• JD Squared@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    You do realize there’s like 80,000 troops already there in europe? We have bases around the world. I’m not sure how these 3,000 national guard make a difference in your mind, but okay.

    • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is just the start. It’s the exact same way the “weapons assistance” went. First small, then billions of dollars worth of weapons being sent on the regular. It’s to get us used to the idea of even more troops being sent over. The fact that there’s 80k US troops on a foreign continent already doesn’t make it any better. If anything, it provides the context for why Russia is acting irrationally as it is being surrounded by an adversaries military

        • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No offense but you sound blue-eyed and idealistic when history has shown this to be a typical outcome.

          • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually the typical outcome was letting hitler take the sudatenland while doing nothing.

            This is us stopping the typical outcome.

            • arcturus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              that’s not what they mean

              they mean “America sending troops over to a foreign country to ‘save them’, and then sending more, and OOPS now we’ve started a war there and we’re already racking up those war crimes, and now the civilians there literally see us as goddamn evil and they’re not even wrong to think that way because it turns out that we were basically there mainly doing heinous shit so that the nation was in a position where they kinda had to let us have a share of their resources so rich old white men back home can add an extra 3 zeroes to their bank accounts” was something we literally did for the last 2 decades

              it is very much the one of the likely historical outcomes of “now the US gets militarily involved”

              • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There are only 2 possibilities here:

                1. Russia retains any level of reason and sanity and they back down immediately out of utter and complete pants-shitting terror. They’re getting worked by ukraine, the US is roughly 100 years further ahead in military technology than either Russia or Ukraine.

                2. They’re insane, in which case nothing matters, gear up.

                In either case, si vis pacem, Para bellum.

                • arcturus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It feels like you’re treating the US as a force of nature here, rather than like a nation who is acting in this way because it’s convenient and in their interests

                  like the US could just like go “hey, please do peace talks, a lot of people are dying”, but they’re not doing that

                  and if the US really is that more powerful than Russia as you say, then they could rather easily start facilitating the above but once again they are not doing that

        • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No offense but you sound like an idiot.

          I have just as much a right not to die fighting a foreign war as a Ukrainian has to die fighting for their country.

          Advocating for an increase in US military involvement in a foreign war sounds like someone hasn’t studied the great 20th century conflicts. If you’d like, I am a practicing historian and I can give you a reading list at your literacy level to give you some context for current world events.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So “I have the right to safety and the Ukranians have the right to die” sums up your position?

            If you want the conflict to end then why aren’t you advocating for Russia to cease their hostility and invasion of a sovereign nation? You seem to only be concerned with people opposing this Russian aggression and the war that they started.

            • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ukraine is more than capable of defending itself. The US has no obligation whatsoever to that country. I would love if Russia just decided to stop, but I don’t think that’s a likely scenario. What does seem likely is if the us directly commits troops this will escalate the current situation dramatically. Any US involvement will trigger a declaration of war by Russia on the us. That will trigger article 5 of NATO brining all members of the alliance into war. Both side have nuclear weapons which will be used barring some sort of miracle rendering plutonium inert or something.

              I have just as much a right not to die over some territory on the other side of the world as the Ukrainians do defending their land. Didn’t know that was controversial. Hope you’re ready to die for Ukraine then

              • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                The US did make an agreement with Ukraine (the Budapest Agreement), Russia, and the UK that stated if they gave up their nuclear arsenal, we’d guarantee their security. Russia violated that agreement with their invasion and now we’re holding up our end of the bargain by offering security.

                I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they’re already struggling to capture former USSR nations. You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.

                You wanting to sit on the sidelines is no guarantee of safety. Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

                • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.

                  I highly doubt Russia would declare war on the US (and by extension NATO) as there is no way for them to win such a war when they’re already struggling to capture former USSR nations.

                  And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity. You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say

                  Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

                  It’s incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn’t declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.

                  You stating that nuclear war is inevitable is just sewing FUD and has little basis in reality. Putin might be unhinged but I doubt his military leaders are willing to make the entire planet unlivable just to further his agenda.

                  It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they’re not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we’ve both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.

                  Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don’t want to get anywhere close to that. While you seem to be yeehawing like Major Kong

                  So the only situation where a Russian bomb falls on my house is when it’s an ICBM launched because the US escalated themselves into full on war over Ukraine.

                  • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The Budapest memorandum of which you speak provides no obligation for the US to provide any security assurances, but provudes justification of action is taken. It is in no way legally binding the US to provide any sort of military obligation to Ukraine.

