946
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
946 points (97.6% liked)
Ukraine
8066 readers
475 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
@Wilshire I cannot think of a time in recent history when we have gotten more bang for our military buck than supporting #Ukraine against #Russia .
Not only are we doing the right thing by helping a democratic nation fight an invasion by an expansionist regime, but this aid has helped weaken one of our two main adversaries, and serves as a warning to China.
This is truly one of those win/win situations where the only debate should be the degree of military aid, not whether we support Ukraine.
Besides. Ukraine gave up nukes because we promised to protect them. There's a tremendous cost to going back on our word for soooo many reasons.
We didn't promise to protect them. But Russia and the US both promised not to invade.
Of course, we should still help them because it's the right thing to do AND is harmful to our average.
But I do think the worst thing about this war from a geopolitics standpoint is Russia going back on its word. They've essentially proven that no nation should ever give up their nukes.
No nation within invasion distance of Russia, anyway.
I feel like that was a huge oversight of the Budapest memorandum. You get promises that the two global powers would not invade you, but you get nobody to actually enforce it. And Russia showed that those promises are empty. I get that having guarantees to defend opens another can of worms, but it's probably better than the situation we're in now where we're now unlikely to see anyone else give up nukes.
It's not win/win....if you're Russia ๐
I am from Russia and I say it win/win/win for USA, Ukraine and Russia.
"I'm rooting for you[ukrainians], because Ukraine's victory is Russia's chance",
"You are fighting and dying for them[Putin and oligarchs], not for Russia",
"This is not war of Russia and Ukraine. I am against such definition. This is Putin's war."
- Boris Nemtsov, before he was shot on bridge near Kremlin wall
...Or one of the Russian owned GOP congressmen
They helpfully have (R) by their name.
I am emphatically in favor of supporting Ukraine but you should be aware that Zelensky has suspended elections. I wouldn't call Ukraine totalitarian but a true democracy never suspends elections, even when they're inconvenient. The United States has never done it despite always being at war and I don't think we should give a pass to other nations just because they're at war.
Zelensky didn't suspend elections. The Ukrainian constitution suspended elections--the country is under martial law due to invasion, and their constitution disallows elections under martial law. In order to hold elections, Zelensky would have to disregard the constitution.
Assuming every nation's constitution is the same as the United States and then judging actions based on that error is some high-level cultural arrogance.
'At war' is not the same as defending yourself from an invasion, which the US has not had to do since it has existed in it's current form. Also, governments have suspended elections in the past when necessary. For instance, the UK suspended elections during WW2 via the 'Prolongation of parliament' bill, while they were defending themselves from a German invasion.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1944/oct/31/prolongation-of-parliament-bill
America has never been invaded to the level that its existence as an independent country has been threatened, at least not since the war of independence.
During WWII the UK postponed elections. We even have explicit rules for how this can be done, when required. Wartime is one of the situations where it can be required. The complexity of holding an election under wartime conditions is huge. It is also a serious distraction from actually winning the war, and so costs lives. Finally, changing leadership, mid war is risky at best. The time for a new leader to settle in is paid for in lives lost.
US has never been at war in the homeland. That would make a huge difference. Plus it would probably be much easier during the chaos for Russia to subvert the Ukrainian elections. But that's just me talking out my ass. Definitely good to be aware though. If the US did it, it would at least be through congressional action.
Didn't Bush Jr. try to delay elections back when starting the Iraq war? I forgot what his reasoning was (if any).
We have, but it was back during the war of 1812. Canadians burned the capital to the ground as a warning.
Considering that out of 3 posts, 2 have been pro-russia...maybe you should just STFU
Can you not read?
Hey, you deleted your comment! Don't be shy about your opinions, just know if they are pro-russia you won't get a lot of support
I deleted the duplicate comment because it was a duplicate? Once again if you could read you might have realized that.
๐ you have a good one
Yeah fuck off with that. We'll supply with Ukraine with so many weapons it'll destroy putlers hateful regime. The idiot fascist only understands violence. So violence is what he will get.
Where did I indicate that I oppose any of that?
Yeah, but the USA fights all its wars a long way from home.
If the Rocky Mountains were swarming with Reds, you might find the election cycle interrupted somewhat.
AFAIK he suspended elections in Donetsk, Lughansk and Zaporizhzhia for obvious reasons.
How are people going to vote for a new president when half the population is on the front?
There is something new that tends to get in the way of things, it's called war!