Mike Johnson Ukraine aid.
Looks like he's caving to the pressure. Many months late and many lives lost dt the holdup.
shareAnd many of our dollars lost due to his eventual capitulation.
shareDo you see no benefit to supporting Ukraine? Have you studied the arguments in good faith?
shareYes, I have. There's no compelling reason to support the Ukraine.
shareHow about 1) helping a young democracy survive an attack from an imperialist power (sound familiar, like 1776 familiar?)
2) Russia would not stop with Ukraine.
Are you a Russian, by any chance, or a Russian sympathizer ?
Do you lot have any clue the impression you give when all you can say is, "Russia, Russia, Russia!!"? As if no one could possibly deviate from your viewpoints without being bought and paid for.
1) You clearly don't know anything about the American Revolution if that's the way you characterize it. Secondly, the Ukraine is hardly a democracy. You're in the dark about Zelenskyy's record of curtailing basic rights, trampling on freedom of religion, and looking the other way at violence against ethnic Russians. Not to mention the immense corruption of the Ukrainian leadership, including the sawed-off dictator himself. An actual democracy shouldn't be the victim of a color revolution sponsored by Western intelligence agencies, as the Ukraine was a decade ago.
2) That's pure speculation on your part, but do go on. Tell us their next target.
From the Guardian:
Putin’s long-term goal in eastern Europe is, in fact, perfectly clear. He wants to restore as much as possible of the empire, great power status and sphere of influence that Russia lost so dramatically 30 years ago, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in December 1991. It is only his tactics that keep us guessing. Since 2008, when he secured two secessionist chunks of Georgia by force, and most certainly since his seizure of Crimea in 2014, it has been evident that he is ready to use any and all means, from diplomacy and disinformation to cyber-attacks and outright war.
I ask you once again, are you Russian?
The right didn't hate the USSR because they were an imperialist dictatorship. They hated them because they couldn't get a piece of the action.
shareWhat the US has to gain from supporting Ukraine (article below):
-90% of Ukraine aid spending stays in the U.S., creating thousands of jobs.
"Although some may claim U.S. aid vanishes into a cesspool of unchecked Ukrainian corruption, one study has shown that 90% of Ukraine aid dollars are not actually sent to Ukraine after all."
-The Ukraine conflict has revitalized NATO, lessening the relative economic burden on the U.S.
-Russian military might has been severely degraded without a single active duty American military casualty
"using only 5% of our U.S. defense budget and less than 1% of our total government spending"
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-the-us-has-to-gain-from-supporting-ukraine
Ninety percent of Ukrainian aid isn't sent to the country it's ostensibly supposed to help? That's a selling point to you? And so what if it stays on these shores. Who winds up the beneficiaries of this largesse? Why do we have to rob Peter to pay Paul? How about we keep 100% of it in the United States where it belongs - in our own pockets. I'm certainly not pleased that billions are being siphoned off by the MIC and assorted rent seekers affiliated with our own government. Why are you OK with that?
NATO should be disbanded. It's a Cold War anachronism that's 3 decades past its sell-by date. Again, why do you cling to these organizations that serve no purpose other than to enrich certain connected parties?
Russian military might seems quite healthy to me. They've learned much about how to counter Western weapons; they've developed new uses of drone technology; and they've shown that they have the industrial capability to mass produce armaments on a scale that we no long can. Also, they've shown the rest of the world that American sanctions can be toothless if you chart the proper course. This war has been very good to them in terms of positioning for future conflicts. My question to you is, why are you concerned about Russia at all? What impact would that country have on your life if you didn't make it your own business to thwart it because...reasons? You're still talking a massive amount of money wasted for no particular purpose. If Russia were to occupy all of the Ukraine tomorrow our lives, mine and yours, wouldn't be different at all. Instead, you brag about how you are using proxies - Ukrainians - to fight some idealist battle on your behalf, sending them to kill and die in ungodly numbers so that you can feel like you're doing the right thing. How utterly reprehensible that is.
Beneficiaries include working class people in munitions factories making bank.
I might have agreed with you (or been indifferent about) NATO disbanding before 2/24/2022.
Sanctions are only part of the collective deterrent. I care about Russia & Ukraine because I'm engaged in the world. I want a more secure future. You want to return to a Cold War world where Russia is stronger having gotten away with their plan in Ukraine. What if Russia tries for another annexation after? Will you be on board with stopping them then?
The U.S. / Ukraine relationship by legal definition is not a proxy war.
So you think corporate welfare to the MIC is a good use of your tax money?
As for Russia's future activities, all I see is complete conjecture with no evidence of actual impending military expansion. Your pal didn't have an answer, so what about you: where is Russia going to invade next?
Transnistria. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. Romania.
Putin will do what he's done already: probe, destabilize politically. Get a pretence that justifies his aggression 'We must liberate the oppressed Russian minority.' He could test NATO's resolve by say striking one of the 3 NATO countries above and claim it was in self defense and do we really want to start WWIII over little Estonia. 'Might as well appease me (Putin) and let me have it.'
