Top 5 reasons America must support Ukraine and help it defeat Russia

So Now Fake Anti War FOX news is ok with War!
During the Obama admin FOX news was agaisnt the idea of supporting or pulling a intervention in Syria.

To assist their "moderate Jihadists"
Now FOX News is suggesting to their audience that there are 5 reasons America must support Ukraine and help it defeat Russia.

Whats amsuing about this Hawkish opinion coming from Michael Allen.

A defeat of Russia in Ukraine means the end of Russia as a civilization and break up of it is exctly why they are pushing and hoping for a complete destruction of Russia as a civilization and nation.

Its why they had hosted decolonization of russia conference.
By the Helsinki Commission.

Top 5 reasons America must support Ukraine and help it defeat Russia

The problem with FOX news first point that Ukraine keeps the war from spreading.

Is unfortunately wrong.

we would prevent a larger European conflict that would drag the U.S. into a world war.  

FOX news seems to be forgetting that the US forces are still occupying parts of Syria and had bumped onto each other a few times recently as well.

The second part is amusingly hilarious because it isn't true.

The Ukrainians are bleeding Russia of manpower and materiel

How are Ukrainians bleeding Russia of manpower and materiel when Russia is the largest that can produce their own?
Comparing to the EU that recently had admitted that the Ukrainians had bleed and depleted Europe's military stock?


Europe’s military stockpiles ‘depleted,’ must be refilled after surge to Ukraine


The U.S. and Europe are running out of weapons to send to Ukraine


When it comes to FOX news article and this opinion.
It is actually the other way around than.

When it comes to the point of manpower the Ukrainian zelenskyy govt had being unwilling to release actual death stats of the Ukrainian side casualties.
The Ukrainian side has no problem making up casualties numbers for the Russian side but never realeasing the true scale on the Ukranian side.

FOX News the War Hawk in the third point
Are blaming Russia of using Oil/gas agaisnt Europe but not blaming the sanctions which the US/EU had pushed agaisnt Russia.

By withholding natural gas transfers to Europe, Putin has weaponized energy to pressure Europe to push Ukraine into early peace talks.

Russia hasn't withhold the natural gas transfers to Europe the US has weaponized energy pushing Europe to sanction Russia which put Europe into recession.


5. A Ukrainian Victory Promotes American Values
In the 5th point FOX news is mentioning the New World Order/International order, US hegemony. Lying that this order is built on Freedom and democracy.

Russia’s predatory behavior is a threat to the U.S. because Russia seeks, with its ally China, to destroy the U.S.-led post World War II international system built on freedom, economic openness, and democracy.

War is big business, doesn't matter who is involved.

The media paymasters will ensure the mouthpieces continue the company line.

If you are a friendly regime like Qatar, Saudi Arabia which had being ruling for 500 years and had brutalizing their population this NWO wont come to you.

Preventing the water from flowing to a province that sought independence?
How a Ukrainian dam played a key role in tensions with Russia

"Promoting American values of the NWO"

a reply to: vNex92

We will not have any more world wars.

If we do, it will be the last one, and we should hope our planet survives the process if it comes to pass.

Too many nukes for WW3 to come to pass without annihilating if NATO/Russia/China are involved.

My 2 cents.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Too many nukes for WW3 to come to pass without annihilating

Which is why they keep poking the bear.
They thought that the bear wouldn't act nor respond in Ukraine.

But Kiev's masters are the US/UK.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Too many nukes for WW3 to come to pass without annihilating

Which is why they keep poking the bear.
They thought that the bear wouldn't act nor respond in Ukraine.

But Kiev's masters are the US/UK.

And the US is working for China.

If Russia collapses, who do you think will be there to pick up the pieces first?

China would love that real estate.
They probably already have their new mine locations picked out.

Perhaps if Ukraine wasn't such a corrupt pit of garbage they wouldn't be in the mess they're in .

