NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is proposing to establish a fund of allied contributions worth $100 billion over five years for Ukraine as part of a package for alliance leaders to sign off when they gather in Washington in July.
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty? If they didn’t want to be part of Russia, then they should have just said so. Has Velinsky tried talking to the justly elected Putin? This 100 billion could be spent on rebuilding all the housing in Ukrane that was blown up by Russia DEFENDING its self from the Ukrainian troops invading Ukraine. This could be 100 billion dollars in food aid spread around the world in the form of Ukrainian grain shipments that have been stalled or sunk, but Ukraine has CHOSEN to stop shipping their grain by blocking their own barges and trucks.this could have been 100 billion dollars in CLEAN oil that Russia could have been exporting to help the world with energy, but instead will have to rebuild because the plants keep blowing up. If only there was a solution that would let the world move on and spend their money on better things. If only we would just give in to Russia and let them take what they want at the expense of others- then the world would be a better place.
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty?
Sending 100 billions to the corrupted government of a military state under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave it’s funding whatever is the opposite of democracy.
Seem like ukrainian government choose indeed something when they decided to play international war games. Not that this justify anything but keep in mind where these billions are going to.
If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say “why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?”.
USA has active military bases with nukes pretty much all over europe, technically they already invaded my country. There’s hundreds of USA military planes alone flying over europe daily. If russia, china or anyone else would give 100 billions to any corrupted fascist government in europe that would still be a bad thing because ultimately it wouldn’t change anything for people.
Do people in your country oppose those bases? Do you have democracy? If the majority of people opposed those bases, they could vote for some other government. Do you understand the difference between an invasion and hosting allied troops?
If a country elects a “fascist” government and then gets invaded, do they not deserve help? So i assume you also supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam? They didnt even have democracy there, unlike Ukraine.
So your argument is that since the public in these countries is brainwashed, they arent capable for voting for their leadership, therefore there is no democracy, only the illusion of democracy. Thus an invasion and imposing a new government through violence, maybe one that aligns better with your worldview, is an acceptable thing?
I dont know, i think this is a very slippery slope. I think brainwashed people deserved to be ruled by whoever they vote, thats what democracy is and has always been. Even in ancient Athens, you had demagogues and sophists(even if we ignore that women and slaves couldnt vote). And money could get you a better sophist, to teach you how to debate and manipulate people.
So is democracy a fake system that can never be achieved? And your alternative suggestion is what?
Thats like having your house on fire and saying “this is fine” meme. Do you think that war is never an option? That giving up and letting invaders take what they want is preferable because it “reduces” human suffering?
Would you advocate the same during WW2 and Germany/Italy’s invasions? Should the countries that got invaded not resist and should the UK/US not help those countries? Imagine if you were an american in WW2 and your government was giving hundreds of billions worth of equipment to the russians, in order for Russia to fight the nazis. Would you still say “why are we sending hundreds of billions to the corrupt nation of Russia, when that money could have been used in America instead”?
The isolationist rhetoric benefits the invaders, who can easily take out individual countries(or regions of countries), one piece at a time, while placating the rest.
It is unfortunate that education is not your strong point. I do enjoy the entertainment though and will go get more popcorn for the show. Pfft just go on.
Consider how many genocides have occurred since the 1948 convention and its ratification in 1951. Now consider that three have been legally recognised – and led to trials – under the convention:
Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia (and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre), and Cambodia under the 1975-9 Pol Pot regime.
Israel will have its day to atone for its behavior. They have become what they despise.
I’ve never read it directly, just seen this referenced, but I remember seeing something about it in a textbook (or something? That kind of paper), and an anti nuclear friend of the family holding Ukraine up as an example back in like the 90s.
