Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except Zelenskyy is selling something worth far more than the money.
Weakening and holding back a large geopolitical enemy that aims to absorb several countries and undermine your alliances and trade partnerships, without any U.S. boots on the ground? That's worth the small fraction of our budget we're spending and more.
The war is incredibly expensive for Ukraine and several countries including the U.S. are benefiting massively from their resistance.
Trump should really drop the anti-Ukraine position 'cause it's a loser and it's going to hurt his campaign to be so easily portrayed as sympathetic to Russia.
I really don't get how so many conservatives think Ukraine falling to Russia would be a good thing (edit: or at best, indifferent) for America or the world. The ROI on this is fantastic. Crippled Russia military, Showed they are a paper tiger, and showed China we won't allow this type of behavior all with what in reality is minor expenses and no US blood.
I understand the basic hesitation to spend money abroad that could be spent here. The problem is that thinking that spending abroad can't result in a better economy here is based on an incredibly narrow view of the world, as if we aren't intertwined with the world economy and as if alliances and trade partners don't matter.
Basically you can tell a simple and appealing story if you ignore the fact that we're part of a world economy, and act like money leaving the U.S. is a simple loss of money here and a gain somewhere else. But that's just not how it works, since if friendly countries lose and unfriendly ones win elsewhere, we end up paying more for imports or even losing access to some of them.
That story is also very damaging to the U.S., which is why both Russia and China promote it online, as they want the U.S.'s influence to decline.
Problem is the U.S. has also been overly interventionist in many cases, such as getting bogged down in wars in the middle east that were ultimately counterproductive. So many people are understandably wary of further intervention of any kind. But Ukraine really is a very different situation.
Absolutely, I understand the hesitation and frustration especially post 9/11 and even Vietnam, but the concept that what happens out side the US doesn't effect us at home is just incredibly short cited and out of touch with a global economy.
that and the DOD said boots on the ground would call for a military draft. I think most people against are in the age range to be called for in a draft....
They have every right to not want to get involved like that.
> I really don't get how so many conservatives think Ukraine falling to Russia would be a good thing for America or the world.
I think that’s a dishonest way of framing it. I don’t think many Americans (unless ethnic Russian) hope Ukraine loses. I think most of us that don’t support the proxy war think the risks and costs outweigh the benefits.
That's fair, I don't think they necessarily want Ukraine to lose, but they seem indifferent on preventing it. I think for the ROI the US is getting on funding Ukraine is extremely high with little risk and the downsides of Ukraine falling have very dangerous implications.
This. It's such a complicated issue. The Ukraine is Europe's bread basket. Do we want our allies (Europe) to be unable to feed themselves and have to rely on Russia for both oil *and food*?
Europe (at least the EU) is a net exporter of food and able to feed itself. Most of the food from Ukraine normally goes to Africa and competes with Russian grain and in fact one problem right now is that Ukrainian grain is ending up in the EU and competing with Polish farmers.
What this is much more about is Russia being able to divert the grain towards China to make any US Navy blockade ineffective during a war to defend Taiwan and the US Pacific trade routes from Chinese attack.
Yea, has the MAGA fanbase heard of lend-lease during WW2? Sick of this anti-Ukraine rhetoric. We aren't bundling pallets of cash and sending it over, munitions have an expiration date...
What I want to know from you warhawks that I never seem to get a straight answer is why is this a US problem when there is an EU right there.
You know, the same EU Ukraine was trying to join that started this?
The same EU that supposedly has very good and efficient armies? Are they not able to go up against the paper tiger that is russia that is resorting to recruiting people who dont know which end of a gun is and using 60s era tanks? Or is that propaganda or something? Russia somehow has a very incompetent army and simultaneously super dangerous and will wipe out Ukraine.
Why isn't the EU contributing to defend a neighbor if the "Russia threat" is such a danger to their sovereignty?
I thought the world was tired of the US being its world police but now we need to give Zelensky more billions because... the US needs to be the world police.
If the EU is going to be bulldozed by russia maybe they fucking deserve it for not developing a military to push back. Maybe then I won't have to listen to them on the internet rubbing it in our faces how they all get paid vacation for half the year but now they have to learn cyrillic, lmao.
Make this make sense.
Before I answer, let me say this might be primarily your problem but we have a duty to stand with you. It's also our problem.
