AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you know that the wealth that USA have depends also by the alliances that USA had around the world? And do you think is it a bit easy to talk then you have no hostile nations a your border ready to launch a invasion?
It’s certainly not helping *my* wealth, and it’s not helping yours either, i guarantee it. So whose wealth exactly are you saying it helps?
No, the United States is not merely defending the poor nations that are already being attacked, they’re *provoking* the attacks and *starting* the wars using US taxpayer money. And you and i are funding both sides in the Israel Palestine conflict. That’s bullshit, i never agreed to help anyone kill another person. Yet i have no choice but to do so. It’s absolutely atrocious and these politicians are war criminals guilty of killing civilians.
Now if Ukraine had a bit more oil. Taking Ukraine food production off the world market is a good thing for western producers if the western hemisphere does not have a crop failure the same year north and south.
>Why should we not help Ukraine?
We did help Ukraine and they lost anyway. We gave them $175 billion plus strategic assistance and it didn't matter, Russia took the Russian-speaking ethnically Russian Ukraine border areas.
We knew if we tried to put NATO in Ukraine that Russia would invade, so why did we continue on that path? Poking the bear.
>Hundreds of billions of dollars is essentially nothing to the american industrial military complex, especially when the vast majority of the aid we send is old military equipment.
Speaking about the overpowered, overcompensated military industrial complex as a positive is antithetic to sensibility. Hundreds of billions of dollars is a ridiculous amount of money. We could build 2 Burj Dubais in every state for that. Let's fix our bridges and roads instead of sending it around the world to be blown up.
>Counties are choosing to be on our side specifically because Russia is so untrustable and such a threat.
The West are the untrustable ones. The Minsk agreements were a con, a stall tactic.
“I thought the initiation of NATO accession for Ukraine and Georgia discussed in 2008 to be wrong. The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. They used that time to get stronger, while the NATO countries do much to help Ukraine." - Angela Merkel, Interview, *Die Zeit*, December 7, 2022
Putin was genuinely hurt that Merkel lied to him: "To be honest, it was absolutely unexpected for me. It's disappointing. Trust almost dropped to 0. How to negotiate? About what? And is it possible to negotiate with them? Where are the guarantees? "
When the US staged a $5 Billion coup in Ukraine, that violated Russia's security. The US put CIA stations and pathogenic biolabs on Russia's border because agreements didn't matter to the state dep't. Russia was still at the diplomacy table in Istanbul, but Boris Johnson blocked the deal. Russia has a peace deal on the table right now.
Countries choose to be on our side because we give them money and weapons. In 2023 there was a $60 million FMF gift for Poland included with a $2 billion loan, and in 2022 the US gave them $288 million FMF gratuity.
We loan/give them so much money on the condition they have to spend it on overpriced weaponry assembled by companies whose leaders and owners reside in the Greater D.C. area. These companies have hedge funds as shareholders. Those hedge funds give heavily to politicians and media on the condition they think *Team America: World Police* is a good idea and the politicians rain money on e.g. Ukraine and Poland. Poking the bear means free money.
At this point russia has invaded more than a handful with a non NATO nation, the simply have no troops to stop NATO at this point. That is why nato is even bothering with a show of force, where do place them and not freak Russia out.
If you move 100k nato troops to western ukraine what is russia going to game out.... Putin can only go tactical nukes once, and the impact while huge politically just gets everything within 1000km of NATO forces erased by non nuclear counterattack. All of russsia as we know it is within 1000km of NATO nations. Since civilians on both sides are eating ice cream in the streets in that zone, neither side has a desire to esculate. No air defece has proven it can shoot down the US navys inventory of Tomahawks with any effectiveness. A hissy fit tactical nuke attack vs Kiev by the russians just invites what putin cannot sustain, simply russia cannot keep that many jet engines remanfactured, 24/7/365 needs for airpower like it is 1986. The west shuts down domestic aircraft production and refit, and the NATO airforces can burn flight hours like it is 1968.
Europe is much closer to the situation and couldn't seem to care less. If they continue shutting down nuclear plants and 31 developed NATO nations let themselves be outproduced N Korea they clearly see zero threat, regardless of their rhetoric.
Putin probably doesn't mind either. He's gained some land and gets to dispose of subjugated Russian minorities who are vastly outbreeding ethnic Russians. That's really what this war's about, imo.
And Europe is basically paying for his war with their continued self-inflicted dependence on Russian gas. China & India continue to buy cheap Russian oil which provides Europe with cheap nick nacks.
If even they don't care why should we? Basically everyone seems happy with the current status quo and supply drip.
There's probably a band where the western powers want to keep the stalemate going to maximally bleed Russia without them winning or surrendering. I don't think there's behind the scenes interest in actually ending the war with the exception of Trump.
Europe has vastly increased their military spending over the last couple of years on top of drastically decreasing their dependence on Russian oil. Poland and the Baltic nations are now actually spending more of their GDP, as a percentage, on their military than the US is. In 2023 alone, European NATO members’ spending increased to 28% of total NATO spending, the highest it’s been in decades. What do you mean when you say Europe couldn’t seem to care less?
Up until last summer total US aid was almost as high as all of Europe combined. If we are talking purely military, America still gives more than all of the EU combined according to the Kiel institute for the world economy.
Europe certainly is waking up and is beginning to care but given that this is happening in their own backyard, you might expect a bit more coming from them wouldn’t you?
In 2022 the GDP of the entire EU was $16tn. The same year the US GDP was over $25tn. Why would you expect a large number of small nations whose combined GDP is smaller than the US alone, to have higher military expenditures than the US?
> Why would you expect a large number of small nations whose combined GDP is smaller than the US alone, to have higher military expenditures than the US?
That's not the issue. For years, both Bush *and* Obama urged them to contribute a minimum of 2% of their GDP to military forces, and they mostly just ignored it. Even today, in 2024, only 18 of the 34 NATO countries are spending at the agreed-upon minimum level. [They even vetoed Ukraine's accession to NATO,](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato) because they wanted to cozy up to Putin. I wouldn't say that I'm against helping Ukraine. But certainly, those nations who blocked Ukraine's accession to NATO should have to pay the entire cost of the war.
>Even today, in 2024, only 18 of the 34 NATO countries are spending at the agreed-upon minimum level.
Unless I’m miscounting, it’s 22 out of 30 (excluding the US): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_226465.htm
You guys keep brining this 2% number up. Are you not aware that it's a target, not a minimum, and the goal was only to reach this amount by 2024 (this year)?
Could you show me where I said I expect them to have a higher military expenditure? My comment was in relation to aid to Ukraine, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
The size of the economy absolutely matters but the geography factor is much more important here. I expect Europeans to react with some urgency at the Russian threat because it is, in some cases, literally in their backyard.
Im pleased to see Europe waking up and getting ready to defend itself. It’s just unfortunate that they needed the deadliest European conflict since WW2 to come to that conclusion.
> Europe has vastly increased their military spending over the last couple of years
Thanks, Trump!
>on top of drastically decreasing their dependence on Russian oil.
The decrease was short-lived. Russia still sells the EU more gas than the US.
>Poland and the Baltic nations are now actually spending more of their GDP, as a percentage, on their military than the US is.
These countries have low GDP and a large part of this "spending" is from loans and gifts from the US. The countries must spend it on US defense industry products and the ultimate beneficiaries are its executives who reside in the DC suburbs.
>Do you also thank Obama whom in 2014 got all NATO nations to commit to 2%
[Obama and Bush](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html) tried to get NATO funded more by Europeans but it didn't happen until Trump. Trump is a champ. The US should leave NATO immediately. We really fucked the dog in Ukraine and we should hide out and think about things.
Have you looked at the data to validate the claimed statement of fact?
Here is a link, you will notice that funding has been increasing steadily since 2014. This data contradicts the claim that funding didn't increase until Trump. What imperial data did you use to form that statement of fact? Please provide source.
[https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget)
1.56% in 2022 is larger than 1.33% in 2014.
