Why is the American right wing so reluctant to help the Ukraine?

We have a hit!

 

I think it is because people are afraid of getting sucked into a nuclear war. The world as Russia sees it is basically “NATO and the US against Russia”.
Biden is a 1970’s anti Communist warrior, and publicly came out in favor of Ukraine (with some conditions) which played into Putin’s persecution complex. If Russia wasn’t militarily aggressive, there would be no need for NATO. NATO is Russia’s fault.
Russian government has no issue with taking over another country because they can. Well, they just found out they can’t pull it off without phony elections, nuclear threats, and commuting war crimes.

 

I'm right wing. It's more about getting Russia to knock their **** off. But i'm ok with helping Ukraine of course.

 

No it's a GOOD idea, the US cannot just retreat into a fools paradise in thinking the events on the rest of the planet do not affect them,

 

Bless you little heart.

You want to post, but don't have anything to say, so you troll other posters by calling them silly names.

I have an idea. Why don't you start a thread called "Lets talk about other posters".

 

Tucker will always blame the US first, and this is not the first time he takes Russia's side on issues.

What is US motivation to do it? None, whatsoever. One pipeline has 0% usage, and the other was down to 20% of capacity.

How about Russia? Same as it was when they bombed their own city in 1939 to justify their attack on Finland. They use it in their blame game against the West, and people like Tucker carry are happy to their water

What did Biden mean? The presser took place before the war begun, and he was asked about how US would react, and he thought stopping Russia from making money out of selling gas to Europe was a grand idea since Russia's energy exports is a major source of income, but it turned out Russians figured they'd rather suffer the economic impact if they can use the pipeline as an economic weapon against the West.

 

You're the one who started the exchange by accusing those who are not in line with your politics of hating their country.

And you should really cast the first stone bud.

 

OK if you think the Russians sabotaged their own pipelines, a multibillion dollar loss, because reasons, then I think you might be dancing in conspiracy theory territory. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, but you sure didn't bring a good motivation or reason to the table.

As for the US motivation, you said it, "he thought stopping Russia from making money out of selling gas to Europe was a grand idea since Russia's energy exports is a major source of income..."

That makes more sense than the Russians destroying a major economic asset.

I personally think the motivations lead for who benefits most are in this order:

1. Ukraine
2. Norway & Poland

Ukraine obviously because they are at war with Russia and Nordstream 1 & 2 presents a major economic leverage that Russia has (had) over Ukraine's allies and financers.

Norway and Poland because they have a competing pipeline that suddenly became the only game in town.

As for the US? I find their motivations harder to judge since US foreign policy doesn't seem to have any relation to US national interests.

 

You didn’t answer the questions.

Why Russia and not China or Afghanistan or Venezuela? Venezuela has a much greater immediate impact on the USA than Russia invading Ukraine. Afghanistan & Iran pose a bigger threat due to terrorism and influence in the region. China is by far the biggest threat to the USA.

Russia is the EUs problem. Why not let the EU handle the problem in their own backyard?

Why does the USA have to deal with Russia? Reasons, not political BS.

 

Anyone with any foresight, whatsoever, understands that what happens outside of our borders, is not irrelevant to us. One of the "domestic needs" of Americans, is security: and ignoring Putin's aggressions against neighboring countries, greatly compromises our security. I am not saying that Russia could ever actually invade the U.S. That does not mean that they cannot attack and damage us, in other ways. Our greatest asset, in dealing with world threats, is our standing, among our allies. Their willingness to follow us, because they trust our ability, our sincerity, and our resolve, will serve American interests greatly, as in combatting the future cyber wars, which have so far, only been skirmishes.

If, on the other hand, we show that we don't give a rat's ass about anything but our own skins, other nations will react accordingly, will not trust our intentions, and will not be there for us, when we need their cooperation.

 

I agree with your post. It makes me wonder, though, why you gave a "like" to @Destroyer of illusions ridiculous OP, concerning Alaska's having a referendum about becoming part of Russia.

 

I could explain it to you, but if you're still asking that question, it would clearly be a wasted effort. Why don't you go back to the legion of threads about our involvement, which came out when we were getting involved? I promise you, the reasons as to "why this one," are there explained, at length, and redundantly so.

 

Because this referendum is an objective reality. The people of Alaska want it.

 

Yeah, it would appear that my post hit that victim nerve spot on, no fear, Trumpers are creatures that are easily exploited by their feelings and the demigods and "pundits" that fan those flames. It's understandable since critical thinking can't be empowered by a solid diet of fear and victim mentality. You do you...the far RW echo chamber is literally banking on it and laughing.

 

Where's your link?

P. S.-- Russian news sources (RT) don't count.

 

I am way more right than you and I Have never watched Tucker Carlson so why do you?

{QUOTE="yardmeat, post: 1073758344, member: 50938"]I obviously isn't he entire right that is supporting Putin.[/QUOTE]
Thank You!

How do you what supremist? I have never met one, where are they?

Democrats are warmongers look them up

hope it is too but it won't

Then you are Mongells too?

