[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.

[dralley]

That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones.

It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did.

It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others.

Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.

Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.

[LPisGood]

Everyone wants the war to end. As John Stewart put it, Hitler wanted the war to end.

It’s the terms of how it ends that need to be reasonable.

[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.

[LPisGood]

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

I can’t figure out if you’re being serious. They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads. Russia is the adversary of USA because wars of conquest in Europe are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States.

> if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back?

It’s up to the invaded country to decide how long. I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders.

> I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.

Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points. To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.