I agree that spending on military conflicts is generally a poor use of our tax dollars.There is much need and also opportunity to do good with those funds here at home.
However, in this situation, I strongly support Ukraine's defense of its sovereign borders and democratically-elected government -- and I'm okay with our U.S. government's …
I agree that spending on military conflicts is generally a poor use of our tax dollars.There is much need and also opportunity to do good with those funds here at home.
However, in this situation, I strongly support Ukraine's defense of its sovereign borders and democratically-elected government -- and I'm okay with our U.S. government's support of them in their efforts.
Each nation should have the right to self determination, and I am glad that oue government can provide Ukraine some support. Beyond that though, there are benefits to the U.S. that result from us providing support to an ally & democracy under attack. As I see it, these are:
*A weakening of Russia as it drains it's coffers and expends its military in the ongoing war that it started;
*That this weakening occurs without any American military service members risking their lives in battle;
*that this struggle, which is expending Russia's military assets, is being wages on other shores;
*and that when we provide aging, yet still effective, items from U.S. arsenal stockpiles, we also effectively spend the cost of our support of Ukrainian defense efforts on needed refreshing and refilling of our stockpiles with up-to-date items.
I appreciate your reply, Kari. I had this sentiment before I heard several people with different perspectives providing info that made me look differently at our involvement in this conflict. Our Washington Neocons--war mongers--were very active in unseating the elected head of the Ukraine in 2014. Russia noted this but did not rush in to take charge at that time. It was not until the US and NATO began pressuring the old USSR countries to join NATO--when we had promised not to encourage any further reach of NATO eastward--and especially not in the Ukraine. We betrayed Russia--Gorbachev--at that time by not keeping our word. When Russia was threatening to install missiles in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs--our military threatened to use the nuclear option against them. What is the difference with Russia and the threat of the Ukraine becoming a NATO country right on its doorstep? There is also the document that Biden just signed allowing the US, the UK and NATO to shoot missiles deep into Russian territory. Putin has stated that there is now no doubt that the US and UK are 'at war' with Russia. This is no longer a 'proxy war' but it is now an absolute provocation of nuclear war on the part of our country. It is so important to know both sides of the story. Scott Ritter was a Nuclear Weapons Inspector during the Cold War with Russia. He came to love and trust the Russian people. If you fact check him, you will find they call him a pedophile. It is so easy to break any meaningful communication by throwing out labels like this. If he hasn't been indicted for this crime, I suggest this is meant to deter you from giving this man a chance to tell a different narrative. When will we allow our 1st Amendment right to Free Speech to actually be reinstated??? https://scottritter.substack.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=i0zxc&next=https%3A%2F%2Fscottritter.substack.com%2Fp%2Fno-nuclear-war-a-call-for-reason&utm_medium=email Subscribe for Free and listen to another narrative. Thanks for your engagement with me--and also for listening to my side.
I agree that spending on military conflicts is generally a poor use of our tax dollars.There is much need and also opportunity to do good with those funds here at home.
However, in this situation, I strongly support Ukraine's defense of its sovereign borders and democratically-elected government -- and I'm okay with our U.S. government's support of them in their efforts.
Each nation should have the right to self determination, and I am glad that oue government can provide Ukraine some support. Beyond that though, there are benefits to the U.S. that result from us providing support to an ally & democracy under attack. As I see it, these are:
*A weakening of Russia as it drains it's coffers and expends its military in the ongoing war that it started;
*That this weakening occurs without any American military service members risking their lives in battle;
*that this struggle, which is expending Russia's military assets, is being wages on other shores;
*and that when we provide aging, yet still effective, items from U.S. arsenal stockpiles, we also effectively spend the cost of our support of Ukrainian defense efforts on needed refreshing and refilling of our stockpiles with up-to-date items.
I appreciate your reply, Kari. I had this sentiment before I heard several people with different perspectives providing info that made me look differently at our involvement in this conflict. Our Washington Neocons--war mongers--were very active in unseating the elected head of the Ukraine in 2014. Russia noted this but did not rush in to take charge at that time. It was not until the US and NATO began pressuring the old USSR countries to join NATO--when we had promised not to encourage any further reach of NATO eastward--and especially not in the Ukraine. We betrayed Russia--Gorbachev--at that time by not keeping our word. When Russia was threatening to install missiles in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs--our military threatened to use the nuclear option against them. What is the difference with Russia and the threat of the Ukraine becoming a NATO country right on its doorstep? There is also the document that Biden just signed allowing the US, the UK and NATO to shoot missiles deep into Russian territory. Putin has stated that there is now no doubt that the US and UK are 'at war' with Russia. This is no longer a 'proxy war' but it is now an absolute provocation of nuclear war on the part of our country. It is so important to know both sides of the story. Scott Ritter was a Nuclear Weapons Inspector during the Cold War with Russia. He came to love and trust the Russian people. If you fact check him, you will find they call him a pedophile. It is so easy to break any meaningful communication by throwing out labels like this. If he hasn't been indicted for this crime, I suggest this is meant to deter you from giving this man a chance to tell a different narrative. When will we allow our 1st Amendment right to Free Speech to actually be reinstated??? https://scottritter.substack.com/subscribe?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=email-subscribe&r=i0zxc&next=https%3A%2F%2Fscottritter.substack.com%2Fp%2Fno-nuclear-war-a-call-for-reason&utm_medium=email Subscribe for Free and listen to another narrative. Thanks for your engagement with me--and also for listening to my side.
I would never follow a bunch of obvious links to Russian propaganda. If you’re not working for them already, you should ask RT for a job.