Imagine spending 100 billions on something more useful
I know, right? Like, who the fuck needs democracy and sovereignty? If they didn’t want to be part of Russia, then they should have just said so. Has Velinsky tried talking to the justly elected Putin? This 100 billion could be spent on rebuilding all the housing in Ukrane that was blown up by Russia DEFENDING its self from the Ukrainian troops invading Ukraine. This could be 100 billion dollars in food aid spread around the world in the form of Ukrainian grain shipments that have been stalled or sunk, but Ukraine has CHOSEN to stop shipping their grain by blocking their own barges and trucks.this could have been 100 billion dollars in CLEAN oil that Russia could have been exporting to help the world with energy, but instead will have to rebuild because the plants keep blowing up. If only there was a solution that would let the world move on and spend their money on better things. If only we would just give in to Russia and let them take what they want at the expense of others- then the world would be a better place.
Sending 100 billions to the corrupted government of a military state under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave it’s funding whatever is the opposite of democracy.
Seem like ukrainian government choose indeed something when they decided to play international war games. Not that this justify anything but keep in mind where these billions are going to.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
If someone invaded your country, would you still have the same opinion? If Trump invaded your country(assuming you are not an american), would you still say “why are we spending billions to fight Trump, when we could have spent them on education and housing?”.
USA has active military bases with nukes pretty much all over europe, technically they already invaded my country. There’s hundreds of USA military planes alone flying over europe daily. If russia, china or anyone else would give 100 billions to any corrupted fascist government in europe that would still be a bad thing because ultimately it wouldn’t change anything for people.
Do people in your country oppose those bases? Do you have democracy? If the majority of people opposed those bases, they could vote for some other government. Do you understand the difference between an invasion and hosting allied troops?
If a country elects a “fascist” government and then gets invaded, do they not deserve help? So i assume you also supported the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam? They didnt even have democracy there, unlike Ukraine.
Not the government. Democracy is a lie as long as private media control public opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_2
So your argument is that since the public in these countries is brainwashed, they arent capable for voting for their leadership, therefore there is no democracy, only the illusion of democracy. Thus an invasion and imposing a new government through violence, maybe one that aligns better with your worldview, is an acceptable thing?
I dont know, i think this is a very slippery slope. I think brainwashed people deserved to be ruled by whoever they vote, thats what democracy is and has always been. Even in ancient Athens, you had demagogues and sophists(even if we ignore that women and slaves couldnt vote). And money could get you a better sophist, to teach you how to debate and manipulate people.
So is democracy a fake system that can never be achieved? And your alternative suggestion is what?
That you spend 100 billions on something more useful than war
Thats like having your house on fire and saying “this is fine” meme. Do you think that war is never an option? That giving up and letting invaders take what they want is preferable because it “reduces” human suffering?
Would you advocate the same during WW2 and Germany/Italy’s invasions? Should the countries that got invaded not resist and should the UK/US not help those countries? Imagine if you were an american in WW2 and your government was giving hundreds of billions worth of equipment to the russians, in order for Russia to fight the nazis. Would you still say “why are we sending hundreds of billions to the corrupt nation of Russia, when that money could have been used in America instead”?
The isolationist rhetoric benefits the invaders, who can easily take out individual countries(or regions of countries), one piece at a time, while placating the rest.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-preparedness-the-road-to-universal-slaughter
@index @NIB
It is unfortunate that education is not your strong point. I do enjoy the entertainment though and will go get more popcorn for the show. Pfft just go on.
How else would defense contractors make money?
Sovereignty of a nation and an ethnic group’s right not to be genocided by their neighbor isn’t something worth spending money on?
removed by mod
@brain_in_a_box @Rakonat
I cannot agree with this statement.
Consider how many genocides have occurred since the 1948 convention and its ratification in 1951. Now consider that three have been legally recognised – and led to trials – under the convention:
Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia (and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre), and Cambodia under the 1975-9 Pol Pot regime.
Israel will have its day to atone for its behavior. They have become what they despise.
removed by mod
Also, even if it wasnt a war of extermination:
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for protection. Do you think anyone else is going to be dumb enough to do that in the future?
I am pro-Ukrainian in this conflict, but this is untrue. Point to the specific wording in the accord that supports what you’re saying, if you can.
I’ve never read it directly, just seen this referenced, but I remember seeing something about it in a textbook (or something? That kind of paper), and an anti nuclear friend of the family holding Ukraine up as an example back in like the 90s.