Why should we bail them out ? So all the corrupt politicians in America who are in bed with them can cover their tracks ? Every dollar sent to Ukraine is in effort to cover up the rampant corruption from our own political system .

Best of luck to them

a reply to: lordcomac

If Russia collapses, who do you think will be there to pick up the pieces first?

Do you know anything about history? if Russia as a civilization collapses so does Ukraine and the other Slavic nations. Including Ukraine.

China would love that real estate

China already stated they have no interests on Russia borders nor provinces. And what makes you think they would? you clearly dont know history when a civilization falls.

the US is working for China.

Thus showing that US has no real economy as it did years ago.

Viktor Bout was right this isn't the same US from years ago.

No thanks
You euros keep your land war
We want no more

a reply to: lordcomac

If Russia collapses

Before that happens i do believe we shall see Nukes or missiles flying..

Russia also stated something similar why should other countries exist but not Russia?


The US govt has its deep roots hatred of all Slav/Slavs not just on the Russia. You think they give a crap on the Ukrainian people or its culture?

The US govt is enjoying this conflict.

I'm uncertain, the point of the OP may be about FOX news, and it's continued predilection for "news that sells" as opposed to simply news. OR it could be about the supposition that if FOX news reports this, people will "automatically" think it gospel. Of course, it is published as "Michael Allen's opinion" and rightfully should be considered such.

Just for fun let's dismantle the "list"

1. Ukraine keeps the war from spreading.

All the buzzwords are there, "world war," "clear and present danger," the idea that "peace" can only come from the complete "restoration" of Ukraine's territory, and of course "larger European conflict."

2. Ukraine is degrading a hostile Russia

This one is simple... anything "bad" for Russia is "good for the U.S." but it makes a segue to invoke the Pacific theater (China, Taiwan.)

3. Ukrainian success helps restore economic vitality

Herein we are to accept that it wasn't machinations in the oil economy that caused the energy duress our citizens face. It was all about Ukraine (hooray) and Russia (boo.) It wasn't policy decisions, it wasn't profiteering, it wasn't anything other than a Russian plot to 'pressure' for a peace settlement (perhaps meaning if you want peace - you're pro-Russia.)

4. A victorious Ukraine helps the U.S. competition with China

Wait. I thought this was about U.S. involvement in the Ukraine/Russia matter. No, apparently Ukraine is so important to the U.S. because: China.

5. A Ukrainian Victory Promotes American Values

Oooh man, did he just admit to drinking the "American values are what's at stake" Kool-Aid? Dude, Ukraine and her government cannot stand up to scrutiny in almost ANY civil sense. This is not really debatable. This isn't about a democracy in Ukraine; there isn't one there that can survive scrutiny.

This isn't about America's values... we still can't get agreement in what exactly makes any specific value "American."

In summary this is politicking.

Thank you for entertaining my "nearly" off-topic thoughts... If this was a thread about FOX I am somewhat off-base... but the whole point of the FOX article was "their" opinion... so I can hang my hat on that.

For the first point, the invasion was a reaction to NATO expansion, and warnings about that were raised more than two decades ago.

For the second, the U.S. is again using another country to attack its foes. In addition, the Russian economy remains strong, together with approval ratings for Putin. Meanwhile, European economies are doing badly.

For the third point, Europe is heavily dependent not only on Russia but also on China for trade, and that was doing well for many years. The problem is that the U.S. didn't want competition, which is why it used Europe to antagonize Russia.

No. 4 proves what I said about No. 3: the other economies are growing stronger and have been moving away from the U.S. dollar. The U.S. can't accept that because it needs everyone to be dependent on the dollar so that it can continue its borrowing and spending binge. That's why it needs Ukraine to win. Also, China was watching Ukraine even before the invasion. That's because the U.S. was manipulating Ukraine, calling for regime change.

