• @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, just pointing out that even though the military support is going to Ukraine, the economic benefits are still primarily American, which belies the excuse for why they don’t want to support Ukraine.

        • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          Reread my original comment. And this is probably the last thing you want to cut. Leaving allies twisting in the wind when you pushed for nuclear deproliferation with the assurance you would help protect them from their enemies (Russia in particular) will cost America far more that $100 billion.

          • @MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -31 year ago

            Do elaborate on how some backwater eastern Europe shithole would cost us hundreds of billions as a inept paper tiger wastes resources on it.

            • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              As a general rule, when governments make deals with other countries and don’t do what they say, it tends to sour their negotiations with other countries. And that backwater country is the seventh largest exporter worldwide of a staple crop (it used to sell more before a certain war started). Now, America probably doesn’t import much wheat from Ukraine, but there’s a funny thing about globally traded commodities…

              • @MomoTimeToDie@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -31 year ago

                As a general rule, when governments make deals with other countries and don’t do what they say, it tends to sour their negotiations with other countries

                And I care if a bunch of eurotrash wants to leave the table for negotiation? Good riddance.