Ukrainians are bleeding for the West’s long-term defence. And if we don’t support them in that endeavour now, we risk spending far more on own defence in the future.
I wonder how many of the Americans who are opposed to aiding Ukraine understand the role of France in the birth of their country. Without French support the United States may never have happened.
I think a lot of people don't understand the nature of autocratic regimes like Russia, and obviously haven't studied enough history to understand the lessons learned from the lead up to World War 2. Aggressive autocracies (and they're exclusively autocracies) follow the law of the jungle: they try to take what they want, and they'll keep trying unless they're deterred with force. Calculations that supporting another democracy aren't worth the time are morally corrupt, and also inevitably lead to bigger problems later as the emboldened (and possibly strengthened) aggressor turns their eyes to the next victim.
Ukraine is the front line in the war between Russia/China autocracy and the Western World.
I'm convinced that there is more than a bit of Russian shenanigans involved in turning the "selfish right" against the war. Not that it was hard, the hard Nat con right have a lot in common with autocracy. These aren't the free market, you do you, Classical Liberals. They are the right wing version of the hard left. It's about control for them. Horseshoe Theory is true after all.
I worry that the same Republicans who have railed against this long war could have shortened it if they hadn't objected to more support for Ukraine. What do you think?
More support could have only helped the Ukrainians push the Russians back, so yes indeed I agree.The Ukrainians need weapons more than anything right now.
What too many fail to realize is that Ukraine still hasn’t deployed all the weaponry provided. Just because a politician makes an announcement of X amount of equipment going to Ukraine does not mean it is deployable in the next week or even month. It is more realistic to look at least a 6 month lag between announcement and deployment There is a logistics tail and a training burden to every provision of equipment. Much of the equipment promised in the Spring was not available for the summer offensive. The US Abrams MBTs are just now being deployed.
For politicians to say or imply that Ukraine is not utilizing the support to its best is disingenuous.
Who is the oposition leader in Ukraine? There is none, because noted Democrat Zelensky banned and tortured the opposition leader. He refuses to have elections. He has skimmed over 400 million dollars from the aid for his personal expenses. He has multiple estates.
Everyone knows this stuff. Thats why opposition is growing in places around the world.
The fact is that Ukraines best defense and our best option in this case, was neutrality.
Cheap and effective. But it wouldnt make the defense industry rich.
All the authors arguments were made in the 60s and 70s about Viet Nam. Just copy and pasted. And we all remember how South East Asia fell to the commies like dominoes. Oh wait. That never happened.
I'm glad you're reading The Line, because you evidently need to read reputable news sources. Maybe try The Economist next, look through a few years of archived articles about Ukraine and Russia's history of trying to undermine its government and corrupt its leaders.
The Ukrainians are the most corrupt country in Europe. They litterally bribed the President of the USA and his son. They have no need to learn from the Russians.
As to reputable news sources.. Are these the same ones who lied to me about the Iraq War, Aghanistan, and now Ukraine.?
Im only here for a month from a gift subscription.
How would neutrality have defended Ukraine against Russian invasion? Ukraine was already neutral and Russia invaded. Ukraine and Russia had treaties signed assuring the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Russia still invaded.
NATO had spent 8 years training the Ukraine army with the intent to invade Russia.
The Ukrainians had mobilized that army to invade the Eastern pro-Russian provinces in violation of the Minsk 2 accords that we now know they had no intention of abiding. We know this because signatories to Minsk 2, Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko have come out and admitted that Minsk 2 was a sham and that it only existed so they could re arm Ukrainians.
The Russians attacked Ukraine 8 days after Zelensky went to a NATO conference and bragged about how he was going to get Nuclear weapons and not a single NATO leader condemned it.
So Ukraine was not a neutral country. Austria does not have a giant army trained by a military alliance with the stated goal of invading its neighbours.
"Ukraine is the front line in the war between Russia/China autocracy and the Western World." I'm with poster Kico Slabinic here. Even if you reject soft reasoning like empathy for an invaded country, hard geopolitical facts would suggest that Ukraine is a very desirable western ally as a disrupter between the Russian-China connection. Just as Israel is a powerful ally in the middle east, and Australia in the asian pacific. If "balance of power" means anything, and I think it does, there are stratgic reasons for supporting Ukraine. My humble opinion. Thank-you for this essay Kaveh Shahrooz.