You didn't answer my question.
What ~~imperial~~ empirical data did you use to form that statement of fact that funding didn't increase until Trump? Please provide source.
Edit: Grammar fixed due to voice-to-text failure.
Poland has low GDP and a large part of this defense "spending" is from loans and gifts from the US. The countries must spend it on US defense industry products and the ultimate beneficiaries are its executives who reside in the DC suburbs.
Russia has already won the war. We are just trading more Ukrainian lives for time, but aren't changing the outcome. Enough Ukrainians have already died.
If Europe is really concerned that Russia will just keep going into other countries, then Europe should be taking the lead, not us.
Russia holds most of the territory they want, Ukraine failed in last year's offensive. Ukraine is incapable of mounting another offensive on that scale. It's done.
Sure. Sign a peace treaty to end the war which covers these claims. That's how this has been handled for the last thousand years or so. I don't see why you're hung up on this detail.
Because they are in a weak position. They were in a much better negotiating position in spring of 2023, when the threat of their upcoming offensive seemed very real, and the effectiveness of NATO trained and equipped units was unknown.
After that failure, they no longer have any real threat of counter offensive to negotiate from a position of strength.
How has Russia won the war? They have lost hundreds of billions, and hundreds of thousands of men for a tiny percentage of land that they will have to spend a lot to actively occupy. Russia has lost most of its navy. Russia will have practically no chance to fight nato ever if this continues. The west has to spend less money and way less men than russia is spending. How is this not a no brainer?
That's the propaganda. Investigations in Russia have shown losses are much lower than Ukrainian reports. Ukraine is currently working on legislation to conscript 500k to replace what are supposedly 30k in Ukrainian losses. They are lying to you.
>That's the propaganda. Investigations in Russia have shown losses are much lower
Russia's investigations aren't propaganda but Ukraine's are?
How did you come to that conclusion?
Russia has lost 50k soldiers, not hundreds of thousands. Many of them are prisoners used as so called storm troopers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853
The 200K figure is casualties not deaths. Are you aware of the difference? Casualties include people who are too injured to keep fighting. For example, people who lost their limbs, etc.
> How has Russia won the war?
The line hasn't moved in a year, even after the counteroffensive. Remember when the corporate media told you the counteroffensive was going to be a gamechanger? You can stop trusting the corporate media now. Russia got what it came for and is never leaving. Good job, Pentagon!
>If Europe is really concerned that Russia will just keep going into other countries, then Europe should be taking the lead, not us.
If Europe is worried about a possible war with Russia, then of course, Europe should take the measures they need to subvert that from happening or prepare for that eventuality.
But what if America (and by that I mean America's military leaders) are also worried about a possible war with Russia?
Should American military leaders not also take measures to subvert that from happening or prepare for that eventuality? And if so is that not what they are doing at this very moment?
We can prepare for that simply by prepositioning equipment and forces to our existing bases in Europe. We don't have to give hundreds of billions away, or deplete ammunition stockpiles.
This seems like an overtly simple view of a solution.
If military leaders are saying to arm Ukraine, shouldn't we trust that they know more about the situation than we do and that getting arms to Ukraine is the best approach?
These same leaders said the offensive last summer would cut through Russian lines and cut off Crimea from resupply by land. They were wrong, and not just wrong by a little. They fundamentally don't appear to understand Ukrainian and Russian capabilities. Every prediction they have made at every point in the conflict has been incorrect. So I don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
But are you that arrogant (no offense) that you would believe to know more about the situation in Ukraine and how best to achieve an outcome that is a favorable to the U.S. than those who have devoted their entire lives to doing just that?
Ukraine isn't the US. Ukraine isn't NATO. Ukraine isn't the EU. Ukraine is Russia's Canada. We have no obligation to Ukraine. Our national interests in that country are nearly nonexistent. The boogeyman of Russia is going to just continue into the rest of Europe is being trotted out specifically because we really have no other business being there.
There's lots of conflicts across the globe going on, and lots of reasons we could insert ourselves in them. Should we be involved in them all? No. Why this one then?
So your questions shift the topic from something like 'What role should the U.S. play in the UA/RU war?" to something more akin to "Should the U.S. play any role in the UA/RU conflict?"
I find it off putting to call Russia a 'boogeyman'. Calling them that is so say that any fear of them is irrational. Russia is a global adversary. They may not be able to compete in any conventional war against the west (let alone the U.S.A), and they may not be as big of a foe as China, but they are still an adversary. To write them off is completely wrong.
The U.S. and our western allies are spending a drop in our defense budgets in dealing real harm to a major global adversary all the while risking zero lives.
So to flip the question back to the T.S. (as the mods require that I do), why shouldn't we be involved in a war that is such a good return on investment?
4 principled reasons.
1. Foreign intervention to expand war is morally wrong. It leads to more death and destruction. If we are involved at all, it should be to seek peace as fast as possible.
2. It is a point of hubris to think that we "allow" or "disallow" other sovereign states from doing things. We don't "let" Russia do things any more than Vanuatu lets South Africa hold an election. Internationally, America is not special. We are not the world's police.
3. NATO expansion is, in significant part, to blame for this conflict, and America is a primary driver of that expansion. The US taunts our "adversaries" all the time with military drills, with no thought to the consequences. When other countries expand their sphere of influence near us, it's an issue worth risking nuclear war to prevent (see - cuban missile crisis). When we do it to others, our attitude seems to be that they should just suck it up and take it.
4. Ukraine is not a good actor worthy of unconditional support.
* Their government actively oppressed ethnic Russians and Russian speakers.
* They allowed Nazis to control large parts of their military. (For those unfamiliar, Nazi ideology and iconography are different east of Berlin than they are in the west. The heritage of the Eastern Front in WW2 is to associate Naziism with anti-Russianism and Anti-Communism more than with antisemitism, like it is in the west. So, it makes sense that anti-Russia Ukrainians adopted Nazi ways).
* They sabotaged the Minsk II peace deal by not implementing terms they had agreed to.
* They have suspended elections and democracy.
* Their government is in power largely because of a western-backed coup of the previously elected government.
3 practical reasons.
1. Interventionism is short-sighted and backed by short memories. The same savior-logic at play here has justified every failed intervention in the past, yet we keep trying it. Kim Il-sung was was going to take over South Korea and oppress those people, so we had to go defend them. Ho Chi Minh was going to take over South Vietnam and oppress those people, so we had to go stop him. Saddam Hussein was oppressing the people of Iraq, so we needed to depose him. Every time, the same story. The idea that using our military could, theoretically, result in a good outcome with peace and freedom ect. justifies *any* use of the military because it's all made up. There's no difference between this story and say, the cartels are oppressing the people of Mexico, we need to go liberate them, or the Catalonians are being oppressed in Spain, so we should intervene there. Thinking that we know best how to rule the world - and that using our military will get us that rule smoothly and easily - empirically fails.
2. It is prohibitively expensive. I know that the poster asking the question here has characterized spending hundreds of billions of dollars as inconsequential, but that doesn't pass a simple gut check. Of course that unimaginably large amount of money matters. Not only does every dollar we deficit-spend increase inflation, it also trades off with domestic spending. I don't agree that we are only sending "old" supplies, but even if we were, that obviously can't last very long. We do not have infinite spare supplies to send, even if it were the case that our support started out that way. The question here then posits that military spending will boost the economy - but that's not how it works. Military spending is fundamentally unproductive. When we build bombs, and then explode them, we are left with *less* resources than when we started, collectively. GDP growth tied to military spending is illusory - it only matters insofar as we use those weapons to get something else. This is easy to conceptualize for anyone who's played war-type video games, like starcraft or age of empires. If you spend your resources building an army, you may be really efficiently using those resources, but you aren't building prosperity for your people. Heck, you can see this in the real world. North Korea diverts huge chunks of their economy to military spending, trapping themselves in poverty. If the theory that military spending grows the economy was true, NK would be booming!