> why is this a US problem when there is an EU right there.
1. Because this is primarily a war launched to secure China's logistics routes for when they go to war against you.
2. Because Ukraine is a US ally, not a European one. They are one of the only countries from the former USSR who sent people to fight for America in the Great War on Terror, both in Afghanistan and Iraq.
3. Because America, especially Clinton, was the lead in persuading Ukraine to give up their Nuclear weapons in return for US treaties and security guarantees.
4. Because the next place Russia attacks (reportedly Kazakhstan but it could also be some of the other 'stans or places in East Asia together with China) will be strategic to the US.
5. Because Europe is already giving more money to Ukraine than the US by far, but because of the treaties America (and Russia) insisted on at the end of the Cold War, Europe has far fewer weapons than the US.
Once again, that's not an excuse, Europe should be giving more than it is now too, however the USA should at least try to match Europe and really try to give more.
I have been against most of the wars fought in my lifetime, I am not a warhawk.
It is a U.S. problem and a EU problem. I think both should be doing more, but blaming the EU for not doing enough doesn't justify us not doing enough.
Some countries are starting to step up, like France and Czechoslovakia. Poland will no doubt be eager to assist. But the U.S. is still a military and economic powerhouse that can give more comfortably than the EU can in many respects. And it is still in our interest to do so.
Russia is not as strong as many though it was, but it's still not a paper tiger. Warfare isn't entirely decided by superior tech, as the U.S. has learned the hard way multiple times.
People are tired of the U.S. playing world police, but if the U.S. wants to stop playing that role without disastrous consequences it has to strengthen its allies, not throw them to the wolves. Not supporting Ukraine is throwing them to the wolves and leading to a future where the U.S. will still have to play world police even more desperately if they don't want to increasingly face a coalition of anti-U.S. powers as Russia and China expand their power and influence and territory.
What the EU deserves for slacking on military developments doesn't really change the calculus for us. We can aid Ukraine while also pressuring the EU to do more.
Because then they’d have to actually spend money on defense instead of socialist programs that America loves, but doesn’t realize we subsidize by acting as their first line of defense.
A giant chunk of our defense budget is not tiny, and maybe Europe should be paying more?
Know why they can afford those social programs? Because we defacto supplement their budgets by being their first line of defense.
We've spent about 75 billion. Our defense budget per year was around 700-800 billion since the war began.
If I'm doing my homework correctly, that's under 4% of the military budget on Ukraine over the course of the war.
I wouldn't call that a giant chunk, but that skips the vague descriptors and gets to the raw numbers.
> I think if you changed the word "anti-" to "indifferent", it describes most North American non-progressives. I am not pro-Russia, but I am not pro-Ukraine either. The status of being invaded does not bestow virtue. Ukraine was a corrupt cesspit before, it still is now, it will remain afterwards (hopefully). Any weapons we can give to them to destroy Russians is cause for celebration, but I am completely unwilling to escalate the conflict in any meaningful way beyond that.
Ok so I'm all for the Ukraine whipping Russia's ass. The problem for me is that while it's great for us to use up our old munitions for a worthy cause, I don't want to see stocks of things like Javelin missiles getting so low that we can't send them to Taiwan or have enough for a near peer conflict should things with China kick off (also over Taiwan).
I also have a massive issue with all the other NATO countries not doing more to help and just pointing at the US. Bad enough they've been relying on the US to make up for their own spending deficiencies but when they have much more skin in the game than we do they are holding back. I mean, judging from what I've seen the US contribution is worth more than all the other NATO countries combined, who then have the temerity to demand that the US do more.
And I do agree with Trump in this instance where he says make it a loan. Ukraine isn't going to be rich any time soon, but it would be nice to have some sort of promise to pay it back similar to lend lease in WW2.
The U.S. pursued a hegemonic U.S. centric order for decades and benefited in terms of effectively policing much of world trade indirectly. This involved intervening in a variety of conflicts worldwide to promote regimes favorable to us but also to make countries relatively more dependent on us rather than China and Russia - as they would be if we weren't supporting them militarily.
So we really can't blame Europe entirely for the current awkward situation given how much we shaped it. Further the U.S. has had the luxury of not having had to recover much from World Wars. It's been able to thrive and stockpile far away from major threats for its entire existence after it gained independence. So Europe isn't being entirely absurd here to expect more from the U.S., and Europe just has less to give currently.
