This is how things start. Just like with weapons assistance, first it’s a little then it’s billions on the regular. This is an increase to an already way oversized presence of a foreign continents military in a delicate situation.
It’s not a delicate situation for Ukrainians, they’re defending their freedom. Accusing the US of escalation here when Russia violently invaded it’s peaceful neighbor?
I mean the first issue here is that you think the US government actually gives a shit about humanitarian things; they’re doing this because it’ll be beneficial to them, not out of the goodness of their heart
you really need to understand that you can’t take the US at its word when it says it’s sending soldiers to another country for moral reasons
No country on the planet is any different. Just so happens the us is aligned with the global west in deciding to support Ukraine. That’s just how it is.
At the same time NATO is consolidating membership, again, for geopolitical gain, not charity.
Welcome to reality. Declaring the US a sane geopolitical operator is not the hot take you think it is.
I despise the size of the US military, the size of the military budget, the corruption in the military-industrial complex, and so on. But it’s disingenuous to ignore how often, and how many places the military does show up to provide help to areas hit by things like national disasters. It’s one of the few things I do like about the military. I’m not even saying that it outweighs the damage done by US policy, just saying.
Right, and Ukraine has every right to defend their country. The US escalating the situation by involving troops brings this from a regional conflict to a global nuclear war. The US escalating this can lead to nuclear aniahialation
Accusing the US of escalation here when Russia violently invaded it’s peaceful neighbor?
Do you understand what escalation means? Escalation doesn’t have anything to do with who started it. It’s a relative action: it escalates from some state. The USA is committing troops where it previously hadn’t (or, more pedantically, is increasing the number of committed troops). This is escalation.
You can complain about Russia starting this, but you should also complain about the USA escalating the situation.
Wtf does this have to do with the US escalating their military presence? You do realize that once the us officially get involved it’s WW3 with literal nukes, right? You don’t seriously think a territorial conflict between Russia and Ukraine is worth nuking the world over, do you?
Remember how WW1 escalated? Treaties calling everyone into a pointless war over someone else’s conflict.
Let’s say the us gets involved. Article 5 is invoked in NATO and we get a WW1 style escalation into world war. Major nuclear powers are all involved. Someone is going to use a nuke. Maybe tactically at first but it will quickly spiral out of control. Unless something happens that renders all nukes inert, their use is all but guaranteed in WW3.
World war is not good in any instance, regardless if it triggers nuclear Armageddon. Europe has only just recovered from 1 and 2.
Sounds like you don’t understand history and don’t understand the concept of NATO.
Study history, it gives you the context you need to think the world isnt an action movie and actually articulate your thoughts as to the flaws in my analysis based on historical facts and current world affairs.
Why is it being done?
This is how things start. Just like with weapons assistance, first it’s a little then it’s billions on the regular. This is an increase to an already way oversized presence of a foreign continents military in a delicate situation.
It’s not a delicate situation for Ukrainians, they’re defending their freedom. Accusing the US of escalation here when Russia violently invaded it’s peaceful neighbor?
I mean the first issue here is that you think the US government actually gives a shit about humanitarian things; they’re doing this because it’ll be beneficial to them, not out of the goodness of their heart
you really need to understand that you can’t take the US at its word when it says it’s sending soldiers to another country for moral reasons
No country on the planet is any different. Just so happens the us is aligned with the global west in deciding to support Ukraine. That’s just how it is.
At the same time NATO is consolidating membership, again, for geopolitical gain, not charity.
Welcome to reality. Declaring the US a sane geopolitical operator is not the hot take you think it is.
you might be surprised by how many people don’t understand this tho
I despise the size of the US military, the size of the military budget, the corruption in the military-industrial complex, and so on. But it’s disingenuous to ignore how often, and how many places the military does show up to provide help to areas hit by things like national disasters. It’s one of the few things I do like about the military. I’m not even saying that it outweighs the damage done by US policy, just saying.
Right, and Ukraine has every right to defend their country. The US escalating the situation by involving troops brings this from a regional conflict to a global nuclear war. The US escalating this can lead to nuclear aniahialation
🤡
Nuclear war is funny to you? Sick.
Do you understand what escalation means? Escalation doesn’t have anything to do with who started it. It’s a relative action: it escalates from some state. The USA is committing troops where it previously hadn’t (or, more pedantically, is increasing the number of committed troops). This is escalation.
You can complain about Russia starting this, but you should also complain about the USA escalating the situation.
Removed by mod
Wtf does this have to do with the US escalating their military presence? You do realize that once the us officially get involved it’s WW3 with literal nukes, right? You don’t seriously think a territorial conflict between Russia and Ukraine is worth nuking the world over, do you?
Remember how WW1 escalated? Treaties calling everyone into a pointless war over someone else’s conflict.
nuclear war isn’t the necessary outcome of ww3
Are you for real or are you being a troll?
Let’s say the us gets involved. Article 5 is invoked in NATO and we get a WW1 style escalation into world war. Major nuclear powers are all involved. Someone is going to use a nuke. Maybe tactically at first but it will quickly spiral out of control. Unless something happens that renders all nukes inert, their use is all but guaranteed in WW3.
World war is not good in any instance, regardless if it triggers nuclear Armageddon. Europe has only just recovered from 1 and 2.
You must be really, really high.
You must have no historical understanding. I’d be happy to provide you a reading list to bring you up to speed.
Honestly I’m a little concerned you would say something like that in response to a statement like
It sounds like you watch too many action movies.
Sounds like you don’t understand history and don’t understand the concept of NATO.
Study history, it gives you the context you need to think the world isnt an action movie and actually articulate your thoughts as to the flaws in my analysis based on historical facts and current world affairs.
Do you really want to see if it is or not?