Saying “kidnapping” and “brutal measures” is a little saucy when this is

Well, it is extreme. Let’s not pretend like it isn’t. Legal technicalities aside, it’s not a good look. People walking with their families down the street suddenly get ambushed and then thrown into a van? Old woman or wife trying to fight off the military recruiters?

The Russians don’t do this. The Americans didn’t do this back during Vietnam. Etc. It’s understandable because of the existential nature of this war, like you pointed out, but it is abnormal when you look at other drafts in other countries.

Part of the reason they’re having such a hard time is again, the recklessness with which they have, at certain points of this war, treated human life. Russia’s running into this same issue. Although Russia has a bigger population and is able to offer higher incentives in the form of payouts, along with a more centralized and mature propaganda system. Because of this, they haven’t had to rely on a draft and mobilization. They are still mostly a volunteer force.

They had lower tolerance for casualties, but that’s just because it was an optional war rather than an existential one.

Lower tolerance for casualties is a bit of an understatement. Over the course of 5 years or so there were less than 5,000 American deaths. Since 2022, we’re looking at a very conservative at least 100k dead from just the Russian side. The more generous estimates have 200k+ dead on both sides.

We’re talking at least an order of magnitude difference

That’s pretty much the job description of a soldier

When military strategy is controlled by the generals, they will prioritize manpower over political goals. When military strategy is controlled by the political regime, political goals become more important.

Retreating from a piece of land that has little strategic significance is the correct move so that you conserve resources and manpower. A soldier is a human being, a life. Not only does this have some sort of moral worth and should not be thrown away recklessly, it has real strategic value.

Both Russia and Ukraine in this war have made awe-inspiringly bad decisions at specific points. If I were a man who was being compelled to serve in either army, I would run away as far as possible.

It was less that OP pointed out this stuff, and more that their “friend in Kiev” apparently phones them up about this and doesn’t mention anything about the Russians who are perpetuating all this and could leave at any time.

I agree.

if you go on reddit to certain pro-russian combat footage subs dedicated to the war, you’ll see one or two new videos a week of Ukrainian men being kidnapped off of the streets and stuffed into a van

they really are taking people off the streets there. they’re low on manpower and the men remaining are all those that don’t want to die so they’ve been ignoring any draft summons. so the Ukrainian gov has been resorting to increasingly brutal measures.

i’m honestly just so glad i wasn’t born in post-soviet slavic country , lol. i swear the value of life there is not nearly what it is here. on the Russian side they’ll force thousands of men forwards into a meat grinder trying to win with pure brute force. if a soldier tries to go backwards, the Russians themselves will shoot you as a motivation for the others to go forwards. hundreds of thousands of men dead or maimed for what? a couple miles of land a day?

then on the Ukrainian side they’ll keep you defending some worthless piece of land forever as all the supply lines slowly close around you. once you’re cut off, you know you and the wounded with you are all gonna die. command promised reinforcements when they had no intention of sending reinforcements. to them , the political benefit of holding onto that land for just a little longer is worth more than the lives of real human beings. you are a soldier and you are expendable. (this also coincidentally makes it harder to get fresh recruitment because ukrainian men aren’t stupid and propaganda can only hide so many deaths)

i’ve seen confirmed cases of both sides killing POWs. men walking out of a trench with their hands up surrendering just to get mowed down anyways. men trying to surrender to drones only to get blown up anyways.

war is hell. it’s barbaric and highlights the absolute worst nature of humanity.

having said all that, yeah the commenter does seem like an astroturfer or at least a biased pro-russian poster if organic. but the statement with ukrainians being kidnapped, at least from what I’ve seen, is true. it has been happening at increasing frequencies

We would still be supporting Israel with Biden in place. The only difference is there would be a few “we are very concerned” statements from the White House press secretary instead of Trump’s reality TV show statements. But in the background, the same number of MK84 2,000lb bombs are being transported by the same military vehicles and they blow up on top of the same people.

this was was always going to end with Russia taking a large chunk of Ukraine. there was some collective delusion for a while that it wasn’t because of strong state war propaganda

but Russia is always going to care more about Ukraine than the US. It’s their neighbor who they have more or less controlled directly or indirectly for hundreds of years.

