What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[Stevicus]

This disingenuous false dichotomy has already been addressed here.

"Disingenuous"? Really?

Believing that a nation should defend itself from an unprovoked invasion, war crimes, etc. isn't "warmongering".

No, it isn't warmongering, and that's not what is being addressed either. Please try to stay on topic.

Why shouldn't people fight for their land and freedom?

Who said they shouldn't? Please try to stay on the ground.

If Russia invaded Alaska and started raping, torturing, and murdering American civilians, would you suggest we let them annex it for the sake of peace?

Not at all. What were you just saying about "false dichotomies"?

Your victim blaming logic is the same used by rape apologists. It's sick.

It's not victim blaming at all, but as far as sick comments go - physician, heal thyself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As someone who supports sending military and financial aid to Ukraine to help it against the Russian invasion, I have a question for others who support the same: if a country, say Iran or Saudi Arabia, invaded another, say Yemen or Somalia, and committed war crimes as well as tried to annex it, do you believe the US, EU, and others should send aid to the defending forces? Assuming they weren't hostile to the country or countries that would aid them, of course.

I personally believe they should, although the extent and type of aid would be context-dependent.

 

[Father Heathen]

To be clear, I find Putin to be a pretty horrible person - I just know that I'm getting that impression from the media basically.

Odd, considering the only reason many (fortunately not all) republicans appear to be pro-russia is because Trump licked Putin's boots, or because of cockamamie conspiracy theories regurgitated by Cucker "The Green M&M ****er" Tarlson.

 

[lukethethird]

It's the business of the US in the sense that Ukraine is a partner of ours and an important buffer against Russian encroachment in Europe. We'd also like for Ukraine (no "the" ahead of it; that's old school verbiage from the days when Ukraine was a Soviet satellite) to join NATO to solidify that relationship and deter further Russian aggression. Ukraine also proactively wants and asks for our military aid.

Nato is a war pact against the Soviet Union initially, but now against Russia, which ought to be done away with, as well as with all war pacts. Ukraine threatened to sign this war pact against Russia, knowing that Russia, decades ago, made it clear that Ukraine was the red line when it comes to this war pact and everyone knew that and understood it. Now this war pact was used as a means to provoke Russia. Had Ukraine assured Putin that they would not sign onto this war pact against Russia, and instead signed a peace agreement, the Minsk agreements, we would not be having this discussion. Ukraine was always free to trade with Europe and elsewhere without a need for a war pact of any sort. It appears to me that Ukraine is now being used as a means to weaken Russia. It is Ukraine that is being laid to waste because western interests want to weaken Russia, and until that is achieved, Ukraine won't be allowed to engage in any peace talks.
,

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

True, although it can be said that South Vietnam was being invaded by allies of Russia. Many of the same basic arguments, both pro-war and anti-war, can be applied. Although a key difference in the war between Ukraine and Russia is that it seems more akin to a blood feud, like the Hatfields and the McCoys on a larger scale.

There was a lot of opposition to the Vietnam War, and I think the main objection (at least from the LW) was that young Americans were being drafted to fight and die in a war that they felt wasn't worth dying for.

Right now, the U.S. and other countries are providing assistance to Ukraine in the form of weaponry -- not American lives coerced through a draft. Nevertheless, there are those Americans (and members of other countries) who have voluntarily gone to fight alongside the Ukrainians.

Many people in this nation are moved by Ukraine's plight. Where I live, there is a Ukrainian Catholic Church and their priest has often participated in my synagogue's annual Holocaust Remembrance program for the public. There are members of that Church's congregation who have family living in Ukraine, so our synagogue has become engaged in collecting requested humanitarian supplies that are sent to Ukraine. I believe that there are churches and synagogues across America that are doing the same in support of the Ukrainians.

I would hardly characterize Russia's authoritarian aggression against Ukraine as a "Hatfields vs McCoys" situation. I'm sorry, but that sounds like an attempt to trivialize the destruction that Russia has wreaked upon the Ukrainian people.

 

[Father Heathen]

"Disingenuous"? Really?



No, it isn't warmongering, and that's not what is being addressed either. Please try to stay on topic.



