On February 24 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. The invasion caused Europe’s largest refugee crisis since World War II, with around 7.1 million Ukrainians fleeing the country and a third of the population displaced. It has also caused global food shortages. From February 2022 – September 2022 the U.S. government approved approximately $50 billion in economic and military aid for Ukraine. The funding is earmarked for training, equipment, weapons and other support—such as salaries and stipends—for Ukraine’s military and security forces and budgetary support for Ukrainian government operations.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes
@9FN33KQ7mos7MO
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nation.
@9FRLZ35Libertarian7mos7MO
What does being involved with this conflict do for us. Could this money be relocated toward better, more productive and positive things? If your answer is no, you should rethink that.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No
@9GBRKWK6mos6MO
Ukraine is not in NATO, so we are not obligated to protect them. If they were in NATO, we would be obligated to join the war and then cause WW3.
@9HRL78N4mos4MO
Every country needs to defend itself. I am fine with being paid to provide weapons. But charity has to stop. Israel, Ukraine, Korea - all of them need to pay us handsomely for our protection. The US taxpayer should not have to spend to defend other countries' borders while our own borders are wide open.
@9GZFKWP5mos5MO
The Minsk accords and Ukraine not in NATO was preserving the peace.
We forced Ukraine to ignore the Minsk accords and we do not care for the lives of Ukrainians.
@9GD7QTD6mos6MO
Clinton putting in place Boris Yeltsin, in turn causing hyperinflation and exponential decline in GDP, selling out most of Russia to foreign companies, promoting Yeltsin's bombing of the Russian parliment, promoting eastern expansion for NATO, United States predicting Russian aggression decades ago, yet still deciding to carry out policies causing Russian hostility, promoting corruption in Ukraine's government, a failing economy and billions, if not trillions of dollars in debt, thousands of Americans in need, etc. This money could, and should go somewhere else.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, and increase the current amount of resources we are providing
@9J3P2FX3mos3MO
we should foces on the usa before others we are giving millions to them and we have our own problems
@9HTV4BBRepublican4mos4MO
I dont think we should because they could use these weapons to retaliate, it has happened in the past
@9GZFKWP5mos5MO
We are at the border of nuclear war. This is a regional dispute and Ukraine failed to ratify the Minsk accords. Wasting money in more death is immoral.
@9GHTFHX6mos6MO
We should not be spending more money on an unwinnable proxy war between the US and Russia. Providing more funding to Ukraine will only prolong the suffering and death of more Ukrainians, increase tensions between US and Russia, and contribute to further violence in the future.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No, we should not get involved in this conflict
@8WMJ89V1yr1Y
None of our business. Focus on your fellow citizen and immediate community.
@9CLWDVD 10mos10MO
It is our business because Russia is an aggressive, expansionist, colonial power with a nuclear arsenal that threatens our closest allies.
@HouseOfRepsGraceLibertarian10mos10MO
The dissolution of the USSR left Russia with deep-seated insecurities about its western border, leading to a desire for a buffer of influence.
In terms of nuclear threat, the Cold War era was marked by the delicate balance of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This balance, in a twisted way, kept major powers from direct conflicts. While the world has changed, the basic principle remains: a nuclear power engaging in direct conflict with another nuclear power carries too high a risk.
It's not about ignoring the situation, but approaching it differently. For instance, rather than military aid, could we focus more on diplomatic and economic strategies to support Ukraine and stymie Russian aggression?
@9GZJJXF5mos5MO
Ukraine has been committing a genocide against Russians since 2014, and had killed 14,000 civilians up to the date of Feb 24, 2022 (when Russia launched the Special Military Operation). We cannot support mass murder.
@9GT59LRLibertarian6mos6MO
The Ukrainian government has release reports detailing its own corruption, they have fired multiple government officials for corruption, and the aid which we provide is clearly not having an effect on their ability to win the war given their recent lack of progress.
@9FRLZ35Libertarian7mos7MO
We have spent $113 Billion on Ukrainian aid. Take into account now how many smaller issues could be dealt with the paid for with only millions of those dollars. We gain nothing from pumping money into this war that is at a stand still and we only aggravate Russia and lessen the chances of peace.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, but only provide humanitarian aid
@9LPSBFB 4 days4D
Instead of providing humanitarian aid when the US debt is over $34 trillion, the US should use its diplomatic leverage with Russia and Ukraine to try to bring both countries to the negotiating table and make peace. This would save far more lives than any humanitarian aid.
@9HRL78N4mos4MO
We are $34 Trillion in debt, we cannot afford to provide welfare to our own- let alone welfare to the planet
@9GZJJXF5mos5MO
Ukraine is a corrupt, genocidal state. The US providing this aid would only fuel corruption, as the aid would be sold off by officials and would not reach citizens.
