Ukraine’s inability to demonstrate decisive success on the battlefield is stoking fears that the conflict is becoming a stalemate and international support could erode.
The problem is that Ukraine is given enough not to lose, but not enough to win. At this rate, Ukraine will depend on western hand-outs much longer than if the West fully committed to see Ukraine restore its borders.
Absurd. America has already given $75 billion in “assistance” to keep this war going, imagine if that had been spent on people who need it in America? And you want to spend even more than that??? Every bomb is food stolen from the mouth of a hungry child.
About 24 billion is non-military financial aid and 4 billion more is humanitarian, so that’s a big chunk not being spent on bombs. Slightly more than half of the remainder is the estimated value of old stock being sent over and therefore could not be “spent” on assistance for Americans anyway. The remaining 23 billion that is actually money spent on equipment and training is less than half of one percent of annual federal government expenditure. Weapons for Ukraine are not the reason money isn’t being spent on what you want it to be spent on.
Depends on what the countries sending it can afford and what it would take for Russia to stop invading. That’s not the point I’m making. The point is that the none of the countries aiding Ukraine are currently spending anything anywhere close to enough of their budgets to significantly affect any other spending they do. If you’re unhappy with how your government directs the other 99.6% of its budget, yeah, I get that. I am at mine too. But helping Ukraine is not the problem there.
Negotiate an end to the war. I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
Let’s assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?
I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
That sounds good at first glance. But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.
Fundamentally, I still don’t understand why one should negotiate with a burglar how much they get to keep.
Let’s assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?
America broke it first with the Belarus sanctions. The real question is if Russia can trust America.
And it can’t, so I guess the war will never end. We’ll argue about it for the next 20 years.
But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.
If the UN vote monitors detect manipulation then they call it off. Simple.
I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
Not an option the Ukrainian gov will accept. Nor should they.
When parts of the USA wanted to leave that was not response from the USA.
Sorry, but as if. Russia is a UN veto power. And Russia would never accept UN troops sent by the West to oversee anything. And african nations won’t want to piss off Putin by agreeing to this. Putin wants his anti-NATO back and this war will only end with Putin thuroughly defeated.
Not to mention that such a vote would be a farce anyway. Russia has had enough time to kill, torture, intimidate or disappear enough people that such a vote could never be fair.
And as for the money spent on Ukraine, it’s but a cheap talking point to suggest that supporting Ukraine and supporting your own population are mutually exclusive. Not to mention believing that if the money wouldn’t have been spent on Ukraine, that your own people would’ve seen that money is pretty delusional. For starters, most of the support sent by the US is hardware. And the given value for that support is the replacement cost for the kit sent. However, most of the kit sent was due to be replaced anyways, so the actual cost for the US is much lower than the figure being thrown around.
You know full well we do not spend food on horn children in America for they come from sin. We only care about the unborn. Ask clearly you are fake american.
Quick, throw more money on the fire!
The problem is that Ukraine is given enough not to lose, but not enough to win. At this rate, Ukraine will depend on western hand-outs much longer than if the West fully committed to see Ukraine restore its borders.
That’s the point. The West doesn’t want the war to ever end.
Then it’s up to the people to demand more support from Ukraine.
Absurd. America has already given $75 billion in “assistance” to keep this war going, imagine if that had been spent on people who need it in America? And you want to spend even more than that??? Every bomb is food stolen from the mouth of a hungry child.
It would literally never go to social programs and you know it.
Yeah because this is a demon shithole country. Money only gets spent on murder, never on helping fucking anyone.
About 24 billion is non-military financial aid and 4 billion more is humanitarian, so that’s a big chunk not being spent on bombs. Slightly more than half of the remainder is the estimated value of old stock being sent over and therefore could not be “spent” on assistance for Americans anyway. The remaining 23 billion that is actually money spent on equipment and training is less than half of one percent of annual federal government expenditure. Weapons for Ukraine are not the reason money isn’t being spent on what you want it to be spent on.
How many billions of dollars do you want to spend on bombs?
Depends on what the countries sending it can afford and what it would take for Russia to stop invading. That’s not the point I’m making. The point is that the none of the countries aiding Ukraine are currently spending anything anywhere close to enough of their budgets to significantly affect any other spending they do. If you’re unhappy with how your government directs the other 99.6% of its budget, yeah, I get that. I am at mine too. But helping Ukraine is not the problem there.
No one is helping Ukraine! It’s all just a ploy to keep the war going forever.
Where do you think inflation comes from? It comes from throwing money into the war machine.
What is your plan than?
What should the west do?
Let me guess, you have no alternative that does not boil down to “Let Putin and people like him do what they want.”
Negotiate an end to the war. I’d support a UN monitored vote in the Donbass region and Crimea (and any other contested area) on whether they want to join Russia or stay with Ukraine.
Let’s assume a peace is negotiated, in which each party assures it respects the aggreed-upon borders. Similar to the Budapest Memorandum, signed and broken by Russia. How could Ukraine trust them this time?
That sounds good at first glance. But given Russia has the opportunity to persecute any opposition in the contested areas, and bring in loyal settlers, the results are likely skewed even if the vote itself is fair and transparent.
Fundamentally, I still don’t understand why one should negotiate with a burglar how much they get to keep.
America broke it first with the Belarus sanctions. The real question is if Russia can trust America.
And it can’t, so I guess the war will never end. We’ll argue about it for the next 20 years.
If the UN vote monitors detect manipulation then they call it off. Simple.
Russia refuses to give back the lands seized.
Now what to you do?
Not an option the Ukrainian gov will accept. Nor should they.
When parts of the USA wanted to leave that was not response from the USA.
I don’t expect Russia to give back lands seized. I expect the will of voters to be respected by both sides.
The Ukrainian government will accept any option we give them. They’re our puppet.
That sure as hell wasn’t democratic! It’s not like Black people got a vote.
Sorry, but as if. Russia is a UN veto power. And Russia would never accept UN troops sent by the West to oversee anything. And african nations won’t want to piss off Putin by agreeing to this. Putin wants his anti-NATO back and this war will only end with Putin thuroughly defeated.
Not to mention that such a vote would be a farce anyway. Russia has had enough time to kill, torture, intimidate or disappear enough people that such a vote could never be fair.
And as for the money spent on Ukraine, it’s but a cheap talking point to suggest that supporting Ukraine and supporting your own population are mutually exclusive. Not to mention believing that if the money wouldn’t have been spent on Ukraine, that your own people would’ve seen that money is pretty delusional. For starters, most of the support sent by the US is hardware. And the given value for that support is the replacement cost for the kit sent. However, most of the kit sent was due to be replaced anyways, so the actual cost for the US is much lower than the figure being thrown around.
Russia having UN veto power is why a UN monitored vote could actually be trusted by both sides, what the hell are you talking about?
And no one is “supporting” Ukraine. They’re ensuring the war never ends, there will never be enough support to actually end the war.
Imagine if Russia hadn’t invaded Europe.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You know full well we do not spend food on horn children in America for they come from sin. We only care about the unborn. Ask clearly you are fake american.
It’s good use for the money, this way it’s not used to buy Russian fossil fuel or help billionaires commit suicide in expensive vanity submarines.