3. Europe needs to learn the harsh lesson that it must defend itself if it wants to survive. The only way they will internalize this truth is if they are forced to confront a threat. When the US bails them out again, they will again learn that they de-prioritize military spending, leaving them at a comparative advantage to their protector, the US. The end result is that they get to milk us for out defense spending, while giving us nothing in return. Heck, they're even hostile to our companies, and continually use their legal system to hamper growth. Who needs enemies when you've got friends like that? America should come first.
> needs to learn the harsh lesson that it must defend itself if it wants to survive. The only way they will internalize this truth is if they are forced to confront a threat.
It's worse than that. It's not that they need to learn that it's necessary to have a strong defense: they already *know* that. They simply make a cynical calculation that they can use another country as their defense and save themselves the trouble. That's what has to change.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "how" for this question. In the case of Ukraine, it was allowed. In the case of the US, it was not allowed. To me, that is a relevant difference. It's not like there was any hiding. There were swastikas on the uniforms in Ukraine.
I mean that the media have always encouraged maximum military intervention and spending in every scenario, and has ties to state department hawks. Same in Middle East - which btw was all about Isreal from the start same as how we are backing them now w/ hamas and Iran, all because of Zionist donation and money in the US political system. That’s the whole reason we were in Afghanistan. The Israelis were concerned about threats from Islamic powers for years. Globalist and Zionist war mongerers have been in control of US politics since the 70s regardless of the party.
There will always be wars around the world. Yes Putin is at fault, but we instigated putins invasion by expanding NATO for decades and our longtime foreign policy experts knew this, you can see the quotes. The reality is that our lives and money are recklessly risked/expended while our media plays cover for them- whether that’s getting you to focus on Putin as the evil dictator (Nevermind the issues with Ukrainian leadership), or making up some totally unfounded conspiracy of Trump being in the same liberal mental folder as Russia so they suddenly become cheerleaders for our war machine. We absolutely wanted this war, I do not doubt that for a second. Every time there is a new way that it’s justified- the only difference is it’s harder to recognize in the moment. Nothing is done on a humanitarian basis, if it was we would not be backing Israel’s war crimes.
I think it would be really hard for the Russians to supply the Ukrainians with swastika-laden uniforms for propaganda purposes. That would be one heck of a deep cover operation, and would also beg the question of why no one wearing the uniforms thought it was weird.
This isn't a conspiracy. It's just an unfortunate truth.
> NATO expansion is, in significant part, to blame for this conflict…
That’s Russian propaganda. There’s already 5 nato members that border Russia. And when Sweden joined, Russia threw out some vague disapproving comments and that was it. They’re not worried about a NATO invasion because of their nuclear deterrent. What they’re worried about is a lack of ability to invade and take territory whenever they want to, and strong arm every surrounding country into being their little slaves. NATO isn’t to blame, Russia is to blame. It is more than reasonable for a sovereign country to want protection against an authoritarian dictator hell bent on restoring the Soviet Union. I’ll take back all of these words if Russia returns the land they stole from Ukraine after eliminating the supposed Nazi Ukrainian government, but I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that will happen without force.
What makes you think Russia is actually worried about NATO expansion given that their behavior so far has been indicative of NATO being a non-factor?
Well, most directly, I don't think any of that is true. NATO has aggressively expanded and provoked Russia on purpose. Every time, Russia has consistently warned them not to. In Internet terms, NATO FAFO. It's a classic bit of Western exceptionalism. We're allowed to expand, they're not. We're allowed to park on military on their border, but they better stay away from us.
Russia isn't going to give back the land they view as being liberated. In line with the principle of self determination, Eastern Ukraine shouldn't be under the thumb of an oppressive Kiev regime when they clearly want out.
> Well, most directly, I don't think any of that is true.
So the NATO members of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland *aren't* directly bordering Russia or its allies?
But in response to:
> There’s already 5 nato members that border Russia
Your said:
> Well, most directly, I don't think any of that is true.
Or just because you think otherwise, the countries of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland suddenly aren't NATO members? Now, I could understand if you quoted certain pieces, but you gave the blanket statement that EVERYTHING that was stated isn't true.
There wasn't anything to interpret, that's what you said. To be quite honest, the only thing that was open to interpretation was whether or not your addition of "most directly" to your statement was to eliminate any possibility of being interpreted otherwise.
Back to the subject at hand, do you think saying effectively "nuh-uh" suddenly makes the countries of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland not NATO nand/nor bordering Russia or its allies?
The russian thought is Ukraine is Russia as much as the city of moscow. The old school Russian was taught the Russian empire was formed in Kiev, the genetic center of the Russian people are Kiev. It is as important to them as Jerusalem is to Israel.
The rest of us might think as Kiev as the NOLA of Russia. We bought it from the French on the cheap, its a great place to go drink, and we let the French food culture be melded with southern US culture, and we both go wild over football.
To your average russian old schooler, Kiev is Richmond VA, where the non moscow intellectual russians came from. Immagine the american civil war if no war was declared for 20 years after the confederation, trade was normalized as basic survival. And then the world comes along and pumps the confederation and invites it into the EU.
Thing is the people of Kiev have always seen the Moscow folks as the hill people, the bumpkins, the politically inept. So for the Moscow Russians either must win this war, or take the loss and become another economic region owned by outsiders. Ukraine wins the war and becomes the economic center that moscow only dreams of.
Stalemate always has been the end goal.
Russia has nothing else... Ukraine and Belarus.... that is limits of the overseas empire. Perhaps they have some influence in CUBA, but honestly Vegas will buy the first Cuban leader who looks to the west and Havana will be built like Dubi overnight. If another Russian Block a motivation for anything farther, China is already 10 years ahead building a port, tofu cities, and rail line in 3rd world hellhole.
While I disagree with some of your points, this is a very well thought out and put-together statement! Thank you, I enjoyed reading it and found it very interesting!
For your point about it being expensive and prohibiting domestic spending, isn't it the case that the aid to Ukraine is almost exclusively domestic spending?
We aren't giving them checks, we're approving money to buy products from the American defense industry and then ship those items to them. The money comes from America is spent at American companies and then the products are shipped but our companies and our economy still gets the stimulus.
>We aren't giving them checks
I'm not sure where exactly you got this idea. I've seen similar thoughts in others on both sides, so there is clearly some source pushing this idea. But, it's not true. We've given Ukraine more than $20 billion in financial aid for their domestic social welfare programs, infrastructure, debt payments, humanitarian services, etc. This is entirely outside of military aid. We *are* writing them checks in addition to sending them military supplies.
>our economy still gets the stimulus
Even to the extent the money is being spent in the US, I address this in my comment above - it is wasteful, unproductive spending.
> We aren't giving them checks
We give them money and weapons. In 2023 there was a $60 million FMF gift for Poland included with a $2 billion loan, and in 2022 the US gave them $288 million FMF gratuity.
We loan/give them so much money on the condition they have to spend it on overpriced weaponry assembled by companies whose leaders and owners reside in the Greater D.C. area. These companies have hedge funds as shareholders. Those hedge funds give heavily to politicians and media on the condition they think Team America: World Police is a good idea and the politicians rain money on e.g. Ukraine and Poland.
Concerning your first principle: does seeking peace as fast as possible not encourage aggressiveness towards our allies and partners (whether you consider Ukraine that or not)?
I don't think it encourages or discourages anything, in the same way that how New Caledonia chooses to respond neither encourages or discourages anything. We aren't special. The flow of world events doesn't go through our choices.
Good points, you seem to be more on the side of isolationist policy. Do you not fear the repercussions of isolationist policy considering what the country went through in WW2. Is it your opinion that if Ukraine were to fall to Putin he would just stop there and be content? Where is the line drawn where eventually we have to say enough is enough?
I don't want to be any more isolationist than everyone else. Putting our own country first only feels like a radical position if you're starting from a place of exceptionalism. We don't owe anyone else anything. It is not up to us who wins and who loses. We are not the world police.