US support was always limited and self-interested. Just like every time US hypes up some international ally to inevitably discard them. Remember the Kurds? I’m guessing Taiwan is the next one going forward

portuguese. i was in the midwest as a child but moved to southern florida in the 2nd half of high school

no. not many people spoke my native tongue.

when i finally did move and found more people speaking the language, we would speak our language not to hide from the teacher but just because it was more comfortable

i come from a tariff heavy country. you want a sneak peak? inflation. shit is gonna get more expensive. that’s it

This was started nearly a century ago by scientists after the creation of the atomic bomb a couple years after the end of WW2.

The point is mostly to say “hey, we have the technology to blow up the world and things do not not seem to be going well”. They actually give out an annual report every year explaining their reasoning.

In setting the Clock one second closer to midnight, we send a stark signal: Because the world is already perilously close to the precipice, a move of even a single second should be taken as an indication of extreme danger and an unmistakable warning that every second of delay in reversing course increases the probability of global disaster.

Essentially- we are closer than ever to a global war between nuclear powers.

In regard to nuclear risk, the war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation. Conflict in the Middle East threatens to spiral out of control into a wider war without warning. The countries that possess nuclear weapons are increasing the size and role of their arsenals, investing hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons that can destroy civilization. The nuclear arms control process is collapsing, and high-level contacts among nuclear powers are totally inadequate given the danger at hand.

Now someone may say “Closer than ever?? What about the Cuban Missile Crisis?”

The thing is, we have been developing newer and “less dangerous” nuclear weapons. Tactical bombs that won’t leave the traditional nuclear fallout. This creates a sort of itchy trigger finger syndrome. After the Cold War, we created nuclear arms control treaties between the US and Russia. These are collapsing. Both the US and Russia are complicit in this.

If anybody wants to read more https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/2025-statement/

But to tldr:

The world is in a chaotic period of time. Fascism seems to be taking hold again, the economy is on the edge of collapse, and war remains an ever-present threat. Any war between great powers (US, China, Russia) would certainly mean nuclear disaster.

The point is that we are vulnerable right now. Any push could shove us tumbling down the hill. Diplomatic crisis, another pandemic, economic crash, a regional war, etc. Any of those could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I have a lot of respect for the Bulletin Board of Atomic Scientists. We need these types of organizations to remind people of the danger we are currently in. We become desensitized because of the constant barrage of “historic news” but they’re going to look back on this period similarly to the decade before WW2, I believe.

Really? Closer than Cuban missile crisis?

The assumption is that any major war => nuclear war => major unmitigated disaster.

And we are dangerously close to a global war. Personally I have a hunch that’s the reason Trump is more or less going nuclear at home with all of his changes. They’re gonna wreck the economy but it’s all gonna be overshadowed quite soon so it won’t matter.

From what I gather, you’re making the insinuation that the people who refused to vote for Kamala due to her (and Biden’s) support of Israel are responsible for Trump and his heavy-handed approach.

I’d retort by stating that Israel has killed near 100k Palestinians and reduced most of the territory to rubble all while Biden’s administration had been sending bombs, guns, tanks, missiles, and money.

The main difference between Trump and Biden on this issue is how loud and open they are about it.

Is there a difference between discretely supporting apartheid or openly supporting apartheid? Probably, in an intellectual sense. But what difference does it make to the tens of thousands of Gazan widows?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-2-debunked-accounts-of-sexual-violence-on-oct-7-fueled-a-global-dispute-over-israel-hamas-war

There’s a bit by Zizek where he’s quoting Lacan. Lacan uses the analogy of a jealous husband who believes his wife is cheating on him.

Jacques Lacan claimed that, even if a jealous husband’s claim about his wife — that she sleeps around with other men — is true, his jealousy is still pathological. Why? The true question is “not is his jealousy well-grounded?”, but “why does he need jealousy to maintain his self-identity?”.

The man has a deep-seated psychological need to be a victim. He needs the idea of the cheating wife to maintain this identity. In this case, his obsession with his cheating wife, even if it’s true and she’s sleeping around with everyone in town, is part of a pathology meant to protect his psyche from breaking.

That’s the Lacanian part. As Zizek often does, he takes this type of individualized psychoanalysis and expands it up to the realm of societal ideology. The example he gives is of the Nazis and their obsession with the Jews.