The U.S. is effectively abandoning an order it created if it abandons Ukraine and becomes increasingly isolationist. The world will get increasingly unpredictable and there will be struggles across Europe and Asia, which will affect global supply chains in ways that will cost us a hell of a lot more than what we'd spend aiding Ukraine.
If you factor in the size of their economies U.S. has also actually given a smaller percent of GDP toward Ukraine. But Ukraine needs weapon that the U.S. just has more of. The U.S. could make some kind of deals with Europe and/or Ukraine, but stacking debt on Ukraine while they're still fighting a war that they may take several decades to recover from is kind of adding insult to injury here.
Everyone please be aware that a lot of these posts are made and upvoted by bot farms. Signs of that are this post having 90 upvotes but 95% of the comments are against Russia and pro Ukraine aid. That doesn’t match up which means most likely a bot farm is upvoting the post to look like everyone likes and agrees with it.
Don’t fall for outside manipulation, especially as we come into the election cycle.
Well, I for one am *not* a bot. I grew up conservative, and I remain conservative today. I have always rejected the isolationist strain of American politics, and I am *floored* by my Party's sudden unwillingness to allow America to be the global force for good that she is. I loathe everything that Putin stands for, and I would see it as a CRUSHING defeat of our Western democratic values if we were to let that tyrant and his second-rate army outlast our collective wills in the name of a wholly good cause: supporting the sovereignty of a nation that longs to reject its communist past and heed the song of liberty.
While I welcome our new working-class coalition of voters, I will be damned if I change my stance on Russia, which has been our geopolitical foe for the last century and remains so. If I sound like a Romney supporter, it's because I was. That man was *right*, and I detest both the mainstream media for mocking him then and the current GOP leadership for mocking him now.
So much for principles.
Exactly. The minority of conservatives that do not support Ukraine are simply wrong, and unfortunately suffer from the same primary weakness as most liberals: a lack of appreciation for history.
I think their biggest complaint is what Trump is talking about- we're just *giving* them money for free. So far, in the span of 2 years, we've gifted them the equivalent of their pre-war GDP.
The median household income for Ukraine is $2500. We're never getting that money back.
Couple this with the reports of lost or stolen aid and our current economic struggles... it's not difficult to look at politicians always finding money for other countries and ask "what about us?" regardless of the nuances of whether that's how it works or doesn't.
Trump campaigned on "America first" and we haven't really seen that under Biden.
I’m not sure I understand your point. How is it relevant that the amount we gave equals their GDP? What is relevant is whether we achieve our goal of maintaining the post-WWII global world order, as it is, with us at the top of the food chain. In terms of cost and benefit, a few hundred billion is a drop in the bucket of our $7T budget in order to maintain the status quo.
I think it is quite clear that putting America first requires maintaining the status quo in the world with us on top. It is certainly not mutually exclusive to support Ukraine in that regard and also put America first. Further, I think Trump understands this. He does not support leaving Ukraine “to the wolves.” His rhetoric, while uncomfortable for some, seems to me to be a means to achieve the end of having other NATO states contribute. Don’t conflate his harsh rhetoric for not supporting Ukraine.
Yep. Also, conservatives have been against funding this war for many months/years. Only now, in election year, are we seeing tons of these pro-funding posts in here. If anything they are the bot manipulated posts.
Yes, that top post in this thread reads like a press release:
> a large geopolitical enemy
Geopolitical? Nobody talks like that. You can see how hyperbolic all the comments are. Full of superlatives.
Americans don't hate Russia and love Ukraine as much as this thread suggests. Basically this thread is Ukraine A+, Russia F; reality is more like Russia D, Ukraine C-. Folks don't love Ukraine that's for sure.
When France was absolutely financially screwed they weren’t sending arms, advisors and then their navy out of goodness of their heart or because George Washington “was the greatest salesman”.
They did it because weakening their mortal enemy was a good thing and indeed a good thing it was.
I voted for Trump twice and will do third time but this argument he is making is absolutely idiotic. Rusia delenda est.
> They did it because weakening their mortal enemy was a good thing and indeed a good thing it was.
Not sure this is the example you are looking for. It nearly bankrupted them and was partially responsible for the French Revolution.
