you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

There was no money in helping Ukraine, yet it was done. 100% lack of optics due to racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Not directly, but by sending weapons etc to Ukraine, the US can basically wage war against Russia with no casualties of their own, while replacing the old stuff they send with new stuff, as well as justifying more military spending in the budget. For the right people, there's plenty of profits to be made.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ukraine is one of the worlds bread baskets and critical to global infrastructure. There was very much money in helping Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    For European countries supporting Ukraine is also important for their own safety. If Russia were to win it will go on to attack the next country. Every loss Russia suffers in Ukraine is a win for places like Romania, Moldavia etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell address, 1961

    There was absolutely money in Ukraine. When you read "billions of dollars in weapons sent", if Ukraine received the weapons who do you think received the billion dollars?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I would say “interests at large” rather than dollars.

    Ukraine is military strategic interest (nobody in Europe wants to have Russia to randomly decide to start a war with an EU country)

    In Middle East (with oil) is dollars

    In Taiwan is military strategic interest

    On the other side of the spectrum? Myanmar, Gaza, random African conflicts, etc

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And yet, as soon as Trump took office they stopped helping ukraine. Your argument is shit, mate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Because Trump is a Russian asset and defunding Ukraine benefits Putin.

    Your basic understanding of global politics is shit, mate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh, i thought it was only racism. My bad, cant believe where i got that idea from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It’s your lack of basic reading comprehension. See, she said “racism”, not “ONLY BECAUSE OF racism”.

    See those extra words? They modify the context.

    Oh boy, now I have to define context…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Oh boy. If you they would have put that into their argument so that it wasn't shit 😄

    The word you're actually looking for is xenophobic, not racism. Xenophobia explains the decisionmaking of states where the culture is at odds.

  • source
  • parent