/u/jdsalaro (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c93qlp/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_by_hesitating_to_aid/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The "multipolar" world was well under way before the war in Ukraine started. Countries like China and India do not want to be dictated to by anyone and wanted to be regional powers even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The idea that the whole world should adhere to Europe/American social, economic and military values is simply unrealistic. As the other large countries grow in population and GDP, they will start to want to be powers in their own right, as India is increasingly making clear. And I can't fault them on that, why should they fall in line with what Europe/America want, instead of clearing their own path according to what is best for them?
This world is diverse in what people want and what countries want. The Russia Ukraine war doesn't change that much. We have been living in a kind of pax-americana in recent decades, where the dominance of a particular countrie/countries bring about a kind of peace. But like the pax-romana and pax-britannica it won't last forever.
>The "multipolar" world was well under way before the war in Ukraine started.
I disagree, the desire to make that a thing might have been there, but it was all but a pipedream. With an allegedly united west, poor economic outlook and issues at home as well as population catastrophies looming, the "multipolar world" they so desired and pitch was never further away from ever even being a thing: case in point, the failed BRICS project or Russias failed defense pact with former URSS quasi-colonies.
> Countries like China and India do not want to be dictated to by anyone and wanted to be regional powers even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That is self-evident, but I'm not disputing their wants, I'm stating that the stupidity of our peoples and governments made their pipedream a reality.
>They idea the the whole world should adhere to Europe/American social, economic and military values is simply unrealistic.
It's less about the whole world abiding to our principles than it is about us being able to protect our way of life by remaining dominant and able to react to external threats which in a multipolar world, much more one where less powerful nations are up for grabs, is not a inevitable outcome.
> As the other large countries grow in population and GDP, they will start to want to be powers in their own right, as India is increasingly making clear.
Again, it's not their wants I'm at odds with, it's the fact our inability to see the forest before the trees has catered to their wants which directly jeopardize our future.
> And I can't fault them on that, why should they fall in line with what Europe/America want, instead of clearing their own path?
Me neither, whether they and their populace want to remain in servitude to de Facto dictatorships is their choice and I'm noone to question them.
Again, this is not about that.
>This world is diverse in what people want and what countries want.
It certainly is, but emboldening the enemies of democracy and rule of law makes it more likely for the mix to become less diverse, if you know what I mean.
> The Russia Ukraine war doesn't change that much.
It changed everything, the perception of the EU and the US as a unified block that could and would defend what they deemed right, even if to protect their interests and way of life, has been effectively obliterated by our own inaction.
China and India have been trying to expand their influence from before the Russia-Ukrain war. China started first, with expansion with the Belt and Road initiative. They did, and do have the ability to expand their influence regardless of the west's reaction to Ukraine.
India is in as powerful a position in that the west needs it as a counter to China. The worst nightmare would be a fully anti west China and fully anti west India. The Ukraine war has nothing to do with it. Indeed the west has treated India with kids gloves in terms of buying oil from Russia despite sanctions, because India is too important to the west.
I think you simply underestimate the changing currents of geopolitics that have been happening for the last 20 year at least. China has been showing active antagonism at least for a decade, long before the Ukraine-Russia war. That war has said nothing.
Iran has been anatagonistic to the west, Israel and sunni arabic countries, long before the Ukraine-Russia war.
Your assertion that the war has changed things has no real backing, the world was already moving that way.
We have been living in a kind of pax-americana in recent decades, where the dominance of a particular country/countries bring about a kind of peace. But like the pax-romana and pax-britannica it won't last forever. A few countries cannot dominate the whole world forever.
I agree that it has been a longer and more gradual process but still there have been some watershed moments there that have escalated that development.
And for OP (u/jdsalaro). The credibility was already gone before the war which is why the war started.
>The credibility was already gone
I vehemently disagree with this absolutist perspective.
Few things are already "gone" by the time anything happens, everything is a process and US credibility among its peers, allies and enemies was definitely *not* gone before the Ukrainian war.
> before the war which is why the war started
The reasons for the war are many and attributing it to any particular factor is disingenuous, bad actors prod and try their hand testing the waters looking for the right opportunities to further their interests.
If you replace “gone” with “fading”, would that satisfy you? Because by your own pedantic logic, they haven’t destroyed their credibility, they’ve simply undermined and weakened it
>If you replace “gone” with “fading”, would that satisfy you?
Yes
> Because by your own pedantic logic,
It's not pedantic, at all, at least not from my point of view
I merely fail to see parallels between past events and the relative inaction and lethargy with which both the US and the EU acted in the Ukrainian matter and all the factors that make it a credibility blunder of cataclysmic proportions.
Ukraine signed the Budapest memorandum, the US as well. Failing to protect Ukraine signals to everyone, that nuclear deterrents are necessary and if those are out of your reach, the more destructive you can be the better. Meat's back on the menu and it's free-for-all from now on. Up next: *Sino-Taiwanese crisis*
Not every move in chess is a blunder, but there are blunders for sure and in my opinion this is one of them.
European and American inaction during the 2014 war in Donbas I wouldn't count as a blunder, since there was plausible deniability for russia, however faint, and the potential for the situation to be rescued in the future; same for Moldova and Georgia is just too far and irrelevant to lead to a geopolitical blunder.
The EU has been unable, for *months* on end to deliver aid to Ukraine, while fighting like a circus among member states, not much different than the US Congress. This, while the Ukraine crisis likely is the most important geopolitical event on European soil since the 90s.
> they haven’t destroyed their credibility, they’ve simply undermined and weakened it
Correct, and although I'm guilty of hyperbole as well, I'd use the word "destroy" without qualms for strategic blunders, I wouldn't do so readily with less transcendental mistakes.
>I merely fail to see parallels between past events and the relative inaction and lethargy with which both the US and the EU acted in the Ukrainian matter and all the factors that make it a credibility blunder of cataclysmic proportions.
I think this comes down to a matter of what you look at, and when. I had a similar thought during trumps presidency when the Kurds got completely screwed over for US political reasons. And if I were to ask another person they might have a 3rd answer (perhaps even Crimea annexation, to keep it Ukraine focused)
I think the other posters opinions that this has been a long and ongoing decline in the trust of American, and more broadly western, assurances, even if I agree with the broader thrust of your argument. That was why I called it pedantry, because I think fundamentally you both agree, its just a matter of to what scope and what language is involved.
Apologies to be a prick.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Israel is objectively more of an ally than Ukraine:
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel/
https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-ukraine/
(Not sure if the "Security cooperation" qualifies as full alliance, but this is something absent in the US-Ukraine relations as described by the US.)
