One problem that I see in so much of this debate is one-sided thinking. If you ask a person who believes in not-X for options, they are likely to say merely 'not-X'. But 'not-x' is not a thing, it is a non-thing. If one is against the war in Ukraine, well, fine... but what is your preferred option? That the Ukrainians surrender to Russia? That the West stop arming them (and then a bunch of them die and they surrender to Russia)? That we nuke Russia so they'll stop fighting (or nuke us back. Not sure that ends well).
??? For most war type conflicts one of the big problem is the 'no options' problem.
I see what you mean. For this piece, I purposely reserved listing my own opinions so that the overall message wouldn’t be muddled.
For something like Ukraine, the US has gotten itself into a complex situation. Much of where Ukraine is today is America’s fault, such as when Ukraine was hindered from having nuclear capabilities under the Obama administration, leaving Ukraine open to Russian attack. Even still, however, the US shouldn’t have funded Ukraine as it isn’t our ally. And if Congress did send the money/weapons, it should have had a better oversight plan to ensure that weapons didn’t get scattered through Europe and the Middle East and that money was allocated properly to go towards military readiness, training, and attack capabilities to make Russia back down ASAP.
Now that these things haven’t happened, however, countless Ukrainians have been killed and displaced. Peace talks overseen by the US would be ideal, but are increasingly difficult because Russia doesn’t respect us. In the end, if the US doesn’t want to pull out of the war, then it needs to be stricter on Ukraine and properly manage it. Zelensky needs to define what his goals are for the nation and his staff needs to come up with a detailed plan on how they plan to use aid funds. If not, then the US (and other nations) need to leave Ukraine to handle its own problems, while also working to assist Ukrainian refugees in our borders.
I‘ve been blaming the Germans for pretty much everything that went wrong in the last 200 years for a while now, and more often than not I wasn’t wrong.
If the implication here is that the federal government of the United States should 'take care' of the homeless on the streets of, say, San Francisco... then my answer would be that that is the wrong jurisdiction to deal with that problem.
One problem that I see in so much of this debate is one-sided thinking. If you ask a person who believes in not-X for options, they are likely to say merely 'not-X'. But 'not-x' is not a thing, it is a non-thing. If one is against the war in Ukraine, well, fine... but what is your preferred option? That the Ukrainians surrender to Russia? That the West stop arming them (and then a bunch of them die and they surrender to Russia)? That we nuke Russia so they'll stop fighting (or nuke us back. Not sure that ends well).
??? For most war type conflicts one of the big problem is the 'no options' problem.
I see what you mean. For this piece, I purposely reserved listing my own opinions so that the overall message wouldn’t be muddled.
For something like Ukraine, the US has gotten itself into a complex situation. Much of where Ukraine is today is America’s fault, such as when Ukraine was hindered from having nuclear capabilities under the Obama administration, leaving Ukraine open to Russian attack. Even still, however, the US shouldn’t have funded Ukraine as it isn’t our ally. And if Congress did send the money/weapons, it should have had a better oversight plan to ensure that weapons didn’t get scattered through Europe and the Middle East and that money was allocated properly to go towards military readiness, training, and attack capabilities to make Russia back down ASAP.
Now that these things haven’t happened, however, countless Ukrainians have been killed and displaced. Peace talks overseen by the US would be ideal, but are increasingly difficult because Russia doesn’t respect us. In the end, if the US doesn’t want to pull out of the war, then it needs to be stricter on Ukraine and properly manage it. Zelensky needs to define what his goals are for the nation and his staff needs to come up with a detailed plan on how they plan to use aid funds. If not, then the US (and other nations) need to leave Ukraine to handle its own problems, while also working to assist Ukrainian refugees in our borders.
Back at the beginning of the conflict I blamed Germany, and I still think that is accurate:
https://open.substack.com/pub/vonwriting/p/its-all-germanys-fault?r=6csnm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I‘ve been blaming the Germans for pretty much everything that went wrong in the last 200 years for a while now, and more often than not I wasn’t wrong.
You are confusing Germans with "German" Banksters
Try blaming yourselves instead
You think that the United States is responsible for the crisis in Ukraine?
Yes.
Interesting. And I think it is Germany.
Care to outline the reasons for your belief?
How about America looking after it's own suffering people for a change
If the implication here is that the federal government of the United States should 'take care' of the homeless on the streets of, say, San Francisco... then my answer would be that that is the wrong jurisdiction to deal with that problem.
It's not that I agree with every word-but it's a thoughtful post.
Wisdom is a hard thing to obtain, on individual level-yes, of course....but the more the people, the less the chance for wisdom, or so it appears.
May I be mistaken.
Germany is a vassal state of USA