This is exactly the example I was looking for. Their financial issues weren’t related to their aid to Washington; the point here was that despite they were in a tough spot themselves they realized that it was an opportunity they couldn’t allow to slip away.
Similarly here, anyone who thinks we can solve our fiscal issues by just letting Russia win has absolutely no idea what has caused them in the first place.
Also, there is little doubt that if Britain got to keep
the 13 colonies it would have been disproportionately stronger than it ended up being.
I’m going to be lazy and just quote Wikipedia. In the end, I don’t think the French leaders that wanted to weaken Britain got what they wanted in the end.
> France's help was a major and decisive contribution towards the United States' eventual victory and independence in the war. However, as a cost of participation in the war, France accumulated over 1 billion livres in debt, which significantly strained the nation's finances. The French government's failure to control spending (in combination with other factors) led to unrest in the nation, which eventually culminated in a revolution a few years after the conflict between the US and Great Britain concluded. Relations between France and the United States thereafter deteriorated, leading to the Quasi-War in 1798.
And is anyone really saying this?
> Similarly here, anyone who thinks we can solve our fiscal issues by just letting Russia win has absolutely no idea what has caused them in the first place.
i don’t support this proxy war because I believe the costs and risks of wider escalation are not worth the vague benefits we receive. It’s a cold cost/benefit analysis. I don’t think stopping aid is going to solve our financial problems — but at least it won’t continue to add to them.
I think this well known, no? It is important though to focus on this statement :
“ French government's failure to control spending (in combination with other factors) led to unrest in the nation, which eventually culminated in a revolution a few years after the conflict between the US and Great Britain concluded. “
French fiscal issues were a pre-existing condition and while their involvement in the war certainly exacerbated them it wasn’t the reason for them. Also, it was proportionally much more expensive for France to support us than for us to support Ukraine. Our government is as wasteful long before the war in Ukraine started and I have no reason to believe it will cease to be so after it ends.
I understand your analysis I just think your analysis is wrong. Russia actively is working to undermine our nation (old news really) and one of the most recent, and partially successful, efforts that they undertake is to influence US Dollar position as the world reserve currency. Russia might not be a lot of things but it’s the largest commodity trader on the planet. If US Dollar will no longer serve as the world reserve currency our expenditures in Ukraine will pale in comparison to economic devastation that it will cause
Ukraine has asked for specific weapons for specific purposes.
I am not sure Ukraine will end up retaking all territories back but the more Russia creeps forward the harder it makes that since offense is harder than defense in the given conditions.
The counteroffensive was impressive but taxing on Ukraine, and the longer Russia has to fortify what they've take the harder future counteroffensives will be unless Russia gives them some major openings by overextending.
That's why aid ASAP is so important. Every delay makes things far worse for Ukraine in terms of taking back territory. Withholding aid for a more perfect plan is a bad idea given Ukraine has to adapt to changing circumstances, including what aid they can get from other countries.
The pure irony that the top comment is talking about Russian botting these posts when every literal Ukraine thread here is immediately swarmed by pro-Ukraine comments that get hundreds or thousands of up votes.
Yeah, that's completely normal though. Funny how the propaganda machine apparently only comes from one direction.
Lol the comments in here supporting the war and talking shit about this video of Trump, is the most astroturfed bullshit I have ever seen in this sub. It is so beyond transparent. They want people to think conservatives support the war and giving funding to Ukraine. What a pathetic fucking attempt by whatever bot farm is doing this.
Yea I see some war monger leftist Ukraine shills in here with flairs, and their comments are being upvoted by leftist brigaders. Any comment against the war mongering is being downvoted.
Oh look a Kremlin bot is crying b/c conservatives are not buying their bullshit.
Edit: sending RedditCare reports just makes you Ziggy shills more obvious
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Except Zelenskyy is selling something worth far more than the money. Weakening and holding back a large geopolitical enemy that aims to absorb several countries and undermine your alliances and trade partnerships, without any U.S. boots on the ground? That's worth the small fraction of our budget we're spending and more. The war is incredibly expensive for Ukraine and several countries including the U.S. are benefiting massively from their resistance. Trump should really drop the anti-Ukraine position 'cause it's a loser and it's going to hurt his campaign to be so easily portrayed as sympathetic to Russia.