Let us know when this is happening. In the meantime, I'm very much against encouraging the grisly deaths of tens of thousands of young men based on your alleged ability to read Vladamir Putin's mind.
shareNo one knows what's going on in Putin's mind. We know his actions over the last decade. The "grisly deaths of tens of thousands of young men..." has already occurred. That and far worse.
share>NATO should be disbanded. It's a Cold War anachronism that's 3 decades past its sell-by date. Again, why do you cling to these organizations that serve no purpose other than to enrich certain connected parties?
How would Russia treat Eastern Europe without the existence of NATO, do you think?
the same if NATO had not existed. NATO has never sent troops to fight against Russia. its a total waste of money imo.
shareHow do you know that Russia would have treated Eastern Europe differently without NATO as a bulwark over the last 20 years there? NATO is preventative, not aggressive.
sharebecause NATO has never prevented nor stopped an annexing or war with another country involving Russia.
shareRussia has never invaded a NATO country.
Ukraine is not in NATO.
I know, they have never prevented Russia from invading another Country. thats what I just said.
shareBecause the purpose is to be a defensive bloc of NATO COUNTRIES. Which Ukraine isn't.
So what might Russia have done if the Baltics were not part of NATO by now?
I know, NATO has done nothing to prevent the invasion of Ukraine. which is my point.
we are talking about Ukraine not the baltics.
So NATO is worthless because a defensive alliance based on defending NATO countries (ie countries within its bloc) didn't military intervene to protect a country **NOT IN NATO**? I would argue what happened to Ukraine instead vindicates the relevance of a protective bloc like NATO.
I asked you initially in this chain here (https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/66214c34947ac671a8788893/Mike-Johnson-Ukraine-aid?reply=6622b92a65cf477bde286bcb)
"How would Russia treat Eastern Europe without the existence of NATO, do you think?"
yes, thats what I said. NATO is worthless. trillions has been given to NATO and yet they have never stopped Russia from invading another country.
I already answered that question. stop pretending to be stupid. you do realize I know what you doing dont you?
>yes, thats what I said. NATO is worthless.
Your argument makes no sense. NATO is only treaty-bound to intervene directly militarily if ANOTHER NATO COUNTRY is invaded. Ukraine is not part of NATO.
You simply do not understand how NATO works.
>I already answered that question. stop pretending to be stupid. you do realize I know what you doing dont you?
No, you did not answer that question properly at all. You said that they would have treated eastern europe the same as if NATO never existed. You gave no argument for this.
why do you insist on trolling people? you do know I am savvy to your chat bot trolling?
shareI'm trolling no-one. Your inability to understand NATO and how it responds to things is not trolling.
shareI know what you are tying to do, you are trying to engage me in a never ending conversation. this is your MO.
The Skavau chat bot algorithm
1. disagree with anything the poster says
2. ask for evidence
3. reject the evidence
4. ask a question
5. ask a totally unrelated question
basically you get stuck in a loop of never ending questions.
I disagree with claims made by others without any supporting evidence. Do you just expect people to agree with whatever you say?
You haven't provided any evidence or arguments for your position here. You've demonstrated that you don't really understand what NATO is, and you've also exhibited this basic inability to understand how it works beforehand.
What "unrelated question" have I asked?
Before skavau comes in with
"where did Biden say that"
"when did Biden say it"
"where's your proof"
"can you prove it"
"when does he mention Trump"
"was Trump there when he said it"
"is this video altered"
"can you link to the original source"
" do you like Biden"
"who do you think would win in a fight Biden or Trump"
"can you prove that Trump would win in a fight"
"who altered this video of Biden"
"can you prove this is the original source"
"Biden didn't say attack"
"why did you say he said attack when he doesnt say that"
"can you prove that he said attack"
"do you have another video where he uses EXACTLY the words you claim he did"
"remember to link the original website"
"do you have another source besides twitter"
"can you prove that twitter is a legitimate website"
ad nauseam
We're not talking about Biden. I rarely talk about Biden. We're talking about your fundamental misunderstanding of NATO.
----
I disagree with claims made by others without any supporting evidence. Do you just expect people to agree with whatever you say?
You haven't provided any evidence or arguments for your position here. You've demonstrated that you don't really understand what NATO is, and you've also exhibited this basic inability to understand how it works beforehand.
What "unrelated question" have I asked?
kek
shareNATO is preventative, not aggressive.
If that were true, they would not have impeded the peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. share
They didn't "impede" the peace deal. ANd it was charged that the USA and the UK, not NATO itself "impeded" it. At best, the convinced Ukraine not to surrender. Ukraine still made the choice to not surrender. No-one forced them to do so.
shareYes, they most certainly did. They didn't have to force them since NATO/Nuland installed and controls Zelensky. US/UK are NATO members.
shareHow did they force them to keep fighting?
How does the USA "control" Zelensky, specifically? What would they do if he didn't do what they want? Why couldn't the rest of Ukraine, if Zelensky is controlled, just overthrow him?
I asked him the very same question and he replied: "Because they would be imprisoned or executed for treason."
share