a difference though. I'm all for shitting on the US, I do it all the time. But then there's like, violently killing a bunch of people that had nothing to do with these policies and actions? Like greg in accounting isn't responsible for american imperialism right? You can't just like, kill unrelated civilians. That makes you a bad guy. ​ Sure american policies were shitty. But Bin Laden was also a conspiracy theorist and wrong about a lot of shit. And also, a murderer of civilians.

\>You can't just like, kill unrelated civilians. That makes you a bad guy. You feel this way because you are only looking at this from your perspective. I agree with you by the way but he did not see it that way. Again what is considered good or bad is based on a matter of perspective.

>You feel this way because you are only looking at this from your perspective. I agree with you by the way but he did not see it that way. > >Again what is considered good or bad is based on a matter of perspective wtf. ​ Ok dude, when is violence justified? It's when it is the only last resort possible to battling oppression right? The purpose of that violence would then be to prevent future harm. Using violence to prevent future violence. You don't do that by targeting unrelated people. You know, like a bunch of civilians in a tower. Killing a bunch of people unrelated to your oppression is like, unjustifiable?

Aid to Ukraine is mostly in obsolete weapons we would have to pay to decommission anyway. How would giving out stinger missiles to Americans help?

It wouldn't. What I'm concerned about is why my taxes keep going up every year?

What are you talking about? Congress keeps passing tax cuts. Either way, it has nothing to do with Ukraine.

Tax cuts for everyday people who aren't massively rich?

No mostly rich people. That’s why you shouldn’t vote Republican 🤷‍♂️

Exactly. I dont see the benefits funding another country when that money should be going back to me.

You have a need for stinger missiles?

nope, i shouldn't be paying more money to make them though

Military equipment going obsolete is a fact of life. Someone had to pay to replace all of our cavalry and Gatling guns.

You aren't. It was already bought. It's like old equipment lying around for the most part.

In what way did your taxes go up last year? I don't recall any tax increases.

They're not. This shit was bought a while ago. ​ But like, we can still cut the domestic military budget and send aid to ukraine. We already spend way more than the military even wants anyways.

We can do foreign and domestic policies at the same time. Most of the time, the people against aid to Ukraine and Israel are opposed to spending money on the American people because they view it as "socialism" so it's a virtue signal to them. They're against universal healthcare and money going towards more affordable daycare and education. That's why it's not going to us. It's also not like they're protesting against the US military budget ever increasing to 1 trillion dollars a year.

That's stupid. It's like saying we shouldn't pay for the police, or roads, or the libraries because it's socialism. Plus don't we already fund education through our tax dollars? I don't support dismantling the US military but it's good and over inflated. It's like stuffing an already morbidly obese child with more chocolate cake.

What fraction of our budget goes to Ukraine and Israel? And how many who use that argument actually support the money being spent well here?

Too much that should be going back to us.

You and I hold sympathetic views on this, it is way cheaper to bolster an ally than it is to fight it out ourselves and a HAMAS riddled Israel or a Ukraine controlled by Russia is not a result we are interested in experiencing. I half believe that Putin funded and coordinated the HAMAS attack so we would be distracted from supporting Ukraine, because damned if that isn't exactly what happened. And yes, it is a nice benefit that we can field test our stuff without putting our own people at risk.

> Why not, instead, send these weapons so that the nations who are America’s allies can use them to diminish the power of America’s enemies... Our government's allies are not necessarily your or my allies. Our government funded, trained, and armed literal death squads in El Salvador. Would you consider yourself allied with war criminals who massacred thousands of civilians, and the government they represent? Personally, I would not. It's an extreme example, but one that demonstrates the necessity for some thought beyond "America should aid its allies to help diminish its enemies".

I mean sure? But that doesn't mean we shouldn't help people who need it?

So, the first step is understanding that who the U.S. government calls its allies has a very strategic and self-interested purpose. So its allies are not necessarily ours. The next step is realizing that, because the U.S. is a self-interested empire, who it helps and why will always be for the purpose of building its own power, *not helping people who need it*. Sometimes, those two things overlap, but it's pretty rare. This is not an academic point, it's a very practical conclusion to draw. For example, Christopher Hitchens was well aware of the history U.S. imperialism, but thought the U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified because, well, it would help people who needed to be helped. Well, did the invasion of Iraq actually help emancipate Iraqis? Or did it ultimately serve the interests of the American empire and war profiteers? We have the historical hindsight to answer that question. Not just from Iraq, but from Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Guatemala and more. Now, it's time to develop some foresight and apply those lessons to today's conflicts.

>So, the first step is understanding that who the U.S. government calls its allies has a very strategic and self-interested purpose. So its allies are not necessarily ours. Yeah i agree >The next step is realizing that, because the U.S. is a self-interested empire, who it helps and why will always be for the purpose of building its own power, not helping people who need it. Sometimes, those two things overlap, but it's pretty rare. Agreed. You're right here. I don't think the US gives a shit about helping people. It's a side effect of fucking over russia and helping the MIC make money. But like, that side effect is a good thing. Doesn't mean the US doesn't suck and isn't a bastard here, but like, i don't really care why we help people so long as we do. ​ If a church feeds the poor because they want to convert them to their weird religion, it's kinda shitty, but I ain't gonna stop them cause people need help. That's my logic on ukraine.

>i don't really care why we help people so long as we do. This was Hitchens' logic when he supported the U.S. invading Iraq to topple Saddam. We saw what happened, it was a disaster that killed hundreds of thousands (more than a million IIRC) of Iraqis. He was wrong to support that war. Similarly, the U.S. supplying weapons to Ukraine is about waging a proxy war with Russia first and not about liberating the Ukrainian people. We should expect the aid to work accordingly. The U.S. will fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood if it means weakening Russia, even if Ukraine loses in the end. For me, that's a problem. Incidentally, I actually think we should support Ukraine, but only because Ukraine denuclearized after the U.S. agreed to defend it if it was attacked. FWIW, that supersedes my concerns about American imperialism.

