Ukraine

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually it’s your wishful thinking that has failed you badly here… really badly.

Your con just got boring.

[DMX7]

Why us?

Your sudden concern over deficits?

Were the war effort revenue neutral for us would you be for it?

It's decreasing our military readiness, costing a lot and risking escalation (even if such escalation were started merely by accident the risk is still higher).

My concern over the deficit is not sudden.

I would be slightly more inclined to support a substantial increase in aid if didn't add to our debt load... of course it does though.

Disagree.

Ukraine cannot possibly be winners except for being free and democratic (in a more immediate future). Both will be difficult to come by structurally and people wise as they are devastated and need help. They are now purer and simple fighters. Will they turn into a warrior state , the worst of the warriors becoming terrorists on a massive scale? In happened on a smaller scale in Chechnya. Or will Russia capturing and moving massive numbers of people to be deprogrammed work like it did not in SE Asia resulting in the killing fields? Or will the Ukrainians get some more immediate help?
Russia can clearly be the winner exactly the way I stated in the post you wrote this reply to. The destruction of infrastructure and people has already moved at its greatest rates. Unless a sudden nuke appears and we know where that comes from, its already been threatened by Russia. Ukraine will fall completely if Russia is not stopped and the land it stole given back. A HUGE piece of their economic ability was taken when Crimea was invaded in 2014. That must be returned for Simple viability now. It was not before, but now it must be returned.

And thats it. Sad. But a world leader made the decision. A horrible decision. Now people have already suffered immensely. You cant turn this around in a decade. Especially if Ukraine has its sovereignty and economic viability continually threatened which will happen if Russia does not stop AND give Crimea back. By force or not. Putin's choice.

This talk about what Russia "must" do sounds strong but it also ignores the practical reality. There is barely enough political support just to sustain what is currently being given to Ukraine from the West -- much less increase it by a factor of 3x, 5x, 10x, or whatever the latest ask is. And Ukraine's manpower problem is only going to limit what can be achieved even if support were stepped up by that much.

[Thread]

"NEVER SURRENDER!"

[ChumpDumper]

It's decreasing our military readiness, costing a lot and risking escalation (even if such escalation were started merely by accident the risk is still higher).

My concern over the deficit is not sudden.

I would be slightly more inclined to support a substantial increase in aid if didn't add to our debt load... of course it does though.

It was already being loaded.

Were you for cutting "en lements" or raising taxes all along?

[DMX7]

It was already being loaded.

Were you for cutting "en lements" or raising taxes all along?

Yes, it's been loaded by many things. Some very confused people seem to think that's an argument for loading it even more.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, it's been loaded by many things. Some very confused people seem to think that's an argument for loading it even more.

If it's worth it, absolutely.

You are so bent on appeasement. Why? It can't be just a pocketbook issue.

[DMX7]

If it's worth it, absolutely.

You are so bent on appeasement. Why? It can't be just a pocketbook issue.

Because it's not worth it. It's not worth the risk or the cost when it doesn't even guarantee Ukraine can take and hold all territory.

I'm open minded. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.

[ChumpDumper]

Because it's not worth it. It's not worth the risk or the cost when it doesn't even guarantee Ukraine can take and hold all territory.

I'm open minded. I haven't seen anything that makes me think otherwise.

So NATO if he invades the Baltics?

[DMX7]

So NATO if he invades the Baltics?

No.

However, I see no indication that Putin even wants a hot war with NATO.

It's one thing for Putin to attack a country that he thought he could easily beat (Ukraine). It's another thing to attack NATO.

[ChumpDumper]

No.

However, I see no indication that Putin even wants a hot war with NATO.

It's one thing for Putin to attack a country that he thought he could easily beat (Ukraine). It's another thing to attack NATO.

But that would be escalation -- something you want to avoid.

But you would to stop him in that case.

Because it would be worth it.

Pile on that debt.

You're full of contradictions.

[pgardn]

It's decreasing our military readiness, costing a lot and risking escalation (even if such escalation were started merely by accident the risk is still higher).

My concern over the deficit is not sudden.

I would be slightly more inclined to support a substantial increase in aid if didn't add to our debt load... of course it does though.



This talk about what Russia "must" do sounds strong but it also ignores the practical reality. There is barely enough political support just to sustain what is currently being given to Ukraine from the West -- much less increase it by a factor of 3x, 5x, 10x, or whatever the latest ask is. And Ukraine's manpower problem is only going to limit what can be achieved even if support were stepped up by that much.

The real problem was the type of weapon sent. No aircraft one example. This caused the amount of weapons to fill in, basic types of artillery ammo to be used in larger amounts. EU and US made a big mistake in holding back very useful systems. American political will is a flexible sometimes whimsical factor which can based on misinformation. Ebb and flow of public temperature during specific periods. (Ukrainian deaths from collapse of apartment complexes don’t get us hot anymore; it’s still too common. Stealing children and moving them in massive numbers to create new social structures so Putin can move people around for fake voting are not even concerning )

And This war is not a financial backbreaker for us. But you are correct, it is political. Financially Healthcare and SS should be taken on.But these are kicked down the road by both parties. Our financial priorities are very fkd up Imo. Tax breaks for the rich should pay easily for so much more. “Estate planners” putting rich folks on Medicaid? And so much more offshore. There is a huge list.Much Bigger than Ukraine in many aspects.