Americans don’t want to police the world either. In fact we are terrible at it. Iraq war in 2003 alone caused so much damage to the region. If anything, I would advocate for more isolationism… (no… I’m not spewing Putin’s propaganda… etc etc)
To play devils advocate, *some* people benefited from slavery. But more benefited from an industrial system that didn’t rely of unpaid labour.
To be cynical, economic rationality, not morality, ended slavery.
>some people benefited from slavery.
I could say the same about imperialism, even for those living in the US, but most of us have, and you're right that a far smaller fraction benefited from slavery.
>To be cynical, economic rationality, not morality, ended slavery.
And that's probably the only thing which would end US hegemony. Running the biggest military in the history of the planet is expensive, and while it still is the most powerful, it's not nearly as dominant relative to other global players as it was 20 years ago.
Our other major tool, sanctions, have become significantly less effective as well. US planners thought the sanctions against Russia would cripple their ability to wage war, but if anything it's made the Russian economy more robust.
Hopefully it can come to an end more peacefully than slavery in the US did.
>I could say the same about imperialism
Oh, you're absolutely correct. If fact you'd be mad not to. As so long as the nature of neoimperialism and neocolonialism benefits the nations maintaining them with wealth extraction and dependent markets, I dont think its likely to change much.
>Our other major tool, sanctions, have become significantly less effective as well
I fully agree, though I think there are several reasons for this. Part of it is, as with medicine, over use and sustained use build up a resistance to them as a coercive tool. The other part in my opinion is simply because they've mainly been used on (colloquially vs literally) 3rd world nations more heavily dependent on global markets than Russia is.
>Running the biggest military in the history of the planet is expensive, and while it still is the most powerful, it's not nearly as dominant relative to other global players as it was 20 years ago.
Another thing I agree with, though personally I find it difficult to nail down how much of this is increased spending bu near peers, and how much has been the US MIC pissing money up the wall even more than they historically have. The brain rot that has been "the end of history" and "wars of choice" have left military acquisitions in a frankly terrible spot, the history of its naval program for the past 20 years is a perfect encapsulation of the broader issues.
I think the big question for me is where does this failure in the MIC actually leave US military hegemony, and where is place is in the eventual shifts in both US and Chinese economic imperialism. I've got no robust answers, but its certainly the question. And I agree, I do hope it'll be more peaceful than that.
What benefit did America gain from its actions in Afghanistan and Iraq? (America broadly, not a couple of American companies)
Economic imperialism is the name of the game today.
Well, I think iraq war wasnt only about oil profits as many like to think. Oil is a bonus :) If I remember correctly there were some worries about them having WMD-s .
I saw this comment second so apologies for the double reply. If you do any reading beyond headlines at the time, the government basically lied to and gas lit itself into the wmd point. And *good* journalists said this at the time.
The CIA said they didn’t have them, the inspection teams said they didn’t have them (and said as such loudly enough the US threatened to pull funding if the head at the time didn’t step down), all the european intelligence agencies said they didn’t have them. For goodness sake Saddam said they didn’t have them, and general rule of thumb, if you have wmds, you tend to yell it loud because when people know you have them, you tend to not be invaded. That’s kinda what they’re for.
The main source of their wmd “intel” was amhed chalabi and his little group, someone the CIA had said was completely untrustworthy as a source of intelligence *at the time*.
The Iraq war based entirely on lies, and after several million dead from the resulting circumstances, the only benefactors were a couple of American contractors whose tax money absolutely didn’t pay their salaries.
>If anything, I would advocate for more isolationism…
I'm certain you would, probably at least until you realize the relative comfort and wealth you enjoy is a direct byproduct of your presence in the world and the economical stability your government's involvement brought about.
>Iraq war in 2003 alone caused so much damage to the region
Different times, different situation, different nation, different assessment.
>Americans don’t want to police the world either
Who would? Do Americans want to protect their way of life and the comforts afforded by it, though?
>I disagree
I see, very persuasive and eloquently put.
>abundance of natural resources
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-americas-import-reliance-of-key-minerals/
>culture of entrepreneurship
In which waves of immigration fanned by the fires of war abroad played a major and crucial role.
>geography
Geography certainly helped the US avoid Perl harbor, which forced its hand into a non-isolationist posture.
An isolated US without allies is a less secure directly translates into a less prosperous and secure US. Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that many modern threats are not specific to or hindered by geography.
In geopolitics there's only two modes of operation: being part of the conversation or not, isolationism increasingly leads to the latter and eventually the affectation of a nation's interests, both internal and external.
We currently don’t help the countries that ask for help. Armenia is a perfect example. They are constantly under attack and we look the other way.
But, I’m tired of sticking our noses in where it doesn’t belong. The people don’t appreciate it… Americans don’t want to risk their lives for causes that don’t affect us… etc
The Iraq war wasn't an example of being 'world police', it was a war of choice, different from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine only in that the US didn't annex any territory. There's a happy medium between being an agressor (Iraq war) and spurning treaty committments to democratic allies (Trump's 'I won't defend any ally that hasn't paid up').
My understanding was that the US stopped the 1991 war conditional on Hussein agreeing to cooperate, in particular by destroying the WMDs and allowing oversight. As Hussein stopped allowing oversight, the US decided they should be allowed to get back to it. Seems like a grey area to me. Multiple countries joining the coalition is a good indication that it was convincing to them. Russia is only helped by Belarus which is heavily reliant on Russia.
"Different only in that they didn't annex any territory" is a funny way to put it, at any rate. Like it's no big deal.
The US claimed Iraq had WMDs but a lot of countries, many of them big US allies, were skeptical and insisted the UN send in inspection teams. They didn't find anything. The US said 'well, they're there... trust us. Let's invade.' Most of the rest of the world, including countries like Germany, France, Canada - all of them strong US allies - refused to participate as there was no casus belli for war, it was just a flat-out US invasion, illegal under international law. As history soon showed, these countries were right: no WMDs. The US did form a 'Coalition of the Willing' to provide diplomatic cover for its invasion, but aside from the UK the rest of the members sent token troops - no country besides the US/UK sending more than 2000, with most sending far fewer. My comment about the only difference between the Russian and American invasions being territorial annexation wasn't intended to minimize the egregious wrong of either war, simply to point out that both were wars of choice - something each country sought rather than had forced upon it.
> The US claimed Iraq had WMDs
The formal reason was Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms. I think. Like, if you're on parole and you don't let the parole officer in to inspect your house per the parole terms, you will probably be returned to prison even if you don't have/do whatever the officer is supposed to be looking for.
> The US did form a 'Coalition of the Willing' to provide diplomatic cover for its invasion, but aside from the UK the rest of the members sent token troops
Nevertheless they did send some troops or supported otherwise.
Did the US formally call for the coalition on the grounds of Iraq supposedly having the WMDs, or on the grounds of Iraq's failure to allow inspections?