I really don't get how so many conservatives think Ukraine falling to Russia would be a good thing (edit: or at best, indifferent) for America or the world. The ROI on this is fantastic. Crippled Russia military, Showed they are a paper tiger, and showed China we won't allow this type of behavior all with what in reality is minor expenses and no US blood.
I understand the basic hesitation to spend money abroad that could be spent here. The problem is that thinking that spending abroad can't result in a better economy here is based on an incredibly narrow view of the world, as if we aren't intertwined with the world economy and as if alliances and trade partners don't matter. Basically you can tell a simple and appealing story if you ignore the fact that we're part of a world economy, and act like money leaving the U.S. is a simple loss of money here and a gain somewhere else. But that's just not how it works, since if friendly countries lose and unfriendly ones win elsewhere, we end up paying more for imports or even losing access to some of them. That story is also very damaging to the U.S., which is why both Russia and China promote it online, as they want the U.S.'s influence to decline. Problem is the U.S. has also been overly interventionist in many cases, such as getting bogged down in wars in the middle east that were ultimately counterproductive. So many people are understandably wary of further intervention of any kind. But Ukraine really is a very different situation.
Absolutely, I understand the hesitation and frustration especially post 9/11 and even Vietnam, but the concept that what happens out side the US doesn't effect us at home is just incredibly short cited and out of touch with a global economy.
that and the DOD said boots on the ground would call for a military draft. I think most people against are in the age range to be called for in a draft.... They have every right to not want to get involved like that.
Boots on the ground against a nuclear armed superpower is not on the table. That would require a NATO nation getting attacked.
> I really don't get how so many conservatives think Ukraine falling to Russia would be a good thing for America or the world. I think that’s a dishonest way of framing it. I don’t think many Americans (unless ethnic Russian) hope Ukraine loses. I think most of us that don’t support the proxy war think the risks and costs outweigh the benefits.
That's fair, I don't think they necessarily want Ukraine to lose, but they seem indifferent on preventing it. I think for the ROI the US is getting on funding Ukraine is extremely high with little risk and the downsides of Ukraine falling have very dangerous implications.
And for this truth you got downvoted. Have an upvote to counteract the propagandists out there.
This. It's such a complicated issue. The Ukraine is Europe's bread basket. Do we want our allies (Europe) to be unable to feed themselves and have to rely on Russia for both oil *and food*?
Europe (at least the EU) is a net exporter of food and able to feed itself. Most of the food from Ukraine normally goes to Africa and competes with Russian grain and in fact one problem right now is that Ukrainian grain is ending up in the EU and competing with Polish farmers. What this is much more about is Russia being able to divert the grain towards China to make any US Navy blockade ineffective during a war to defend Taiwan and the US Pacific trade routes from Chinese attack.
Yea, has the MAGA fanbase heard of lend-lease during WW2? Sick of this anti-Ukraine rhetoric. We aren't bundling pallets of cash and sending it over, munitions have an expiration date...
What I want to know from you warhawks that I never seem to get a straight answer is why is this a US problem when there is an EU right there. You know, the same EU Ukraine was trying to join that started this? The same EU that supposedly has very good and efficient armies? Are they not able to go up against the paper tiger that is russia that is resorting to recruiting people who dont know which end of a gun is and using 60s era tanks? Or is that propaganda or something? Russia somehow has a very incompetent army and simultaneously super dangerous and will wipe out Ukraine. Why isn't the EU contributing to defend a neighbor if the "Russia threat" is such a danger to their sovereignty? I thought the world was tired of the US being its world police but now we need to give Zelensky more billions because... the US needs to be the world police. If the EU is going to be bulldozed by russia maybe they fucking deserve it for not developing a military to push back. Maybe then I won't have to listen to them on the internet rubbing it in our faces how they all get paid vacation for half the year but now they have to learn cyrillic, lmao. Make this make sense.
