Israel to send Hawk missiles to Ukraine

[FfFfFfFF 59,019]

24 minutes ago, Dennis said:

This only includes "bilaterial committment" that is exclusively money that is given to Ukrainian government/military, hence why you see U.S total as 73B$ not 113B$. It doesn't include money allocated for ukrainians in Europe, for eastern european countries to host them, or for food assistance (including for Africa to buy Ukrainian grain paid for by the U.S). You get the point. The aid is not exclusively military. 45-50-55% whatever figure suits your semantics, it's still a big part humanitarian and economic.

I never said the aid is exclusely military, I said the aid is mostly military. Talk about failed gotchas.

Of the $113 billion approved in 2022, about three-fifths ($67 billion) has been allocated toward defense needs and the remaining two-fifths ($46 billion) to nondefense concerns such as general Ukrainian government aid, economic support, and aid for refugee resettlement. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/congress-approved-113-billion-aid-ukraine-2022 There you have it! @Dennis

[Dennis 8,391]

Just now, FfFfFfFF said:

I never said the aid is exclusely military, I said the aid is mostly military.

Okay but you linked the wrong source for your "gotcha moment". U.S allocated 113B for the Ukrainian war. The source you mentioned only tracks bilateral committments. So it does not include U.S assitance to ukrainian refugees in Europe, it does not include Food Security Assistance paid to Africa to buy Ukrainian grain etc.

So please try to be accurate before attempting to fact check others. That's all.

[FfFfFfFF 59,019]

11 minutes ago, Dennis said:

"The US isn't interested in democracy, freedom or human rights. The US seeks to win over Ukraine financially as Ukraine will forever be indebited to the United States after the war."

Above is direct quote from you. I don't need to bother anymore. You claimed that help for Ukraine is a debt trap, when Ukraine does not even have to repay for anything at all. If U.S like China for example, offered help only in the form of loans, you'd have a point, but considering these are donations, your point is invalid. Just accept it and move on. Sometimes U.S interests and the moral position align. I know you hate to see it but it happens. And in the case of Ukraine, yes U.S has interest in keeping Ukraine an independent nation, but it's also the moral position to pursue.  Interest =/= sinister intentions. So don't try to make up false claims about debt trap.

 

So many words and you still did not prove why US is this whimsical good-seeking entity interested in the well-being of undefended little brothers. 

In reality US aids Ukraine to have in its sphere. You don't get all fuzzy inside when you realize this, but this is how life works. The world center of capitalism which doesn't even have universal healthcare simply just wants goodness for people?

[Future Lovers 7,868]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

And let's not also pretend that U.S is only helping Ukraine only because of self-interest

We primarily are. We never do anything for anyone else unless it somehow benefits us in some way. Sure, I don’t doubt Biden would like to assist for moral reasons on some level, but morals are not what leads American politics. There is a lot the US stands to gain from Ukranian success. I appreciate your optimism but it’s best not to think of our government as one who does things simply because it’s the right thing to do. If that were the case, we would be doing something about Israel but if we did, we would lose the benefits of the relationship, despite intervening being the right thing. 

[Dennis 8,391]

7 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

I appreciate your optimism but it’s best not to think of our government as one who does things simply because it’s the right thing to do. 

Except that's not what I said. As I said above, U.S interests and morality can align, like it is the case in Ukraine. And I'm responding to the OP's main proposition which is that the U.S is not really helping Ukraine but trying to "financially entrap" Ukraine with debt. That is just false, considering the aid to Ukraine is the form of donations, not loans.

In WW2 for example, why did the U.S not annex Japan as the victors like USSR did? You could argue it's U.S "interest" to gain more land, resources etc. Well it's because they determined that a democratic and free Japan would still be in U.S interests considering it's more likely to be aligned with other democracies. Interests do not necessarily mean a sinister motive. Sometimes you may have an interest that also happens to be the moral thing to do, and no need to second guess it like OP was doing. So again, contextualize what I said and you'll understand my point better.

[FfFfFfFF 59,019]

3 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Except that's not what I said. As I said above, U.S interests and morality can align, like it is the case in Ukraine. And I'm responding to the OP's main proposition which is that the U.S is not really helping Ukraine but trying to "financially entrap" Ukraine with debt. That is just false, considering the aid to Ukraine is the form of donations, not loans.

