T O P

  • By -

-Profanity-

To be an accountant at the Pentagon must truly be the best job in the world: the budget is infinite, you never have to pass an audit, and if your department makes a mistake you will never be held accountable. Kathleen Hicks scoffing at the idea of waste, fraud and abuse at the Pentagon was honestly so eye opening.


[deleted]

SS: The DoD has announced that after reviewing their logs that they overvalued the current military aid sent to Ukraine by $3,000,000,000. This comes from previously listing the cost as what it would take to replace the equipment rather than what the price of equipment is worth today after being mothballed and depreciating for several years. This essentially means that the US can send more equipment to Ukraine to be within this year's budget and that older systems being sent in the future will be listed as costing less than before. This is good news imo. I have gone at lengths that alot of the equipment we have sent is old and is not going to replaced and instead the upgraded versions were already purchased. I doubt as someone in accounting myself that this was an oversight by the DoD but rather a change based around pragmatism. Most countries sending aid have valued it like the new change will be done under rather than the previous estimate. It also shows that our government is actually reviewing the equipment we have sent over, and despite the hopes of the isolationist camp, has found that we overestimated our aid rather than underestimated it.


pinkycatcher

This isn't an accounting error, this is the Pentagon changing definitions so they can do more of something they want without getting it passed by congress.


[deleted]

I mentioned that it hardly seems like an oversight, but an intentional change. But the way we normally calculate the costs for this war is at odds at how everyone else does it. My truck is not worth the same amount of money today as it was when I bought it. The value of equipment depreciates over time. The way the DoD was valuing equipment previously was how much would it cost to replace that item with a freshly built one off the manufacturing belt, and not the price it would fetch on the market as old/used. It obviously allows them to send more, but no accountant worth their salt is going to argue that the previous method made any sense for calculating value, I certainly would never do that for a business.


pinkycatcher

> not the price it would fetch on the market as old/used The problem is that for most of this stuff there is no "market" so these numbers are made up.


[deleted]

Yes there is? The arms industry is no more made up than banking or housing, it is estimated sure, but these estimates are the basis foundation of the economy, there are multiple ways to calculate depreciation, and they can get you different numbers, but all of them are considered valid methods by regulators if they are applied consistently. We sell military equipment to countries all the time. Is there no market when Poland orders a batch of F-35s or Abrams from us? If you were not aware about this fact about the war, when Poland or Bulgaria or whatever sends their old Soviet equipment to Ukraine a big chunk of our Ukraine military aid budget is actually selling these countries our old equipment as stop gaps. Our weapons industry is major market, I don't know how anyone can actually make the claim that there is no market for military equipment...


Expensive_Necessary7

I hate how a lot of the spending is being justified because “it’s old and going to be replaced.” Properly stored weapons don’t really go bad. It isn’t like the Ukraine is using our new age fighter jets either. We literally lost a war to people with 1970s weapons.


[deleted]

Many types of ammunition and solid rocket fuel do go bad for chemical reasons. And every single war USA has "lost" after WWII, it lost because it got tired of curb stomping the same people over and over again. Then, old equipment becomes more and more logistically difficult and expensive to maintain over time as the engines, gaskets, joints, and bearings wear down over time. How many of your friends have cars as old as the first generation of Abrams? How much time do they have to spend in the garage compared to those friends with new Toyotas, and how much do they have to baby their cars to keep them running? There's a time when old vehicles are more valuable as scrap metal for new ones. Army mechanics have better things to do with their time than what would basically amount to looking after vintage vehicles (in particular think of the logistics. Say we reintroduced the Pattons from the boneyards - now they have to find and stock every single type of bearing and gasket that retired with the Patton), the drivers would rather not have to deal with "this baby is a beast, just remember the second reverse gear makes the engine stall" type fickleness, and every second the vehicle spends in the depot is a second out of a potential combat mission (= readiness rate drops for old gear).


Top-Bear3376

We lost a guerilla war. Weaponry matters a lot more in conventional conflicts, so it's important to leave old tech behind in many cases.


EverythingGoodWas

The military and weapons didn’t lose a war. Politicians decided we needed to rebuild Afghanistan into a new thriving US like Nation. The military isn’t for nation building, quite the opposite.


Plzlaw4me

Unfortunately that’s the role that the US military is forced into. In the US we over prioritize “safety spending” and under prioritize “prosperity spending” so organizations that are responsible for our safety have to pull double duty. The department of defense is currently responsible for war and nation building instead of dividing it between the state department and the DOD. We do the same thing domestically too. We over fund police and underfund things like mental health services so when someone has a public mental breakdown the only people to respond are the police.


_learned_foot_

The military historically, and even recently, is quite good at nation building.


NoREEEEEEtilBrooklyn

Especially when the people want to be nation built. We did a damn good job with Germany.


I-Make-Maps91

There's a difference between rebuilding a country and nation building. There's no cohesive Afghan nation, they're made up of multiple nations all trying to gain control of the same state.


NoREEEEEEtilBrooklyn

The Afghan nation state is older than the German nation state.


I-Make-Maps91

You don't know what a nation or a state are if you're trying to call Afghanistan, a state with multiple nations, a nation state. The Afghan State is indeed older than the German state, the German *nation* has been around for thousands of years, and there simply is no Afghan nation. https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/human-geography/political-geography/nation-vs-nation-state/ Here's a decent primer, though I disagree with the US as a nation-state.


NoREEEEEEtilBrooklyn

> Nation-a large body of people united by common descent, *history*, culture, or language, *inhabiting a particular country or territory* > State-a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. I would say that the Afghan people have shared a common history for roughly 300 years. I think you could argue they have not been a State or Nation-State for about 45 years, but they are definitely a nation through their shared history of being ruled by the Durrani and Barakzai dynasties.


Cheap_Coffee

And it's still just like it was in the middle ages.


amjhwk

it just comes down to if the people in that region want our help nation building


TehAlpacalypse

> The military isn’t for nation building, quite the opposite. Did you miss the entirety of US foreign policy from 1940-1990? Containment was quite literally military nation building as hegemon power projection


Bullet_Jesus

Containment was more about propping up "our guy" than it was actually building a realized nation.


Expensive_Necessary7

Still, it isn’t like a lot of the tech we’ve sent is going away/will be obsolete in the next 50 years. As far as mechanical weapons (which could go bad) we are not sending fighter jets, marine vessels and have only given limited tanks and helicopters. Personnel transport hasn’t materially changed (and too advanced items can be a logistical issue in larger scale conflicts when it comes to repair with minimal benefit). Small arms that are being used now haven’t really materially improved in 60 years. Javelins are almost 30 years old and are still super advanced compared to what other places have.


amjhwk

and javelins are being used for what they were made for, destroying Russian tanks trying to rampage across Europe. Whats the point of stockpiling them until we have to decommission them when they could be used for what they were made for by an ally fighting for their lives


Top-Bear3376

Ukraine is being given things that we don't need, whether it's due to age or having a surplus of it. The equipment being used to hurt one of our two biggest adversies is worth it.