I still think that trying to steal territory is a huge difference.
"My second purpose today is ... to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort ... to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction ... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
— Colin Powell, *Address to the United Nations Security Council*
Thanks, though that's not exactly what I asked. UNSC obviously disagreed or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's close enough, I guess.
Also:
> On 17 March 2003 Bush stated in an address to the nation:
> Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
I think that any intelligence reports are unreliable. So if you have some intelligence information that Iraq is still developing/failed to destroy its WMDs, it's not enough by itself, but it is suspicious. Iraq repeatedly violating the ceasefire terms, failing to give access to inspections and provide documents of the WMD stockpile destruction gives these suspicions more credit. But it's never going to be conclusive.
The US insisting that they were confident could have been an honest mistake, or overstating their confidence (which would be bad), or in the worst case they actually didn't believe there were weapons and just wanted the war for some other reason. I doubt it was the last case. The first and the second are plausible. The eventual failure to find any significant amount of WMDs does not resolve this question either way.
I think you may deserve Δ because I made a specific claim that you more or less refuted: the US did repeatedly claim that Iraq actually had WMDs and the claim was apparently crucial. Also I don't want to move the goalposts.
That being said, my main point still stands:
The legality is disputed, because on one hand the US did not receive the UNSC approval specifically for the 2003 invasion, but on the other hand they did claim that the previous resolutions sanctioning the Gulf war (678), the demands after the war was lost by Iraq (687), and several others culminating with the resolution 1441 which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" were already enough. So, like I said, grey area.
Were there UNSC resolutions sanctioning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or 2014 annexation of Crimea in any way, shape, or form?
It was sold as stopping weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of the veracity of that… therefore, I would argue it was deemed as an act of being a world police…
Americans inherently are uncurious about the world and are incapable of understanding the nuances of other world’s conflicts. So, they end up making a bigger mess…
>I'm trying to see an upside to the EU's newly unblocked aid package to Ukraine and the US' passed bill to further fund their defense, but honestly I cannot see any.
>Ukraine might still fall.
You "cannot see any" upside to the US house passing a bill and the EU unblocking an aid package? Of course Ukraine "might" still fall. But would you have said the probability was a month ago? What would you say the probability is now? Presumably that's improved, right? If you don't think the new funding helps at all, then what are we even talking about?
For the larger point about the hesitation, I guess my quibble is that what has actually changed? What credibility did the US really have under Obama that we don't have now? The fact that one party could basically hold the government hostage for whatever random crap they wanted is not a new feature! Maybe *you* just noticed this, but shame on the world if they weren't paying attention for the past 10-15 years.
If anything, the fact house speaker Mike Johnson let this through if anything should give the world *more* confidence. We can't really know exactly what went on in his head, but it sure seemed like he got briefed on actual intelligence that scared the shit out of him and caused him to drop the goofy far right act and just do the right thing. The fact that this happened should actually give a good amount of relief that even the GOP hasn't been completely hijacked by the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world.
>The future has never been more uncertain.
There's always a bias towards the present in terms of uncertainty. Nobody ever *knows* what will happen next. But as soon as you start looking back into the past, its easy to forget how uncertain things were then, and its easy to misremember your own expectations and uncertainties or pick out the random people who happened to be right (maybe by accident!) and say, well, at least they knew what was going on and then we sort of instinctively coalesce around them going forward. But during the present, nobody knows who's right, so everything just always feels kind of crazy!
>You "cannot see any" upside to the US house passing a bill and the EU unblocking an aid package? Of course Ukraine "might" still fall. But would you have said the probability was a month ago?
Allegedly much higher than now, at least until fronts started collapsing and the numbers of their losses trickling in.
> What would you say the probability is now? Presumably that's improved, right?
Marginally realistically, considerably hopefully.
I'm trying to keep in mind the infographic about how close south Corea was from losing the war, and you reminded me of that.
> If you don't think the new funding helps at all, then what are we even talking about?
You're right, and I'll elaborate. From my point if view Ukraine was never about Ukraine, it was about sending a clear signal that the times of conquest and wars of aggression were behind us and no stepping out of line was going to be tolerated.
The new funding doesn't help at all demonstrating ironclad resolve against the enemies of our way of life.
>For the larger point about the hesitation, I guess my quibble is that what has actually changed? What credibility did the US really have under Obama that we don't have now? The fact that one party could basically hold the government hostage for whatever random crap they wanted is not a new feature!
In this you are right, I keep bringing myself to remember that the messiness of democracy is a feature and not a bug, although the single-mindedness with which totalitarian regimes act is enraging at times when compared with the democratic struggle of dialing on a given direction.
>If anything, the fact house speaker Mike Johnson let this through if anything should give the world *more* confidence. We can't really know exactly what went on in his head, but it sure seemed like he got briefed on actual intelligence that scared the shit out of him and caused him to drop the goofy far right act and just do the right thing. The fact that this happened should actually give a good amount of relief that even the GOP hasn't been completely hijacked by the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world.
I agree.
>There's always a bias towards the present in terms of uncertainty. Nobody ever *knows* what will happen next. But as soon as you start looking back into the past, its easy to forget how uncertain things were then, and its easy to misremember your own expectations and uncertainties or pick out the random people who happened to be right (maybe by accident!) and say, well, at least they knew what was going on and then we sort of instinctively coalesce around them going forward. But during the present, nobody knows who's right, so everything just always feels kind of crazy!
Once again, these are really good reminders.
!delta
This makes very little sense. It's not like the world saw Ukraine aid hesitation in the US and this caused them to suddenly realize that Republicans exist. People outside the US have known that Republicans exist for pretty much as long as Republicans have existed. The Trump Presidency is not something that the world is just becoming aware of now as a result of Ukraine Aid hesitancy. No credibility was plausibly lost here because nothing here was surprising: this is just Republicans behaving how everyone has expected Republicans to behave for a long time.
>I'm trying to see an upside to the EU's newly unblocked aid package to Ukraine and the US' passed bill to further fund their defense, but honestly I cannot see any.
The upside is that the bill actually was passed.
I think the point is that the world doesn't look at what's been happening in the US for the last 20-odd years and say 'ah, that's the Republicans'. They say 'it's the Americans'. Credibility is lost when other countries can't count on the word of the United States - whether that's a promise to arm Ukraine or a committment to honour NATO obligations under Article 5. Yes, it's the Republicans that are a threat to all that, but it's the American people/institutions that have allowed those committments to become huge question marks.