Along the same lines, one could say that even if most of the Nazi claims about the Jews were true — they exploit Germans; they seduce German girls — which they were not, of course, their anti-Semitism would still be (and was) pathological, since it represses the true reason why the Nazis needed anti-Semitism in order to sustain their ideological position.

An example he gives is that Jews were exploiting Germans. And this is, on its face, can be a true statement. Some Jews were bankers and therefore charging interest and profiting from Germans. Some young Jews were going around and seducing young German girls. Etc.

But the fact is, it doesn’t matter if the Jews are doing this or aren’t doing that. The Nazi obsession with the Jew has nothing to do with the Jew seducing young German women. The obsession is a necessary prerequisite for the Nazi to maintain their ideological position. A Nazi needs the Jew to be a scapegoat. To be a symbol of the Other- to use as an ambiguous threat; a vague amorphous barbaric enemy.

The Jews control the world and the global capitalist system. They are devious and scheming and mean to exploit us. On the other hand, the Jew is a stupid primitive animal who has inferior genes. They are everything and they are nothing.

I would take this and use this article as an example of a pathological ideological obsession on the Israeli side.

Even if the claims are true, which from what I’ve read there isn’t much evidence at all, that Hamas raped many young women on Oct 7th, I’d argue that it’s pathological. The Israelis need the idea of the barbaric and savage Palestinian in order to maintain their ideological position. When they talk about the rapes, it doesn’t matter if the rapes really happened or not. It’s there for an ideological purpose.

And just like the Nazi claims about the Jews- using small truths to create a large lie- the Israelis are following line by line with the playbook.

I provided them. You refuse to acknowledge them. I can only speculate why that is. That is OK.

If you do not want to participate in this attempt to find common ground and instead just want to argue with someone online in an endless circle, that’s OK. You either choose to engage in good faith or I will stop responding.

This is the only way to rationally discuss emotionally difficult topics that have been bombarded by propaganda.

We need to come to a base set of facts that we can both agree on because otherwise, we will talk in circles endlessly. You certainly have the energy and desire to write about this- you’ve written some detailed long comments and have kept responding until now.

I have a feeling you don’t want to continue because you understand if we go down this road, there will be some cognitive dissonance. That’s OK. I’m not forcing you to do anything. This is a voluntary participation in a casual online forums. I spent a lot of time and effort on my comments to you, so I’m not expecting you to act like a monkey.

Ok that can be the first statement we agree on. I agree with it. I said earlier you could make statements. So we will have that be our first axiom.

1. Russia is a corrupt post-soviet state whose people, outside of its imperial core, live in often abject poverty

Can you go through the other ones I placed earlier and either “Yes or no because xyz”

If we can’t agree on a base set of facts, then we can never build from there. You refuse to acknowledge any statement I’ve made, even though they are purely objective statements. You are refusing to act in good faith here. I could say the sky is blue you’ll say light is a frequency and is made up of a range of colors.

If you are going to feel the need to be contrarian for every single statement, there is nothing to gain here. You have already made up your mind and are not discussing or thinking about anything

Do you have any intention of participating in this attempt to create a base set of facts? Yes or no because xyz. We can get to nuance later. You keep dodging

i agree with you but the UK definitely doesn’t

Lots of discounted high tech military equipment that the UK gets from the nature of the “special relationship” between the two countries. For example

KS-1 Rifle, Barrett M82, M2 Browning, Remington Model 870, Claymore mines, FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank system. The MRAP Cougar, M270 launch rocket system, M1070 transport system, various different MTVRs, Apache attack helicopters, Desert Hawk III UAV, Switchblades, and much much more

The UK would also lose their top export market (accounting for more than 2x the exports they send to the next runner up, Germany) and their 2nd largest import market (65B pounds to Germany’s 75B pounds)

Reality is the UK made their choice. They want to be in the bed with the US. Whatever Washington says, they’ll do. And that means more economic integration and more military integration.

I have exactly three questions for you, in return:

We’re trying to make statements of objective fact… Without a base set of facts, this conversation will go nowhere. I’m going to ignore everything else so that we don’t get lost. Although I have read it and I appreciate your effort in this discussion. You are welcome to make statements as well.

Ukraine is a relatively new country with roughly 3 decades of independence and is a poor and corrupt post-Soviet Eastern European state.

