AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) said:
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:
Countries sometimes help others for selfless reasons. The US asked Canada to go to Afghanistan and we did. We sent 40,000 soldiers over and lost almost 200, with thousands wounded. I know one of them and he is a mess. We spent 20 billion supporting your war. We have spent the same amount to date supporting Ukraine. Even with some of the money being in the form of "loans" it is mostly a sunk cost. Neither conflict affects Canada. There are no nukes pointed at us and it will not materially change our nation if Ukraine or Russia prevails. Support only needs to be transactional if one side decides to make it so.
You may not see the transactions between the US and Canada, but they are there.
I see them right now certainly. It has become very transactional because again one side made it so, or decided previously signed agreements were made by mistake. But the Ukraine? They have always been more or less expected to lose against a much larger and more powerful enemy but we help anyway. Japan also provides aid to Ukraine. Not much in it for them either.
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
There are those that believe that maintaining the current levels of support will not lead to a successful outcome for Ukraine, just prolong the fighting. They believe that better options exist. Their preferred option is to achieve the best outcome for Ukraine while ending the fighting- get as much for Ukraine as they can while reducing lives lost and cost. Option 2 if Putin does't agree to what they believe is a reasonable offer is to give Ukraine increased military aid with the goal of defeating Russia. They see this option is much more risky and much higher in cost in lives and dollars, with the possibility of expanding the conflict. Option 3 if Ukraine doesn't agree to what is seen as a reasonable offer is to back the U.S. out and let Ukraine and Europe continue the war. Note, this may be partially a threat to encourage Ukraine to negotiate. It may play out differently if Ukraine decides to go that route, but they need to believe it for it to be an effective tactic.
Do you see another option? Do you disagree with the above, or is it just the transactional implementation suggested that you disagree with? Emotionally I agree with your sentiment, I wish we could just give Ukraine whatever they need to defeat Putin, no strings attached. But there is a lot more to it than that. Leadership is about managing resources in the best way possible. In doing so, those resources can be used to do more good for more people long term, both domestically and abroad.
Boost_Crazy said:
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
There are those that believe that maintaining the current levels of support will not lead to a successful outcome for Ukraine, just prolong the fighting. They believe that better options exist. Their preferred option is to achieve the best outcome for Ukraine while ending the fighting- get as much for Ukraine as they can while reducing lives lost and cost. Option 2 if Putin does't agree to what they believe is a reasonable offer is to give Ukraine increased military aid with the goal of defeating Russia. They see this option is much more risky and much higher in cost in lives and dollars, with the possibility of expanding the conflict. Option 3 if Ukraine doesn't agree to what is seen as a reasonable offer is to back the U.S. out and let Ukraine and Europe continue the war. Note, this may be partially a threat to encourage Ukraine to negotiate. It may play out differently if Ukraine decides to go that route, but they need to believe it for it to be an effective tactic.
Do you see another option? Do you disagree with the above, or is it just the transactional implementation suggested that you disagree with? Emotionally I agree with your sentiment, I wish we could just give Ukraine whatever they need to defeat Putin, no strings attached. But there is a lot more to it than that. Leadership is about managing resources in the best way possible. In doing so, those resources can be used to do more good for more people long term, both domestically and abroad.
Ukraine is doing all the fighting and Ukrainian soldiers are the ones that are doing all the dying. All they've asked for is arm's length tools to help with the battle. They may win or they may lose, but they will lose more quickly if the West stops supporting them. That is a certainty. Either the US should choose to support them unconditionally as have other countries, or they should just leave. Turning it into a vague agreement for potential conditional future support if past support is somehow paid for is unworthy of the world's most wealthy nation, and one whose first religion is democracy and spreading democracy. Either help them or don't as other countries have but stop turning it into a - what can we squeeze you for - deal.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
While positive relations between the US and Ukraine are relatively new, it's wrong to say they aren't and have never been an ally. The US has been cozying up to Ukraine since they became a lot more democratic and pro-EU from the mid-2000s to early 2010s:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/11/12/us-relationship-with-ukraine-runs-deep-heres-why/
Furthermore I'd like to think that even if Ukraine was a country that popped out from hiding under a hologram Wakanda-style just before the start of the invasion, the rest of the world would find good reason to support a democratic country being invaded for BS reasons by an expansionist dictator. Practically this is a lot more complex than standing up to a high school bully who is picking on the little kid (because the bully is capable of international terrorism and perhaps nuclear warfare among other issues) but morally it isn't.
I'll volunteer my range of "correct" choice for a diplomatic end to the conflict as one that minimizes Ukraine's loss of territory and leaves them with security guarantees sufficient to deter and/or thwart any subsequent repeat invasions from an aggressor with a well-established and up-to-date track record of subsequent repeat invasions. It should be an end to the conflict that Ukrainians can be reasonably satisfied with, and Russia can be made to agree to with no regard for their feelings on the matter.