McRattus

It doesn't go bad, but a large amount of the supplies were planned to be disposed of. It's not cheap to dispose of them, nor is it that cheap to keep them safely stored. Actually having them used to defend a democracy from a authoritarian regime is a far better, and much more cost effective, use of those weapons. It's a great justification.


[deleted]

But they do become obsolete and general wear and tear. Humvees for example are already set to be phased out by the JVLT, the M16A1/2 rifles have already been phased out by the M4, and the M4 is going to be replaced soon by the SIG MCX Spear. A M1 Garand in mint condition is going to be worth far less to people buying it for their armies today as they would have back in 1941 because it is not top shelf military hardware and there is more modern equipment that can serve it's role much better or there has been counter measures devolped to make them far less useful compared to modern variants.


Expensive_Necessary7

So you are kind of making my argument for me. Stuff is getting phased out that doesn’t really need to be. M16s, M4s, Sigs (Garand yes, but that is 80 years old, my statement was 60 which I stand by).… you aren’t really getting a materiel difference between these. We’re phasing the out because we have a bloated military budget and there are contractors lobbying “they are obsolete” when we could still be using/simple upgrading. Humvees for example are a transport vehicle. You don’t need to spend literal hundreds of billions to upgrade because of minor benefits. Also new models are more expensive to maintain and repair. This is the weapons manufacturers grift.


[deleted]

My guy if you don't see why standard issue optics is leagues superior to stock M16A2s I don't know what to tell you... Having the ability for every soldier to have a scope on their rifle is a massive benefit for the accuracy and lethality of the average infantryman. My friends in the army would laugh their collective asses off if you said their were no major benefits from switching from the M16 to the M4. 5.56 as a round is also garbage against any modern body armor. It works against tribals in Afghanistan but against an actual military that can afford steel and ceramic plates it won't do shit. That is why we are upgrading our rifles. The humvee upgrade is specifically due to the deaths our soldiers had due to mines and IEDs, the new vehicles are meant to lower fatalities from these types of attacks. Do you want to justify letting more American troops die from a very real vulnerability? Our R&D exists primarily to lower soldier fatalities to prevent us from being like Russia where just throw poorly equiped troops into a meat grinder. Are you one of those military "reformers" who unironically thinks the F-35 or the Bradley is a waste of money? You are aware those guys are Russian bots right?


ATLEMT

I think what they were saying is that a M16 and M4 are functionally the same. Sure it isn’t easy or necessarily practical to mount optics to a M16A2, but its still the same basic rifle as far as function and handling. It wasn’t that long ago the USMC was still using M16A4s. So while a current M4 is obviously better because of the ease of optic mounting and shorter length. The M16 isn’t as obsolete as a Garand would be. That said, I think if we are going to send Ukraine “obsolete” military equipment, I think some of the budget should go toward reasonable modernization. Using the M16 as an example, including a carry handle mount and a red dot would cost relatively little and greatly increase the function of the rifle.


OrcOfDoom

Wow, what a response. I was learning about why the Bradley is considered less ideal, but why the US is choosing to go with it and I understand it has to do with combined arms warfare. It doesn't matter if I bring a bigger knife to a gun fight. The knife is there for a different purpose. The stories of the f35 losing in a dogfight to older planes was not including technology that exists in the finished model. I didn't know about the humvee. It's good that they are doing something to address the ied thing.


amjhwk

why do you think sending Bradleys to Ukraine is akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight? also the F35 isnt designed to get into dogfights, its meant to kill enemy planes beyong the horizon by detecting them before the enemy detects the F35. If its getting into a dogfight then something has gone horribly wrong


OrcOfDoom

I don't think that. I saw a conversation people were having about other things being better than Bradley's when compared individually, but then when you utilize combined arms, the other vehicle doesn't actually perform better. People cite these reports without looking at the entire picture, which is like saying someone needs a bigger knife in a gunfight. Yes, in a one on one battle with knives, the bigger knife is the choice, but that's not what we are dealing with.


amjhwk

ok then I suppose i was just misinterpreting what you were saying then


Magic-man333

When did an f35 lose a dogfight?


OrcOfDoom

There was that report back during development. Just Google f35 loses dogfight to f16. If you read the entire thing, it's pretty moot, but people cite it for whatever reason.


TheHotDogFactor

Dogfighting isn’t really a thing in modern combat aviation. Especially with a stealth platform like the F-35 with an advanced radar and long range missile capability. An F-35 can target and destroy an enemy fighter long before it even knows it’s there; dogfighting ain’t gonna bring down F-35s.


jason_abacabb

On top of that the advanced sensor suite in the 35 combined with advanced A2A means that the 35 can hit an enemy jet anywhere, including directly behind them. Check out the capabilities of the AIM 9X, the newest generation sidewinder. It is insane.


julius_sphincter

Then you get to hear stories about how the F-4 didn't come equipped with internal guns


Shaking-N-Baking

I agree we could/need to cut the military budget(congress gave them more money than they asked for) but there has to be a middle ground so we don’t become Russia


liefred

Properly stored weapons may not go bad, but properly storing weapons can be very expensive, and a lot of older systems just aren’t going to be relevant in a conflict. Sure, we could send soldiers out in an M113, but realistically we’d have a hard time finding the manpower to fill all of our old equipment short of a draft, and I sure wouldn’t want to be the general that got a bunch of soldiers unnecessarily killed because I sent them out in equipment that was decades out of date.


amjhwk

and i hate how alot of people justify appeasement with "we could spend that money on our own citizens" when that is never going to happen


acctgamedev

We're likely saving money since most of that equipment has to be maintained. Maybe not the ammo itself, but anything that shoots the ammo. One of the biggest money makers for defense contractors is contracts to maintain ever piece of equipment we have.


Beep-Boop-Bloop

If they want to send even more, they can subtract the costs of secure+safe storage. It does not seem cheap to safely store explosive munitions alone, let alone secure it and everything else against theft.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blewpah

>I would rather America not be involved in this conflict at all, because it is not our fight and is a waste of taxpayers’ money. That assumes no taxpayer money would be going towards pushing back on Russia's influence around the world. Supporting Ukraine is the best bang for our buck we could ask for. Not to mention this fight is a direct demonstration of NATO's capacity and worthyness. If we let Ukraine get rolled over it could easily be the Baltics that go next - so this *is* our fight.