Ukraine pre-dates the Duchy of Moscow, pre-dates the Russian Tsars … Ukraine has made much larger strides economically and when it comes to combatting corruption

Please. Yes or no because xyz. Ukraine could have made great strides, but that doesn’t change the statement. Let me make the statement more precise

1. The modern state of Ukraine is a relatively young country with 3 decades of independence and is a poor and corrupt post-Soviet Eastern European state.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023 - Below average corruption and only marginally better than Russia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita - Poorer than Guatemala, Iraq, and Libya

There are three parts here: a) Ukraine, with its current institutions, has 3 decades of independence and thus is a young country relative to most other countries b) Ukraine is a corrupt country relative to most other countries c) Ukraine is a poor country relative to most other countries.

So again- yes to statement 1 or no because xyz

The US is the strongest military and economic power in the world and spends more money on power projection than any other country in the world.

No. The EU is the strongest economical power and, militarily speaking, could stalemate the US.

Well first, EU is not a country. But I’ll play along and pretend like it is. We’ll start with economy-

GDP USA $26.85T

GDP EU $16.7T

EU economy, putting all 27 countries together, is roughly 60% the size of the American economy by nominal GDP.

GDP per capita USA ~$80,000

GDP per capita EU ~$38,000

In a per capita sense, EU citizens are worth about half of what American citizens are worth

But to be honest, these are bad measures of economic power in the modern world. We live in a globalized society where corporations are what determines economic activity and ultimately economic and soft power. So let’s compare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

Largest 50 companies in the world by revenue

22 are American . 7 are EU.

If we look at the top 10 largest companies by market capitalization- 7 out of 10 are American. Only 1 is from EU.

American companies also dominate specific industries. For example there are no major tech companies from EU. Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook (Meta) and more are all American companies. There is no EU Silicon Valley. The reason we are able to communicate right now is because of development and infrastructure by American companies.

To simplify and put it roughly: American companies are dramatically more dominant globally than EU companies.

There are other indicators-

The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq account for over 50% of global equity market value. That means the two major US stock exchanges account for over half of global economic output or roughly $40T.

If you combine EU stock exchanges- Euronext, Deutsche Börse, Borsa Italiana, we have roughly $10T.

So American equity markets are 4x the size of the EU.

The first part of the statement - The US is the largest economic power in the world - I think is clearly true. If you have reasoning and evidence otherwise, please share. But this is pretty non-controversial

The next part of the statement - The US is the largest military power in the world. Your response was this

militarily speaking, could stalemate the US.

This is patently false. For one, we could look at defense spending.

The US defense budget is $877B. This accounts for roughly 40% of global military spending.

EU defense budget is $235B. So roughly 1/4 of what the US spends.

This means the US has more planes, more guns, more missiles, more drones, more bullets, more bombs, etc. Not only that, but it has higher tech equipment because the US has been spending much more for much longer (including on research). In one year the difference is $877B − $235B = $642B. Over 2 decades that’s $12.8T.

This is why the US has stuff like the Patriot Missile Defense System and the Europeans don’t.

Let’s look at some figures

So not only does the US have better stuff, they have more of it. They also have much more experience using that military, which leads to tactical and doctrinal advantages.

So the statement “The US is the largest military power in the world” I think is clearly a true statement. It’s the US that has dozens of military bases in the EU, not the other way around.

2. The US is the strongest military and economic power in the world and spends more money on power projection than any other country in the world.

yes or no because xyz

The US has attempted, with varying levels of success, to topple dozens of regimes all over the world throughout the 20th century up to the modern day.

Mostly South America and a couple of places in Asia because Domino Theory.

Please, yes or no because xyz. It’s either true or not true. We can discuss nuances after we agree to a base set of facts. But to elaborate, here’s a non-exhaustive list of US attempts at regime change (with varying levels of success)

• Guatemala 1954
• Cuba 1961
• Dominican Republic 1961
• Brazil 1964
• Chile 1973
• Grenada 1983
• Nicaragua 1980
• Iran 1953
• Iraq 1963
• Libya 2011
• Syria 2012
• Congo 1960
• Ghana 1966
• Zaire 1975
• Angola 1975
• Philippines 1902
• Vietnam 1963
• Indonesia 1965
• Cambodia 1970
• Laos 1960
• Afghanistan 1980
• Greece 1967
• Italy 1948
• Portugal 1974
• Yugoslavia 1999
• Ukraine 1950

the statement “Mostly South America” is false, as South American countries make a minority of the countries on that list. the statement “a couple of places in Asia because Domino Theory” is false, as it was more than a couple and they mostly had nothing to do with Domino Theory. We can address your question once we have the axioms.