The US does have a history of taking initiative to try freeing people being oppressed by their own governments (with "mixed" results as aircooled pointed out) but that's a different issue from defending a country being invaded by a neighbor in an unprovoked war of conquest. Oddly enough Venezuela is showing a lot of interest in expansionism these days though, especially towards Guyana.
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
I guess what I'm getting at is why only those two choices? Either support them unconditionally or don't support them at all? Ukraine wants something from the U.S.- is that not half a transaction? The other half being what they give in return. Nothing is still a transaction, since something was transferred from one to another. If Ukraine has the ability to give something in return, why should that be automatically off the table? We aren't talking about resources that they can access now and need, causing immediate harm. We are talking about potential future resources that they don't have the ability to access on their own. Many of which are currently in Russia controlled territory. They may likely end up with 100% of nothing rather than give up a percentage to the U.S.. Ukraine knows that, and I don't believe that they have anywhere near the aversion to the transactional nature that you do. They just want more, which is understandable. But that more happens to be U.S. security guarantees- which even ignoring that Putin has a say- is much different than an aid transaction.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
The U.S. and Ukraine have never been Allies. Nothing in the link that you provided disputes that. You are interchanging words that have different specific meanings. Having a diplomatic relationship does not make you an ally. You could swap Ukraine for China in much of that article, would you consider China an ally?
I think your opinion of the "correct" choice for the diplomatic end of the conflict sounds very similar to mine. I believe we probably just differ on what strategies are most likely to achieve the best result.
Boost_Crazy said:
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
I guess what I'm getting at is why only those two choices? Either support them unconditionally or don't support them at all? Ukraine wants something from the U.S.- is that not half a transaction? The other half being what they give in return. Nothing is still a transaction, since something was transferred from one to another. If Ukraine has the ability to give something in return, why should that be automatically off the table? We aren't talking about resources that they can access now and need, causing immediate harm. We are talking about potential future resources that they don't have the ability to access on their own. Many of which are currently in Russia controlled territory. They may likely end up with 100% of nothing rather than give up a percentage to the U.S.. Ukraine knows that, and I don't believe that they have anywhere near the aversion to the transactional nature that you do. They just want more, which is understandable. But that more happens to be U.S. security guarantees- which even ignoring that Putin has a say- is much different than an aid transaction.
Again, other countries are giving a lot without asking quid pro quo. To say nothing of the fact that Ukraine is doing the US a great service by severely limiting Russia's ability to project harm to other countries. So long as Ukraine is committing the bodies to the fight Europe and the US win whether you get minerals out of the deal or not.
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:
..Either the US should choose to support them unconditionally as have other countries, or they should just leave...
To be clear here, there are no countries (certainly not any larger Western countries) who unconditionally support Ukraine. The US has been one of the least conditional supporters (the Europeans were especially restrictive early on), but there have always been pretty clear restrictions on what weapons they will send them and how they are used (e.g. not being able to strike within Russia).
aircooled said:
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:
..Either the US should choose to support them unconditionally as have other countries, or they should just leave...
To be clear here, there are no countries (certainly not any larger Western countries) who unconditionally support Ukraine. The US has been one of the least conditional supporters (the Europeans were especially restrictive early on), but there have always been pretty clear restrictions on what weapons they will send them and how they are used (e.g. not being able to strike within Russia).
Unconditionally in this case meaning what's in it for us.
A couple of points:
- Alliance is a very specific term, and denotes a formal set of terms related to military and diplomatic cooperation and obligation codified by a treaty to which all parties are signatories, and which has been ratified by all of them. No such treaty exists between Ukraine and any of its current supporters. The states that have been providing Ukraine with assistance are doing so without obligation, which means that they can increase, reduce, or stop the flow of support at any time without violating any formal agreement.
- The suggestion that there is no quid pro quo between Ukraine and its supporters is ludicrous; it simply has not been stated publicly. Every single European country sending support expects access to Ukraine's economy during the rebuilding phase, with lucrative EU-financed contracts expected to be given to various firms in those supporting states, and arms contracts for manufacturers producing weapons for Ukraine's future defense. Sure, there's a benefit in stopping Russia - no one's denying that - but Europeans see Ukraine as newly-accessible economic territory for any corporation capable of aiding the rebuilding effort, and in the current economy, that matters.
- Support in any form is never binary all-or-nothing, and often varies through the course of a given conflict. Even in cases of prolonged military support during open conflict, considerations of domestic requirements and objectives always take precedence. In cases where a Great Power is supporting a smaller power against another Great Power, the former is always going to consider their relationship with the other Great Power first, as it presents the greatest risk (and arguably, the greatest opportunity). Take, for example, Soviet support for North Vietnam - the Soviets understood that what was in their best interest was to keep North Vietnam fighting for as long as possible, and to prevent China from supplanting them as the primary source of support. This was because the Soviets were properly focused on their relationship with other Great Power - the US and China - and they were providing the North Vietnamese with the amount of support that they felt would force the US to stay engaged in a costly conflict without risking excessive costs or escalation. Support tapered off after 1972, because the US was withdrawing and, after Nixon's visits to China and the USSR, the Soviets realized further support to North Vietnam was not only unnecessarily costly, but potentially ran counter to their broader policy objectives.