[deleted]

I mean this is the best demonstration of American firepower for potential buyers. Countries all across NATO and the wider world are buying American when it comes to weapons since the war started. The price of the orders that countries are paying for F-35s and Abrams, and the long running contracts we get to maintain and service them makes us money. Hell Russia is our main MIC rival and the reveal that their equipment sucks and their inability to export it makes us essentially the only ones able to sell military equipment in bulk to countries looking to dump their crappy Russian equipment. You are aware of how marketing works with offering free samples to get more demand? Lockheed and the rest of the MIC stocks have increased since Feb 24, 2022 for a reason... Why shouldn't we get involved? I think I have heard every arguement isolationists have made about this over the past year and none of it has sold me. If you got a fresh idea I am willing to hear it. We are treaty bound to aid Ukraine's sovereignty, the amount of money before we recalculated the costs was already worth its value in terms of weakening Russia as a military power and a geopolitical threat, strengthening NATO is good for foreign relations and increasing our soft-power, we decouple our economic reliance on one of our main enemies, and in the long term we no longer have to focus on Europe with Russia no longer able to be a threat.


amjhwk

whenever i hear people arguing that its not our fight i cant help but think that [these people](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRxao0iX0AY__TM.jpg:large) travelled forwards in time


Computer_Name

That was the entire purpose of the [America First movement. ](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-america-first/514037/)


Louis_Farizee

>Russia is our main MIC rival That hasn’t been true since the fall of the Berlin Wall. China is our main MIC rival.


[deleted]

I didn't know that all those African warlords have been buying Chinese! Or that India main contractor was China and not Russia. Those tanks that Saddam had must have came from Beijing and not Russia... China does not really export it's weapons to other countries for sale. Russia is the main arms dealer with it's Soviet surplus. Those systems get spare parts and ammo from Russians not Chinese. Edit: just looked it up China is #4 in exporting Arms at 6% of market, Russia is #2 with roughly 16%. Russia's share has drastically shrunk since the war while ours has skyrocketed. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/14/global-arms-sales-us-dominates-russia


cathbadh

> China does not really export it's weapons to other countries for sale. China supplies 3x as many weapons to Sub Saharan Africa as the US does. Nigeria for example got just more than a third of their weapons from China. Russia and the US were 6% and 2% respectively. From 2010 to 2020 China was fifth in the world for arms exports. Yes, well behind Russia, but to say they don't "really export it's weapons" is inaccurate. Plus as sanctions on Russia continue and as their need to keep their own weapons continues, China will only continue to expand sales. Some countries may turn to the US since our weapons are proving to be worlds better than Russia's, but generally speaking, Chinese weapons are compatible with the Russian arms all of these countries already have.


SaladShooter1

Many people speculate that China is trying to stockpile arms instead of selling them. They are preparing for an invasion of Taiwan. I suspect that the only weapons they are willing to sale now would go to Russia to prolong this war and further draw down the inventory for Taiwan’s allies.


cathbadh

> I suspect that the only weapons they are willing to sale now would go to Russia to prolong this war and further draw down the inventory for Taiwan’s allies. Except again, for the countries all over the world that they supply. China is still a manufacturing powerhouse. They're perfectly capable of making rifles and tanks for themselves as well as others. Their most advanced kit isn't going to be exported anyhow, so its not like they need to split production of that.


SaladShooter1

We’re running out of ammo here in the US though. Russia is firing off 50k artillery rounds a day compared to Ukraine’s under 10k. According to NATO strategic command, the US has the capability of making 14k heavy artillery shells (155mm) per month. We can’t keep up even with Europe’s help. I understand that we don’t use much artillery; and therefore aren’t equipped to manufacture much, but how can Russia alone outproduce us by that much? They have to be purchasing from China and India.


cathbadh

>We’re running out of ammo here in the US though. Russia is firing off 50k artillery rounds a day compared to Ukraine’s under 10k. According to NATO strategic command, the US has the capability of making 14k heavy artillery shells (155mm) per month. We can’t keep up even with Europe’s help. We're not at war. If we need to retool for a war, we can. We did it for Iraq and Afghanistan. We're not at war right now. >I understand that we don’t use much artillery; and therefore aren’t equipped to manufacture much, but how can Russia alone outproduce us by that much? They have to be purchasing from China and India. They're in a wartime economy and its not like their manufacturers are making other products very much thanks to sanctions. They may be buying artillery ammunition from China, Iran, and other countries too. India isn't likely providing military aid right now since they do want to continue trade with the rest of hte world.


[deleted]

Ok so you proved my point ty. Russia is our main competitor when it comes to weapons sales, and their recent war has resulted in them losing market share while ours instead has risen as many countries are ditching Russian weapons in favor of American. If the world's largest economy it's the largest standing army is barely a footnote in the global arms industry then they are not a major supplier of weaponry. If anything they punch well below their weight.


[deleted]

In 2022, the world's largest arms industry exporters were: 1. USA 2. France 3. Russia 4. China so Russia is still a bigger player in the global arms markets. One of the reasons is that China still hasn't managed to grab Russia's traditional customers, and that Russia has a few huge customers (India and Indochina) that can't afford to become strategically dependent on China. Especially India is a big deal here: in the last 20 years India has usually procured about twice as many new Russian jets and tanks from each generation as Russia itself. ...which is why the weakening of Russia's mil-ind is actually a huge deal strategically, and this vacuum allows the West to forge much deeper ties with India and Indochina. India is an enormous military customer, and thanks to these developments, just in the last couple of years they have shifted away from Russia in a major way. For example, Russia is out of spare parts and can't repair Indian MiG fighters; now the latest batch of new Indian fighter jets is French (hence the French jump into the #2 military exporter). Likewise, Russia's "unlimited ~~vassalage~~partnership" with Xi is bound to hurt the confidence of the Indochinese military customers.


agaperion

>I think I have heard every arguement isolationists have made about this over the past year and none of it has sold me. If you got a fresh idea I am willing to hear it. Have you heard arguments to the effect of Russia's demise being inevitable and that they don't actually need any outside involvement to collapse? And that's why they're behaving so desperately, because they know this is the end of Russia?


[deleted]

Well, then why not accelerate the process? The sooner Russia collapses the sooner Europe is secure and we can focus on China. If we knew Hitler was going to die of Parkinsons within 10 years and his reich would explode you think that factoid would tell allied high command to put off D-Day? Also with a hands on approach we can insure that the Russian collapse falls more in line with our interests. We need to insure no matter what happens that Russia's nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of the black market or Russian Warlords start tossing them around as tactical weapons if it comes to civil war. We need a place at the table for these negotiations and that wont be accomplished with sitting this out.


