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

a reply to: CriticalStinker

NATO expansion, not EU.

The U.S. has been using a grand chessboard strategy involving 700 military bases and installations to encircle Russia and China. Around 400 of those are used for the latter:

www.youtube.com...

The U.S. has been on a borrowing and spending binge since the early 1980s:

seekingalpha.com...

That's because the use of the dollar as a reserve currency leads to a Triffin dilemma. That's why the U.S. has also been experiencing poor economic growth since the early 1960s and chronic trade deficits since the early 1970s.

My last point is true precisely because the value of the dollar is so high. That means the Triffin dilemma, which leads to chronic trade deficits. In order to make up for that, the U.S. has to borrow and spend heavily, which is precisely what it's been doing since the early 1980s.

But to do that, other countries need to be dependent on the dollar for trade. How can that continue when more of them are becoming stronger economically and thus being less dependent on it? That's why the U.S. has to spend heavily on its military and dirty tricks to weaken and coerce countries across decades.

That's why it's considered the most warlike in the world:

www.counterpunch.org...

and makes both Russia and China look like amateurs.

sites.evergreen.edu...

That's also why the U.S. destabilized Ukraine in 2014, leading to regime change and the rise of pro-U.S. puppets.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Not just its Middle East policy but U.S. foreign policy. It's based on U.S. exceptionalism driven by neoliberalism and neoconservatism, leading to mayhem in many countries. And that includes Ukraine.

a reply to: Cutepants

U.S. total debt is now over $90 trillion, and unfunded liabilities over $170 trillion.

www.usdebtclock.org...

It has to take on increasing debt each time, and that's not enough to cover even part of the interest on previous debts. In short, it has no other path except continuous borrowing and spending.

But to do that, demand for the dollar as a reserve currency has to grow. For that to happen, most countries worldwide have to remain economically weak and thus dependent on the U.S.

That's not happening:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Not only are they growing stronger economically they will soon take over the global economy. With that, they wil rely less on the dollar, preferring to use each others' currencies or special drawing rights on baskets of currencies. If that happens, the U.S. economy will fall apart.

In order to avoid that, the U.S. has to spend heavily on its military using the same debt and spending (now 40 pct of its budget) and then use that to keep those countries weak. One of them was Ukraine, which it manipulated through revolution and regime change, leading to pro-U.S. Ukrainian political leaders working with their U.S. counterparts.

But that didn't last because Russia has now struck back. Meanwhile, more countries, like China, India, Brazil, and even Saudi Arabia and Israel, which the U.S. arms, refuse to give in to U.S. demands to sanction Russia and want to remain neutral by trading with both Ukraine and Russia.

a reply to: Cutepants

That's a neocon stance: the U.S. is good and others are evil. The U.S. is also exceptional: it can never do wrong, and its system of freedom and democracy is the greatest in the world and must be followed by everyone. If others don't believe in that, then they should be sanctioned, embargoed, destabilized, or invaded. That's what happened to many countries across decades:

sites.evergreen.edu...

There's also a neoliberal stance: free market capitalism is best, and therefore all countries must follow that. That way, their economies can be pried open for exploitation of cheap resources and labor, and they will also remain dependent on the U.S. dollar for trade.

The problem is that more countries have become stronger economically and are following whatever economic policies they think work:

en.wikipedia.org...

More of them are also voting for authoritarian and populist leaders,arguing that their cultures are not the same as those of the West. Eventually, according to Wall Street banks, they will be taking over the world economy.

en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. can't accept that because it needs other countries to remain within its orbit of dominance, which is why it needs to push that neocon stance.

But many are no longer listening to it. Countries like India, China, and Brazil do not want to sanction Russia and want to remain neutral. The same goes for allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, and countries in many parts of the world, including Malaysia and Singapore. Several don't even want to heed calls to halt trade with China:

www.bloomberg.com...

So you can imagine imposing this or that on other countries which, ironically, go against free market capitalism, but as the years go they will only grow stronger economically and refuse to follow.

a reply to: monkeyluv

You've described a problem here that I partially agree with. But what does it have to do with my post. And do you have a solution or something? Are you saying that the war in Ukraine helps the US stay dominant, and therefore it is wrong?

Of course you're wrong about the regime change in Ukraine. They just want their nation to remain independent, even at the "cost" of aligning with the USA.

a reply to: monkeyluv

Are you replying to the wrong person with the neocon stuff? If not then you need to be more specific about what part of my post you're replying to, because seems like a non sequitur.

There's also a neoliberal stance: free market capitalism is best, and therefore all countries must follow that. That way, their economies can be pried open for exploitation of cheap resources and labor, and they will also remain dependent on the U.S. dollar for trade.