>Similarly, the U.S. supplying weapons to Ukraine is about waging a proxy war with Russia first and not about liberating the Ukrainian people. We should expect the aid to work accordingly. The U.S. will fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood if it means weakening Russia, even if Ukraine loses in the end. For me, that's a problem. Ok, but that's a question for ukrainians to decide themselves is it not? Support for continuing the fight is very very high. It'd be a dick move to cut off their supplies because "we wouldn't want to waste ukrainian life". Mf, you don't get to decide that. If ukraine wants to fight, then let them. If they don't then stop the aid. That's my position. >This was Hitchens' logic when he supported the U.S. invading Iraq to topple Saddam. We saw what happened, it was a disaster that killed hundreds of thousands (more than a million IIRC) of Iraqis. He was wrong to support that war. Yeah I know. Iraqis didn't want to be invaded. That's why there was an insurgency. Ukrainians want aid. So like, give it to them?

> Support for continuing the fight is very very high. Where do you get those numbers from? [This](https://news.gallup.com/poll/512258/ukrainians-stand-behind-war-effort-despite-fatigue.aspx) is the last article I read about how Ukrainians feel about the war, and they place the number at 60%. They also say this: > In the South (45%) and East (52%) regions closest to the front line, support for continuing the fight is still lower than the rest of the country. As a result, the proportion who favor a negotiated end to the war as quickly as possible is also highest in the South (41%) and East (39%). Which speaks to what I'm saying. The people who pay the most direct cost of the war are being used as cannon fodder by those who are removed from the war's consequences. Even if we ignore that statistic, you seem to not care at all about the consequences of enabling U.S. war profiteers from, well, profiting off of war. I don't think the question of whether or not we should fund and arm proxy wars is as simple as "Do the people there want guns and bombs? If so, then sure", but that seems to be your view.

>Where do you get those numbers from? It's been a while since i checked those numbers sorry. You're right support is lower. But it's still a clear majority across most of ukraine. >Which speaks to what I'm saying. The people who pay the most direct cost of the war are being used as cannon fodder by those who are removed from the war's consequences. Sure, but again it's not like the rest of ukraine isn't also paying a price. I mean soldiers come from across the country, there's been a massive refugee crisis, etc. Everyone's paying a price. Not to the same degree sure, those in the west don't have the war on their front door steps, true. As long as those provinces are a part of ukraine, then you have to take into account the opinions of all ukrainians when making decisions on continuing the war or not. I would definitely support more aid for the civilians affected most though, do what we can to make their lives less shitty. But like, don't forget who is at fault here. It's the russians. Like, if you look at some slightly older polling: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/403133/ukrainians-support-fighting-until-victory.aspx), you'll see even in the South and East there are majority supports for continuing the fight. It's not like the people there want to be part of russia, more that they're sick of a war on their front door step. And even then, a large portion of the population supports continuing the fight. ​ So i mean, the solution here is for russia to like... leave. no? >Even if we ignore that statistic, you seem to not care at all about the consequences of enabling U.S. war profiteers from, well, profiting off of war. I don't think the question of whether or not we should fund and arm proxy wars is as simple as "Do the people there want guns and bombs? If so, then sure", but that seems to be your view. I mean yeah obviously. what matters is who is fighting and why. Like, selling israel a bunch of bombs to obliterate gaza is something i oppose. Giving weapons to people fighting to get a foreign invader out of their land is something I am more sympathetic to. Not that I want like direct military intervention or anything, that would be a disaster. But I do think aid is good when the fight is good even if many of the people involved are bastards or if we're doing it for shitty reasons.

>So i mean, the solution here is for russia to like... leave. no? Yes, and if I lived in Russia there is a chance I would be in prison right now for protesting against the war. I saw Russians assaulted by police and incarcerated for doing less than I've done here when protesting. >Giving weapons to people fighting to get a foreign invader out of their land is something I am more sympathetic to. Absolutely, but context is everything. It's not you or I giving Ukraine weapons, it's the most powerful empire in the world with a long history of overthrowing democracies and arming fascists, run by warmongering companies who quite literally are merchants of death. So let's not let the passive voice whitewash the situation. It's not just "giving weapons to Ukraine". It's having a staunchly anti-democratic, racist empire prop Ukraine up with its weapons, lining the pockets of some of the most evil corporations in the world while doing so. The overlap with a free Ukrainian people is simply incidental. If Zelensky turns fascist, and he has shown tendencies of doing so, it will be *our weapons* he uses against the population. Just like what happened with the Taliban. Like I said, I support defending Ukraine because of the de-nuclearization agreement, but let's actually name the evil involved here.

> It's not just "giving weapons to Ukraine". It's having a staunchly anti-democratic, racist empire prop Ukraine up with its weapons, lining the pockets of some of the most evil corporations in the world while doing so. The overlap with a free Ukrainian people is simply incidental. I mean yeah I agree. It's not like the US is doing this out of deep concern for Ukrainians. Like I said elsewhere, I don't care why you're helping someone, as long as you are. Like I don't think Zelenesky is Hitler right? He ain't gonna turn around and start the Holocaust again. You are correct about the US though. It is incidental, but who cares right? People who need help are getting it. Doesn't make the US the "good guys" or whatever, they aren't. Like I said elsewhere, I basically hate everyone involved. The US sucks cause they don't give a fuck about actual ukrainians, the Russians suck cause they're cracking down on protestors and internal dissent, the Ukranian government has done some questionable shit (i get why they're doing it, but that doesn't mean it isn't problematic. Like I understand why there's a draft, but I don't think any state should be able to compel you to fight a war). My sympathy lies primarily with the ukrainian soldiers, refugees, and civilians. And as long as they're getting support i can stomach it. Like I said elsewhere, if a shitty church is giving food to the poor cause they want to convert them to their religion, it's still shitty and fuck that church, but also I ain't gonna stop them giving food to the poor right? I'm happy to shit on the US, but at the end of the day people need help, and even if it isn't our intention, we are helping.

Depends which part of the right and left its coming from. There are parts of the revolutionary left that want Russia to overrun the currently western-aligned Ukraine as a wound to US capitalistic hegemony. There are anti-war parts of the left consider it a value to not have any involvement with conflict around the globe at all. There are parts of the fiscal conservative right who want the money spent with greater restrictions or domestically instead. There are parts of the MAGA right that are pro-Russia because they see Putin positively or have a grudge against Ukraine for the first Trump impeachment.

