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.
Not certain if trolling or just unfamiliar, but Republicans politicians are doing what they can to not get in Russia's way or doing things that benefit Russia. For instance, Republicans aren't really supporting providing additional funding to Ukraine. Republicans have also used an FBI informant who was bribed by Russia as evidence to try to impeach Joe Biden.
I dont support Russia, but am vehemently against aid to Ukraine for a variety of reasons. American should have never been involved in any of it, just like with Isreal.
As it is now, Russia controlling as much oil as they do gives them power over us, them controlling Ukraine will also help them affect food prices as well as just encouraging them to continue to attack their enemies. Europe has significant reason to jump to prevent Russia's advancement, European countries being our allies is another reason to stop Russia's push into Europe.
Sorry, but these are just propaganda talking points. Russia has very little power over the western nations, and they were never going to invade the rest of Europe. The whole war was completely avoidable, but that is what the government and media will conveniently not mention. The whole narrative is an objective pile of bullshit.
Unless you have any kind of proof that this is all a smokescreen and propaganda for a more nefarious plot, we're going to continue to listen to the unanimous Western sources including live on the ground video footage and first hand accounts that Russia is illegally invading Ukraine. But also, we're 2 years into this war. You're way too late to be on Lemmy peddling your misinformation.
Power over Western nations may have been a strong word, but they do have influence.
We don't know their plan, but we can look at past trends: they've attacked Georgia, they've attacked and controlled Crimea, they're attacking and controlling parts of Ukraine. Not fighting Russia hasn't stopped Russia, so with Russia now at war with Ukraine, stopping them there seems like a necessity. Maybe now they'll learn that imperialism is dead, and looked badly on by other nations. They shouldn't be rewarded for this bad behavior against our allies.
You're right, the war could have been avoided, but Russia decided not to avoid war. All they need to do is leave ukraine and it will stop, but they won't.
Russia invaded Ukraine on false pretexts with the intent to use military action to overthrow a democratically elected government after their last attempt at coup/puppet government failed when their patsy fled the country after his failed attempt.
After the US failed to act in 2014 despite evidence of Russia starting proxy wars against Ukraine and annexing land illegally, and further muddied by Trump's attempts to withhold defense aid packages he was obligated by law to deliver.
So yes, US involvement has been justified and Ukraine has not only been happy for the assistance but requested more to ensure their freedom and prosperity doesn't vanish tomorrow with Putin's intent to rape the entire country.
How is the US justified to meddle in the politics of countries on the other side of the planet? What would the US do if china was giving money to Mexico or Cuba?
What would be the problem with China giving money to Cuba and Mexico?
The problem is that the US would not allow it. Every country is going to ask for aid or alliance, why does that mean that we should help or join in alliance with them?
Cuba was/is under Russian control not China. China and Russia were in a cold war for decades. The Soviet Union did give money to Cuba. The only complaint the US had was when Soviets installed missiles in Cuba.
Cuba was completely supported by the Soviet Union with billions in economic aid and hundreds of millions in military aid every year.
"From 1976 to 1980, the Soviets invested US$1.7 billion on the construction and remodeling of Cuban factories and industry. Between 1981 and 1984 Cuba also received approximately US$750 million a year in Soviet military assistance."
The US freaked out after the USSR gave Cuba money AND installed missiles there. It sure must be the money that freaked the US out, it can't possibly be the missiles pointed directly at he US, that wouldn't make any sense.
Because they do the right thing this time. What is wrong with helping a country defend itself from an agressor? I know the US does and has done shitty things, that does not mean that everything the US does is bad.
I remember this episode of DS9. The genetically enhanced humans do the math and figure out by surrendering to the Dominion the Federation would save billions of lives not fighting a war they never had a hope of winning.
But, spoilers, the Federation did win the war in the end. And the genetically enhanced super smart humans who mathematically proved surrender and submission was the best strategy were kept locked up like weird little freaks.
Ukraine has managed to do a lot in this war: they have repelled Russia's attack on Kyiv, despite expectations and even pulled of two succesful counteroffensives. (I am talking about Charkiw and Kherson.) I know Ukraine is in a bad spot but that doesn't mean that it's over for them.
If they don't want to negotiate and would rather fight, then why should we tell them they shouldn't and instead should negotiate with the agressor? And why should we believe that Russia won't violate such a deal? Their track-record isn't great in this regard.
Wikipedia says that the Ukrainian armed forces consists of 1000000 armed personell. Compared to Russia's 1320000. I don't know the relevancy of this, but hey, I answered your question, now you answer mine.
And all those victories came at a cost and that cost being that their average soldier is in their 40s, and they had to increase their draft. We never know for certain the outcome of a peace deal, but reason russia invaded is well known, and if the west had not gotten involved in the situation the war would have never started, and they dont actually want to invade Ukraine.
My question was not how big their armies are, it was how many people are CONSCIRPTED in their army? Meaning how many war slaves are they using?
Victories coming at a cost is not something new and info on how severe they are is hard to come by due to the fog of war. So unless you have a decent source, this point is kind of useless.
What good reason does Russia have for it's full scale invasion?
And next: I don't know why I should be the one looking up how many conscripts Ukraine has when it is your argument. Why don't you look it up yourself?
And what should the west do to protect themselves form Russian aggression in your eyes? If this is not the right way to do it.