Why do conservatives refuse to recognize this is not just about Ukraine? It’s bigger than that. Jfc it’s been a year and a half and we still are arguing these overly simplistic takes.
Ronald Reagan increased our military spending in the 80s and Russia couldn’t keep up. That and the afghan war led to the fall(I know there were other factors too)of the Soviet Union now 30 years later we are spending less to destroy the Russian army and create regime change in the Soviet Union. I like zelensky, maybe it’s all for show but the corruption in Ukraine seems to be due to soviet influence. If we pay to help rebuild hopefully we can influence how Ukraine looks after this invasion.
The question is how much of that corruption stems from ongoing meddling and ties with Russia? You could probably have said that about many of the Eastern European Soviet block countries. However, the ones that wanted to align with the west joined NATO and some the EU and they had to undergo economic and political reforms, and those reforms worked and much of the corruption decreased. If Ukraine had its preference they’d probably be part of NATO and the EU and thus would be required to undergo those same reforms.
That you can't discuss the topic rationally betrays your emotional investment into this. Wars fought on foreign soil, between foreign governments should be anything but an emotional experience for an American. If you can't view it without the emotion, you're going to get swept up by propaganda. For example, it's not just conservatives. I'm essentially advocating for the exact thing Barack Hussein Obama agreed to in 2014. Is Obama now conservative? Was he a conservative when he was caught on a hot mic telling Medvedev "wait until after my re-election and I'll have more flexibility to work with you"? Was that a conservative take?
LOL at people thinking we can outlast Russia, in Ukraine, in the way we spent them into oblivion during the Cold War. Reality: witness the decline of American hegemony.
You remember a guy named Petro Poroshenko? Yes, he was president of Ukraine from 2014-2019, as a result of the Euromaiden coup which chased a Kremlin-friendly president Yanukovych into exile in Russia and out of office. Poroshenko compared separatists in the south and east of Ukraine to "Somali pirates". Needless to say, he was staunchly anti-Putin, anti-Russia. Here's what happened on December 20th, 2021 under the orders of Zelenskyy: Police raid at Poroshenko's headquarters and gym On 20 December 2019, Ukrainian law enforcement raided both Poroshenko's party headquarters and gym on the orders of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Hidden cameras and recording devices were found inside the gym's smoke detectors and security alarms. According to the State Investigation Bureau, those were allegedly secretly recording and filming Poroshenko's gym clients, some of which are politicians and businessmen. Poroshenko and Ihor Kononenko, deputy head of Poroshenko's party, are both owners of said gym and could not be reached for comments. The raid was part of two ongoing criminal investigations which are focused on two concerns. First, the alleged theft of servers with classified information. Second, the alleged tax evasion and money laundering. Petro Poroshenko - Wikipedia
Of course, there is Russian and Soviet influence in Ukraine. That's all Ukraine has known for hundreds of years. It's part of who they are. It's not like they just stopped being "Soviet-like" once they declared independence. Things are still very Soviet there, because that's who they are. That's how they operate. That's not going to change anytime soon.
Germany and Japan after World War Two were turned into decent democratic countries. The atrocities they did during the war make the Russians now look like Boy Scouts. We had two choices after the war, The Marshall plan and turning Germany into a pre industrial agrarian society(It sounds crazy now but that choice was very popular domestically here). Germany had caused two world wars in 30 years and others in the second have of the 19th century. There are ways to fix a broken country. It’s not cheap though.
Without going down this rabbit hole too far, Ukraine is not Germany or Japan circa 1945. Making analogies of oversimplification like this are very dangerous.
I was thinking of Russia. Ukraine is similar to Poland in the 90s maybe. Nations grow and grow. Or maybe east Germany in the 90s? Just because a country is bad doesn’t mean it has to stay bad.
