Biden administration moves toward allowing American military contractors to deploy to Ukraine
cnn.com
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.
You are viewing a single comment
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.
Also Neon gas is a big thing in eastern Ukraine. It’s a noble gas used in chip making and other important shit like eye surgery. It’s halted like half of the worlds supply.
https://zpp.net.pl/en/memorandum-zpp-ukraines-resource-policy-strategic-resources-and-rare-earth-metals/
Right before the war started the now largest known lithium deposit in Europe (and somewhere top 10 worldwide) was found in eastern Ukraine.
You just scratched the surface. There are plenty more reasons.
I had a coworker use this to support our war efforts after 9/11 a week ago.
I don't know if I have a non-dogmatic opinion of the current shit, but looking big is a bad reason to kill peeps.
As much as I feel I shouldn't support interference, I've only bought Ukrainian vodka for a while.
To be clear, I didn't necessarily state I advocated for those things, but the prompt was for what interests the US has in being involved in Ukraine.
Whether it is right or justified is another matter, but it is undeniably of significant importance for a state to be able to show it can project force/inflict harm on those it deems a problem.
As for US involvement in the Middle East...yeah...not great. US involvement in Ukraine? I'd say it's a different story since we are actually wanted there by the Ukrainian people, and it is reasonably likely that Russia would be involved in Ukraine whether or not it wished to be involved with the West, as it is valuable land in an area of historical Russian influence, and the crackpot ideology of Putin's Russia all but demands its subjugation (no, really, shit's wild).
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."
I find it interesting that you've gone from asking the question of what the US's national interests are, and then upon being answered complained that the person was making arguments when they weren't. You're clearly being disingenuous.
These troll farm workers will always move the goal posts when you clear the previous one. It’s best to not engage with them, just block and move on
It's useful to point out the absurdity of their bullshit in case other readers don't detect it.
That's good advice, but I was just poking them out of boredom.
I don't see how disagreeing with someone is being disingenuous.
But you’re not. You’re disagreeing with the person while asking leading questions, then arguing against the answers to the questions you asked.
It’s almost like you’re intentionally wasting their effort and mental energy to deal with your gish-galloping.
I really don't know what you mean. I asked what US national security interests were being served by the US involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, they answered, and I said I didn't find their answers compelling. It's really that simple.
What would be a compelling answer?
Speaks volumes that they didn't have an answer.
Please Repeat the initial prompt.
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?
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.
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12407.doc.htm#:~:text=Member%20States%20today%20overwhelmingly%20adopted,emergency%20session%20on%20the%20crisis.
I think that's great. I agree with the majority consensus. However, I don't know enough about how the UN GA operates to know if that institution has any meaningful way of enforcing their demands, or if any means of enforcement apply to all nations equally. The US, for instance, doesn't recognize the authority of the international criminal court, even though president Biden praised the ICC for talking about prosecuting Putin for war crimes. Biden condemned the ICC when it talked about Benjamin Netanyahu being prosecuted for war crimes. The rule of law can't only apply to some, it must apply to all, equally.
Well then it's a really good thing that it's not just a single nation backing Ukraine.