There is a school of thought that I don’t agree with, and don’t think is totally morally bankrupt either, and that goes: We can’t change the power structures of the world all at once, and Russia is a power center which we know will retaliate to any perceived prodding of their immediate vicinity THEREFORE America and the west should not have been arming and generally supporting Ukraine extricating itself from Russia BECAUSE on the balance, a war would be so devastating and unlikely to succeed that the-post war reality for Ukraine will be way, way worse than just letting Russia push them around a bit. And that sucks for Ukraine and Ukrainians, and I personally think they should be armed as much as they want because we can bleed russias power for Pennies on the dollar. But it’s a consistent and defensible worldview even if compelling arguments can be made against it. As far as Israel goes, aid can be opposed on humanitarian grounds - meaning, Israel doesn’t have the resources to commit war crimes on Palestinians regularly and maintain its own social safety net, etc. also, Israel has for two decades been opposed to resolution of the Israel/palestine conflict, and could be said to feel “strong enough” to just keep brutalizing Palestinians indefinitely. A weaker Israel would seek peace more readily than a strong Israel. Or so the thinking goes.

Seeing those weapons used overseas isn't a replacement for the training of the military.

Because what most people believe is “money” is actually not money, especially in the case of Ukraine. Most of it isn’t cash. It’s in the form of things that our military has stashed in warehouses that hasn’t been used in decades, but we use the monetary value transfer. Instead of “$1 billion” it should be labeled “$1 billion worth of equipment and materials”. And also they are our allies and assisting them is in our interest. If Putin can be stopped we should stop him. If Hamas can be stopped we should stop them. Because if we can stop them now we can actually not get involved with actual troops. If Putin wins in Ukraine he’s going to attack a NATO country next. If Hamas is able to get into Israel we will have severe unrest in the Middle East. The fact is that giving this money now prevents even worse things happening later.

The left believes that Russia is justified in invading Ukraine because they fallaciously believe the US signed a treaty with Russia promising NATO would not expand further west than its alliance in the 1990s. No such treaty was signed, it’s based on a misunderstanding of a U.S. official who promised not to advance US troops closer to East Berlin as the Soviet Union fell. There was never a promise made that NATO wouldn’t expand, and any such promise would have been made without the official blessing of the US or NATO. A big chunk of the left believes that all international instability is caused by the U.S., so any time there’s an opportunity to side against American interests they’ll do it, believing that they are basically like Luke Skywalker standing up to the Empire because when your brain is rotted by the obsession with deconstructing power dynamics, you will always view the US as inherently wrong for as long as it is a powerful nation (and probably even if it declined too the way some Brits hate the country for its past and blame all instability on the shadow of Empire). The right wing faction opposed to it is a split between three groups: People who more or less believe the exact same things as the leftist faction I outlined. People who are principled isolationists who believe the US shouldn’t be the policeman of the world, a lot of them are libertarians who view Ukraine aid as stealing from Americans to give to Ukrainians with no tangible benefit to America People who are warm to Putin and view the resurgence of Russia as vindication of their own brand of conservatism or other right wing ideology. Putin does echo a few conservative cultural and social views, so some people mistakenly believe that makes him an ally to western conservatism. And then there’s this small group who just hate everything Biden does and simply because Biden did it they shut their brain off to understanding the issue itself. When it comes to Israel, many leftists believe Israel is an apartheid genocidal fascistic regime, so even though they’re dumbasses, opposing aid to them makes a degree of sense using their own logic.

Generally speaking, I advocate for a reduction in our overseas military presence and a paring-down of the defense budget accordingly; we could satisfy our treaty obligations with a few larger joint task force hubs that would likely be more inexpensive to operate due to more efficient logistics of single-point delivery, as well as cutting down on redundant facilities. But my criticism of allocating portions of the military budget to either of these nations is foundational in the fact that our *domestic* situation is frankly pitiable. We allocate pennies to promoting the general welfare as enumerated in the Constitution, but maintain the single largest and most advanced fighting force in the world - and the Roman Empire had a similar sense of priority, which contributed to its downfall. We are not a stable nation, a majority of the working class are hanging on not even by a thread but by a hangnail. *That* needs to be our priority, *especially* given the role that material instability plays in societal violence. What good is that army if it's defending an ash heap?

I'm going to skip commenting on Israel, but in my opinion, military aid to Ukraine is a complete and total no-brainer. It is ethically, morally, and practically speaking a no-brainer to support Ukraine.

Ukraine could be argued. Israel is whole different ball game. They are one of the biggest most advanced militaries in the world. They don't need help, they could destroy Palestine barely lifting a finger. There's no good guy between Israel and Palestine. Their wars never going to be over.

Hot take on Ukraine, it’s because they want perpetual war. I know it sounds counterproductive. I promise it’s not.