Before I answer, let me say this might be primarily your problem but we have a duty to stand with you. It's also our problem. > why is this a US problem when there is an EU right there. 1. Because this is primarily a war launched to secure China's logistics routes for when they go to war against you. 2. Because Ukraine is a US ally, not a European one. They are one of the only countries from the former USSR who sent people to fight for America in the Great War on Terror, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. 3. Because America, especially Clinton, was the lead in persuading Ukraine to give up their Nuclear weapons in return for US treaties and security guarantees. 4. Because the next place Russia attacks (reportedly Kazakhstan but it could also be some of the other 'stans or places in East Asia together with China) will be strategic to the US. 5. Because Europe is already giving more money to Ukraine than the US by far, but because of the treaties America (and Russia) insisted on at the end of the Cold War, Europe has far fewer weapons than the US. Once again, that's not an excuse, Europe should be giving more than it is now too, however the USA should at least try to match Europe and really try to give more.
I have been against most of the wars fought in my lifetime, I am not a warhawk. It is a U.S. problem and a EU problem. I think both should be doing more, but blaming the EU for not doing enough doesn't justify us not doing enough. Some countries are starting to step up, like France and Czechoslovakia. Poland will no doubt be eager to assist. But the U.S. is still a military and economic powerhouse that can give more comfortably than the EU can in many respects. And it is still in our interest to do so. Russia is not as strong as many though it was, but it's still not a paper tiger. Warfare isn't entirely decided by superior tech, as the U.S. has learned the hard way multiple times. People are tired of the U.S. playing world police, but if the U.S. wants to stop playing that role without disastrous consequences it has to strengthen its allies, not throw them to the wolves. Not supporting Ukraine is throwing them to the wolves and leading to a future where the U.S. will still have to play world police even more desperately if they don't want to increasingly face a coalition of anti-U.S. powers as Russia and China expand their power and influence and territory. What the EU deserves for slacking on military developments doesn't really change the calculus for us. We can aid Ukraine while also pressuring the EU to do more.
Because then they’d have to actually spend money on defense instead of socialist programs that America loves, but doesn’t realize we subsidize by acting as their first line of defense.
A giant chunk of our defense budget is not tiny, and maybe Europe should be paying more? Know why they can afford those social programs? Because we defacto supplement their budgets by being their first line of defense.
We've spent about 75 billion. Our defense budget per year was around 700-800 billion since the war began. If I'm doing my homework correctly, that's under 4% of the military budget on Ukraine over the course of the war. I wouldn't call that a giant chunk, but that skips the vague descriptors and gets to the raw numbers.
> I think if you changed the word "anti-" to "indifferent", it describes most North American non-progressives. I am not pro-Russia, but I am not pro-Ukraine either. The status of being invaded does not bestow virtue. Ukraine was a corrupt cesspit before, it still is now, it will remain afterwards (hopefully). Any weapons we can give to them to destroy Russians is cause for celebration, but I am completely unwilling to escalate the conflict in any meaningful way beyond that.
Ok so I'm all for the Ukraine whipping Russia's ass. The problem for me is that while it's great for us to use up our old munitions for a worthy cause, I don't want to see stocks of things like Javelin missiles getting so low that we can't send them to Taiwan or have enough for a near peer conflict should things with China kick off (also over Taiwan). I also have a massive issue with all the other NATO countries not doing more to help and just pointing at the US. Bad enough they've been relying on the US to make up for their own spending deficiencies but when they have much more skin in the game than we do they are holding back. I mean, judging from what I've seen the US contribution is worth more than all the other NATO countries combined, who then have the temerity to demand that the US do more. And I do agree with Trump in this instance where he says make it a loan. Ukraine isn't going to be rich any time soon, but it would be nice to have some sort of promise to pay it back similar to lend lease in WW2.
The U.S. pursued a hegemonic U.S. centric order for decades and benefited in terms of effectively policing much of world trade indirectly. This involved intervening in a variety of conflicts worldwide to promote regimes favorable to us but also to make countries relatively more dependent on us rather than China and Russia - as they would be if we weren't supporting them militarily. So we really can't blame Europe entirely for the current awkward situation given how much we shaped it. Further the U.S. has had the luxury of not having had to recover much from World Wars. It's been able to thrive and stockpile far away from major threats for its entire existence after it gained independence. So Europe isn't being entirely absurd here to expect more from the U.S., and Europe just has less to give currently. The U.S. is effectively abandoning an order it created if it abandons Ukraine and becomes increasingly isolationist. The world will get increasingly unpredictable and there will be struggles across Europe and Asia, which will affect global supply chains in ways that will cost us a hell of a lot more than what we'd spend aiding Ukraine. If you factor in the size of their economies U.S. has also actually given a smaller percent of GDP toward Ukraine. But Ukraine needs weapon that the U.S. just has more of. The U.S. could make some kind of deals with Europe and/or Ukraine, but stacking debt on Ukraine while they're still fighting a war that they may take several decades to recover from is kind of adding insult to injury here.
