CNN —
The Biden administration is moving toward lifting a de facto ban on American military contractors deploying to Ukraine, four US officials familiar with the matter told CNN, to help the country’s military maintain and repair US-provided weapons systems.
The change would mark another significant shift in the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy, as the US looks for ways to give Ukraine’s military an upper hand against Russia.
The policy is still being worked on by administration officials and has not received final sign-off yet from President Joe Biden, officials said.
This is not a big deal. The soon to be delivered F-16s will need repairs.
Why did it take this long in the first place? We’ve literally had Russian mercenaries attack US forces previously in other countries, where was the fear of escalation then? Give Ukraine whatever aid they need and stop kneecapping their war effort by trying to micro-manage it.
Meanwhile, North Korea just stated that they will be sending troops to the Donbas
Amazingly generous of Kim to allow all of those soldiers to defect like that.
If WW3 ever becomes real, this will be how it starts
Giving concessions to Germany as they invaded other countries instead of stamping it out is how we got WWII.
With a war? Yeah…
Ah yes, relying on mercenaries. Just like the Russians. There’s a millennia-long tradition of it of course. Just be sure to pay them, or suffer the fate of Rome you will.
Spending even 5 seconds reading the article would’ve spared your time spent writing this message
It always starts with the non-combatants.
What would you suggest, let Russia annex the rest of Ukraine?
The US has keen, critical national security interests in supporting Ukraine…
What are those?
Not giving a hostile power control of 20% of the world’s grain supply is a good one.
Demonstration of American commitment to stopping its enemies worldwide is always handy.
Weakening of a major geopolitical enemy’s military capabilities for a fraction of the cost of a conventional war.
That’s just off the top of my head, though.
The US has keen, critical national security interests in supporting Ukraine
You just scratched the surface. There are plenty more reasons.
I don’t find those arguments very compelling. I think you’re conflating “national security” with “maintaining a global hegemonic order.”
I’m not too fond of American hegemony but Russia’s hegemony is worst.
I’m not advocating for Russian hegemony, I’m arguing against hegemony all together. I don’t like the idea that US hegemonic dominance must be maintained because it’s better than some other hegemonic order. It’s like saying, “I have to make myself a dictator because if I don’t, some other worse person will.”
Maybe we can try asking Putin politely to stop?
I’m sure someone has already tried. I’m equally certain Putin told that person to go fuck themselves. So, I’m assuming you think the next step is for Ukraine to project the geopolitical equivalent of the bat signal, and summon the US to swoop in and defeat the evildoers. That works fine in comic books, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for the real world.
I think you’re conflating “maintaining a global hegemonic order” with “fucking up a nation that has actively tried to harm the United States AND is provably committing war crimes.”
Is American hegemony all sunshine and roses? Fuck no lol
At least it is built more on consensus of member states than a hegemony built up by dictatorships like Russia (which, let’s be real, isn’t ever gonna be a global hegemon) or China?
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a moral or ethical hegemony. They’re all immoral, even if some are less immoral than others. But that doesn’t mean that I want to end all hegemony in favor of international lawlessness. I believe in democracy and the rule of law, but that is not the same as a single nation achieving military supremacy to such a degree as to allow them to declare themselves the globe’s judge, jury, and executioner. If we believe in democracy based on consent of the governed and the rule of law, we must support it not only within nations but between nations, as well.
Guess that would be a good reason for the rest of the world to get involved, right? Stopping a country from trying to use military supremacy to impose their will on another nation? Like Russia is doing right now in Ukraine?
Guess that would be a good reason for the rest of the world to get involved, right?
Yes, I think the international community should get involved when a nation invades another without justification, like the US invasion of Iraq, for instance. However, NATO is not “the rest of the world.” NATO consists of 32 nations (out of 195), all of which are located in Europe and North America, and more than 2/3 of its funding comes from just one country: the United States.
Ok, how about 141 members of the UN general assembly? I know we’ve only given Russia 27 months to comply since that vote, but I feel that’s long enough.
The same for defending Poland against Hitler…
But also to same that should make us defend Gaza from Israel. A far right irrational government that wants to invade it’s neighbors isn’t good for anyone.
The same for defending Poland against Hitler…
But the US didn’t prevent Hitler from invading Poland.
I support the international community coming together to help defend weaker nations from stronger nations with imperialist ambitions, but I don’t support the US involving ourselves in conflicts on other continents and saying that we are doing so for national security.
But the US didn’t prevent Hitler from invading Poland.
We didn’t stop Russia from invading Ukraine or Israel from invading Gaza either…
but I don’t support the US involving ourselves in conflicts on other continents and saying that we are doing so for national security.
Exactly what the pro-nazi Americans said during WW2…
Seriously.
Exactly what the pro-nazi Americans said during WW2…
Many more than just pro-nazi Americans were against declaring war on Germany, before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In May of 1940, Gallup conducted the following poll:
Do you think the United States should declare war on Germany and send our army and navy abroad to fight?
93% said ‘No’ source
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, however, Gallup conducted another poll:
Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?
91% said ‘Yes’ (same source as above)
You might want to look at your own source. Polls before and after that one said something different. That suggests that particular poll was an outlier.
I compared those two polls because they asked specifically about declaring war on Germany. The other polls you’re referring to ask less direct questions, such as:
Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do–to keep out of war ourselves or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?
This question, which was asked multiple times between May of 1940 and December of 1941, specifically asks if we should help England even if it risks war, which is different than asking a yes or no question about declaring war on Germany. I acknowledge that responses shifted from 61% saying ‘keep out’ and 35% saying ‘help’ in June 1940, to 68% saying ‘help’ and 28% saying 'keep out" by November 1941, but ‘help’ is not necessarily the same thing as ‘declare war and send troops.’ Also, Germany had already invaded Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and France by the time that June 1940 poll was conducted in which 61% of respondents said ‘keep out.’
What do you think they meant by ‘help’ then?
Those are my crocs.