In WW2 for example, why did the U.S not annex Japan as the victors like USSR did? You could argue it's U.S "interest" to gain more land, resources etc. Well it's because they determined that a democratic and free Japan would still be in U.S interests considering it's more likely to be aligned with other democracies. Interests do not necessarily mean a sinister motive. Sometimes you may have an interest that also happens to be the moral thing to do, and no need to second guess it like OP was doing. So again, contextualize what I said and you'll understand my point better.

Don't put words into my mouth and don't make a caricature of what I said. What is this "debt trap" idea that I never talked about but you keep mentioning?

I only talked of the obvious fact that after the war Ukraine will be so heavily reliant, tied, grateful etc to the US that it will become a de facto extension of the US. Like Israel became so deeply aligned with the US because the US prevented the Arab nations from taking it over. Israel and Ukraine will not be able to say NO to the US if the US will demands something imperatively from them.

The bit about Japan is wrong because the US hegemony is not old school imperalism based on annexing lands, but on soft power, spheres of influence, regime change and control of the oceans. Why do you think Germany and Japan are so deep inside the American sphere if not for US taking over part of their souverignity after loosing WW2?

And what I said doesn't deny the US can be accidentaly on the right side.

[Dennis 8,391]

3 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

And what I said doesn't deny the US can be accidentaly on the right side.

Guys if the U.S ever does something good it's an accident. Well there you have it, I don't think anything more needs to be said about your level of cynicism. And I think I provided you with the direct quote of what you said in a previous post, no need to repeat it.

[FfFfFfFF 59,019]

Just now, Dennis said:

Guys if the U.S ever does something good it's an accident. Well there you have it, I don't thing anything more needs to be said about your level of cynicism. And I think I provided you with the direct quote of what you said in a previous post, no need to repeat it.

Okay, so we're good!

I can say it again: the US can accidentaly be on the right side because all empires are inherently self-interested.

[Dennis 8,391]

2 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

 all empires are inherently self-interested.

I have a self-interest in helping my friends. Doesn't mean that I want to entrap them with debt as you claimed. 

You're totally okay to think the U.S has interests in Ukraine, which I agree with. I only disagree with the way you characterized such interests as sinister and malign, which is not factual, claiming that the U.S want Ukraine to be indebted.

[Future Lovers 7,868]

22 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Except that's not what I said. As I said above, U.S interests and morality can align, like it is the case in Ukraine. And I'm responding to the OP's main proposition which is that the U.S is not really helping Ukraine but trying to "financially entrap" Ukraine with debt. That is just false, considering the aid to Ukraine is the form of donations, not loans.

In WW2 for example, why did the U.S not annex Japan as the victors like USSR did? You could argue it's U.S "interest" to gain more land, resources etc. Well it's because they determined that a democratic and free Japan would still be in U.S interests considering it's more likely to be aligned with other democracies. Interests do not necessarily mean a sinister motive. Sometimes you may have an interest that also happens to be the moral thing to do, and no need to second guess it like OP was doing. So again, contextualize what I said and you'll understand my point better.

I do understand your point, but I am saying that your point is painting a prettier picture than the truth. If you'd like to believe what's happening from your point of view, then that's fine. 

But the US is primarily helping the Ukraine for two reasons and it's 1) success in the Ukraine means that one of our primary enemies is embarrassed on the world stage and left with a military in tatters, and the US had to do no active fighting for that and 2) when the war is done, there will be debt to the US. Financially speaking not necessarily and even if they were I don't think the US would expect that to be repaid. But there will be a moral debt they owe to us, at least from the government's perspective, and that is what is is valuable. From this point forward, Ukraine will be in a position to do what the US would like them to do when they would like them to do it and the US knows that. 

Politics and morals can align but typically only by accident. You're trying to frame this is as a morally led intervention when it isn't and never has been. 

[Dennis 8,391]

24 minutes ago, Future Lovers said:

But the US is primarily helping the Ukraine for two reasons and it's 1) success in the Ukraine means that one of our primary enemies is embarrassed on the world stage and left with a military in tatters, and the US had to do no active fighting for that and 2) when the war is done, there will be debt to the US. Financially speaking not necessarily, but there will be a moral debt they owe to us.

And this where it becomes subjective and speculative. Nothing you say here is grounded in factuality. There is no financial debt, and as such what is this "moral debt". Does Ukraine have an obligation to repay U.S debt in the future? No, so fictional notions about unenforceable "moral debt" don't bear any meaning in factual political debates.

