Isn't now the time for US to stop supporting Ukraine to end the conflict?

[Supermom]

The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons.

I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.

Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.

We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.

 

[pjmret]

If Ukraine wants to keep fighting because they want to keep their country, so be it.

Wearing down Russia helps democracies so putin doesn't gobble up more territory. There should be negative consequences to 8nvading countries

You sound like chamberlain in 1940

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

The US is a small percentage of the world's population. It needs allies to counter the Chinese and the Russians.
Our largest ally is the EU. The EU is obviously stronger if it includes Ukraine. It is therefore important that Ukraine be a part of the EU.

It s absolutely essential that Ukraine be part of the EU.

 

[Phoenix68]

The war in Ukraine has begun began three years ago......

.
View attachment 14246
.
....And, your tough, widdle Vladdie can leave, any time he wants.
.​

 

[Tripoli]

The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons.

I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.

Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.

We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.View attachment 14160

The USA has never sent the Ukraine not even one thing that can defeat Russia or that can even hurt Russia

 

[Boris Norris]

The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons.

I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution.

Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies.

We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.View attachment 14160

The other alternative is to get divine intervention but it hasn't worked before.

Who knows. Maybe Ukraine want freedom and democracy. No? Perish the thought.

 

[Phoenix68]

Isn't now the time for US to stop supporting Ukraine to end the conflict?​

.

.
You Ruskie breeding-mares are tiring of squeezing out "puppies" for Putin's front-lines????
.
All you gotta do is show your colors!!
.

.​

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

This 'Supermom" poster is a Russian disinformation provider and should be ignored.