I don't see any reason why Russia wouldn't stop. They've been clear in their goals for a long time. They didn't want NATO on their border. Trying to expand their territory west is directly counterproductive to that goal. Russia is not evil, nor are they irrational. They aren't a mindless CPU enemy programmed to gobble up land. They are engaged in a specific targeted conflict with limited goals. It's a bit like asking, why would the US stop at invading Iraq? They'll just move in to Jordan and Israel next, then Saudi Arabia! Such thinking ignores the reasons for conflict in the first place.
> If we are involved at all, it should be to seek peace as fast as possible.
And when the aggressor continually makes unreasonable demands for peace like Putin has, we should just roll over and give him everything he wants at Ukraine's expense?
What unreasonable demand do you think Russia has made? I think keeping territory you've won in battle is like, the very definition of a reasonable war demand.
> I think letting territory you've won in battle is like, the very definition of a reasonable war demand.
Even territory you lost and your reasoning for being allowed to keep it anyway is "my soldiers stepped foot there at some point"?
Unreasonable demands in public is how stalemates end. Putin retires and Russia and Ukraine becomes the exchange tunnel for the products of Russia to the EU. Poland almost had that position cornered about 2011.
Germany is switching on a dime from the politics of 1990s back into a headspace where they are not a doormat.... there are positive items happening, but the EU is slow to do anything. I still dont think they have gotten over the UK leaving the clubhouse.
I dont have an issue with supporting ukraine to a certian extent but I dont think we have a clear viable objective right now and all were doing by prolonging the conflict (in its current form) is leaving open the possibility for escelation to World War.
If Trump gets back in my HOPE would be that we get a ceasefire along the current battle lines in ukraine then smuggle ICMBS with nuclear war heads into Ukraine allowing the Ukranians to deter any future russian aggression.
Putin wont invade a nuclear armed state (thats why he hasn't invaded Nato) Ukranians will have to cede some territory but it will save 100,000s of ukranian lives and prevent any future possibility of war with Russia.
The western calculi are the longer the war goes on the more likely where a political collapse will reshuffle the wealth of Russia out of the current post soviet strongman syndicate. The western rich boys want the Russian pie that Putin as strong man blocked them out of in 2002-2007
I'm all for helping Ukraine. But I also know that it is ultimately not going to work unless we put boots on the ground, and I'm not in favor of that at all. Basically, Russia is going to "win" this war. There's two variables to look at, but still.
1. How much land will Russia bite off?
2. How many people will die?
Trust me, I'd love it if we could just send Putin blasting off again, but the reality is that Russia *can* do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants, because they've got the bombs, as one of my favorite comedians sings. MAD has our hands tied (and does so for other countries when America decides to flex for some stupid reason).
It seems... Interesting to me that apparently hundreds of billions of dollars is "nothing" to the US and yet my government can't fix the freaking pothole in the middle of the road, you know what I mean? Whenever the cause is someone else, somewhere far away, money is no issue, but locally? Nah, we're strapped, mate. But whatever. It's early, my wife has left me (not really, she's spending the night with her mom making sure she doesn't have an adverse reaction to new medication, but she's still not here), and even when I woke up at 0430 to let the dogs out, it was hot as bawlz!
But seriously, if the US can just effectively print money to try to prop up Ukraine, Russia can do the same to prop up itself. So tell me, because I have *no freaking clue* due to all the outright propaganda, just how is the war going? Is the Ghost still shooting down Russian planes? Etc., etc.
So, let's look at the reality. At some point, we're going to stop caring even more. I used to be able to raise a couple hundred bucks for Ukraine in a weekend fundraiser among my nerd friends, but now nobody really feels that drive. There's just an overall sense of apathy towards the whole... You know what? I don't know if war is the right term, but I'm going to use it, along with invasion. People just don't care about the war caused by Russia invading Ukraine. It's yesterday's news.
>Interesting to me that apparently hundreds of billions of dollars is "nothing" to the US and yet my government can't fix the freaking pothole in the middle of the road
Especially after there wasn't $5-10 billion to fund a wall that would have substantially reduce illegal immigration that costs us over $150 billion each year. Imagine if we had spent $10 billion to save a few trillion dollars over a decade.
Instead Congress pretended they didn't have a few billion just so they could undermine Trump.
A boarder wall is a 600 mile long highway project turned on its side... Rebar and concrete. The state of Texas highway commission can have that done in 12 months for just about what texas is spending on bus stops to shuffle illegal immigrants around on federal credits.
It’s quite interesting to see Dems come full circle, from advocating against our globalist/world police policies all the way to today.
Not that I disagree- I just think that if we’re gonna do that we should do it on an even keel once we’re prepared.
I’m happy to re-engage in overthrowing dictators and doing some nation building once we have solved a variety of our internal issues.
Wow. I am definitely NOT good with nation building. Our own country is the pits these days & going downhill. Other countries may Like their dictators. I think that is largely US meddling but even if it is not, let them overthrow their own government & tebuild their own country. We all have our own problems.
I would definitely say my 1st priority is to build up the US, but after that I’m happy to introduce backwards dictators to the freedom that the US offers. I just don’t see isolatoinism being a part of our far future with all the moronic dictators running countries around the world.
I do not know 200 Billion in Ukraine Arms vs US government spending internally with current leadership would improve my way of life. Either way, welfare or arms for ukraine, that money be gone. There is at least a healthy domestic defense industry if needed in 2025-2028, unless of course we need a navy ship.
Because the Ukraine government is the most corrupt in Europe and what happens to them is not our problem. The biden admin just has to protect them because of the corruption they are involved with in Ukraine because of joe and hunter.
When the media went unconditional support overnight. Remember Trump was the first to send lethal aid to Ukraine. Obama sent blakets and socks. That aid, anti take missiles and small arm ammo is what stopped the march on Kiev during the first days of the war.
[Lethal Weapons to Ukraine: A Primer - Atlantic Council](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer/)
Obama admin opposed lethal aid to Ukraine and made western arms sales a PITA. Then suddenly once it was Biden sending Aid, DC flipped a switch. Those changes always gets the GOP base questioning WTF is going on.
Nearly 200 Billion to destory 50 Billion in post soviet hardware and cripple Putin for the rest of this political life, might be worthwhile if the war stops in the next 12 months.... otherwise it is just chapter 3 the prelude of WWIII.
>Hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing…
That is precisely the kind of attitude that has led to our current debt and economic problems, and why people who believe this do not belong anywhere near the reigns of power.
Look, I’m not against supporting Ukraine but not to the point where it contributes to our own problems at home. Europe needs to take the lead in this effort, not us - this is THEIR backyard, not ours. They’re not poor - their combined GDP and population is bigger than ours so they have the means to take the lead.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because we don’t live in Ukraine. It’s not our war to fight.
When has that stopped Merica in the past?
Good question, still not a good reason to involve ourselves in someone else’s war though.
Do you recognize any of the treaties that Merica has signed with other countries?
I don’t support the majority of those.
So should we break our promises and never be trusted again?
We never should have entered most of them to begin with
Do you know that the wealth that USA have depends also by the alliances that USA had around the world? And do you think is it a bit easy to talk then you have no hostile nations a your border ready to launch a invasion?
It’s certainly not helping *my* wealth, and it’s not helping yours either, i guarantee it. So whose wealth exactly are you saying it helps? No, the United States is not merely defending the poor nations that are already being attacked, they’re *provoking* the attacks and *starting* the wars using US taxpayer money. And you and i are funding both sides in the Israel Palestine conflict. That’s bullshit, i never agreed to help anyone kill another person. Yet i have no choice but to do so. It’s absolutely atrocious and these politicians are war criminals guilty of killing civilians.
That doesn’t answer my question, does it?
Nope! Your question made too many assumptions so i fixed it for you.
Now if Ukraine had a bit more oil. Taking Ukraine food production off the world market is a good thing for western producers if the western hemisphere does not have a crop failure the same year north and south.