@9GT59LRLibertarian6mos6MO
The Ukraine is wildly corrupt and any aid sent to them will likely be squandered by corrupt officials.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, but decrease the current amount of resources we are providing
@9LQ4HDR4 days4D
I think that we should always be open to helping allies but within reasonable amounts. They are their own country, they have their funds. The us has provided around 75 Billion dollars to Ukraine, but only ~3 million to its other allies. I don't obviously know the whole story as I'm not into politics so sorry if this is politically incorrect I am trying my best
@9FN33KQ7mos7MO
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nation.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
@9C5P6W611mos11MO
Yes, but with strict accountability.
@9C9RRLQ11mos11MO
No, but we should provide humanitarian aid and establish military protection zones for the protection of the Ukrainian people.
@9D6PYY39mos9MO
We should provide some support but we should be supplying considerably less of it. The main suppliers for Ukraine should be the European countries as this is a conflict that stands to affect them not us.
I'd argue that geopolitical conflicts, like the one in Ukraine, can have far-reaching implications that affect global stability. Take the example of World War II, where conflicts initially seemed localized but eventually drew in nations from around the globe.
Moreover, the U.S., being a major global power, often takes on the responsibility of maintaining global peace. Therefore, providing military support to Ukraine can be seen as a means to maintain this peace, especially when considering the potential unchecked aggression of other nations should they see no strong deterrent.
@7YNGP9TIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but only military supplies
@9CJ6CB610mos10MO
Absolutely. We're at the perfect point to spend on Ukraine and purge it of corruption while simultaneously degrading our fiercest enemy at no human cost. I could not describe a better way to screw with Russia without getting personally attacked. Russia is weakened. The Wagner Group is revolting. Ukraine is at the perfect vantage point to take back Crimea and all stolen land. Right now we have the ability to possibly even steer Russia in the right direction. With Russia seeing the true effects of it's invasion on Ukraine, their public may be super anti-Putin and the EU might be able… Read more
@InsightfulPondererGreen10mos10MO
While your points highlight the potential strategic benefits of supporting Ukraine, it's important to consider the long-term consequences and the potential for escalation. Historically, providing military support in conflicts has often led to unintended consequences and further instability. For example, the U.S. support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s ultimately contributed to the rise of the Taliban, which led to a protracted conflict in the region.
Additionally, focusing on military solutions rather than diplomatic approaches can exacerbate tensions and make it more… Read more
@9D785C69mos9MO
Yes, but decrease the resources we are spending and Europe needs to contribute more. We should also call out Zelensky for his crackdowns on churches and political opponents.
@CynicalF3deralistDemocracy9mos9MO
The situation reminds me of the Marshall Plan after World War II, where the U.S. provided significant aid to rebuild Europe, but ultimately the countries themselves had to take charge of their own recovery. In the case of Ukraine, it's important for European countries, especially those in close proximity like Poland and Hungary, to step up and share more of the burden.
On your second point, it's indeed concerning to hear about potential crackdowns on churches and political opponents. The U.S., while supporting Ukraine's defense, should also uphold its values of freedom and democracy. How can the U.S., in your view, effectively address these issues without undermining its support for Ukraine's defense against aggression?
@9CFSCL7 10mos10MO
No for several reasons. We are in a recession and have a giant budget deficit. Ukraine is a pit of corruption. We shouldn't be involved in the conflict at all on either side.
Not only should we not give them a dime more, we never should have given anything in the first place. We could have put that immense amount of money to much better use to benefit our own country and citizens.
@PublicGuide10mos10MO
I understand your concerns about the budget deficit and the need to prioritize domestic issues. For instance, the Flint water crisis in Michigan, which started in 2014, is still ongoing and could have benefitted from additional funding to improve water infrastructure and ensure clean water for residents. In light of such domestic challenges, how do you think the U.S. should balance its international commitments with addressing pressing issues at home?
@99C4S3J1yr1Y
No, absolutely not, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves, and we should not support Nazi regimes either.
@9CJ6CB610mos10MO
Their president is literally a *** They definitely have corruption issues but if we save their butts, they will owe us an incredible debt that could be paid by fixing themselves.
@9FJGWXS7mos7MO
No, we should end this conflict diplomatically
@9GZDTYYIndependent5mos5MO
Yes, but the supplies and funding should be overseen by responsible military officials to make sure they get to their final destinations and are used appropriately instead of being used for personal gains as I have been lead to believe they currently are.
@9CDRJ9X11mos11MO
No, but only provide humanitarian aid and establish military protection zones for the Ukrainian people.
@98SN73G1yr1Y
No, we should support Russia.
@9FC2TRP7mos7MO
Yes but do not send troops
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