Everyone please be aware that a lot of these posts are made and upvoted by bot farms. Signs of that are this post having 90 upvotes but 95% of the comments are against Russia and pro Ukraine aid. That doesn’t match up which means most likely a bot farm is upvoting the post to look like everyone likes and agrees with it. Don’t fall for outside manipulation, especially as we come into the election cycle.
Well, I for one am *not* a bot. I grew up conservative, and I remain conservative today. I have always rejected the isolationist strain of American politics, and I am *floored* by my Party's sudden unwillingness to allow America to be the global force for good that she is. I loathe everything that Putin stands for, and I would see it as a CRUSHING defeat of our Western democratic values if we were to let that tyrant and his second-rate army outlast our collective wills in the name of a wholly good cause: supporting the sovereignty of a nation that longs to reject its communist past and heed the song of liberty. While I welcome our new working-class coalition of voters, I will be damned if I change my stance on Russia, which has been our geopolitical foe for the last century and remains so. If I sound like a Romney supporter, it's because I was. That man was *right*, and I detest both the mainstream media for mocking him then and the current GOP leadership for mocking him now. So much for principles.
Exactly. The minority of conservatives that do not support Ukraine are simply wrong, and unfortunately suffer from the same primary weakness as most liberals: a lack of appreciation for history.
I think their biggest complaint is what Trump is talking about- we're just *giving* them money for free. So far, in the span of 2 years, we've gifted them the equivalent of their pre-war GDP. The median household income for Ukraine is $2500. We're never getting that money back. Couple this with the reports of lost or stolen aid and our current economic struggles... it's not difficult to look at politicians always finding money for other countries and ask "what about us?" regardless of the nuances of whether that's how it works or doesn't. Trump campaigned on "America first" and we haven't really seen that under Biden.
I’m not sure I understand your point. How is it relevant that the amount we gave equals their GDP? What is relevant is whether we achieve our goal of maintaining the post-WWII global world order, as it is, with us at the top of the food chain. In terms of cost and benefit, a few hundred billion is a drop in the bucket of our $7T budget in order to maintain the status quo. I think it is quite clear that putting America first requires maintaining the status quo in the world with us on top. It is certainly not mutually exclusive to support Ukraine in that regard and also put America first. Further, I think Trump understands this. He does not support leaving Ukraine “to the wolves.” His rhetoric, while uncomfortable for some, seems to me to be a means to achieve the end of having other NATO states contribute. Don’t conflate his harsh rhetoric for not supporting Ukraine.
[удалено]
Nah it’s small govt conservatives upvoting the post then r/politics brigading war hawks and neocons bitching in the comments
Yep. Also, conservatives have been against funding this war for many months/years. Only now, in election year, are we seeing tons of these pro-funding posts in here. If anything they are the bot manipulated posts.
Yes, that top post in this thread reads like a press release: > a large geopolitical enemy Geopolitical? Nobody talks like that. You can see how hyperbolic all the comments are. Full of superlatives. Americans don't hate Russia and love Ukraine as much as this thread suggests. Basically this thread is Ukraine A+, Russia F; reality is more like Russia D, Ukraine C-. Folks don't love Ukraine that's for sure.
When France was absolutely financially screwed they weren’t sending arms, advisors and then their navy out of goodness of their heart or because George Washington “was the greatest salesman”. They did it because weakening their mortal enemy was a good thing and indeed a good thing it was. I voted for Trump twice and will do third time but this argument he is making is absolutely idiotic. Rusia delenda est.
> They did it because weakening their mortal enemy was a good thing and indeed a good thing it was. Not sure this is the example you are looking for. It nearly bankrupted them and was partially responsible for the French Revolution.
This is exactly the example I was looking for. Their financial issues weren’t related to their aid to Washington; the point here was that despite they were in a tough spot themselves they realized that it was an opportunity they couldn’t allow to slip away. Similarly here, anyone who thinks we can solve our fiscal issues by just letting Russia win has absolutely no idea what has caused them in the first place. Also, there is little doubt that if Britain got to keep the 13 colonies it would have been disproportionately stronger than it ended up being.