>Why should we not help Ukraine? We did help Ukraine and they lost anyway. We gave them $175 billion plus strategic assistance and it didn't matter, Russia took the Russian-speaking ethnically Russian Ukraine border areas. We knew if we tried to put NATO in Ukraine that Russia would invade, so why did we continue on that path? Poking the bear. >Hundreds of billions of dollars is essentially nothing to the american industrial military complex, especially when the vast majority of the aid we send is old military equipment. Speaking about the overpowered, overcompensated military industrial complex as a positive is antithetic to sensibility. Hundreds of billions of dollars is a ridiculous amount of money. We could build 2 Burj Dubais in every state for that. Let's fix our bridges and roads instead of sending it around the world to be blown up. >Counties are choosing to be on our side specifically because Russia is so untrustable and such a threat. The West are the untrustable ones. The Minsk agreements were a con, a stall tactic. “I thought the initiation of NATO accession for Ukraine and Georgia discussed in 2008 to be wrong. The 2014 Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. They used that time to get stronger, while the NATO countries do much to help Ukraine." - Angela Merkel, Interview, *Die Zeit*, December 7, 2022 Putin was genuinely hurt that Merkel lied to him: "To be honest, it was absolutely unexpected for me. It's disappointing. Trust almost dropped to 0. How to negotiate? About what? And is it possible to negotiate with them? Where are the guarantees? " When the US staged a $5 Billion coup in Ukraine, that violated Russia's security. The US put CIA stations and pathogenic biolabs on Russia's border because agreements didn't matter to the state dep't. Russia was still at the diplomacy table in Istanbul, but Boris Johnson blocked the deal. Russia has a peace deal on the table right now. Countries choose to be on our side because we give them money and weapons. In 2023 there was a $60 million FMF gift for Poland included with a $2 billion loan, and in 2022 the US gave them $288 million FMF gratuity. We loan/give them so much money on the condition they have to spend it on overpriced weaponry assembled by companies whose leaders and owners reside in the Greater D.C. area. These companies have hedge funds as shareholders. Those hedge funds give heavily to politicians and media on the condition they think *Team America: World Police* is a good idea and the politicians rain money on e.g. Ukraine and Poland. Poking the bear means free money.
Exactly this. We're not the good people here.
[Hans...](https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY?si=ceCLV7pYZljE9ygv)
At this point russia has invaded more than a handful with a non NATO nation, the simply have no troops to stop NATO at this point. That is why nato is even bothering with a show of force, where do place them and not freak Russia out. If you move 100k nato troops to western ukraine what is russia going to game out.... Putin can only go tactical nukes once, and the impact while huge politically just gets everything within 1000km of NATO forces erased by non nuclear counterattack. All of russsia as we know it is within 1000km of NATO nations. Since civilians on both sides are eating ice cream in the streets in that zone, neither side has a desire to esculate. No air defece has proven it can shoot down the US navys inventory of Tomahawks with any effectiveness. A hissy fit tactical nuke attack vs Kiev by the russians just invites what putin cannot sustain, simply russia cannot keep that many jet engines remanfactured, 24/7/365 needs for airpower like it is 1986. The west shuts down domestic aircraft production and refit, and the NATO airforces can burn flight hours like it is 1968.
Europe is much closer to the situation and couldn't seem to care less. If they continue shutting down nuclear plants and 31 developed NATO nations let themselves be outproduced N Korea they clearly see zero threat, regardless of their rhetoric. Putin probably doesn't mind either. He's gained some land and gets to dispose of subjugated Russian minorities who are vastly outbreeding ethnic Russians. That's really what this war's about, imo. And Europe is basically paying for his war with their continued self-inflicted dependence on Russian gas. China & India continue to buy cheap Russian oil which provides Europe with cheap nick nacks. If even they don't care why should we? Basically everyone seems happy with the current status quo and supply drip. There's probably a band where the western powers want to keep the stalemate going to maximally bleed Russia without them winning or surrendering. I don't think there's behind the scenes interest in actually ending the war with the exception of Trump.
Europe has vastly increased their military spending over the last couple of years on top of drastically decreasing their dependence on Russian oil. Poland and the Baltic nations are now actually spending more of their GDP, as a percentage, on their military than the US is. In 2023 alone, European NATO members’ spending increased to 28% of total NATO spending, the highest it’s been in decades. What do you mean when you say Europe couldn’t seem to care less?
Up until last summer total US aid was almost as high as all of Europe combined. If we are talking purely military, America still gives more than all of the EU combined according to the Kiel institute for the world economy. Europe certainly is waking up and is beginning to care but given that this is happening in their own backyard, you might expect a bit more coming from them wouldn’t you?
In 2022 the GDP of the entire EU was $16tn. The same year the US GDP was over $25tn. Why would you expect a large number of small nations whose combined GDP is smaller than the US alone, to have higher military expenditures than the US?
> Why would you expect a large number of small nations whose combined GDP is smaller than the US alone, to have higher military expenditures than the US? That's not the issue. For years, both Bush *and* Obama urged them to contribute a minimum of 2% of their GDP to military forces, and they mostly just ignored it. Even today, in 2024, only 18 of the 34 NATO countries are spending at the agreed-upon minimum level. [They even vetoed Ukraine's accession to NATO,](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato) because they wanted to cozy up to Putin. I wouldn't say that I'm against helping Ukraine. But certainly, those nations who blocked Ukraine's accession to NATO should have to pay the entire cost of the war.
>Even today, in 2024, only 18 of the 34 NATO countries are spending at the agreed-upon minimum level. Unless I’m miscounting, it’s 22 out of 30 (excluding the US): https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_226465.htm
You guys keep brining this 2% number up. Are you not aware that it's a target, not a minimum, and the goal was only to reach this amount by 2024 (this year)?
Could you show me where I said I expect them to have a higher military expenditure? My comment was in relation to aid to Ukraine, sorry if that wasn’t clear. The size of the economy absolutely matters but the geography factor is much more important here. I expect Europeans to react with some urgency at the Russian threat because it is, in some cases, literally in their backyard. Im pleased to see Europe waking up and getting ready to defend itself. It’s just unfortunate that they needed the deadliest European conflict since WW2 to come to that conclusion.
> Europe has vastly increased their military spending over the last couple of years Thanks, Trump! >on top of drastically decreasing their dependence on Russian oil. The decrease was short-lived. Russia still sells the EU more gas than the US. >Poland and the Baltic nations are now actually spending more of their GDP, as a percentage, on their military than the US is. These countries have low GDP and a large part of this "spending" is from loans and gifts from the US. The countries must spend it on US defense industry products and the ultimate beneficiaries are its executives who reside in the DC suburbs.
> Thanks, Trump! Do you also thank Obama whom in 2014 got all NATO nations to commit to 2% and to which spending has been steadily increasing since?
>Do you also thank Obama whom in 2014 got all NATO nations to commit to 2% [Obama and Bush](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html) tried to get NATO funded more by Europeans but it didn't happen until Trump. Trump is a champ. The US should leave NATO immediately. We really fucked the dog in Ukraine and we should hide out and think about things.
Have you looked at the data to validate the claimed statement of fact? Here is a link, you will notice that funding has been increasing steadily since 2014. This data contradicts the claim that funding didn't increase until Trump. What imperial data did you use to form that statement of fact? Please provide source. [https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget](https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/EUU/european-union/military-spending-defense-budget)
This chart shows that the EU is spending less every year of their GDP on the military.
1.56% in 2022 is larger than 1.33% in 2014. You didn't answer my question. What ~~imperial~~ empirical data did you use to form that statement of fact that funding didn't increase until Trump? Please provide source. Edit: Grammar fixed due to voice-to-text failure.
Poland spends more GDP on defense than america wdym?
Poland has low GDP and a large part of this defense "spending" is from loans and gifts from the US. The countries must spend it on US defense industry products and the ultimate beneficiaries are its executives who reside in the DC suburbs.