I’ll keep the statement identical

3. The US has attempted, with varying levels of success, to topple dozens of regimes all over the world throughout the 20th century up to the modern day.

The US has attempted, in the 20th century, to stage a coup in Ukraine.

You’ll have to be more specific. You said “After WWII” which implies after 1945 which means that you’re talking about the Ukrainian SSR.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/11/covert-operation-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968

Operation Red Sox, as it was known, was one of the first covert missions of the still new Cold War. The American-trained commandos would feed intelligence back to their handlers using new radio and communications equipment, stoking nascent nationalist movements in Ukraine, Belarus, Poland and the Baltics. The goal was to provide the U.S. unprecedented insight into Moscow’s designs in Eastern Europe — and, if possible, to help crack apart the Soviet empire itself. Over half a decade, dozens of operatives took part in these flights, becoming one of the U.S.’s “biggest covert operations” in post-War Europe. Ukraine’s bloody insurgency was the operation’s centerpiece.”

I will revise the statement to be more precise

4. The US has in the past used covert means to spread dissent and support regime change in Ukraine, in addition to other Eastern European countries.

Yes or no because xyz

NATO was founded as a tool of American hegemony and power projection.

It was founded to organise Europe against the threat of Russia, just after and in response to the Berlin Blockade I’m not a fan of it either but the whole thing wouldn’t exist, and definitely wouldn’t have expanded, without Russian imperialism.

Ok let me revise my statement

5. NATO was founded as a tool of American hegemony and power projection, with an aim to counter the Soviet bloc

Yes or no because xyz

The US has openly funneled billions of dollars into Ukraine since Ukrainian independence.

So did Russia, so did the EU.

NED has existed for longer than Ukraine has been an independent state and has been funneling money for the entirety of Ukraine’s existence. EED, on the other hand, was not founded until 2013. NED also operates with roughly 10x the budget of EED.

Your statement about Russia is probably true, although hard to find evidence for. Let me revise the statement

6. The US has openly funneled billions of dollars in Ukraine since Ukrainian independence, far more than any other country except perhaps Russia.

Yes or no because xyz

There is some non-zero amount of money that went into Ukraine covertly in addition to the funds above.

Oh, definitely. All those bribes definitely weren’t cheap for Russia.

Let me revise my statement to be more precise

7. There is some non-zero and significant amount of money that the US poured into Ukraine covertly in addition to the funds above.

Yes or no because xyz

note: i have a sense you’re not really reading all of my messages so please just skip forward to the end and answer some questions for me if you don’t have the focus to continue fully engaging

Germany is allowed whatever is allowed by international law. Unlike other countries we actually care about that stuff and no we were never limited to pure defence.

You should learn a little more about your own history. Germany was forced to rewrite a constitution after losing WW2. That constitution had to be subsequently approved by the Allied members, of which the US was by far the most influential. Part of that constitution stated no offensive military. That specific part of the constitution has not changed, although the definition for “defensive military” has become broader in both Germany and Japan as the US demands more of its vassals due to the worsening geopolitical situation.

Countries not under subjugation don’t have these types of terms built into their constitutions by force.

In reality, Germany gained full sovereignty with the 2+4 treaty

When they leave NATO and have an offensive military then they will have full sovereignty. Modern imperialism does not look like it did in the 19th and 20th centuries. You know, iron glove in a velvet glove. Remember

“Keep America in, Germany down, Russia out”. That hasn’t changed. Germany is the most powerful European country with a very prideful but repressed patriotism (you being a good example)- from the American perspective it needs to be kept on a short leash. It’s why more and more attention is being given to Poland. More and more NATO weaponry and troops has been shifting over to the east.

That’s not even what your source says

verbatim quote below

the far right Svoboda party was the most active collective agent in conventional and confrontational Maidan protest events, while the Right Sector was the most active collective agent in violent protest events

Yes, they were the most organised

Ok we’re getting somewhere

Have you any idea how small those organisations are, and how many people were on the streets back then.

