The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is an American nonprofit research group and think tank
ISW criticized both the Obama and Trump administration policies on the Syrian conflict, advocating a more hawkish approach. In 2013, Kagan called for arms and equipment to be supplied to “moderate” rebels, with the hope that a state “friendly to the United States [would emerge] in the wake of Assad.”[9] In 2017, ISW analyst Christopher Kozak praised president Donald Trump for the Shayrat missile strike but advocated further attacks, stating that “deterrence is a persistent condition, not a one hour strike package.”[10] In 2018, ISW analyst Jennifer Cafarella published an article calling for the use of offensive military force against the Assad government.[11]
Previous and current members of the ISW’s corporate council include Raytheon, Microsoft, Palantir, General Motors, General Dynamics, and Kirkland & Ellis.[14][15][16]
The role of this organization is likely just defending the economic interests of the military-industrial complex. The idea of Russia invading the Baltics is ridiculous due to the fact that they’re part of both NATO and the EU, but even if it were true it wouldn’t change my current position: continue supporting Ukraine’s defense effort and advancing towards some sort of integration of EU militaries rather than NATO, given that the US is a shaky ally.
The “unreliable, shaky” US supplied about the same amount of military help as the rest of the world. Without US Ukraine will lose the war, unless all other countries increase their support by more than twice.
And there’s about a 50% chance that in a year’s time they will do a 180 and pull all support from Ukraine and start actively working with Russia. That’s why they’re a shaky ally.
Great for Ukraine, but A) Half the active US electorate currently supports a Putin simp, which may likely lead to schizophrenic geopolitics sooner than later, and B) I don’t want my country to get dragged into another 20 years war at an irrelevant part of the world with no clear goal or purpose because my ally was attacked by the people they’ve continued antagonizing for decades, and they decided to overreact in response due to spurious interests. So yeah, pretty much any sane and well informed person will want their country to be able to protect their own sovereignity without US help, and as it turns out, that’s an option for EU countries, provided we actually work on it.
Ukraine grows a lot of grain. If the countries it exports grain to don’t get that grain, millions starve. Starvation will greatly contribute to regional instability in already fragile states. We’ve already seen a series of coups in Africa and if Ukraine and Russia keep fighting, we will see more and more of them, each one more violent and desperate than the rest. We’ve seen millions of refugees from Syria before, get ready to see a hundred million in the years to come.
Oh I’m sorry. Yeah, Afghanistan is a place where both empires and dreams go to die. My father in law fought in Soviet-Afghan war and hasn’t stopped drinking since.
Quick read on the ISW
The role of this organization is likely just defending the economic interests of the military-industrial complex. The idea of Russia invading the Baltics is ridiculous due to the fact that they’re part of both NATO and the EU, but even if it were true it wouldn’t change my current position: continue supporting Ukraine’s defense effort and advancing towards some sort of integration of EU militaries rather than NATO, given that the US is a shaky ally.
The “unreliable, shaky” US supplied about the same amount of military help as the rest of the world. Without US Ukraine will lose the war, unless all other countries increase their support by more than twice.
And there’s about a 50% chance that in a year’s time they will do a 180 and pull all support from Ukraine and start actively working with Russia. That’s why they’re a shaky ally.
Great for Ukraine, but A) Half the active US electorate currently supports a Putin simp, which may likely lead to schizophrenic geopolitics sooner than later, and B) I don’t want my country to get dragged into another 20 years war at an irrelevant part of the world with no clear goal or purpose because my ally was attacked by the people they’ve continued antagonizing for decades, and they decided to overreact in response due to spurious interests. So yeah, pretty much any sane and well informed person will want their country to be able to protect their own sovereignity without US help, and as it turns out, that’s an option for EU countries, provided we actually work on it.
Ukraine grows a lot of grain. If the countries it exports grain to don’t get that grain, millions starve. Starvation will greatly contribute to regional instability in already fragile states. We’ve already seen a series of coups in Africa and if Ukraine and Russia keep fighting, we will see more and more of them, each one more violent and desperate than the rest. We’ve seen millions of refugees from Syria before, get ready to see a hundred million in the years to come.
I meant the occupation of Afghanistan. You can see in my post above that I support the defense of Ukraine.
Oh I’m sorry. Yeah, Afghanistan is a place where both empires and dreams go to die. My father in law fought in Soviet-Afghan war and hasn’t stopped drinking since.