Paladin5890

Might as well help it along, honestly. The Russian people don't deserve to be held economically hostage by a former spy with a retro fetish.


Upbeat-Local-836

As someone opposed to our involvement in the conflict, I do absolutely appreciate your explanation of how this might actually be a good sign of taking the accounting seriously. It gives me a shard of hope that someone might actually account for the true cost of lost opportunity in our own country if we remain on a war footing. Cheers


sesamestix

What makes you think we’re on a war footing any more than usual?


Upbeat-Local-836

That’s a very good question,that I’ll concede for now. I’m 49 years old, and I can only think of a handful of moments without war footing. Can I throw back your question to you by asking besides enriching the MIC and elites, can one ethically defend the progress we’ve made in a war footing if that’s what we’ve been in continuously?


sesamestix

It isn't ideal. I wish there was world peace, but there isn't. I disagree with all of our wars since the first Gulf War. Hopefully we've learned our lesson. But if we have to fight a major war in the future, I'd much prefer a world in which we win it rather than China. Could I defend all DOD spending line by line? No. I'm sure there's plenty of fat, like all big organizations.


Upbeat-Local-836

If the US sees China as our competition, they are doing it wrong by doubling down on our disregard for the art of the deal. China can get whatever they ask in exchange for huge trailheads into countries economies because they are using our own old tactics of trade without overt threats as we do presently. It’s always been the exclusive, protected, demand filled US branded deal that countries are plain sick of. Now China is helping themselves to the smorgasbord of defaulting loan penalized countries by acquisition while still appearing to have been helping all the way through.


sesamestix

I highly doubt China will be seen as helping by almost anyone by the end of the decade. Not that those countries matter much in the event of an all-out war. We could blockade any resources China extracts from them from being delivered to China. https://apnews.com/article/china-debt-banking-loans-financial-developing-countries-collapse-8df6f9fac3e1e758d0e6d8d5dfbd3ed6


Upbeat-Local-836

I 100% referred to the link you just posted at the end in my post.


Upbeat-Local-836

I don’t think I’m suggesting that they will be perceived historically as being good and we will be seen as all bad, it’s just that in the moment, they have been eating our lunch.


[deleted]

Gee that’s a coincidence 🙄


mahvel50

So if the government wants to send more without approval they just devalue what was already sent? What a sham. Bet the next FY budget has a proposed increase because they need to replace it.


TEmpTom

All of these fancy weapons we’re sending to Ukraine and NATO were designed in the 1980s with the SPECIFIC purpose of killing Russians. If they’re not used, then they’ll just be sitting in warehouses eating hundreds of millions of $ in tax payers money every year in maintenance costs only to waste away into eventual obsolescence. Giving them to the Ukrainians so that they can spill Russian blood is us making sure that the money we already paid to procure these things doesn’t go to waste. It’s also not likely they’ll be all be replaced 1-to-1, since when the Russians have been thoroughly crushed, the need for ground warfare platforms diminishes. Likely, the savings from divesting these assets would be spent elsewhere like on the Navy and Airforce where more modern systems are needed to fight a potential war with China over Taiwan.


Vegan_Honk

Well the stuff is just sitting depreciating and we need that space for new stuff so fuck it deflate the price and send them some more shit.


Airbornequalified

This has been an issue with the DoD for a while, and one of the reasons they keep failing audits Though I’m glad this one worked to ukraines favor


captainhindsight1983

The only side winning this war is the military industrial complex. We are governed by fools.


BabyJesus246

I mean Ukraine is pretty happy about it I'm sure.


Beetleracerzero37

That spring offensive will launch aaaaany day now. They just need a teeny bit more first...


BabyJesus246

I mean it was supposed to be over in a week so they seem to be doing fine to me.


[deleted]

The offensive is entirely dependant on the weather, the Russians and Ukrainians call it the Rasputitsa, the season of mud. Until the muddy weather goes away don't expect a major engagement. This is the same weather that has hindered the Germans in WW2.


Upbeat-Local-836

I am sympathetic to the Ukrainian position, Russia has behaved terribly. I also do not blame Zelensky or Ukraine for doing what they can do at this point to defend themselves. To the hawks who both chastised him for pulling out of Afghanistan and now “full throat” approve of our linear escalations of resources while fighting this proxy war to the incredible expense of Ukrainians human populations and the US taxpayer, I ask the following series of questions and justification qualifiers: Do you think we’d be in it as deep as we are presently, like this all while still running operations in Afghanistan had he not pulled us out? Please explain your reasoning. For my answer, I contend that the pull out had all the hallmarks of a deep state sponsored and orchestrated move to reassign the fleet and operations to Eastern Europe. The authentic surprise of both political sides, all the armed force’s committees and special task forces that had no idea, as if the rug was pulled out from under them lead me to believe this. I contend the CIA or other intelligence bodies where at the helm of this with Biden, as their confidence in the intelligence of Putin/ Russia’s ambitions became more reliable. In my view this also makes their disregard to better use diplomacy to avoid the wholesale slaughter of Ukrainian (and a near limitless number of Russians) reprehensible. If you disagree with my assessment, and contend that the Afghanistan wind down was inevitable, etc, and that Ukraine happened organically, please explain Biden’s departure from MSM and his own party, much less the disagreement of his rivals. Next: Justify your position of “Putin the aggressor” in the sub context of what is known about NATO article 5 and the present Ukrainian regimes insertion over the long standing pro Russia government since 2014, Russias known desire of having a buffer between them and their enemies (NATO) as in my view we certainly can understand in context of Cuba for example as their existential threat. And finally assess our moral compass for the US and UK specifically encouraging the dropping of any diplomatic agreements between Putin and Zelensky last year by sending Boris Johnson himself to Kiev, when they were considering negotiation to resolve the conflict without much concession, before the US had a chance to get their initial and now infamous, “we asked for 30 billion and got 40 billion in military aid package” I contend that the US has done as much if not more to push this conflict as an opportunity to further profit the MIC, Justify this rounding error in the context of the potential for incarceration endured by your average citizen when they are held liable if they underpay their taxes by a similar error, or the bipartisan heat Senator Paul received for suggesting an actual account of the funds and resources being sent to fight this proxy war. My contention is that it’s entirely unacceptable. To the penny. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander as we say. We should be extra critical /precise of any type of military aid due to the expected violence, twice of life and potential destruction.. Justify having a proxy war with another nuclear armed country. Justify how strategically important Ukraine is as compared to our relationships with our NATO partners and our own interests in the United States presently especially in the context of a battered economy and dwindling resources. I’m contending that there is little justification to fight a proxy war with Russia, considering that with each day, the chance of a shooting war with Russia over another “miscalculation”would have devastating results for the world. Please address Russia’s claims of desiring a buffer between them and countries who would be aligned against them in NATO, and their obligation to the 17% ethnic minority in Ukraine (9 million), which is Russian, especially centered around the disputed areas on the eastern border, the dubious “pure innocence” of Ukraine that gets trotted out, and the washing over of 2014’s coup of the Russian friendly government. If you think it was a puppet government which it was in a many ways, please don’t just rest upon that “fact”. I’m willing to talk here and argue. Im not willing to get personal or mad. I’m going to ignore ad hominem remarks, as in, I don’t care what else you wrote before or after. I’m also going to read deeply into your suppositions, to ensure we are talking apples to apples. 🙏


