The GOP Split on Ukraine Aid Isn't Really About Ukraine
For most aid critics, the urge to cut off Kyiv appears unconnected to any sort of principled realism, non-interventionism, or even isolationism.

When the new GOP House majority finally selects a speaker and gets down to business, it will have another coalition-rendering issue to address: whether to continue, scrutinize, reduce, or end U.S. aid to Ukraine.
The debate promises to be messy—and not only because the majority is so narrow. The Republican Party is split on foreign policy, but this is playing out less as a normal foreign policy dispute than an odd intrusion of domestic politics into foreign affairs. For most aid critics, the urge to cut off Kyiv appears unconnected to any sort of principled realism, non-interventionism, or even isolationism. It looks much more like an offshoot of the culture war and the GOP's ongoing thrall to former President Donald Trump.
On one side of this question are lawmakers like Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who has called for "more oversight and accountability in terms of the funding" but more fundamentally insists "we gotta give [the Ukrainians] what they need." That is also the position of the Biden administration and most congressional Democrats, and that bipartisan agreement has ensured a steady stream of U.S. dollars and weapons to Kyiv over the past 10 months.
The pro-aid view still seems to be the dominant GOP stance in the Senate. An unsuccessful inspector general proposal from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and explicit anti-aid comments from Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) aside, Republican senators have longer tenures and a median foreign policy contiguous with a Cold War view of American global dominance and the interventionism of the George W. Bush years. Many Senate Republicans likely fall about where Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lands: "Continuing our support for Ukraine is morally right, but it is not only that," he tweeted in December. "It is also a direct investment in cold, hard, American interests."
The House GOP presents a more chaotic picture. McCaul isn't alone in backing ongoing aid, but Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the presumptive caucus leader until he lost six speaker votes this week, indicated in October that a House under his leadership might try to reduce or eliminate aid to Ukraine.
"I think people are going to be sitting in a recession and they're not going to write a blank check to Ukraine," McCarthy said in an interview. "Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can't be the only thing they do, and it can't be a blank check." A number of other House Republicans have commented along similar lines, some calling for oversight and others, like Reps. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), categorically opposing additional funds for Kyiv.
Where the anti-aid position gets extra spicy, though, is among the right-wing commentariat, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to Washington last month was met by intense vitriol. The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh dubbed Zelensky a "grifting leech;" Tucker Carlson called him a "strip club manager" whom U.S. lawmakers love more than their own constituents; and Donald Trump Jr., refighting old family battles, labeled him an "ungrateful international welfare queen." Polling shows GOP support for Ukraine aid has already declined, and it's not difficult to imagine House Republicans feeling pressure from the base to move from skeptical to outright critical of Ukraine aid if remarks like these continue.
Whatever happens, it's worth noting what the anti-Ukraine aid crowd in Congress generally doesn't support: ending U.S. weapons transfers and military funding to other countries.
Hawley, for example, has connected his opposition to Ukraine aid to his enthusiasm for Taiwan aid. Earlier this year, he introduced legislation to fast-track U.S. arms sales to Taipei. He's also repeatedly voted against resolutions stopping weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and he likewise voted against ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen's civil war.
Similarly, Vance has suggested that until semiconductor production is ramped up domestically, the U.S. would need to defend Taiwan against Chinese attack. Gaetz has a more mixed record—he's willing to cut off U.S. backing for Saudi Arabia in Yemen—but he's uniquely targeted Ukraine aid for slashing. Cutting aid to Israel is certainly off the table. Indeed, none of the representatives I've named here voted against $1 billion in funding for Israel's Iron Dome last year, and Hawley and Vance are as effusive in their pledges of support for Israel as congressional Republicans tend to be.
The fuller picture, then, doesn't show a GOP pivot to America as "well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but "champion and vindicator only of her own." A better explanation is simple partisan reaction: Many Democrats believe Trump is in bed with Moscow and made investigating his alleged ties to the Kremlin a major theme of his four years in office. That has translated to a broader Democratic focus on Russia as the primary threat to the United States and, by extension, on Ukraine as a pseudo-ally particularly deserving of our support.
