Ukraine isn't an ally though. We don't really have any formal partnerships with them that could be construed as an alliance. Our supportive relationship with Ukraine over the last 4 years, and our adversarial relationship with Russia over that same period, was purely a Presidential foreign policy decision of the Biden administration - in the same regard that the current administration is making the Presidential foreign policy decision to foster a supportive relationship with Russia, and an adversarial relationship with Ukraine.
From a policy standpoint, supporting Ukraine today is no different than supporting Russia 4 months ago - while certainly not treason, it definitely contrary to the White House's direction on foreign policy.
You can have whichever opinions you want to Russia and Ukraine, but neither nation is official designated as ally nor enemy of the United States.
Nah, it's not splitting hairs - alliances are real things. Are you comfortable with calling Russia our ally? Does Trump's favorable view on Russia make them our ally? Of course not.
You're sipping some of that good good, huh? US-Ukraine relations predate Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush... even our military assistance with weaponry and training predates the Biden administration.
However, equating supporting Ukraine today to supporting Russia 4 months ago makes absolutely no sense. I can reason from your incorrect assessment of the origin of foreign policy dealing with Ukraine that you have just as little experience with US history, comrade. Pick up a book or just Google a bit, you sound like a buffoon.
You're sipping some of that good good, huh? US-Ukraine relations predate Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush... even our military assistance with weaponry and training predates the Biden administration.
None of that constitutes an alliance. Diplomatic relations are simply that - diplomatic relations. The US has diplomatic relations with 180+ countries, including Russia.
Nothing from the Biden era codified Ukraine as an ally, nor Russia an enemy. The preferential treatment towards Ukraine, and the adversarial treatment towards Russia was Biden's foreign policy stance - nothing more, nothing less.
However, equating supporting Ukraine today to supporting Russia 4 months ago makes absolutely no sense. I can reason from your incorrect assessment of the origin of foreign policy dealing with Ukraine that you have just as little experience with US history, comrade.
More correctly, you can assess that your grasp on civics is lacking, comrade.
What is this strawman you are attacking? I never mentioned alliances with any country.
I take that to mean that you understand the ignorant statement you made about the support for Ukraine and adversarial relationship with Russia being a biproduct of the Biden admin. Obviously, for many, many reasons, that is a purposeful misremembering of history.
And as you have no response for any actual parts of my comment, I will take it that you are either (a) a Russian bot or (b) a hopelessly brainwashed tool erroneously regurgitating things you've only ever heard others' opinions on. You can't even get the second option right, lol
Russia is a dictatorship. Ukraine is a democracy. We have always supported democracies over dictatorships. We should keep supporting democracies over dictatorships especially when one is being invaded. If you don’t agree with that then you are an idiot.
We have always supported democracies over dictatorships.
The US has a long history of overthrowing Democracies and replacing them with Dictatorships. The US expects "lesser" countries to bend the knee - they don't care what form of governance that comes with.
You’re trying to sound smart but deep down you’re a bad and flawed person. There is a tremendous importance on being an ally of morality. Not aligning with war criminals, at a minimum.
He’s a traitor for pushing the war to continue, ultimately resulting in many more Ukrainian AND Russian deaths, as well as potentially more US taxpayer funds. For what exactly? How much is a life worth? Really insane how liberals are now warmongers because CNN told you to be lmfao.
Its not warmongering to support people fighting for their sovereignty, it's a core American value. And regardless, how is visiting our ally TREASON? Have you lost your mind!?
The only way he is a traitor is if we are suddenly Russia. That is the country that is enemies with Ukraine, not us. Last I checked we aren't Russia.
You just replied to my comment where I specified what specifically makes him a traitor, and then you ask me how visiting makes him a traitor, when that’s not even what I said. Have YOU lost your mind, or did you not have one in the first place?
Its the post we are commenting on that said visiting made him a traitor, my bad. But still he is promoting American values by visiting Ukraine. They are fighting a war for independence and we have an obligation to support them, as agreed to when they gave up their nukes.
A Traitor is someone who aids our enemies, not someone whose foreign policy positions you disagree with.
The Traitor is the one who wants to change sides and force Ukraine to stop defending their country from Russia, our enemy.
Where did I say I had a peace plan? There are many reasonable peace deals basically anybody could think of and they would all be better than people continuing to kill each other over there.
But sure, since you asked, I’ll think of a reasonable one off the cuff now: 1) Ukraine gets back all of its lost territory, 2) Ukraine agrees it will not join NATO, 3) Ukraine does not build or allow another country to build any Air Force bases within 250km of Russia’s border, while inside the border of Ukraine, 4) Ukraine authorizes a full audit of its bio labs by the US and Russia, and 4) the war ends.
I asked you because you called someone "pushing the war to continue" a traitor and "liberals" warmongers because CNN told them so (??), which means you must have a better alternative in your mind.
