Should the United States keep funding Ukraine?

[DexWest]

Yes

No

Indifference

Other

[nightdrot]

(Offered the following in response to the same question elsewhere on this page.)

Voted "Yes." Unfortunately, international relations are played out against a backdrop of national interests, are more subtle, and tend to take longer to play out than Americans, with their limited historical knowledge, have the patience to endure. As Lord Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

Suffice to add that failure to do so could have serious strategic consequences for the USA. The problem being in this case that while the USA does not have a specific interest in Ukraine winning the war, it has serious interests in Ukraine not losing the war.

Ukraine's current significance to the USA is rather based on its impact on several NATO allies. This especially true of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania and to a lesser extent Hungary. The loss of Ukraine to Russia, absent American security assurances to those aforementioned states, would undermine their strategic position and likely result in the collapse of NATO.

Please also note that the dispute over Ukraine has already, in any case, divided NATO. Britain has been aggressive about sending weapons and diplomatic support to Ukraine. By contrast, Germany is seeking to develop its economic and trade ties with Russia, while using NATO security assurances to protect its own security interests. France, (with some sotto voce help from Italy) in all this, has been quietly seeking to entangle Russia more deeply in Europe, thereby making it a counterweight to German influence in the EU.

Put simply, there is a tangle of conflicting interests not just between NATO and Russia, but within NATO. For the United States to step in with a direct military intervention would likely please Poland, the Baltic States, Romania and the UK, but it would shatter German ties with NATO. This then effectively render NATO "null and void" as it is the fastest strategic access point to eastern Europe, including Russia.

Suffice to say, if the USA's position in Europe is undermine, that plays to the interests of China. Russia and China are not natural allies. Indeed, even when both were communist they were rivals and even fought a brief border war in the early 1960s. Yet if Russia wins in Ukraine, that will play to the interests of China by keeping Russia as a serious rival to the USA in Europe. This then freeing up China to pursue its' aims in the Far East, specifically as relates to Taiwan, and that would mean, in effect, that the USA would be abandoning Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand.

Put simply, the United States cannot walk away from Ukraine, but its interests require that it avoid war. If Russia invades Ukraine, there is little beyond diplomatic and economic sanctions that the United States can offer. This is a game of three dimensional chess and not simply a test of wills. The historic interests of the major European powers are at play and in this case American direct interests are secondary.

For the USA, this is about reassuring NATO's eastern flank, balancing the interests of NATO's other major members - the UK, France, Germany and Italy - in order to keep the alliance whole, and to avoid driving Russia and China closer together. This is not a mere contest of muscle.

Suffice to add that it would be profoundly dangerous to see it in such simplistic terms. By that standard, the money the USA is spending on Ukraine is a mere pittance.

[Matthias345]

The real question is, why is NATO so important to American interests? If it were to disappear, what would be the consequences for the US?

I just have the impression that NATO is just an economic ruin for the USA, which pays for the security of Europeans.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Well, you have two world wars to answer that question.

Those world wars were born of the fact that the states of Europe are relatively equal to each other in economic weight and military power, and thus diplomatic influence. The equality was enough that when their interests were threatened they would form alliances against each other and that, in turn, would ultimately lead to war.

Initially the USA - before both world wars - believed that it could avoid these conflicts and simply stay out of them. However, first, US trade and commerce with Europe was such that US economic interests were adversely impacted by these conflicts.

Second, these conflicts would not be just limited to Europe. Thus, for example, Japan took advantage of the weakness of the states of Europe - this securing its' own position in Asia - and began to aggressively pursue its' interests on the Asian mainland. This again impacting US security and economic interests, to which the USA responded with economic sanctions against Japan. Pearl Harbor to follow.

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Third, the wars in Europe did not stay in Europe. In World War I, in order - they hoped - to keep the Americans out of Europe, the Germans began to make deal with Mexico. This a clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine that the USA could not ignore without undermining not only its' position in the Western Hemisphere, but globally. Thus did the USA enter World War I.