In response, some Republicans have—well, not quite embraced Russia, but certainly deemphasized it as a security risk compared to what they likely would have said without the recent history of Russiagate. They've cast China as the primary threat instead and, by extension, made Taiwan the pseudo-ally deserving support. And insofar as backing Ukraine is a Democratic cause—insofar as Ukrainian flags flutter over "In this house we believe" signs, as they reliably do in my neighborhood—GOP opposition to Ukraine aid naturally follows, despite the obvious sympathy of the Ukrainian cause.
Whether that opposition will be enough to change U.S. policy here remains to be seen, especially after the House's chaotic first week. And maybe even more uncertain is whether this newfound skepticism of an intervention abroad will have any long-term influence on Republican foreign policy. Elect a GOP president who wants to support Ukraine and my guess is this intra-party rift will suddenly start to shrink.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So Reason's Libertarian take is that we should keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign wars and any opposition is unconnected to any sort of principled realism, non-interventionism, or even isolationism?
No. They said *this* opposition is unconnected to any sort of principled realism ...
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://www.richapp2.com
Reason.com is unconnected to any sort of principled realism …
No, Reason’s take is that any stance of the Republicans on anything is unconnected to any sort of principled realism, non-interventionism, or even isolationism.
Yes, and a companion article to this is how the Democrats and neocons (but I repeat myself) are blindly behind involving the US in an escalating military situation, even suggesting all out war with Russia including but not limited to American boots on the ground IN Ukraine, merely because Putin supported Donald Trump on Facebook and something something Steele Dossier.
Seen some increased fighter jet activity. Not super out of the norm yet, but 2×2 flying extremely tight formation yesterday.
Today just 2 in a more conventional lead-wingman posture.
I've heard a few more last 2 days, but haven't caught sight of all them.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
I've noticed a lot more C-17s than usual. Don't know if there's any connection.
People should listen to this.
Living in Atlanta during gulf 1 and 2 and Afghanistan, it was easy to foretell the coming invasions.
All 3 times there was a lot of air activity in my area for months. Low flying c130s, fighters, a10s, apache groups. Very unusual low level flights all over the area.
Then....
Nothing.
Suddenly zero flights of any kind.
And a week or so later we begin a huge air campaign in a foreign country.
So watch for the planes disappearing. You can become the local psychic and predict an immenent air assault.
I am now getting paid every month online more than $16k just by doing very easy and simple job. Last month i have received $17942 from this easy online job just by giving this only 2 hrs a day using my laptop. Everybody can now get this home job and start earning real cash online right now by just follow instructions mentioned on this website............ https://richsalary78.blogspot.com
^ This.
"Only democrats are good and have honest beliefs and principles."
-The totally not-at-all democrat supporting staffers at Reason
Republicans bad, Woke leftist Democrats good!
The democrats and this administration are spending billions to secure the borders of Syria, Egypt & The Ukraine, while specifically blocking any funding or requirements to secure our own borders. They are a disgrace!
We need to cease granting money and weapons to the Ukraine dictatorship! And same for all these attempts to change communist and Marxist regimes.
When the new GOP House majority finally selects a speaker and gets down to business, it will have another coalition-rendering issue to address: whether to continue, scrutinize, reduce, or end U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Luckily, there is no debate amongst the Democrats. UNITY!
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
"For most aid critics, the urge to cut off Kyiv appears unconnected to any sort of principled realism, non-interventionism, or even isolationism."
So what? Why should the motives of non-libertarians matter if they're still doing the right thing?
Marxist Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer (AKA Queen of the Internet Cesspools) is THE world's foremost AUTHORITY and AUTHORITARIAN on just who is, and who is NOT, a TRUE libertarian! We can all TRUST in Her!!!
JungleBook, Trust in Kaa... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY8jUuEzJQ
Compared to you Xi Jinping is a fucking libertarian.
