In reply to Xceler8x :
You keep stating things as facts that at best are more nuanced that you are portraying, or at worst just plain not backed up by fact, but rather opinion stated as fact. You appear to be in a self confirming cycle of your opinions.
I get the cynicism and realpolitik conversations occurring here. The world requires pragmatists and pessimists just as it requires optimists. I would say that the US's position is measurably weaker worldwide now whereas when we stood with our NATO allies without question, we were stronger.
Do you have any proof of that? I argue that for a long time we gave up much of our power to weaker countries and let them guide much of our values. We got along to get along while at the same time we picked up the check. I see that the U.S. is standing up for itself on the world stage and demonstrating strength. I don't believe other countries are seeing weakness. They see it as a strength, and rather than just take the U.S. for granted, they need invest more on maintaining their side of the relationship.
That's the gist. I talk about supporting Ukraine as "the right thing to do" because NATO has kept the world out of world war since WW2. The weakening of NATO does not benefit us, Ukraine, or anyone else except Putin.
NATO has not kept the U.S. out of WW3, the U.S. has kept NATO out of WW3. And it's a moot point anyway, because UKRAINE IS NOT PART OF NATO. No NATO nations were attacked by Russia. The country that they attacked was a former Soviet state and likely still would be if it were not for the U.S.. NATO is stronger than it was before the war, because they are acknowledging the threat and preparing themselves Vs. just relying on Uncle Sam.
The right thing to do benefits us in that regard as well as shoring up our unified front to halt wars of aggression that could destabilize Europe. Where all of the world wars have started. Do we want Putin to take Ukraine, be re-admitted into world trade, then turn around and use the funds acquired, as well as resources, to wage further war in Europe?
We have done that. Unfortunately, Ukraine is not the NATO front. Again, not NATO. You can't just make up the front of our NATO alliance, and add on other countries arbitrarily. What you are describing- bringing NATO in to make a united stand on the Ukrainian front against Russia would be a giant leap towards WW3.
We can halt Putin in his tracks, as we have, by merely giving Ukraine our old, outdated munitions we'd have to destroy and replace anyway.
You are correct, and we have done that. But I think you are failing to see the reality of what that means. Stopping him in his tracks has meant years of death and destruction in the form of a stalemate. Not an optimal solution. Better than having Ukraine over run, but far from winning the war.
I've been surprised at the people who haven't condemned Putin's actions. Last I checked, saying you weren't on the side of a war criminal didn't count as politics, it was just being a kind and decent person
I don't think I've seen a single person saying that they were on the side if Putin. Just being on the side of reality doesn't make one for Putin. We can all live in fantasy land and complain that Ukraine deserves that we send them over our laser wielding unicorns, but that isn't going to change anything.
If you are talking about the UN vote, do you not see that a meaningless vote that serves no purpose when trying to enter into negotiation? Maybe speak softly and carry a big stick is a better strategy?
