idk about all those accusations of zelenskies credibility, but what you said about Russia's threats on invasion and it's follow-suite are completely correct.

Russia: "We will invade if you try to make Ukraine part of NATO"
The west: "Fuck off"
Russia: *Invades
The west: *Suprise picachu face

The war was prompted by expansionism.

Putin: 2x2=4
The West: Russian propaganda! Putin weaponizes math!

Option 3 but this logically includes option 5 (stop all funding)

Yep, if you're for option 3 it involves option 5 temporary status. Nobody wants to feed 'em to the wolves but they don't recognize where they are w/o funding.

Ideally we shouldn't make dumb foreign policy disasters like this in the first place. Once the milk is spilled, we can do our best to minimize damage and cut our losses. I guess there's still a question of what the best outcome will be. Say there's a peace deal that recognizes the DPR/LPR/Crimea as Russian, hands over some slice of the contested front line, and preserves the whole west as an independent unaligned country with no NATO status or NATO presence/armament and relations with Russia are restored and sanctions lifted. Even in that scenario, is it actually better for western interests than just ceding the entirety of Ukraine to Russia? I mean, the EU will inherit the poor half of the poorest country, stripped of all its production, its young population, its resources, its infrastructure. It will have that many hungry mouths to feed, the migrant crisis and more strain on the EU welfare state. Is it actually in western interests to take on that burden at this point? With a bunch of heavily militarized neo-nazis being a potential major terrorist threat within our own sphere?

Cutting our losses and taking our half of Ukraine is the logical and most obvious way out and we've just been circling that drain and the entire neoliberal order refusing to recognize the reality of the conflict for years now. Its not a good outcome, but its better than the war continuing to fester and we get all the same risks and costs dug deeper and deeper. Fighting on isn't an endless stalemate or quagmire: Ukraine is slipping away and it will not survive another 5 years of frozen conflict, it will collapse under internal pressures if not being overrun by Russia completely.

The Neo-liberal wants the conflict to play out in this order.
1. Bomb Damascus until it looks like Gaza.
2. Have thermonuclear war over Ookraine.
3. Make Israel emerge as the economic ruling state of the world.

As long as Ukraine is willing to fight they should be supported.

We barely send them anything this is the cheapest way we have ever been able to damage one of our largest enemies Russia we spent like $120B and most of that was spend on restocking out military equipment after sending them old stuff we would get rid of anyway and some of the actual cash we sent them is in loans.

I would say spending realistically like 20B dollars a year is a crazy cheap deal for the damage Russia is taking economically is trillions of dollars and they are still facing crippling inflation it's unsustainable for them long term.

If we do just stop everything where it's at now Russia will just attack again in a few years after recovery as usual regardless of what deals were signed.

Appeasement to expansionists never works

Why don't you empty your savings and bank accounts to support them then? Socialists always offering everyone else's money but their own.

Edit:
This war was prompted by western expansionism......Biden "fast tracked" Ukraine into NATO. The breaking of prior agreements on disallowing Ukraine from joining Nato is the entire reason this war started.

This post was edited by fishbro on Mar 10 2025 04:13am

This is an interesting take. Assume, what you say is true and Russia would collapse. Do you want a nuclear powerhouse to plunge into a total chaos which can potentially cause WW3?