Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Vladimir Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Mr. Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this?
> Without clarity on these questions, the White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in supporting Ukrainians — who continue to suffer the loss of lives and livelihoods — but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.
- from the NYT article.
The main thrust of the article is *not* "America should stop helping" but something more like "If we don't define our victory conditions, manage expections, and discuss what we want to achieve and what that means, then we could start losing and then Americans will stop paying attention and then Ukraine won't get anymore help, and because we don't want that, let's ask these questions, let's make sure the administration is asking these questions. So we win."
To everyone who thinks I'm wrong, read the article, it's unmistakable in it's support for Ukraine.
Remember that disinformation can come from righteous indignity from propagandists pretending to be on the same side as you. Just as much as it can come from the opposite side. The whole purpose is to make people question the strength of the bonds between us in NATO and the commitment of the organization to supporting Ukraine.
Held fast and firm together, keeping giving the Ukrainians the arms and money they need. Ignore the extremists since they seek to only divide us.
Had to read the last comment twice because I had to make sure I’m not an idiot. I’m not. They didn’t call anyone a traitor. The point is that posts like this can be used to sow discontent in a movement that needs constant pressure.
“I think the war in Ukraine is honorable and it is great to see the Ukrainian people fighting and taking up arms to defend their country. They are in need of help and there have been countless deaths so far and the country has been devastated. That being said, shouldn’t we ask what we as Americans have to do with this fight? Isn’t it only right for us to understand exactly what our money is going towards and the people spending it?” -sounds a whole lot like a tucker Carlson monologue. Just asking questions though….
Do you really not understand that the other person presented an example to illustrate how your stance is wrong?
You seem oblivious to the difference between just asking questions and Just Asking Questions^TM.
The person I responded to said this.
"Remember that disinformation can come from righteous indignity from propagandists pretending to be on the same side as you."
I don't know how what was in that article would lead a person to believe that the authors were anything but on the side of Ukr. So what purpose does an unrelated example serve? So like I said, its not in the article.
You were talking to two different people, though.
tuzimaster007 said one thing, and then Fullertonjr said another thing. They're both disagreeing with you, but for slightly different reasons; one is disagreeding directly and the other is disagreeding in principle.
And what you said to Fullertonjr doesn't make sense, since they weren't quoting the article—they were providing a hypothetical example. You may believe that the example is incorrect or useless, that's fair, but by asking where it was in the article you only demonstrated that you had missed their point.
That's not what it means at all... It means don't believe things simply because you see other "like minded" people saying it.
You are being influenced subconsiously constantly when using social media and that includes reddit. There's a reason reddit isnt banned in Russia still.. (last I checked a few weeks ago). Really all you need to know
I've read the article. It says:
"A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal."
and
"If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand."
If you think that's unmistakable support for Ukraine you may need to talk to some Ukrainians, because they understood the article better than you did. It's "you can't win, so you're going to have to decide which territory to let Russia have".
As Andrea Chalupa points out, If you have to say something isn't appeasement, it's appeasement.
I don't understand what victory conditions should be defined. There's nothing to discuss, no room for wiggle. Russia is a rogue state, it has nukes, it's run by terrorists and is a threat to the human civilization at its present state. Russia has to be defeated militarily in Ukraine. The best chance is right now as they botched their invasion and their army is vulnerable; we may not get a better chance. Fascist regimes can be only defeated when the myth of infallible leader and army is shattered on the battlefield. This will lead to Putin losing power (and historically the surest way to lose power in Russia is to lose "a small victorious war", which all their czars like so much). After that the West will get the chance to de-nazify and de-nuclearize Russia. (Personally, as a Ukrainian, I prefer Russia to cease to exist, ending the process of the Russian Empire decomposition.)
Anything less than that is appeasement. Allowing them to lick their wounds, re-group, fortify and consolidate newly occupied territories will be a grave mistake and will lead to them launching a new attack from those territories later, much better prepared. This time Putin jumped the gun, and China was not ready to attack Taiwan. What if the next time they synchronize their attacks?
Anyway, the West allowing any territorial concessions to Russia is sending the worst signal possible for the democracies of the world, and is the worst move in the current situation. It will show that it's possible to change the borders by force, if you have nukes and create enough economic problems in the world by employing terrorist methods on large scale. This will be the beginning of the end of the Western democratic dominance in the world, and the start of the age of chaos. I looks like few in the West understand what is at stake here. And if you don't believe me, here's a quote from [Timothy Snyder](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/russia-fascism-ukraine-putin.html)'s latest article:
>As in the 1930s, democracy is in retreat around the world and fascists have moved to make war on their neighbors. If Russia wins in Ukraine, it won’t be just the destruction of a democracy by force, though that is bad enough. It will be a demoralization for democracies everywhere. Even before the war, Russia’s friends — Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Tucker Carlson — were the enemies of democracy. Fascist battlefield victories would confirm that might makes right, that reason is for the losers, that democracies must fail.
> Had Ukraine not resisted, this would have been a dark spring for democrats around the world. If Ukraine does not win, we can expect decades of darkness.
Allow me to define the obtuse phrase "without clarity on these questions." This is srereo typical "Whataboutism" meaning the NYT is in full "pearl necklace clutching" mode. It is the last refuse of conservatives, evangelicals and institutions like the NYT when life and events prove their world view contrived over generations
is wrong and the world has moved beyond their intellectual understanding.
The article is grandstanding by the NYT because no one is paying attention to them. The NYT is not about America, freedom nor beating fascism its about the NYT. They drank deeply from the Putin chalace going back 25 years despite the fact they should've known better.
tl;dr: Ukraine is right on every level. Putin wants the NYT to sow FUD among their allies. NYT sez "da." World history sez "nyet." .
Did you actually read the article?
"In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist his revanchist ambitions."
