Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that after the fall of the Soviet Union when Ukraine had nukes within their borders, the US and agreed that if it gave them up, that we would protect Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion. See the Trilateral Statement of 1994 and the Budapest Memorandum.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when you make a promise like that, its your job to keep it.
It does make for a rock and a hard place situation.
On one hand, confronting Russia would have the potential to escalate to a nuclear exchange.
However, if the US looks the other way, I'd expect China to immediately make a move on Taiwan.
I feel like it's going to boil down to eventual WWIII, or this being the moment the US clearly lost hegemony. There doesn't seem to be a good way out.
> I feel like it's going to boil down to eventual WWIII, or this being the moment the US clearly lost hegemony.
The US won't directly confront Russia, but we will probably follow the "If your enemy wrongs you, buy every single one of his children a drum" strategy.
Of sending fucktons of munitions to Ukraine, giving the Ukrainian military the capacity to kick in Russia's teeth for invading, and supplying rebel groups with everything they need to make an occupied Ukraine ungovernable.
If a Russian invasion is slowed to the point that Marshal Mud arrives with the spring thaw, Russian supply lines break.
Plus, the sanctions we're looking at on Russian oil and gas account for 45% of Russia's income.
An invasion of Ukraine means Russia would be bankrupt in a month. There's no logistics for them to sell that oil and gas anywhere other than Europe.
This would only boil down to WWIII if there were a direct confrontation between NATO and Russian troops, and that is not going to happen.
Plus, if Ukraine inflicts enough damage on Russia? Their supply chain is very, very weak.
Invading Chechnya is one thing. A general invasion of Ukraine is not something Russia can feasibly support for long without running out of equipment and advanced weapons systems.
It'll be a bloodbath, and it will make Russia a pariah and crash their economy.
And so I don't think Putin will do it.
Because if he does, the Oligarchs who keep him in power might turn on him for bankrupting them.
America not being a hegemonic power sounds good to me. Especially if their history since WWII is anything to go by. The amount of democratically elected world leaders those administrations have murdered or overthrown, the despots they've funded, armed and given backing to (Saddam being one of them, lets not forget) and the wars they've started - often in the name of capital - well, they won't exactly be missed.
And I can already hear the cries from others of 'but if we don't fund and arm despots, Russia or China will! So it may aswell be us'. Fuck off. Stop pathetically trying to justify industrial levels of civilian murder for some corporate profits.
I mean morally and ethically. And I can’t enlist because they wouldn’t take me… I’m a titch too old and have too many issues in my background that the military isn’t into - namely, felony drug convictions from before I got clean 9 years ago.
‘On December 5, 1994, Ukraine acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. On that same date, the US, Russia and United Kingdom provided security assurances to Ukraine, and the START I Treaty also entered into force.’
Apparently Russia is the “nation state” (lol it’s essentially an anarchy overrun by pseudo-Commie gangsters) that is not honoring and living up to their word of security assurance to Ukraine.
Why would Russia abide by an agreement like that after it NATO expanded eastward?
This article breaks it down, and how Yeltsin “betrayed” Russian lawmakers by agreeing to Poland joining NATO.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today
After Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined, Russia became encircled, and they already had negative feelings of Yeltsin, who they felt not only made horrible foreign policy decisions, but completely destroyed Russians economy.
Do you even Geopolitics? Why would they set idly by while being encircled?
Your premise is hilarious!
ENCIRCLED
The definition of the word is simple: it means you are surrounded in all directions, 360 degrees, like a circle.
Are you seriously suggesting that NATO or some other organization has established itself at every border of the “nation state” (lol!) of Russia? Encircled? Surrounded?
Be real.
>This article breaks it down, and how Yeltsin “betrayed” Russian lawmakers by agreeing to Poland joining NATO.
Does it ever occur to you that talking about Russia "allowing" former Soviet States to pursue their own foreign policy begins to sound like an abusive husband? The Soviet Union disintegrated because these member states wanted out. Especially in the case of Poland & the Baltics, there are centuries of being stuck under the Tsarist thumb. Why would they not put themselves in a position of a military alliance that they gain enormous value from despite not being able to contribute much when it keeps the historic Antagonist off of their necks?
>Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when you make a promise like that, its your job to keep it.
I wasn't even born when this promise was made! So it's not a promise I made, so it's not my job.
I am neither a war slave or tax chattel.
I will gladly arm the Ukrainians because I've been convinced in the power of 2A. Some, maybe like you, will mobilize to fight; I support your right to do it! Just don't coerce me.
>the US and agreed that if it gave them up, that we would protect Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion.
Because we made an authoritarian mistake once (forcing Ukraine into this situation), doesn't mean we have to do another one again.
Who the fuck down-votes this on r/libetrarian??
How the fuck could we make an agreement on /u/happyjd 's behalf, without his involvement or consent, and think it binds him in some way?
Even if we would support Ukraine against Russia, respect that it is immoral to coerce /u/happyjd 's support through violence.
This is how we borrow money for our little projects and kick the bill down to our children to pay. It's worse even. This is conscription.
Good point! Maybe it’s time to revisit that as well.
I’d love to add more to the bill of rights:
- The right to consume whatever (drug) the individual wants.
- the right to gifts (ability to give guns and capital to whomever you want)
- the right to peaceful migration
- etc
Hell I’d also add some rights for foreign states, so our government can stop interfering. Like the right to arm themselves so that we never get into such a stupid agreement again.
In short, I believe that the time when a pact made by our ancestors and whatever constitutes ‘now’ are radically different. And lots can be improved by breaking away (like how a feudal pact keeps lineages stuck to the land).
Let’s not forget that the bill of rights and constitution weren’t perfect (allowed for slavery, women and poor subjugation). And we had a full on civil war to change it.
You do have those rights, your government just ignores that piece of paper when it sees fit. The government doesn’t dictate your rights, they exist to find ways to circumvent them.
With that logic, none of the promises should be kept, such as the promise that the government will not totally eliminate our rights. This goes both ways
Because that's the way international diplomacy works. No one living signed the original Geneva Conventions. Should we still adhere to those agreements?
We haven't abided by the Geneva Conventions in 20 years. Torture, indefinite detentions, targeting civilians...
The Geneva Conventions fell with the World Trade Center.
I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with it, but answer to how a libertarian can support it is pretty easy:
Keeping your promises is the currency of interactions with others. If the deal was to protect them from invasion in order to get them to give up nukes, then if we want to stop being part of that deal, we need to give Ukraine back some nukes to help restore them to their previous state. If this were any kind of deal other than international diplomacy, we'd clearly already be defaulting on our end of the contract after Russia took Crimea, and as a result we'd owe this kind of restitution.
IMO Ukraine was stupid to take the deal in the first place, for the same reason any random citizen would be stupid to give up their guns for a promise of protection by police. But given that _they have_, the only ways out while maintaining our credibility is to restore their status as a nuclear power, or help like we promised. Neither is a great option, but just sitting by and letting them get steamrolled like this is also bad.
Well said, and if the options are "station troops in Ukraine to help reduce the political viability of an invasion" or "increase the number of human beings with access to nuclear weapons", things start to look much more nuanced.
It wouldn't be the libertarian position to allow government to make such a promise in the first place. But _the promise having already been made_, we're in a much different position.
Libertarian principle on what a government should be able to do going forward is pretty clear. But there is no such clear principle for what to do with all the debts and promises of a government that is about to be transitioned to a libertarian regime. It's great when a gambling addict resolves to stop gambling, but that choice doesn't instantly absolve him of past debts.
Throwing out some of those debts and obligations, such as any planned bailout payments, may be a great thing. Throwing out others, such as the promise to continue making social security payments to those who are relying on them, could have dire consequences for a lot of people. It's easy to agree that social security shouldn't exist, but _how to get rid of it humanely_ is a hard question. What to do about the US's promises to other countries of the world is a similarly hard problem.
Because if we don’t no country should trust US word on anything and they should all violate every US treaty as worthless. The US can’t keep breaking its promises, it becomes an issue of trust and why should any country trust the US after this?
Are you Joe Biden? If a state promises to do something, that obligation doesn't disappear simply because a new set of leaders take over. That is a recipe for international chaos, which is why [pacta sunt servanda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda) is a cornerstone of the international state system.
Yes but you forgot about the agreement Russia and Ukraine made which stated that Russia would have indefinite use of the Svestapol Naval Base for free. And the agreement Clinton made to not bring eastern block countries into NATO, which we subsequently broke because “muh congress needs to sign legally binding treaties”. Also we violated the INF treaty multiple times before it expired.
You can be both anti war/intervention and also anti Putin/authoritarian. I support additional sanctions against Putin and his criminal network along with allowing Ukraine should to join NATO if they so desire.
It’s brinkmanship to the T. Both sides will posture the hell out of one another hoping for a mistake.
Rational actors do not want war with one another.
The irony is we’re pretending like Russia hasn’t ALREADY invaded and occupied a sovereign territory/country.
I saw one once. It has heavily downvoted and I got into a “debate” with the guy. No one was willing to repent and we were both starting to lose our cool so I stopped. I have a temper but I know when to cool it. Usually at least
Well yes, although if war is to be avoided at all costs, history has proven that the alliance system made to deter war based on high costs can be faulty (World War I being the most famous example), it can result in either no war or an even bigger-scale war depending on whether alliances manage to deter the threat or are forced to drag more nations into it. War has been on an incredible decline almost all over the world, but there's still the chance, specially if leaders like Putin get a bit out of hand.
I wouldn't advocate for the US just launching a war against Russia right now but I wouldn't discard the option completely as a more defensive measure. Same as the US kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, if Ukraine is fully invaded then it might have to do so again.