                    You stated the US has no obligation to help Ukraine, which is proven wrong with said agreement stating we would offer protection. You never stated anything about “legal obligations,” nor did I argue we have a legal obligation but I suppose it’s easier to move the goalposts than admit to being proven wrong.

                    And your whole argument for increasing us military intervention is containing Russia yet you admit they could not in any way do that with their current military capacity.

                    What I stated was that they’re struggling with Ukraine and could not win a war against NATO currently. I also stated that if they were to capture Ukraine they would have a whole nation of conscripts to do their bidding. They would be more powerful combined and would likely continue their attempts to conquer their neighboring sovereign nations and build influence if not stopped.

                    You even admit as much later in your comment contradicting yourself when you say Russia isn’t going to stop with Ukraine if we allow them to do as they please. They could just as easily attack the US next whether we get involved or not, so what will you say as Russian bombs fall on your home because we decided to let them expand their power unchecked?

                    I meant Russia attacking the US is just as likely as Russia launching nuclear weapons. You seem to think once they’ve conquered Ukraine that’ll be the end of things which is laughably absurd. Why would they stop with Ukraine if the rest of the world just allows it to happen unchecked?

                    It’s incredibly nieve to think Russia wouldn’t declare war on the US if that committed military assets in direct active warfare against theirs.

                    Who said they wouldn’t? This is a strawman argument. I stated that they wouldn’t drop nukes.

                    It is rooted in historical factuality. Russia has a nuclear arsenal that they are willing to use. Not against Ukraine because they’re not too stupid to provoke a nuclear exchange like that but a hot war with NATO would leave them little option but to use the nukes because as we’ve both acknowledged, they lack the capacity for a wide scale conventional war in Europe.

                    What historical factuality? The only country to ever use a nuke is the US at the end of WWII. Please enlighten us on how you’ve determined Russia is willing to use nukes when they’ve never in history used them.

                    Even if it is FUD, do you really want to roll the dice on wether on not this could trigger a nuclear event? I don’t want to get anywhere close to that.

                    As I tried to allude to in my previous comment, what guarantee is there that allowing Russia to conquer Europe unchecked won’t also lead to nuclear conflict? You seem willing to roll the dice with that, so why not here too? Why not stamp out their aggression just as it’s getting started rather than waiting until they have nations full of cannon fodder to throw at the rest of the world in addition to their nuclear arsenal?

        • arcturus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          but I mean, we did basically that already

          like relatively recently

          in the middle east

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In the middle east, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, Russia is the invader. The two situations aren’t comparable.

    • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      To me, the issue is that it increased. Whether by a small amount or not is rather meaningless if your complaint is that troops are being committed at all. It could have increased by 30 troops and (although it wouldn’t have made news) it would bother me.

        • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          People are mean to me that I’m advocating for a senseless war with a nuclear element. Since obviously I can’t be wrong I’m taking my ball and hiding in my echo chamber

          • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            “I’m happy that Russia invaded Ukraine and I want nothing to do with it, I’m sure they’ll be fine”.

            • klieg2323@lemmy.piperservers.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not happy about Russia invading Ukraine but also not happy about the US potentially escalating to WW3. Ukraine is not worth a nuclear Holocaust

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          LMFAO Like this is a valid excuse. Only 2 people in this comments section is from Lemmy.ml. Everyone else is commenting here from different servers.

          What a truly stupid take.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            lemmy.ml is federated with lemmygrad.ml, and both are old instances (also run by the same people but that’s less relevant here). Point being is that all the people on tankie central are subscribed to !worldnews@lemmy.ml for their worldnews community and thus you get a certain voting pattern you don’t see in other worldnews communities even if you don’t see any lemmygrad.ml users commenting.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                For values of “public info” that involve running an instance and inspecting the database. Also lemmy.ml itself has quite a high proportion of tankies as it’s the instance that tankies tend to use to interact with instances defederating lemmygrad.ml.

                  • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    This only further proves the point that up/down votes are useless here. I can have an account on each federated instance (just one, so not to possibly run afoul any local server rules) and have a script to just run through all of them to downvote something. Could easily be a hundred votes at my singular whim.

                    If the names of the accounts are not particularly linked… you wouldn’t really be able to tell that there was much vote manipulation either.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bullshit. They have very precise meaning: How many people up- and downvote things.

                  • barsoap@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Their value lies in their meaning which is telling everyone how much something got upvoted or downvoted.

                    Really, it’s a simple concept.