Bottom line for me is not helping Ukraine now will hurt U.S. economy in the future. Our trade with the EU will be at risk. Ukraine is a large country. I expect a careful selection will be made as “sympathy” grows for Russia as they gain an influx of new Russian people and political structure in newly produced “next doors” just like they are doing and have done in Ukraine and so many other places. I have a stake in the future of this problem.

On the other hand, the real sentiment of requiring an authoritarian leader in the US may be more urgent in my case. Purposely making a democracy fail looks very real right now. Alternatives become necessary as they are available.

[DMX7]

But that would be escalation -- something you want to avoid.

But you would to stop him in that case.

Because it would be worth it.

Pile on that debt.

You're full of contradictions.

We have a NATO treaty. The difference is that defending NATO allies is not optional if we abide by the treaty. Sending blank checks to Ukraine is optional.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Our NATO allies are $20b ahead in aid to UKR.

This notion that we are spending extravagantly is ignorant. Of course when they spend we make money a lot of the time because they are buying replacements from the US. Lots of F-35s are being stockpiled in NATO.

Similarly, NATO countries are increasing their own defense spending. This reduces the US security burden.

[Thread]

"NEVER SURRENDER!"

[ChumpDumper]

We have a NATO treaty. The difference is that defending NATO allies is not optional if we abide by the treaty. Sending blank checks to Ukraine is optional.

So staying in NATO is worth all that potential debt to you.

[DMX7]

So staying in NATO is worth all that potential debt to you.

For now, the benefits outweigh the costs of NATO membership in my opinion.

I think the risk of Putin starting a war with NATO deliberately is very very low.

The bigger concern should be the risk of some type of accident escalating and spiraling out of control. That risk is increased the longer this war in Ukraine goes on.

[ChumpDumper]

For now, the benefits outweigh the costs of NATO membership in my opinion.

I think the risk of Putin starting a war with NATO deliberately is very very low.

The bigger concern should be the risk of some type of accident escalating and spiraling out of control. That risk is increased the longer this war in Ukraine goes on.

I think the risk of accidental escalation is very very low, so it's worth it.

[DMX7]

Our NATO allies are $20b ahead in aid to UKR.

This notion that we are spending extravagantly is ignorant. Of course when they spend we make money a lot of the time because they are buying replacements from the US. Lots of F-35s are being stockpiled in NATO.

Similarly, NATO countries are increasing their own defense spending. This reduces the US security burden.

Seems to me that the cost “winning” in Ukraine is extravagant if we go by Ukraine’s definition of winning which requires a huge step up in aid.

Orders for military stuff are coming our way but this isn’t going to offset the costs especially as our capacity to fill them shrinks and we spend more.

If we’re talking about the F-35, I think nearly all orders would have been made without the full scale war. In fact the evaluation process typically begins well before the order. Finland’s purchase actually came before the full scale war.

[DMX7]

I think the risk of accidental escalation is very very low, so it's worth it.

Not me, especially the longer this war goes on.

We nearly had a crisis when a stray Ukrainian missile killed some Polish people on the border. Imagine if it had been a Russian missile.

I think we’ve been very lucky so far. I don’t want to test the luck a lot further. If you do, that’s up to you.

[ChumpDumper]

Not me, especially the longer this war goes on.

We nearly had a crisis when a stray Ukrainian missile killed some Polish people on the border. Imagine if it had been a Russian missile.

I imagine Russia would've profusely apologized because it doesn't want a hot war with NATO like you keep saying -- unless you want to contradict yourself again and say that wouldn't happen.

I think we’ve been very lucky so far. I don’t want to test the luck a lot further. If you do, that’s up to you.

I do because it's not luck and it's totally worth it.

[hater]

their Ukraine joining NATO after conceding territory trial balloon burning up

Hungary said NO
1. It would start WW3
2. Ukranians are a bunch of Nazi goons

[DMX7]

I imagine Russia would've profusely apologized because it doesn't want a hot war with NATO like you keep saying -- unless you want to contradict yourself again and say that wouldn't happen.

If a stray Russia missile kills people in NATO countries then I assume we would be force to respond with some type of military action to maintain credibility.

The is the type of risk you’re downplaying. It’s increased by this war.

[ChumpDumper]

If a stray Russia missile kills people in NATO countries then I assume we would be force to respond with some type of military action to maintain credibility.

The is the type of risk you’re downplaying. It’s increased by this war.

You assume wrong. You do so often.

[DMX7]

You assume wrong. You do so often.

You assumed I supported the Iraq War.

[Ef-man]