Who said they shouldn't? Please try to stay on the ground.



Not at all. What were you just saying about "false dichotomies"?



It's not victim blaming at all, but as far as sick comments go - physician, heal thyself.

How could I be off topic when the context is my post that you initially replied to?

 

[Stevicus]

How could I be off topic when the context is my post that you initially replied to?

I was mainly addressing the second part:

Lift your face from the RW propaganda trough. Don't choose your party over your humanity.

And you still never really answered the question, mine or the question posed by @Kathryn. Is this really a right-wing vs. left-wing issue? Do you really believe that?

As far as I can tell, no one in this thread has justified or thinks that "unprovoked invasions, land theft, war crimes that include the rape and torture of children, and cultural genocide" are "cool," but for you to respond with this kind of unmitigated tirade over a simple question by an American citizen reeks of the kind of emotionally-charged rhetoric typically used by warmongers who wish to rile up the masses in favor of war. It's not a logical response.

 

[Left Coast]

Nato is a war pact

alliance.

against the Soviet Union initially, but now against Russia, which ought to be done away with, as well as with all war pacts.

Why? Why would countries not ally with each other to strengthen their common defense against potential enemies?

Ukraine threatened to sign this war pact

Alliance.

against Russia, knowing that Russia, decades ago, made it clear that Ukraine was the red line when it comes to this war pact and everyone knew that and understood it. Now this war pact

Alliance.

was used as a means to provoke Russia. Had Ukraine assured Putin that they would not sign onto this war pact

Alliance.

against Russia, and instead signed a peace agreement, the Minsk agreements, we would not be having this discussion.

The Minsk agreement(s) were signed. Jesus Christ dude, this took 5 minutes on Google to look up.

Ukraine was always free to trade with Europe and elsewhere without a need for a war pact

Alliance.

of any sort. It appears to me that Ukraine is now being used as a means to weaken Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine. No one made them. What are you talking about?

It is Ukraine that is being laid to waste because western interests want to weaken Russia, and until that is achieved, Ukraine won't be allowed to engage in any peace talks.

Ukraine is being laid to waste because Russia is bombing the **** out of them. Beginning and end of story. If Russia had not invaded, Ukraine would be not be getting laid to waste.

 

[Father Heathen]

I was mainly addressing the second part:



And you still never really answered the question, mine or the question posed by @Kathryn. Is this really a right-wing vs. left-wing issue? Do you really believe that?

I know there are some on the far-left, mostly outside of U.S. who have a chip on their shoulder and a stick up their *** in regards to the U.S. and thus have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality, apparently believing this absolves Russia of it's crimes. In the U.S. however it's primarily MAGA lemmings. One would think torturing, raping, and murdering children wouldn't be politically divisive, but here we are.

As far as I can tell, no one in this thread has justified or thinks that "unprovoked invasions, land theft, war crimes that include the rape and torture of children, and cultural genocide" are "cool," but for you to respond with this kind of unmitigated tirade over a simple question by an American citizen reeks of the kind of emotionally-charged rhetoric typically used by warmongers who wish to rile up the masses in favor of war. It's not a logical response.

The question itself was a loaded one that implied my stance against those very things was "warmongering", hence their mention.

 

[Father Heathen]

alliance.



Why? Why would countries not ally with each other to strengthen their common defense against potential enemies?

Alliance.

Alliance.

Alliance.


The Minsk agreement(s) were signed. Jesus Christ dude, this took 5 minutes on Google to look up.


Alliance.


Russia invaded Ukraine. No one made them. What are you talking about?



Ukraine is being laid to waste because Russia is bombing the **** out of them. Beginning and end of story. If Russia had not invaded, Ukraine would be not be getting laid to waste.

By their logic if a woman carries pepper spray as a means of self defense then she's provoking rapists, and if she doesn't want to get raped then she should consent rather than fight back.

 

[Left Coast]

By their logic if a woman carries pepper spray as a means of self defense then she's provoking rapists, and if she doesn't want to get raped then she should consent rather than fight back.

God forbid she join the neighborhood watch!

