>Comparing Russia to Hitler is kinda ridiculous. Russia has shown how dysfunctional their military is.

German military was very weak up until around 1941, they needed time to ramp up production. What they had in 1937-1940 was strategy and tactics that haven't been seen to date and caught attacked countries off-guard.

Had France and England actually respect the treaties they had with Poland, there would be no World War II.

Had Ukraine not receive help from its allies, it would be already done - they'd run out of ammunition, artillery shells, medical equipment, etc.

Don't let the fact that most of the war content posted on Reddit is "russians being dumb" fool you - if they were overall half as incompetent as these videos show, Zelensky would've received the victory parade of his army marching through the Red Square months ago.

>It's fantasy to think he's a threat to a nuclear armed Europe.

HE IS the "nuclear armed Europe" too, mate. At least on paper, russia still has the nuclear arsenal to rival that of the US, France and Britain combined.

We can ASSUME that it's no longer the case (judging by how badly maintained their regular military is), but can we bet the lives of half the planet on it? I don't think that's a bet any sane politician who knows anything about the history of dictators is willing to make.

>Hence why its no more important to most nations than countless other regional conflicts are.

Russia getting their grubby little idiot hands on Ukraine has extremely huge strategical and economical consequences.

Ukraine's fields produce food that can feed a fifth of the planet. Natural gas and oil reserves have been found that rival those of Russia. Then there's all the geopolitical stuff on top of that. I highly recommend watching THIS video. It's pretty long but will let you understand why NATO can't let russia have this - even if we ignore all the warcrimes stuff.

>Were just racist because we think of Europeans are facing strife its exceptional. (...) Change Ukraine to rojava and magically we don't care

That's actually true, but the reasons for NATO's help are entirely not humanitarian, but rather strategic. It's a military operation through and through, it's just that only Ukraine is doing the actual fighting.

>Were back to you saying things that presuppose things I don't say.

OK, in that case explain what did you mean by this sentence:

>there are emergencies in America that need funding

Because apparently I don't understand it, in the context of this discussion.

>That it was just as true 20 years ago and 40 years ago and 60 years ago when the modern political situation was less dire. America has always been this way and its consistent if uneven across multiple generations.

Exactly my point. Meaning - UA-aid existing or not doesn't change anything.

>It's dishonest to suggest its all free and never going to be replaced. The tanks aren't even the bulk of the support.

I never suggested either of these.

>Hence why the moral idea of helping Ukraine is superficial

Like I said, it's not a moral or humanitarian sentiment that's pushing NATO countries to help. It's 100% entirely strategic. What's going on right now is a "weird world war" where everyone's involved but only two countries are doing the fighting.

>You're saying something that presupposes something I never said and you keep saying it so I keep ignoring it.

You're right, sorry, I confused you with the other guy because you sounded the same.

>Supporting Ukraine is in fact not the most important priority for any nation other than Ukraine and perhaps some of its vulnerable neighbours.

That's an impressively short-sighted worldview. Also, we've already been there, done that. Read about a guy called Chamberlain and his stance towards Hitler.

>there are emergencies in America that need funding

Which emergency in the US is underfunded SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the UA-aid?

>But they don't because hegemony has priority over feeding and housing and giving medical care to Americans who can't afford it.

And what exactly is the impact of the UA-aid on the fact that the Republican party reacts with a hissy fit every time anyone suggests anything REMOTELY pro-citizen in legislature?

>If poverty in America were treated like Ukraine is by media and politicians they'd unass all that money too.

Remind me again, how many poor people in the US are getting kidnapped, killed or their houses blown up daily?

Also, which US "help the poor" programme suffers lower finances due to the UA-aid?

>Equipment they'll pay to replace so it's still money to the arms manufacturers.

Nope. Most of that equipment was either already retired or scheduled to be retired. For instance, there's A LOT of Abrams tanks after the Marine Corps decided to completely change their strategy and removed armour.

>Naw, democrats are also guilty.

Fair enough, although it certainly doesn't seem like it the last couple of years.

>Even if they had the full control of legislation they'd never do a proper new deal.

The US is a fundamentally broken democracy. No party ever has "full control" due to how much power lobbyists and the businesses behind them have gotten over the years.

It also didn't come out of the healthcare budget, did it?

I feel like I'm constantly saying the same thing over and over again and you're just flat out ignoring it.

Every country has various "buckets" of budget. The US is not taking money away from infrastructure or firefighting to send it out to Ukraine, it's using the military budget or the emergency budget. Aid or not, you wouldn't see a difference.

You also wouldn't see a difference because MOST of the aid is in the form of equipment and not money. You can't build a hospital with a bunch of M777 howitzers, can you?

As for "why aid for your own people is not possible" - ask the Republicans who are consequently blocking all attempts at a more "for people" legislation.

>Healthcare, infrastructure, debt relief, housing, white-collar crime enforcement

Ekhm...

>Especially if it's from the DOD/military budget.

Also, the US military doctrine assumes always being ready to fight two superpowers at once. Right now, one of these superpowers is bleeding out after methodically bashing its head against a certain Ukrainian wall.

Don't be fooled into thinking this is a "local conflict" or anything like that - this is 100% a world war (even if it's "weird" and seems local), because the times have changed and these days everything is global. If Ukraine falls and Russia is allowed to rebuild, it WILL go after the Baltic states and Poland, who knows if they'll stop there.

Now, we already know what happens if you let a dictator take land without repercussions, so this cannot stand.

It would be immoral (considering the crimes the russians are committing) AND self destructive (considering how intertwined the global markets are).

>All better ways to spend money than sticking it to Russia.

For RIGHT NOW, maybe. Although it's not like the US is a poor, third world country and can't do both - support Ukraine AND do all the things you listed. I mean, come on, mate - they've sent 0,4% of their GDP so far, it's not like you can reform a whole country for that. Or even just healthcare.

Also, this 0,4% doesn't mean the US has sent that much money, which could be used for, say, housing. That includes the declared value of the equipment they're sending. So tell me, how many hospitals can you nationalise for 150 M777 howitzers?

So, yeah, there are better ways of governing money, if you're USA. But as far as spending your military budget goes - you can't do better than having someone fight for you while at the same time cleaning up your warehouses of old stuff.

>Lol there are endless things to better spend it on if your own population is suffering deprivation

So why take the money specifically away from Ukrainian aid instead of a million things you COULD take it away from locally? Like tax cuts for corpos and billionaires, the military industry, etc., etc?

As far as being (effectively) at war with a country, right now the US basically "getting stuff for free" (in terms of human suffering). The money they're sending is game-changing in Ukraine but pretty much inconsequential in terms of the US GDP.

> let alone talk about what the money could have gone to.

There's hardly anything better to spend money on, right now. Especially if it's from the DOD/military budget.

You're essentially beating your age-old enemy with ZERO casualties or danger to your citizens.