You're a Democratic Party bot who tries to censor and shut down conversation here with heckler's veto shitposts.
STOP. WRITING. CHECKS.
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, Putin is no angel. On the other hand, it would be really satisfying to see globohomo getting a long overdue black eye.
Decisions, decisions....
We send our money to West Ukraine. To the Democrats. Our money is not going to East Ukraine (now annexed by Russia) to the traditionalists, to the Russian Orthodox Christians. There was a civil war and a religious war going on.
I am torn as well but current events aside the idea of allowing Russia to dominate over Ukraine again after the Russia created hell on Earth for Ukrainians the last time doesn't sit well with me. It be like putting Germany in charge of Israel just a few years after WWII (granted that analogy breaks down, due to Russia's historical sphere of influence, can't say the same for Germany/Holy Land).
That all changes though for me if 1) Ukraine uses USA weapon system within Russia proper. Sucks for Ukraine but that's a line I'm not willing to cross for them. 2) USA boots on the ground.
That said, we should also be getting guarantees of repayment. Doesn't even need to be profitable or break even. But Ukraine shouldn't be given a blank check. Maybe making peace makes more sense than owing billions fighting over land worth millions.
"allowing Russia to dominate over Ukraine again after the Russia created hell on Earth for Ukrainians the last time doesn’t sit well with me"
And it sits better for the US to help the ethnic Galicians of Kiev slaughter the ethnic Russians of regions that have declared independence from Ukraine and asked to become part of Russia???
"That all changes though for me if 1) Ukraine uses USA weapon system within Russia proper. Sucks for Ukraine but that’s a line I’m not willing to cross for them"
Too late.
You must have missed all the HIMARS celebration.
USA? This is a Yourupeean war like France, Spain and England murdering each other in Jefferson's day. If NATO is too cowardly to act, now would be a good time to repossess any yank nukes in their territories before they simply enlarge KGB stockpiles.
I have two positions on all this aid.
The government has no right to steal taxes from me in the first place, let alone sending it to foreign countries without asking my permission.
If government were to stop stealing taxes from me, I would probably donate money to Ukraine, not out of love or admiration for their freedom-loving principles, but because Putin is a thug violating all "civilized" norms by taking territory by force in 2014. The similarity with 1938 is striking. Both Czechoslovakia and Ukraine had been formed ±20 years before out of the disintegration of an empire, the invader is a pure dictator who makes the victim's weak democracy look worth saving, and the dictator has made it clear his current target is not his last.
I'd much rather send Ukraine the equipment now than have the dictator spin the world into another full-scale global war.
I do not believe Russia is willing to start a nuclear war, for the same reason I do not think North Korea or Iran is: whatever the leader may want to do, his orders have to go through several layers of apparatchiks who would much rather keep their life of luxury than allow the leader to start a nuclear war.
"Putin is a thug violating all “civilized” norms by taking territory by force in 2014. The similarity with 1938 is striking."
Jfc.
You're literally a lying propagandist.
Your comment is literally content-free.
I've provided the content dozens of times, but people like you who just started paying attention to Ukraine 11 months ago won't listen or do any research for yourself.
Crimea immediately seceded when Yanukovych was ousted, after holding mass pro-Russian demonstrations throughout the whole period of the euromaidan protests elsewhere. They did this, and appealed to Russia for aid, entirely through constitutional means (were you even aware Crimea had its own constitution, and autonomous status within Ukraine's constitution), unlike the coup in Kiev.
Russia didn't invade Crimea. Russia didn't invade the Donbass. Ukraine did.
Russia agreed by treaty to honor the 1994 borders of Ukraine, including Crimea being part of Ukraine since 1954. 20 years later Russia invaded Crimea and called it their own. They also began supporting Russian separatists in the Donbas.
How did Ukraine invade Crimea when it was within their borders? How did Ukraine invade Donbas when it was within their borders.
You are wrong. To paraphrase yourself, did you get your talking points from the Putin Council?