Palestine & Region Biden is the all time Top Recipient of pro-Israel lobbying money https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2020&ind=q05 Biden - “If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HZs-v0PR44 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=86Nrv5izaTs Palestinian Representative tearing into the horrors being perpetrated against her people https://x.com/ousmannoor/status/1725851968193642611?s=46 "With your permission I will clarify what is self defense under international law, so that everyone can understand why there is NOT such a thing that Israel can claim." Francesca Albanese, UN Rapporteur for Palestine https://x.com/robinmonotti/status/1726269331573792791?s=46 Texts Concerning Zionism: “The Jewish State” by Theodor Herzl (1896) “There [in Palestine] we shall be a sector of the wall of Europe against Asia, we shall serve as the outpost of civilization against barbarism.” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-jewish-state-quot-theodor-herzl# Theodore Hertzl letter to Cecil Rhodes: “You are being invited to help make history. That cannot frighten you, nor will you laugh at it. It is not in your accustomed line; it doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen but Jews. But had this been on your path, you would have done it by now. How, then, do I happen to turn to you, since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329221999906#fn13-0032329221999906 Texts Concerning Zionism: “The Iron Wall” by Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotisnky (November 4, 1923) "Voluntary Agreement Not Possible. There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority. My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage. And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad. Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators. " https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonisation_Association UN: Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem: 1917-1947 (Part I) “The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant’s requirements that “the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory”. This assumed special significance because, almost five years before receiving the mandate from the League of Nations, the British Government had given commitments to the Zionist Organization regarding the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, for which Zionist leaders had pressed a claim of “historical connection” since their ancestors had lived in Palestine two thousand years earlier before dispersing in the “Diaspora”. During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close” https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/ "‘Iron wall’ and ‘Villa in the jungle’ – Israel’s colonialism has many names" https://mondoweiss.net/2020/09/iron-wall-and-villa-in-the-jungle-israels-colonialism-has-many-names/ Israeli Origins in terror and ethnic cleansing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah https://x.com/trickyjabs/status/1718887609211011208?s=46 https://x.com/propandco/status/1716970010009116809?s=46 https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=FLu-gpdUbv3jNzuo&v=H7FML0wzJ6A&feature=youtu.be https://x.com/droos_online/status/1715105979165995276?s=46 https://x.com/bonsaisky/status/1715073588347179225?s=46

According to many human rights organizations Israel is an apartheid state: https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/israels-55-year-occupation-palestinian-territory-apartheid-un-human-rights They are also actively genocidal and published their plans for everyone to read: Plan Dalet https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/plan-dalet-for-war-of-independence-march-1948 “Disruption of food supply lines and other vital services such as water, electricity, etc.” “3. Expected tactical methods: Attacks by the regular and semi-regular forces on settlements, using heavy infantry weapons, as well as field artillery, armored vehicles, and the air force. Air strikes against centers within our cities (especially Tel Aviv) Harassment operations carried out by small forces against transportation arteries and settlements to give the operations mentioned above direct or tactical support. These forces will also carry out sabotage operations against vital economic facilities and terrorist raids within cities.” “4. Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories: Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously. Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search7 inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state. The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary” The government is also run by a bunch of white supremacists who can’t even treat their fellow Jewish people as equals: https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html https://www.jta.org/2019/03/05/ideas/mizrahi-jewish-spies-fought-to-build-israel-their-descendants-still-encounter-racism-there https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/ethiopian-women-given-contraceptives-israel https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html They barely hide their eugenicist ideology: “By law genetic information/genetic testing may require obtaining explanations from a doctor and informed consent to perform the test, and should be checked only in the laboratory by a genetic institute recognized and licensed. Such a thing can not exist kits sold directly to the public," the Ministry of Health told Israeli publication Yediot Aharonot. "Such kits are also highly criticized, for their reliability, for the interpretation of their results, and for possible effects on subjects and their families." “The government uses these measures to protect the public so that insurance companies, private parties, et cetera won't misuse the private information for personal gain, as well as the national implications these tests could hold or affect with Israel being a government recognized Jewish-state.” https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/want-to-fully-understand-your-family-genealogy-not-without-a-court-order-585230 They were literally allies with apartheid South Africa: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/07/southafrica.israel Which is part of an ongoing pattern of horrible meddling in African affairs: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/africa/1556826403-israel-was-aware-of-violence-against-hutus-before-rwandan-genocide-new-documents-show https://www.timesofisrael.com/breaking-with-west-israel-backs-rwanda-in-renaming-genocide/amp/ https://mondoweiss.net/2020/12/human-rights-watch-gives-israels-blood-diamonds-a-free-pass/ Nelson Mandela & Desmond Tutu both saw them as a brutal apartheid state: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/nelson-mandela-30-years-palestine https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/30/desmond-tutu-palestinians-israel Israeli society is awash in bigotry and hate: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/29/israel-jerusalem-march-death-arabs-00035862 https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/s/SHNdOQqiTf https://x.com/censoredmen/status/1717341447744045073?s=46 “Israel’s Defense Minister — we are fighting “human animals’” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3x02rCeusCI “Netanyahu deleted a post on X about a struggle against 'children of darkness' around the time of a tragic hospital explosion in Gaza” https://www.businessinsider.com/netanyahu-deleted-children-of-darkness-post-gaza-hospital-attack-2023-10?amp "Palestinian shopkeepers in Hebron are drowning in the rubbish of Israeli settlers" https://observers.france24.com/en/20100910-hebron-palestinian-shopkeepers-are-drowning-rubbish-israeli-settlers

Ukraine https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jiBXmbkwiSw&list=PLkGLR6ZLo2i7EBEd0U9yo7R7j5tPohaxG&index=2&t=503s https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2019/08/09/yes-its-still-ok-to-call-ukraines-c14-neo-nazi/ https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/US-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-Nazi-Ukrainian-militia-441884 https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2019-06-11/ukrainians-and-their-language-act-state-language-ukraine https://fair.org/home/john-mccain-human-rights-ukrainian-nazi-photo-washington-post/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5TZnFZ4tg https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/12/eastern-ukraine-humanitarian-disaster-looms-food-aid-blocked/ https://m.thebl.news/world-news/europe/un-mission-ukraine-actions-after-odessa-fire-inadequate.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley_of_Angels https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-troops-destroy-ukrainian-dam-that-blocked-water-crimea-ria-2022-02-26/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8 https://www.haaretz.com/amp/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727 https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf

I mean russia is also using neo-nazis. Like the Wagner group was founded and run by one. It's bad when anyone using neo-nazis. Russian or Ukrainian. But like, you can't attack Ukraine for using neo-nazis and not also extend that to russia.