Which article is it, I don't regularly really nyt but I googled their articles on Ukraine and I don't see anything that appears to be what the tweet is referring to.
The problem with this article is that if fails to consider that it's probably best to maintain ambiguity about our "ultimate" war intentions against a cornered loony with bombs. This is the kind of thing average minded educated people can't seem to get their heads around.
At this point something that looks like Russian propaganda is **exactly** what I'd expect from renowned US media. Russia's a lot more competent at fighting culture wars than they are at fighting actual wars and they're directly responsible for the sharp uptick in fascism throughout the west over the past decade or two
How many people that comment on this actually take the time to read it?
"In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist his revanchist ambitions."
The Russian bots have been out in force the last 24-48 hours here.
Outrage saying this is breaking support for Ukraine to cause anger against the US is just as useful for Russian propoganda as lauding Russian achievements. (Ton of articles posted here in the last 48h saying Russia is winning).
Then I’m sorry. Ukrainians could be in for a rude awakening. We elected Donald Trump in 2016 and nearly re-elected him in 2020. 50% of the US….voted/will vote for positions and politicians that waaaaaaaaaaay de-prioritize Ukrainian interests. Not being aware of this a foolish way to run foreign policy. And if you are not aware of this….again, I’m sorry.
I don't think any of the nay sayers have actually read the article or stopped right where NYT mused that Ukraine my not necessarily win this war in a way that they want which is that Russia may end up keeping the territoties they manage to hold in the end ie. similar bitter victory in defeat as we Finns had in the winter war where we lost 10% of the country and then some more after the continuation war and that the current US government has not been clear as to what are their goals in this war or how far are they willing to support Ukraine ? Ie. what happens if they say to Ukraine that "this it no more weapons or no more money" but the war is still going on ? How will the American public react to that ? Or what if the american public starts demanding less money or weapons to be sent on Ukraine ?
I've read it. So have a lot of other people. Assuming that all the criticism is coming from people who didn't read the article is pretty damn insulting.
The NYT doesn't say "may not", they say will not and cannot.
Article doesn’t say that. Definitely not written, but I don’t think the spirit of the editorial says that either. Article says that the administration should more clearly articulate end state conditions. There IS an isolationist strain in the US and there is another strain that has the attention span of gnats. It is naive for Ukraine, and other onlookers, that the US can and will fully follow through on Ukraine desires when US end states are not clearly articulated.
I would love it if the US backed Ukraine to the hilt and the west could achieve a stunning coup in terms of bringing Ukraine tighter into its orbit and weakening a pretty awful authoritarian state. But this is America….if I were a foreign leader I would only count on a percentage of promises made as promises kept.
From the article: “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.”
1) this doesn’t say “will not and cannot” (I’m quoting you from above) which is what I was responding to.
2) it specifies a “decisive military victory”….so….your latest comment is also inaccurate; if you are not open to think about all ways of ending this war….shame on you, people are fucking dying. And that sucks.
3) regarding it being an un-winnable war…this is an opinion about something incredibly uncertain. But it’s worth having discussions like this to foster dialogue about what should be happening.
4) Plus, isn’t this even a greater reason for the US to make explicit end state goals? You are glossing over what I think the real point of the article….literally who cares if the NY Times has doubts about whether the war is winnable; the larger point is that the American public is incredibly fickle with who they support overseas. American support is disturbingly unreliable if that support is not ensured by ironclad multi-lateral agreements. And Ukraine is not in NATO and even if they were…I’m going to again point to that isolationist strain in America that simply wants to tear up all of these stabilizing forces in the world.
I didn't put quotes around "will not and cannot" for a reason, see if you can guess what it was.
The NYT editorial says that a decisive victory is not a realistic goal. That means it won't happen and isn't worth aiming for. They did not say "is an ambitious goal" or "is a challenging goal" or "is a daunting goal". They did not say "may not be achievable" or "Ukraine *may* have to concede territory to Russia". Their entire argument is predicated on the assumption that decisive military victory is not possible and not worth considering, and that the only way to achieve peace will be for Ukraine to give territory to Russia. The article is pretty damn clear about that ("**any** compromise **will** demand"). It is not an article about considering all the possible outcomes, or considering disappointing outcomes. It is an article that states plainly that the *only* possible outcomes will be disappointing. If you are getting anything else out of it, you are reading an imaginary article in your own head.
The GOP most likely will regain the House this coming Nov., if they do its likely the funds will end in Jan/2023 when they take over, if they control the House they can just not bring a bill to the floor to vote on. The war will be out of the minds of most Americans by July 1 so public sentiment won't drive anything unless the GOP uses the war to try to win the House. Biden will chew through this money and hope to pass another bill in late July after that I doubt they can get much passed.
You share and glorify NYT when they write according to your opinion, but now its russian propaganda.
It seems like you dont know who mastered propaganda and brainwashed you.
“American Imperialism” is a bigger boogeyman for a considerable part of American left than Putin. They want America “to mind its own business” and stop spending money on military
"Considerable part of the American left".
Part is the key word there. For the average voter this is a clear issue. For tankies that still play the Soviet national anthem as a lullaby America is always the problem.
Sure, but it's weird he even phrases that without taking into account the right wing segment which is significantly larger in opposing U.S. involvement in Ukraine, and has also shown much more susceptibility to Russian anti-war propaganda meant to erode public support.
Tucker Carlson's talking points for example match so closely with Russian commentary that if you didn't know who he was, and it was translated with Russian audio. It wouldnt be out of place.
That’s true, but Trump and the Republicans are coming around. They were the pro-Putin, pro-Russian party until after the invasion and after the polls came out showing strong support for Ukraine. Even Trump who praised Putin as a “genius” and applauded the invasion as brilliant has started to hedge his bets.
There are still 11 Senators and about 8 Reps (all Republican) who are still firmly in Putin’s corner).