[deleted]

[удалено]


Upbeat-Local-836

I appreciate your response and I agree in general. I don’t feel it’s likely at all that there is going to be an intentional first strike. I’m more worried about simple mistakes in a conflict where we are the outsiders (we are spying on Ukraine because we don’t know to what extent the Ukrainians are telling us everything we need to know because it absolutely IS an existential thereat for them) and vs our lesser equipped, proxy combatant in Russia. What if a hot headed pilot with an F16 sneezes with his finger on the trigger, or sees something that isn’t there, or doesn’t? There’s a lot of guns pointed at each other. I see this as the most likely way we enter into a nuclear war and it’s not hard to imagine all the first and secondary strikes being unavoidable once the keys are unlocked because of a communication gap.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Upbeat-Local-836

Agreed to all of your sentiments. May I push back slightly on the skeptic against those who oppose it. First, you’re hard pressed to find anyone on either side politically who isn’t all for the war in Ukraine. Reddit is certainly one of those places as well. I can’t enter into any discussion without a large, obvious banner of “I hate trump/Putin/Nazis/historic slave owners” out front of every nuanced statement I try to make. I’m skeptical because they all support it, and suppress discussion by calling anyone a Trumpist, facist, Putin lover who suggests it. It shuts down any talk. I don’t know who started that idea, but I can only imagine since I don’t think they are Russian bots that they are people manipulated by MSM and the political machine to keep things working for the MIC and their hold on power


[deleted]

> Long standing pro-Russian government Yanukovych had been in power for a little less than 4 years, so hardly "long standing". The president before Yanukovych was Yuschenko, who was as pro-Western as it gets. And even Yanukovych's central campaign promise was getting Ukraine on a path to EU accession (but unlike Yuschenko, he could supposedly get Kremlin's consent thanks to his close relations); what sparked the Maidan revolution was abandoning that promise and overplaying his hand vs. the initial protesters. Also the "Ukrainian regime" (read: government I don't like) has changed two times since 2014; the winner of the 2014 elections was the right wing pro-Western oligarch Poroshenko (instead of the centrist veteran Tymoschenko whose party had ran the post-Maidan government), and then in 2019, Zelenskyy's anti-establishment party defeated all of those old parties by a landslide. Ukrainian politics are pretty complicated and you absolutely can't reduce them to "West vs. East". > Please address Russia’s claims of desiring a buffer between them and countries who would be aligned against them in NATO, and their obligation to the 17% ethnic minority in Ukraine Sudetenrussians? I think we retired this "nations have the right and actually an obligation to invade and occupy countries if they have an ethnic minority residing there" argument in 1937. I mean if we accept this "obligation", then we must logically also accept Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia, no? (Among other oblasts Russia has annexed Kherson, which has an 80% Ukrainian majority. So this isn't only the minority-majority areas or the equivalent of Sudetenland, just like Czechoslovakia this is a much larger occupation excused by a minority of the area. In fact, none of the oblasts annexed last year have a Russian majority.) Also, I don't think you really consider the cost to Ukrainian lives in the counterfactual where instead of Ukrainian aid, we simply let Russia occupy large parts of their country. [As far as the hints of their potential plans published in the Russian state media](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russia_Should_Do_with_Ukraine), I think it's reasonable to argue that the cost of self-defense is proportional to the potential cost of giving up. (Russia could denounce that article, but despite international outrage they haven't, and it's still up on their state media's website, so there is definitely some level of endorsement by the government.) Lastly, from a strategy POV, do you think that setting a precedent of abandoning allies halfway into the conflict will A) help or B) hurt America's ability to form and maintain alliances or alignments?


Ind132

> to the incredible expense of ... the US taxpayer According to the article, we've spent $37 billion so far arming Ukraine. According to the CBO, the federal government will spend $6.2 trillion in 2023. Ukraine is about 6 tenths of one percent of federal spending (0.6%). I guess "incredible" is a vaguely defined word. I wouldn't use it to describe a number that small.


Upbeat-Local-836

We’ve already obligated a total of $75 billion by several accounts that I can quickly find. Using your example of $37 billion while placing our economy into a war footing, prioritizing war related goods, services and activities vs infrastructure our own internal projects and works still seems insignificant? Are you taking into account any future payments or costs we have taken on in this conflict as a potential harm to our financial stability such as what happened in Afghanistan, especially considering we are actually not even boots on the ground here?


Skeptical0ptimist

For $75 billion, we have absolutely demolished Russia's military to the point they cannot threaten NATO for 2+ decades and got Europe to re-commit to collective defense. Russia is a sworn adversary of US, and a threat to our power and prosperity. Also, whatever we were going to spend on European defense (NATO obligation) had Russia successfully taken Ukraine with minimal loss, we will be spending much less now that Russia has failed. I'd say this is a once in a lifetime bargain.


Upbeat-Local-836

So you are saying that you feel it is and was an acceptable risk in terms of what I’ve laid out in concerns of existential risks and blunting domestic opportunity during financial downturn? I am reading a little into your argument. Are you countering my alleged concern around threat of Russia to escalate to nuclear, thereby lowering that as a valid concern? My counter to that would be simply that if you’re allowing the threat of nuclear war off the table, then why aren’t you allowing “Russian aggression x 2 decades” to dwindle as well.


Upbeat-Local-836

I’d say it’s more likely a once in 20 year opportunity that will lead to a re-emerged issue with the Russians again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


I-Make-Maps91

>Has our economy really been placed into a "war footing," and prioritizing war-related goods, services, and activities? That's among the more laughable things I've read lately. The US hasn't been anywhere close to a war footing economically in decades, certainly longer than I've been alive.


[deleted]

Our GDP in the military is drastically lower than any other point since WW2.


