There’s a war going on right now in Ukraine, helping them win it will make Russia launching a next war less likely and further off.
This is exactly what I am thinking as well. Russia is clearly threatening the stability of the EU right now. If the EU wants to send a strong signal against aggression and meddling, it needs support Ukraine in a way that makes it clear to any would-be-adversary, that the EU is willing and capable to defend itself and its allies.
Not to mention, it makes them less reliant on the US – which as an American, means we can reduce our defense spending. Which means we can finally have really good welfare programs.
This has been disproven so many times. You don’t lack social programs because of defense spending. Defense spending is only 3.5% of GDP. Your wildly inefficient private health care system, on the other hand, costs 16.6% of GDP and you still get worse outcomes, on average, compared to other OECD countries. If you brought your health care system in line with other OECD countries with a public health care system at around 11% of GDP, you could literally double the size of your military and still have tons of money left over to improve social programs and wipe out all medical debt (only 0.6% of GDP, but devastating to poorer families).
what are the odds Ukraine actually takes back their territory? The vaunted summer counteroffensive was a complete and abject failure
High on taking back northern regions by Kiev, the northern parts and Odessa, medium on eastern territories, and low on Crimea.
LOL, Russia has already LOST the war. Now they are just desperately trying to take dirt.
Ukraine doesn’t have to take back its territory.
Russia will be forced by NATO to do that, just like how Germany lost so many territories it conquered after WW1.
Russia is just much more powerful than them even with full NATO support.
Not so sure about that: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/
Anyway it’s been a while since a war has been won in the traditional sense. I find the conditions of victory hard to define for Ukraine or Russia.
This isn’t a black or white “win or lose” scenario. You know that, right?
This isn’t a black or white “win or lose”
Well, in very important ways Russia LOST
is just much more powerful than them
Debatable
even with full NATO support
Absolutely not lmao. We haven’t seen full NATO support, because it would mean the conflict would be over in an instant. NATO wants to stay formally out of the war however and not put boots on the ground. If Russia invades a NATO country in tandem with Ukraine, it’s all over for them.
So who’s winning the current 3 day special operation that totally isn’t a war?
Edit: And by win, I mean who’s sustained more losses? Who’s lost more ground? Who’s conscripting more people?
Sweats in Polish
My history teacher used to say that over the course of history every generation faces a full scale war that directly impact them. Looking through the last couple of centuries that seems about right. I haven’t been in a war yet and I’m a45 years old so, yeah, I’m kinda scared.
This same teacher also used to say that the only “good” thing about a civil war is that the country that faces it nerves goes through another one ever again. Seeing how things are good in the United States now I’m starting to think that this teacher might be wrong.
Yeah, your teacher seemed to deal in absolutes: “it always happens” or “it will never happen again”. I think that events can always happen (again) but they don’t have to.
This reminds me of how WWI was at one point known as ‘the war to end all wars’.
How fucking naive were the people who really thought that!
We were in a weird spot after the Industrial Revolution but before globalism.
Post WWII recovery changed that, when most of the developed world (sans America) was literally in shambles.
I don’t think we’ll ever see another full out war between major powers. Capitalism and the all-mighty dollar will prevent that. But at the same time it will encourage proxy wars.
Scarcity is a concern but again mostly for the smaller powers. More than likely it’ll be some sort of indebtedness between impoverished countries and their pimp nations backing them out of the proxy wars they created.
Article 5
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.’
each party will take action as they deem necessary
tbh this reads like the “security guarantees” that Ukraine got for giving up their nuclear weapons: not worth the paper it’s written on
I guess you’re not used to promises that are actually kept by politicians, uh? It helps that NATO members didn’t sell their country’s war equipment for palace money. Ask daddy Putin to try hitting a NATO member, and see what happens.
Why else do you think Putin would act scared like a beaten dog whenever he hears about NATO? Seeing him cry like a toddler when Finland and Sweden talked about joining was hilarious. Really dulls the strong man image he’s trying to project.
The signatories of the Budapest Memorandum were Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, the UK, and the US.
The stipulations of the agreement are essentially as follows:
Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
1 is obviously trash, and has been since 2014. Russia has tried using legal fig leaves to cover 2, but basically everyone - including Russia - is fully aware that it’s complete bullshit. 3 is also useless - and has been since the document was signed, considering how much influence Russia has exerted on Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan over the last few decades, but particularly since Putin’s ascent to power. 4 is a non-point because the UNSC is and will continue to be categorically useless simply due to the single-veto structure it has. 5 is what Putin threatens every fucking week. 6 is essentially holding hands around the fire and singing kumbaya, which is manifestly idiotic in this context.
The current situation:
- One signatory (Ukraine) is under attack from another (Russia), and those attacks were, to a significant degree, enabled by a third signatory (Belarus), which itself has been effectively subsumed by another signatory (Russia)
- One signatory (Kazakhstan) can’t feasibly do anything, and is additionally already in a semi-sketchy position with another signatory (Russia)
- the remaining signatories (US; UK) have repeatedly sought UNSC interventions, which have and will continue to fail to pass due to - as noted above - Russia applying their veto as a rule. This is the only enforcement mechanism in the entire thing, and it is effectively a statement of guaranteed bureaucratic inaction.
For real: retrospectively, Ukraine (and Kazakhstan and Belarus) should have held out for WAY stronger enforcements clauses, but (and this part is basically and educated guess) the US and UK were in the “woooo Cold War DONE” mindset, and Russia probably had a rough idea of their current situation in mind, and thus had a vested interest in making the defensive arrangements more or less meaningless.
Why has every comment here been downvoted?
When I wrote that comment, there were like 6 comments. All of them were at negative scores, and they were all very different opinions while some were not opinions at all, just info. Just looked strange.