Your intellectual honesty is not apparent.
Ok, soviet.
Cowardly insults again? Usually means you have no facts or logic. I provided my reasoning, you have provided none.
Putin coward. Is that how you like it?
"I don't know about any of those stupid facts on the ground, but you're wrong because Soviet borders are sacred and the 'liberal' world order must be maintained. I love being a WEF serf who will die for NATO's right to destroy Russia!"
Insults, insults, insults. Not a single rebuttal. Pretend borders don't matter. Pretend treaties don't matter.
Keep on pretending, it will get you far.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by.
follow instructions on this website……… http://Www.workstar24.com
"I do not believe Russia is willing to start a nuclear war"
Because the Atlantic Council told you not to believe that at the moment.
I listed my reasons. Your counter is as content-free as your previous reply.
Cowards and propagandists reply without content.
Sure, Bill Kristol.
You like insults? You prefer insults over persuasion?
You are a fucking coward.
Looks like commissar is triggered
You haven't provided a rebuttal yet. That is how cowards and propagandists operate. Is that how you choose to be seen?
Your reasons are ridiculous.
Betting the lives of billions of people on guesses about the internal reward structure of the Russian military is reckless. Dictators have ways of achieving compliance, in particular ex KGB dictators.
That's because Ukraine doesn't matter to the US and because Ukraine is Europe's responsibility. Taiwan does matter to the US.
But the GOP has a diversity of viewpoints on this, from "no military aid for anybody" to "double the military budget".
The Dems just do whatever their party leadership tells them, which is mostly in line with Biden's personal corrupt interests.
I'm going to need some sort of proof for the assertion that:
"more oversight and accountability in terms of the funding" . . . but . . . "we gotta give [the Ukrainians] what they need."
is the position of the Biden administration or ANY Democrats. Especially that first part.
the segunda part was literally spoken out loud by Cocaine Mitch as the #1 goal of the Republican Party.
The ONLY way they want more oversight of the funding is to make certain the Big Guy gets every penny of his 10%.
That's what Rand Paul wanted well at least more oversight along the lines of Afghan war system(for what that was worth)
Since Dems didn't advance it in the Senate, I think you have your answer.
"Coalition-rending" seems more appropriate than "rendering" in line one, no?
Everyone at reason is an editor, but no one edits.
Most politicians in this country deserve rendering.
What a dumb take, especially odd since this rag often takes the “outcomes over principles” route.
But some outcomes matter less than others.
>>the urge to cut off Kyiv appears unconnected to any sort of principled realism
stopping the Ruling Class Crime Syndicate is likely unrealistic, but unprincipled?
Here's a below the fold, back page article in my local rag. Just a wonky policy article, like the house passing some random bill they hand to their third tier reporters.
Biden restricting Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians at border
If Trump passed a "muslim ban" what would this be?
A witch's brew of regular racism, Aryan white nationalism, Jewish Zionism, white supremacy, and anti-Semitism?
A re-election campaign.
Holy shit... Did our libertarian magazine just go all in on "if you don't support the military industrial complex, you are a Russian agent"?
Because I think they did.
Wow.
this one is for the people who read but don't comment
I mean, they've been flirting with calling everyone Russian agents for at least the past 5 years (and I assume since 2016, but I didn't start visiting regularly until 2018)
^Nailed it.
Man, I'm old enough to remember when Libertarians were against funding wars.
insofar as Ukrainian flags flutter over "In this house we believe" signs, as they reliably do in my neighborhood
White people... amirite?
I had probably a dozen Ukraine flags in my neighborhood. A few still fly. None have any connection to the country, as far as I know.
I also have a nutcase who has a giant Q anon poster. So, go figure. Dudes house is well into the 6 figures too.
The funniest part is, in my neighborhood, it's not 'white people', but a particular kind of white people. That is, many of the people flying Ukrainian flags are native born Georgians, Ukrainians, and Pollacks that I know personally, none of them have the "In this house" sign in their yard. Everyone I know personally who does have a "In this house" in their yard, doesn't speak any Slavic language, even enough to ask for a bathroom or to know the swear words.