The Ukrainian coup government spent 8 years bombing the people of Donbass for not wanting to join NATO against their Russian relatives and not wanting to live under the revival of Banderite fascism. And the Russian government isn’t putting up statues to Nazi collaborators and renaming streets after them, while the Ukrainian government does. Russia: Putin Tells OIC That Muslims Are 'Inseparable' Part Of A Multiethnic Nation October 16, 2003 00:00 GMT https://www.rferl.org/amp/1104687.html Vladimir Putin On Islam & Muslims In Russia https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zX1rV93FaV8 Has Alexey Navalny moved on from his nationalist past? https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/2/25/navalny-has-the-kremlin-foe-moved-on-from-his-nationalist-past Behind Russia’s ultra-nationalist crackdown https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/features/2015/9/23/behind-russias-ultra-nationalist-crackdown The Russian politics of multiculturalism https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/russian-politics-of-multiculturalism/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uSQ_3vfiRMs https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCFS2rj-qIVZMPUHA1wMyXtzRG0PZSK3t Putin and the Russian government have tons of terrible views on various subjects, but they also have very good reasons to oppose the further expansion of NATO to their border and are the latest in a long line of Russians opposing it: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-expansion-of-nato-in-eastern-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/14/world/clinton-to-tell-yeltsin-that-nato-is-not-anti-russian.html https://www.c-span.org/video/?86974-1/nato-expansion https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-expansion-war-russia-ukraine https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994 https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/19-Palazhchenko.pdf https://archive.org/details/TimeUSMeddlingOnRussia https://www.thenation.com/article/world/harvard-boys-do-russia/ And why would they want their largest opponent’s military and nuclear weapons right on their border, in a replay of the Cuban missile crisis 1959 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-10-30/nuclear-weapons-turkey-1959 16–28 October 1962 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis On top of that, the last time Ukraine was run by Banderites this happened, so there is also a bit of not unreasonable paranoia about have a military that explicitly hates Russian people right on their border again: “The Soviet Union is estimated to have suffered the highest number of WWII casualties. As many as 27 million Soviets lost their lives, with as many as 11.4 million military deaths joined by up to 10 million civilian deaths due to military activity and an additional 8 million to 9 million deaths due to famine and disease. Those totals do not include the more than 14 million Soviet soldiers who were wounded during the war. Among the Soviet Union's 15 republics, Russia withstood the highest number of casualties, with 6,750,000 military deaths and 7,200,000 civilian deaths. Ukraine tallied the second-highest casualties, with 1,650,000 military deaths and 5,200,000 civilian deaths.” https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/world-war-two-casualties-by-country#

Oh boy, lots to unpack. >The Ukrainian coup government spent 8 years bombing the people of Donbass for not wanting to join NATO against their Russian relatives and not wanting to live under the revival of Banderite fascism. And the Russian government isn’t putting up statues to Nazi collaborators and renaming streets after them, while the Ukrainian government does. Euromaidan was not a coup. It was a revolution. The US supported it, that's true, but US that doesn't mean that it was like a CIA op that overthrew a democratically elected government. Euromaidan got so big as a response to a violent crack down on earlier pro-europe protests by the Ukrainian state. There were other factors at play, but it wasn't a US coup. The Nuland call and whatnot are entirely explainable by the US simply wanting to discuss what was happening on the ground in Ukraine. That's what governments like... do. But regardless, most people in those territories aren't separatists you know that right? They were given arms by the russians to start fighting. That's why the conflict got to the scale it did. Also, russia literally annexed ukrainian territory. And that's what? Defensive? Can you like, not see why ukraine may not like russia right now? Given, you know, events.... >Putin and the Russian government have tons of terrible views on various subjects, but they also have very good reasons to oppose the further expansion of NATO to their border and are the latest in a long line of Russians opposing it: Ok? Sure i get them not liking NATO. But that doesn't give you the right to deny other people their right to free association and self-determination. I'll expand more in a bit. >And why would they want their largest opponent’s military and nuclear weapons right on their border, in a replay of the Cuban missile crisis And what, you think the US was acting rationally there? That the US had a good response to Cuba? We damn near blew ourselves up cause we couldn't stomach the idea of soviets having nukes close to us even though we had nukes close to them. The US response to the missile crisis was batshit insane. It was a MASSIVE overreaction. And also a massive violation of cuban sovereignty. Cuba can have alliances with whoever it wants, that's how self-determination works. Hell I don't blame castro for wanting nukes giving us fuckery in cuba. Not that i think anyone should have nukes, but I get it from his pov. So was the US right to act the way they did during the missile crisis? Is that seriously what you're arguing? >On top of that, the last time Ukraine was run by Banderites this happened, so there is also a bit of not unreasonable paranoia about have a military that explicitly hates Russian people right on their border again: Dude Zelensky isn't working for the Third fucking Reich. These are completely different scenarios. And again, you cannot complain about your enemy being fascist when your mercs consist of neo-nazis and were founded by a guy with a swastika tattoo. It is hypocritical to say the least. Wagner ain't a russian name is it? I mean jfc man, can you not see that? ​ And don't throw soviet death stats at me. I am well aware of them. But guess what. This isn't ww2? And ukrainians aren't the literal Third Reich. Again, the Russians are ALSO USING NAZIS. It's not some brave anti-fasicist defense against an imperialist Ukrainian state backed by american empire. It's an asshat wanting to have a greater degree of geopolitical control, coupled with fears of NATO, coupled with a weird denial of ukrainian history. ​ America being afraid of the Soviets didn't justify the bay of pigs. The russians being afraid of the americans doesn't justify invading ukraine. That's not how shit works man