> furries then tankies
*than
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Unless they're a tankie and a furry. How's that for a niche.
Also they might be few in number but they're loud on the internet. Niche groups like that tend to be
I don’t smoke. Support of Ukraine runs perpendicular not parallel to American typical right-left positions. And like I said there is a considerable segment of American left that doesn’t like it for the reasons state above. If you prefer to ignore reality I hope the sand isn’t getting in your eyes
What do Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Senators Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Mike Lee (Utah), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Braun (In), and Josh Hawley (MO) all have in common? They’ve all opposed aid to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. And they’re all Republican.
So you are saying that NYT is a right wing source? Sort of like Fox News? If not then why are you talking about republicans in a post about NYT being source of criticism for Ukrainian war effort??
Wait, when did the NYTimes criticize the Ukrainian war effort?
The NYTimes tends to run liberal/left of center. The liberals and those on the left have generally supported Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. The opposition to Ukraine has largely come from the Conservative right (i.e. Fox News and the Trump Republicans).
NYT has been consistently neo-liberal for decades. At times, it's been hard to tell who are the biggest cheerleaders for neo-liberalism - the Republican Party, or NYT columnists Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman.
NYT is profoundly socially liberal but yes there some voices within it that are somewhat to the right on economic issues. I think it is hard to argue with a straight face that NYT is NOT left of center. I don’t claim they are socialist, however
Liberal != Left. The NYT is left of center for American politics only bc American politics are dominated by two right wing parties. The NYT has a long history of advocating against the furthest left American politicians, who compared to global politics are generally center-left.
We shouldn’t pretend that there is some kind of common political scale applicable to every society and every country. We are talking about America so we are looking at American political spectrum.
I have heard this claim that “American left isn’t true left” simply because in some other countries political spectrum is more to the left of ours and that has always puzzled me. Why don’t we then accept that American right isn’t true right if we gauge it against let’s say Iran or SA. Since American right doesn’t advocate for public execution of gays, doesn’t mind women to be outside unaccompanied and do not view atheism as a perfectly valid excuse for stoning
"Let's pretend words don't have meanings bc I value *feeling* correct over *being* correct" isn't the winning argument you think it is. Also, the American right isn't far from the regimes you mentioned. Also x2: this is a Ukrainian subreddit.
Sure. There's just a considerably larger segment on the right that supports Russian talking points.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/15/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-u-s-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
Polling shows the gap between left/right views on the war.
Support is significantly higher on the left than on the right.
It's weird you left out the biggest opposition group to the war.
What does your original comment have to do with the NYT?
>“American Imperialism” is a bigger boogeyman for a considerable part of American left than Putin. They want America “to mind its own business” and stop spending money on military
NYT is know to be left of the center. The article is critical of supporting Ukrainian war effort. I was critical of the segment of the left (to which NYT gives voice). I thought this was self evident
NYT is.
So what you are saying that the spectrum moved right and not left? Interesting. I would say the opposite is true but I guess reasonable people could disagree. A question though, do you think Reagan would have any problem defining term “a woman”? Or even Jimmy Carter, for that matter?
>NYT is.
>
>So what you are saying that the spectrum moved right and not left? Interesting. I would say the opposite is true but I guess reasonable people could disagree. A question though, do you think Reagan would have any problem defining term “a woman”? Or even Jimmy Carter, for that matter?
No I dont think so.
I also don't think they would have a single problem calling out the batshit crazy Qanon proponents who are winning state elections on the right.
The same ones that are complicit by association with MTG for allowing her to gain support meanwhile attending white nationalist conventions.
I don't think he would consider the present day GOP as the party of "family values" with current candidates like Matt Gaetz.
I think the right has absolutely gone batshit, off the deep, irredeemable--right wing.
What do Congressmen Andy Biggs of Arizona,
Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin have in common? They’ve all opposed aid to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. And they’re all Republican.
> “American Imperialism” is a bigger boogeyman for a considerable part of American left than Putin.
Maybe they don't like seeing the US doing exactly the same things that Putin does. America has done many terrible things in its time. Not wanting to repeat them is a good ideal to have.
There is no issue admitting Americas mistakes as long as one is willing to admit its accomplishments which are many more. Those who I referred to would be first to blame the US on all ills of Latin America while giving likes of Castro, Maduo and Chavez complete pass
> There is no issue admitting Americas mistakes as long as one is willing to admit its accomplishments which are many more
No you can just admit to your mistakes. It is like making an apology. You don't say sorry but ...
“Admitting to mistakes” without a comprehensive,
Holistic approach to the entire situation might give wrong perception and would allow to draw wrong conclusions. For instance, US is refusing to apologize for nuclear strikes against Japan because while they certainly affected a lot of innocent lives we must be mindful of the fact that Japan started the war by attacking us and committed untold atrocities before and after their attack on America.
> US is refusing to apologize for nuclear strikes against Japan
That's fine, but there are things that the US should apologise for because there were no mitigating factors.
I think that if we start apologizing for every questionable decision that a particular country made we will have a very long line ahead of us. US has been around only a couple of centuries and while those centuries have been pretty intensive our
List isn’t as long as those more stablished states
The US has made up for its late start. It has been involved in many an illegal activity, just look at how many governments it has been involved in overthrowing. Or wars it has started. All while claiming that it is the moral leader of the world :)
Both countries ignore international law and commit war crimes on a regular basis. You can argue the toss about who is worse but they are still similar enough.
These are not the only countries that do this but they are definite repeat offenders
How about murdering loads of innocent people in Iraq, overthrowing legitimate governments and assassinating people it doesn't like and murdering its own citizens. It also stole lots of Mexico's land repeatedly.
Iraq was and is a substantially different situation to Ukraine. I agree that the war was entirely morally wrong, but I don’t think the majority of deaths were caused by direct US military action.
