[flagged]
It's the same logic the US applied to lend-lease, didn't they? There was a good chance of the USSR collapsing until 1943, and you still helped them. Delaying an invading attacker, especially one who may plan, according to their own internal propaganda, to attack other nations later, is already more than "nothing".
The price for peace is living under occupation. Depending on the occupier, this can be a fate worse than death, and significant numbers of Ukrainians appear to think the latter.
And for a very selfish argument: It buys us, the Europeans, more time (with Ukrainian blood) to prepare for war, when Russia attacks the Baltics in a few years. Which we desperately need, as the US will likely break their promise and not help us under the current administration (and who knows who the US elects next).
The 3 years allowed e.g. the Baltics to build extensive defensive fortifications.
If they lost (or break even, or occasionally even gain) a few hundred feet a day, forever, all the while their young males all go into a meat shredder that is their choice to make. I'd rather let American families use their earnings on their own problems and let Ukraine make those choices for themselves.
Doesn't Ukraine buy most of their heavy weapons from the US (... until now)? If so, isn't most of the tax payer money the US lends Ukraine going back into the US economy, softening the blow by a lot?
Did the (original) lend-lease act even hurt the US economy and US families? Or did it provide jobs and stimulate the US economy, cementing the role of the US as the military / industrial powerhouse they are today? I was under the impression that it's the latter, but I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong. Is this one different?
But sure, of course - that's the right of the US, even though it would be nicer not to retroactively break existing agreements. I only wanted to push back against the (new) lend-lease doing "absolutely nothing".
I wonder what media do you consume to get this absolutely ridiculous idea? baltic states have no beef with Russia (except petty provocations which Russia seem to dismiss), Putin never ever said he will do anything like that and actively emphasised he won't. Where the idea of Russia attacking Baltic states or any other european nation to that matter, have stemmed from (besides nonsensical statements of unelected EU bureaucrats like ursula, who have vested interest in stealing money through warmongering)?
The Baltics have no beef with Russia, but Russia with the Baltic states[4], according to e.g. Medwedjew, who thinks they literally belong to Russia. Or Россия 1[5].
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250219-baltic-region-pr... [2] https://www.sab.gov.lv/en/news/russia-is-purposefully-develo... [3] https://www-bundestag-de.translate.goog/dokumente/textarchiv... [4] https://www.euronews.com/2023/05/17/russias-dmitry-medvedev-... [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSJ6py0uVQ4, from 1:30 onwards
There are many signs Baltic states are next in the Russian annexation list. And if Russia going to win control over Ukraine - mobilized to Russian army Ukrainians will be in the first wave of Russian cannon fodder troops advancing through Baltic states.
If you are so informed about the "Russian annexation list", would mind enlighten us about other countries on the list?
It's unimaginable what propaganda can make to otherwise intelligent individual.
Also NATO is dead now. So why should they stop at the Ukranian border.
If you call that independence, I wouldn't want one for my country.
Would you like to live in a world where the strong can do anything they want? Or do you want to live in a world of laws, where alliances protect groups of countries who want to provide their citizens with safety, economic prosperity, etc.
The Ukrainians certainly does not want the war to end this way.
Are there any "legal agressors" ?
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-denies-reviving-russia...
Putin believed he could flip Ukraine in three days. Three years later Ukraine is still explaining to him that he is wrong.
Ukraine is fighting an existential war of independence. And for three years, despite having a larger population and a larger military, Russia has failed to wipe Ukraine off the map.
America is making the wrong choice in submitting to Russian aggression and in becoming a Russian ally. It's grubby stuff.
Successive US administrations (Obama, Biden, and now Trump) want the Russian Federation to survive as an entity, regardless of its aggression and crimes.
Helping Russia by giving them what they want (time to rebuild their military and economy while lifting sanctions) is what will actually fuel an "endless war" as Russia will simply continue the war at a later stage.
Don't confuse a temporary peace on paper with actual peace.
All sane people are against an endless war. Or, any war for that matter. The only state that can be compared with an endless war is a mid-war period: the time when both sides know that the war is coming, and they live in misery, entrenching and militarizing, while the rest of human development stands still: economy is military-spending driven, birthrate falls, population flees, etc. Do we agree on that or do you need examples?