 

[Father Heathen]

God forbid she join the neighborhood watch!

It also says a lot about a person's ideology and very character when they so readily shrug at the widespread rape and torture of children and proceed to brush it under the rug.

 

[Stevicus]

I know there are some on the far-left, mostly outside of U.S. who have a chip on their shoulder and a stick up their *** in regards to the U.S. and thus have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality, apparently believing this absolves Russia of it's crimes.

Well, if people talking about the U.S. and its policies (or even if people have a stick up their *** about the U.S.), then that's strictly about the U.S. and its government. It does not directly involve Russia, nor does it absolve them of their crimes. Can we at least agree on that? Aren't we talking about the U.S. and U.S. interests and national security aspirations (which is what the original topic is about)?

In the U.S. however it's primarily MAGA lemmings. One would think torturing, raping, and murdering children wouldn't be politically divisive, but here we are.

It shouldn't be politically divisive. But accusing people of supporting or absolving the crimes of torturing, raping, and murdering children, when they're very clearly and obviously not doing that, does appear to generate a palpable level of divisiveness.

Unless you can point out a specific statement or quote which says (to the effect) "I support torture, rape, and murder of children," then I don't think such accusations are warranted. Obviously, those who are guilty of such crimes should be made to pay. What else do you want anyone to do about it, go out and arrest the criminals themselves?

Are you willing to go to Ukraine and fight? If not, would it be fair to say that you're just going to "stand by and let it happen"? Maybe there are valid, practical reasons that you or I can't go in there and start arresting the Russians responsible for these crimes?

The question itself was a loaded one that implied my stance against those very things was "warmongering", hence their mention.

It wasn't as loaded as you think.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nato is a war pact against the Soviet Union initially, but now against Russia

That's a mischievous label....a Putin type claim.
The intent wasn't to wage war against the USSR.
It formed a united defense that would discourage
Soviets from invading other countries.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, if people talking about the U.S. and its policies (or even if people have a stick up their *** about the U.S.), then that's strictly about the U.S. and its government. It does not directly involve Russia, nor does it absolve them of their crimes. Can we at least agree on that? Aren't we talking about the U.S. and U.S. interests and national security aspirations (which is what the original topic is about)?
...

Well, yes in one sense. But not in the strong sense, unless you can in effect that only the USA matter in the world.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nato is a war pact against the Soviet Union initially, but now against Russia, which ought to be done away with, as well as with all war pacts.

Unfortunately, belligerent, authoritarian, warmongering, imperialist states like Russia make military pacts these days strictly necessary. Russia's history of political interference, war crimes and outright annexation of neighbouring countries is what makes agreements like NATO necessary.

Ukraine threatened to sign this war pact against Russia,

Completely dishonest framing. There is no "war pact against Russia". NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance. They pose no threat to Russia whatsoever. The only problem they pose for Russia is that they make it impossible for Russia to interfere with or invade other countries. An alliance borne out of a need to protect yourself against a nation that threatens to invade you is not "a war pact against that country" and it is frankly totally dishonest to say so.

knowing that Russia, decades ago, made it clear that Ukraine was the red line when it comes to this war pact and everyone knew that and understood it.

Too bad. Russia doesn't get to decide what sovereign states choose to do. If Ukraine wishes to join NATO, that is its right. We do not form international treaties and alliances based on the desires of states who want their neighbours to remain unprotected so that they can invade them. That's like refusing to walk a friend home late at night because that wouldn't be fair to anyone who may want to sexually assault them. Maybe Russia should not expect to be allowed to assault its neighbours.

Now this war pact was used as a means to provoke Russia.

Russia was not provoked. They have been given assurances that Ukraine would not join NATO but have continued to invade - under false pretexts - anyway.

Had Ukraine assured Putin that they would not sign onto this war pact against Russia, and instead signed a peace agreement, the Minsk agreements, we would not be having this discussion.

In other words: if we let imperialist bullies dictate what smaller, neighbouring countries can do and deliberately keep them weak so that they can be invaded and politically interfered with.

No, screw that. Russia doesn't get to decide Ukraine's alliances. Ukraine does. Russia can swivel.

