It's not being caused by the ones providing weapons, but the attackers though?
Are you the kind of people that thells people not to help the bullied kid against the bully because it will just make them take more hits? Just surrender to the bully, easy.
Thing is, a total military defeat of Russia has seemed very unlikely for all the duration of the conflict. It's been ongoing for more than two years, and the only results so far are more Ukrainian territories occupied, and more death and destruction. Peace negotiations should be kept open at all times, and it should be up to Ukrainian people to decide the terms they agree to. Sadly, it has surfaced in an investigation from Foreign Affairs that some western powers like the UK or the US pushed Ukraine to stay in the war, for reasons that we can only speculate about. So, what's the best course of action now?
It benefits NATO countries to curb the expansion of a rival power
"Rival" power is a matter of choice though, isn't it? The EU could as easily have chosen to align with Russia as with they've done with the US. In the same way that both France and Germany are powers but they're not really rival. EU should have gone its own way after 1991, NATO stopped making sense after the communist block was dissolved, and the fact that it kept growing and moving further towards the east in violation of the agreements reached last century, kinda shows that it's not a defensive alliance as much as it is subservience to US's geopolitical interests.
This isn't to say the EU should be aligned to Russia or that the war in Ukraine isn't primarily Putin's fault, or that there shouldn't be a military alliance in Europe, I'm just saying the US shouldn't belong to it, let alone dictate its terms.
"Um yes I understand that one side is a genocidal dictatorship which invaded unprovoked and the other side is a democratic state whose primary wish is not to be genocided, but let's not divide this into good and evil!"
It's insane what distances people will go to simp for fascism.
It’s rather misleading to portray Ukraine as a democracy in any sense of the word,
How bizarre.
I do not operate under the terms “the saviors” and “the baddies”, nor do I believe that the US should cease military aid to Ukraine. I’m just committed to dispelling the image of normalcy that a “good vs evil” portrayal creates.
Well, this might be controversial, but most people regard "A nation not wanting to be genocided" as pretty anodyne, and "Government wanting to commit genocide" as pretty evil, so you'll have to forgive me for not finding your "Um aktually" statements all that compelling in light of this situation, which is one of the least morally ambiguous conflicts of the 21st century.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine's self defense. What I don't agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of "aid" that never gives anything to anyone for free.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
I wholeheartedly agree with the moral character of Ukraine’s self defense.
How curious, because you began by stating
to think this conflict involves “the good guys” in some way is laughable
It's almost like a classic motte-and-bailey argument.
What I don’t agree with, however, is the moral character of the US, a supplier of “aid” that never gives anything to anyone for free.
Yes, here we have the horrible motivation of [checks notes] not wanting Ukraine, a country who we have fairly close ties with, annexed by an authoritarian dictatorship who constantly causes trouble for us. Truly, we are vile opportunists here.
I once again inquire what fascist state you were so unbelievably convinced I was simping for.
Russia. And if you believe this conflict is something best described in 'shades of gray', then I still regard you as simping for Russia, in the same way that Juche apologists sometimes admit fault with North Korea, but always immediately pivot to "But South Korea Just As Bad(tm)". Playing "Bothsides!" games is old hat. It's been overused. No one falls for it anymore. Sorry.
I do think that the substance of our disagreement here is minute and the "no good side" statement I opened this with is far from the best way of wording what I was referring to here. Please note, however, that at no point did I bring "shades of gray" or "both sides equally bad" into the conversation, and that the antagonistic nature of your gotcha is deeply reductive, insensitive and automated.
I did not interpret my original comments as genocidal rhetoric, but seeing as how they have been interpreted, I now realize that they contain an element analogous to that of "the conflict in Gaza is too complex". I am sorry for causing this pointless argument and will be more careful with the implications of concise opinions from now on.
It's crazy that this isn't even the first comment I've seen this week arguing that the Ukraine war is somehow a conspiracy by the West to sell more weapons, as if Russia didn't just roll up and invade them, illegally and unprovoked
Do you recognize being invaded by a foreign country is a legitimate problem a country might have to face? If you do, and you oppose private military industry, that means you support public military industry, right?
Ofc there are situations that require military defense expenses. Once said that, using the military expenses to cross all the red lines drawn in the aftermath of WW2 is not to prevent a foreign invasion, but to instigate the chapter 3.
Do you think Russia will patiently wait until every country bordering it is pointing missiles at it? Then you understand nothing about big-scale military conflicts.
By "crossing the red lines" do you mean ex-Eastern block countries joining NATO? Those countries joined out of their own free will BECAUSE they feared Russia might want to attack them. And, oh surprise, Russia did attack the one country not sucking up to them that didn't join NATO. Why should Russia's security be sacred above that of all its neighbours?
If by red lines you don't mean that, then they've clearly not been crossed. Russia and US or EU troops have not directly fought each other, and no country has used nuclear weapons so far.
"Patiently wait" is a funny way to spell "invade and systematically undermine."
No reason every country around them has missiles - right? No history of getting rolled, by them. Not like there's an alliance specifically dedicated to stopping them from gobbling up nearby territory whenever they feel like it.