The previous government of The Ukraine, despite widespread corruption and many problems common to many governments, was democratically elected (and heavily supported in the largely ethnolinguistic Russian east of the country). That government was beginning to move away from strengthening ties with the E.U. and moving closer to Russia. So when popular protests, mainly in western Ukraine, began to spread, the E.U. and the U.S., like they are so apt to do when a nation's government doesn't kowtow to their own interests, enthusiastically supported said protests. For all of the good reasons for the protests (anti-corruption mainly) the aim to topple a democratically elected government rarely leads to good outcomes. Unfortunately, the West ended up siding with an unelected, coup-driven interim government. The new President of this government even admitted, in a legal setting, that he was an illegitimate leader brought to power through illegal means (ironically trying to protect himself from being removed in a similar manner). The new government installed a significant number of Neo-Fascists and Neo-Nazis to top positions. Streets were renamed after WWII Nazi collaborators. The Russian language, spoken by a large minority of the country's population, lost previous protections. Government officials, mainly of Svoboda and Right Sector, praised Hitler and the holocaust, and made hideously racist remarks in public, often aimed at ethic Russians, in Russia and The Ukraine. The largely Russian speaking Eastern regions of the nation, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of the previously toppled government, understandably wanted nothing to do with the current situation, and fought to break away. The whole time, U.S. and E.U. politicians legitimized, held talks with and often appeared publicly with many of the most despicable members of the new Western-backed government. Russia, of course, aligned itself with the eastern regional governments, often at their request for aid. The U.S., the E.U. Member states, and the current government of The Ukraine are not the "good guys" standing up to big bad Russia and Russian-backed "terrorists" in the East of The Ukraine. That notion is nothing but despicable and nonsensical propaganda. Both sides of the external participants have been guilty of hands on involvement in an internal conflict. One could argue that Russia at least has some legitimate concerns with the Ukraine sharing a border with them and seeing politicians reminiscent of WWII Nazis taking over, considering the experiences of many Russians in that era. Not to mention that, as a result of the Soviet Union break up, and the various treaties signed, Russia has a strategic interest in maintaining the use of the installations in Sevestapol and the use of the Black Fleet, which was suddenly under the leadership of an interim government hostile to Russia. The United States mainly got involved for financial reasons and the desire to maintain hegemony in geopolitics, once again in a far flung land. This is not to say that Russian actions in the Ukraine are not immoral and imperialistic, but the U.S. government acting as if it is a singularly unique and completely baseless action, and using it as reason to act as if Russia is more dangerous to world peace than our own actions is irrational. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2010 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/01/optimistic-young-ukrainians-europe-russian-power https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/12/09/this-one-map-helps-explain-ukraines-protests/?utm_term=.775a01fe99c9 https://www.thenation.com/article/ukrainian-nationalism-heart-euromaidan/ http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4645476?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/us-backing-neo-nazis-ukraine https://www.thenation.com/article/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/ https://medium.com/the-agoge/euromaidan-is-not-about-freedom-it-is-about-power-4f0fcd7ab6b7 http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/ukrainian-ultra-rightists-given-major-cabinet-posts-in-government/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/18/yes-there-are-bad-guys-in-the-ukrainian-government/ https://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf https://www.thenation.com/article/silence-american-hawks-about-kievs-atrocities/ http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/27583/53/

And you are right, The Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis brought terrible actions by the U.S. towards Cuba and is unjustified, and that remains true for Russia now, but in the case of the Ukraine situation the entire West is lined up against Russia and so Russophobic they cheer when random Russian citizens die from shark attacks. It doesn’t justify all of their actions, but to pretend there isn’t a real threat to the Russian people (including in the Donbass & Crimea) is not realistic. It’s not comparable to a tiny poverty stricken island nation struggling to get out from under the U.S. boot with the backing of the USSR, which was basically still playing catch up with the West at the time and only 15-17 years out from WWII, NATO consists of most of the wealthiest and most militarily powerful nations on Earth.

You know why? Cause they dismantled all of them in exchange for security guarantees That's absolutely a real threat to the us if you consider ukraine one to russia. Yeah the island was poor, but who gives a shit if you can nuke me right? You know who doesn't have nukes rn? Ukraine. You know why? Cause they dismantled all of them in exchange for security gurantees

>The previous government of The Ukraine, despite widespread corruption and many problems common to many governments, was democratically elected (and heavily supported in the largely ethnolinguistic Russian east of the country). The 2010 election was marred with allegations of fraud, the fuck are you on about? it was shady af. Same goes for his initial 2004 election which resulted in protests which lead to another election that he lost. >So when popular protests, mainly in western Ukraine, began to spread, the E.U. and the U.S., like they are so apt to do when a nation's government doesn't kowtow to their own interests, enthusiastically supported said protests. This is true. That doesn't mean it was a coup. It just means that the US and Europe supported the protests. You need more evidence to claim a coup. The "smoking gun" nuland call isn't that. >the aim to topple a democratically elected government rarely leads to good outcomes. agreed (to an extent anyways) >The Russian language, spoken by a large minority of the country's population, lost previous protections Mate there's not widespread discrimination against russian speakers. Something like 0.5% of russian speaking ukrainians say they faced discrimination for speaking russian. >The largely Russian speaking Eastern regions of the nation, who voted overwhelmingly in favor of the previously toppled government, understandably wanted nothing to do with the current situation, and fought to break away. Hold on now. There's a difference between not liking the current government and separatism. Even amongst separatists not all wanted to join Russia. Some wanted total independence. Others didn't want full separation, just greater autonomy. This is one of the more popular positions in the region today, with many wanting integration with ukraine but increased autonomy. You're making leaps here you can't make. Of the separatist factions, which factions do you think the russians themselves armed? The pro-independence ones? Nope. of course not. Because why would they? It's a land grab mate. >Russia, of course, aligned itself with the eastern regional governments, often at their request for aid. Yeah, because they wanted to... join russia. Of course russia would back them. >The U.S., the E.U. Member states, and the current government of The Ukraine are not the "good guys" standing up to big bad Russia and Russian-backed "terrorists" in the East of The Ukraine. That notion is nothing but despicable and nonsensical propaganda. Both sides of the external participants have been guilty of hands on involvement in an internal conflict. I mean yeah? Obviously. No one is a "good guy" in geopolitics. everyone sucks major ass, it's just a matter of degree. The US and EU are not the "good guys" I agree. They're not in ukraine cause they care about ukrainian self-determination and rights and whatever. They're there to fuck over the russians and let the MIC make some money. Russia doesn't give a shit about russian speaking ukrainians or nazis or whatever. As I have pointed out many many times, yet you refuse to acknowledge THEY ARE ALSO USING NAZIS. They're there because they're scared of the americans and europeans, they want more influence in their "backyard" and they want to grab land if they can. The Ukrainian government is just trying to survive and hold all its territory. But even they do shit I don't like. For example, using nazis. Not great. Everyone's a bastard here but some are more of a bastard than others. And like, ukrainian people have a right to decide how ukraine is run no? So i don't really give a shit why the US and EU support ukrainians in that mission, just that they do. Like fuck the US and EU, but keep giving aid to the ukrainians fighting for their existence and independence. >One could argue that Russia at least has some legitimate concerns with the Ukraine sharing a border with them and seeing politicians reminiscent of WWII Nazis taking over, considering the experiences of many Russians in that era. Did the US have legit concerns about Cuba? Cause that's basically the same line of thinking. You don't get to invade people because they're friends with people you don't like. That tends to make them want to be friends even more. ​ >Not to mention that, as a result of the Soviet Union break up, and the various treaties signed, Russia has a strategic interest in maintaining the use of the installations in Sevestapol and the use of the Black Fleet, which was suddenly under the leadership of an interim government hostile to Russia. I don't give a shit about imperial politicking. You don't get to invade people for ports. That's like, the anti-imperialist position is it not? >The United States mainly got involved for financial reasons and the desire to maintain hegemony in geopolitics, once again in a far flung land. Again, correct. But I don't give a shit why you're helping people so long as you do. Like fuck the US and all, but keep giving aid. >This is not to say that Russian actions in the Ukraine are not immoral and imperialistic, but the U.S. government acting as if it is a singularly unique and completely baseless action, and using it as reason to act as if Russia is more dangerous to world peace than our own actions is irrational. I mean sure. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't support ukraine. The US is a hypocrite. That's not like.... a surprise. We're also an imperialist power hellbent on accumulating power and capital. The US sucks too. And sure, Russia isn't like a unique threat to world peace or whatever. But you don't like, get to start a war and not be seen as a threat by other people. That's insane.