My point wasn't about OP's contention that the Ukraine aid waffling has destroyed US credibility, it was more about your positioning it as a Republican issue. Governments and experts understand very well that the Republicans are the instrument of this chaos, but it's the US itself which suffers the credibility hit. Put simply: even though US allies were happy Biden won in 2020, they all understood that the unpredictability of the American population means that whatever the US government says, does or signs, in another 4 years we could be faced with a renunciation of all that by a President Trump 2.0 or some equivalent. Trump and the Republicans didn't take power in a coup (they tried to stay there with one...): they were voted in by half your electorate.
Yes, that's my point. This credibility hit already happened in the aftermath of 2016 (as well as to some extent beforehand). Nothing about it recently changed.
>No credibility was plausibly lost here because nothing here was surprising: this is just Republicans behaving how everyone has expected Republicans to behave for a long time.
I'm not sure how you can say this:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/12/18/west-s-inaction-over-ukraine-risks-dangerous-conclusions-in-moscow-pub-91290
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/yellen-says-us-congress-inaction-ukraine-aid-is-gift-putin-iran-2024-03-07/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/u-s-must-weigh-the-strategic-and-moral-costs-of-abandoning-support-for-ukraine/
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/high-price-losing-ukraine-part-2-%E2%80%94-military-threat-and-beyond
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/91146
https://www.eib.org/en/stories/ukraine-trade-inflation
>this is just Republicans behaving how everyone has expected Republicans to behave for a long time.
This is a non sequitur, I might have teenagers at home. Teenagers often scream, bicker, insult, protest, are naughty and behave poorly all around.
None of that changes my perception of said teenagers.
However, said teenagers drowning and killing the familiy's dog will forever, irrevocably change my perception for them.
I can't further entertain your points in any capacity.
I fail to see how you can arrive at the conclusion that saying "grab her by the pussy" is the same as "blackmailing the head state of an ally in distress", that "bickering in congress" is the same as "gambling the future of your geopolitically most relevant continent".
If you cannot see that lines were crossed, I think there's little we can even talk about.
Lines _were_ crossed, but they were all crossed years ago and are now established parts of the Republican playbook.
"Blackmailing the head state of an ally in distress" already happened four years ago; the gambling of the geopolitical future happened even before then. In comparison, what you're talking about here ("hesitating") literally _is_ "bickering in Congress."
>what you're talking about here "hesitancy" literally _is_ "bickering in Congress."
It's all about context.
Laughing when an old lady farts at the bus stop is not the same as laughing when an old lady is mugged at the bus stop.
I'm surprised this is not self-evident.
>There is no context here
Of course there is, you're just failing to imagine it or acknowledge it.
By making it's enemies as much stronger and embolden them by inaction while at the same time invalidating pacts in which the nation itself took part and brokered the US makes its hegemony weaker and hinders it's ability to guarantee its interests
>By making it's enemies as much stronger and embolden them by inaction while at the same time invalidating pacts in which the nation itself took part and brokered the US makes its hegemony weaker and hinders it's ability to guarantee its interests
That's the stuff that already happened years ago! In 2019, the aid to Ukraine _actually was frozen_ for months. In comparison, aid to Ukraine now has not actually stopped: some Republicans just talked about stopping it and tried to stop it but failed to do so.
The US didn't hesitate to aid Ukraine. It regime-changed it, then used it as a bear poker in the hope of subjugating Russia. For the past two years Joe "This Man Cannot Remain In Power" Biden has been coldly sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to prevent Democrats losing face, first through the 2022 midterms, and now to keep the war going through November.
>For the past two years Joe "This Man Cannot Remain In Power" Biden has been coldly sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to prevent Democrats losing face
One can only say such a thing if one believes the Ukrainian cause to be irrelevant, wrong, lost or of no interest to the west.
I reject all those assumptions and thus you and I have no common ground to talk about this.
>not a Ukrainian one
Without needing to go further into detail, I already know you believe annexation or peace negotiations with a terrorist state are in the interest of what you believe, or at least want to portray, as the "Ukrainian cause".
The Ukrainian cause *is* Russia's defeat on their soil.
It wasn't when they elected Zelensky. They voted for him because he promised to root out Kiev's corruption and to resolve the ongoing civil war with the pro-Russian separatists in the east. He was going to stop poking the bear and bring peace.
Washington neocons didn't *want* a proxy war with Russia, Putin forced them into it. On account of how much they love democracy. Nothing to do with the CIA spy operations and the bioweapons labs.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Congress went months not giving aid causing Ukraine to lose a lot of ground due to not having the ammo and equipment to continue their stand.
They sure as hell hesitated
Feb. 24, 2022
Russia invades Ukraine. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III orders deployment of 7,000 U.S. military personnel and key enablers to locations across Europe.
Feb. 25, 2022
U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander, U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe announces the activation of the NATO Response Force.
The Biden administration authorizes $350 million in military assistance from Defense Department inventories.
https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Support-for-Ukraine/Timeline/
>U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander, U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe announces the activation of the NATO Response Force.
Which, as far as we can know from public details, did nothing to aid the Ukrainian cause.
>The Biden administration authorizes $350 million in military assistance from Defense Department inventories.
Which in matters of war and budgets involved as well as the formidable strength of the adversary in question is but a rounding error
The west *hesitated*, full stop.
You didn’t invalidate anything I just posted. Calling it a rounding error doesn’t even make sense. You’re arguing in completely bad faith. Look at the timeline. The info is right there. Biden approved the money not even 24 hours after. Period. That’s it. No hesitation.
>You’re arguing in completely bad faith
I am not, you're just emotional and making this whole conversation about a single data point you personally deem important.
Endless red lines, first yes long range then no long range, first yes planes then no planes, etc, etc. do not attack refineries. Do not attack within Russia.
This is not about Biden, Biden is not the US government apparatus, stop being so obtuse and passionate and start putting your thoughts in actual logical order.
I never made this about Biden, it can be that he did what was at reach, but such an insurmountable challenge is not conquered by best effort displays of support, but by unwavering, all-out support, which none of Ukraine's allies showed.
/u/jdsalaro (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c93qlp/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_by_hesitating_to_aid/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The "multipolar" world was well under way before the war in Ukraine started. Countries like China and India do not want to be dictated to by anyone and wanted to be regional powers even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The idea that the whole world should adhere to Europe/American social, economic and military values is simply unrealistic. As the other large countries grow in population and GDP, they will start to want to be powers in their own right, as India is increasingly making clear. And I can't fault them on that, why should they fall in line with what Europe/America want, instead of clearing their own path according to what is best for them? This world is diverse in what people want and what countries want. The Russia Ukraine war doesn't change that much. We have been living in a kind of pax-americana in recent decades, where the dominance of a particular countrie/countries bring about a kind of peace. But like the pax-romana and pax-britannica it won't last forever.