And no, U.S is not spending 110B$ just to "embarass Russia". And I can provide an alternative reading: U.S has interest in helping Ukraine because:
(1) Russia annexing a foreign country in Europe by force brings back the very same chaotic world order that lead to WW1 and WW2, countries enlarging themselves with annexation rather than economic development.
(2) Russia annexing Ukraine emboldens America's main rival China, to do the same and annex Taiwan, which would pose a threat to U.S democratic allies in the pacific.

Both annexation of Ukraine and Taiwan are simultaneously immoral and contrary to U.S interests. So the U.S has an interest in seeing the right thing being done here. And it's not by accident, the U.S intentionally tries to maintain this non-annexation world order, because U.S really believes it's the only thing that stands between us and WW3. It also is the moral position.

You can just accept that and save your criticism for when U.S interests align with evil regimes like for example our horrendous alliance with Saudi Arabia. A criticism of U.S alliance with Saudi Arabia is much more valid and acceptable than saying U.S wants to indebt Ukraine (when it's simply not factual).

[Debithius 6,070]

3 hours ago, pachinko said:

No, I mean why do we have to keep helping Ukraine over and over instead of helping our own? 

Because America loves to escalate everything and remain in power on the world stage? Like, y'all want the world to help you whenever **** goes down but you can't never return the favor? What a self centered nation. 

 

[FfFfFfFF 59,019]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

I have a self-interest in helping my friends. Doesn't mean that I want to entrap them with debt as you claimed. 

You're totally okay to think the U.S has interests in Ukraine, which I agree with. I only disagree with the way you characterized such interests as sinister and malign, which is not factual, claiming that the U.S want Ukraine to be indebted.

The first comment above is perfectly what I wanted to say: Ukraine will be morally indebited to the US. 

Countries don't have friends, the only sincere relations are like those between small nations with historical ties or stuff in common intrisically (like Albania and Kosovo, Armenia and Artsak etc). On what lies America's ''friendship'' with Ukraine? Cultural affinity?? Or maybe a shared enemy..

[Dennis 8,391]

31 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

On what lies America's ''friendship'' with Ukraine? Cultural affinity?? Or maybe a shared enemy..

Shared democratic values. The U.S has a genuine interest in seeing democracies on the rise, you know why? That type of governments are more likely to have positive relations with the U.S. So U.S gets friendlier governments, but it also happens to be the moral position (supporting Democracy). Another example of interest =/= sinister motive, the concept i've been trying to help you understand for hours.

Name a single democracy in the world right now with a hostile attitude towards the U.S. Name a single one. 

I brought up the example of Japan. Why did the U.S not punish Japan by taking land or money from them after they attacked the U.S? Simply because they knew that a democratic/free Japan that is friendly to the U.S in the long run, is much more valuable than plundering the nation or subjugating them and taking their land, which would've lead to a backlash reaction like eastern europe vs USSR.

If anything my only complaint about the U.S is that they should dump non-democratic allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar or heavily push them to democratize. And this also illustrates my point, why there's so much friction between U.S and Saudi Arabia under Biden? Well it's because it's a "counter-nature" alliance. Democratic governments are more likely to align with democratic governments, and vice versa.

 

[FfFfFfFF 59,019]

3 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Shared democratic values. The U.S has a genuine interest in seeing democracies on the rise, you know why? That type of governments are more likely than not to have positive relations with the U.S, which also happens to be the moral position. Another example of interest =/= sinister motive, the concept i've been trying to help you understand for hours.

Name a single democracy in the world right now with a hostile attitude towards the U.S. Name a single one. 

I brought up the example of Japan. Why did the U.S not punish Japan by taking land or money from them after they attacked the U.S? Simply because they knew that a democratic/free Japan that is friendly to the U.S in the long run, is much more valuable than plundering the nation or subjugating them and taking their land, which would've lead to a backlash reaction like eastern europe vs USSR.

If anything my only complaint about the U.S is that they should dump non-democratic allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar or heavily push them to democratize.

 

This is embarassing because I thought we were past the era when the US' wars Middle East were billed as interventions to ''spread democracy'' instead of taking oil (spoiler: they were for oil).

Ukraine is objectively one of the most corrupt European countries and one of the least democratic ones. Source: literally anything.

The US can't even make Puerto Rico a state because they are Latinos instead of white and you think the US would annex Japan when it can control it indirectly? Please. 

Name a single democracy in the world right now with a hostile attitude towards the U.S. -> the US prefers Azerbaijan over Armenia despite Armenia being more democratic.