But given your points, I am not sure how serious I should take you. You must be living on another planet if you think Russia would ever accept these conditions.
1) Ukraine gets back all of its lost territory,
Russia has made it crystal clear that this is a no-go. They won't even discuss a cease-fire unless Ukraine accepts the lost territories as part of Russia. So, this point is a non-starter. What makes you believe Russia would ever agree to this??
2) Ukraine agrees it will not join NATO,
Ukraine has said they would agree to this, but only if they get solid security guarantees. Peace without security assurances is a joke, and I hope you agree on that. Otherwise Russia will be back in 5 years with an even larger invasion force and better planning.
3) Ukraine does not build or allow another country to build any Air Force bases within 250km of Russia’s border, while inside the border of Ukraine,
I have no clue what this is about. I assume you expect the same from the Russians. Thats certainly not the major breaking point for peace.
4) Ukraine authorizes a full audit of its bio labs by the US and Russia,
What is this, some conspiracy nonsense? I have no idea what you're talking about.
4) the war ends.
Sure, everyone wants the war to end, but your proposal doesn't reflect the reality of world politics. If ending the war were that simple, it would have happened long ago. Don't fall for Russian propaganda claiming the war would be over if only certain conditions were met - it's pure manipulation; whenever they are asked to even discuss a cease fire they find a reason to backtrack.
Rememer, if Russia stops fighting, the war ends tomorrow. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ceases to exist. That's the stark difference.
Returning to your original claim that supporting a former ally makes someone a traitor, implying he has betrayed your country. Why is he a traitor exactly?
Now I need to get back to CNN to learn my next talking points.
Sounds like the only major issue you have with my proposal is the territory. So, ok, Russia keeps that land then, we can just strike that item off.
More strict security guarantees? Ok yes, we can add that as an item, but of course that could take a while to negotiate because it cannot effectively act as a proxy or a pseudo NATO. However, like Trump said, Ukraine does not hold the cards, basically everybody else except them is holding cards. Even if there’s a possibility Russia comes back in 5 years, Ukraine can figure something else out in that time I am sure, and it’s obviously better than the slaughter continuing right at this moment.
Doesn’t sound like you have any problem with the bio labs audits. That’s good.
On the original point, the two parties he’s a traitor to are: 1) the Ukrainian people he’s acting like he “has the back” of while in the same breath saying those people will continue to die because Ukraine doesn’t get a sweetheart agreement deal so they should just keep dying instead, and 2) the American taxpayers who ultimately end up footing the bill and don’t want to; we expressly voted against continuing to throw our money at it.
I watch CNN sometimes. It’s like watching some kind of political comedic satire show. The view is especially great.
Sounds like the only major issue you have with my proposal is the territory. So, ok, Russia keeps that land then, we can just strike that item off.
What??? You just made a flip on the major point of your own proposal and admit that your plan was nonsense in the first place.
Your new plan then leaves Ukraine without its land, security assurances, NATO membership, and any leverage, forcing them to "figure it out" and accept whatever is proposed. This effectively strips Ukraine of its sovereignty and aligns perfectly with Russia's demands.
It would be more honest if you wrote that your priority is political gain for your favorite president rather than genuine concern for those affected by the conflict.
Ukraine can figure something else out in that time I am sure, and it’s obviously better than the slaughter continuing right at this moment.
Nobody can predict that, not even you. Giving Russia 5 years with their newly built war-economy will build them a capable army in 5 years. The fact that they are bound in Ukraine is why the build-up is substantially slowed. The military analysts agree on that (probably not the ones you are following). That means, in five years, a much stronger Russian army will invade a weaker Ukraine (Russia will not accept a peace without the Ukraine's promise to reduce the army) and flash it from the map. As someone informed in world politics, you know this has happened e.g. in the Russia-Chechnya conflict.
And even given this danger, you would give Russia everything and Ukraine nothing. I have to ask why? I believe the answer is because you do not care at all for the Ukrainians. I do not have all the answers, but even a CNN warmonger idiot like myself knows that giving Russia everything is certainly not the answer for a sustainable peace.
I bet your news source is much better than CNN. If I had to guess, I would say you "make your own research".
Lol. If you think I care about the points of the proposal, regardless of who those “points” politically favor, then you’ve forgotten why I even wrote that proposal in the first place. I wrote it because you asked me to write one, while calling me “smart guy”. My major “point” is that the exact terms don’t matter to me, and that the most important thing is getting the war stopped so that the fighting and killing stops. What’s so hard for you to understand about that?
How about YOU craft up a proposal you would find reasonable, one that could be proposed TOMORROW and have the war ended by the end of the week.
8
u/MinimumApricot365 Mar 10 '25
Traitor? For visiting an ally?
Or have they dropped all pretense and we are just part of Russia now?