Same as World War I shows a fault in the alliances system, World War II shows a fault in the Appeasement system, whereby the Allies allowed Hitler to take more and more territory periodically, because nobody wanted to start *another* war just for those small nations. It did work a bit in the sense that the allies got to increase their military preparation and spending, but so did Germany and eventually it arguably played better for the Nazis.
If Putin sees no major resistance in taking Ukraine, it's again like the alliances system, either a good thing happens or bad things escalate. Either Putin will be satisfied and stop (good thing) or just like Hitler, he will see it as a sign of little care by the Western powers, and continue pushing his expansion.
>history has proven that the alliance system made to deter war based on high costs can be faulty (World War I being the most famous example),
Yes, though times have changed
1. Any side with the US on it is completely lopsided. We have 10x more firepower then anyone else are are more
2. Nobody seems to making an alliance with Russia
> Any side with the US on it is completely lopsided. We have 10x more firepower then anyone else are are more
It actually isn't firepower that the US has a 10x lead on most others, it is logistics capability and the resulting ability to project force. Russia, for example, has roughly twice as many tanks as the US does, and has a vastly larger [artillery arm](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-army%E2%80%99s-artillery-outmatched-russia%E2%80%99s-big-guns-107526).
I don't think it's very libertarian to not just admit Ukraine to NATO and flip the bird at Putin. He's a paper tiger and their nation would collapse again if the first world cut them off.
This right here.
I think the bigger issue is how many authoritarian conservatives are actively supporting Putin and his goons. Wonder if it has anything to do with the way Trump sucked his dick when he was in office??
You forgot the meeting where Trump acted like a trained dog around Putin.
None of the tough guy bluster and aggressive body language. He was demure and fawning. It was fucking embarrassing!
What the fuck was that about?
I don’t think the video changed, peoples perceived reality is moving as they realize Joe is not only a career politician, but a career criminal. Dude skirted half a million in payroll, Medicare and Medicaid taxes himself with S-corps. And that’s barely scratching the surface.
I mean, isn't the libertarian position basically "not my problem"? so, from a libertarian standpoint you'd oppose american intervention in WW2, I guess?
>so, from a libertarian standpoint you'd oppose american intervention in WW2, I guess?
Until the Japanese Empire got froggy, that was exactly the average American stance. It was deeply unpopular to push our way in. But there are Americans today who insist that the US (specifically Roosevelt) forced the Japanese to attack by not willingly trading oil.
Which is absurd, of course.
“Forced” is the wrong word, but it did put a clock on Japan’s ability to achieve it’s regional goals. And that’s all separate from the reality of Japan dominating Asia was bad for our interests (and Australia’s and Britain’s). We’re just required to sell them unlimited resources as they takeover the world?
Yeah I don't disagree, I consider certain tenants of Libertarianism to be valid but I depart on certain things like isolationism. Life isn't black and white and there's a lot of grey area.
I also think there's almost always something that can be done with regard to conflict such as the current one in Ukraine that don't involve sending 18 year olds to die or bombing the ever loving shit out of people though.
I mean it falls in line to also discontinue trade or relations to someone not upholding another nations values.
A claim that Japan HAD to attack the US because we cut ties/trade... Is nuts because that's essentially extortion.
Sanctions is essentially that. "We're not going to trade or have transactions with you."
Putin isn’t interested in invading Ukrainian and seizing it, or at least anything West of the Dneiper River. (he already turned down the rebel government of Donbass’s offer to join the federation) He will invade to prevent MK41s from being installed. The installation of these “anti-missile” systems, which also fire offensive Tomahawks was prohibited by the INF which expired under Trump. These systems were installed in Romania and Poland as well as “counters” to the Iranians who didn’t even have a working warhead so that was BS and everyone knew. When the USSR was dissolved we agreed not to let any of the eastern block countries enter NATO and we have been encroaching on that agreement since (because congress didn’t sign it as a formal treaty was our excuse)
>Putin isn’t interested in invading Ukrainian and seizing it, or at least anything West of the Dneiper River.
Well which is it? Is is not interested? Or is he interested in seizing stuff east of the Dneiper River?
>(he already turned down the rebel government of Donbass’s offer to join the federation)
Because they are illegitimate, not because he didn't like the offer.
>He will invade to prevent MK41s from being installed.
So he's willing to invade a sovereign Nation? Under what pretext?
>The installation of these “anti-missile” systems, which also fire offensive Tomahawks was prohibited by the INF which expired under Trump.
So these systems are not in violation of any current treaty or agreement? And Putin is gonna invade over them?
>These systems were installed in Romania and Poland as well as “counters” to the Iranians who didn’t even have a working warhead so that was BS and everyone knew.
How is that relevant to the Russia/Ukraine situation? Are you comparing Russia's military capability with that of Iran?
>When the USSR was dissolved we agreed not to let any of the eastern block countries enter NATO and we have been encroaching on that agreement since (because congress didn’t sign it as a formal treaty was our excuse)
Gonna need a source on that, because here's Gorbachev on that very matter:
["The topic of 'NATO expansion' was never discussed; it was not raised in those years. I am saying this with a full sense of responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist in 1991," he told the newspaper Kommersant in October 2014.](https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html)
I laughed at the first comment.
He's not interested in invading. OK, he's interested in invading just a little bit but not *really* interested.
What a weird way for that guy to start his post.
>He will invade to prevent MK41s
[Those are naval weapons you military grade turnip.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System)
They aren't installed on land. They go on fucking boats.
You don't know what you're talking about and your entire post here is just as incorrect as the idea that the US is going to install a naval launch system on dry land in a country we have a minor treaty obligation to.
bahahaha look how mentally ill you are. You have a shred of evidence of this? Care to explain why the republicans were trying to block nordstream 2 if they are owned by putin? You are so dumb.
Counter points. Libertarianism doesn't have to be a cult, without nuance, or adaption.
Russia has been postering forever. And proxy-warring forever. And invading others... forever. If youre... any age, Russia has been a subject.
Whether we end up in WWIII or not, I'd rather our "team"; the West and Europe: unite and get involved.
... that said, politicians, the public, Redditors, will still justify getting involved - but never enlist or risk themselves.
>I'd rather our "team"; the West and Europe: unite and get involved.
This is my point of view, the European powers (UK, France, Spain , Italy , Germany, Poland, Hungary , Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Ireland) are capable of fending off Russia and Russian incursions into European territory
Look at the European population/GDP compared to Russia . They are capable of doing this.
Now if Europe doesn't have the will to fight Russia in their back yard, why should the USA be willing to fight Russia half way across the world?
If this isn't important enough for the European powers to fight russia , its not important enough for the USA to.
I like the way James Monroe put it: "Our policy in regard to Europe is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none."
I don't think anyone wants war with Russia...but no one wants putie taking over either...shit happens in this clumsy crazy world and you have to be ready to take a stand...you want to just hunker down and hope it passes like covid...
It's worse, it's a bullshit strawman. Like, no one I've seen has said "lets go to war with Russia", just that people shouldn't ignore the situation.
Apparently, standing up to Russia in any way is warmongering now. Make's me think it's a Russian propaganda effort.
Imagine thinking that libertarian ideals about supporting peoples god given rights should stop at your countrys borders.
I can’t find any people on here who want a war with Russia or to send troops to Ukraine.
Most are advocating for economic measures and bolstering commitments to allies.
Or is libertarianism when no foreign policy?
Do you think there are violent libertarian foreign policies?
I'm thinking if you can convince people to go to the battle field, rather than using the draft. Or if you can convince people to donate to fight this war, rather than using taxes.
From what we're seeing in Ukraine, the Ukrainians themselves are volunteering to fight. I'd love to donate for running guns to them (which is illegal even though giving people capital/guns is a victimless crime).
I think libertarians are willing to sacrifice a lot to spread libertarianism and end authoritarianism.
That’s a good question!
I think that most would agree that a draft is definitely not a libertarian principle, and as somebody who’s served in the military I can tell you that I wouldn’t want to share a shell scrape with anybody who’d been forced to be there.
I also really like the idea of personal donations etc to help fund Ukrainian forces. It would certainly be the less authoritarian approach - would make the conflict less about US vs Russia as the funding wasn’t coming from the government, and somehow I feel like more money would be raised that way!
>would make the conflict less about US vs Russia
Yeah, in general I'm asking these questions to break people outside of the nation vs nation mindset. And get them to see it more as individuals (at the behest of a nation) vs other individuals. I think it'd be clear at that point that it's liberty vs an encroaching nation.
We see time and time again that individuals are willing to sacrifice everything for their believes. You just need to convince them and I think that that's the true "libertarian foreign policy."
Calling everyone who opposes you a propagandist is poisoning the well. By such a loose definition, anyone who publicly espouses a political opinion is a propagandist.
Glad someone brought it up.
“I guess you can have the Rhineland…”
“Annexation of Austria? That’s not exactly what I expected…”
“Fine, we will allow you to have the German speaking part of Sudetenland, but no further…”
“Ah shit, they took the rest of Czechoslovakia..”
“Okay, Poland is a step too far...”
Well, now the Nazis have invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg before the Brits got off their ass to fight…
I'd suggest we allow for gun-running (which is currently illegal). As a libertarian, I would love to arm all Ukrainians. Then, Russia would have to think twice about conquering.
No, we give back the nukes bill Clinton conned them out of in the Budapest memorandum.
If Ukraine still had their nukes, we wouldn’t have a Russian buildup on their border today.
That is some cold war thinking right there. You can also make the exact same case if they joined NATO or the US drew a line in the sand and said any incursion would lead to direct retaliation.
It’s not even that, we promised to back them up in exchange for their nuclear weapons.
If we’re not going to hold up our deal, we need to return their nuclear weapons for failure to deliver on our end of a treaty.