We currently fund the Ukraine military at twice the budget of the Russian military.
And that is just the US.
Without debate.
And apparently the "real libertarian" position is that even debating this funding makes you an unprincipled Russian agent?
From the same "Libertarians" that propped up the Russian Hoax for years and have not apologized. Full neo-con around these parts. Sad.
Republicans are the unprincipled ones for supporting endless domestic defense spending.
The libertarian thing to do is to cleanse the left, and then deal with the neocon types.
Here's another article.
What the far-right Republicans want: To remake Congress and the government
Umm, Ok. Pretty much all of my now rather considerably long life the Left has explicitly claimed to want to remake Congress and the Government.
At least the Times admits that what these fascistic hard-right politicians want is to limit the size, scope and reach of the federal government, something only a hard right, nothing-before-the-state-nothing-outside-the-state fascist would want.
Hard right, far right. far far right. Hard far right! Far hard right! Hard far hard far far hard right!
Google: Far left
Far left politics Wikipedia
What 'far left' means to liberals and conservatives (allsides.com)
Why do "left" and "Right" mean Liberal and conservative (dictionary .com)
Left wing vs right wing- difference and comparison (diffen.com)
Huh, pretty wonky 'definition stuff'. Mmmkay.
Google Far Right:
Far-right politics Wikipedia
Top stories:
What the far-right republicans want: To remake Congress and the Government (New York Times)
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez reveals why she was talking to far-right Republicans (The Guardian)
US House speaker vote enters third day of chaos as gop leader McCarthy seeks... (CNBC)
NYPD Sparks Outrage for Escorting Proud Boys to Subway Allowing them to evade fares (Democracy Now!)
The Far Right (world) Guardian
Political Extremism and Radicalism
-- History of Right Wing Extremism
The Far Right Al Jazeera
Chaos in the House: Is This Just the Start of a Far-Right Attempt to Make Congress Dysfunctional? Democracy Now
Surveying the Landscape of the American Far Right - Extremism.gwu.edu
Alt-Right Protesters Brandish Nazi Flag at Florida Drag Event
.......
Far-right protesters interrupted a Florida art center’s family-friendly drag event over the weekend, displaying flags and signs with neo-Nazi symbols and leading volunteer organizers to temporarily secure the venue.
https://hyperallergic.com/785647/alt-right-protesters-brandish-nazi-flag-at-florida-drag-event/
Neo Nazi Symbols.
https://twitter.com/FischerKing64/status/1611083691748659200?t=fO6fmieqrsCbUJh_9_RgFg&s=19
Left doesn't call everyone "fascist" just as an epithet. Fascists are the one group that ever successfully put down communist movements. Mussolini jailed Gramsci. Franco, Pinochet, etc. They call people fascists b/c effective rightwing backlash genuinely frightens them.
So anyone on the right who demonstrates any kind of effectiveness is going to be called a "fascist." Think of the film Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, where emotionless aliens clone humans. Whenever they see real human, they let out high-pitched scream. The left says "fascist."
The purpose of the term is to call everyone in at once to destroy the person, like the aliens do to real people. The RW person must be destroyed b/c he stands up for human nature, competence, hierarchy - all of which are mortal threats to the current state of affairs.
Democrats DO essentially have a hive mind.
“Chaos in the House: Is This Just the Start of a Far-Right Attempt to Make Congress Dysfunctional? Democracy Now”
If by “dysfunctional” they mean “pass no laws and subpoena no innocent people”, I sure hope so!
This is like throwing billions away e.g. by giving it to General Robert E. Lee in March 1865 and expecting a different result.
But if your friend at the cannon and rifle manufacturing company doesn't care who wins as long as the check clears, it sounds like a great idea.
This is a really, really poor and tiresome form of analysis.