Ukraine was always free to trade with Europe and elsewhere without a need for a war pact of any sort.

NATO is a defensive pact. Stop calling it a "war pact". That is a lie.

It appears to me that Ukraine is now being used as a means to weaken Russia.

Ukraine is not being used in any way, shape or form and it is disgusting of you to imply such. They are fighting against Russia of their own accord. They are not being forced. They don't want to be occupied by a genocidal regime run by an imperialist lunatic. That is their right. They are being allowed the opportunity to fight back. If Russia was worried about being weakened, it would have pulled out a year ago. Or not even invaded to begin with.

It is Ukraine that is being laid to waste because western interests want to weaken Russia, and until that is achieved, Ukraine won't be allowed to engage in any peace talks.

Russia is refusing to engage in meaningful peace talks. They started the war. They have been given assurances that Ukraine would not join NATO and it made no difference.

Your arguments are lies and trash. Do better.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I know there are some on the far-left, mostly outside of U.S. who have a chip on their shoulder and a stick up their *** in regards to the U.S. and thus have a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality, apparently believing this absolves Russia of it's crimes.

I see a lot of justification of the Russian invasion from many conservatives where I live, too, precisely because of anti-Western sentiment and a desire to support the enemies of the US in particular. In my opinion, this loses the plot because it turns opposition to American abuses into support for abuses by someone else. It's not a principled stand; just a tribalistic or reactionary one.

The support of some on the far left for this kind of thing goes back decades. There were and still are some communists who support the USSR, for example. They're pejoratively known as "tankies" in a lot of leftist and Marxist circles. There are even some on the far left who support China and deny or justify actions like the Tiananmen massacre and the Uyghur genocide.

I can see plenty of perfectly valid reasons to distrust and oppose much of American foreign policy, especially historically, and I wouldn't blame someone from most of the developing and third world for being strongly against or at least distrustful of the US government. Where I completely disagree and feel repulsed is around some people's usage of legitimate concerns and historical abuses as a justification to defend other instances of hostility and abuse, such as those from Russia and China.

I'll admit that it can sometimes be challenging to side with the US—as well as certain European powers—when I feel so much skepticism toward it and recall its extensive record of atrocities and disruption in other countries. I know that this distrustful feeling by itself is definitely not a solid basis to form opinions on individual issues that have their own context, though, such as the Ukraine War where, in my opinion, the approach the US is currently taking by helping Ukraine is the best and most humane one possible.

I think everyone should strive not to let their general opinion of a country, whether positive or negative, or their emotional reaction to it cloud their judgment on individual issues where said country could be doing the right or wrong thing. That could be challenging, as I said, but I also think it's the morally and intellectually responsible thing to do.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We do not form international treaties and alliances based on the desires of states who want their neighbours to remain unprotected so that they can invade them.

I'm not sure I would fully agree with this, although I agree with your other points about Russian aggression. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis happened after the Bay of Pigs invasion, and it is arguable that Cuba had valid reasons to desire a deterrent against any future invasions. The US was understandably opposed to the placement of the nukes, though, and it wanted them out of Cuba by any means.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not sure I would fully agree with this, although I agree with your other points about Russian aggression. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis happened after the Bay of Pigs invasion, and it is arguable that Cuba had valid reasons to desire a deterrent against any future invasions. The US was understandably opposed to the placement of the nukes, though, and it wanted them out of Cuba by any means.

I would agree with that, but in the case of Ukraine it is not a matter of any actual threat posed to Russia - NATO is not an offensive, anti-Russia alliance, and any NATO bases posted in Ukraine would post no threat to Russia.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would agree with that, but in the case of Ukraine it is not a matter of any actual threat posed to Russia - NATO is not an offensive, anti-Russia alliance, and any NATO bases posted in Ukraine would post no threat to Russia.

Yeah, if I were Ukrainian, I would absolutely want my country to join NATO after seeing what Russia did in Crimea. It's not exactly convincing of Russia to tell Ukraine to stay out of NATO after annexing a part of Ukrainian territory. If anything, the invasion only proved that Ukraine had valid reasons to seek NATO membership.