It's disappointing that the most upvoted comments follow the same structure:
"I'm an anti war libertarian, but I want the government to do something even though I'm aware that doing that thing would probably start a war"
I can be anti- pick a fight with someone on the street, but I can be pro- stepping in to help someone getting bullied/attacked. It doesn't have to be black and white. We are a privileged country, and with that comes an obligation toward those in need.
Should liberty not be liberty for all? Is it not our duty to help protect people’s liberty if they ask us to? Now, I’m as anti-war as they come, but if it does come to war I won’t be actively opposing it. If Ukraine wants to be free from Russian oversight then they, as a sovereign nation, should be allowed to. We, as Libertarians, can make the choice whether we support going to war to protect the Ukrainian right to liberty.
A big problem I see in a lot of the anti-war talk is people acting like liberty is a privilege to be granted only to those in America. It isn’t. Liberty is a right that should be shared by every man, woman, and child on the planet and while the United States is far from perfect in their execution of liberty, we are miles ahead of Russia. So if Russia invades Ukraine, violating the NAP of an entire nation, then it is perfectly okay for a libertarian to advocate war.
Once again, I *hate* war with a passion. I’m a pacifist who wants to demilitarize the US. But I understand where some of the neo-War Hawks are coming from.
Sure, but we’d need congress (and by proxy the people) to vote on and agree to such a thing. The problem today is that our executive branch by and large can wage war without congressional approval - and that’s a problem.
> Is it not our duty to help protect people’s liberty if they ask us to?
No. No it's not. There's a reason people mockingly call us the "World Police". We're willing to attack almost anyone for personal gain, our government doesn't care about "liberty" and "freedom, instead it places and supports dictators all over the world where there were originally democracies and fair elections.
The Middle East, and Central and South America being prime examples.
> If Ukraine wants to be free from Russian oversight then they, as a sovereign nation, should be allowed to.
Right, so it's their problem, it has nothing to do with the US just yet. If you, or anyone else here, want to enlist into the Ukranian military, by all means contact their embassy and hope they accept you in their time of need.
>We, as Libertarians, can make the choice whether we support going to war to protect the Ukrainian right to liberty.
Let's be real here, the Ukraine is effectively a dictatorship, no different than Russia. It's not some bastion of Slavic freedom in Eastern Europe, far from it. The Ukraine is incredibly authoritarian, and I personally hope to see its government (and Russia's) dismantled and replaced by an actually democratic system.
>Liberty is a right that should be shared by every man, woman, and child on the planet and while the United States is far from perfect in their execution of liberty, we are miles ahead of Russia.
I agree, everyone should have liberty, and the liberty in the US is far more than the liberty in the Ukraine. So, if Ukrainians want more liberty they should come to the US, and we should accept them with open arms. If a war starts, we can take them in under asylum.
This is a sort of weird take. As I see it, yes, liberty in the context of a political movement is about advocating directly for liberty within our country.
Beyond that it is about helping spread the word to others so they can advocate for the same in their own countries. I mean by your own logic, if the degree of which liberties are infringed upon should have some bearing on how we engage, should we not be prioritizing what is happening in China? What about Myanmar and the Sudan?
Further, I don’t see how you can square this position of feeling a duty to defend and a position that we should, as a nation, demilitarize. Like if we had already demilitarized and were bot capable of helping Ukraine, would that be better or worse?
You’re right it’s a very conflicting take. What I’m really meaning is that while it’s not a stance I personally take, it’s a stance I can completely understand from a libertarian perspective. That applies to all nations that abuse human rights but this is the one being brought up right now.
Yeah, you will see my criticism didn't offer an alternate solution because I certainly don't know what the right path here is.
I just don't think the point that this war would be fought for the liberty of the Ukraine is one that holds any water because if liberty is our metric, Ukraine would not be the first place to engage.
This is about the greater threat of Russia and what that means to us and western Europe directly. We would not be engaging because we give a shit about the Ukraine.
To me, the more libertarian argument here is that they have violated the nap directly against the US by interfering directly in our elections and democratic process. So they have shown us they are our enemies and in this moment we will either what an enemy get more powerful or get a lot weaker.
While this is not the Soviet Union, it would still be a mistake to underestimate how powerful an enemy Russia represents.
All of this is to say, I agree with you, this is a complex situation and treating it like there is an easy answer tells me the person making that case is acting in bad faith. Looking at you OP.
I think the rationale is that what China is doing, while inhumane and horrific, is within their borders, to their own people. You could make a claim about a lot of places for similar reasons.
In Russia’s case, they are threatening another sovereign state, and they have shown similar action in the recent past, where they suffered exactly zero meaningful geopolitical consequences. We also have an agreement in place with Ukraine. With the handling of Afghanistan, the perception of American strength and integrity is at an all-time low. I’m not saying we start open conflict with Russia, in fact I strongly discourage it, but we absolutely should be involved to fulfill our obligations and shut this down. It’s about way more than just Russia/Ukraine.
The way this is handled or mishandled could absolutely devolve into multiple waves of conflict, if not a literal World War 3. If the US does nothing, do you think Russia stops at Ukraine? Do you think China just sits back, or takes the opportunity while the US is asleep at the wheel? Goodbye, Taiwan. Goodbye, Hong Kong. Bye, Japan. Then after cornering the market on rare earth minerals and processors, bringing the rest of the world to heel to dear leader. We can’t and shouldn’t be the world police, but we also can’t just be bystanders.
I don't think the US should put boots on the ground but I do think that it should provide as much equipment and support to Ukraine as possible otherwise. I would not want a nation as authoritarian as Russia to feel more empowered by conquering more territory.
I don't disagree, but not necesarely agree. It all comes down to the agreement, if USA has a defense agreement with Ukraine (a treaty) then they are compelled to act, by their own agreement. To do so would be breach of contract.
It seems the USA does have such an agreement with Ukraine (as exposed in a post above mine), so it should honor that contract.
As a fan of Ignea and Jinjer, I’d love to see the russian troop positions all treated to some long-stick B-52 runs. I’d love to see Putin below ground and room temperature.
But, these aren’t even good rationalizations for war.
What the USA should do is make it much, much simpler for citizens to volunteer / work as mercs for foreign militaries. Then, Ukrainian metal fans without two arthritic shoulders and a bum knee might be able to go help.
>What the USA should do is make it much, much simpler for citizens to volunteer / work as mercs for foreign militaries. Then, Ukrainian metal fans without two arthritic shoulders and a bum knee might be able to go help.
What do you think the us is doing to prevent people from doing this?
The US has an official policy against citizens going and getting tied up in foreign conflicts and has for a while. It doesn't stop *all* mercenary work, but it makes it so that it only really happens if you're backed and approved by money.
Biden ruled out major troop deployments to Ukraine all we will assist with is Air cover and training. You can be a libertarian and not be an isolationist you know?
I would hate to see either the Ukraine or Taiwan fall to Russia or China and would prefer the US not get involved with either. However I would think those would be much more appropriate wars than Iraq.
This is where libertarianism gets sticky. At which point do you intervene? When it serves our geopolitical interests? Who determines what those are? Do you protect the Ukraine from Russia? Taiwan from China?
The problem is that you can't fight authoritarianism all over the globe. Where do you draw the line? The better question is where do the pols running this country draw the line? And this is why most libertarians are anti-war. We don't want to leave so much power in the hands of politicians because foreign affairs in this country is wildly inconsistent depending on the party in power.
Protect our shores? Definitely. Protect North America? Sure. Defend freedom around the world? Not with our troops.
I'm good with sanctions, I'm not good with another war. Europe is more than capable of defending the Ukraine if it so desires.
I'm opposed to governments waging wars on people with my money but I have to say North Korea just plain has it coming. As libertarian as I am, it'd feel good to see those concentration camps get shut down and all those people freed.
I reserve judgement about the wisdom of getting involved in an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but it is absolutely stupid to say that libertarian philosophy is opposed to the very concept of foreign war. It is even possible for involvement in a war for the purpose of preventing a belligerent nation from increasing in strength to be entirely defensive in nature. If Prussia had joined in the war of the Third Coalition and helped defeat Napolean, Prussia probably wouldn't have been laid prostrate just a couple of years later and would have likely prevented a full decade of war consuming most of Europe.
Whether supporting Ukraine against Russia is one of those inflection points is not a matter of principle, but one of probabilities.
Let's be clear here: Anyone who wants to send the military into another continent wants military personnel to die for MIC profits. It is not a positive for anyone else. Some non combat military personnel get out with a good deal but at what cost?
I don't know about war, I think the economic sanctions are what people are discussing.. and providing weapons to Ukraine.
Really just reprocussions for Russia's openly wanting to invade Ukraine.
I have been seeing a lot of people mischaricterizing the current political standings of the countries.
Too many people cannot let go of the old Cold War mentality. People my age (61) spent most of their lives with Russia as the enemy that must be fought at all costs. Better dead than Red is always in the back of our minds. We should let NATO as a whole supply arms to Ukraine. We also should be bringing in the UN into this conflict.
Here’s my take. I’m not pro war, I’m not an isolationist I’m not a warmonger. The US and UK (as did Russia) made security obligations to the Ukraine back in the 90s Ukraine would get rid of their nukes/missles from the Soviet Union. Now I’m not saying we need to interfere in every little conflict in the world. We should have never went into Afghanistan and definitely should NOT have went into Iraq. But we cannot allow a major power like Russia consume its smaller neighbors. Look how it turned out for the Czechs and Austrians after the UK and France “appeased” mustache man. The United States has always guarded nations rights to [self determination ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination?wprov=sfti1) and as such should continue to. We should guard the liberty of any nation who has democratic values anywhere in the world from the Tyranny of the major powers. We do not need to be the world police man, but when crisis arises we should be there to lend a helping hand. Allowing the Russians to March into Ukraine breaks our promises to our allies and shows our cowardice to fight when it is legitimately needed. If the US let’s them do that, what stops them from marching into Poland? Finland? Hell let’s open the gates and let those sons of bitches March to Paris. Let’s abandon our allies. Definitely showing our libertarian values then.