For No. 5, the average American can't identify Ukraine on a map, and can barely answer basic questions like which countries border the U.S., identify his own home state on a map, and so on. That means the only values that are promoted are those of the defense industry which profit from war, and of corrupt U.S. and Ukraine officials who get their cut from military and financial aid.

a reply to: monkeyluv

For the first point, the invasion was a reaction to NATO expansion, and warnings about that were raised more than two decades ago.

Would have been EU expansion, not NATO. The “revolution” years ago was because they were in the process of joining the EU, not NATO. I understand the argument the former can later involve the latter, but Europe has a long history with Russia, so I’m not surprised they’ll express interest on that side of the continent.

For the second, the U.S. is again using another country to attack its foes.

I wouldn’t argue this is a proxy war, but odd you said the US is using it to attack Russia. Last I checked they invaded Ukraine. So maybe we’ve entered the proxy battle. But we didn’t use a country to attack Russia.

I semi agree with your third point. But I don’t think we compete with Russia and China’s exports as much as we have a disdain for their reliance on Russian energy. We’re Dependent on the same Chinese goods as Europe, so that’s not as much as an issue. We can’t compete with Russian energy there, I imagine we would just prefer they procure it from more favorable sources.

No. 4 proves what I said about No. 3: the other economies are growing stronger and have been moving away from the U.S. dollar.

This one is simply untrue. The dollar has been outperforming most currencies, and the only arguments for a new reserve would be the Euro or Yuan. The USD has gained on both, and if you want to present the case for the Yuan overtaking it I’d love to hear it. Chinas real estate bubble has come to a breaking point and zero COVID policy has stifled businesses for years. The west (more specifically the US) stopped that over a year ago in a vast majority of the country.

At the end of the day, I hate all forms of dogma, including those who think the US has never done wrong. To a degree, Ukraine is being used. I personally would prefer the US focused on home right now rather than meddling in Ukraine. But I think they’re using us too. And it speaks volumes how hard they’re resisting Russia.

Funny innit most of the former USSR countries want nothing to do with Russia. Even more ironic most are better off now too.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I wouldn’t argue this is a proxy war, but odd you said the US is using it to attack Russia. Last I checked they invaded Ukraine. So maybe we’ve entered the proxy battle. But we didn’t use a country to attack Russia.

What is US Hawkish polticans, MIC are doing is no different. Whatever its proxy war or not.


They are using Syria agaisnt Iran.
They are using Taiwan, Hong Kong agaisnt China.

In Eastern Europe they are using Kosovo agaisnt Serbia. Not because they care about the people there its about the geopolitical sphere,dominance.

"Pax Americana"
According to a Hawkish Policy Analyst.


Instated of focusing at home front issues like fixing up the health care for all of its citizens, instated of prolonging occupation in Europe the US has no borders anymore.

a reply to: vNex92

During the Obama admin FOX news was agaisnt the idea of supporting or pulling a intervention in Syria.

So they were against American war in Syria and now they're against Russian war in Ukraine. What's the problem? Fox News in hypocritical in a lot of ways but this ain't it.

a reply to: vNex92

Our Middle East policy is morally bankrupt. I understand the premise, but I can’t defend it and have never tried to.

Taiwan and Hong Kong, that’s a bit different. We have a national interest in Taiwan, and I think it benefits China too. The current arrangement gives them leverage in the global landscape. The second they touch it, and they’ll lose it. HK was inevitable, and they may shoot themself in the foot and loose Asian banking to Singapore.

As for Ukraine. I’ve already said I’d rather not see our hand. It’s a zero sum game. But if we’re speaking on morality, we do have a treaty with them, and while we don’t honor all our treaties, this is a high profile one. And as many have pointed out it’s important to Europe. I also have a soft spot for the country invaded.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: lordcomac

If Russia collapses, who do you think will be there to pick up the pieces first?

Do you know anything about history? if Russia as a civilization collapses so does Ukraine and the other Slavic nations. Including Ukraine.