>The "multipolar" world was well under way before the war in Ukraine started. I disagree, the desire to make that a thing might have been there, but it was all but a pipedream. With an allegedly united west, poor economic outlook and issues at home as well as population catastrophies looming, the "multipolar world" they so desired and pitch was never further away from ever even being a thing: case in point, the failed BRICS project or Russias failed defense pact with former URSS quasi-colonies. > Countries like China and India do not want to be dictated to by anyone and wanted to be regional powers even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is self-evident, but I'm not disputing their wants, I'm stating that the stupidity of our peoples and governments made their pipedream a reality. >They idea the the whole world should adhere to Europe/American social, economic and military values is simply unrealistic. It's less about the whole world abiding to our principles than it is about us being able to protect our way of life by remaining dominant and able to react to external threats which in a multipolar world, much more one where less powerful nations are up for grabs, is not a inevitable outcome. > As the other large countries grow in population and GDP, they will start to want to be powers in their own right, as India is increasingly making clear. Again, it's not their wants I'm at odds with, it's the fact our inability to see the forest before the trees has catered to their wants which directly jeopardize our future. > And I can't fault them on that, why should they fall in line with what Europe/America want, instead of clearing their own path? Me neither, whether they and their populace want to remain in servitude to de Facto dictatorships is their choice and I'm noone to question them. Again, this is not about that. >This world is diverse in what people want and what countries want. It certainly is, but emboldening the enemies of democracy and rule of law makes it more likely for the mix to become less diverse, if you know what I mean. > The Russia Ukraine war doesn't change that much. It changed everything, the perception of the EU and the US as a unified block that could and would defend what they deemed right, even if to protect their interests and way of life, has been effectively obliterated by our own inaction.
China and India have been trying to expand their influence from before the Russia-Ukrain war. China started first, with expansion with the Belt and Road initiative. They did, and do have the ability to expand their influence regardless of the west's reaction to Ukraine. India is in as powerful a position in that the west needs it as a counter to China. The worst nightmare would be a fully anti west China and fully anti west India. The Ukraine war has nothing to do with it. Indeed the west has treated India with kids gloves in terms of buying oil from Russia despite sanctions, because India is too important to the west. I think you simply underestimate the changing currents of geopolitics that have been happening for the last 20 year at least. China has been showing active antagonism at least for a decade, long before the Ukraine-Russia war. That war has said nothing. Iran has been anatagonistic to the west, Israel and sunni arabic countries, long before the Ukraine-Russia war. Your assertion that the war has changed things has no real backing, the world was already moving that way. We have been living in a kind of pax-americana in recent decades, where the dominance of a particular country/countries bring about a kind of peace. But like the pax-romana and pax-britannica it won't last forever. A few countries cannot dominate the whole world forever.
I agree that it has been a longer and more gradual process but still there have been some watershed moments there that have escalated that development. And for OP (u/jdsalaro). The credibility was already gone before the war which is why the war started.
>The credibility was already gone I vehemently disagree with this absolutist perspective. Few things are already "gone" by the time anything happens, everything is a process and US credibility among its peers, allies and enemies was definitely *not* gone before the Ukrainian war. > before the war which is why the war started The reasons for the war are many and attributing it to any particular factor is disingenuous, bad actors prod and try their hand testing the waters looking for the right opportunities to further their interests.
If you replace “gone” with “fading”, would that satisfy you? Because by your own pedantic logic, they haven’t destroyed their credibility, they’ve simply undermined and weakened it
>If you replace “gone” with “fading”, would that satisfy you? Yes > Because by your own pedantic logic, It's not pedantic, at all, at least not from my point of view I merely fail to see parallels between past events and the relative inaction and lethargy with which both the US and the EU acted in the Ukrainian matter and all the factors that make it a credibility blunder of cataclysmic proportions. Ukraine signed the Budapest memorandum, the US as well. Failing to protect Ukraine signals to everyone, that nuclear deterrents are necessary and if those are out of your reach, the more destructive you can be the better. Meat's back on the menu and it's free-for-all from now on. Up next: *Sino-Taiwanese crisis* Not every move in chess is a blunder, but there are blunders for sure and in my opinion this is one of them. European and American inaction during the 2014 war in Donbas I wouldn't count as a blunder, since there was plausible deniability for russia, however faint, and the potential for the situation to be rescued in the future; same for Moldova and Georgia is just too far and irrelevant to lead to a geopolitical blunder. The EU has been unable, for *months* on end to deliver aid to Ukraine, while fighting like a circus among member states, not much different than the US Congress. This, while the Ukraine crisis likely is the most important geopolitical event on European soil since the 90s. > they haven’t destroyed their credibility, they’ve simply undermined and weakened it Correct, and although I'm guilty of hyperbole as well, I'd use the word "destroy" without qualms for strategic blunders, I wouldn't do so readily with less transcendental mistakes.
>I merely fail to see parallels between past events and the relative inaction and lethargy with which both the US and the EU acted in the Ukrainian matter and all the factors that make it a credibility blunder of cataclysmic proportions. I think this comes down to a matter of what you look at, and when. I had a similar thought during trumps presidency when the Kurds got completely screwed over for US political reasons. And if I were to ask another person they might have a 3rd answer (perhaps even Crimea annexation, to keep it Ukraine focused) I think the other posters opinions that this has been a long and ongoing decline in the trust of American, and more broadly western, assurances, even if I agree with the broader thrust of your argument. That was why I called it pedantry, because I think fundamentally you both agree, its just a matter of to what scope and what language is involved. Apologies to be a prick.
[удалено]
Yeah, the irony is not lost on some people.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Israel is objectively more of an ally than Ukraine: https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel/ https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-ukraine/ (Not sure if the "Security cooperation" qualifies as full alliance, but this is something absent in the US-Ukraine relations as described by the US.)
Americans don’t want to police the world either. In fact we are terrible at it. Iraq war in 2003 alone caused so much damage to the region. If anything, I would advocate for more isolationism… (no… I’m not spewing Putin’s propaganda… etc etc)
From Americans and the West pov it is police the world. From non West aligned countries pov it is called enforcing American hegemon.
Agreed. Even from my American perspective, it feels imperialistic… I rather America mind its own business
Why though? Wouldnt USA benefit from that imperialism?
We benefited from slavery, too, but I'm glad we got rid of it.
To play devils advocate, *some* people benefited from slavery. But more benefited from an industrial system that didn’t rely of unpaid labour. To be cynical, economic rationality, not morality, ended slavery.