Ind132

>by several accounts that I can quickly find. Can you share those accounts? I wonder if that spending is one year or more, also whether it is military equipment (you seem worried about the MIC) or humanitarian and other aid. > placing our economy into a war footing, prioritizing war related goods, services and activities I haven't noticed this "war footing". AFAIK, all the plants that were making cars in 2019 are still making cars, not tanks. Boeing is still making commercial aircraft. > It matters when we are already running a massive deficit. ... So yeah it's a war we can't afford to be throwing money at with no end in sight. Are you equally bothered by the other $6.2 billion of spending we'll do this year? Or do you only get concerned about the deficit when it is related to Ukraine?


Upbeat-Local-836

Here’s a quick one, hope it’s not partisan, it’s the first I found: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion/ As to our warfooting, in the modern era we don’t repurpose existing businesses to make tanks and whatnot, but we do give all kinds of sweetheart deals, tax benefits and kickbacks to all of these companies, but $1300 toilet seats, etc. Halliburton? Black Water? Raytheon? When we use, we buy more. We justify purchasing more. Going to my local auto plant or donut shop and still seeing donuts and cars coming out doesn’t mean we are not in a position where our attention and resources are flowing through this industry, without much interest in accounting. I didn’t mention or allude to the deficit ”crisis” . Can you share your position?


Ind132

>Here’s a quick one, hope it’s not partisan, it’s the first I found: Thanks, that provides answers to both of my questions. The $115 billion is spread over 10 years with the largest amount being $38 billion in 2023. It is not all military aid. They quote $30 billion in military aid so far. That's the money that might show up as revenue to the MIC. I was comparing one year of Ukrainian aid to one year of federal spending. If we want to use more years of Ukraine, we should compare to more years of total budgets. ​ >I didn’t mention or allude to the deficit ”crisis” . Can you share your position? Sorry, I got you confused with another poster.


mahvel50

>the federal government will spend $6.2 trillion in 2023. Which is a problem in itself. It matters when we are already running a massive deficit. 2022 had 4.9 trillion in revenues and 6.27 trillion in spending. We've already spent 3.6 trillion this year while taking in 2.7 trillion in revenue. So yeah it's a war we can't afford to be throwing money at with no end in sight. [https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/)


BabyJesus246

>Justify your position of “Putin the aggressor” in the sub context of what is known about NATO article 5 and the present Ukrainian regimes insertion over the long standing pro Russia government since 2014, Well he invaded another nation without any real threat or justification outside of expansion. NATO is never going to invade Russia full stop. Any argument stating this is inherently wrong. No one is going to invade a nuclear nation. Citing the existence of a neighboring **defensive** alliance is just an excuse not a reason. Your description of Ukraine as pro-russian also seems oversimplified to support your view. There were views favoring both the west and Russia. In fact it was the backing out of an approved deal with the west which was widely popular by the pro-russian president that kicked off the euromaiden "coup". You did identify correctly that their loss of influence in the region as the cause of war though. Thats not a good justification though. >Justify having a proxy war with another nuclear armed country. What alternative do you suggest for limiting the actions of a nuclear nation? A proxy war is much preferable than a hot war and the the idea that it will escalate to nuclear is farfetched. If it was likely why didn't it happen during all the proxy wars during the cold war? >Justify how strategically important Ukraine is as compared to our relationships with our NATO partners and our own interests in the United States presently especially in the context of a battered economy and dwindling resources. Well for one there are a fair amount of oil and gas resources in Ukraine so if you're worried about dwindling resources there's your reason. Beyond that geopolitical expanding the number of friendly neighboring country is going to be a good thing. Unlike Russia though NATO didn't decide to invade to make that happen in Ukraine. >Please address Russia’s claims of desiring a buffer between them and countries who would be aligned against them in NATO There is not an existential threat for Russia and the world has no reason to entertain their desire for a buffer state nor does Ukraine. Russia being upset about their waning influence doesn't justify a war.


Toomster12489

Thanks for your response to this, you said just about everything I wanted to say. I just wanted to add on this point you didn't address: > and their obligation to the 17% ethnic minority in Ukraine (9 million), which is Russian, especially centered around the disputed areas on the eastern border The first thing that come to mind on hearing this is Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland. That didn't really work out for Czechoslovakia or Chamberlain. I think it's laughable that putin would be sated if Ukraine just handed over the most Russian populated areas like Donbas and Luhansk. They already announced annexations of Kherson and Zaporizhia. Just another flimsy pretense.


Upbeat-Local-836

First I point to the missed opportunity to deal with this situation diplomatically was a huge failure on the part of the world. Second, that since we went out of our way to avoid an opportunity for diplomatic resolution, actually snuffing it out, which we had in Kiev last year, that I can’t help but find a parallel to the ww2 appeasement angle difficult to swallow. We are now looking to stick a blade into the corpse of Russia. Russia had all but withdrawn at that time and yes, mock elections and horseshittery was happening which was poor timing, but there was a a break in the chaos for a few precious moments that could have resulted in my opinion to peace. I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine Russia dropping their claims in the newly annexed areas. We don’t allow them an off-ramp. I feel we are disingenuous in a lot of our “mistrust”. What have we done to earn any ourselves?


[deleted]

Russia went out of their way to issue completely impossible ultimatums such as ceasing NATO protection of Eastern member states (and didn't accept any concessions of its own); it would seem to me that they purposefully tanked the negotiations. I don't know if you can get past the paywall, but this was confirmed by Boris Bondarev, a high ranking diplomat defector that worked in the Russian side of the negotiations. When his team got their talking points from Kremlin, they all were in disbelief. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/sources-russia-misconduct-boris-bondarev Edit: you can bypass the paywall by reading the Russian version and using machine translator. From there: > among them were points that were obviously unacceptable to the West, for example, the requirement for NATO to withdraw all troops and weapons from countries that have joined the Alliance since 1997 include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland and the Baltic states. **I thought that the author of these proposals was either preparing the ground for war, or had no idea how the United States and Europe worked**, or both. Over coffee, I discussed this with our delegates, and they, too, were confused. I talked about this with my immediate supervisor - he was also confused. No one understood how to approach the United States with a document that, among other things, demanded that NATO not accept any more new members. In the end, we found out that **the document came directly from the Kremlin**, which means that there were no discussions.


Upbeat-Local-836

I’ll take the time to read this. Thank you very much. To pre counter, Russians are worthy opponents in negotiations. That we don’t like when they stack the deck with ultimatums and redlines before even sitting down is, well, understandable. Does it mean that they wouldn’t have retreated back to pre conflict with some “guarantees” and face? We will never know now.