They're been in the process of collapsing for 30 years now. Once it stops they can start rebuilding.

Thus showing that US has no real economy as it did years ago.

I know your hate and jealousy of the West is intense, but this is a new level of self-delusion, lol.

a reply to: Maxmars

All the buzzwords are there, "world war," "clear and present danger," the idea that "peace" can only come from the complete "restoration" of Ukraine's territory, and of course "larger European conflict."

Giving more territory to Russia has proved a failure in the past for the purposes of preventing the war from spreading. If you want to discourage Russia from extending the war then take away their gains. A rational actor will stop spending resources on a war they gain nothing from.

This one is simple... anything "bad" for Russia is "good for the U.S." but it makes a segue to invoke the Pacific theater (China, Taiwan.)

That's seems too simple. If you're talking about global geopolitics you can't ignore China, so it's like a three body problem at least. Gets complicated. US strength forces China and Russia to co-operate pretty reliable, and Iran too for example. But for USA to think anything that hurts one of them is good, that would only reinforce their co-op. So it's important to play them against each other when possible.

Herein we are to accept that it wasn't machinations in the oil economy that caused the energy duress our citizens face. It was all about Ukraine (hooray) and Russia (boo.) It wasn't policy decisions, it wasn't profiteering, it wasn't anything other than a Russian plot to 'pressure' for a peace settlement (perhaps meaning if you want peace - you're pro-Russia.)

What do you mean when you say machinations? Be precise. And all theories and mumbo jumbo from economists is secondary to the fact that you actually have to get the oil out of the ground and transport it. That's the basis, that's material reality.

Wait. I thought this was about U.S. involvement in the Ukraine/Russia matter. No, apparently Ukraine is so important to the U.S. because: China.

You're starting to get I see

Oooh man, did he just admit to drinking the "American values are what's at stake" Kool-Aid? Dude, Ukraine and her government cannot stand up to scrutiny in almost ANY civil sense. This is not really debatable. This isn't about a democracy in Ukraine; there isn't one there that can survive scrutiny.

This isn't about America's values... we still can't get agreement in what exactly makes any specific value "American."

I mean I agree with your relativism when it comes to values, but you can't expect to Ukraine to become Westernized in just 8 years during which they've been at constant war with Russia trying to keep Ukraine Russian.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Maxmars

Giving more territory to Russia has proved a failure in the past for the purposes of preventing the war from spreading. If you want to discourage Russia from extending the war then take away their gains. A rational actor will stop spending resources on a war they gain nothing from.

I never felt that anyone "gave" territory to Russia. I do agree that rational actors behave rationally. But I still can't quite get a bead on why this war is being carried out in the first place. And I refuse to accept that it is happening because "Putin's evil." I have a hard time accepting the tabloid definitions. Is there any reason a rational actor kills thousands of civilians and destroys billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure - while simultaneously sending thousands of his own citizens to potential death and dismemberment? I don't understand the real reason people must die.

That's seems too simple. If you're talking about global geopolitics you can't ignore China, so it's like a three body problem at least. Gets complicated. US strength forces China and Russia to co-operate pretty reliable, and Iran too for example. But for USA to think anything that hurts one of them is good, that would only reinforce their co-op. So it's important to play them against each other when possible.

Somehow China is in the equation... and now - at least nominally, Iran... How about North Korea? Unless there is a secret alliance, I don't see it. And is that really happening... them being played against each other? What exactly about the US forces them to cooperate if not the reverse side of the coin, anything bad for the US is good for the 'us' in that equation? I think it is as simple as schoolyard tribalism obfuscated by ultimately 'relativistic' justifications.

What do you mean when you say machinations? Be precise. And all theories and mumbo jumbo from economists is secondary to the fact that you actually have to get the oil out of the ground and transport it. That's the basis, that's material reality.

The one where no matter what happens the oil industry wins BIG - profits soar, and nations send people to die to keep their investment safe. The machinations are easy to define. It's called profit.

