Because the US supporting Ukraine and Ukraine winning, losing, or drawing are all bad outcomes in my book. Supporting Ukraine while trying to actively negotiate an end to the war, using the leverage gained by supporting Ukraine, could be defensible but that doesn’t seem like what is happening, at all.
Denying everyone but the West agency is borderline racist.
What the hell does that even mean? Whose agency am I denying?
I think the goal of a costly stalemate is a thing you have come up with, there’s no evidence that this is the actual US goal even if US wouldn’t hate this outcome. I think perhaps the US would like to see Russia soundly defeated by Ukraine but also wants to manage the risk of bringing US into the conflict in a way that is not on the Biden admin’s terms. US admin probably also wants to minimize the risk of Russia getting access to our more advanced weapons systems. So they are loosely following the roadmap of the Vietnam and Afghan campaigns in terms of what capabilities we are supplying and being very careful with escalating.
Regardless, if a stalemate is achieved and western oriented Ukraine survives then I think calling it little or no benefit is wrong. I guess agree to disagree on that point.
If Russia’s pain actually does deter a future war in the future, then that is a pretty huge moral benefit but impossible to measure.
To say it is the US policy that throwing away those lives when it is Ukraine and Russia choosing to fight each other is also misplacing blame. Ukraine can stop asking for weapons or stop using them if they believe the human cost is too great. Russia can just leave or start negotiations on more reasonable grounds at any point in time.
It’s war. Is there any possible good (or even non bad) outcome in your book? If so, how might they have happened if the US didn’t support Ukraine?
Maybe US can push things toward a bad outcome that is the less bad than other outcomes, this is not a thing to look down on.
I don’t? I’m saying what I think the US should do. Ukraine can do as they like.
Weird how some other people are selectively interested in a military conquest over Russia depending on how proximate they are.
Great, I’ll just stop talking to you then. See you never!
If it’s good discussion then it’s quite bizarre for you to accuse me of lying about what I believe. I don’t want to talk to anyone who thinks of me in those terms.
1 Like
well, one fewer now. If you want to talk to someone don’t call him a lying troll.
I agree with this goal.
lol
Brah
Just bc everyone hates your boy Jal for destroying this forum doesn’t mean people can’t talk shit on US policy. In fact that’s like 95% of the posts here.
Hahhaaha I wrote this before even seeing his reply to the post
3 Likes
I’ve heard from many others, not just Jal. I obviously can’t speak for every non-American on the forum or who used to be on the forum, but a lot of them expressed similar complaints.
Some of the most prolific posters here are Canadian, Aussie, and British. They spend much of their time here criticizing and mocking the US. And uhhh pretty much everyone agrees with them?
1 Like
Ok boss there just must be a bunch of paranoid people making up stories then.
1 Like
Dude the answer is that they are your friends and members of your tribe here and they therefore side with the narrative that you guys come up with.
2 Likes
LMFAO this goes back years and years to when I was in your tribe.
Please share which US policy was not allowed to be criticized - for years and years.
Why is it monstrous though? Hurting Russia just to hurt Russia is fine to do. The only reason not to would be on utilitarian grounds, that it’s not worth it to the US, not on moral grounds. It’s not really hurting the average American citizen.
1 Like