I am but no mem/women, and we need to throttle back on supplies Europe needs to do more

 

Have you read this entire thread?

Was Obama wrong then for not doing anything in Crimea? And correct me if, I am wrong the bumbling buffoon we have as president now was the VP.

 

So, you have no real interest, in what your post had asked, about why people on the Left feel differently about this particular conflict, than they did about "every other foreign conflict." You're only looking for an opportunity to throw shade at Democrats-- proving my assumption, that providing a detailed explanation to what you were ostensibly asking, would have been a waste of time.


As to your new tack, let us first dispense with the whimsically naive notion, that a Vice President has any sway, over a President's national security decisions, other than whatever influence the given President allows him.

Next, I would say that, in this thread about the Right wing's reluctance to support Ukraine, the topic of Obama's reaction when Putin annexed Crimea, seems rather off-topic, unless you are maintaining that the Right was in favor of action then, which was not the case. Add to that, the questionable value of indulging your "what if," revisitation of the past.


Nevertheless, without getting into specifics, because I cannot recall in full, all the presiding conditions, at that moment in history (and you certainly have not provided all of these details), I think it is acknowledged that Obama did not accurately read Putin; though he was certainly not as far off base as G. W. Bush, who famously, "looked into (Putin's) soul." Also, however, you misstate your question, or do so very unclearly, when you ask, "Was Obama wrong then for not doing anything in Crimea?" He did impose some sort of sanctions, which again, if you want to dredge this up, I would think the burden of laying the table with all the pertinent facts from the time, would fall upon you, to note just what exactly the Obama reaction entailed.

But if your question was meant to be, should Obama have sent arms or troops to Crimea, the answer is obviously "no," as the realities of that situation were completely different, from the current conflict, in Ukraine. That is, there was zero chance of Crimea mounting a successful resistance. So, rather than my going on for pages, about all the considerations involved, and how they distinguish each incident as different from each other, why don't you be more specific in what you are suggesting that Obama should have done, or rather, that you believe anyone supporting our role in Ukraine, should have expected of Obama?

 

As a Republican, I'm not aware that the right has an issue with helping Ukraine.

 

“Now we have a problem in trying to make our power credible, and Vietnam looks like the place.” —President John Kennedy

I never thought to hear the Vietnam war arguments recycled in my life. Yet here you are doing so. And look how that effort turned out. I can't help but reflect that the US involvement in the disasterous Vietnam war started with Economic aid to the French. Sure, we do not plan to send troops, but I am pretty sure we have military advisors in the Ukraine. The idea was floated by Biden a year ago. That was how the Vietnam involvement started. Financial aid, then advisors, and the a disaster. No telling how far we might get sucked into to the Ukraine war. Decades of fighting wars for other countries around the globe and paying for their military support and you say we still have to prove our resolve? No, what we need to do is demonstrate our resolve to prioritize American problems.

You claim a domestic need is "security", yet we have probably the most insecure border in the world. So we can't secure our own border, but you want to secure someone eles's border. And you call that domestic security? That sort of logic should make no sense to any taxypayer. You can be sure of one thing. After the cowardly and incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan, no one trusts the resolve of Joe Biden.

Sending Trillions to Ukraine does not make us more secure. Rather, it weakens us by increasing an out of control debt and already the drawn down of US weapons sent to Ukraine would impact the US in a negative way if we had to fight a war with Chine or North Korea.

In the long run, America fighting a proxy war with Russia seems to benefit China the most. And the people most hurt are the American taxypayers.

https://usdebtclock.org/

 

There are currently more russians standing up to Putin than republicans.

 

A wise and nonpolitical post. All parties should be able to support it. The question is, to what extent do we aid Ukraine. The Biden admin seems to be on the right path. Let's hope so anyway.

 

Personification and Demonization of the enemy, i.e., presenting Putin as an Emmanuel Goldstein is a basic and old propoganda technique and no doubt effective for the low information type people. Ironically, it is a technique used by Russians in their current war with Ukraine starting in 2013. What would be helpful for a well reasoned discussion (which in theory is why we are here), would be for you or anyone else posting to explain their thoughts on what the actual ROI is for the Billions sent to Ukraine is and for you to present some sort of brief risk v. benefit analysis.

 

I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked a number of people who want to rush to help Ukraine / stop Russia - why should the USA get involved so deeply? Don’t give BS excuses like “to stop aggression”, there is aggression all over the world.

Why Russia and not Venezuela and Mexico? Venezuela and Mexico are an immediate threat to the USA, they are in our backyard, some would say it’s an existential threat. Why Russia and not Venezuela and Mexico?

Or Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. They are a much greater threat than Russia, they are destabilizing the Middle East and openly declaring they want war against the “great Satan” and Israel. Iran is on the brink of nuclear weapons and threatens to use them (Russia doesnt). Why Russia and not these countries?

Or China or North Korea.

Why is Russia so much bigger a concern than these other countries?

Why not let the EU handle Russia, it’s their problem and it’s in their backyard.

I’ve never received an answer, do you have one?

 

When you're held down and tickled, is invoking Trump the equivalent of pleading "STOP" to your tormenter?