Plus, it's not as allowing Ukraine to languish will suddenly solve our domestic healthcare woes. That money will be spent on the military either way. Best to send lethal aid where it can do some good rather than sitting in a warehouse.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd heard the US was spending about 5% of its military budget beating Russia through Ukraine in partnership with the EU countries. The military budget in the US was always predicated upon the premise of fighting the top two opponents simultaneously. Even if the US spends 10%, China needs to take note of that. China stated in the last week that "war with the US would be devastating". They've gotten the message, and the longer the West holds out against Russia, the more the message sinks in that a war between the two remaining superpowers would be a lose-lose situation.

By spending the money now, we prevent a major war later, and can get back to hosting proxy wars. /s

By the way, the next superpower has already started making itself known - India. They have developed their own aircraft carrier. The US and the West should do what they can to align interests with India. This will create a wall around China and further prevent imperialist daydreaming.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Very much this. 5% could be thought as a preventative investment in the future. Kind of like taking care of one's teeth instead of waiting until they rot and then fixing the problem.

Letting russia and china go through with colonialism would lead to a situation that is much more expensive to deal with.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I understand that I'm shouting in the void here.

Bipartisanship has always and will always exist for warmongering absent conscription, because the draft and the trauma it created for the youth of the 60's was the only thing that made our country acknowledge and confront the horrors of war.

Unfortunately, 98% of voters also approve of their own impoverishment on health care every two years, so that's not changing either.

I'd argue that our eagerness to enrich the 1% is the only reason we keep getting entangled in these wars, and one day it will be a major contributing factor to the ruin of this country. Ukraine is just an easier sell because their leader is marketable and their people have a skin tone that our countrymen find agreeable. But you can youtube how we showered affection on Hamid Karzai, and then subsequently wasted a few trillion dollars fighting a pointless war in Afghanistan. It feels like history repeating itself to me.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

History sure is rhyming, but the roles are kinda reversed. From a perspective of someone who doesn't live in the US, vietnam & afghanistan sure seemed like a major waste of money. Both of those wars put US in the position of having to invest major amounts of money and manpower for the fighting.

Now US is spending comparatively "small" amounts of money to fund a proxy war, and russia is in the position of putting people to the meatgrinder.

Historically these proxy wars have favoured the power player, which is supporting a proxy country.

Also from an investment point of view, a weaker russia would incentivize foreign countries to maintain better relations with the US, including economical ones.

Additionally a version of Ukraine that was supported by the US would surely be keen on building strong relations. The country has a large population with a strong basis on technological industries, and could be seen as a major ally.

The american healthcare issue is a completely separate issue that isn't solved by isolating the country from all foreign politics. If you're looking for a publicly funded healthcare system in the US, you would need several major (some of them painful) reforms.

I live in a country with state funded healthcare, but it's still not as popular as one might think. Many oppose the taxation that is required to keep the system running, even if the current system is cheaper overall than a privately funded one.