I mean I agree with your relativism when it comes to values, but you can't expect to Ukraine to become Westernized in just 8 years during which they've been at constant war with Russia trying to keep Ukraine Russian.

I don't expect Ukraine to become Westernized. I rather expect Ukraine to be Ukrainian. The entire idea of channeling westernism into nations by commerce and policy is part of the problem. I don't know what Ukrainians want as a people; I suspect some of them might not know either. It is a problem of any national existence. Not everyone will agree to everything.

Hopefully you can convey the why of it to me. But the list doesn't even come close to being persuasive unless I play the "fan" role ... that's not in me. Nothing will improve while we fight... we must stop fighting. Lists of "why" we should support one side of over the other would matter to me only if it didn't include killing civilians.

originally posted by: Maxmars
originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Maxmars

Giving more territory to Russia has proved a failure in the past for the purposes of preventing the war from spreading. If you want to discourage Russia from extending the war then take away their gains. A rational actor will stop spending resources on a war they gain nothing from.

I never felt that anyone "gave" territory to Russia.

Alright, we can say maybe "allow Russia to annex territory?"

And I refuse to accept that it is happening because "Putin's evil." I have a hard time accepting the tabloid definitions.

There's no need to accept them if you ask me, whatever they may be. Personally I think it happened because generally Russians feel that those territories are or should be part of Russia, and because the Russian elites have economic interests.

Is there any reason a rational actor kills thousands of civilians and destroys billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure - while simultaneously sending thousands of his own citizens to potential death and dismemberment? I don't understand the real reason people must die.

Thousands of civilians and billions of dollars would have been a small price if the invasion was successful, if you have a mindset that values the nation over those individuals, money over human life, and power over money. And once you've invested those "resources" it can be hard to just quit.

Somehow China is in the equation... and now - at least nominally, Iran... How about North Korea? Unless there is a secret alliance, I don't see it.

How do you mean?

And is that really happening... them being played against each other?

In the context of this war, no. But I meant in general.

What exactly about the US forces them to cooperate if not the reverse side of the coin, anything bad for the US is good for the 'us' in that equation? I think it is as simple as schoolyard tribalism obfuscated by ultimately 'relativistic' justifications.

You're saying that the US, by applying of "everything bad for them is good for us", is leading to Russia and China co-operating and having to apply that same logic? Just checking before I reply, want to make sure I read it correctly. And by relativistic justifications, you mean being selfish basically, or tribalistic?

The one where no matter what happens the oil industry wins BIG - profits soar, and nations send people to die to keep their investment safe. The machinations are easy to define. It's called profit.

Well we could tax them, that would reduce machinations. Or drill less. Of course that doesn't work globally, then industries in other countries might make more machinations. How do you feel about the price cap on Russian oil btw?

And I thought by machinations you meant the methods of gaining profit or something, my bad.

I don't expect Ukraine to become Westernized. I rather expect Ukraine to be Ukrainian.

Alright. When you wrote about Ukraine not measuring up under scrutiny and not having democracy, I thought you mean democracy is a Western value that was failing to catch on in Ukraine. And lack of corruption probably.

When you say you expect it to be Ukrainian, does that mean you don't expect civic improvement, whatever that may entail? Or are you talking more about cultural identity now?

Hopefully you can convey the why of it to me. But the list doesn't even come close to being persuasive unless I play the "fan" role ... that's not in me. Nothing will improve while we fight... we must stop fighting. Lists of "why" we should support one side of over the other would matter to me only if it didn't include killing civilians.

Hopefully, yeah. Why must we stop fighting though? Just because nothing will improve, that doesn't mean things cannot get worse if "we" stop fighting. And of course I think it's worth making sacrifices in the now to create conditions for improving in the future.

When you say lists include killing civilians, do you mean actively killing them? Or is even civilian deaths as a side effect or even risk unacceptable to you?