“We believe the prerequisite for meaningful diplomacy and real peace is a stronger Ukraine, capable of deterring and defending against any future aggression,” Blinken said in a speech in Finland, which recently became NATO’s newest member and shares a long border with Russia.
I’m confused. Do you think Russia taking Ukraine by force is what’s best for Ukraine? Do you think their people are volunteering to fight because they just don’t know what’s best for them? Even if Ukrainians wanted to maintain independence out of some misguided patriotism, isn’t it their right as a sovereign nation to decide that?
From the US perspective, Ukraine wanted to join NATO, aligning themselves with us. Then Russia invaded. If the US didn’t support Ukraine, the world would know they can prevent a weaker country from joining NATO by invading. After Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no desire to send US troops but we can provide weapons and intelligence.
I personally don’t think it’s going to matter much for the average Ukrainian, as far as who controls their resources. I think it’s a tragedy that they’re fighting or dying over whether it’s Russian oligarchs or western oligarchs who will get to control their lives
Weapons, intelligence and Ukrainian bodies are an extremely cheap deal to weaken an adversary, don’t you think?
When it comes to wanting oil though, US and Iraqi bodies aren’t so important. As long as you can dupe your own citizens into believing there’s WMD’s, it doesn’t matter.
And of course Ukraine knows what’s best for them. That’s why they keep asking for a roadmap to NATO but the US is like “Nah” - https://www.ft.com/content/c37ed22d-e0e4-4b03-972e-c56af8a36d2e
So of course they’re left to negotiate. Again, the US Government doesn’t care but their citizens think they do.
The US is against peace if it doesn’t get more money to the military–industrial complex or if it doesn’t weaken an adversary, like in this case.
By volunteered to fight you mean being abducted on the street, beaten, and sent to die?