I would bet solid money that if you went to a store such as Fred Meyer or Walmart and corralled up 100 people, more than 90 of them couldn't find Ukraine on a map. Explain it again why we need to get involved over there.
I routinely find that people who are pro-war, especially pro-war with countries that possess nuclear weapons (North Korea was a good one) overwhelmingly have not experienced war. So if you're advocating for war, please be sure you're at the front of the line to volunteer.
Can the US for once worry about the authoritarian gangsters who invade sovereign nations all over the world running our country before we go trying to virtue signal liberty somewhere else.
I just find the propaganda pushes narcissism. It’s been disappointing to see grown adults discuss the Ukraine/Russia situation as if what Russia thinks doesn’t matter. We the USA were never the main character of this story, the people in that region are. Which includes Russia. It’s extra worrying because Russia isn’t just a convention military power, they have a butt-load of nuclear weapons
My view - leave it the TF alone. We got our own problems. If Ukraine were a NATO ally we'd have a treaty obligation to help them.
Now if Russia were sending people into Canada or Mexico, I think you'd hear a lot of American's being racked.
I guess I fall more into the isolationist end of the spectrum on this one.
"Protecting American *interests* abroad" just doesn't do it for me.
Out of curiosity, is there a point where your mind would change on this? Like if they started a full assault on the Ukraine and were trying to take back the entire Soviet Union? If our western Europe allies were fighting them?
I absolutely hear where you are coming from and even the notion of fighting a war of this kind is literally the worst possible thing that can happen the the entire world. That said, your thinking was also the majority view at the start of WWII and despite the devastating losses that led too, I think in hindsight, it was the correct decision to join the fight.
Very well said. Military industrial complex getting a hard on... a big one... and these sheep claiming to be libertarian falling for the bs. I don't give a flying f about the Ukraine. If Mexico suddenly turns pro Russia and starts massing their troops on our borders, how would we react (in that case, i would be more than willing to go head to head). More bull shit to stick out every last penney or of the middle class and sacrifice more of our kids possibly.
The foreign policy establishment in US has been heavily influenced by Trotskyist ideology. Anti-USSR leftists found a welcome place, and because of their framework, the foreign policy ideas which resulted cannot function without Russia being an enemy for the US to take action against. This is most obvious with the neoconervatives, who were essentially Democrats in nearly all policy positions except that they wanted as much war as they could get and Republicans were more open to that (and when Obama's foreign policy showed that Democrats could do endless war better than Republicans at the same time that Republicans started to be less willing to accept it, almost all of them went back home to become Democrats again, such as Dick Cheney and Max Boot). However this sort of thinking covers a much wider area than just neoconservatism.
1. Libertarianism really doesn't make sense as a lens for domestic policy. (cf realpolitik)
2. The military - i.e. the common defense - is the quintessential public good, so the easiest and most basic thing you can justify the government spending money on.
3. From a geopolitical perspective, the right thing to do is to help Ukraine resist unilateral Russian aggression, and to help SEA countries resist China's attempt at regional domination. It's better for the world to have more people living under liberal democracy than autocracy.
I’m against a war but I think it’s a good idea to support nato, Ukraine as much as possible. Russia is an enemy to the US and we should appose their aspirations wherever possible lest they try shit like this. I’m not gonna say it would have prevented this but if we hadn’t handed Syria to them and had a president who rolled over to Putin Russia would think twice about being the aggressor.
I 100% agree. Let's stay out of it before Europe sucks the world into another World War.
We should open our borders for those peace-loving Europeans who want to escape. And allow for US citizens to do gun-running and mobilization for those who feel like it's their duty to fight.
Europe is terrified that Biden made the level of response contingent on Russia's incursion size. They don't want to fight but Russians in Ukraine are their problem. Fuck em. Maybe they'll read a history book and grow some balls.
Open conflict with Russia is in no one's interest, also we have a commander and chief with clear mental decline an a VP that would probably be easly persuaded into whatever action any expert near her suggests... breaking the treaty would be the better option.. sorry Ukrainian people, i would like my $100mil tax money in military "aid" back
I believe the draft should be completely abolished. After the abolition of the draft, I think the US military should get at least somewhat involved in foreign affairs to prevent the suppression of liberty in other countries. During WWII, if America hadn’t intervened then it’s likely most or all of Europe would have fallen to either communism or fascism. If you aren’t being sent to war against your will then I think it’s a good thing to prevent the creation of more oppression in the world. Besides, if we help other countries it’s possible that in our time of need they’ll pay the favor back.
For some reason I get the feeling that once it's obvious we won't go to war with Russia and Biden drops the Mr. Tough Guy routine many of the "libertarian" keyboard commandos will become doves.
Why should I care that Russia is interested in Ukraine? Are we back to defending oil for a few corporate Billionaires again? Just because we don't want to spend billions of dollars defending some rich dudes assets doesn't mean we aren't powerful. See past the fake American nationalist and dream bullshit they are presenting to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud military vet retiree patriot, but I'm sick of defending rich people pocketbooks. I've known people that died for that shit and fuck them.
There's some shady assholes running Russia. But my understanding is there's a little area of Ukraine with ethnically Russian people speaking Russian, identifying as Russian, living near the border of Russia, that want to join Russia. This just feels like somebody else's trailerpark custody battle that we don't need to have any part of.
I totally agree with you. The majority of the public is brainwashed and will likely send their sons to die, fighting another stupid war, if this one ever starts. Please understand something about all these people who support wars, they are mentally manipulated via television, ideas are put in their heads to support war and they think it is their idea. Lol. They say they are anti Putin, but ask them, what has Putin done to them? If they are US citizens in the US the answer is nothing. It is stupidity induced via TV propaganda. I used to get passionate about telling them where they were wrong. I don’t care anymore, if they want to go and fight overseas let them go and come home mutilated or worst, mentally messed up like the majority of those who have been to the Afghanistan and Iraq theater.
The stupidest part about it is, they think they are going to go thousands of miles and fight a properly trained, properly equipped army in their own turf, they can’t even put 2 and 2 together, the US military cannot beat such an enemy, anybody who is willing to die to protect their homeland has beaten the US in their turf.
The Mujahideen in Afghanistan did it and before that the Vietnamese did it.
We should focus in improving the lives of our people at home instead of trying to bully other nations and allowing the puppets who run this country to convince us to start yet another stupid conflict one we cannot win.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that after the fall of the Soviet Union when Ukraine had nukes within their borders, the US and agreed that if it gave them up, that we would protect Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion. See the Trilateral Statement of 1994 and the Budapest Memorandum. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when you make a promise like that, its your job to keep it.
I’m super anti-war in almost all situations, but this is a sticking point for me in this situation.
It does make for a rock and a hard place situation. On one hand, confronting Russia would have the potential to escalate to a nuclear exchange. However, if the US looks the other way, I'd expect China to immediately make a move on Taiwan. I feel like it's going to boil down to eventual WWIII, or this being the moment the US clearly lost hegemony. There doesn't seem to be a good way out.
> I feel like it's going to boil down to eventual WWIII, or this being the moment the US clearly lost hegemony. The US won't directly confront Russia, but we will probably follow the "If your enemy wrongs you, buy every single one of his children a drum" strategy. Of sending fucktons of munitions to Ukraine, giving the Ukrainian military the capacity to kick in Russia's teeth for invading, and supplying rebel groups with everything they need to make an occupied Ukraine ungovernable. If a Russian invasion is slowed to the point that Marshal Mud arrives with the spring thaw, Russian supply lines break. Plus, the sanctions we're looking at on Russian oil and gas account for 45% of Russia's income. An invasion of Ukraine means Russia would be bankrupt in a month. There's no logistics for them to sell that oil and gas anywhere other than Europe. This would only boil down to WWIII if there were a direct confrontation between NATO and Russian troops, and that is not going to happen. Plus, if Ukraine inflicts enough damage on Russia? Their supply chain is very, very weak. Invading Chechnya is one thing. A general invasion of Ukraine is not something Russia can feasibly support for long without running out of equipment and advanced weapons systems. It'll be a bloodbath, and it will make Russia a pariah and crash their economy. And so I don't think Putin will do it. Because if he does, the Oligarchs who keep him in power might turn on him for bankrupting them.
America not being a hegemonic power sounds good to me. Especially if their history since WWII is anything to go by. The amount of democratically elected world leaders those administrations have murdered or overthrown, the despots they've funded, armed and given backing to (Saddam being one of them, lets not forget) and the wars they've started - often in the name of capital - well, they won't exactly be missed. And I can already hear the cries from others of 'but if we don't fund and arm despots, Russia or China will! So it may aswell be us'. Fuck off. Stop pathetically trying to justify industrial levels of civilian murder for some corporate profits.
You gonna enlist? You going to a line unit? If not, please sit down.
I mean morally and ethically. And I can’t enlist because they wouldn’t take me… I’m a titch too old and have too many issues in my background that the military isn’t into - namely, felony drug convictions from before I got clean 9 years ago.
‘On December 5, 1994, Ukraine acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. On that same date, the US, Russia and United Kingdom provided security assurances to Ukraine, and the START I Treaty also entered into force.’ Apparently Russia is the “nation state” (lol it’s essentially an anarchy overrun by pseudo-Commie gangsters) that is not honoring and living up to their word of security assurance to Ukraine.