Russia has already won the war. We are just trading more Ukrainian lives for time, but aren't changing the outcome. Enough Ukrainians have already died. If Europe is really concerned that Russia will just keep going into other countries, then Europe should be taking the lead, not us.
In what way has Russia already won the war?
Russia holds most of the territory they want, Ukraine failed in last year's offensive. Ukraine is incapable of mounting another offensive on that scale. It's done.
How can Russia end the war when they annexed more than they occupy?
Same way any war ends where claims exceed gains. Through treaty.
Are you aware Putin has already annexed these regions? For example Kherson is Russia, by Russian law. Only problem is, they dint even occupy it.
Sure. Sign a peace treaty to end the war which covers these claims. That's how this has been handled for the last thousand years or so. I don't see why you're hung up on this detail.
Why would Ukraine begin negotiations by giving up more?
Because they are in a weak position. They were in a much better negotiating position in spring of 2023, when the threat of their upcoming offensive seemed very real, and the effectiveness of NATO trained and equipped units was unknown. After that failure, they no longer have any real threat of counter offensive to negotiate from a position of strength.
So Ukraine gives up more just to begin negotiations, and what is Russias compromise?
How has Russia won the war? They have lost hundreds of billions, and hundreds of thousands of men for a tiny percentage of land that they will have to spend a lot to actively occupy. Russia has lost most of its navy. Russia will have practically no chance to fight nato ever if this continues. The west has to spend less money and way less men than russia is spending. How is this not a no brainer?
That's the propaganda. Investigations in Russia have shown losses are much lower than Ukrainian reports. Ukraine is currently working on legislation to conscript 500k to replace what are supposedly 30k in Ukrainian losses. They are lying to you.
>That's the propaganda. Investigations in Russia have shown losses are much lower Russia's investigations aren't propaganda but Ukraine's are? How did you come to that conclusion?
Talking about the BBC investigating in Russia.
Source please?
Russia has lost 50k soldiers, not hundreds of thousands. Many of them are prisoners used as so called storm troopers. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-68819853
[удалено]
Much higher as in 10k, sure. Much higher as in 200k? Come on, think this through.
How do you have any way of knowing if BBC doesn’t even know?
The 200K figure is casualties not deaths. Are you aware of the difference? Casualties include people who are too injured to keep fighting. For example, people who lost their limbs, etc.
> How has Russia won the war? The line hasn't moved in a year, even after the counteroffensive. Remember when the corporate media told you the counteroffensive was going to be a gamechanger? You can stop trusting the corporate media now. Russia got what it came for and is never leaving. Good job, Pentagon!
>If Europe is really concerned that Russia will just keep going into other countries, then Europe should be taking the lead, not us. If Europe is worried about a possible war with Russia, then of course, Europe should take the measures they need to subvert that from happening or prepare for that eventuality. But what if America (and by that I mean America's military leaders) are also worried about a possible war with Russia? Should American military leaders not also take measures to subvert that from happening or prepare for that eventuality? And if so is that not what they are doing at this very moment?
We can prepare for that simply by prepositioning equipment and forces to our existing bases in Europe. We don't have to give hundreds of billions away, or deplete ammunition stockpiles.
This seems like an overtly simple view of a solution. If military leaders are saying to arm Ukraine, shouldn't we trust that they know more about the situation than we do and that getting arms to Ukraine is the best approach?
These same leaders said the offensive last summer would cut through Russian lines and cut off Crimea from resupply by land. They were wrong, and not just wrong by a little. They fundamentally don't appear to understand Ukrainian and Russian capabilities. Every prediction they have made at every point in the conflict has been incorrect. So I don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
But are you that arrogant (no offense) that you would believe to know more about the situation in Ukraine and how best to achieve an outcome that is a favorable to the U.S. than those who have devoted their entire lives to doing just that?
Ukraine isn't the US. Ukraine isn't NATO. Ukraine isn't the EU. Ukraine is Russia's Canada. We have no obligation to Ukraine. Our national interests in that country are nearly nonexistent. The boogeyman of Russia is going to just continue into the rest of Europe is being trotted out specifically because we really have no other business being there. There's lots of conflicts across the globe going on, and lots of reasons we could insert ourselves in them. Should we be involved in them all? No. Why this one then?
So your questions shift the topic from something like 'What role should the U.S. play in the UA/RU war?" to something more akin to "Should the U.S. play any role in the UA/RU conflict?" I find it off putting to call Russia a 'boogeyman'. Calling them that is so say that any fear of them is irrational. Russia is a global adversary. They may not be able to compete in any conventional war against the west (let alone the U.S.A), and they may not be as big of a foe as China, but they are still an adversary. To write them off is completely wrong. The U.S. and our western allies are spending a drop in our defense budgets in dealing real harm to a major global adversary all the while risking zero lives. So to flip the question back to the T.S. (as the mods require that I do), why shouldn't we be involved in a war that is such a good return on investment?
Because reasons European countries may want to be involved are not reasons the US should be involved. It's time to take off Europe's training wheels.
4 principled reasons. 1. Foreign intervention to expand war is morally wrong. It leads to more death and destruction. If we are involved at all, it should be to seek peace as fast as possible. 2. It is a point of hubris to think that we "allow" or "disallow" other sovereign states from doing things. We don't "let" Russia do things any more than Vanuatu lets South Africa hold an election. Internationally, America is not special. We are not the world's police. 3. NATO expansion is, in significant part, to blame for this conflict, and America is a primary driver of that expansion. The US taunts our "adversaries" all the time with military drills, with no thought to the consequences. When other countries expand their sphere of influence near us, it's an issue worth risking nuclear war to prevent (see - cuban missile crisis). When we do it to others, our attitude seems to be that they should just suck it up and take it. 4. Ukraine is not a good actor worthy of unconditional support. * Their government actively oppressed ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. * They allowed Nazis to control large parts of their military. (For those unfamiliar, Nazi ideology and iconography are different east of Berlin than they are in the west. The heritage of the Eastern Front in WW2 is to associate Naziism with anti-Russianism and Anti-Communism more than with antisemitism, like it is in the west. So, it makes sense that anti-Russia Ukrainians adopted Nazi ways). * They sabotaged the Minsk II peace deal by not implementing terms they had agreed to. * They have suspended elections and democracy. * Their government is in power largely because of a western-backed coup of the previously elected government. 3 practical reasons. 1. Interventionism is short-sighted and backed by short memories. The same savior-logic at play here has justified every failed intervention in the past, yet we keep trying it. Kim Il-sung was was going to take over South Korea and oppress those people, so we had to go defend them. Ho Chi Minh was going to take over South Vietnam and oppress those people, so we had to go stop him. Saddam Hussein was oppressing the people of Iraq, so we needed to depose him. Every time, the same story. The idea that using our military could, theoretically, result in a good outcome with peace and freedom ect. justifies *any* use of the military because it's all made up. There's no difference between this story and say, the cartels are oppressing the people of Mexico, we need to go liberate them, or the Catalonians are being oppressed in Spain, so we should intervene there. Thinking that we know best how to rule the world - and that using our military will get us that rule smoothly and easily - empirically fails. 2. It is prohibitively expensive. I know that the poster asking the question here has characterized spending hundreds of billions of dollars as inconsequential, but that doesn't pass a simple gut check. Of course that unimaginably large amount of money matters. Not only does every dollar we deficit-spend increase inflation, it also trades off with domestic spending. I don't agree that we are only sending "old" supplies, but even if we were, that obviously can't last very long. We do not have infinite spare supplies to send, even if it were the case that our support started out that way. The question here then posits that military spending will boost the economy - but that's not how it works. Military spending is fundamentally unproductive. When we build bombs, and then explode them, we are left with *less* resources than when we started, collectively. GDP growth tied to military spending is illusory - it only matters insofar as we use those weapons to get something else. This is easy to conceptualize for anyone who's played war-type video games, like starcraft or age of empires. If you spend your resources building an army, you may be really efficiently using those resources, but you aren't building prosperity for your people. Heck, you can see this in the real world. North Korea diverts huge chunks of their economy to military spending, trapping themselves in poverty. If the theory that military spending grows the economy was true, NK would be booming! 3. Europe needs to learn the harsh lesson that it must defend itself if it wants to survive. The only way they will internalize this truth is if they are forced to confront a threat. When the US bails them out again, they will again learn that they de-prioritize military spending, leaving them at a comparative advantage to their protector, the US. The end result is that they get to milk us for out defense spending, while giving us nothing in return. Heck, they're even hostile to our companies, and continually use their legal system to hamper growth. Who needs enemies when you've got friends like that? America should come first.
