538
NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
538 points (97.4% liked)
World News
32227 readers
652 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally the entire GOP with standouts like Greene going far as to say we should cut all aid to Ukraine and shift to helping Russia. The entire right wing of our government took the red too literally and jumped in bed with former Soviet agents for a pocket full of rubles.
What if cutting all aid to Ukraine was actually a net benefit to the Ukrainian people?
What if chattel slavery was actually net benefit for black people because they got to leave Africa and learn useful skills?
That's what you sound like with your 'maybe Ukrainians would be better off under Vladimir Putin's control' rhetorical word poop.
False equivalence. Literally Ukraine would have been better off if the west had not given them any money at all. The war would have been over and Ukraine would have more territory and more living people. And that doesnt even get into if the war was entirely preventable to start with. Ukraine is about to lose the war and all you guys want to do is give them more money so more ukrainians die.
Should every country just surrender to aggressors, only those that require aid to defend themselves or some other criteria? This seems like a call for any small state to just give up when a conqueror is at their door ready to oppress them, is that what you believe?
No they shouldnt surrender, but should the US fund every war, including the ones we passively or actively instigate? Should we give money to a country to fight when it makes their situation worse, and just end up with more dead people?
How would Ukraine have more territory when the reason Putin said he needed to invade was to take territory away from Ukraine to protect ethnic Russians?
Because they would have had a peace deal back in 2022, and that peace deal was with more territory than Ukraine currently has, and Ukraine was also in a better negotiating position.
That isn't true. The peace deal left eastern Ukraine undecided.
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-ukraine-peace-deal-2022-document-6e12e093
I looked at the exact peace lines it was going to be at, and the lines were better back then than they are right now.
Any maps did not include Russian claims to eastern Ukraine because that wasn't part of the peace plan. Ukraine was to disarm and then Russia would decide how much of Eastern Ukraine was taken.
I already linked the article.
Furthermore, Russia had already violated the 1994 non aggression agreement
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#:~:text=The%20Declaration%20of%20State%20Sovereignty,non%2Dnuclear%2Dweapon%20state.
So Russia could not be trusted to not invade again.
US aid to Ukraine is required by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
The peace deal was borders to a paticular day of the war. I already looked at is and saw the result, I am not going to re-research it.
And I linked proof that what you remember is wrong.
"The future of Ukraine’s east, part of which was occupied by Russia in 2014, was not included in the draft, leaving the issue for a personal discussion between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who never held a meeting."
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/03/1/7444515/
"recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as independent states,"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=In%20negotiations%20during%20March%20and,guarantees%20from%20its%20European%20allies.
Any maps showed only the Ukrainian territory that Putin said was non negotiable but left eastern Ukraine undecided.
So Ukraine was to disarm, then Putin would decide how much of Eastern Ukraine Russia would take.
And again, Russia already violated the Budapest Memorandum.
You can repeat what you keep saying, but the eastern providences were always going to be gone.
Then your claim that Ukraine would have had more territory if they took Russia's 2022 peace plan is false.
Nope
You can't say "nope" when I have proven that you are wrong with sources.
I just did...
Your only proof is a claim that you think you saw something. I proved with sources that the territory of Eastern Ukraine couldn't be on any peace plan map because Putin himself said it was undecided until after Ukraine disarms.
Good points, let's change Ukraine to Ireland and Russia to the British Empire and see if we still think they're good points.
.... Oh, oh god..
It seems we've BOTH made a huge mistake and inadvertently thought imperialism is good just because it had a Russian accent. How embarrassing for the both of us.
I'm glad we've both learned from this horrible accident and will no longer support imperial ambitions just because it's being done by a non-US ally.
If I am not in favor of a thing do I have to actively oppose it?
Please quote my "going to the mat in support of russian imperialism" comments. Direct quotes only.
Here you go:
If Ukraine would just surrender this would all be over. If Ukraine hadn't forced Russia to invade then none of this would have ever happened. Ukraine would benefit from becoming part of Russia by having more territory and a larger population. How else can your comment be construed?
That is obviously not support for russian imperialism, its support in not having ukrainians dying.
And then you made a bunch of lame strawman arguments. Nice work!
If only people wouldn't resist my attempts to kill and steal from them. That's the real issue. If they just peacefully surrendered and let me have my way than they would be fine, better off than before even!
I've been kind enough to provide quotes from you and break down exactly how they support Russian fascist imperialism. Why can't you be kind enough to do the same with me?
The reason why: what you are saying is nonsense and you can't defend it, only retreat to a position of 'I want to save lives by accepting surrender'.
This is because you are a coward, afraid to publicly state your actual position because you know how bad it looks and you know you'll get your ass beat then spend the next few days sulking, trying to think of why you aren't actually a bad person with silly opinions.
You are the guy that referenced star trek in regards to war and did a bunch of strawmen, I am not reading your childish comments anymore.
Take your L and go