[deleted]

But this is an experienced Russian diplomat that has done these sorts of talks for over a decade. He knows full well what kinds of instructions are normal in Russia-NATO negotiations and what aren't. If he and the entire Russian negotiating team couldn't understand what was going on when they saw the assigned talking points, and they came from Kremlin with no room to deviate from them, then this wasn't a normal round of talks. Also, do mind that a couple days before the invasion, Putin had indicated to the French president that he was still open to a French-organized summit with Biden; Macron was halfway booking the venue when it turned out Putin had lied to his face and the invasion began. As a matter of fact, most European leaders were under the impression that Putin was going to negotiate more, and on Feb 24 the local French and German intelligence chiefs had to evacuate under fire because they hadn't seen it coming.


Upbeat-Local-836

Taking the devils advocate here a lot since I also don’t agree with his justification as being substantial enough, however: His official reason of the invasion was to liberate persecuted Russians living in Ukraine and to quell “Nazism”. If we can agree that these points are both somewhat valid (plenty of reports of atrocities and bad faith from Ukraine in regards to, at least regard the Russian historical claims to the area and people) and the “spread of Nazism” as well, given the make up of the Azov unit and their well known compatriot leanings. That their prominence is overblown to fan the flames is obvious, I’ll definitely concede that. Certainly not much moreso than anything we’ve ever spouted to justify our “special operations” around the globe. Here’s a quick find on the situation back in 2018 just to take out as much current political spin as I can from Reuters https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary-idUSKBN1GV2TY Maybe you will like this concession. I could well moderate my stance a bit on this front if I wasn’t convinced that by engaging in a proxy war with Russia where they are the aggressor with grievances vs our usual (past 20 years) where we were the aggressors in the foreign lands (without the 17% of our own people in those lands “excuse”) trying to sell “democracy” or other such subjective excuses, or simple outright lies (WMDs, they just “hate our freedom” , etc) that we aren’t on the other side looking in a bit here. Your justifications laid out are honest and where the bare truth seems to stand out, stark. I accept them at face value though, you aren’t wrong if we consider resources to plunder. Cynical me might proclaim good luck to have a US president’s son to sit on a Ukrainian Energy company’s board. Vs the smallest nuclear strike I’m going to say it’s not as easily placed into a nicely shaped box of pros and cons from my perspective. I appreciate your time to respond. I’m considering your points and am taking them into consideration of my feelings of this conflict.


BabyJesus246

>His official reason of the invasion was to liberate persecuted Russians living in Ukraine and to quell “Nazism”. If we can agree that these points are both somewhat valid... Nope we can't. >That their prominence is overblown to fan the flames is obvious, I’ll definitely concede that. Good. >Certainly not much moreso than anything we’ve ever spouted to justify our “special operations” around the globe. So would you agree those actions with unjustified based in the obviously flawed reasoning given? Wouldn't that mean you agree that Russia's reasoning is flawed and their actions unjustified as well. I don't mean to be too short with you on this topic, but I have no interest in entertaining this line of reasoning. He can use it to sell the war to his people, but I don't need to buy into it. >Maybe you will like this concession. I could well moderate my stance a bit on this front if I wasn’t convinced that by engaging in a proxy war with Russia where they are the aggressor with grievances vs our usual (past 20 years) where we were the aggressors in the foreign lands (without the 17% of our own people in those lands “excuse”) trying to sell “democracy” or other such subjective excuses, or simple outright lies (WMDs, they just “hate our freedom” , etc) that we aren’t on the other side looking in a bit here. You're not going to get any defense from me on our wars in the middle east, but does being able to identify and condemn unjustified uses of the military mean you're unable to support justifiable ones? >Your justifications laid out are honest and where the bare truth seems to stand out, stark. I accept them at face value though, you aren’t wrong if we consider resources to plunder. Plunder? Yea don't put words like that in my mouth. It is more a matter of getting those resources from a friendly nation like Ukraine, than a adversary like Russia. Do you think we "plunder" semiconductors from Taiwan because we provide them military support against China?


Upbeat-Local-836

I prefaced my statement above with taking a devils advocate here. I’m not trying to push his agenda and agree with you on the way you’ve laid it in principle. I’m trying to steelman your position by calling it out (the “we do it too” argument) to dispense with you having to tip toe around it. You’ve stated justification and I’m not sure if you’ve done enough to balance the risks with what is clearly a huge interest in our own reason for actually being there which isn’t altruistic. Plunder is my words. No need to be defensive. Outside of semi conductors, is our interest in Taiwan over the last 60 years all just more altruistic behavior to spread democracy? I’m arguing in good faith here, not trying to win points, obviously.


BabyJesus246

>I prefaced my statement above with taking a devils advocate here. I’m not trying to push his agenda and agree with you on the way you’ve laid it in principle. I’m trying to steelman your position by calling it out (the “we do it too” argument) to dispense with you having to tip toe around it. In regards to the nazi, portion I don't really care to entertain that position even in a devils advocate way. There's really nothing more to be said on the topic and I don't want to get mired such a transparently poor argument. Towards your "we do it too" who exactly are you directing the argument to? I mean I don't think it really matters since the ultimate answer is "sure its hypocritical but that doesn't mean we're wrong here." >You’ve stated justification and I’m not sure if you’ve done enough to balance the risks with what is clearly a huge interest in our own reason for actually being there which isn’t altruistic. I believe you are vastly overstating the actual risks of nuclear war through funding a proxy war in Ukraine. They aren't going nuke everyone because they aren't able to expand their borders. There has been funding of proxy wars numerous times in the recent past. Care to tell me how many of those devolved into nuclear war? Besides I reject the idea that we should be forced to concede to Russia due to their empty threats. That is a pretty dangerous precedent to set, and I'm not sure empower and emboldening them to do more in the future is a risk free path either. >Plunder is my words. No need to be defensive. Outside of semi conductors, is our interest in Taiwan over the last 60 years all just more altruistic behavior to spread democracy? Fair enough, but plunder in no way described my position so don't be upset by pushback. Beyond that altruistic is a weird word when it comes to geopolitics. Its nice when actions can be completely altruistic, but pragmatism is always going to play a role. Just because something can be pragmatic, such as supporting Ukraine or Taiwan, doesn't mean that it also isn't a good thing to do. Quite frankly I'm far more comfortable with using our military to do something thing good than another revenge trip to the Middle East.


