[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.

[WgaqPdNr7PGLGVW]

> 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.

Ukraine now faces almost total destruction because they didn't take the deal.

It should be a clear lesson to other countries - don't be belligerent with your much stronger neighbors.

The US and Europe getting involved simply increased the death and destruction.

I'm not saying it is fair or right or just. It simply is.

[arandomusername]

And now there 100s thousands of Ukrainians dead. The deal was not favourable for Ukraine because unfortunately they are facing against a stronger opponent and no country wanted to back Ukraine militarily wise.

> Black Sea grain initiative was

Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed.

As per Minsk, Ukraine also violated it. There were a lot of violations from both sides. It was not an agreement that would have worked long term.

https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/5...

> Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense

Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.

> promises of arms supplies

From US and UK? Aka pressure from them?

> Your narrative is propaganda

Your narrative is propaganda.

> and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.

Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?

And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?

[dralley]

>Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed.

There were violations. They used the "inspections" process to continually delay & block ships from going to Ukrainian ports.

"Ukrainian Deputy Renovation Minister Yuriy Vaskov accused Russia of a "gross violation" of the agreement. All ships are inspected by a joint team of Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and U.N. inspectors, but Vaskov said the Russian inspectors had refused to inspect ships bound for Pivdennyi since April 29."

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-rus...

And then of course it wasn't renewed, followed up by immediate missile strikes on Ukraine's grain infrastructure over the following couple of days. Which does speak in some sense to Russia's willingness to do deals and hold them. (That didn't end up working out for them as expected, because Ukraine subsequently sank half of what remained of their Black Sea Fleet).

I notice you don't address all the other deals they violated either.

> Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.

What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.

>Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?

Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.

>And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?

No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.

[arandomusername]

Fair enough on the black sea deal.

> What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.

Reputable news sources, ideally multiple different sources that say the same thing. Ukrainian politicians will not say anything that would potentially harm their war effort.

> Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.

They can do it without my aid then.

> No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.

So, what's the end goal, as far as you see?

[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.

[arandomusername]

and do you think WW2 ended reasonably?

[LPisGood]

Yes, as reasonably as it could have. The aggressors lost and were punished.

Do you think the allies should have just given the axis the territory they demanded to prevent war?

I am finding it tremendously hard to take you seriously.

[arandomusername]

And instead of Axis controlling the territory, the Soviet Union did. Eastern Europe suffered for decades under USSR's rule. This is a reasonable ending? Millions of lives lost just so that instead of Hitler controlling Poland, it's Stalin. And for UK, it also became the end of their empire.

[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.

[arandomusername]

How is conquest of Ukraine diametrically opposed to the interests of USA?

> They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads

How so?

> 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.

USA is more powerful than China in military - not to mention UK is an ally of USA. And sure, it's up to the invaded country, but at a certain point countries don't want to keep sending money into a blackhole.

> 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

It's so easy to call something a Russian propagandist talking point or Russian bot instead of actually addressing points. Let's have a discussion without resorting to calling the other side propagandists.

> To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.

I can't comment on America because I don't live there, but European countries have suffered hard. Especially by not buying gas from Russia. Our industrial economy takes a massive hit due to increase in power. A lot of residential houses pay a lot more for gas/heating/electricity - and those are European, already a lot poorer than the Americans.

[LPisGood]

> How is conquest of Ukraine diametrically opposed to the interests of USA

Wars of aggression in Europe are against the interests of the USA.

I’be been addressing your points. It’s just hard to take them seriously as known Russian propaganda.

[arandomusername]

So Europeans suffering due to increased energy cost is Russian propaganda?

You have not provided any reasoning, just talking points.