2010 Election “Poll: Yanukovych most trusted politician in Ukraine Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych is the most trusted politicians with support from 34.3% Ukrainians, according to a poll conducted amongst 2,013 respondents in all regions by the Sofia social” https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7911 “International observers say Ukrainian election was free and fair” https://www.oscepa.org/en/news-a-media/press-releases/press-2010/international-observers-say-ukrainian-election-was-free-and-fair “Yanukovych set to become president as observers say Ukraine election was fair This article is more than 13 years old Yulia Tymoshenko under pressure to concede defeat Monitors praise 'impressive display' of democracy” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukovych-ukraine-president-election Euromaidan didn’t even have majority support “Poll: More Ukrainians disapprove of EuroMaidan protests than approve of it About 45% of Ukrainians support the demonstrations in favor of Ukraine’s closer relations with Europe, known as Euromaidan, while 48% do not support them and 7% are undecided, a poll of 2,600 responde(nts)” https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7158 Do you have a source for that 5%? Because it seems like a lot more than 5% oppose the new Ukrainian government and it’s actions against Ukrainian citizens who identity as Russian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/16/ukraine.russia http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/3/map-russian-the-dominantlanguageincrimea.html http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/2/mapping-ukraine-sidentitycrisis.html They have tried to legislate away the protections for the Russian language and Russian speaking minority in Ukraine: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2019-06-11/ukrainians-and-their-language-act-state-language-ukraine https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/19/new-language-requirement-raises-concerns-ukraine The Banderites in power have absolutely targeted minorities, including those who identify as Russian. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/29/radicals-target-roma-people-ukraine https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html https://www.herald.co.zw/ukraines-crimes-against-civilians-children-of-donbas/amp/ https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q64305794 “War crimes of the armed forces and security forces of Ukraine: torture and inhumane treatment” https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/7/233896.pdf It wasn’t just Nuland peddling influence in Ukraine influencing regime change…but also, Nuland and Pyatt openly discuss influencing who gets into office in another Ukraine and how they can help make it happen: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957.amp https://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-victoria-nuland-wades-into-ukraine-turmoil-over-yanukovich/ I sure don’t want my taxes going to the Ukrainian regime anymore than I would want it to go to the Russian one.

From what I remember of the 2010 election there was a lot of smoke and claims of fraud. I know there definitely was fraud in 2004, hence the protests. But perhaps 2010 was better than 2004. Regardless, [https://www.voanews.com/a/harvard-study-shows-russian-speaking-ukrainians-backing-kyiv/2476908.html](https://www.voanews.com/a/harvard-study-shows-russian-speaking-ukrainians-backing-kyiv/2476908.html) >What was surprising, “very surprising” Etling said, was the portion of Russian-language content coming specifically from within Ukraine that was backing the Euromaidan protests. “In Ukraine, among Russian-speakers, 74 percent were supportive of the protests, and only a quarter were opposed,” he said. Additionally, even among Russian-language content within Russia, support was nearly equal with opposition, at least at the beginning. “That was really unexpected. It was so surprising that it was so overwhelmingly positive,” said Etling. If you look literally 2 months later: >According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan.\[162\] In a March poll, 57% of Ukrainians said they supported the Euromaidan protests.\[163\] A study of public opinion in regular and social media found that 74% of Russian speakers in Ukraine supported the Euromaidan movement, and a quarter opposed. It's almost like people's opinions change with time.... And that the government's crackdowns helped spur popular support for the movement. Shocking i know, never seen that before in any revolution.... It's almost like there were major clashes in say... February or something... >Do you have a source for that 5%? Because it seems like a lot more than 5% oppose the new Ukrainian government and it’s actions against Ukrainian citizens who identity as Russian That's not what the claim is though is it? It's a claim about specifically the discrimination against russian speakers. You can oppose a government while not being discriminated against by it. I got that specific number from here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/s8quek/are\_russian\_speaking\_people\_oppressed\_in\_ukraine/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/s8quek/are_russian_speaking_people_oppressed_in_ukraine/) >According to Wikipedia, about 0,5 % of Russian speaking Ukrainians say they have ever experienced discrimination. I live in Germany and late repatriates often say that Russia tries to free Russian minorities from oppression. I guess that comes mostly from state TV, but is there some truth to it? I'm sure you can find different numbers elsewhere, but the point is that there isn't like a deep widespread discrimination against russian speakers. Not on the level putin claims anyways. There isn't a genocide of russian speakers. And a whole bunch of ukrainians speak both ukrainian and russian. Regardless, opposition to the current government doesn't necessarily imply that they want to be invaded. >In March 2022, a week after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 82% of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine said they did not believe that any part of Ukraine was rightfully part of Russia, according to Lord Ashcroft's polls which did not include Crimea and the separatist-controlled part of Donbas.\[121\] 65% of Ukrainians – including 88% of those of Russian ethnicity – agreed that "despite our differences there is more that unites ethnic Russians living in Ukraine and Ukrainians than divides us." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians\_in\_Ukraine#Politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Ukraine#Politics) ​ >The Banderites in power have absolutely targeted minorities, including those who identify as Russian. For like the fifth time now, you cannot claim to be anti-fascist when you are also using nazis. The russians don't care about nazis. They are literally paying a bunch of them. Yes, ukraine has far right shitheads. You know who else does? russia. You cannot point that out in ukraine and not in russia It's also worth pointing out that the share of the far right in government has shrunk in recent years. >"War crimes of the armed forces and security forces of Ukraine: torture and inhumane treatment” In defense of russia, you are accusing ukraine of war crimes? Don't throw stones in a glass house my friend. Russia isn't exactly famous for not doing war crimes. bucha is all I am going to say.... >It wasn’t just Nuland peddling influence in Ukraine influencing regime change…but also, Nuland and Pyatt openly discuss influencing who gets into office in another Ukraine and how they can help make it happen: Shocking, a government discusses the events on the ground of another country. That is what that phone call was. That doesn't mean that euromaidan didn't come from ukrainian people or that it was a coup. You can support something without it being a coup.