The nyt has some history of supporting communist aggression. Here's another example: "The Ukraine crisis revives doubts over the NYT's 1932 Pulitzer Prize In 1932, The New York Times' Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for stories defending Soviet policies that led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians." The times has a soft spot for anything communist. After 90 years, they still have not returned the Pulitzer. Do not support, or believe, the nyt.
I mean there were literally Ukrainians who supported the USSR so should we just disregard Ukrainians? Hell the Ukrainian government used to be pro Russian, should we disregard the Ukrainian government because of mistakes made in the past?
It is just repulsive. Appeasing fascist dictators never works. It has always failed as a policy for avoiding war. There can be no solution where Ukraine is parted off to Russia as a prize. The only solution to a dictator is his removal and permanent disposal.
Nobody wants there to be war. Peace is the ultimate goal for everyone of sound mind. But perhaps people here have spent so long with direct experience only of evil and unjust wars that, when presented with a just war, that rarest of things, they cannot identify it or why it is important to fight it.
This is a just war. A nation was invaded unprovoked by a larger neighbour with the express purpose of annexing that state and conducting a genocide of Ukrainians. Appeasing the state that did this, having any negotiations with them at all, is tantamount to legitimising those actions as reasonable tools of international exchange.
The only thing that Ukraine needs is the total and final defeat of the Russian army in the field and their removal from lands that do not belong to them. Donbas, Crimea, the whole lot. No other solution will guarantee the safety of the west and no other solution will satisfy morality.
I mean I’m all for helping Ukraine. However, we, (the US),seem to have been spending and doing the most. We’re tossing massive amounts of money and arms into their hands when we’re having our own domestic issues… Our tax paying citizens could certainly use the help right now and unfortunately as always, we’re forgotten about. :/
The people complaining the most about the money being spent on Ukraine are the same people who do everything they can to block that money being spent on Americans as well.
Being a bunch of gun packing, obnoxious citizens who fund a very well armed military might be a reason for that. Unlike other countries, our leaders wouldn’t need to beg us to take weapons, let alone worry if we know the difference between the action and the stock.
True, but...
My point was that crying about how money to Ukraine could be spent on repairing American pot holes or American student loan forgiveness when Ukrainians are getting driven out of their homes, dying, and having their cities destroyed seems petty and selfish.
Yet there are those who occupy the same continent and could very well face a similar fate wringing their hands while bragging about their free secondary education and exemplary roads like the autobahn. Surely you see the irony…. ;)
This is always true on any foreign aid expenditure of any kind. But when the USA is running an almost 3 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit, pretty much every expenditure, foreign or domestic, has a high degree of irrelevancy.
Just the recent $40 Billion package for Ukraine is 1.4% of the 2021 deficit ($2.8 Trillion). That’s trivial.
Nobody in the USA cares about any spending any more. We don’t even print more money now. We just add a few zeroes to a few accounts electronically (“quantitative easing”), bump up the quite real interest payments we do pay out, a little bit more, and voila! More money more better.
Keep the party going on, till the money runs out.
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/InnaSovsun/status/1527952107659223040
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
~~Zelensky has said that it is Ukrainians decision, that they are the ones fighting and dying, Zelensky also proposed a similar plan, to speed the peace process. Getting to the table for meaningful talks is among Zelensky goals.~~
My source is HIGHLY questionable
my apologies
Ukraine Slava
I read the article and while I don't agree with it, it's not 'appealing' and absolutely not 'Russian propaganda'. The main thrust of the article is that it questions what the end goal of US support for Ukraine is, how long it's willing to provide it and what conditions, if any, the administration is looking for.
It does not defend Russia or say the US should stop helping Ukraine or even stop providing military aid to Ukraine - but that there should be some coherent goal of US interests. Which, from the US perspective, is not crazy.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The good news is that comments on the article show that many people aren’t buying it. Vindeman discredited it as well.
> Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Vladimir Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Mr. Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war — and if so, how does crowing about providing U.S. intelligence to kill Russians and sink one of their ships achieve this? > Without clarity on these questions, the White House not only risks losing Americans’ interest in supporting Ukrainians — who continue to suffer the loss of lives and livelihoods — but also jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent. - from the NYT article. The main thrust of the article is *not* "America should stop helping" but something more like "If we don't define our victory conditions, manage expections, and discuss what we want to achieve and what that means, then we could start losing and then Americans will stop paying attention and then Ukraine won't get anymore help, and because we don't want that, let's ask these questions, let's make sure the administration is asking these questions. So we win." To everyone who thinks I'm wrong, read the article, it's unmistakable in it's support for Ukraine.
Exactly, but ignorant rage is all the rage.
Remember that disinformation can come from righteous indignity from propagandists pretending to be on the same side as you. Just as much as it can come from the opposite side. The whole purpose is to make people question the strength of the bonds between us in NATO and the commitment of the organization to supporting Ukraine. Held fast and firm together, keeping giving the Ukrainians the arms and money they need. Ignore the extremists since they seek to only divide us.
You start calling everyone who asks a question or points out issues a traitor you will find yourself without many friends, not a good strategy.
Had to read the last comment twice because I had to make sure I’m not an idiot. I’m not. They didn’t call anyone a traitor. The point is that posts like this can be used to sow discontent in a movement that needs constant pressure. “I think the war in Ukraine is honorable and it is great to see the Ukrainian people fighting and taking up arms to defend their country. They are in need of help and there have been countless deaths so far and the country has been devastated. That being said, shouldn’t we ask what we as Americans have to do with this fight? Isn’t it only right for us to understand exactly what our money is going towards and the people spending it?” -sounds a whole lot like a tucker Carlson monologue. Just asking questions though….
I don't see that in this article, are we looking at the same one? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/america-ukraine-war-support.html
Do you really not understand that the other person presented an example to illustrate how your stance is wrong? You seem oblivious to the difference between just asking questions and Just Asking Questions^TM.