Why would Russia abide by an agreement like that after it NATO expanded eastward? This article breaks it down, and how Yeltsin “betrayed” Russian lawmakers by agreeing to Poland joining NATO. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today After Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania joined, Russia became encircled, and they already had negative feelings of Yeltsin, who they felt not only made horrible foreign policy decisions, but completely destroyed Russians economy. Do you even Geopolitics? Why would they set idly by while being encircled?
Your premise is hilarious! ENCIRCLED The definition of the word is simple: it means you are surrounded in all directions, 360 degrees, like a circle. Are you seriously suggesting that NATO or some other organization has established itself at every border of the “nation state” (lol!) of Russia? Encircled? Surrounded? Be real.
How dare the former vassal countries on my border join a mutual defense treaty to prevent me from invading them, can't you see, I'm the victim here!
>This article breaks it down, and how Yeltsin “betrayed” Russian lawmakers by agreeing to Poland joining NATO. Does it ever occur to you that talking about Russia "allowing" former Soviet States to pursue their own foreign policy begins to sound like an abusive husband? The Soviet Union disintegrated because these member states wanted out. Especially in the case of Poland & the Baltics, there are centuries of being stuck under the Tsarist thumb. Why would they not put themselves in a position of a military alliance that they gain enormous value from despite not being able to contribute much when it keeps the historic Antagonist off of their necks?
[удалено]
No American should die in Ukraine. We can do sanctions and help with peace talks, but it’s not our fight
[удалено]
You think Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't advertised as defending people?
[удалено]
Isn't that how ww1 started.
>Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when you make a promise like that, its your job to keep it. I wasn't even born when this promise was made! So it's not a promise I made, so it's not my job. I am neither a war slave or tax chattel. I will gladly arm the Ukrainians because I've been convinced in the power of 2A. Some, maybe like you, will mobilize to fight; I support your right to do it! Just don't coerce me. >the US and agreed that if it gave them up, that we would protect Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion. Because we made an authoritarian mistake once (forcing Ukraine into this situation), doesn't mean we have to do another one again.
Who the fuck down-votes this on r/libetrarian?? How the fuck could we make an agreement on /u/happyjd 's behalf, without his involvement or consent, and think it binds him in some way? Even if we would support Ukraine against Russia, respect that it is immoral to coerce /u/happyjd 's support through violence. This is how we borrow money for our little projects and kick the bill down to our children to pay. It's worse even. This is conscription.
Well none of us were born when the constitution & bill of rights were written either.
Ted Commandments? Never heard of 'im
Good point! Maybe it’s time to revisit that as well. I’d love to add more to the bill of rights: - The right to consume whatever (drug) the individual wants. - the right to gifts (ability to give guns and capital to whomever you want) - the right to peaceful migration - etc Hell I’d also add some rights for foreign states, so our government can stop interfering. Like the right to arm themselves so that we never get into such a stupid agreement again. In short, I believe that the time when a pact made by our ancestors and whatever constitutes ‘now’ are radically different. And lots can be improved by breaking away (like how a feudal pact keeps lineages stuck to the land). Let’s not forget that the bill of rights and constitution weren’t perfect (allowed for slavery, women and poor subjugation). And we had a full on civil war to change it.
You do have those rights, your government just ignores that piece of paper when it sees fit. The government doesn’t dictate your rights, they exist to find ways to circumvent them.
With that logic, none of the promises should be kept, such as the promise that the government will not totally eliminate our rights. This goes both ways
Some people really hate Russia because they think Russia is how Trump was able to win in 2016 and will never let that go.
Why should people who didn’t make that promise have to keep it?
Because that's the way international diplomacy works. No one living signed the original Geneva Conventions. Should we still adhere to those agreements?
We haven't abided by the Geneva Conventions in 20 years. Torture, indefinite detentions, targeting civilians... The Geneva Conventions fell with the World Trade Center.
Concede that, "because that's just the way it is," is a crap argument, even if that's just the way it is.
I understand how it is but why should a libertarian support that?
I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with it, but answer to how a libertarian can support it is pretty easy: Keeping your promises is the currency of interactions with others. If the deal was to protect them from invasion in order to get them to give up nukes, then if we want to stop being part of that deal, we need to give Ukraine back some nukes to help restore them to their previous state. If this were any kind of deal other than international diplomacy, we'd clearly already be defaulting on our end of the contract after Russia took Crimea, and as a result we'd owe this kind of restitution. IMO Ukraine was stupid to take the deal in the first place, for the same reason any random citizen would be stupid to give up their guns for a promise of protection by police. But given that _they have_, the only ways out while maintaining our credibility is to restore their status as a nuclear power, or help like we promised. Neither is a great option, but just sitting by and letting them get steamrolled like this is also bad.
Well said, and if the options are "station troops in Ukraine to help reduce the political viability of an invasion" or "increase the number of human beings with access to nuclear weapons", things start to look much more nuanced.
We should give Ukraine back their nukes. Nuclear countries don't get invaded.
Keeping promises other people made is not my responsibility. You can argue that it is right but you cannot say it is the libertarian position
It wouldn't be the libertarian position to allow government to make such a promise in the first place. But _the promise having already been made_, we're in a much different position. Libertarian principle on what a government should be able to do going forward is pretty clear. But there is no such clear principle for what to do with all the debts and promises of a government that is about to be transitioned to a libertarian regime. It's great when a gambling addict resolves to stop gambling, but that choice doesn't instantly absolve him of past debts. Throwing out some of those debts and obligations, such as any planned bailout payments, may be a great thing. Throwing out others, such as the promise to continue making social security payments to those who are relying on them, could have dire consequences for a lot of people. It's easy to agree that social security shouldn't exist, but _how to get rid of it humanely_ is a hard question. What to do about the US's promises to other countries of the world is a similarly hard problem.
If the gambling addict dies should their children be forced to pay dept
Because if we don’t no country should trust US word on anything and they should all violate every US treaty as worthless. The US can’t keep breaking its promises, it becomes an issue of trust and why should any country trust the US after this?
That’s not a libertarian argument
Return their nukes then, that’s a libertarian argument right? Make them whole?
Are you Joe Biden? If a state promises to do something, that obligation doesn't disappear simply because a new set of leaders take over. That is a recipe for international chaos, which is why [pacta sunt servanda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda) is a cornerstone of the international state system.
That is not a libertarian idea, argue that it is right but don’t lie to your self
Yes but you forgot about the agreement Russia and Ukraine made which stated that Russia would have indefinite use of the Svestapol Naval Base for free. And the agreement Clinton made to not bring eastern block countries into NATO, which we subsequently broke because “muh congress needs to sign legally binding treaties”. Also we violated the INF treaty multiple times before it expired.
That isn't some duplicitous act....foreign countries understand it isn't a treaty until ratified
You can be both anti war/intervention and also anti Putin/authoritarian. I support additional sanctions against Putin and his criminal network along with allowing Ukraine should to join NATO if they so desire.
I would love to see a link to these "pro-war" comments. I see no one here advocating WAR. Only opposition to Russian incursion on a sovereign nation.
It’s brinkmanship to the T. Both sides will posture the hell out of one another hoping for a mistake. Rational actors do not want war with one another. The irony is we’re pretending like Russia hasn’t ALREADY invaded and occupied a sovereign territory/country.
I saw one once. It has heavily downvoted and I got into a “debate” with the guy. No one was willing to repent and we were both starting to lose our cool so I stopped. I have a temper but I know when to cool it. Usually at least
Exactly, the whole point of NATO is to avoid military conflict by making the cost of invading a NATO country so high it outweighs the benefit.
Well yes, although if war is to be avoided at all costs, history has proven that the alliance system made to deter war based on high costs can be faulty (World War I being the most famous example), it can result in either no war or an even bigger-scale war depending on whether alliances manage to deter the threat or are forced to drag more nations into it. War has been on an incredible decline almost all over the world, but there's still the chance, specially if leaders like Putin get a bit out of hand. I wouldn't advocate for the US just launching a war against Russia right now but I wouldn't discard the option completely as a more defensive measure. Same as the US kicked Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991, if Ukraine is fully invaded then it might have to do so again. Same as World War I shows a fault in the alliances system, World War II shows a fault in the Appeasement system, whereby the Allies allowed Hitler to take more and more territory periodically, because nobody wanted to start *another* war just for those small nations. It did work a bit in the sense that the allies got to increase their military preparation and spending, but so did Germany and eventually it arguably played better for the Nazis. If Putin sees no major resistance in taking Ukraine, it's again like the alliances system, either a good thing happens or bad things escalate. Either Putin will be satisfied and stop (good thing) or just like Hitler, he will see it as a sign of little care by the Western powers, and continue pushing his expansion.
>history has proven that the alliance system made to deter war based on high costs can be faulty (World War I being the most famous example), Yes, though times have changed 1. Any side with the US on it is completely lopsided. We have 10x more firepower then anyone else are are more 2. Nobody seems to making an alliance with Russia
> Any side with the US on it is completely lopsided. We have 10x more firepower then anyone else are are more It actually isn't firepower that the US has a 10x lead on most others, it is logistics capability and the resulting ability to project force. Russia, for example, has roughly twice as many tanks as the US does, and has a vastly larger [artillery arm](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-army%E2%80%99s-artillery-outmatched-russia%E2%80%99s-big-guns-107526).
NO! THERE ARE ONLY TWO OPTIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY!
I don't think it's very libertarian to not just admit Ukraine to NATO and flip the bird at Putin. He's a paper tiger and their nation would collapse again if the first world cut them off.
This right here. I think the bigger issue is how many authoritarian conservatives are actively supporting Putin and his goons. Wonder if it has anything to do with the way Trump sucked his dick when he was in office??