Well stated. It is disheartening to see that the lessons learned, and paid for with the blood of our Canadian, British, French, German et al predecessors are lost on today's officials.
All the credit Musk has amassed because of his investments in Tesla and in particular SpaceX is draining because of his asinine libertarian (e.g.: selfish) ideology and self-regard.
Like you, I advocate for Ukraine with my own MP as often as I can, but I fear it may not be enough. Too many of us are fickle and easily distracted (not to mention oblivious to longer-term trends).
I just spent the time to watch the "viral video" mentioned by the author (in which a foul-mouthed--and incredibly mixed up--heckler lambasted the Prime Minister, accusing him of, among other things, "f---ing up the country" with the carbon tax" and "causing" homelessness).
That this should be encouraged by Musk's "X" platform should come as no surprise to those of us who have watched, with dismay how unbridled and unmoderated social media platforms have helped to coarsen public discourse in Canada and elsewhere in the world.
In any case, Kaveh Shahrooz was spot on with his assessment of such opposition to support for Ukraine.
Ukraine is not a charity nor is it an unending unaccountable pit
of foreign aid.
It is disingenuous to suggest that US contributions to this point are mostly obsolete military equipment destined for the scrap heap.
The Americans are presently
in
for 75 billion. Ukraine is universally known as a very corrupt place. It's reasonable to ask for an accounting. Did the money end up where it was intended?
Foreign aid has long been described as 3M diplomacy: Mercedes, Monuments and Machine guns.
After Russia has been defeated, there likely will be an accounting. But to insist on pulling out now would be to lay the ground for more Russian aggression and more "axis of authoritarianism" self-aggrandizement.
Well said. It is also the right thing to do.
What a relief to see thoughtful, sensible and articulate comment on this topic.
I wonder how many of the Americans who are opposed to aiding Ukraine understand the role of France in the birth of their country. Without French support the United States may never have happened.
I think a lot of people don't understand the nature of autocratic regimes like Russia, and obviously haven't studied enough history to understand the lessons learned from the lead up to World War 2. Aggressive autocracies (and they're exclusively autocracies) follow the law of the jungle: they try to take what they want, and they'll keep trying unless they're deterred with force. Calculations that supporting another democracy aren't worth the time are morally corrupt, and also inevitably lead to bigger problems later as the emboldened (and possibly strengthened) aggressor turns their eyes to the next victim.
Ukraine is the front line in the war between Russia/China autocracy and the Western World.
I'm convinced that there is more than a bit of Russian shenanigans involved in turning the "selfish right" against the war. Not that it was hard, the hard Nat con right have a lot in common with autocracy. These aren't the free market, you do you, Classical Liberals. They are the right wing version of the hard left. It's about control for them. Horseshoe Theory is true after all.
I worry that the same Republicans who have railed against this long war could have shortened it if they hadn't objected to more support for Ukraine. What do you think?
More support could have only helped the Ukrainians push the Russians back, so yes indeed I agree.The Ukrainians need weapons more than anything right now.
What too many fail to realize is that Ukraine still hasn’t deployed all the weaponry provided. Just because a politician makes an announcement of X amount of equipment going to Ukraine does not mean it is deployable in the next week or even month. It is more realistic to look at least a 6 month lag between announcement and deployment There is a logistics tail and a training burden to every provision of equipment. Much of the equipment promised in the Spring was not available for the summer offensive. The US Abrams MBTs are just now being deployed.
For politicians to say or imply that Ukraine is not utilizing the support to its best is disingenuous.
The writer is totally delusional.
Who is the oposition leader in Ukraine? There is none, because noted Democrat Zelensky banned and tortured the opposition leader. He refuses to have elections. He has skimmed over 400 million dollars from the aid for his personal expenses. He has multiple estates.
Everyone knows this stuff. Thats why opposition is growing in places around the world.
The fact is that Ukraines best defense and our best option in this case, was neutrality.
Cheap and effective. But it wouldnt make the defense industry rich.