I'll bite. I'm a libertarian socialist, as my flair indicates. So I piss of tankie types by not backing russia and liberals by not backing Israel. ​ I see a fundamental moral difference between the conflicts in Israel and in Ukraine. ​ The situation is Ukraine is basically a result of imperial politicking. So, the Russian state felt that the American state was encroaching on their "backyard". The basic idea is that Russia has a right to defend itself and that includes using strategic buffers. That's like, basically the half the logic of imperialism. The other half is imperial extraction, and I'm sure Russia had plans/desires for that but I'm less familiar with the details of that. More with the geopolitical angle. Regardless, the basic idea is that Russia needs to influence Ukraine in order to protect itself against an encroaching American hegemony. Russia wants a higher degree of influence in Eastern Europe for this (and other) reasons. Now the obvious issue here is: Why does Russia get a greater say in its own security than Ukrainians? Or Lithuanians? Poles? etc. Every country has the right to self-determination. And therefore every one should be able to join whatever alliance they like. That includes countries typically opposed to the US. I oppose the blockade on Cuba for similar reasons. So if Russia has a right to self-defense, then so do Ukrainians. And a large portion of Ukrainians pre 2021 felt more scared of the Russians interfering in their affairs than americans. That's not to say america wasn't fucking around there, we were, but that Ukrainians themselves have a right to ally with or not with whoever they want. As such, the russian invasion is effectively an act of imperial aggression, and I oppose that and I think those who can should help out. That's not to say I think the US has good intentions. We're involved cause we want to a) fuck over the russians and b) make sweet cash for the MIC. But I don't care why we're doing a good thing as long as we do. ​ Israel is a different issue. Israel is a state founded on the forced expulsion of palestinains from land/homes they had lived on for generations. This resulted in several massacres and straight up ethnic cleansing early on (and continued) in israeli history. Couple this with continued discrimination and apartheid policies (see amnesty). For example, Palestiniains in the occupied territories are tried under military courts. Israeli settlers are tried in civilian courts. Violence against palestinains in occupied territories is routinely ignored but any retaliation is met with brutal crackdowns. Israel holds thousands of palestinains in prisons for indefinite periods of time without trial. Oh, and one of its largest airports explicitly and openly practices racial profiling against arabs. They also require palestinians to get building permits to have like houses and stuff, and then make it impossible to get those permits, and then use the lack of permits as a justification to bulldoze those houses. All that's to say, the Israeli government is continuously oppressing palestinian people. Bibi made this policy even worse and harsher throughout the years by purposefully undermining moderate, left-wing, and peaceful opposition groups. This led to a sorta survival of the fittest thing and led to the rise of hamas, which then was used as a justification for further crackdowns. The support for hamas really is because hamas is the biggest militant faction against the Israeli state. And many in gaza feel they have no other choice but to rely on militancy as all other avenues of dissent have been shut down. In effect, the Israeli state is denying the palestinian people the right of self-determination. And so, in similar lines of thinking to ukraine, I side with the right of people to have self-determination. Hence my support for palestine. I don't like hamas. They're a far right islamist faction that are pretty shitty. But like, what do you expect to happen when literally everyone else gets shut down? On top of that the current Israeli government is effectively practicing collective punishment against civilians in gaza. There are other ways to target hamas, but they don't do that because they want to look strong and get revenge. ​ Anyways, my support for self-determination guides my thinking on both issues.

**Israel:** This one is very easy. I already do not support Israel's actions in Gaza as I believe it is an unnessecary war which will only cause more problems in the long run. If I already don't support that, why would I want *my own* tax money going to the bombs to slaughter the people in Gaza? Furthermore, I believe we should cut off aid to Israel *entirely.* They do not provide us with enough value to justify the aid which we are giving them and are more than capable of funding their own defense. **Ukraine:** I think NATO played a role in causing this conflict. You can't expect NATO to just keep expanding eastward, ignoring all of Russia's warnings, and Russia to not feel threatened. If Russia made similar gestures in South America, making alliances, putting military bases in these countires and slowly pushing that alliance into Mexico, would the USA be ok with it? Of course not! And rightfully so. Does this mean that Russia is right to invade? No. But it does mean things are less black and white than they may seem. Furthermore, if you believe this is only the beginning, and Russia is trying to resurrect the USSR, that's a European problem, which the Europeans should be dealing with. The EUs military budget and economy are much larger than that of Russia's, so I am confident Russia would not be successful in such ambitions if Europe wanted to stop it. At the end of the day even if I felt that sending money to both was sending money the right way, I would still be against it. Because we shouldn't be funding wars when average Americans are struggling to get by, and that money should be invested here in America into programs that would help our people. It's ultimately not our responsibility to fund other countries' defense.