This I agree with. But ideologies come and go, I'm not that interested in getting into a socialism vs. free market fight. I'm more worried about peoples and their land and freedom.

More of them are also voting for authoritarian and populist leaders,arguing that their cultures are not the same as those of the West. Eventually, according to Wall Street banks, they will be taking over the world economy.

You need to be specific. Who are "they"?

By the numbers China will be more powerful than the USA for example, in a hypothetical situation where everyone has the same resources and everyone play fair and doesn't ally. If that was possible. The solution is to adapt to the times and make sure we have allies to protect against Chinese adventurism, just as the united West has been able to humiliate Russia.

The U.S. can't accept that because it needs other countries to remain within its orbit of dominance, which is why it needs to push that neocon stance.

But many are no longer listening to it. Countries like India, China, and Brazil do not want to sanction Russia and want to remain neutral. The same goes for allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, and countries in many parts of the world, including Malaysia and Singapore. Several don't even want to heed calls to halt trade with China:

Have those countries ever sanctioned Russia? And what are you talking about, everyone is trading with China, America trades with China.

So you can imagine imposing this or that on other countries which, ironically, go against free market capitalism, but as the years go they will only grow stronger economically and refuse to follow.

But why are you asking me to imagine that in the first place?

originally posted by: Cutepants

... 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.

That's significant to me. The why of it. I suspect that the Russian people are not as inclined towards violent expansion as their leadership though... and of Elites of any ilk very often masquerade as leaders (to bask in celebrity.)

But the Ukraine never appeared to harass or antagonize Russia to my understanding, and I have heard people speak of "ethnic" Russians living in Ukraine. From my admittedly ignorant perspective their ethnicity seems like a vague and trite distinction between humans, but if I were to say that generally about any ethnicity a horde of socially woke prideful and insistent social justice warrior would descend upon me and rend me limb from limb.

But the point of this is to say that recognizing that such a thing is an issue might be significant if it was a popularly held bias. When the Ukranian peoples' government repeatedly and violently attacked those within their own country, ethnic Russians were among those disproportionately killed and injured... This was bound to have repercussions. Why any Ukrainians would acquiesce to such brutality to their own citizens would be a significant factor within the analysis of the situation. There's that pesky question again, "why."

Add to that, the efforts of the outer world to "influence and control" the Ukraine's' political leanings, and Russia may well have been given a "reason" to be concerned... especially if the would-be influencers represented a military and economic 'opposition' to whatever passes for a Russian ideological status quo.

It makes me lean towards the hypothesis that some detached elites playing a global table-top game of monopoly really stand nothing to lose by engendering a deadly clash in Ukraine; and they appear to have done so. Noting, of course, that their 'winning' has nothing to do with the ten-year-old girl who lost a leg and two arms to the war, or a mother in Russia who will never see her baby boy again. I could go on...

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.

The only reason it could be accepted as a "small price to pay" would be because no one who is maimed or killed is of any meaningful consequence to the warring parties. That's a tell for me. The devaluation of suffering and death to the point of insignificance is very difficult to justify (but that is only my opinion.)

My reference to China being "in the equation" (and, Iran... or my positing of North Korea) means that it is no challenge to "add" fuel to the "let's go and kill and destroy, engender pain and suffering" fire. We can always contrive excuse, as long as we don't ever have to stop killing and destroying... Because we want something, anything in the way can be designated "evil", and "enemy" invoking the "kill it" response. But what do we really want? Is it really "we" who want it? Or is it some element of the "outer world" of elite club members and war profiteers?

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?

Not exactly, but close enough for our purposes. I have resigned myself to the position that "we" (you and I, in the place of the "little people") will almost certainly never know the actual and immediate why of this conflict... because the reasoning reflecting in the media celebrity talking head world use 1950's memes like "everything bad for them is good for us." That we won't know what's really driving the convoluted and endless writhing of "virtue signaling" in the public sphere. But my experience has led me to believe that when there is public virtue signaling in global conflict it is ALWAYS to conceal or obfuscate someone's distinct and self-serving motivations.

Tribalistic and selfish rationale fit perfectly into this hypothesis.

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.

Oil is not central to the point, and only exemplary of the kinds of things which are chosen to justify the decimation of communities. The machinations were meant to be a reference to methods, but not of making profit, but how to "fit" profits into the model as a factor of war.

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.

Corruption, or more generally, the practice of exploiting political/social standing to increase individual wealth and power, plagues all governments, Ukraine is no exception. If there was a true democracy in the world, I cannot see it. Perhaps it is because democracy alone is simply a principle in governance, not it's totality. Democracy belies hierarchy, they will never coexist together.

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?

