Hacker News Reader

Comment by DamnYuppie | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Not all dollars spend translate back to direct dollars earned, but rather political power or influence - which itself is a catalyser for other benefits. But some don’t seem to understand that.

Some understand it fine but are realizing the influence we get isn't worth it. Stop acting like we are idiots for not wanting to engage with geopolitical power games as much as we have been. We know our history, we know our place in the world, we understand all the trade offs, and we may actually not feel they are worth it at this time.

It is the constant refrain of "if they disagree with us they are not informed or are not as intelligent as we are". It is as if they can't believe people could have informed opinions that differ from theirs...wild...

"America first, you don't like it get out" is not typically what one says when they have a nuanced understanding of geopolitics.

Why can’t it? Stating that America should prioritize itself is a direct and unapologetic stance. Brevity is not a lack of thought—it’s efficient communication. Dismissing a position because it’s concise rather than engaging with its merits is a weak argument. I recognize that some dislike this perspective and will seize any opportunity to undermine it, but that doesn’t make it any less valid.

Well you seem to have edited it out of your comment so I'm not entirely buying your case that it was an example of effective communication.

Stop acting like we are idiots for not wanting to engage with geopolitical power games as much as we have been.

The time for that attitude was the early 2000s, when we started two wars that cost us 30 trillion dollars. We're currently disposing of old military equipment that we would otherwise have to spent money destroying. We're also getting commitments from them to buy our military equipment going forward.

It's ridiculous and disingenuous to claim that supporting Ukraine is playing World Police or even a financially meaningful engagement in foreign affairs. We're giving them "store credit" to get rid of our closeout merchandise and getting a ton of value in return.

The assertion that America's wars cost us $30 trillion is not accurate. As of 2012, the national debt stood at approximately $16 trillion, with a significant portion resulting from domestic spending and the financial crisis, not solely military engagements. Our debt is not that large because of the wars, are they contributors of course, are they the long pole in the tent, not even close.

America is under no obligation to provide endless support to Ukraine. The notion that it's our duty to act as the world's arsenal is misguided. While assistance can be strategic, perpetually fueling a conflict without a clear path to peace is neither noble nor wise. It's time to prioritize diplomatic solutions over an indefinite cycle of military aid.

I mean the US is spending money on US weapons and arms and sending them to a foreign country. We're not sending them cash. The military industrial complex in the US benefits.

Not to mention the huge benefit to us that this equipment is field tested in a way that it can't be done by just testing. That feels a little crass, but the first major comflict of this century has changed somewhat how war is fought.

Sure, the military-industrial complex benefits—but the military-industrial complex always benefits. That’s not a justification for continued involvement; it’s just a fact of how defense spending works. If anything, this strengthens my argument; why not prioritize military production and readiness for the Pacific, where our actual strategic interests lie?

As for "field testing," that’s a pretty thin silver lining to justify indefinite support. Wars evolve regardless, and we don't need to offload billions in weapons to foreign conflicts just to learn how modern combat works. If we’re going to spend, let’s spend where it serves America’s direct security, not someone else’s.

Trump could have just told Ukraine they weren't going to support them anymore. He didn't need to have a public press conference and publicly act like a petulant child demonstrating how truly pathetic and weak his leadership really is.

The fact that you aren't upset by the way Trump and Vance acted is incomprehensible to me. How are you not ashamed that they are leading the US?

My understanding is that a deal was in place. President of Ukraine publicly reneged on that deal and took what was supposed to be more of an announcement as an opportunity to grandstand and renegotiate the deal that had been worked out.

Things got heated. I am not really that upset about this. I have been in far worse meetings with far less at stake. I am glad that our leaders are not letting people we are trying to help push us around. Usually such meetings are not public and basically most people don't get to see the sausage making of diplomacy.

I am more embarrassed that previous Presidents let foreign leaders come to our country and stomp for candidates or make demands of us.

> My understanding is that a deal was in place.

Have you seen the deal? Or are you just speculating? For all we know, Trump actually told Zelensky the US would provide security guarantees to set up this spectacle. Or maybe in fact the deal was never in place and Zelensky was just repeating for the hundredth time what it would take for Ukraine to sign a deal and then Trump and Vance flipped out when hearing something they already knew was a cornerstone to his terms?

Presumably we'll never know what actually went down. But we do know that Trump and Vance act like weak little children and are totally incapable of actually mediating between the parties in this war. In the future, they should have the decency to stay out of this discussion and let adults do the talking.

Everyone has their own take on how they behaved. You say they acted like children, others say Zelensky was disrespectful. Either way, I’d rather have leaders willing to push back than the so-called "adults" who let this war start and then kept it going on autopilot.

Whether a deal was fully locked in or not, what we do know is that previous leadership had years to find an off-ramp and failed. The last group of "adults" spent years writing blank checks and getting nothing in return. If the current approach shakes things up and forces real discussion, maybe that’s exactly what’s needed. Looking out for America’s best interests doesn’t mean playing nice—it means knowing when to say enough.

[flagged]

Putin started the war, but U.S. policy played a major role in keeping it going. The so-called "adults" spent years writing blank checks, refusing to push for peace, and actively discouraging negotiations.

Trump has been in office for barely a month, and you're already declaring his efforts a "failure"? Wars don’t end in 30 days, especially when the previous administration spent two years fueling it instead of pushing for a resolution.

America operates on its own timeline, not anyone else's. If we want to change our approach to Ukraine, we should do it in a way that aligns with our interests, not because of some artificial urgency. The fact that negotiations are already moving forward with Putin should tell you something: a real process is happening. If the previous administration had done its job, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.

You are also literally living in the comments.

Stop trying to make your opinions bigger than there are.

You know I don't actually follow that take to be honest. I find this an interesting and important topic. So I am responding where a statement trips my fancy. I mean I am getting down voted all the time so not like I am doing it for the attention. I have opinions on this and have been thinking about the geo political climate intently for the last few years, as such I see no reason I can't chime in. Is there some policy about not being overly engaged in a topic I was unaware of?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com