Should the United States keep funding Ukraine? What’s your opinion?

[DexWest]

I’m tired. He’s like a homeless begger on a street corner

Yes

No

Other Opinion

I’m indifferent

[nightdrot]

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.

[Snakeyes7]

What is happening in Ukraine is unfortunate but this is not worth destroying the US economy over.

[madhatters4]

the money is already allocated. if it doesn't go to ukraine it's going to end up in a less worthwhile place.

also if russia starts to spread it's control, which is their intention, the results are far worse than already spent money going to Ukraine

[madhatters4]

if we want to argue how our budgets are allocated then that's fine. but being upset money already spent is like jumping into an empty pool. don't complain about the water that's already gone, fix the leak in the pool

[DubiousIntentions]

They said funding new money, not about funding where the checks have already been written. Money going to a less worthwhile place? How about helping the homeless and homeless vets? How about no new taxes? How about shoring up Social Security, set to run out of funds by 2035? How about spending money on new prisons instead of releasing prisoners because of overcrowding? We have sent $billions. Who else is chipping in? We don't have all this available money as we can't pay our debts now and there is talk about the government not being able to operate again, even after raising the debt once again. Does our government think money grows on trees? Maybe stop putting money into everyone's pocket, like Biden's who became a multi millionaire on a senator's salary.

[madhatters4]

@DubiousIntentions the question is "Should the United States keep funding Ukraine? What’s your opinion?"

doesn't say anything about new funding

[DubiousIntentions]

You said: the money is already allocated. So any more support for Ukraine after that would have to be new funding. I want to know who is REALLY getting the money we send? Oligarchs? With all the weapons and cash we sent, they should have won the war by now.

[Texaskid1]

Why do we care about the Ukraine?

I say let Putin gobble up the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine and the ethnic Ukrainians can have their own new Republic. God knows that so many Ukrainians are NAZI supporters to begin with.

This is just another one of our endless wars. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and what did we achieve? How many American lives were lost? How much money did we blow away and give up to our weapons manufacturers? Notice that as soon as we pulled out of Afgani lands all of the sudden we had to go and help help those nazi loving Ukranians. Our leaders always have an excuse for some bullshit war $$$

I say we put all that military money to good use right here in the USA.

America first!!!

We have crumbling infrastructure , tons of homeless people , a shitty medical care system, public schools that are falling apart... but we need to feed the insatiable military machine. I lean toward the conservative side of the aisle but I don't trust either political party anymore. They don't have the interest of the American people at heart.

[jshm2]

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

So you understand why people laugh at you. It's like spending your lottery win on a shit house and then arguing over the cost of it's door bell.

Murica expected to "win" within a week. It only budgeted for that. Everyone else stepped up to save it blushes, and even Poland has pulled out.

[loveslongnails]

Yes, because the money is coming out of the already over-inflated, often unaccounted for excessive defense budget anyway. Republicans make it sound like that money would go towards something to help the hard-working people of the USA if it wasn't going to Ukraine, but that's a complete lie. Just more R's propaganda, as usual.

[KrakenAttackin]

Fuck no! As long as we have homeless, unemployed, people in poverty; Ukraine should not get another dime.

[exitseven]

No. 100 billion dollars ie enough. Let the rest of NATO have a turn at this.

[msc545]

No. Enough is enough - all it is is roiundabout payment plan for US military contractors.

[Drewtate]

Cheapest war the US ever fought

[butterly248]

I think they should cut down on the budget