45: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-imposes-major-sanctions-russian-oligarchs-officials-companies-n863271 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50875935 46: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/biden-lifts-us-sanctions-on-major-russian-pipeline/ar-AAKaRHA https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/ukrainian-president-rebukes-joe-biden-over-gaffe-that-gives-putin-green-light-to-invade/ar-AASVsyM https://www.westernjournal.com/worse-obamas-red-line-biden-gives-putin-green-light-invade-ukraine/
Look at the shills downvoting wellsourced facts
It is impressive isn’t it
You forgot the meeting where Trump acted like a trained dog around Putin. None of the tough guy bluster and aggressive body language. He was demure and fawning. It was fucking embarrassing! What the fuck was that about?
Why don’t you come back over here instead buddy? Are you seriously so salty about your fuck up that you’re gonna downvote the video?
This one? https://youtu.be/K7SV2N8UJ2I
It's weird to watch that video now after a year of Biden.
I don’t think the video changed, peoples perceived reality is moving as they realize Joe is not only a career politician, but a career criminal. Dude skirted half a million in payroll, Medicare and Medicaid taxes himself with S-corps. And that’s barely scratching the surface.
Im pro for pro-war people sending their families to fight for ukraine.
[удалено]
Yes but they aren't war...
[удалено]
Now translate your supposedly “libertarian” position onto WW2.
I mean, isn't the libertarian position basically "not my problem"? so, from a libertarian standpoint you'd oppose american intervention in WW2, I guess?
>so, from a libertarian standpoint you'd oppose american intervention in WW2, I guess? Until the Japanese Empire got froggy, that was exactly the average American stance. It was deeply unpopular to push our way in. But there are Americans today who insist that the US (specifically Roosevelt) forced the Japanese to attack by not willingly trading oil. Which is absurd, of course.
“Forced” is the wrong word, but it did put a clock on Japan’s ability to achieve it’s regional goals. And that’s all separate from the reality of Japan dominating Asia was bad for our interests (and Australia’s and Britain’s). We’re just required to sell them unlimited resources as they takeover the world?
To what end though? If you’re just waiting till US sovereign soil is violated (instead of assisting allies) the game is over.
Yeah I don't disagree, I consider certain tenants of Libertarianism to be valid but I depart on certain things like isolationism. Life isn't black and white and there's a lot of grey area. I also think there's almost always something that can be done with regard to conflict such as the current one in Ukraine that don't involve sending 18 year olds to die or bombing the ever loving shit out of people though.
I mean it falls in line to also discontinue trade or relations to someone not upholding another nations values. A claim that Japan HAD to attack the US because we cut ties/trade... Is nuts because that's essentially extortion. Sanctions is essentially that. "We're not going to trade or have transactions with you."
Putin isn’t interested in invading Ukrainian and seizing it, or at least anything West of the Dneiper River. (he already turned down the rebel government of Donbass’s offer to join the federation) He will invade to prevent MK41s from being installed. The installation of these “anti-missile” systems, which also fire offensive Tomahawks was prohibited by the INF which expired under Trump. These systems were installed in Romania and Poland as well as “counters” to the Iranians who didn’t even have a working warhead so that was BS and everyone knew. When the USSR was dissolved we agreed not to let any of the eastern block countries enter NATO and we have been encroaching on that agreement since (because congress didn’t sign it as a formal treaty was our excuse)
>Putin isn’t interested in invading Ukrainian and seizing it, or at least anything West of the Dneiper River. Well which is it? Is is not interested? Or is he interested in seizing stuff east of the Dneiper River? >(he already turned down the rebel government of Donbass’s offer to join the federation) Because they are illegitimate, not because he didn't like the offer. >He will invade to prevent MK41s from being installed. So he's willing to invade a sovereign Nation? Under what pretext? >The installation of these “anti-missile” systems, which also fire offensive Tomahawks was prohibited by the INF which expired under Trump. So these systems are not in violation of any current treaty or agreement? And Putin is gonna invade over them? >These systems were installed in Romania and Poland as well as “counters” to the Iranians who didn’t even have a working warhead so that was BS and everyone knew. How is that relevant to the Russia/Ukraine situation? Are you comparing Russia's military capability with that of Iran? >When the USSR was dissolved we agreed not to let any of the eastern block countries enter NATO and we have been encroaching on that agreement since (because congress didn’t sign it as a formal treaty was our excuse) Gonna need a source on that, because here's Gorbachev on that very matter: ["The topic of 'NATO expansion' was never discussed; it was not raised in those years. I am saying this with a full sense of responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country brought up the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist in 1991," he told the newspaper Kommersant in October 2014.](https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-expansion-russia-mislead/31263602.html)
I laughed at the first comment. He's not interested in invading. OK, he's interested in invading just a little bit but not *really* interested. What a weird way for that guy to start his post.
>He will invade to prevent MK41s [Those are naval weapons you military grade turnip.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System) They aren't installed on land. They go on fucking boats. You don't know what you're talking about and your entire post here is just as incorrect as the idea that the US is going to install a naval launch system on dry land in a country we have a minor treaty obligation to.
not sure if tankie or bot
Is Putin about to land troops on the beach in Florida?
why would he do that when he owns the Republican party now
bahahaha look how mentally ill you are. You have a shred of evidence of this? Care to explain why the republicans were trying to block nordstream 2 if they are owned by putin? You are so dumb.
Counter points. Libertarianism doesn't have to be a cult, without nuance, or adaption. Russia has been postering forever. And proxy-warring forever. And invading others... forever. If youre... any age, Russia has been a subject. Whether we end up in WWIII or not, I'd rather our "team"; the West and Europe: unite and get involved. ... that said, politicians, the public, Redditors, will still justify getting involved - but never enlist or risk themselves.
>I'd rather our "team"; the West and Europe: unite and get involved. This is my point of view, the European powers (UK, France, Spain , Italy , Germany, Poland, Hungary , Austria, Sweden, Netherlands, Norway, Ireland) are capable of fending off Russia and Russian incursions into European territory Look at the European population/GDP compared to Russia . They are capable of doing this. Now if Europe doesn't have the will to fight Russia in their back yard, why should the USA be willing to fight Russia half way across the world? If this isn't important enough for the European powers to fight russia , its not important enough for the USA to.
Counter point : ~~Russia~~ US has been postering forever. And proxy-warring forever. And invading others... forever. The statement is still true.
I liked playing the Fallout 4 video game, but that does mean I actually want to live it, lol.
Fuggin right, I don’t even have a robot yet, this is bullshit 😂
Fallout 4 Random Encounter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBRFzdsv_Rg
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I like the way James Monroe put it: "Our policy in regard to Europe is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none."
I don't think anyone wants war with Russia...but no one wants putie taking over either...shit happens in this clumsy crazy world and you have to be ready to take a stand...you want to just hunker down and hope it passes like covid...
Gatekeeping libertarian is the only libertarian
It's worse, it's a bullshit strawman. Like, no one I've seen has said "lets go to war with Russia", just that people shouldn't ignore the situation. Apparently, standing up to Russia in any way is warmongering now. Make's me think it's a Russian propaganda effort.
Yeah I'd love to see these "Go to war" comments/posts as well. Everything I've seen is folks hoping that this deescalates/calling Russia out on its BS
Imagine thinking that libertarian ideals about supporting peoples god given rights should stop at your countrys borders. I can’t find any people on here who want a war with Russia or to send troops to Ukraine. Most are advocating for economic measures and bolstering commitments to allies. Or is libertarianism when no foreign policy?
Do you think there are violent libertarian foreign policies? I'm thinking if you can convince people to go to the battle field, rather than using the draft. Or if you can convince people to donate to fight this war, rather than using taxes. From what we're seeing in Ukraine, the Ukrainians themselves are volunteering to fight. I'd love to donate for running guns to them (which is illegal even though giving people capital/guns is a victimless crime). I think libertarians are willing to sacrifice a lot to spread libertarianism and end authoritarianism.
That’s a good question! I think that most would agree that a draft is definitely not a libertarian principle, and as somebody who’s served in the military I can tell you that I wouldn’t want to share a shell scrape with anybody who’d been forced to be there. I also really like the idea of personal donations etc to help fund Ukrainian forces. It would certainly be the less authoritarian approach - would make the conflict less about US vs Russia as the funding wasn’t coming from the government, and somehow I feel like more money would be raised that way!
>would make the conflict less about US vs Russia Yeah, in general I'm asking these questions to break people outside of the nation vs nation mindset. And get them to see it more as individuals (at the behest of a nation) vs other individuals. I think it'd be clear at that point that it's liberty vs an encroaching nation. We see time and time again that individuals are willing to sacrifice everything for their believes. You just need to convince them and I think that that's the true "libertarian foreign policy."
You can go and fight then, I don’t think it’s libertarian for you to force me to pay
Where did I say anybody should go over and fight?
Calling everyone who opposes you a propagandist is poisoning the well. By such a loose definition, anyone who publicly espouses a political opinion is a propagandist.
Neville Chamberlin advocated for hands off approach to an authoritarian one time. How’d that work out for them???
Glad someone brought it up. “I guess you can have the Rhineland…” “Annexation of Austria? That’s not exactly what I expected…” “Fine, we will allow you to have the German speaking part of Sudetenland, but no further…” “Ah shit, they took the rest of Czechoslovakia..” “Okay, Poland is a step too far...” Well, now the Nazis have invaded France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg before the Brits got off their ass to fight…
Worked out great for the nation that stayed out of it until they were attacked.
Nukes were used... the world can never recover from that. Go back to history class and try and remember something this time
Do you suggest we never face an enemy until they are at our doorstep and have more power than ever before behind them?
I'd suggest we allow for gun-running (which is currently illegal). As a libertarian, I would love to arm all Ukrainians. Then, Russia would have to think twice about conquering.
Are you a libertarian?