In World War II, the USA counted on the UK to act as a de facto guardian of its' interests in Europe. As the war dragged on US sanctions against Germany and Italy tightened, which then prompted them to form an alliance with Japan. Pearl Harbor happens and Germany and Italy follow with their own war declarations.

Long story short, US economic, security and strategic interests are global and far too tangled up with Europe for the USA to repeat the follies of its' pre-WWI and pre-WWII policies. NATO - as well as ANZUS and the Japan and South Korea security pacts - have kept a peace that, while not perfect, has been far less costly than the blood and treasure of two world wars.

Hence why NATO is maintained.

[Matthias345]

You sound as if Europe still has the political and economic clout of yesteryear.

Our real interests lie in the Indo-Pacific. If NATO disappeared, we could devote our economy to this enormous region. Even if Europe found itself under the protection or domination of another country, this would have practically no impact on the USA, because Europe is no longer as important today as it once was.

The Indo-Pacific is where our real interests lie.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Sorry, but we cannot stand aside from Europe, even in its' diminished capacity. Europe has three nuclear powers. It contains the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th largest economies.

Also, to repeat, a war in Europe would not likely stay in Europe and would free up China to more aggressively pursue its' interests. The world is round, after all.

Yes, China and India have become more important in the global balance. However, it is a mistake to assume that has no consequences globally and thus to the USA. Europe is less important because our presence has made it so. If you want to bring Europe back into the limelight, let the USA step aside and watch as China, India, Russia and other powers move to fill the vacuum.

[Julie4]

I came across this question by chance, but I have to say that the EU is the world's most important market in terms of trade and is the USA's biggest trading partner, so the economic consequences could be disastrous for the USA and for the other countries of Europe if another power were to ensure Europe's security or domination.

As for NATO, if it no longer exists, what will the USA's security guarantees be worth on a global scale?

If I've made a mistake @nightdrot will correct me 😅

[nightdrot]

@Julie4 You got it. In fact, I meant to mention more specifically that the EU is the USA's biggest trading partner. So you added an important extra point that emphasizes my case.

Many thanks.

[Matthias345]

I'm sorry to say that , but it doesn't make sense to say that the EU is the USA's biggest trading partner, because the EU is not a nation. The USA trades with EU member countries but not with the EU. So it doesn't mean much to say that the EU is the USA's main trading partner.

[nightdrot]

@Matthias345 Yes, but they all the member states operate under the same trade rules and this effectively makes them - for economic purposes - a single state.

If the USA, for example, were to blockade one, it would blockade all. Keeping also in mind that money is fungible and therefore - with all using the "euro" - you are effectively dealing with a single entity.

Indeed, that was part of the point of the EU. To reduce the economic competition among its' various states, thereby to reduce the rivalries between those states.

[ibodi]

I understand that USA's principle but not by weapon they should look for key point.

Like now pland reject ukraine's wheat for farmers. Also as China HUAWEI problems. solve it before the war and trace it cause. USA also thought taiwan can now develop their weapon therefore sell them weapon. You always think that was not impossible in other nations. You did that when you find that they can. As your impression. I dont think that is justice that control people depending in process to be justice that is why China find what is economic right in humen right.

[catarecute]

yes because america know what they are doing. the wouldn't pay for anything if they didn't make at least three times back from their investment.

[Anonymous]

Question is this: Should America stop kicking the can down the rough road in keeping the govt open. Deciding factor Oct first.

[Opinion Owner]

Thanks. xx

[lightbulb27]

no, but they have no other negotiation play so what else do they do? they will continue and reap the benefits of the inflation. besides, it's ensuring an update of stockpiles of weapons, huge $ for contractors /workers at low cost so far to americans. So from the govt viewpoint, its a "great deal".

but it's miserable for humans, the planet with many ripple effects.