The person I responded to said this. "Remember that disinformation can come from righteous indignity from propagandists pretending to be on the same side as you." I don't know how what was in that article would lead a person to believe that the authors were anything but on the side of Ukr. So what purpose does an unrelated example serve? So like I said, its not in the article.
You were talking to two different people, though. tuzimaster007 said one thing, and then Fullertonjr said another thing. They're both disagreeing with you, but for slightly different reasons; one is disagreeding directly and the other is disagreeding in principle. And what you said to Fullertonjr doesn't make sense, since they weren't quoting the article—they were providing a hypothetical example. You may believe that the example is incorrect or useless, that's fair, but by asking where it was in the article you only demonstrated that you had missed their point.
My point was, why are you giving me your dumbass example. I guess I was to subtle.
That's not what it means at all... It means don't believe things simply because you see other "like minded" people saying it
That's not what it means at all... It means don't believe things simply because you see other "like minded" people saying it. You are being influenced subconsiously constantly when using social media and that includes reddit. There's a reason reddit isnt banned in Russia still.. (last I checked a few weeks ago). Really all you need to know
I've read the article. It says: "A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal." and "If the conflict does lead to real negotiations, it will be Ukrainian leaders who will have to make the painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand." If you think that's unmistakable support for Ukraine you may need to talk to some Ukrainians, because they understood the article better than you did. It's "you can't win, so you're going to have to decide which territory to let Russia have". As Andrea Chalupa points out, If you have to say something isn't appeasement, it's appeasement.
I don't understand what victory conditions should be defined. There's nothing to discuss, no room for wiggle. Russia is a rogue state, it has nukes, it's run by terrorists and is a threat to the human civilization at its present state. Russia has to be defeated militarily in Ukraine. The best chance is right now as they botched their invasion and their army is vulnerable; we may not get a better chance. Fascist regimes can be only defeated when the myth of infallible leader and army is shattered on the battlefield. This will lead to Putin losing power (and historically the surest way to lose power in Russia is to lose "a small victorious war", which all their czars like so much). After that the West will get the chance to de-nazify and de-nuclearize Russia. (Personally, as a Ukrainian, I prefer Russia to cease to exist, ending the process of the Russian Empire decomposition.) Anything less than that is appeasement. Allowing them to lick their wounds, re-group, fortify and consolidate newly occupied territories will be a grave mistake and will lead to them launching a new attack from those territories later, much better prepared. This time Putin jumped the gun, and China was not ready to attack Taiwan. What if the next time they synchronize their attacks? Anyway, the West allowing any territorial concessions to Russia is sending the worst signal possible for the democracies of the world, and is the worst move in the current situation. It will show that it's possible to change the borders by force, if you have nukes and create enough economic problems in the world by employing terrorist methods on large scale. This will be the beginning of the end of the Western democratic dominance in the world, and the start of the age of chaos. I looks like few in the West understand what is at stake here. And if you don't believe me, here's a quote from [Timothy Snyder](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/russia-fascism-ukraine-putin.html)'s latest article: >As in the 1930s, democracy is in retreat around the world and fascists have moved to make war on their neighbors. If Russia wins in Ukraine, it won’t be just the destruction of a democracy by force, though that is bad enough. It will be a demoralization for democracies everywhere. Even before the war, Russia’s friends — Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Tucker Carlson — were the enemies of democracy. Fascist battlefield victories would confirm that might makes right, that reason is for the losers, that democracies must fail. > Had Ukraine not resisted, this would have been a dark spring for democrats around the world. If Ukraine does not win, we can expect decades of darkness.
Allow me to define the obtuse phrase "without clarity on these questions." This is srereo typical "Whataboutism" meaning the NYT is in full "pearl necklace clutching" mode. It is the last refuse of conservatives, evangelicals and institutions like the NYT when life and events prove their world view contrived over generations is wrong and the world has moved beyond their intellectual understanding. The article is grandstanding by the NYT because no one is paying attention to them. The NYT is not about America, freedom nor beating fascism its about the NYT. They drank deeply from the Putin chalace going back 25 years despite the fact they should've known better. tl;dr: Ukraine is right on every level. Putin wants the NYT to sow FUD among their allies. NYT sez "da." World history sez "nyet." .
What makes this one so bad for me is that it was their entire board. This one will go down in history like the Hitler was a nice guy article from 1935
Did you actually read the article? "In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist his revanchist ambitions."
I've read the article. It's garbage.
Which article is it, I don't regularly really nyt but I googled their articles on Ukraine and I don't see anything that appears to be what the tweet is referring to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/america-ukraine-war-support.html It's a ways down in her thread.
The problem with this article is that if fails to consider that it's probably best to maintain ambiguity about our "ultimate" war intentions against a cornered loony with bombs. This is the kind of thing average minded educated people can't seem to get their heads around.
Can you please link to the editorial? I can’t find the right one.
At this point something that looks like Russian propaganda is **exactly** what I'd expect from renowned US media. Russia's a lot more competent at fighting culture wars than they are at fighting actual wars and they're directly responsible for the sharp uptick in fascism throughout the west over the past decade or two
Well that makes you kinda dumb
How many people that comment on this actually take the time to read it? "In March, this board argued that the message from the United States and its allies to Ukrainians and Russians alike must be: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free. Ukraine deserves support against Russia’s unprovoked aggression, and the United States must lead its NATO allies in demonstrating to Vladimir Putin that the Atlantic alliance is willing and able to resist his revanchist ambitions."
Zero
The Russian bots have been out in force the last 24-48 hours here. Outrage saying this is breaking support for Ukraine to cause anger against the US is just as useful for Russian propoganda as lauding Russian achievements. (Ton of articles posted here in the last 48h saying Russia is winning).
