[riehwvfbk]

Any sources for all this?

Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.

The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.

[LPisGood]

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason

I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before.

Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it.

What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.

[arandomusername]

> Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm

Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line.

> ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment

But that's not the only thing getting sent.

> we would be abandoning an ally

What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.

[LPisGood]

> Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line

Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.

> But that's not the only thing getting sent.

This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.

Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine:

1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence

[arandomusername]

> Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.

Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight.

> This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.

US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited?

Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?

> Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum

Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.

[dralley]

>Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?

The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible.

Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.

[arandomusername]

So do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?

> Russia will keep the war going with or without us

Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.

[LPisGood]

> US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited?

In international relations, power is relative (see: the security dilemma). A weaker adversary means a more powerful USA. USA Spends much more than that every year on its military. I claim the ROI is much better here.

> Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?

We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back?

Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.

[arandomusername]

and why does Russia have to be USA's adversary with constant proxy wars against each other?

> We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back?

Mexico is considerably weaker. Here's a more accurate analogy; if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? against a significantly stronger opponent?

> Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.

The aid should only be until a deal can be made, like one with Trump. It should not be given to prolong the war indefinitely. I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.

[ants_everywhere]

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason.

This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory.

Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify.

There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions.

But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.