Why is the US pretending to support Ukraine?

That's an age old question that's gone unanswered for a century

Good luck!

 

But giving them any more than that would be WWIII. So sayeth the magical purveyors of what causes WWIII and what doesn’t.

 

We didn't give any equipment to the Taliban. We gave the equipment to the Afghan government, over 10 years worth, for the said Afghan government to fight the Taliban. When the Trump Administration abondoned that government with the so-called peace treaty with the Taliban, that same Afghan government eventually surrendered and also surrendered said equipment we gave to the Afghan government.

 

Did we give weapons to the Taliban in the sense you implied we did? Or did the collapse of the Afghan defense forces along with logistical challenges cause us to leave a lot of equipment behind?

Taliban Won’t Gain Much From U.S. Military Equipment Left In Afghanistan

Over the last month, the world watched as NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan and the Afghan National Army collapsed to the Taliban. Among the numerous concerns this has raised, the many U.S. military vehicles left behind has loomed large. Indeed, the Taliban is now reported to have over 2,000 armored vehicles and up to 100 aircraft, including American UH-60 Black Hawks and Russian Mi-17s.

Initially, some argued that the vehicles would be useless to the Taliban due to a lack of experienced operators. This is not the case: A recent Taliban parade in Kandahar indicated that they have trained vehicle operators, including helicopter pilots. The Taliban’s expertise with American military equipment indicates that the Taliban have absorbed members of the Afghan National Army. Moreover, numerous agencies have asserted that the Taliban is getting support from other countries. This foreign support would allow the Taliban to have additional access to experienced vehicle operators and instructors.

While on the surface, this situation seems dire, these vehicles, even with trained operators, will offer little military value to the Taliban. In the end, this equipment set will end up like the graveyard of Soviet equipment abandoned throughout Afghanistan in 1989.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikram...istan-graveyard-of-equipment/?sh=62d550956a52

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...overstates-military-weapons-equipment-us-lef/

 

No, but I'd say its waaay too much to expect.

Seems to me we ought to be arming the people of Ukraine. Their govt just sucks. A $Billion would prolly go a lot farther in battles rifles and AT4s than it will in big expensive targets.

 

Why do you think the Ukrainian government "sucks"?

 

Its a heck of a lot more than 1 billion, and the war is only 1 month old. $13.6 Billion was authorized.

The money is spent on US military gear, so the money stays in US.

It makes no sense to compare it to Afghanistan where we accumulated stuff over 20 years, and lot of that gear went to the junk yard years ago.

 

Where did we have any agreements with the Taliban and gave them military equipment?
We were in Afghanistan for 20 years and we supplied and supported the Afghan gov't. Who were NOT the Taliban.

 

Wow, derailed by the 5th post..... I don't know why democrats pretend to support Ukraine. I mean, I have suspicions, like they are getting a ton of graft off of that support, but for democrats to support Ukraine, they have to admit that they support the tyranny that Zelensky has introduced in his country, and they have to admit then, that is what they really want in this country. We lost a ton of equipment via the Afghan government when they evaporated into the bush when the Taliban came for them. This is true. Think for a moment about the optics that those choices of the Biden administration that led to that and how it turned the US public against him. And now think, should Ukraine be defeated and arms get transferred directly to Russians, how bad the would make Joe and team look.

Ukraine seems to be the grinder for the amusement of globalist elites. So, we give them some stuff, they fight on, and more folks, Russian and Ukrainian die in the process. The country is destroyed. I suppose that offers up lots of improvement projects to those who will certainly want to make them in the Ukraine when the hostilities subside.

I don't think there are good choices here. Support the Ukrainian dictator to fight the Russian one? seems not a good choice. Allowing innocent folks to die, not a good choice, nor is there a solution that absent the NATO folks entering to support the Ukrainian dictator and his people that is an option.

 

I think we're supporting them a lot but short of getting involved as a combatant. Afghanistan was our (stupid) war, and occurred over many years, so it's not comparable. As another said, the military equipment wasn't meant to fall into taliban hands.

