NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine
NATO Proposes $100 Billion, Five-Year Fund to Aid Ukraine
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Because Ukraine is going to lose, and funding them only leads to a longer war and enables them not to negotiate.
And its easy to say they would rather fight, but the question you should look up is; how many people are conscripted in their army?
I remember this episode of DS9. The genetically enhanced humans do the math and figure out by surrendering to the Dominion the Federation would save billions of lives not fighting a war they never had a hope of winning.
But, spoilers, the Federation did win the war in the end. And the genetically enhanced super smart humans who mathematically proved surrender and submission was the best strategy were kept locked up like weird little freaks.
Cool, but we live in reality not a TV show...
Yet you're still weird little freak, curious
Ukraine has managed to do a lot in this war: they have repelled Russia's attack on Kyiv, despite expectations and even pulled of two succesful counteroffensives. (I am talking about Charkiw and Kherson.) I know Ukraine is in a bad spot but that doesn't mean that it's over for them.
If they don't want to negotiate and would rather fight, then why should we tell them they shouldn't and instead should negotiate with the agressor? And why should we believe that Russia won't violate such a deal? Their track-record isn't great in this regard.
Wikipedia says that the Ukrainian armed forces consists of 1000000 armed personell. Compared to Russia's 1320000. I don't know the relevancy of this, but hey, I answered your question, now you answer mine.
And all those victories came at a cost and that cost being that their average soldier is in their 40s, and they had to increase their draft. We never know for certain the outcome of a peace deal, but reason russia invaded is well known, and if the west had not gotten involved in the situation the war would have never started, and they dont actually want to invade Ukraine.
My question was not how big their armies are, it was how many people are CONSCIRPTED in their army? Meaning how many war slaves are they using?
Victories coming at a cost is not something new and info on how severe they are is hard to come by due to the fog of war. So unless you have a decent source, this point is kind of useless.
What good reason does Russia have for it's full scale invasion?
And next: I don't know why I should be the one looking up how many conscripts Ukraine has when it is your argument. Why don't you look it up yourself?
And what should the west do to protect themselves form Russian aggression in your eyes? If this is not the right way to do it.
Would you rather get conscripted as a Ukrainian defending against Russia or get conscripted as a Russian to invade Poland?
That's the choice Ukrainians are facing.
So the choice is to get conscripted right now for an ongoing war or to avoid the draft for now and risk being drafted sometime in the future for a war that most likely would never happen? There's no choice for sane person. And Ukrainians are much clever than you tend to think, that's why they are evading draft en masse: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/europe/ukraine-conscription-mobilization-bill.html
You think Putin will stop at Ukraine and Georgia? You were so confident that Biden was trying to make a distraction from domestic issues two years ago, right before the tanks rolled across the border.
In this dilemma I would choose to defend Ukraine full stop.