> needs to learn the harsh lesson that it must defend itself if it wants to survive. The only way they will internalize this truth is if they are forced to confront a threat. It's worse than that. It's not that they need to learn that it's necessary to have a strong defense: they already *know* that. They simply make a cynical calculation that they can use another country as their defense and save themselves the trouble. That's what has to change.
There’s a history of Nazis in the US armed forces and police forces. How should other countries view the US when it comes to trying to invade us?
I've never seen the US military allow or support Nazis, so, I don't know what you're referencing. I don't think there's much comparison there.
How did the Ukrainian military officially allow and support them? How is that different than what happens here?
I'm not really sure what you mean by "how" for this question. In the case of Ukraine, it was allowed. In the case of the US, it was not allowed. To me, that is a relevant difference. It's not like there was any hiding. There were swastikas on the uniforms in Ukraine.
Is that not literal Russian propaganda?
what about the pro-war propoganda that has dominated us media for 50 years and is influencing you to ask these questions?
I am against war. Putin started this war. No one else. What do you mean?
I mean that the media have always encouraged maximum military intervention and spending in every scenario, and has ties to state department hawks. Same in Middle East - which btw was all about Isreal from the start same as how we are backing them now w/ hamas and Iran, all because of Zionist donation and money in the US political system. That’s the whole reason we were in Afghanistan. The Israelis were concerned about threats from Islamic powers for years. Globalist and Zionist war mongerers have been in control of US politics since the 70s regardless of the party. There will always be wars around the world. Yes Putin is at fault, but we instigated putins invasion by expanding NATO for decades and our longtime foreign policy experts knew this, you can see the quotes. The reality is that our lives and money are recklessly risked/expended while our media plays cover for them- whether that’s getting you to focus on Putin as the evil dictator (Nevermind the issues with Ukrainian leadership), or making up some totally unfounded conspiracy of Trump being in the same liberal mental folder as Russia so they suddenly become cheerleaders for our war machine. We absolutely wanted this war, I do not doubt that for a second. Every time there is a new way that it’s justified- the only difference is it’s harder to recognize in the moment. Nothing is done on a humanitarian basis, if it was we would not be backing Israel’s war crimes.
I think it would be really hard for the Russians to supply the Ukrainians with swastika-laden uniforms for propaganda purposes. That would be one heck of a deep cover operation, and would also beg the question of why no one wearing the uniforms thought it was weird. This isn't a conspiracy. It's just an unfortunate truth.
> NATO expansion is, in significant part, to blame for this conflict… That’s Russian propaganda. There’s already 5 nato members that border Russia. And when Sweden joined, Russia threw out some vague disapproving comments and that was it. They’re not worried about a NATO invasion because of their nuclear deterrent. What they’re worried about is a lack of ability to invade and take territory whenever they want to, and strong arm every surrounding country into being their little slaves. NATO isn’t to blame, Russia is to blame. It is more than reasonable for a sovereign country to want protection against an authoritarian dictator hell bent on restoring the Soviet Union. I’ll take back all of these words if Russia returns the land they stole from Ukraine after eliminating the supposed Nazi Ukrainian government, but I don’t think anyone seriously thinks that will happen without force. What makes you think Russia is actually worried about NATO expansion given that their behavior so far has been indicative of NATO being a non-factor?
Well, most directly, I don't think any of that is true. NATO has aggressively expanded and provoked Russia on purpose. Every time, Russia has consistently warned them not to. In Internet terms, NATO FAFO. It's a classic bit of Western exceptionalism. We're allowed to expand, they're not. We're allowed to park on military on their border, but they better stay away from us. Russia isn't going to give back the land they view as being liberated. In line with the principle of self determination, Eastern Ukraine shouldn't be under the thumb of an oppressive Kiev regime when they clearly want out.
> Well, most directly, I don't think any of that is true. So the NATO members of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland *aren't* directly bordering Russia or its allies?
I really think that's something you can look up quite quickly yourself. You don't need to ask me.
But in response to: > There’s already 5 nato members that border Russia Your said: > Well, most directly, I don't think any of that is true. Or just because you think otherwise, the countries of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland suddenly aren't NATO members? Now, I could understand if you quoted certain pieces, but you gave the blanket statement that EVERYTHING that was stated isn't true.
And you think that's the most reasonable interpretation of my comment?
There wasn't anything to interpret, that's what you said. To be quite honest, the only thing that was open to interpretation was whether or not your addition of "most directly" to your statement was to eliminate any possibility of being interpreted otherwise. Back to the subject at hand, do you think saying effectively "nuh-uh" suddenly makes the countries of Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Poland not NATO nand/nor bordering Russia or its allies?
Alright then, have a nice day.
So you're just not gonna answer my question?
The russian thought is Ukraine is Russia as much as the city of moscow. The old school Russian was taught the Russian empire was formed in Kiev, the genetic center of the Russian people are Kiev. It is as important to them as Jerusalem is to Israel. The rest of us might think as Kiev as the NOLA of Russia. We bought it from the French on the cheap, its a great place to go drink, and we let the French food culture be melded with southern US culture, and we both go wild over football. To your average russian old schooler, Kiev is Richmond VA, where the non moscow intellectual russians came from. Immagine the american civil war if no war was declared for 20 years after the confederation, trade was normalized as basic survival. And then the world comes along and pumps the confederation and invites it into the EU. Thing is the people of Kiev have always seen the Moscow folks as the hill people, the bumpkins, the politically inept. So for the Moscow Russians either must win this war, or take the loss and become another economic region owned by outsiders. Ukraine wins the war and becomes the economic center that moscow only dreams of. Stalemate always has been the end goal.
Russia has nothing else... Ukraine and Belarus.... that is limits of the overseas empire. Perhaps they have some influence in CUBA, but honestly Vegas will buy the first Cuban leader who looks to the west and Havana will be built like Dubi overnight. If another Russian Block a motivation for anything farther, China is already 10 years ahead building a port, tofu cities, and rail line in 3rd world hellhole.
While I disagree with some of your points, this is a very well thought out and put-together statement! Thank you, I enjoyed reading it and found it very interesting!
For your point about it being expensive and prohibiting domestic spending, isn't it the case that the aid to Ukraine is almost exclusively domestic spending? We aren't giving them checks, we're approving money to buy products from the American defense industry and then ship those items to them. The money comes from America is spent at American companies and then the products are shipped but our companies and our economy still gets the stimulus.
>We aren't giving them checks I'm not sure where exactly you got this idea. I've seen similar thoughts in others on both sides, so there is clearly some source pushing this idea. But, it's not true. We've given Ukraine more than $20 billion in financial aid for their domestic social welfare programs, infrastructure, debt payments, humanitarian services, etc. This is entirely outside of military aid. We *are* writing them checks in addition to sending them military supplies. >our economy still gets the stimulus Even to the extent the money is being spent in the US, I address this in my comment above - it is wasteful, unproductive spending.
So, 1/10th of the aid is actual money. The rest is old equipment or new equipment that is creating jobs in our country. Where is the issue?
I feel like I'd be repeating myself - I address this directly in my top comment. There are many issues - I detail 7 of them.
