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.
So then Russia shouldnt freak out over weapons given directly to Ukraine to fight them?
Russia indeed should not.
So when Russia put missles on our doorstep it was okay to risk nuclear war, but when the US and NATO do the same thing, its totally cool becuase its us doing it?
About the Cuban missile crisis: I don't beleive the US had the right to respond the way they did considering the nukes in Turkey.
We were however talking about aid to Ukraine.
I thought that you believed the response from the US was caused by the economic aid the Soviet Union send to Cuba. I was mocking that idea.
Let's stick to the topic.
The reason I bring it up is that the Soviet Union was fooling around with our neighbor and it made us uneasy at best, and we have been fooling around with all kinds of countries in their neighborhood and it feels threatening to them too. The war is happened because the US (and NATO) keep doing things that Russia finds threatening. And we just last week instigate war even more by saying Ukraine will join nato. If anyone says Biden is a good president we can point to that and how he is pushing us into WW3.
Russia has a 'history'* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb. This is still continuing to this day with the most obvious example being Ukraine. Eastern Europe knows this and sought NATO protections. Ukraine didn't and look at what situation they're in now.
I want to ask you what your solution would be, and how the west should act in your eyes in order to adequately protect themselves from Russia. And how Ukraine should defend themselves.
*in quotation marks 'cause they're still doing it.
has a ‘history’* of invading their neighbours and keeping them under their thumb
If you swap out America with Russia its actually more applicable. If you look at the invastions they have done in the last two decades they have all been what they have percieved as being for their protection. The defense should be for NATO to not stop antagonizing russia.
Listen, I know the US has done plenty of shitty things and I am not trying to defend it. What I am saying is that their aid to Ukraine is entirely justified, because it helps Ukraine regain their soveieignty back from the aggressor.
Can you please be a little more presize with NATO antagonizing Russia, what should they have done differently?
And lastly: since you haven't answered this question I am going to ask it again: What should Ukraine do, in your eyes, to protect themselves from Russia?
I dont have a problem with Ukraine defending themselves, I have a problem with the US being involved in a proxy war in a country most people in the US couldnt point to it on a map.
To not antagonize russia NATO shouldnt have kept taking in countries to the east, and should have welcomed russia in when it asked. We should have actually listened to russia and not done the things that we knew would aggravate russia.
I asked HOW Ukraine should defend themselves. Since you were opposed to aid being send to Ukraine and Ukraine using conscription. Since that is pretty limiting to what Ukraine can do I figure that's a fair question.
You also seem to be against US involvement by virtue of it being a US involvement, even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor. What is wrong with that?
If I read this correctly, you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
The best defense was to negotiate with russia. The world is not perfect, in war there is almost never a good solution. Giving Ukraine money; just wastes money, kills tens of thousands more Ukrainians, risks WW3 and/or nuclear weapons being used, and does not change the outcome of Ukraine losing.
even though this time, the US actually helps a country degend itself from an agressor.
This is so crazy to me, literally this war would not be happening if the US was not involved, we did not help, we directly pushed them into this fight.
you are both against NATO taking in countries to the east, but in favor of NATO taking in Russia, how is that supposed to even make sense?
Because the reason not to take countries to the east is to aggravate russia, if russia is part of NATO it would be in NATO. I dont know fully about the implications of taking russia into nato, but I am assuming it would allieviate military tensions.
The Soviets were installing long range nuclear missiles. The US won't even give long range conventional weapons.
Given that Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is free to acquire/develop nuclear weapons.
But all that is besides the point that you claimed the US would freak out if Soviets gave Cuba money. But Soviets continued giving money until the Soviet Union dissolved. Even under Reagan, there was no freak out.
Giving money and weapons are different.
I already quoted the $750 million in military every year.