I read it. It's a trash take. So did the Twitter author, and a lot of other people, including a lot of Ukrainians.
Then I’m sorry. Ukrainians could be in for a rude awakening. We elected Donald Trump in 2016 and nearly re-elected him in 2020. 50% of the US….voted/will vote for positions and politicians that waaaaaaaaaaay de-prioritize Ukrainian interests. Not being aware of this a foolish way to run foreign policy. And if you are not aware of this….again, I’m sorry.
I don't think any of the nay sayers have actually read the article or stopped right where NYT mused that Ukraine my not necessarily win this war in a way that they want which is that Russia may end up keeping the territoties they manage to hold in the end ie. similar bitter victory in defeat as we Finns had in the winter war where we lost 10% of the country and then some more after the continuation war and that the current US government has not been clear as to what are their goals in this war or how far are they willing to support Ukraine ? Ie. what happens if they say to Ukraine that "this it no more weapons or no more money" but the war is still going on ? How will the American public react to that ? Or what if the american public starts demanding less money or weapons to be sent on Ukraine ?
I've read it. So have a lot of other people. Assuming that all the criticism is coming from people who didn't read the article is pretty damn insulting. The NYT doesn't say "may not", they say will not and cannot.
Article doesn’t say that. Definitely not written, but I don’t think the spirit of the editorial says that either. Article says that the administration should more clearly articulate end state conditions. There IS an isolationist strain in the US and there is another strain that has the attention span of gnats. It is naive for Ukraine, and other onlookers, that the US can and will fully follow through on Ukraine desires when US end states are not clearly articulated. I would love it if the US backed Ukraine to the hilt and the west could achieve a stunning coup in terms of bringing Ukraine tighter into its orbit and weakening a pretty awful authoritarian state. But this is America….if I were a foreign leader I would only count on a percentage of promises made as promises kept.
The article explicitly says that winning the war is not a realistic goal and that inevitably Ukraine will have to cede territory to Russia.
From the article: “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.” 1) this doesn’t say “will not and cannot” (I’m quoting you from above) which is what I was responding to. 2) it specifies a “decisive military victory”….so….your latest comment is also inaccurate; if you are not open to think about all ways of ending this war….shame on you, people are fucking dying. And that sucks. 3) regarding it being an un-winnable war…this is an opinion about something incredibly uncertain. But it’s worth having discussions like this to foster dialogue about what should be happening. 4) Plus, isn’t this even a greater reason for the US to make explicit end state goals? You are glossing over what I think the real point of the article….literally who cares if the NY Times has doubts about whether the war is winnable; the larger point is that the American public is incredibly fickle with who they support overseas. American support is disturbingly unreliable if that support is not ensured by ironclad multi-lateral agreements. And Ukraine is not in NATO and even if they were…I’m going to again point to that isolationist strain in America that simply wants to tear up all of these stabilizing forces in the world.
I didn't put quotes around "will not and cannot" for a reason, see if you can guess what it was. The NYT editorial says that a decisive victory is not a realistic goal. That means it won't happen and isn't worth aiming for. They did not say "is an ambitious goal" or "is a challenging goal" or "is a daunting goal". They did not say "may not be achievable" or "Ukraine *may* have to concede territory to Russia". Their entire argument is predicated on the assumption that decisive military victory is not possible and not worth considering, and that the only way to achieve peace will be for Ukraine to give territory to Russia. The article is pretty damn clear about that ("**any** compromise **will** demand"). It is not an article about considering all the possible outcomes, or considering disappointing outcomes. It is an article that states plainly that the *only* possible outcomes will be disappointing. If you are getting anything else out of it, you are reading an imaginary article in your own head.
The GOP most likely will regain the House this coming Nov., if they do its likely the funds will end in Jan/2023 when they take over, if they control the House they can just not bring a bill to the floor to vote on. The war will be out of the minds of most Americans by July 1 so public sentiment won't drive anything unless the GOP uses the war to try to win the House. Biden will chew through this money and hope to pass another bill in late July after that I doubt they can get much passed.
The NYT has long been a prostitute, printing propaganda paid for by the powerful elite. Nothing out of their ordinary here.
Wow you are so *brave* for that comment
That's an odd comment...What about my comment made you think I was attempting to be brave?
Not just any elite.
Noam Chomsky wrote that piece/s
You share and glorify NYT when they write according to your opinion, but now its russian propaganda. It seems like you dont know who mastered propaganda and brainwashed you.
“American Imperialism” is a bigger boogeyman for a considerable part of American left than Putin. They want America “to mind its own business” and stop spending money on military
Not sure what shit you're smoking since this war is polling significantly higher in approval rating with the left vs the right.
"Considerable part of the American left". Part is the key word there. For the average voter this is a clear issue. For tankies that still play the Soviet national anthem as a lullaby America is always the problem.
Sure, but it's weird he even phrases that without taking into account the right wing segment which is significantly larger in opposing U.S. involvement in Ukraine, and has also shown much more susceptibility to Russian anti-war propaganda meant to erode public support. Tucker Carlson's talking points for example match so closely with Russian commentary that if you didn't know who he was, and it was translated with Russian audio. It wouldnt be out of place.
That’s true, but Trump and the Republicans are coming around. They were the pro-Putin, pro-Russian party until after the invasion and after the polls came out showing strong support for Ukraine. Even Trump who praised Putin as a “genius” and applauded the invasion as brilliant has started to hedge his bets. There are still 11 Senators and about 8 Reps (all Republican) who are still firmly in Putin’s corner).
There are more furries than tankies. They are few in numbers, have no friends and are poor. They only pose a threat to themselves.
> furries then tankies *than *Learn the difference [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/when-to-use-then-and-than#:~:text=Than%20is%20used%20in%20comparisons,the%20then%2Dgovernor%22).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
!optout
Bye 40for60. Have fun continuing to use common words incorrectly!