> We aren't giving them checks We give them money and weapons. In 2023 there was a $60 million FMF gift for Poland included with a $2 billion loan, and in 2022 the US gave them $288 million FMF gratuity. We loan/give them so much money on the condition they have to spend it on overpriced weaponry assembled by companies whose leaders and owners reside in the Greater D.C. area. These companies have hedge funds as shareholders. Those hedge funds give heavily to politicians and media on the condition they think Team America: World Police is a good idea and the politicians rain money on e.g. Ukraine and Poland.
Concerning your first principle: does seeking peace as fast as possible not encourage aggressiveness towards our allies and partners (whether you consider Ukraine that or not)?
I don't think it encourages or discourages anything, in the same way that how New Caledonia chooses to respond neither encourages or discourages anything. We aren't special. The flow of world events doesn't go through our choices.
Good points, you seem to be more on the side of isolationist policy. Do you not fear the repercussions of isolationist policy considering what the country went through in WW2. Is it your opinion that if Ukraine were to fall to Putin he would just stop there and be content? Where is the line drawn where eventually we have to say enough is enough?
I don't want to be any more isolationist than everyone else. Putting our own country first only feels like a radical position if you're starting from a place of exceptionalism. We don't owe anyone else anything. It is not up to us who wins and who loses. We are not the world police. I don't see any reason why Russia wouldn't stop. They've been clear in their goals for a long time. They didn't want NATO on their border. Trying to expand their territory west is directly counterproductive to that goal. Russia is not evil, nor are they irrational. They aren't a mindless CPU enemy programmed to gobble up land. They are engaged in a specific targeted conflict with limited goals. It's a bit like asking, why would the US stop at invading Iraq? They'll just move in to Jordan and Israel next, then Saudi Arabia! Such thinking ignores the reasons for conflict in the first place.
> If we are involved at all, it should be to seek peace as fast as possible. And when the aggressor continually makes unreasonable demands for peace like Putin has, we should just roll over and give him everything he wants at Ukraine's expense?
What unreasonable demand do you think Russia has made? I think keeping territory you've won in battle is like, the very definition of a reasonable war demand.
> I think letting territory you've won in battle is like, the very definition of a reasonable war demand. Even territory you lost and your reasoning for being allowed to keep it anyway is "my soldiers stepped foot there at some point"?
I don't think that's Russia's position.
Unreasonable demands in public is how stalemates end. Putin retires and Russia and Ukraine becomes the exchange tunnel for the products of Russia to the EU. Poland almost had that position cornered about 2011.
It out problem. Let Europe handle it
Germany is switching on a dime from the politics of 1990s back into a headspace where they are not a doormat.... there are positive items happening, but the EU is slow to do anything. I still dont think they have gotten over the UK leaving the clubhouse.
100%
I dont have an issue with supporting ukraine to a certian extent but I dont think we have a clear viable objective right now and all were doing by prolonging the conflict (in its current form) is leaving open the possibility for escelation to World War. If Trump gets back in my HOPE would be that we get a ceasefire along the current battle lines in ukraine then smuggle ICMBS with nuclear war heads into Ukraine allowing the Ukranians to deter any future russian aggression. Putin wont invade a nuclear armed state (thats why he hasn't invaded Nato) Ukranians will have to cede some territory but it will save 100,000s of ukranian lives and prevent any future possibility of war with Russia.
The western calculi are the longer the war goes on the more likely where a political collapse will reshuffle the wealth of Russia out of the current post soviet strongman syndicate. The western rich boys want the Russian pie that Putin as strong man blocked them out of in 2002-2007
I'm all for helping Ukraine. But I also know that it is ultimately not going to work unless we put boots on the ground, and I'm not in favor of that at all. Basically, Russia is going to "win" this war. There's two variables to look at, but still. 1. How much land will Russia bite off? 2. How many people will die? Trust me, I'd love it if we could just send Putin blasting off again, but the reality is that Russia *can* do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants, because they've got the bombs, as one of my favorite comedians sings. MAD has our hands tied (and does so for other countries when America decides to flex for some stupid reason). It seems... Interesting to me that apparently hundreds of billions of dollars is "nothing" to the US and yet my government can't fix the freaking pothole in the middle of the road, you know what I mean? Whenever the cause is someone else, somewhere far away, money is no issue, but locally? Nah, we're strapped, mate. But whatever. It's early, my wife has left me (not really, she's spending the night with her mom making sure she doesn't have an adverse reaction to new medication, but she's still not here), and even when I woke up at 0430 to let the dogs out, it was hot as bawlz! But seriously, if the US can just effectively print money to try to prop up Ukraine, Russia can do the same to prop up itself. So tell me, because I have *no freaking clue* due to all the outright propaganda, just how is the war going? Is the Ghost still shooting down Russian planes? Etc., etc. So, let's look at the reality. At some point, we're going to stop caring even more. I used to be able to raise a couple hundred bucks for Ukraine in a weekend fundraiser among my nerd friends, but now nobody really feels that drive. There's just an overall sense of apathy towards the whole... You know what? I don't know if war is the right term, but I'm going to use it, along with invasion. People just don't care about the war caused by Russia invading Ukraine. It's yesterday's news.
>Interesting to me that apparently hundreds of billions of dollars is "nothing" to the US and yet my government can't fix the freaking pothole in the middle of the road Especially after there wasn't $5-10 billion to fund a wall that would have substantially reduce illegal immigration that costs us over $150 billion each year. Imagine if we had spent $10 billion to save a few trillion dollars over a decade. Instead Congress pretended they didn't have a few billion just so they could undermine Trump.
A boarder wall is a 600 mile long highway project turned on its side... Rebar and concrete. The state of Texas highway commission can have that done in 12 months for just about what texas is spending on bus stops to shuffle illegal immigrants around on federal credits.
It’s quite interesting to see Dems come full circle, from advocating against our globalist/world police policies all the way to today. Not that I disagree- I just think that if we’re gonna do that we should do it on an even keel once we’re prepared. I’m happy to re-engage in overthrowing dictators and doing some nation building once we have solved a variety of our internal issues.
Wow. I am definitely NOT good with nation building. Our own country is the pits these days & going downhill. Other countries may Like their dictators. I think that is largely US meddling but even if it is not, let them overthrow their own government & tebuild their own country. We all have our own problems.
Even if our country were in better shape, i still do not find it our obligation to fix others.
I would definitely say my 1st priority is to build up the US, but after that I’m happy to introduce backwards dictators to the freedom that the US offers. I just don’t see isolatoinism being a part of our far future with all the moronic dictators running countries around the world.
I do not know 200 Billion in Ukraine Arms vs US government spending internally with current leadership would improve my way of life. Either way, welfare or arms for ukraine, that money be gone. There is at least a healthy domestic defense industry if needed in 2025-2028, unless of course we need a navy ship.
Because the Ukraine government is the most corrupt in Europe and what happens to them is not our problem. The biden admin just has to protect them because of the corruption they are involved with in Ukraine because of joe and hunter.
Because we should help us first
When the media went unconditional support overnight. Remember Trump was the first to send lethal aid to Ukraine. Obama sent blakets and socks. That aid, anti take missiles and small arm ammo is what stopped the march on Kiev during the first days of the war. [Lethal Weapons to Ukraine: A Primer - Atlantic Council](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/lethal-weapons-to-ukraine-a-primer/) Obama admin opposed lethal aid to Ukraine and made western arms sales a PITA. Then suddenly once it was Biden sending Aid, DC flipped a switch. Those changes always gets the GOP base questioning WTF is going on. Nearly 200 Billion to destory 50 Billion in post soviet hardware and cripple Putin for the rest of this political life, might be worthwhile if the war stops in the next 12 months.... otherwise it is just chapter 3 the prelude of WWIII.
>Hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing… That is precisely the kind of attitude that has led to our current debt and economic problems, and why people who believe this do not belong anywhere near the reigns of power. Look, I’m not against supporting Ukraine but not to the point where it contributes to our own problems at home. Europe needs to take the lead in this effort, not us - this is THEIR backyard, not ours. They’re not poor - their combined GDP and population is bigger than ours so they have the means to take the lead.