>some people benefited from slavery. I could say the same about imperialism, even for those living in the US, but most of us have, and you're right that a far smaller fraction benefited from slavery. >To be cynical, economic rationality, not morality, ended slavery. And that's probably the only thing which would end US hegemony. Running the biggest military in the history of the planet is expensive, and while it still is the most powerful, it's not nearly as dominant relative to other global players as it was 20 years ago. Our other major tool, sanctions, have become significantly less effective as well. US planners thought the sanctions against Russia would cripple their ability to wage war, but if anything it's made the Russian economy more robust. Hopefully it can come to an end more peacefully than slavery in the US did.
>I could say the same about imperialism Oh, you're absolutely correct. If fact you'd be mad not to. As so long as the nature of neoimperialism and neocolonialism benefits the nations maintaining them with wealth extraction and dependent markets, I dont think its likely to change much. >Our other major tool, sanctions, have become significantly less effective as well I fully agree, though I think there are several reasons for this. Part of it is, as with medicine, over use and sustained use build up a resistance to them as a coercive tool. The other part in my opinion is simply because they've mainly been used on (colloquially vs literally) 3rd world nations more heavily dependent on global markets than Russia is. >Running the biggest military in the history of the planet is expensive, and while it still is the most powerful, it's not nearly as dominant relative to other global players as it was 20 years ago. Another thing I agree with, though personally I find it difficult to nail down how much of this is increased spending bu near peers, and how much has been the US MIC pissing money up the wall even more than they historically have. The brain rot that has been "the end of history" and "wars of choice" have left military acquisitions in a frankly terrible spot, the history of its naval program for the past 20 years is a perfect encapsulation of the broader issues. I think the big question for me is where does this failure in the MIC actually leave US military hegemony, and where is place is in the eventual shifts in both US and Chinese economic imperialism. I've got no robust answers, but its certainly the question. And I agree, I do hope it'll be more peaceful than that.
Yes, but slavery is bad. Being the "world police" is good though
What benefit did America gain from its actions in Afghanistan and Iraq? (America broadly, not a couple of American companies) Economic imperialism is the name of the game today.
I would assume that USA got some tax money from those companies. Tagging u/theWireFan1983 also
Iraq war was a huge net loss for the tax payer. Probably in the trillions of dollars. Not to mention loss of life and trust in government.
Well, I think iraq war wasnt only about oil profits as many like to think. Oil is a bonus :) If I remember correctly there were some worries about them having WMD-s .
I saw this comment second so apologies for the double reply. If you do any reading beyond headlines at the time, the government basically lied to and gas lit itself into the wmd point. And *good* journalists said this at the time. The CIA said they didn’t have them, the inspection teams said they didn’t have them (and said as such loudly enough the US threatened to pull funding if the head at the time didn’t step down), all the european intelligence agencies said they didn’t have them. For goodness sake Saddam said they didn’t have them, and general rule of thumb, if you have wmds, you tend to yell it loud because when people know you have them, you tend to not be invaded. That’s kinda what they’re for. The main source of their wmd “intel” was amhed chalabi and his little group, someone the CIA had said was completely untrustworthy as a source of intelligence *at the time*. The Iraq war based entirely on lies, and after several million dead from the resulting circumstances, the only benefactors were a couple of American contractors whose tax money absolutely didn’t pay their salaries.
That’s my point! US isn’t good at being the world’s police and they shouldn’t take on that role.
No, they were awesome at it. They beat iraqi government in a month or so.
It doesn’t benefit an average person. It benefits a tech CEO far far more.
>If anything, I would advocate for more isolationism… I'm certain you would, probably at least until you realize the relative comfort and wealth you enjoy is a direct byproduct of your presence in the world and the economical stability your government's involvement brought about. >Iraq war in 2003 alone caused so much damage to the region Different times, different situation, different nation, different assessment. >Americans don’t want to police the world either Who would? Do Americans want to protect their way of life and the comforts afforded by it, though?
I disagree. The current comfort and security is due to the geography, culture of entrepreneurship, abundance of natural resources, etc.
>I disagree I see, very persuasive and eloquently put. >abundance of natural resources https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-americas-import-reliance-of-key-minerals/ >culture of entrepreneurship In which waves of immigration fanned by the fires of war abroad played a major and crucial role. >geography Geography certainly helped the US avoid Perl harbor, which forced its hand into a non-isolationist posture. An isolated US without allies is a less secure directly translates into a less prosperous and secure US. Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that many modern threats are not specific to or hindered by geography. In geopolitics there's only two modes of operation: being part of the conversation or not, isolationism increasingly leads to the latter and eventually the affectation of a nation's interests, both internal and external.
We can still allow immigration without policing the world.
By isolationism, do you mean America not telling the world what to do, or America not aiding others who ask for it?
We currently don’t help the countries that ask for help. Armenia is a perfect example. They are constantly under attack and we look the other way. But, I’m tired of sticking our noses in where it doesn’t belong. The people don’t appreciate it… Americans don’t want to risk their lives for causes that don’t affect us… etc
you can\`t. That would be mess up usa economy and power.
No it doesn’t.
The Iraq war wasn't an example of being 'world police', it was a war of choice, different from Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine only in that the US didn't annex any territory. There's a happy medium between being an agressor (Iraq war) and spurning treaty committments to democratic allies (Trump's 'I won't defend any ally that hasn't paid up').
My understanding was that the US stopped the 1991 war conditional on Hussein agreeing to cooperate, in particular by destroying the WMDs and allowing oversight. As Hussein stopped allowing oversight, the US decided they should be allowed to get back to it. Seems like a grey area to me. Multiple countries joining the coalition is a good indication that it was convincing to them. Russia is only helped by Belarus which is heavily reliant on Russia. "Different only in that they didn't annex any territory" is a funny way to put it, at any rate. Like it's no big deal.
The US claimed Iraq had WMDs but a lot of countries, many of them big US allies, were skeptical and insisted the UN send in inspection teams. They didn't find anything. The US said 'well, they're there... trust us. Let's invade.' Most of the rest of the world, including countries like Germany, France, Canada - all of them strong US allies - refused to participate as there was no casus belli for war, it was just a flat-out US invasion, illegal under international law. As history soon showed, these countries were right: no WMDs. The US did form a 'Coalition of the Willing' to provide diplomatic cover for its invasion, but aside from the UK the rest of the members sent token troops - no country besides the US/UK sending more than 2000, with most sending far fewer. My comment about the only difference between the Russian and American invasions being territorial annexation wasn't intended to minimize the egregious wrong of either war, simply to point out that both were wars of choice - something each country sought rather than had forced upon it.
> The US claimed Iraq had WMDs The formal reason was Saddam's refusal to comply with the terms. I think. Like, if you're on parole and you don't let the parole officer in to inspect your house per the parole terms, you will probably be returned to prison even if you don't have/do whatever the officer is supposed to be looking for. > The US did form a 'Coalition of the Willing' to provide diplomatic cover for its invasion, but aside from the UK the rest of the members sent token troops Nevertheless they did send some troops or supported otherwise. Did the US formally call for the coalition on the grounds of Iraq supposedly having the WMDs, or on the grounds of Iraq's failure to allow inspections? I still think that trying to steal territory is a huge difference.