Yeah so small that that were give a quarter of government cabinet positions in the new unconstitutionally appointed regime. So small their leaders were one of the few photographed with US leaders celebrating Euromaidan

Here’s a piece around that time period https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/18/yes-there-are-bad-guys-in-the-ukrainian-government/

Today, Svoboda holds a larger chunk of its nation’s ministries (nearly a quarter, including the prized defense portfolio) than any other far-right party on the continent. Ukraine’s deputy prime minister represents Svoboda (the smaller, even more extreme “Right Sector” coalition fills the deputy National Security Council chair), as does the prosecutor general and the deputy chair of parliament — where the party is the fourth-largest. And Svoboda’s fresh faces are scarcely different from the old: one of its freshmen members of parliament is the founder of the “Joseph Goebbels Political Research Centre” and has hailed the Holocaust as a “bright period” in human history.

Can we please dispel this myth that they were unimportant? Just because the truth is inconvenient does not mean we ignore it or pretend like it is something different

And they would lose even more if they were to stop fighting. And they know that, and that is precisely why they fight.

Ok, and what if after all that sacrifice you ultimately lose anyway? What have they gained?

The conversation that ultimately started this conversation - a family man goes off to war to die, ruining his family permanently and the country loses anyway. What is the point? If the US did not support Ukraine, they would not have survived this long. If they would not have survived this long, hundreds of thousands of men would be alive and uninjured. Thousands of buildings would not be rubble. Millions of people would not be refugees.

This war is not for Ukraine. “Win” or lose there is no good outcome for them. It’s a fight between US and Russia. Ukraine is a sacrificial pawn stuck in the middle and they will suffer no matter how this war turns out. Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”

The very reason that two people sharing an opinion, “I think so and so would be a good choice”, is considered smoking gun evidence by the people peddling that narrative should make you think.

It’s not smoking gun it’s circumstantial. You take it into context with all of the other circumstantial evidence.

How much money. Name it. Name the sum. Then laugh at it. Ukraine is poor but not that poor.

We’ve discussed the exact number above. Are you not reading the messages? Are you a bot?

All the appointments were completely constitutional.

No, it was not constitutional. It should have gone to a constitutional court and they should have gone to election. Neither happened. A government was unconstitutionally appointed. We can debate on whether or not the unprecedented nature of the event warranted this extrajudicial action- but we can’t play word games here. It was definitely unconstitutional, virtually all the constitutional experts agree on that.

The civil society was strong enough to remove a Russian asset from power, yes, to make him go AWOL. That’s what happens in democracies: If politicians don’t follow the people’s will, they get deposed of.

I see the opposite. The civil society was weak enough to allow violent protests to topple a democratically elected government.

That’s what happens in democracies: If politicians don’t follow the people’s will, they get deposed of.

No, that’s what happens in African and Middle Eastern “democracies”. In stable democracies, they get voted out next election and there’s a peaceful transition of power. And note- less than half of Ukrainian supported Euromaidan at the time. Again, like we discussed above before, the reason you see such high homogeneity in political beliefs today are twofold

a) war unifies people both because of common enemy and because of a giant government tap of propaganda

b) most of the pro-russian ukrainians have been incorporated into Russia by now. majority of Crimeans for example supported unification with Russia before 2014

let’s try and agree on a base set of facts and move forward from those facts. we try and agree on some base set of axioms and then can come to conclusions instead of this all over the place repetition we seem to be having. I’m going to make some statements and you either say “yes, I agree” or “no, I disagree because xyz” where xyz has some reasoning like a historical fact. for example if I say “the universe started 12 billion years ago” you say “no, that is wrong the universe was founded 13 billion years ago”. let’s try and stick exclusively to objective statements for now. I’ll make some

1. Ukraine is a relatively new country with roughly 3 decades of independence and is a poor and corrupt post-Soviet Eastern European state.
2. The US is the strongest military and economic power in the world and spends more money on power projection than any other country in the world.
3. The US has attempted, with varying levels of success, to topple dozens of regimes all over the world throughout the 20th century up to the modern day.
4. The US has attempted, in the 20th century, to stage a coup in Ukraine.
5. NATO was founded as a tool of American hegemony and power projection.
6. The US has openly funneled billions of dollars into Ukraine since Ukrainian independence.
7. There is some non-zero amount of money that went into Ukraine covertly in addition to the funds above.