On the contrary, I express "westernism" as it is implied in the idea of "western" values... something external, something to be imposed rather than inspired. As such it is, by definition, "alien" to those who we would propose will be the beneficiaries of it. The idea it has to be a matter of 'trickery, coercion, and subterfuge' tells me it is not a virtuous as it is often presented to be. I have known and love Ukrainians, they need no 'uplifting' ... they require no 'civilizing effort' ... I find myself being vicariously offended at the popular imagery of them requiring 'westernization.'

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.

Nothing will improve while we fight. While I know this may sound hyperbolic, I would ask of the leaders who tell thousands of people to kill and die... would they sacrifice themselves for this? No, of course they wouldn't. Never.

Killing doesn't create solutions. Dying doesn't create solutions. Only the clinically detached can make that theoretical claim. This isn't about a single individual. It about thousands upon thousands of people and their lives and livelihoods. I don't propose not supporting Ukraine's rejection and resistance of Russia's invasion. Our efforts should be to remove the perceived 'need' to invade.

a reply to: Maxmars

But the Ukraine never appeared to harass or antagonize Russia to my understanding

That is mostly not true
There had being videos showing some old videos of Ukrainians being brainwashed, "educated" to hate Russia/Russians in Eastern Ukraine.

That had being growing problem in Ukraine since the early 90s.

Most Ukrainian people likely dont have a issue with Russia, Russians people in general.

There are those who had being taught to hate Russia for just simply being Russian.



The current problem is the whole Ukrainian govt.

For which if you had watched of Soros interviews they "US" had spend billions on Ukraine.

a reply to: vNex92

Was there Any Mention of the Top 5 reasons America must NOT support Ukraine and help it defeat Russia ? I am guessing No ......

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: Maxmars

But the Ukraine never appeared to harass or antagonize Russia to my understanding

That is mostly not true
There had being videos showing some old videos of Ukrainians being brainwashed, "educated" to hate Russia/Russians in Eastern Ukraine.

That had being growing problem in Ukraine since the early 90s.

Most Ukrainian people likely dont have a issue with Russia, Russians people in general.

There are those who had being taught to hate Russia for just simply being Russian.

The current problem is the whole Ukrainian govt.

For which if you had watched of Soros interviews they "US" had spend billions on Ukraine.

OK then, but I beg to differ on the idea that telling your people that their neighbors suck, or are evil, or whatever is not the same as attacking, killing, and destroying. I'm not saying it isn't an irritant, belligerent, and even threatening... but European media has been demeaning and belittling Americans for generations..., should I be threatened? Americans have been disrespectful of the French - in most public media... North Korean children have been taught in nursery school a song that includes the line "And may I live to kill a hundred Yankees." Should we kill them?

Insofar as a reason to invade, that is somewhat weak.

I can't deny it's troubling. Since there are substantial groupings of people who identify as "ethnic Russian" it would be especially disturbing. Something like that might lead to widescale systemic injustices long associated with a schizoid socio-political environment. But is the solution "Let's go kill everybody" really the optimal path? Or is that path simply the best path for exploitation? Can we publicly admit there are other ways than "invasion" to deal with any of this? Or is the act of proposing the inquiry going to be squelched by the din of amplified "patriotism", and the appeal of shaming dissent? (Not you... my friend - it is purely pejorative.)

I am willing to be convinced that the U.S. should support Ukraine ... it's just no one has convinced me.

There have been appeals to my emotions:
"Rah Rah," "Democracy, God, And Country!," "American values," "...evil...EVIL," "World War"

All of these are delivered mostly by talking heads who have never actually participated in a war, are evil themselves, wouldn't understand the use of the word "values" if it weren't written on a teleprompter, have a demonstrably adequate understanding of 'democracy,' 'God,' OR 'country, and would "Rah Rah!" anything they were told to - for money.

There have been appeals to geopolitics:
"Russian Expansionism," "Ukrainian Sovereignty," "NATO," "EU,"

Insofar as Russian expansionism, I must ask if this is true?

“... the people living in the southwest of what has historically been Russian land have called themselves Russians and Orthodox Christians,” Putin said Feb. 21 in a speech justifying Russian recognition of the provinces. “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia. This process started practically right after the 1917 revolution, and Lenin and his associates did it in a way that was extremely harsh on Russia — by separating, severing what is historically Russian land.”

While I expect this is biased (and simplistic) interpretation of history, in order to stand as an assertion some part of it must be true. Ukraine is a historical 'newcomer' in the region, and multiple 'empires of old' had chunks of it within their geography. I wonder if this is complicated by the fact that socially, Russian and Ukrainian people have casually comingled (coexisted) despite "Elite" political characterizations in the region. I don't think this is a "peoples' war" for Russia... and that means that their will can prevail over the political dominance in the area. A path for peace.