 

It's pretty simple. Democrats and most Americans oppose the unprovoked takeover of another country. Not going to delve into whether your characterization of Zelensky is fair, but to most Americans he's the guy who chose to stay and fight for his country rather than run away to safety and used to be a comedian. Most don't know about whether he was a good leader prior to the war or not, so your partisan attack is false.

 

I don't disagree with this. I'm pointing out though that Zelensky has some pretty unsavory characteristics and has, essentially banned his political opposition from being legal in his country. And while democrats privately yearn for that in this country, they likely won't push that narrative much here, irrespective of how many time Jen Psaki begs the socials to attack her political opposition from the WH podium. The problem here is that democrats are actively evaluating these conditions that you call false. They do it every time, for example the MIGs, sounds like a good thing until they realize that they got their colletivist asses handed to them over Afghanistan. The irony here is palpable. As for what "most americans" think or don't, you certainly don't think much of them do you?

 

Crumbs? $13.6 Billion authorized last month is crumbs???
The Ukraine already had most of a $200 million dollar military assistance approved last year, before the Russians invaded.
There's a lot more on the way as well.

Granted- they need even more. Perhaps long range cruise missiles and more modern fighters- all of which trigger rejection from the fears of triggering an expansion.

It's a terrible situation- with Europe at greater risk, and most everyone chipping in.
Personally- I agree that stronger consequences are needed, but we are well past the token "crumbs" level.

 

Wow, off to lala land by the 3rd sentence.

 

Do you deny that Zelensky outlawed opposition political opponents. Do you deny that Jen Psaki begs social media to do the same? I mean, there's F'in video.

 

Maybe we learned our lesson on aiding one side too much that isnt an ally.

 

I don't expect the average person to have that level of knowledge of foreign leaders, no. They have kids to raise, jobs unrelated to Ukraine to do, lives to live, and unless it's their thing, they are unlikely to have that level of knowledge and there's too many things to know in the world to expect such things of everybody. I don't think your assertion could possibly apply to average democrats for this reason. Their reasons for supporting Ukraine are simple, as I mentioned.

 

They are in a state of war. It’s a separate legal framework, like Marshall law. Ukraine is in this state because it is being under attack by Russia.
Your claims that Zelensky is a dictator are absurd, because that country cannot operate under the laws of peace. Ukraine is a democracy with good elections track record. The Marshall law expires after 30 days and must be extended each time by Ukrainian parliament. So, as soon as hostilities end, their parliament can just chose not to extend the Marshall law and the life returns into the normal legal framework.
Also, not all opposition was banned - only pro-Russian political forces, which enjoyed only 10% of support before the war. The ban is perfectly understandable, considering current circumstances on the ground.

 

"corruption remains endemic, and the government’s initiatives to combat it have met resistance and experienced setbacks. Attacks against journalists, civil society activists, and members of minority groups are frequent, and police responses are often inadequate"

Police responses are often inadequate probably because the attacks are often government sponsored... I cant prove that, but thats how it often works.

This is its 'freedom ranking' from 2021, btw, before everything from that region was pure propaganda. Ukraine got a 62/100, which put it near Columbia, El Salvadore and Mexico. The US scored an 83 and Russia 19 (lol).

https://freedomhouse.org/country/ukraine/freedom-world/2021

 

Thanks for that information. I learned quite a bit. I would second your opinion that it's shrugged off due to the rampant corruption. I always live by "pay attention to who is putting up the most resistance"...that usually tells which side people are on.

 

Why are some supporting Putin? We should all be condemning Putin's actions

"Julian Lennon Performs 'IMAGINE' for Global Citizen's Stand Up For Ukraine w/Nuno Bettencourt"

 

Perhaps. My take is still that when you use your power to silence your opposition, you lose your moral authority. As a matter of marshall law, perhaps these measures might in the future be lifted. Only time will tell, and while I certainly hope that at the cessation of hostilities concludes that if Zelensky is willing to give up these powers, then you will have a point. Again, time will tell.

 

My take is you're looking for things to be critical of Zelensky for. Given there's a real threat of sabotage by Ukrainians sympathetic to Russia, and that the puppet in Ukraine Putin had tried to install as prez owns media outlets capable of spreading propaganda, the application of martial law was warranted.

 

Because it’s the only thing keeping our presidents approval rating above 30%