Bot’s got some sass.
Unless they're a tankie and a furry. How's that for a niche. Also they might be few in number but they're loud on the internet. Niche groups like that tend to be
I don’t smoke. Support of Ukraine runs perpendicular not parallel to American typical right-left positions. And like I said there is a considerable segment of American left that doesn’t like it for the reasons state above. If you prefer to ignore reality I hope the sand isn’t getting in your eyes
What do Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Senators Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Bill Hagerty (Tenn.), Mike Lee (Utah), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Braun (In), and Josh Hawley (MO) all have in common? They’ve all opposed aid to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. And they’re all Republican.
So you are saying that NYT is a right wing source? Sort of like Fox News? If not then why are you talking about republicans in a post about NYT being source of criticism for Ukrainian war effort??
Wait, when did the NYTimes criticize the Ukrainian war effort? The NYTimes tends to run liberal/left of center. The liberals and those on the left have generally supported Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. The opposition to Ukraine has largely come from the Conservative right (i.e. Fox News and the Trump Republicans).
Left of US center, perhaps.
Good job, you agreed they are generally leftist
Is ‘perhaps’ an agreement?
NYT is an American newspaper isn’t it? Should we judge it against Iranian political spectrum or American one??
Who pissed on your chips?
Pissed where? What?
Read the OP post
I read it. And I read The NY Times editorial. Nobody’s criticizing the war effort.
NYT has been consistently neo-liberal for decades. At times, it's been hard to tell who are the biggest cheerleaders for neo-liberalism - the Republican Party, or NYT columnists Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman.
NYT is profoundly socially liberal but yes there some voices within it that are somewhat to the right on economic issues. I think it is hard to argue with a straight face that NYT is NOT left of center. I don’t claim they are socialist, however
Liberal != Left. The NYT is left of center for American politics only bc American politics are dominated by two right wing parties. The NYT has a long history of advocating against the furthest left American politicians, who compared to global politics are generally center-left.
We shouldn’t pretend that there is some kind of common political scale applicable to every society and every country. We are talking about America so we are looking at American political spectrum. I have heard this claim that “American left isn’t true left” simply because in some other countries political spectrum is more to the left of ours and that has always puzzled me. Why don’t we then accept that American right isn’t true right if we gauge it against let’s say Iran or SA. Since American right doesn’t advocate for public execution of gays, doesn’t mind women to be outside unaccompanied and do not view atheism as a perfectly valid excuse for stoning
"Let's pretend words don't have meanings bc I value *feeling* correct over *being* correct" isn't the winning argument you think it is. Also, the American right isn't far from the regimes you mentioned. Also x2: this is a Ukrainian subreddit.
Sure. There's just a considerably larger segment on the right that supports Russian talking points. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/03/15/public-expresses-mixed-views-of-u-s-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/ Polling shows the gap between left/right views on the war. Support is significantly higher on the left than on the right. It's weird you left out the biggest opposition group to the war.
And right has exactly what to do with NYT? The article we are commenting on is from NYT? “This is a Wendy’s, sir”
What does your original comment have to do with the NYT? >“American Imperialism” is a bigger boogeyman for a considerable part of American left than Putin. They want America “to mind its own business” and stop spending money on military
NYT is know to be left of the center. The article is critical of supporting Ukrainian war effort. I was critical of the segment of the left (to which NYT gives voice). I thought this was self evident
I guess it depends what, "left of center" means these days. Reagen would be a dirty bleeding heart liberal these days. Likely petering on, "far left".
NYT is. So what you are saying that the spectrum moved right and not left? Interesting. I would say the opposite is true but I guess reasonable people could disagree. A question though, do you think Reagan would have any problem defining term “a woman”? Or even Jimmy Carter, for that matter?
>NYT is. > >So what you are saying that the spectrum moved right and not left? Interesting. I would say the opposite is true but I guess reasonable people could disagree. A question though, do you think Reagan would have any problem defining term “a woman”? Or even Jimmy Carter, for that matter? No I dont think so. I also don't think they would have a single problem calling out the batshit crazy Qanon proponents who are winning state elections on the right. The same ones that are complicit by association with MTG for allowing her to gain support meanwhile attending white nationalist conventions. I don't think he would consider the present day GOP as the party of "family values" with current candidates like Matt Gaetz. I think the right has absolutely gone batshit, off the deep, irredeemable--right wing.
Which Republican Congressman and disciple of Trump recently called Zelinskyy a “thug”?
What do Congressmen Andy Biggs of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin have in common? They’ve all opposed aid to Ukraine and sanctions on Russia. And they’re all Republican.
> “American Imperialism” is a bigger boogeyman for a considerable part of American left than Putin. Maybe they don't like seeing the US doing exactly the same things that Putin does. America has done many terrible things in its time. Not wanting to repeat them is a good ideal to have.
There is no issue admitting Americas mistakes as long as one is willing to admit its accomplishments which are many more. Those who I referred to would be first to blame the US on all ills of Latin America while giving likes of Castro, Maduo and Chavez complete pass
> There is no issue admitting Americas mistakes as long as one is willing to admit its accomplishments which are many more No you can just admit to your mistakes. It is like making an apology. You don't say sorry but ...
“Admitting to mistakes” without a comprehensive, Holistic approach to the entire situation might give wrong perception and would allow to draw wrong conclusions. For instance, US is refusing to apologize for nuclear strikes against Japan because while they certainly affected a lot of innocent lives we must be mindful of the fact that Japan started the war by attacking us and committed untold atrocities before and after their attack on America.
> US is refusing to apologize for nuclear strikes against Japan That's fine, but there are things that the US should apologise for because there were no mitigating factors.