All the authors arguments were made in the 60s and 70s about Viet Nam. Just copy and pasted. And we all remember how South East Asia fell to the commies like dominoes. Oh wait. That never happened.
I'm glad you're reading The Line, because you evidently need to read reputable news sources. Maybe try The Economist next, look through a few years of archived articles about Ukraine and Russia's history of trying to undermine its government and corrupt its leaders.
The Ukrainians are the most corrupt country in Europe. They litterally bribed the President of the USA and his son. They have no need to learn from the Russians.
As to reputable news sources.. Are these the same ones who lied to me about the Iraq War, Aghanistan, and now Ukraine.?
Im only here for a month from a gift subscription.
Stepping out of your silo can be a little scary at first. You can do it!
How would neutrality have defended Ukraine against Russian invasion? Ukraine was already neutral and Russia invaded. Ukraine and Russia had treaties signed assuring the territorial integrity of Ukraine and Russia still invaded.
No they werent.
NATO had spent 8 years training the Ukraine army with the intent to invade Russia.
The Ukrainians had mobilized that army to invade the Eastern pro-Russian provinces in violation of the Minsk 2 accords that we now know they had no intention of abiding. We know this because signatories to Minsk 2, Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko have come out and admitted that Minsk 2 was a sham and that it only existed so they could re arm Ukrainians.
The Russians attacked Ukraine 8 days after Zelensky went to a NATO conference and bragged about how he was going to get Nuclear weapons and not a single NATO leader condemned it.
So Ukraine was not a neutral country. Austria does not have a giant army trained by a military alliance with the stated goal of invading its neighbours.
Realpolitik at its finest. Well done. Well written. Well laid out.
"Ukraine is the front line in the war between Russia/China autocracy and the Western World." I'm with poster Kico Slabinic here. Even if you reject soft reasoning like empathy for an invaded country, hard geopolitical facts would suggest that Ukraine is a very desirable western ally as a disrupter between the Russian-China connection. Just as Israel is a powerful ally in the middle east, and Australia in the asian pacific. If "balance of power" means anything, and I think it does, there are stratgic reasons for supporting Ukraine. My humble opinion. Thank-you for this essay Kaveh Shahrooz.
A well written, concise assessment of the current international situation.
Couldn’t agree more.
Well stated. It is disheartening to see that the lessons learned, and paid for with the blood of our Canadian, British, French, German et al predecessors are lost on today's officials.
All the credit Musk has amassed because of his investments in Tesla and in particular SpaceX is draining because of his asinine libertarian (e.g.: selfish) ideology and self-regard.
Like you, I advocate for Ukraine with my own MP as often as I can, but I fear it may not be enough. Too many of us are fickle and easily distracted (not to mention oblivious to longer-term trends).
I just spent the time to watch the "viral video" mentioned by the author (in which a foul-mouthed--and incredibly mixed up--heckler lambasted the Prime Minister, accusing him of, among other things, "f---ing up the country" with the carbon tax" and "causing" homelessness).
That this should be encouraged by Musk's "X" platform should come as no surprise to those of us who have watched, with dismay how unbridled and unmoderated social media platforms have helped to coarsen public discourse in Canada and elsewhere in the world.
In any case, Kaveh Shahrooz was spot on with his assessment of such opposition to support for Ukraine.
Ukraine is not a charity nor is it an unending unaccountable pit
of foreign aid.
It is disingenuous to suggest that US contributions to this point are mostly obsolete military equipment destined for the scrap heap.
The Americans are presently
in
for 75 billion. Ukraine is universally known as a very corrupt place. It's reasonable to ask for an accounting. Did the money end up where it was intended?
Foreign aid has long been described as 3M diplomacy: Mercedes, Monuments and Machine guns.
No reason to think Ukraine is an exception.
After Russia has been defeated, there likely will be an accounting. But to insist on pulling out now would be to lay the ground for more Russian aggression and more "axis of authoritarianism" self-aggrandizement.
Solid comments.
Oh, did Canada decide to have an "actual" role to play in pushing back against global tyranny?
Or were we just the nice folks who bring popcorn?
Did I miss something?