Don't compare your experiences with Ukraine. They fight a very different war, on their own territory (often their own cities). They literally defending their families, no less.

> Don't compare your experiences with Ukraine.

Why would you tell someone not to compare two things just because those things are different? What would be the point of making comparisons at all if everything was the same? You would already know the result.

Good point. I meant "those are different, so your (their) experiences don't apply there".

The circumstances are not that different. The people of Afghanistan (by the time I arrived) were trying to defend their homes and communities from Taliban incursion that the US had partially reinvigorated by overthrowing their government (in that it made them worse, not that we created them which is common misinterpretation). The history of Afghanistan puts this kind of stuff pretty plain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Enduring_Freedom#The...

I do understand there is a wide knowledge gap that HN visitors have about Afghanistan, but please try to understand better.

> They literally defending their families, no less.

So the Taliban were not defending their families?

No, he's saying Americans should not be committed to fight for Ukraine.

But there's one quirk to the story: US has signed up for it on December 5, 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...

Too bad that document was very high-level, without specific procedures, timelines and liabilities listed in case of a breach. But nevertheless, it's a very real and legal grounding for fighting for Ukraine.

> I will never for those reasons support sending another soul down range.

Even if Poland or a NATO ally gets attacked?

I don't think anyone major is proposing sending troops to Ukraine, so this discussion is sorta irrelevant for the current conflict, but it seems like this line of reasoning would necessitate pulling out of NATO as well.

That's the trouble with relying on a democracy to be the big muscle in your defense pact.

This is quite sad that your reasons for lack of support of the wars are that you (an invader) had a bad time there, not that you were part of the force destabilising and destroying another country

People sign up for the military often with good intentions, yet they don't often get to choose what the military then does with them. You're seemingly assigning responsibility for an entire invasion to a foot soldier.

I didn't intend to put a blame of invasion on a single soldier. But I do put blame on a soldier, that he came to another country to kill people there for no good reason. There is a choice

This is a crucial and under-represented perspective. I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion, but it is hard to ignore the inherent callousness of arguing over a conflict that will have no direct impact on me or my family.

Thank you for your service.

The difference is, Afghanistan was of negligible importance in comparison. Stakes here are different. Just listen to Putin and take his words literally, because he means them.

Either way, Ukraine needs weapons and bullets. They don’t need more soldiers.

This comment is weird. Who cares about the stakes? Dead people are dead people. Unless you want to get into a "realist realpolitiks" analysis, which coincidentally can also be used to justify the russian war of aggression. I've seen this take pretty often and to me it boils down to "ukraine is in europe and ukrainians are europeans so it's different and it makes this war so much worse" which to me sounds extremely... problematic?

Like the hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan still make those wars and the Civil wars they caused much much more destructive than what's happening in ukraine. It's not a competition, for sure, but it's important to keep that in mind before dismissing or downplaying the consequences of American policy and the enthusiastic support for those wars of the American public .

> ukraine is in europe and ukrainians are europeans so it's different and it makes this war so much worse" which to me sounds extremely... problematic?

It sounds more practical than problematic to me. Afghanistan is 10 times farther away from Western Europe than Ukraine is. If Europe didn't feel a lot more threatened by Russia, they would be insane.

I agree, from a national policy perspective. But on an individual level, which I think was the scope of the discussion, I still don't think that it's okay to value ukrainian lives more than middle eastern/Muslim lives.

I don’t think it’s been a matter of lives dying or who lives are dying. Not for anyone who isn’t Ukrainian (after all then Palestinian, Yemenis, Ethiopian, and other states in conflict would matter as well). It’s about what it would mean if Russia is not only successful but met un challenged. The last time Europe as a continent allowed appeasement the whole world eventually got pulled into the second greatest conflict less in the span of 50 years. Another one would be devastating since a good some of the actors have world ending weapons to use against one another.

A generous interpretation of your parent comment is that, "because of the stakes, the government will take it far more seriously" and, e.g., stand with our soldiers.

> Dead people are dead people.

Reality does not work like that, unfortunately western lives have more value than non western lives.

I can't tell if this comment is satire, I sincerely hope it is.

I’m not from the US. I’m from Eastern Europe. Our grandparents survived the Red Army liberation from Nazi Germany. The Russians were much worse. This is an existential war for not only Ukraine, but whole eastern NATO flank. Putin more or less denies agency of all our countries.

I feel like you are ignoring a major issue with Ukraine. Its a corrupt country. After Russia it is consistently ranked as the most corrupt country in Europe. https://www.google.com/search?q=most+corrupt+countries+in+eu...

How do we even know any of our aid is being used successfully? I have no problem giving aid that is used to fight a proxy war with Russia. I have a huge issue giving aid to a country whose politicians are trying to make money for themselves. Kolomoisky, who is one of Zelensky's main backers, was indicted in the US for bank fraud. He is also in the panama papers. The politicians in Ukraine are corrupt, not as corrupt as old putin imo, but still corrupt.

Now they are saying they need 7 billion dollar a month? I would be okay with this if everything was tracked and open for all to see. Buts it not. For all we know they are going to take 6 billion for themselves.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-14/ukraine-u...

I think, regardless of the value of the point you're trying to make, saying this in this context is callous at best. The comment you're responding to was careful and vulnerable, and if you read between the lines even a tiny bit there is pain there.

We all know what happened in afghanistan right?. Anyone who spent significant time there witnessed horrific suffering. Watched friends come back completely different or not at all.

"Negligible importance" to who? Not to the people who died there, or killed and have to carry that with them forever, or who didn't when they think they should have and have to carry that. Have a little compassion come on.

However one can't simply say everything is Afghanistan. I never supported the war there. We had to many other ways to hit Bin Laden. However I completely support the war in Europe. This war of aggression is just the start if we just roll over for Putin. He won't stop at Ukraine, it will just be a pit stop to Poland and the Baltic states and who knows what after that. Ukraine doesn't stand a chance if we don't send them weapons, food, material, and intelligence reports. I also don't think my opinion is invalid just because I didn't serve on a battlefront. I pay taxes and vote so I get a voice too.

>He won't stop at Ukraine, it will just be a pit stop to Poland and the Baltic states and who knows what after that.

I find it hard to believe this narrative when the US and Ukraine has refused to negotiate on the terms that Russia offered to prevent, and then later stop the war. The rationale given is that Russia was not sincere, but I think we should have tried. From my perspective in the US, a NATO demilitarized Ukraine would have been a win-win for both countries.

Sorry we, as a society, failed our soldiers so badly. It's trite to say but thanks for serving. You'll carry those scars to the grave.

That said, what does this have to do with the article, which is talking about generational sympathies with either Russia or Ukraine? Is there a serious push to get US troops involved, a move which would surely spark WWIII? We're not talking about sending souls down range. Putin already did that. He is sending Russian souls down range and forcing Ukrainian souls down range.

>That said, what does this have to do with the article, which is talking about generational sympathies with either Russia or Ukraine.

The relevance is as an example of the broken trust people that grew up during Iraq and Afghanistan have in the narrative that we are the good guys in foreign policy. After being repeatedly sold a bag of Lies, many look for how we could be tricked into thinking we are the the good guys yet again.

This skepticism and openness to alternative narratives is at the center of the generational divide

The skeptics are primed to ask in what ways the US is complicit in brining about this war, and it what ways it stands to benefit. The dangerous part is that a long track record of lies and self interested foreign wars adds a lot of weight to otherwise less credible narratives regarding Ukraine.