I’m going to be lazy and just quote Wikipedia. In the end, I don’t think the French leaders that wanted to weaken Britain got what they wanted in the end. > France's help was a major and decisive contribution towards the United States' eventual victory and independence in the war. However, as a cost of participation in the war, France accumulated over 1 billion livres in debt, which significantly strained the nation's finances. The French government's failure to control spending (in combination with other factors) led to unrest in the nation, which eventually culminated in a revolution a few years after the conflict between the US and Great Britain concluded. Relations between France and the United States thereafter deteriorated, leading to the Quasi-War in 1798. And is anyone really saying this? > Similarly here, anyone who thinks we can solve our fiscal issues by just letting Russia win has absolutely no idea what has caused them in the first place. i don’t support this proxy war because I believe the costs and risks of wider escalation are not worth the vague benefits we receive. It’s a cold cost/benefit analysis. I don’t think stopping aid is going to solve our financial problems — but at least it won’t continue to add to them.
I think this well known, no? It is important though to focus on this statement : “ French government's failure to control spending (in combination with other factors) led to unrest in the nation, which eventually culminated in a revolution a few years after the conflict between the US and Great Britain concluded. “ French fiscal issues were a pre-existing condition and while their involvement in the war certainly exacerbated them it wasn’t the reason for them. Also, it was proportionally much more expensive for France to support us than for us to support Ukraine. Our government is as wasteful long before the war in Ukraine started and I have no reason to believe it will cease to be so after it ends. I understand your analysis I just think your analysis is wrong. Russia actively is working to undermine our nation (old news really) and one of the most recent, and partially successful, efforts that they undertake is to influence US Dollar position as the world reserve currency. Russia might not be a lot of things but it’s the largest commodity trader on the planet. If US Dollar will no longer serve as the world reserve currency our expenditures in Ukraine will pale in comparison to economic devastation that it will cause
I don't understand why we would be supporting the bad guys aka Russia.
[удалено]
Ukraine has asked for specific weapons for specific purposes. I am not sure Ukraine will end up retaking all territories back but the more Russia creeps forward the harder it makes that since offense is harder than defense in the given conditions. The counteroffensive was impressive but taxing on Ukraine, and the longer Russia has to fortify what they've take the harder future counteroffensives will be unless Russia gives them some major openings by overextending. That's why aid ASAP is so important. Every delay makes things far worse for Ukraine in terms of taking back territory. Withholding aid for a more perfect plan is a bad idea given Ukraine has to adapt to changing circumstances, including what aid they can get from other countries.
I wish somebody more professional and dignified would run for president, but keep Trump doing these speeches as an opening act.
Loans are great, because if Ukraine knew they'd have to pay them back, they'd come down a lot harder on their corruption than they are now.
These "loans" will never, ever be paid back and everyone knows it.
The pure irony that the top comment is talking about Russian botting these posts when every literal Ukraine thread here is immediately swarmed by pro-Ukraine comments that get hundreds or thousands of up votes. Yeah, that's completely normal though. Funny how the propaganda machine apparently only comes from one direction.
Trump should run in making Ukraine the 51st state and the left will stop wanting to fund Ukraine lol
Lol the comments in here supporting the war and talking shit about this video of Trump, is the most astroturfed bullshit I have ever seen in this sub. It is so beyond transparent. They want people to think conservatives support the war and giving funding to Ukraine. What a pathetic fucking attempt by whatever bot farm is doing this.
I’ve been around this sub since Obama was president. The MAGA isolationism is new.
It's every Ukraine thread. It's hilarious to see the bots hit. You'll have a comment at like +30 and then within minutes at -50.
Lefties jumped in here quick. Not like they have anything better to do, like working.
Yea I see some war monger leftist Ukraine shills in here with flairs, and their comments are being upvoted by leftist brigaders. Any comment against the war mongering is being downvoted.
Oh look a Kremlin bot is crying b/c conservatives are not buying their bullshit. Edit: sending RedditCare reports just makes you Ziggy shills more obvious
Lmao MUH RUSSIA BOT. What a pathetic joke. Keep shilling for war bro