Ukrainian Sovereignty

I have absolutely no qualms about defending you own nation against incursions. Of course, in war, anything you do can be colored by "defense." We can all see how this is abused. Ukrainian leadership is not a stranger to this realty. I find that disappointing. I have even heard that peace is a viable option to Ukranian leadership... and seen how that has been poo poo'd, and even squarely resisted, by western agencies.

NATO/EU

Really now, how is their involvement NOT based upon "expansionism?" Have they not covertly, and overtly amplified this problem, if not downright "caused" it? The "why" of it is just as relevant...

... Well, I did it again... wrote too much, jabbered for too long... apologies to all you exhausted and patient readers...

a reply to: Cutepants

It has everything to do with you post. Your arguments are essentially that of a neocon: we need to do this or that. Come up with a solution. "I'm more worried about peoples and their land and freedom."

Of course, I'm not wrong about regime change. Check out the documentaries _Revealing Ukraine_ and others for more details. Even Creepy Joe made similar claims, and this time about Russia, after the invasion before taking them back:

www.middleeasteye.net...

The rest of your post reveals the same: who's they? It's all about Chinese adventurism and it's a good thing that the "united West" taught Russia a lesson. Your blinkered neocon view doesn't even allow you to escape fantasy.

a reply to: monkeyluv

You'd have to be more specific then. I'm asking how do I sound like a neocon? The fact that I want solutions, is that it?

a reply to: Maxmars

Generally normal people have less to gain in a war and more to loose. And I think the latest polls showed 55% want peace now. So I imagine the average Russian is not so eager, no. Still a lot of the approve on some level, unfortunately.

And you may not care about ethnicity, but it seems very important for Putin and other Russian, and for Ukrainians too. Or maybe you'd disagree? Even if something is unimportant it can become important just because people think it is.

When the Ukranian peoples' government repeatedly and violently attacked those within their own country, ethnic Russians were among those disproportionately killed and injured...

What are you basing this on?

Add to that, the efforts of the outer world to "influence and control" the Ukraine's' political leanings, and Russia may well have been given a "reason" to be concerned...

Certainly. But like you said, the concerns of governments often don't reflect those of their peoples. So I no see no justification in that concern. I don't give a crap if it goes badly for the government.

But if you're just saying they had reasons to invade, then of course, yeah. I'm not saying they did it erratically for no reason.

It makes me lean towards the hypothesis that some detached elites playing a global table-top game of monopoly really stand nothing to lose by engendering a deadly clash in Ukraine; and they appear to have done so.

Yes that's how it is I think.

The only reason it could be accepted as a "small price to pay" would be because no one who is maimed or killed is of any meaningful consequence to the warring parties.

Right.

We can always contrive excuse, as long as we don't ever have to stop killing and destroying... Because we want something, anything in the way can be designated "evil", and "enemy" invoking the "kill it" response. But what do we really want? Is it really "we" who want it? Or is it some element of the "outer world" of elite club members and war profiteers?

Seems to me that wasn't the case with Russia though. It took a lot to get to this point, and the West is still refusing to go to war. If "we" wanted to kill and fight then why such reluctance?

Not exactly, but close enough for our purposes. I have resigned myself to the position that "we" (you and I, in the place of the "little people") will almost certainly never know the actual and immediate why of this conflict...

That's worrying I. We won't understand everything, but I disagree, I feel that I am able to know.

Democracy belies hierarchy, they will never coexist together.

What would lack of hierarchy mean? Like anarchism, no government, no cops?

On the contrary, I express "westernism" as it is implied in the idea of "western" values... something external, something to be imposed rather than inspired. As such it is, by definition, "alien" to those who we would propose will be the beneficiaries of it.

Oh I'm not proposing we should westernize them, although it's an unavoidable side-effect. I don't see it as a big problem either.

The idea it has to be a matter of 'trickery, coercion, and subterfuge' tells me it is not a virtuous as it is often presented to be. I have known and love Ukrainians, they need no 'uplifting' ... they require no 'civilizing effort' ... I find myself being vicariously offended at the popular imagery of them requiring 'westernization.'

Yeah I hope we can learn from them and I respect their struggle for freedom. I'm not sure what popular imagery you're talking about though? I do see people here saying they are corrupt Nazis and so on, but no so much that they should become western.

originally posted by: vNex92
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.

Seriously man, you gotta get a grip.

Some of us appreciate that you bring a different perspective to this place, even if we don't agree with you, we just welcome other viewpoints because we don't want this place to be an echo chamber.

But then you completely derail yourself with nonsense claims like this.

If Russia right now halts all operations in Ukraine and pulls their forces out, that will amount to a defeat.

Russia will cease to exist if that happens? Did Russia not exist for all those years it wasn't attacking Ukraine?

Take a step back and take a dose of reality my friend.