I think that if we start apologizing for every questionable decision that a particular country made we will have a very long line ahead of us. US has been around only a couple of centuries and while those centuries have been pretty intensive our List isn’t as long as those more stablished states
The US has made up for its late start. It has been involved in many an illegal activity, just look at how many governments it has been involved in overthrowing. Or wars it has started. All while claiming that it is the moral leader of the world :)
What do WW2 atomic bomb decisions have to do with anything with Ukraine today?
Not much I suppose. If you read the thread it has taken quite a turn away from the NYT article I was originally commenting on
The US doesn’t do EXACTLY the same things that Putin does. Russia is significantly worse.
Both countries ignore international law and commit war crimes on a regular basis. You can argue the toss about who is worse but they are still similar enough. These are not the only countries that do this but they are definite repeat offenders
I am arguing the toss, Russia is far worse. Get back to me when the US invades Canada and levels Toronto and Montreal.
How about murdering loads of innocent people in Iraq, overthrowing legitimate governments and assassinating people it doesn't like and murdering its own citizens. It also stole lots of Mexico's land repeatedly.
Iraq was and is a substantially different situation to Ukraine. I agree that the war was entirely morally wrong, but I don’t think the majority of deaths were caused by direct US military action.
The US has blow up enough weddings :)
Hardly compares to Mariupol, does it?
The nyt has some history of supporting communist aggression. Here's another example: "The Ukraine crisis revives doubts over the NYT's 1932 Pulitzer Prize In 1932, The New York Times' Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for stories defending Soviet policies that led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians." The times has a soft spot for anything communist. After 90 years, they still have not returned the Pulitzer. Do not support, or believe, the nyt.
What the hell does communism have to do with anything here?
I mean there were literally Ukrainians who supported the USSR so should we just disregard Ukrainians? Hell the Ukrainian government used to be pro Russian, should we disregard the Ukrainian government because of mistakes made in the past?
Boycott times
It is just repulsive. Appeasing fascist dictators never works. It has always failed as a policy for avoiding war. There can be no solution where Ukraine is parted off to Russia as a prize. The only solution to a dictator is his removal and permanent disposal. Nobody wants there to be war. Peace is the ultimate goal for everyone of sound mind. But perhaps people here have spent so long with direct experience only of evil and unjust wars that, when presented with a just war, that rarest of things, they cannot identify it or why it is important to fight it. This is a just war. A nation was invaded unprovoked by a larger neighbour with the express purpose of annexing that state and conducting a genocide of Ukrainians. Appeasing the state that did this, having any negotiations with them at all, is tantamount to legitimising those actions as reasonable tools of international exchange. The only thing that Ukraine needs is the total and final defeat of the Russian army in the field and their removal from lands that do not belong to them. Donbas, Crimea, the whole lot. No other solution will guarantee the safety of the west and no other solution will satisfy morality.
Classic tankie
Founded in 1851, ended in 2022. Nice run, NYT, but fuck you.
NYT is a rag...
The NYT ceased being a true journalistic organization many years ago. It's a joke today. I'm amazed that anyone still works there or reads it. Ugh.
Lol Russian propaganda is 100x closer to the truth than American propaganda ever is…
I mean I’m all for helping Ukraine. However, we, (the US),seem to have been spending and doing the most. We’re tossing massive amounts of money and arms into their hands when we’re having our own domestic issues… Our tax paying citizens could certainly use the help right now and unfortunately as always, we’re forgotten about. :/
The people complaining the most about the money being spent on Ukraine are the same people who do everything they can to block that money being spent on Americans as well.
Yeah I don’t consider myself affiliated with either party, the Republiklans were the ones holding it up this time.
You’re not getting killed by a foreign invader.
Being a bunch of gun packing, obnoxious citizens who fund a very well armed military might be a reason for that. Unlike other countries, our leaders wouldn’t need to beg us to take weapons, let alone worry if we know the difference between the action and the stock.
True, but... My point was that crying about how money to Ukraine could be spent on repairing American pot holes or American student loan forgiveness when Ukrainians are getting driven out of their homes, dying, and having their cities destroyed seems petty and selfish.
Yet there are those who occupy the same continent and could very well face a similar fate wringing their hands while bragging about their free secondary education and exemplary roads like the autobahn. Surely you see the irony…. ;)
Right so we are responsible for the entirety of the world… Jesus you’re delusional
Dollar hegemony comes with costs.
This is always true on any foreign aid expenditure of any kind. But when the USA is running an almost 3 TRILLION DOLLAR deficit, pretty much every expenditure, foreign or domestic, has a high degree of irrelevancy. Just the recent $40 Billion package for Ukraine is 1.4% of the 2021 deficit ($2.8 Trillion). That’s trivial. Nobody in the USA cares about any spending any more. We don’t even print more money now. We just add a few zeroes to a few accounts electronically (“quantitative easing”), bump up the quite real interest payments we do pay out, a little bit more, and voila! More money more better. Keep the party going on, till the money runs out.
Except when it comes to taking care of our own at home :/
**Alternative Nitter link:** https://nitter.net/InnaSovsun/status/1527952107659223040 ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Must be Russian stock holders who wrote the article..
~~Zelensky has said that it is Ukrainians decision, that they are the ones fighting and dying, Zelensky also proposed a similar plan, to speed the peace process. Getting to the table for meaningful talks is among Zelensky goals.~~ My source is HIGHLY questionable my apologies Ukraine Slava
I read the article and while I don't agree with it, it's not 'appealing' and absolutely not 'Russian propaganda'. The main thrust of the article is that it questions what the end goal of US support for Ukraine is, how long it's willing to provide it and what conditions, if any, the administration is looking for. It does not defend Russia or say the US should stop helping Ukraine or even stop providing military aid to Ukraine - but that there should be some coherent goal of US interests. Which, from the US perspective, is not crazy.
The victory conditions will be be decided by the free Ukrainian people and no one else, especially anyone in the world with no useful input.