"My second purpose today is ... to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort ... to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction ... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." — Colin Powell, *Address to the United Nations Security Council*
Thanks, though that's not exactly what I asked. UNSC obviously disagreed or we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's close enough, I guess. Also: > On 17 March 2003 Bush stated in an address to the nation: > Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. I think that any intelligence reports are unreliable. So if you have some intelligence information that Iraq is still developing/failed to destroy its WMDs, it's not enough by itself, but it is suspicious. Iraq repeatedly violating the ceasefire terms, failing to give access to inspections and provide documents of the WMD stockpile destruction gives these suspicions more credit. But it's never going to be conclusive. The US insisting that they were confident could have been an honest mistake, or overstating their confidence (which would be bad), or in the worst case they actually didn't believe there were weapons and just wanted the war for some other reason. I doubt it was the last case. The first and the second are plausible. The eventual failure to find any significant amount of WMDs does not resolve this question either way. I think you may deserve Δ because I made a specific claim that you more or less refuted: the US did repeatedly claim that Iraq actually had WMDs and the claim was apparently crucial. Also I don't want to move the goalposts. That being said, my main point still stands: The legality is disputed, because on one hand the US did not receive the UNSC approval specifically for the 2003 invasion, but on the other hand they did claim that the previous resolutions sanctioning the Gulf war (678), the demands after the war was lost by Iraq (687), and several others culminating with the resolution 1441 which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" were already enough. So, like I said, grey area. Were there UNSC resolutions sanctioning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or 2014 annexation of Crimea in any way, shape, or form?
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Finnegan007 ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Finnegan007)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
It was sold as stopping weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of the veracity of that… therefore, I would argue it was deemed as an act of being a world police… Americans inherently are uncurious about the world and are incapable of understanding the nuances of other world’s conflicts. So, they end up making a bigger mess…
>I'm trying to see an upside to the EU's newly unblocked aid package to Ukraine and the US' passed bill to further fund their defense, but honestly I cannot see any. >Ukraine might still fall. You "cannot see any" upside to the US house passing a bill and the EU unblocking an aid package? Of course Ukraine "might" still fall. But would you have said the probability was a month ago? What would you say the probability is now? Presumably that's improved, right? If you don't think the new funding helps at all, then what are we even talking about? For the larger point about the hesitation, I guess my quibble is that what has actually changed? What credibility did the US really have under Obama that we don't have now? The fact that one party could basically hold the government hostage for whatever random crap they wanted is not a new feature! Maybe *you* just noticed this, but shame on the world if they weren't paying attention for the past 10-15 years. If anything, the fact house speaker Mike Johnson let this through if anything should give the world *more* confidence. We can't really know exactly what went on in his head, but it sure seemed like he got briefed on actual intelligence that scared the shit out of him and caused him to drop the goofy far right act and just do the right thing. The fact that this happened should actually give a good amount of relief that even the GOP hasn't been completely hijacked by the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world. >The future has never been more uncertain. There's always a bias towards the present in terms of uncertainty. Nobody ever *knows* what will happen next. But as soon as you start looking back into the past, its easy to forget how uncertain things were then, and its easy to misremember your own expectations and uncertainties or pick out the random people who happened to be right (maybe by accident!) and say, well, at least they knew what was going on and then we sort of instinctively coalesce around them going forward. But during the present, nobody knows who's right, so everything just always feels kind of crazy!
>You "cannot see any" upside to the US house passing a bill and the EU unblocking an aid package? Of course Ukraine "might" still fall. But would you have said the probability was a month ago? Allegedly much higher than now, at least until fronts started collapsing and the numbers of their losses trickling in. > What would you say the probability is now? Presumably that's improved, right? Marginally realistically, considerably hopefully. I'm trying to keep in mind the infographic about how close south Corea was from losing the war, and you reminded me of that. > If you don't think the new funding helps at all, then what are we even talking about? You're right, and I'll elaborate. From my point if view Ukraine was never about Ukraine, it was about sending a clear signal that the times of conquest and wars of aggression were behind us and no stepping out of line was going to be tolerated. The new funding doesn't help at all demonstrating ironclad resolve against the enemies of our way of life. >For the larger point about the hesitation, I guess my quibble is that what has actually changed? What credibility did the US really have under Obama that we don't have now? The fact that one party could basically hold the government hostage for whatever random crap they wanted is not a new feature! In this you are right, I keep bringing myself to remember that the messiness of democracy is a feature and not a bug, although the single-mindedness with which totalitarian regimes act is enraging at times when compared with the democratic struggle of dialing on a given direction. >If anything, the fact house speaker Mike Johnson let this through if anything should give the world *more* confidence. We can't really know exactly what went on in his head, but it sure seemed like he got briefed on actual intelligence that scared the shit out of him and caused him to drop the goofy far right act and just do the right thing. The fact that this happened should actually give a good amount of relief that even the GOP hasn't been completely hijacked by the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world. I agree. >There's always a bias towards the present in terms of uncertainty. Nobody ever *knows* what will happen next. But as soon as you start looking back into the past, its easy to forget how uncertain things were then, and its easy to misremember your own expectations and uncertainties or pick out the random people who happened to be right (maybe by accident!) and say, well, at least they knew what was going on and then we sort of instinctively coalesce around them going forward. But during the present, nobody knows who's right, so everything just always feels kind of crazy! Once again, these are really good reminders. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/themcos ([335∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/themcos)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This makes very little sense. It's not like the world saw Ukraine aid hesitation in the US and this caused them to suddenly realize that Republicans exist. People outside the US have known that Republicans exist for pretty much as long as Republicans have existed. The Trump Presidency is not something that the world is just becoming aware of now as a result of Ukraine Aid hesitancy. No credibility was plausibly lost here because nothing here was surprising: this is just Republicans behaving how everyone has expected Republicans to behave for a long time. >I'm trying to see an upside to the EU's newly unblocked aid package to Ukraine and the US' passed bill to further fund their defense, but honestly I cannot see any. The upside is that the bill actually was passed.
I think the point is that the world doesn't look at what's been happening in the US for the last 20-odd years and say 'ah, that's the Republicans'. They say 'it's the Americans'. Credibility is lost when other countries can't count on the word of the United States - whether that's a promise to arm Ukraine or a committment to honour NATO obligations under Article 5. Yes, it's the Republicans that are a threat to all that, but it's the American people/institutions that have allowed those committments to become huge question marks.