There’s no denying propaganda’s effective. Witness this thread. But why does it work ? Caitlin Johnstone: Why Propaganda Works
In 1945, we had just fought a world war in which we lost 420,000 American lives. We had blood and sweat equity in those areas that more than validated our presence and influence going forward. We had a strategic and moral obligation to rebuild West Germany and Japan. Not only did we depose their leaders, we leveled their nations. It made sense for us to have partners in Europe and Asia. We have no such obligation or claim to lay with Ukraine. We already have lots of partners in that part of the world. Some of whom we took away from the Russians. We don't need more partners there for national security. If you're that concerned about it, perhaps we can do what Trump was pushing for which is to stop sending billions to Russia for oil and gas and force our current partners to pay in their share of defense. Oh, that's right, now they are doing that after Trump was ridiculed for suggesting it. You could actually make a better case for a need to have an American-friendly government in Iraq as we could use a few more partners in the Middle East, but even with that, Iraq was a lousy case for nation building. How about we nation build here at home and let Europe worry about nation building in Ukraine?
Not learning from the past is probably more dangerous. The point is, we will have tremendous leverage over Ukraine to insist that they get rid of corruption after they defeat the Russians. They will need our money to rebuild the country, and they will understand that they need to get rid of corruption to get it. Zelenskyy has already started to get rid of corrupt politicians in Ukraine, even with the war going on. It may be easier to mold a country after a humiliating defeat than a victory, but I think with people like Zelenskyy in charge, we should expect good cooperation.
You’re right. What was I thinking? There is absolutely no difference between the human disasters caused internally in countries such as Haiti or Liberia and those caused when one country invades another for the purpose of conquest. And since there is no difference we should be equally indifferent to both. So let Russia have it, I now say. I’m sure this will be the last time we have to worry about their appetite for future conquests or any other country desiring to play ye olde game of “That used to mine, and I want it back.” /thread
Once more, it’s not “conservatives.” Almost everyone I work with and in my family is what you would call a conservative, and the overwhelming sense I get from them is that we aren’t doing enough for Ukraine. With one glaring exception, most of the people I’ve met in person who want to ignore this situation and hope it goes away are what you would call liberals. Defeating Russia and putting a stop to the normalization of conquest, right here and right now, is an American interest, not a Democrat or Republican one.
What nonsense. Since when does losing American lives give us authority over another country? We ruled Japan and Germany because we won the war, plain and simple. And if Ukraine wins, it will be largely because of our support and weapons. We should expect some minimal level of influence because of that. If we want a lot of influence, then we have to provide money to rebuild Ukraine. If Ukraine wants that money, they will have to meet whatever conditions we place on providing that money. We may not NEED to partner with Ukraine, but it would be wise to do so. They have proven themselves one of the most capable militaries in the world, and certainly, if and when they win this war, more than capable of keeping Russian expansionism in check. Iraq was actually a reasonably good case for nation-building. GWB screwed it up as only an idiot can. All we had to do was: 1) Secure the gigantic weapons caches in Iraq, especially the ones with high-explosives. We were too stupid to do that, and we provided Iraqi insurgents with hundreds of tons of high-explosives for IED's. We guarded the biggest weapons cache (a couple of square miles) with only 12 soldiers, who had to choose between a firefight in which they were greatly out-numbered, and letting the insurgents take what they wanted. About half of U.S. troops (2600 out of 5400) killed in Iraq were killed by IED's, which were provided by the idiocy of Donald "Rummy the Dummy" Rumsfeld, who was too busy imagining flowers being tossed at the troops to prepare for any other scenarios. 2) Discourage Iran from interfering in Iraq. Again, too stupid to do that. Day 1: "Mr. Bremer, do you have any message for Iran?" "No." 3) Manage Iraq as three separate countries for at least a generation, until the hatred and resentment between the three religious sects was greatly reduced. Nope. Too stupid. Had to have national elections as soon as possible to spike the football and claim democracy has taken hold, even as extremists were killing each other. 4) Have the Iraqi army guard the border with Iran. Instead we basically made them unemployed and let them slip away into Iraqi society, and hoped that they wouldn't turn into the killers they were trained to be. Just stupid. Overall, it's a bad comparison (Iraq and Ukraine). With Iraq, we were trying to put pro-western policies and candidates into a nation that was hostile towards those things (and towards the other religious sects in the country), and under the influence of Iran, who just wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. Ukraine has nothing but gratitude towards the U.S. for providing weapons to defeat Russia.
