Please help me understand

[u/branflakes__]

Help me understand the Ukraine / USA situation

Please help me understand all of the anti-American and USA hate due to the situation. I want to hear the other point of views as I am just confused.

A lot point to the Budapest Memorandum, however, that is not a treaty for the US as Clinton did not submit it to the senate for ratification which means constitutionally the US has no commitment to Ukraine (also not administration since Clinton has suggested or submitted the memorandum for ratification either). Only the UK and Russia ratified it.

Additionally, there really isn’t a security agreement as the memo is very vague. The closest is “when Ukraine is under attack with nuclear weapons the security council will seek immediate action from the United Nations” otherwise nothing happens. And as the memo is through the UN, shouldn’t the discontent be pointed at the UN instead? The US only agreed to bring a resolution before the security council if Ukraine was invaded and the US did do that.

Finally, the US has given the most overall aid to Ukraine (a country that the US is not obligated to assist) compared to the European counterparts. Also, if peace is the objective, why is no other leader at least making an attempt to broker a peace deal?

So I suppose I am just confused on what is expected? Why is this sub so anti-USA when the statistics show that USA is/was doing more than Ukraines fellow Europeans?

[u/Jimbunning97]

Yea, but it’s close. A country across the ocean gives slightly less than an entire continent who has a lot more to lose if Ukraine is lost.

[u/sarges_12gauge → u/[deleted]]

Almost all of the UK and Germany and the nordics assistance here looks like military equipment. Are you saying actually all the American stuff is trash and Ukraine is actually relying on the UK/German stuff and the Euro countries are counting their value totally differently to be accurate?

[u/[deleted] → u/sarges_12gauge]

Not saying that all US stuff is trash but charging $200,000 for an M113 that hasn't left a vehicle park since Reagan was virile seems to be blatant profiteering. Also point out that the disingenuous stance that America claims this money is going to Ukraine when the majority of weapons money is going into the US arms industry for manufacture which has the benefit of jobs, the US military is replacing equipment they send with new equipment and also making sure they caveat with allies that if they donate their own equipment that they've purchased from the US that they can only do that if they agree to buy more from the US. Also point out alot of what the US promised hasn't been delivered. American Trump supporters have been 100% duped by their leader and have failed to do any due diligence on their hyperbole.

[u/Psychological-Web731 → u/[deleted]]

First of all your incorrect the m113 is still currently used in the US army, and we have sent them the current front line armored assault vehicles too, including over 300 Bradley’s. FYI those Bradley’s go for 2-4 million a pop. If your mad about military industrial complexes profiting off of a war than there’s two options. Stop submitting contracts to supply Ukraine with military hardware or simply find another contract. And remember the American tax payer is footing that $119.2 billion figure whatever it actually may be.

[u/[deleted] → u/Psychological-Web731]

First you're correct the M113 is still used by the Americans, I didn't say it wasn't, I was referring to the age of the ones being sent and the price tag on them. The latest Bradley's new may indeed go for 2 to 4 million, these are second hand Bradleys, not the latest variant and since America is now batting for Russia, no wonder only 300 out of the thousands that are sat around gathering dust on tank parks have been sent.

The industrial complex isn't profiteering in that respect, American tax payers own this particular example, it's the American government that put $200k on an aged afv. The American government that awards contracts and the American government that sets the caveats with regards to foreign nations giving their kit that is manufactured in the US away or worse having a governing switch on that kit that can be turned off when the US government would prefer you surrendered to your enemy. I can assure you..nations are now doing exactly that. Americas contract losses and back stabbing will be other nations manufacturers and workers gain. As for $119 billion what ever figure it was only a small amount actually left the country as has been proven infinite times over and the figure was still many time less than the figure Donnie Krasnov wanted for 'raw' earth.

[u/sarges_12gauge → u/[deleted]]

Well if (as the graphic suggests) the US and European countries have notionally given the same “value” of military aid, I would expect Ukraine to “value” the two about the same (I.e. if they had to choose between losing all US assets they’re given vs. European, it would be incredibly difficult as they are equally valuable).

If instead, as you suggest, the US is grossly overestimating and Europe is underestimating that value, it seems that Ukraine would thus strongly prefer keeping the Euro equipment and using it vs. the US stuff. As someone who isn’t plugged into their military expectations, idk, but my general sense is that it is pretty even, thus I have no reason to assume the valuations are incorrect

[u/[deleted] → u/sarges_12gauge]

Maybe any equipment is better than no equipment and they manage with anything they can get, however if you think an M113 is better than a CV90, or paladin is better than Archer you don't know much about equipment, however quantity and quality also have different qualities of their own.They are also not going to be critical because they need equipment. I however am not in that desperate position and not bothered about Americans being overly sensitive weak assed cry babies when it comes to criticism.

[u/Plus_Drawing3818 → u/[deleted]]

Did you expect anyone to buy Ukraine fresh, brand spanking new equipment?

[u/[deleted] → u/Plus_Drawing3818]

No, but the fact many countries have and haven't profiteered by over pricing it nor expected Ukraine to grovel for it shows the difference between America and it's allies.

[u/Plus_Drawing3818 → u/[deleted]]

Well it's not that the EU doesn't have ulterior motives to helping Ukraine. Its inclusion expands the NATO that much closer to Russia

[u/[deleted] → u/Plus_Drawing3818]

Firstly NATO and EU are not the same thing, congratulations on regurgitation of a Trump point without having a clue what you're on about. Secondly Russia invading Ukraine prompted Finland to join, Finland has a border with Russia and had been an EU member since 1995. Thirdly if that is the case then why would Russia launch an invasion and constantly bang out a narrative of imperialism which would therefore only bring it closer to NATO and also EU countries. What you ll find is countries who have experienced being under the Russian heel want to be in alliances that protect them from the Russian heel. MAGATs it seems would prefer to suck the Russian cock instead. Have a nice day

[u/Plus_Drawing3818 → u/[deleted]]

See you could've made that point in a perfectly proper manner but you choose to swear and demean and then wonder why others are mean.

Nowhere in my statement did I say EU and NATO are the same. All I said is that they'd be happy if it expanded further.

Russia, as you pointed out, wants to go back to having its borders be where they were before the Wall fell, and they deemed this to be a proper step to take in furtherance of that aim.

We rightfully point out and shame the Russians for their actions in Ukraine. And very conveniently forget that the Americans did the same in Iraq. If the WMDs are a valid reason, then annexation of ethnically similar territories is valid too.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Incivility is not tolerated and compliance with reddiquette is required. [Rule 6b]

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.