NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine
NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is proposing to establish a fund of allied contributions worth $100 billion over five years for Ukraine as part of a package for alliance leaders to sign off when they gather in Washington in July.
You're viewing part of a thread.
has a ‘history’* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb
If you swap out America with Russia its actually more applicable. If you look at the invastions they have done in the last two decades they have all been what they have percieved as being for their protection. The defense should be for NATO to not stop antagonizing russia.
Listen, I know the US has done plenty of shitty things and I am not trying to defend it. What I am saying is that their aid to Ukraine is entirely justified, because it helps Ukraine regain their soveieignty back from the aggressor.
Can you please be a little more presize with NATO antagonizing Russia, what should they have done differently?
And lastly: since you haven't answered this question I am going to ask it again: What should Ukraine do, in your eyes, to protect themselves from Russia?
I dont have a problem with Ukraine defending themselves, I have a problem with the US being involved in a proxy war in a country most people in the US couldnt point to it on a map.
To not antagonize russia NATO shouldnt have kept taking in countries to the east, and should have welcomed russia in when it asked. We should have actually listened to russia and not done the things that we knew would aggravate russia.
I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that's a fair question.
You also seem to be against US involvement by virtue of it being a US involvement, even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor. What is wrong with that?
If I read this correctly, you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
The best defense was to negotiate with russia. The world is not perfect, in war there is almost never a good solution. Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.
even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor.
This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.
you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.
The best defense was to negotiate with russia.
Considering how well Russia followed the Budapest memorandum, I don't think this is the right course of action.
"Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing."
Any source or explanation as to why the route of aiding Ukraine leads to a higher risk of a nuclear war or WW3 would be appreciated.
"This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight."
A source or explanation is needed once again.
"Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions."
Wasn't there a rule that countries need to resolve their conflicts before entering NATO? Russia had one: the Chechen wars. The first Chechen war started in 1994 [1]. Between German unification and the first Chechen war, a grand total of ZERO countries joined NATO [2]. This means that Russia was already fighting before NATO let in countries of the former eastern bloc. Not a good look for an aspiring member, is it?
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
"I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that's a fair question."
Will you answer this question this time around? Or will you ignore it again?
Any source or explanation as to why the route of aiding Ukraine leads to a higher risk of a nuclear war or WW3 would be appreciated.
You dont think a proxy war with the country with the most nuclear weapons risks anything? As far as WW3, we are pushing together the Brics countries.
If the US had rejected Ukraines request to join NATO, this war would not be happening.
Will you answer this question this time around? Or will you ignore it again?
There is no answer, they cant defend themselves, they could never win. Giving them money and offering alliance has only made it worse.
You dont think a proxy war with the country with the most nuclear weapons risks anything?
You gotta stop an agressor at some point, Russia is most likely not going to stop at Ukraine if Putin gets away with it. Now the west has an opportunity to make Russia's imperial ambitions more difficult without interfering directly. This, to me, is the least risky option.
As far as WW3, we are pushing together the Brics countries.
Gotta ask for a source or explanation again.
If the US had rejected Ukraines request to join NATO, this war would not be happening.
First of all, Ukraine wasn't a part of NATO and considering that Russia already violated their territorial integrity before, Ukraine would have a hard time joining NATO.
Second of all, Ukrainian support for joining NATO was very low, until Russia annexed Crimea, after that happened Ukraine began actively trying to join NATO.[1] So Russia brought this onto themselves.
And how do you know how Russia would have acted, had things gone differently?
There is no answer, they cant defend themselves, they could never win. Giving them money and offering alliance has only made it worse.
Source or explanation needed, again.
Gotta ask for a source or explanation again.
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded. If NATO had not gotten involved, I dont believe russia would have invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, or invaded Ukraine. If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
By the sanctions we did in Russia, it has cause the foreign countries to start going off the petro dollar and they are able to group together under different currencies.
The link to WW3 is missing. Since you were talking about BRICS here is something I'd like to add: India also takes part in a quadrilateral organisation with the US. [1] So could it just be that India is being neutral and playing both sides?
What you will find if you listen to anyone that knows the history of the region is that all along NATO and the US were directly involved in all of the countires that russia invaded.
Source please.
If we didnt stick our nose into every country around the world, the war would not be happening right now.
I don't think either of us can truly know how Russia would have acted had thins gone differently. But if Soviet history is anything to go by, it is not good.
You gave no answer as to why Ukraine's defense is futile.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue
I dont know what countries for certain but it would be something like- China, Russia, Iran, the rest of the muslim world, etc vs NATO, Israel, etc. We are directly pushing all of those countries together.
Dave probably lists out the reasons for the Ukraine war. Scott Horton goes into excruciating detail on the causes of the Ukraine war and lots more.
Ukraines defense is futile because they dont have enough population, and it is showing in the median soldier age being in the 40s.
We should have actually listened to russia and not done the things that we knew would aggravate russia.
lol
Exactly people like you just ignore whats happening and we end up with wars all around the world. Stay ignorant.
What are 'people like me' in your mind?
People that just believe the narrative they are told via the media and government. These are people that say the Ukraine war was "Unprovoked", the lockdowns worked, and Trump is orange hitler.