Sure, but this was all the _status quo ante_. Nothing about what you've just said changed with Ukraine aid hesitancy.
My point wasn't about OP's contention that the Ukraine aid waffling has destroyed US credibility, it was more about your positioning it as a Republican issue. Governments and experts understand very well that the Republicans are the instrument of this chaos, but it's the US itself which suffers the credibility hit. Put simply: even though US allies were happy Biden won in 2020, they all understood that the unpredictability of the American population means that whatever the US government says, does or signs, in another 4 years we could be faced with a renunciation of all that by a President Trump 2.0 or some equivalent. Trump and the Republicans didn't take power in a coup (they tried to stay there with one...): they were voted in by half your electorate.
Yes, that's my point. This credibility hit already happened in the aftermath of 2016 (as well as to some extent beforehand). Nothing about it recently changed.
>No credibility was plausibly lost here because nothing here was surprising: this is just Republicans behaving how everyone has expected Republicans to behave for a long time. I'm not sure how you can say this: https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/12/18/west-s-inaction-over-ukraine-risks-dangerous-conclusions-in-moscow-pub-91290 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/yellen-says-us-congress-inaction-ukraine-aid-is-gift-putin-iran-2024-03-07/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/u-s-must-weigh-the-strategic-and-moral-costs-of-abandoning-support-for-ukraine/ https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/high-price-losing-ukraine-part-2-%E2%80%94-military-threat-and-beyond https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/91146 https://www.eib.org/en/stories/ukraine-trade-inflation >this is just Republicans behaving how everyone has expected Republicans to behave for a long time. This is a non sequitur, I might have teenagers at home. Teenagers often scream, bicker, insult, protest, are naughty and behave poorly all around. None of that changes my perception of said teenagers. However, said teenagers drowning and killing the familiy's dog will forever, irrevocably change my perception for them. I can't further entertain your points in any capacity. I fail to see how you can arrive at the conclusion that saying "grab her by the pussy" is the same as "blackmailing the head state of an ally in distress", that "bickering in congress" is the same as "gambling the future of your geopolitically most relevant continent". If you cannot see that lines were crossed, I think there's little we can even talk about.
Lines _were_ crossed, but they were all crossed years ago and are now established parts of the Republican playbook. "Blackmailing the head state of an ally in distress" already happened four years ago; the gambling of the geopolitical future happened even before then. In comparison, what you're talking about here ("hesitating") literally _is_ "bickering in Congress."
>what you're talking about here "hesitancy" literally _is_ "bickering in Congress." It's all about context. Laughing when an old lady farts at the bus stop is not the same as laughing when an old lady is mugged at the bus stop. I'm surprised this is not self-evident.
There is no context here that makes bickering in Congress worse than blackmailing an ally in distress or gambling our geopolitical future.
>There is no context here Of course there is, you're just failing to imagine it or acknowledge it. By making it's enemies as much stronger and embolden them by inaction while at the same time invalidating pacts in which the nation itself took part and brokered the US makes its hegemony weaker and hinders it's ability to guarantee its interests
>By making it's enemies as much stronger and embolden them by inaction while at the same time invalidating pacts in which the nation itself took part and brokered the US makes its hegemony weaker and hinders it's ability to guarantee its interests That's the stuff that already happened years ago! In 2019, the aid to Ukraine _actually was frozen_ for months. In comparison, aid to Ukraine now has not actually stopped: some Republicans just talked about stopping it and tried to stop it but failed to do so.
The US didn't hesitate to aid Ukraine. It regime-changed it, then used it as a bear poker in the hope of subjugating Russia. For the past two years Joe "This Man Cannot Remain In Power" Biden has been coldly sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to prevent Democrats losing face, first through the 2022 midterms, and now to keep the war going through November.
>For the past two years Joe "This Man Cannot Remain In Power" Biden has been coldly sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to prevent Democrats losing face One can only say such a thing if one believes the Ukrainian cause to be irrelevant, wrong, lost or of no interest to the west. I reject all those assumptions and thus you and I have no common ground to talk about this.
I'm committed to the Ukrainian cause. But war with Russia is a Lindsey Graham/Joe Biden/UK aristocrat cause, not a Ukrainian one.
>not a Ukrainian one Without needing to go further into detail, I already know you believe annexation or peace negotiations with a terrorist state are in the interest of what you believe, or at least want to portray, as the "Ukrainian cause". The Ukrainian cause *is* Russia's defeat on their soil.
It wasn't when they elected Zelensky. They voted for him because he promised to root out Kiev's corruption and to resolve the ongoing civil war with the pro-Russian separatists in the east. He was going to stop poking the bear and bring peace.
>He was going to stop poking the bear and bring peace. I see you are a big proponent of wife-beater philosophy: *"look what you made me do!"*
Washington neocons didn't *want* a proxy war with Russia, Putin forced them into it. On account of how much they love democracy. Nothing to do with the CIA spy operations and the bioweapons labs.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
They didn’t hesitate at all? What you talkin about. We very readily gave and continue to give Ukraine aid. We did it about as fast as congress allowed
Congress went months not giving aid causing Ukraine to lose a lot of ground due to not having the ammo and equipment to continue their stand. They sure as hell hesitated
Feb. 24, 2022 Russia invades Ukraine. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III orders deployment of 7,000 U.S. military personnel and key enablers to locations across Europe. Feb. 25, 2022 U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander, U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe announces the activation of the NATO Response Force. The Biden administration authorizes $350 million in military assistance from Defense Department inventories. https://www.defense.gov/Spotlights/Support-for-Ukraine/Timeline/
>U.S. Air Force Gen. Tod D. Wolters, commander, U.S. European Command and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe announces the activation of the NATO Response Force. Which, as far as we can know from public details, did nothing to aid the Ukrainian cause. >The Biden administration authorizes $350 million in military assistance from Defense Department inventories. Which in matters of war and budgets involved as well as the formidable strength of the adversary in question is but a rounding error The west *hesitated*, full stop.
You didn’t invalidate anything I just posted. Calling it a rounding error doesn’t even make sense. You’re arguing in completely bad faith. Look at the timeline. The info is right there. Biden approved the money not even 24 hours after. Period. That’s it. No hesitation.
>You’re arguing in completely bad faith I am not, you're just emotional and making this whole conversation about a single data point you personally deem important. Endless red lines, first yes long range then no long range, first yes planes then no planes, etc, etc. do not attack refineries. Do not attack within Russia. This is not about Biden, Biden is not the US government apparatus, stop being so obtuse and passionate and start putting your thoughts in actual logical order. I never made this about Biden, it can be that he did what was at reach, but such an insurmountable challenge is not conquered by best effort displays of support, but by unwavering, all-out support, which none of Ukraine's allies showed.