In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :
Again, other countries are giving a lot without asking quid pro quo. To say nothing of the fact that Ukraine is doing the US a great service by severely limiting Russia's ability to project harm to other countries. So long as Ukraine is committing the bodies to the fight Europe and the US win whether you get minerals out of the deal or not.
It is my understanding that the U.S. does not want that. They do not see the need to spend more lives to collect data that they already have and weaken an enemy that is already weak. So why should they pay for something that they don't want? Other countries can do whatever they want, but I guarantee that they are acting in their own best interests.
With Starmer's rapid move to embrace Zelensky very publicly after things went sideways in Washington, and King Charles' invitation to meet so soon after extending the same invitation to Trump, I had a feeling that the UK was going to set itself up to broker the rapproachement between US and Ukraine, and this CNN interview with the UK ambassador to the US seems to confirm it. Basically, I think Starmer is going to take Zelensky through a crash finishing school and teach him how to speak to the colonials, then chaperone him back to the dance.
LORD PETER MANDELSON, U.K. AMB. TO U.S.: My response is that we need a very radical reset, as you say in the caption behind you. And the reset has to consist of the United States and Ukraine getting back on the same page, and President Zelenskyy giving his unequivocal backing to the initiative that President Trump is taking, to end the war and to bring a just and lasting peace to Ukraine.
And the Europeans, George, too, they need to back the cause for a ceasefire. And by the way, I think that Ukraine should be the first to commit to a ceasefire and defy the Russians to follow. And then as part of the unfolding plan for this negotiation, the Europeans, and perhaps some other countries too, have got to consider how they are going to put forces on the ground to play their part in providing enduring security and deterrence for Ukraine.
Now, that's the reset that we are looking for. That's what the British prime minister is working for in his meeting in London today.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And has there been any progress yet? I know the meetings are going on right now, but you seem to suggest that it’s – it's up to the Ukrainians first to come forward and say, yes?
MANDELSON: Well, look, after what happened on Friday, we – it's clear that we need to bring the United States and Ukraine back together again. And I think the first thing that President Zelenskyy can do is to make clear his commitment to the initiative that President Trump is taking. And, yes, I do think it would be a good idea if he signed the economic and commercial deal put forward by the United States.
And the reason I say that is quite apart from the economic gain that Ukraine will derive from that. It will also give the United States a stake in Ukraine's future. It will mean that U.S. commercial interest, U.S. individual citizens will be on the ground there and that will be an even greater, added incentive for the U.S. to protect the Ukraine in future, make sure that war does not ensue again. That's what I want to see. That's what we all want to see.
And it takes -- it takes both United States and Ukraine to come together and make sure that this whole initiative is given the best possible likelihood of success because, George, it is the only show in town. It's the only negotiation available and it's got to be made to work. And that's what we in Britain are very committed to help bring about.
Another thing to be aware of (you know.. the internet):
Recent Russian official statements in response to the proposed US-Ukraine mineral deal indicate that the Kremlin is trying to sabotage the deal through narratives targeting Ukrainian and American audiences. The Kremlin is claiming that this mineral deal does not benefit Ukraine while also claiming that Russia can make a better offer to the United States, indicating that Moscow sees the deal as harmful to its objectives.
The Kremlin has a vested interest in preventing the United States and Ukraine from signing a mineral deal, as the deal will commit the United States to a long-term investment in Ukraine and Ukraine's sovereignty. The Kremlin is investing significant time and effort into undermining and misrepresenting the US-Ukrainian mineral deal, indicating that the Kremlin views the deal as an impediment to accomplishing Russian President Vladimir Putin's objectives in Ukraine.[9] The mineral deal, even one that does not include text about an American security guarantees for Ukraine, will represent a long-term US economic investment in Ukraine and could be a building block towards additional US assistance or military sales to Ukraine in the future, as US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent observed in an interview to CBS on March 2
As noted, the recent development has invigorated the Europeans. I believe they have figured a way to make the peacekeepers they are referencing to not be considered NATO troops (not sure exactly how that works), to avoid a tripwire situation.
European leaders demonstrated their commitment to supporting Ukraine at a defense summit in London on March 2. The United Kingdom (UK) hosted leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Czechia, and Romania as well as the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Hakan Fidan, NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council Antonio Costa.[19] UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced at the summit that the UK and France, along with other unspecified countries, have expressed their commitment to develop a "coalition of the willing" that will deploy peacekeepers to defend a peace agreement in Ukraine.