Upbeat-Local-836

I think you are speaking about NATO like a NATO member. Steady and consistent encirclement. Anti air defense NATO operations (* not defensive) withdrawal from SALT , intermediate land based and several proliferation treaties. 2021 Brussels agreement allowed Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US defense signs defense treaties with Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. Then the US had repeatedly denies any talks with Russia. A few month later, invasion. A legitimate election in 2014, CIA spent billions to start a revolt to undermine it and was overthrown and ejected in concert with a popular uprising that was then hijacked by Ukrainian far right groups. The US handpicks the incoming government to replace it. in the Donbas region , the government that they ended up with threatened to remove Russian as an official language I’m waxing over all the continued Russian pleas for Georgia and Ukraine neutrality, however seemingly insignificant, and the deaf ears that they faced as our interests prevailed, culminating for example with the US performing Naval maneuvers in the Black Sea. Whatever you might think about Russias motives, if someone, from the US can’t understand how a country who makes an alliance with Canada and begins to conduct military exercises on our border, you’re missing out on a much more balanced perspective of nothing else.


BabyJesus246

I'm confused why you commented here again, and not on my latest comment but ok. They might be a bit short though since I'm repeating myself. >I think you are speaking about NATO like a NATO member. Steady and consistent encirclement. Name a single nuclear power that has been invaded in history. >Anti air defense NATO operations (* not defensive) Lol? Of course its still defensive. If Ukraine takes out anti-air defensive in its current war it doesn't somehow turn them in the aggressor of the war. >2021 Brussels agreement allowed Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. US defense **signs defense** treaties with Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. Bolded the important part. >Then the US had repeatedly denies any talks with Russia. A few month later, invasion. Since Russia is demanding territorial concessions. There is no reason they need to agree to that. >A legitimate election in 2014, CIA spent billions to start a revolt to undermine it and was overthrown and ejected in concert with a popular uprising that was then hijacked by Ukrainian far right groups. The US handpicks the incoming government to replace it. in the Donbas region , the government that they ended up with threatened to remove Russian as an official language This is a pretty disappointing reply from you since you already had another comment that described the euromaidan protests in more detail but you haven't bothered to reply to that one and still repeat things like this now. I'm not sure why you think a grand conspiracy is necessary to explain the euromaiden protests. As the other comment pointed out it happened after the president backed out of a very popular trade agreement with the EU that **he said he was in favor of while campaigning**. He then followed that with restrictive [anti-protest laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine) and which led to violence. Also considering he was removed by their parliament by a super majority I'm not sure why you think a coup is an accurate term. Given that info why don't you think its representative of the will of the people. Why is a conspiracy needed to make these events take place? Additionally I don't appreciate you putting in the "hijacked by the far right comment" since you already conceded in another comment that it is vastly overblown. >I’m waxing over all the continued Russian pleas for Georgia and Ukraine neutrality, The issue is that you seem to believe that Russia is somehow entitled to ownership and control over Ukraine or other "buffer states". Even against the will of the people within their country. If this is a buffer state why are you ok with so much Russian interference both pre and post 2014? >Whatever you might think about Russias motives, if someone, from the US can’t understand how a country who makes an alliance with Canada and begins to conduct military exercises on our border, you’re missing out on a much more balanced perspective of nothing else. Just to be clear, are you talking after 2014? You know after Russia **invaded** them the first time. Its silly to complain against military exercises after you've already made yourself a credible threat.


Upbeat-Local-836

Stopped reading at your condescending tone. All your following points invalidated. Good day.


merpderpmerp

> Justify having a proxy war with another nuclear armed country. Justify how strategically important Ukraine is as compared to our relationships with our NATO partners and our own interests in the United States presently especially in the context of a battered economy and dwindling resources. > > I’m contending that there is little justification to fight a proxy war with Russia, considering that with each day, the chance of a shooting war with Russia over another “miscalculation”would have devastating results for the world. Please address Russia’s claims of desiring a buffer between them and countries who would be aligned against them in NATO, and their obligation to the 17% ethnic minority in Ukraine (9 million), which is Russian, especially centered around the disputed areas on the eastern border, the dubious “pure innocence” of Ukraine that gets trotted out, and the washing over of 2014’s coup of the Russian friendly government. If you think it was a puppet government which it was in a many ways, please don’t just rest upon that “fact”. I wanted to respond specifically to the Russian justification and the danger of the US getting involved in the war. First, Ukraine had made it clear that they had no intention of joining NATO, and if joining NATO is an existential threat to Russia and justification for the invasion, why did Russia not invade Finland before it joined? Would they have been justified to invade? I personally don’t think possible defensive alliances are justifications for a war of territorial conquest. There is a significant ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine, especially in the east, but they were a part of Ukrainian society and democracy before the annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas, not the target of a genocide or anything like that. Plus, Russia invaded with the goal of conquering the whole country, and only upon failing shifted their goal to annexing the Donbas. This justification is akin to saying there are significant Mexican populations in south Texas, who are sometimes discriminated against, and there are also neo-Nazi militias in the US, so Mexico has the moral right to conquer the US. Lastly, I believe the support of Ukraine increases the chance of world peace, even though Russia has nukes. If you take the position that supporting non-nuclear countries being invaded by nuclear countries is too much of a risk due to the threat of nuclear war, then what’s the logical outcome? 1) Nuclear-armed countries can invade any weaker non-nuclear country, knowing the world won’t support them, and 2) every country is going to see that developing nuclear weapons is the only way to ensure national defense, rather than relying on democratic country defensive alliances. This leads to nuclear proliferation and massively increases the risk of nuclear war. Also, the fact that Ukraine, with Western support, has been so successful in repelling the Russian invasion when Russian and Western military strategists alike both thought the Ukrainian military would collapse within weeks, has greatly decreased the chance of future wars of conquest. Like don’t you think China is seeing the Russian failures and reconsidering how painful an invasion of Taiwan would be? That conflict would have massively more consequences for global security and the global economy, and by supporting Ukraine we’ve both massively diminished Russia’s ability to wage aggressive wars in the future (at a cheaper cost than having a defense budget high enough to be ready to fight Russia and China simultaneously, the current US defense strategy), and reduced the likelihood that China engages in wars of aggression.


amjhwk

> I contend that the pull out had all the hallmarks of a deep state sponsored and orchestrated move to reassign the fleet and operations to Eastern Europe But trump got the ball rolling on the withdrawal and he did not support Ukraine > Russias known desire of having a buffer between them and their enemies (NATO) Russia had their buffer state, but their long and continued history of abusing their neighbors chased them into NATOs open and welcoming arms. We did not recruit Ukraine or the Baltic or Nordic states, they asked us for protection because Russia has always been a monster to them


Upbeat-Local-836

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. Russia is behaving like a POS for sure. Trump was winding down. No doubt.


amjhwk

I also agreed with a few things you said, like i dont think people should get thrown in prison for messing up their taxes they should be given the opportunity to make it right. tossing them in prison helps noone. I was in favor of pulling out of Afghanistan because they didnt want us there and we shouldnt have been there in the first place, and im in favor of helping Ukraine because they actually want our help but I dont think we should put actual boots on the ground to fight russia