First of all, Ms Kristian makes the pedestrian mistake of confusing “Principles she doesn’t like” with “un-principled”. While I feel that the best course of action is generally American isolationism, it is easy to see basic principles at play in many of these stances. For example, if your principles include helping defend strategic interests to the United States, there is easily a case to be made that Taiwan (and its unique market position as Semi Conductor powerhouse) is worthy of defending, while Ukraine is less important to our strategic interests.
One can easily make a principled distinction between funding a defensive technology (like Iron Dome) while being skeptical of funding weapons designed to destroy tanks and blow up infrastructure.
Taiwan is ranked 32nd (of 180) least corrupt nation in the world. Israel is ranked 36th. Meanwhile Ukraine is ranked 122nd. It is thus easy to make a principled argument that funding the latter is less desirable than the previous two.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to question those principles. But Kristian doesn’t want to do that. She just wants to accuse people of being duplicitous. And her evidence is the weakest of tea, offering up seemingly contradictory stances that are not at all contradictory. This is, of course, an unprovable (and undeniable) accusation. Rather than focus on validating or invalidating the logic of an actual argument, Kristian chooses to read minds.
And this is an even broader problem. The Republican contingent in the US Congress consists of around 275 people. You are not going to find a single guiding principle there. As with any large body, there are diverse opinions, and- yes- some contradictions. So Kristian's entire line of attack is based on a false premise that somehow hundreds of people from all over the country, representing millions of people, ought to have a single world view.
So Ms Kristian performs a slight of hand. She provides all this “evidence” that the Republicans have no principles, and then just declares she has looked into the hearts and minds of those republicans to see what is really their guiding cause. It’s all about Trump, you see. Politics is all there is. And what is her evidence? She has none. Not a quote. Not a memo. Not anything but her bald assertion that she knows what people really think.
What is the point here? What value to the libertarian cause does this article actually achieve? As near as I can tell, for a brief shining moment, the interests of some Republicans (whatever their root cause) are aligned with libertarian interests. And, for some reason, rather than seize that moment, Kristian wants to spend a bunch of words indicting their motives.
Why is that?
What is the point here? What value to the libertarian cause does this article actually achieve?
It furthers the microscopic scrutiny of all things GOP related.
I was looking for a specific angle connecting this to Trump in some sinister way but came up empty. I can only assume she's alluding to Trump's attempt to craft a (non interventionist) America First foreign policy. Some libertarians thought that was a pretty cool idea. Never really caught on at Reason. Because Orange Man Bad.
Well the argument that Kristian pulls out of thin air and gives zero evidence for is that Democrats are inclined to antagonize Russia because he "helped elect Trump", while the Republicans are inclined to "deemphasized it as a security risk compared to what they likely would have said without the recent history of Russiagate."
Again, she has no evidence other than the voices in her head. Her entire reasoning (ehem) is that Democrats have focused on Russia as a security threat because a completely discredited and manufactured narrative that they "helped Trump". That isn't the GOP's fault. She is admitting that if we are treating Russia extra harshly, it is because of a made up hoax. But for some reason, the GOP declining to join in that hoax is evidence that the GOP is off the rails, not the other way around.
It is a completely incoherent argument. And we can see why she is making it, easily: "Ukrainian flags flutter over "In this house we believe" signs, as they reliably do in my neighborhood".
There you have it. Ms Kristian lives in a blue bubble- one where she never meets a conservative, except for the caricatures living in her head.
"What is the point here? What value to the libertarian cause does this article actually achieve?"
LOL
Taiwan is ranked 32nd (of 180) least corrupt nation in the world. Israel is ranked 36th. Meanwhile Ukraine is ranked 122nd. It is thus easy to make a principled argument that funding the latter is less desirable than the previous two.
I'd like to take this moment to mention the name Dominick Black.
I mention the name Dominick Black because, within US law under the leftiest of leftist principles (using the term loosely), that is, to the far left of libertarian principles:
-Someone who feels threatened by a neighbor walks into my gun shop with $500, purchases a weapon, even at a discount, and leaves. -> Not even an iota of a crime.
vs.