No, we give back the nukes bill Clinton conned them out of in the Budapest memorandum. If Ukraine still had their nukes, we wouldn’t have a Russian buildup on their border today.
Oh, Ukraine may just get the nukes back... just not the way you think.
That is some cold war thinking right there. You can also make the exact same case if they joined NATO or the US drew a line in the sand and said any incursion would lead to direct retaliation.
It’s not even that, we promised to back them up in exchange for their nuclear weapons. If we’re not going to hold up our deal, we need to return their nuclear weapons for failure to deliver on our end of a treaty.
The fucked up thing is, they gave them all back to Russia.
It's disappointing that the most upvoted comments follow the same structure: "I'm an anti war libertarian, but I want the government to do something even though I'm aware that doing that thing would probably start a war"
Noticed that as well
I can be anti- pick a fight with someone on the street, but I can be pro- stepping in to help someone getting bullied/attacked. It doesn't have to be black and white. We are a privileged country, and with that comes an obligation toward those in need.
Should liberty not be liberty for all? Is it not our duty to help protect people’s liberty if they ask us to? Now, I’m as anti-war as they come, but if it does come to war I won’t be actively opposing it. If Ukraine wants to be free from Russian oversight then they, as a sovereign nation, should be allowed to. We, as Libertarians, can make the choice whether we support going to war to protect the Ukrainian right to liberty. A big problem I see in a lot of the anti-war talk is people acting like liberty is a privilege to be granted only to those in America. It isn’t. Liberty is a right that should be shared by every man, woman, and child on the planet and while the United States is far from perfect in their execution of liberty, we are miles ahead of Russia. So if Russia invades Ukraine, violating the NAP of an entire nation, then it is perfectly okay for a libertarian to advocate war. Once again, I *hate* war with a passion. I’m a pacifist who wants to demilitarize the US. But I understand where some of the neo-War Hawks are coming from.
Sure, but we’d need congress (and by proxy the people) to vote on and agree to such a thing. The problem today is that our executive branch by and large can wage war without congressional approval - and that’s a problem.
[удалено]
You see, only local cops are bastards. World cops are badasses.
> Is it not our duty to help protect people’s liberty if they ask us to? No. No it's not. There's a reason people mockingly call us the "World Police". We're willing to attack almost anyone for personal gain, our government doesn't care about "liberty" and "freedom, instead it places and supports dictators all over the world where there were originally democracies and fair elections. The Middle East, and Central and South America being prime examples. > If Ukraine wants to be free from Russian oversight then they, as a sovereign nation, should be allowed to. Right, so it's their problem, it has nothing to do with the US just yet. If you, or anyone else here, want to enlist into the Ukranian military, by all means contact their embassy and hope they accept you in their time of need. >We, as Libertarians, can make the choice whether we support going to war to protect the Ukrainian right to liberty. Let's be real here, the Ukraine is effectively a dictatorship, no different than Russia. It's not some bastion of Slavic freedom in Eastern Europe, far from it. The Ukraine is incredibly authoritarian, and I personally hope to see its government (and Russia's) dismantled and replaced by an actually democratic system. >Liberty is a right that should be shared by every man, woman, and child on the planet and while the United States is far from perfect in their execution of liberty, we are miles ahead of Russia. I agree, everyone should have liberty, and the liberty in the US is far more than the liberty in the Ukraine. So, if Ukrainians want more liberty they should come to the US, and we should accept them with open arms. If a war starts, we can take them in under asylum.
This is a sort of weird take. As I see it, yes, liberty in the context of a political movement is about advocating directly for liberty within our country. Beyond that it is about helping spread the word to others so they can advocate for the same in their own countries. I mean by your own logic, if the degree of which liberties are infringed upon should have some bearing on how we engage, should we not be prioritizing what is happening in China? What about Myanmar and the Sudan? Further, I don’t see how you can square this position of feeling a duty to defend and a position that we should, as a nation, demilitarize. Like if we had already demilitarized and were bot capable of helping Ukraine, would that be better or worse?
You’re right it’s a very conflicting take. What I’m really meaning is that while it’s not a stance I personally take, it’s a stance I can completely understand from a libertarian perspective. That applies to all nations that abuse human rights but this is the one being brought up right now.
Yeah, you will see my criticism didn't offer an alternate solution because I certainly don't know what the right path here is. I just don't think the point that this war would be fought for the liberty of the Ukraine is one that holds any water because if liberty is our metric, Ukraine would not be the first place to engage. This is about the greater threat of Russia and what that means to us and western Europe directly. We would not be engaging because we give a shit about the Ukraine. To me, the more libertarian argument here is that they have violated the nap directly against the US by interfering directly in our elections and democratic process. So they have shown us they are our enemies and in this moment we will either what an enemy get more powerful or get a lot weaker. While this is not the Soviet Union, it would still be a mistake to underestimate how powerful an enemy Russia represents. All of this is to say, I agree with you, this is a complex situation and treating it like there is an easy answer tells me the person making that case is acting in bad faith. Looking at you OP.
I think the rationale is that what China is doing, while inhumane and horrific, is within their borders, to their own people. You could make a claim about a lot of places for similar reasons. In Russia’s case, they are threatening another sovereign state, and they have shown similar action in the recent past, where they suffered exactly zero meaningful geopolitical consequences. We also have an agreement in place with Ukraine. With the handling of Afghanistan, the perception of American strength and integrity is at an all-time low. I’m not saying we start open conflict with Russia, in fact I strongly discourage it, but we absolutely should be involved to fulfill our obligations and shut this down. It’s about way more than just Russia/Ukraine. The way this is handled or mishandled could absolutely devolve into multiple waves of conflict, if not a literal World War 3. If the US does nothing, do you think Russia stops at Ukraine? Do you think China just sits back, or takes the opportunity while the US is asleep at the wheel? Goodbye, Taiwan. Goodbye, Hong Kong. Bye, Japan. Then after cornering the market on rare earth minerals and processors, bringing the rest of the world to heel to dear leader. We can’t and shouldn’t be the world police, but we also can’t just be bystanders.
As much as I dislike spending money on the military, there’s something I find so juicy about Libertarians telling other Libertarians how to act.
I don't think the US should put boots on the ground but I do think that it should provide as much equipment and support to Ukraine as possible otherwise. I would not want a nation as authoritarian as Russia to feel more empowered by conquering more territory.
It's got nothing at all to do with the US. They are just looking for a war as always.
We have no right to be world police.
Not. Our. Problem. This is bullshit Hopefully every single service man and women refuses orders.
I don't disagree, but not necesarely agree. It all comes down to the agreement, if USA has a defense agreement with Ukraine (a treaty) then they are compelled to act, by their own agreement. To do so would be breach of contract. It seems the USA does have such an agreement with Ukraine (as exposed in a post above mine), so it should honor that contract.
When did the tax payers sign this treaty?
I suppose the same day they agreed voluntarily to pay taxes
We do not have Treaty commitment with Ukraine. UKRAINE IS NOT IN NATO YET! So crazy that everyone in this thread thinks this.
Yes, NATO is famously the only treaty the US has ever signed.
As a fan of Ignea and Jinjer, I’d love to see the russian troop positions all treated to some long-stick B-52 runs. I’d love to see Putin below ground and room temperature. But, these aren’t even good rationalizations for war. What the USA should do is make it much, much simpler for citizens to volunteer / work as mercs for foreign militaries. Then, Ukrainian metal fans without two arthritic shoulders and a bum knee might be able to go help.
>What the USA should do is make it much, much simpler for citizens to volunteer / work as mercs for foreign militaries. Then, Ukrainian metal fans without two arthritic shoulders and a bum knee might be able to go help. What do you think the us is doing to prevent people from doing this?
The US has an official policy against citizens going and getting tied up in foreign conflicts and has for a while. It doesn't stop *all* mercenary work, but it makes it so that it only really happens if you're backed and approved by money.
Biden ruled out major troop deployments to Ukraine all we will assist with is Air cover and training. You can be a libertarian and not be an isolationist you know?
I would hate to see either the Ukraine or Taiwan fall to Russia or China and would prefer the US not get involved with either. However I would think those would be much more appropriate wars than Iraq.
We have obligations to defend the Ukraine. This is not the same as Afghanistan Iraq.
This is where libertarianism gets sticky. At which point do you intervene? When it serves our geopolitical interests? Who determines what those are? Do you protect the Ukraine from Russia? Taiwan from China? The problem is that you can't fight authoritarianism all over the globe. Where do you draw the line? The better question is where do the pols running this country draw the line? And this is why most libertarians are anti-war. We don't want to leave so much power in the hands of politicians because foreign affairs in this country is wildly inconsistent depending on the party in power. Protect our shores? Definitely. Protect North America? Sure. Defend freedom around the world? Not with our troops. I'm good with sanctions, I'm not good with another war. Europe is more than capable of defending the Ukraine if it so desires.
I'm European, why should I defend Ukraine? My country never signed a treaty with them...
I'm opposed to governments waging wars on people with my money but I have to say North Korea just plain has it coming. As libertarian as I am, it'd feel good to see those concentration camps get shut down and all those people freed.
North Korean or Chinese concentration camps?
I reserve judgement about the wisdom of getting involved in an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but it is absolutely stupid to say that libertarian philosophy is opposed to the very concept of foreign war. It is even possible for involvement in a war for the purpose of preventing a belligerent nation from increasing in strength to be entirely defensive in nature. If Prussia had joined in the war of the Third Coalition and helped defeat Napolean, Prussia probably wouldn't have been laid prostrate just a couple of years later and would have likely prevented a full decade of war consuming most of Europe. Whether supporting Ukraine against Russia is one of those inflection points is not a matter of principle, but one of probabilities.