So, taking your question at its face value: the alternative is lasting peace. The history tells us that the only condition for lasting peace with Russia is either strong and decisive resistance or military alliance membership. Again, examples are a legion: both positive (Finland, Baltics, Turkiye), and negative (Georgia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Chechnya to a certain degree).
The only path for lasting peace for Ukraine is to humiliate Russia on the battlefield. For that to happen they need weapons
20th century history unfortunately tells us the answer is containment, not direct engagement.
From handing over Poland and eastern europe to Stalin in 1945, or refusing to protect Hungary in 1956 or interfere explicitly in the soviet sphere of influence, in exchange for them not interfering explicitly in western sphere of influence.
It's not a nice lesson, but that was how we achieved some form of peace for decades.
Unless one of the two party wins the war, the way a peace agreement is reached is for both parties to consider it a better outcome than continuing the war, which means that the quickest way to reach is to make it harder for both countries to continue the war, and more palatable the result of an agreement.
This is not what Trump is doing. He is not doing harder for Russia to continue the war, in fact it is going to make it easier. He is not going to make the peace agreement more palatable for Ukraine, in fact it made it even harsher.
In other words, Trump is not looking for a "deal" is looking for a capitulation of Ukraine, and to offer it to Putin, probably behind some agreement.
Ukrainian people are not going to like the idea, so they will not surrender soon. Putin will see this as a victory, so he will not stop there (he is trying to get US troops out of Eastern Europe, and I am sure Trump will obey), so any "peace" will be short-lasting. Eastern Europe countries already see this, so they will not stop helping Ukraine because the US did.
There is also the moral argument that you are supporting Ukraine in a war of aggression started by Russia.
My fear is that conceding anything to Russia just gives it an opportunity to regroup, rearm and finish the job. Appeasement has not worked before.
Then there is the whole minerals thing. Now you’re not merely abandoning an ally, but kicking it while it’s down. It’s not a reassuring message for anyone thinking of allying with America.
As a national of a country Trump has threatened to annex, I am wondering how many more allies America can antagonise and how long and costly it will be to rebuild a good reputation.
Imagine I maimed a guy on the street because he was walking too slowly. Was "the whole deal" about him walking too slowly? Yes and no. He was walking slow. But also I was a violent psycho.
Imagine I killed my wife because she was wearing the wrong skirt and looked at another man. Was the whole deal about my wife behaving how I don't like? Yes and no. She was behaving in some way. But also I was a violent psycho.
People come up with all sorts if rationalizations and I definitely heard both "Ukraine had resources Russia needed" and "Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US".
Resources? Excuse me, look at the map? You know that tiny Netherlands beats Russia in agriculture exports. Russia has the most reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world. The country has insane resources already and its corrupt government is unable to make good use of them.
But anyway. They say Ukraine was willing to sell resources to US (those people like to use loaded phrases like "US wanted to siphon resources from Ukraine") and Putin didn't like it? Well there's a well known way to solve this "problem": offer a better deal, don't be a dick, invest, stuff also called "diplimacy".
Resources, NATO, US military complex, whatever, mostly those things are bullshit, maybe they did motivate Putin, who knows. It's just mentioning those things with a solemn face full of insight as if they explain something is what paints a person as Putin supporter and aggression apologists in my eyes. Because none of those things justify the choice of mass murder by a violent psycho.
If I remember correctly, a lot of the problems come down to broken promises of stopping NATO expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia made concessions, NATO did not. This is the Russian case as I vaguely remember it.
This is a reminder that geopolitics are wildly complicated and that the waters are too muddied for laypeople to make sense of in real time.
Your analogy holds. The psychopath must be stopped, but it's good to remember that the west provoked it when it had a chance to tame it.
NATO expansion was not really a threat to Russia beyond Putin's pretense. Putin pulled forces from Finland border after it joined. I hope the wrong lesson won't be learned.
After the 2014 invasion, the US realized that breaking EU dependence on Russia natural gas would put a serious dent in Putin's wallet.
In response, various groups within the military industrial complex decided to invest into Burisma, where Hunter Biden was oddly a board member with little experience. Burisma's goal was to develop the mineral and natural gas deposits in the Donbas region. Ultimately, Burisma was prevented from this mission because of the 2022 war.
[1]: this interview on Joe Rogan is pretty eye-opening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrJhQpvlkLA&t=9675s&pp=ygUOa...