-Someone being actively threatened and even assaulted by a neighbor, who I believe may be guilty of or intending to commit a crime asks me to give them a weapon and I give them a weapon without payment. -> At *least* 'contributing to delinquency' if not illegal transfer/straw purchase, trafficking, aiding and abetting, and complicity up to and including any and all felonies perpetrated.
Your argument about principles is moot. Principles are for rational people acting in good faith to reach a common understanding. I'd say you might as well be lecturing a dog or someone's pet cat about principles, but dogs and cats don't actively refute facts or basic biology in order to score social points in favor of active war.
Because Putin is seen as the Strong Man, and the GOP wants to be on the side of Strong Men. Gotta flex.
Because Brandy knows what all those people are thinking. All those republicans who regularly say "I hate Putin, and he is horrible, but we have other problems" are actually taking his side.
At core, what Russia is doing now is really dangerous. They have repeatedly and overtly used nuclear threats against non-nuclear powers. Where does that end? And is there a unique role for the US in countering that sort of threat?
Oh, now, now! Our hosts have assured us that nuclear war ain't so bad!
Um the US could advocate for a settlement that ends the Ukraine war on the Donbas. That’s what Putin has wanted since the beginning. The Bidens could go back to grifting over there. It’s a Win/Win for everyone except the MIC.
Something along the lines of a Minsk II agreement... maybe Minsk III.
After Merkel's revelations, I doubt Russia is going to take anybody's word for anything.
Except after Russia waltzed into Crimea, Obama tried appeasement. Then Putin tried for the rest of the country. Incremental invasions are just that, incremental.
This would be invasions without end to expand the Russian empire.
While I have no love for the Ukrainian government, and it pains me that bribing our president seems to have worked, stopping Russia now is better than letting them reclaim their empire and then trying to stop them.
What is "dangerous" is for the West to have thumbed its nose at Russia, ignore their security concerns, ignore their warnings, and lie to them about NATO and EU expansion.
Well, maybe the US and Europe should take them seriously. Otherwise, it's going to end in Russia using nuclear weapons.
So far, they have done exactly what they announced they would do. After all, they had threatened the invasion of Ukraine as the consequence of NATO and EU talks for two decades.
and lie to them about NATO and EU expansion.
This can't be understated.
So far, they have done exactly what they announced they would do.
Except for the multiple times they announced that they would use nuclear weapons, and then didn't.
They have threatened to use nuclear weapons if the West doesn’t stop. We should believe them.
These States armed NATO. Now is NATO’s chance to put on long pants and man up to resisting the same bullying mystical ideology that put National Socialism in control of most of Europe by 1943. I’ll gladly watch, and even bet a little cash on the outcome.
Is it not reasonable and rational to consider what benefit there is for the US when considering what foreign interventions are worthwhile? Perhaps the threat from China toward Taiwan is more worth our concern than Russia/Ukraine.
I tend to be more of a principled non-interventionist than most congresscritters by a long shot. But these are not unreasonable arguments to have.
Republicans debate about CUTTING-SPENDING..
Yep; I'm still a Republican.
It looks much more like an offshoot of the culture war and the GOP's ongoing thrall to former President Donald Trump.
Oh ok, i guess i'll keep supporting aid to Ukraine then...
It looks much more like an offshoot of the culture war and the GOP’s ongoing thrall to former President Donald Trump.
Yeah, that is some grade-A projection there. Not embroiling ourselves in foreign adventurism is pretty much bog standard libertarianism. The fact that the staffers here are all of a sudden abandoning the principle and suggesting that those holding true to that principle must be doing so out of loyalty to Trump or "MAGA culture" suggests the Kulturkampf aspect lies more with the staffers than the anti-interventionists.
"Not embroiling ourselves in foreign adventurism is pretty much bog standard libertarianism."