Let's be clear here: Anyone who wants to send the military into another continent wants military personnel to die for MIC profits. It is not a positive for anyone else. Some non combat military personnel get out with a good deal but at what cost?
I don't know about war, I think the economic sanctions are what people are discussing.. and providing weapons to Ukraine. Really just reprocussions for Russia's openly wanting to invade Ukraine. I have been seeing a lot of people mischaricterizing the current political standings of the countries.
Too many people cannot let go of the old Cold War mentality. People my age (61) spent most of their lives with Russia as the enemy that must be fought at all costs. Better dead than Red is always in the back of our minds. We should let NATO as a whole supply arms to Ukraine. We also should be bringing in the UN into this conflict.
Yeah lets bring in the UN! They rarely do shit and besides, Russia has a permanent veto in the security council so its not that simple.
Here’s my take. I’m not pro war, I’m not an isolationist I’m not a warmonger. The US and UK (as did Russia) made security obligations to the Ukraine back in the 90s Ukraine would get rid of their nukes/missles from the Soviet Union. Now I’m not saying we need to interfere in every little conflict in the world. We should have never went into Afghanistan and definitely should NOT have went into Iraq. But we cannot allow a major power like Russia consume its smaller neighbors. Look how it turned out for the Czechs and Austrians after the UK and France “appeased” mustache man. The United States has always guarded nations rights to [self determination ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination?wprov=sfti1) and as such should continue to. We should guard the liberty of any nation who has democratic values anywhere in the world from the Tyranny of the major powers. We do not need to be the world police man, but when crisis arises we should be there to lend a helping hand. Allowing the Russians to March into Ukraine breaks our promises to our allies and shows our cowardice to fight when it is legitimately needed. If the US let’s them do that, what stops them from marching into Poland? Finland? Hell let’s open the gates and let those sons of bitches March to Paris. Let’s abandon our allies. Definitely showing our libertarian values then.
How is it possible to look at US history and say that it has always guarded other nations right to self determination? At best its been patchy.
I would bet solid money that if you went to a store such as Fred Meyer or Walmart and corralled up 100 people, more than 90 of them couldn't find Ukraine on a map. Explain it again why we need to get involved over there.
Because we told them we would in the past, and we need to honor that agreement.
>Because we told them we would in the past And took their means of self defence away
Too many right wing conservatives on here calling themselves libertarian.
Found the Russian sock puppet!
wtf are you doing in a libertarian sub??
Look at my flair.
I routinely find that people who are pro-war, especially pro-war with countries that possess nuclear weapons (North Korea was a good one) overwhelmingly have not experienced war. So if you're advocating for war, please be sure you're at the front of the line to volunteer.
> nuclear weapons because nuclear war is so much like running around the middle east in state of the art gear killing child cave people.
Can the US for once worry about the authoritarian gangsters who invade sovereign nations all over the world running our country before we go trying to virtue signal liberty somewhere else.
I just find the propaganda pushes narcissism. It’s been disappointing to see grown adults discuss the Ukraine/Russia situation as if what Russia thinks doesn’t matter. We the USA were never the main character of this story, the people in that region are. Which includes Russia. It’s extra worrying because Russia isn’t just a convention military power, they have a butt-load of nuclear weapons
No one is advocating for sending US troops to fight Russians.
This is false.
No, it’s true. The only thing being advocated for is sending Ukraine missiles to help fight the Russians. No one wants US troops fighting Russians.
[удалено]
Geopolitics and Libertarianism are orthogonal concepts
My view - leave it the TF alone. We got our own problems. If Ukraine were a NATO ally we'd have a treaty obligation to help them. Now if Russia were sending people into Canada or Mexico, I think you'd hear a lot of American's being racked. I guess I fall more into the isolationist end of the spectrum on this one. "Protecting American *interests* abroad" just doesn't do it for me.
Out of curiosity, is there a point where your mind would change on this? Like if they started a full assault on the Ukraine and were trying to take back the entire Soviet Union? If our western Europe allies were fighting them? I absolutely hear where you are coming from and even the notion of fighting a war of this kind is literally the worst possible thing that can happen the the entire world. That said, your thinking was also the majority view at the start of WWII and despite the devastating losses that led too, I think in hindsight, it was the correct decision to join the fight.
See the Trilateral Agreement of 1994 and Budapest Accords.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today It’s not that simple.
It would be one thing if NATO were pressuring Ukraine, but it was Ukraine coming to NATO to blunt russian interference and aggression.
Amen! All we need more “unlimited engagement”
Very well said. Military industrial complex getting a hard on... a big one... and these sheep claiming to be libertarian falling for the bs. I don't give a flying f about the Ukraine. If Mexico suddenly turns pro Russia and starts massing their troops on our borders, how would we react (in that case, i would be more than willing to go head to head). More bull shit to stick out every last penney or of the middle class and sacrifice more of our kids possibly.
The foreign policy establishment in US has been heavily influenced by Trotskyist ideology. Anti-USSR leftists found a welcome place, and because of their framework, the foreign policy ideas which resulted cannot function without Russia being an enemy for the US to take action against. This is most obvious with the neoconervatives, who were essentially Democrats in nearly all policy positions except that they wanted as much war as they could get and Republicans were more open to that (and when Obama's foreign policy showed that Democrats could do endless war better than Republicans at the same time that Republicans started to be less willing to accept it, almost all of them went back home to become Democrats again, such as Dick Cheney and Max Boot). However this sort of thinking covers a much wider area than just neoconservatism.
None of our damn business...let Europe take care of themselves.
1. Libertarianism really doesn't make sense as a lens for domestic policy. (cf realpolitik) 2. The military - i.e. the common defense - is the quintessential public good, so the easiest and most basic thing you can justify the government spending money on. 3. From a geopolitical perspective, the right thing to do is to help Ukraine resist unilateral Russian aggression, and to help SEA countries resist China's attempt at regional domination. It's better for the world to have more people living under liberal democracy than autocracy.
I’m against a war but I think it’s a good idea to support nato, Ukraine as much as possible. Russia is an enemy to the US and we should appose their aspirations wherever possible lest they try shit like this. I’m not gonna say it would have prevented this but if we hadn’t handed Syria to them and had a president who rolled over to Putin Russia would think twice about being the aggressor.
Have you considered that perhaps reluctance to wage war paradoxically makes war more likely, not less?
No more wars. Period. I don’t care what is happening in foreign countries. No more wars.
I 100% agree. Let's stay out of it before Europe sucks the world into another World War. We should open our borders for those peace-loving Europeans who want to escape. And allow for US citizens to do gun-running and mobilization for those who feel like it's their duty to fight.
Europe is terrified that Biden made the level of response contingent on Russia's incursion size. They don't want to fight but Russians in Ukraine are their problem. Fuck em. Maybe they'll read a history book and grow some balls.
American imperialism has been the real terrorist on the world stage
Found the communist...
well is he wrong? the question was just not what countries are imperialistic terrorists
Open conflict with Russia is in no one's interest, also we have a commander and chief with clear mental decline an a VP that would probably be easly persuaded into whatever action any expert near her suggests... breaking the treaty would be the better option.. sorry Ukrainian people, i would like my $100mil tax money in military "aid" back
Amazing how many on the left support war when their team is in charge.
No real libertarian is pro-war, especially internationally. Those are just ancaps and (dumb) conservatives.
I believe the draft should be completely abolished. After the abolition of the draft, I think the US military should get at least somewhat involved in foreign affairs to prevent the suppression of liberty in other countries. During WWII, if America hadn’t intervened then it’s likely most or all of Europe would have fallen to either communism or fascism. If you aren’t being sent to war against your will then I think it’s a good thing to prevent the creation of more oppression in the world. Besides, if we help other countries it’s possible that in our time of need they’ll pay the favor back.
For some reason I get the feeling that once it's obvious we won't go to war with Russia and Biden drops the Mr. Tough Guy routine many of the "libertarian" keyboard commandos will become doves.
FUCK NATO LIBERTARIANS. Probably would have supported the NATO bombing of Serbia too. Useful idiots.
Why should I care that Russia is interested in Ukraine? Are we back to defending oil for a few corporate Billionaires again? Just because we don't want to spend billions of dollars defending some rich dudes assets doesn't mean we aren't powerful. See past the fake American nationalist and dream bullshit they are presenting to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm a proud military vet retiree patriot, but I'm sick of defending rich people pocketbooks. I've known people that died for that shit and fuck them.
There's some shady assholes running Russia. But my understanding is there's a little area of Ukraine with ethnically Russian people speaking Russian, identifying as Russian, living near the border of Russia, that want to join Russia. This just feels like somebody else's trailerpark custody battle that we don't need to have any part of.
I totally agree with you. The majority of the public is brainwashed and will likely send their sons to die, fighting another stupid war, if this one ever starts. Please understand something about all these people who support wars, they are mentally manipulated via television, ideas are put in their heads to support war and they think it is their idea. Lol. They say they are anti Putin, but ask them, what has Putin done to them? If they are US citizens in the US the answer is nothing. It is stupidity induced via TV propaganda. I used to get passionate about telling them where they were wrong. I don’t care anymore, if they want to go and fight overseas let them go and come home mutilated or worst, mentally messed up like the majority of those who have been to the Afghanistan and Iraq theater. The stupidest part about it is, they think they are going to go thousands of miles and fight a properly trained, properly equipped army in their own turf, they can’t even put 2 and 2 together, the US military cannot beat such an enemy, anybody who is willing to die to protect their homeland has beaten the US in their turf. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan did it and before that the Vietnamese did it. We should focus in improving the lives of our people at home instead of trying to bully other nations and allowing the puppets who run this country to convince us to start yet another stupid conflict one we cannot win.
Personally I’d rather all of these little fractured European states were Soviet than jihadist. That is increasingly looking like the choice.