[Anonymous]

Ad long as Ukraine is holding. The United States does have a vested interest in bleeding Russia in Ukraine. Like it or not that just the way it is. But as anything everything is relative. There is funding and then there is fighting the war for them. I'm not suggesting we should do that. And if Ukraine's war is costing us too much or worse, costing us more than it's costing Russia. Then it's a fruitless endeavor.

[Anonymous]

Dude, it is a proxy war.

This is American's war, the Ukraine is just the location, its nothing to do with it, so yes the US will continue to fund it and no they should not have started a war with Russia.

[AngryCarl2]

It's a big stretch to accuse the US of starting a war. It was Putin's decision to roll tanks into Ukraine, just as it was his idea to annex Crimea. To most of us it looks like typical Russian imperialism.

[Opinion Owner]

@AngryCarl2 You can only be hopelessly lost in your indoctrination to think that.

What about the pipeline, is that any kind of clue for you?

There is even a video of Biden talking about blowing it up.

Why would Russia blow up their own pipeline?

If they wanted to cut off the gas supply they could literally have just turned it off at the tap.

They had nothing to gain by doing it.

But the western media knows immediately that it was Russia apparently. Something that they could not possibly know, the only way that would be possible infact is if the people who actually did it, told them, or more accurately the media is controlled by the same group of psychopaths who control the Western world who blew up the pipeline to hurt Russia and then they used their propaganda machine to put the blame onto Russia.

[Opinion Owner]

Watch this;

https://vimeo.com/338863157

[Opinion Owner]

and this www.youtube.com/watch

[AngryCarl2]

War was already underway before the pipeline incident.

[Opinion Owner]

@AngryCarl2 It didn't say it started the war, that isn't the point.

The point is that the Russian's were instantly assigned blame for it but it makes no sense for them to have done that.

It's not the whole story, it's just one part of it but if you acknowledge that it makes no sense for the Russian's to blow up the pipeline then you can say with complete certainty that the western media is complict in a propaganda campaign against the citizens of America and Europe, you then know that they are working hand in hand with the state to decieve the people and do what Chomsky refers to as 'manufacturing consent'.

But we already knew this from 9/11 and the war on terror etc.

This isn't an isolated incident or a statistically anomaly, this is business as usual, an unbroken pattern of behaviour going back at least decades.

So we do not live in the free democratic systems that we are told that we live in, we infact live in an Orwellian nightmare.

The evidence is overwhelming and right in front of you, only your indoctrination and brainwashing prevent you from seeing the obviousness of the truth.

[Dargil]

It is not our business. Biden has a hard on for the Russians because he thinks they denied Hillary the election in favor of Trump. He is also appeasing the Military Industrial Complex.

[exitseven]

No I think over 100 billion dollars to defend a country that we have no stake in while the rest of NATO spende 12 bucks and an old army jeep is quite enough. Time to cut the cord.

[jshm2]

Just Murcia being Murica. Whatever is being spent on Ukraine, dwarfs whatever was wasted on Afghanistan and Iraq.

[normalice]

You should but "HeT" instead of "no" so the people who clicked it could read it better 😅

[DummyThiccFeraligatr]

It's a wonderful investment and money laundering opportunity for our business and political class, so we can't let that opportunity go to waste, can we?

[Alex-Snow]

Yes they are being invaded by a dictator with human rights violations. It is about neighbors helping neighbors.

[LimitedBenefits101]

Not at all, let them europeans fund ukraine , after all Europe is not very fond of us.

Imagine giving BILLIONS to these mfs and still can't win... PATHETIC

[tfan1]

Bonehead biden has sent and done Way too much already!

[msc545]

No, enough is enough. We alrady use half the budget to provide socialism for US defense contractors.

[Pohjolan]

Better to halt Russia now than when they have broken article 5.

[OddBeMe]

Yes we should dissuade Putin from invading other countries. Not to mention the war crimes.

[MarshmalowTreats]

No, let Europe take over.

[gorydetails]

absolutely not.