Yep. Reason doesn't stand for this nowadays because they're not Libertarians. You'll know a tree by it's fruit. Pretty obvious Reason is Vox Light and they're far left progressives.
Nazi agents, Silver Shirts, Bundists, Klansmen and Christian Fronters said the exact same thing in 1940. Back then, Jews in the Cabinet occupied the ecological niche now held by Hunter's laptop and queers in the Cabinet. When prohibition-exporting girl-bulliers suddenly side with the very Libertarians their spending bills rig elections to exclude, what is it they are trying to rub onto the LP?
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1611009538051960834?t=enr0YG97F4tE-fer6d3fdQ&s=19
Stop caring about DC.
DC doesn’t care about you.
[Pic]
I'm offended as a Ukrainian!
Okay, but Zelensky is absolutely grifting the hell out of this. Just saying that Matt Walsh called him a grifter isn't really proving anything. There's been corruption in the Ukraine for a long time and tons of the aid being send to them is utterly wasted.
Bit by bit, inch by inch, day by day, we slowly but inexorably creep closer and closer to the day where this outfit finally stops bothering to even pretend or claim to be libertarian.
And really, doesn't it kind of feel as if we're almost all the way there?
Odd that the article doesn't mention another reason for many Republicans to oppose helping Ukraine: The Biden family's longstanding grifting off that country, with Hunter's "job" with a Ukrainian petroleum company. And don't forget Joe's proudly threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless that country fired the prosecutor investigating that situation.
" And don’t forget Joe’s proudly threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine unless that country fired the prosecutor investigating that situation."
Oh, this has been memory-holed for some time. It's why progressive impeached Trump for the crime that Biden admitted to doing. They have no shame.
Hawley, for example, has connected his opposition to Ukraine aid to his enthusiasm for Taiwan aid. Earlier this year, he introduced legislation to fast-track U.S. arms sales to Taipei. He's also repeatedly voted against resolutions stopping weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and he likewise voted against ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen's civil war.
Dear Reason,
Actual libertarians would recognize that arms sales and aid are not 100% synonymous.
Thanks,
Fiscal Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Budget Hawks, Accountants, Tax Preparers, Tax Men, Tax Women, Old People Who Balance Checkbooks, Young People Who Understand How Debts Work, Pretty Much Everyone Else Who Isn't Bent On Conflating The Two In Order To Obfuscate And Slander Republicans...
The OP wrote: "Many Democrats believe Trump is in bed with Moscow and made investigating his alleged ties to the Kremlin a major theme of his four years in office."
Really? Is that why Dems created the phony dossier and colluded with the FBI? Democrats also say they believe racism is everywhere, so much so that they have to manufacture racial incidents to "prove" their point.
I was out in downtown Chicago late last night. 4 men with man buns accosted me, tied a pair of skinny jeans around my neck, poured a soy latte over my head before riding off on scooters screaming "THIS IS BIDEN COUNTRY".
Not sure I'll ever recover.
BONNIE KRISTIAN: For most aid critics, the urge to cut off Kyiv appears unconnected to any sort of principled realism, non-interventionism, or even isolationism.
Funny, how anyone opposed to further US international adventurism is considered by the IMC and the overwhelming majority of media pundits who support the IMC as unprincipled.
Count me as thrice bitten and completely fucking over it! We are a patriotic military family - my sons spent a year in Poland - two were Army and the third is Air Force. I also have extended family who spent time in Afghanistan and Iraq, and other shit hole countries all over this planet for the last three decades. It's absolutely time for the USA to pull back and focus on the people at home!!!
NATO all but guaranteed the Russian attack on Ukraine would occur with their foolish eastward expansion, and the only US interests in Ukraine are propping up the personnel fortunes of the Biden crime family!
Fine. Can we, under the Second Amendment, sell nuclear weapons to Ukraine for ready cash? (Asking for a friendly corporate lobbyist)
Ukrainian voters could decide this. If they vote in Comstockism and enslave pregnant women to squeeze out cannon fodder, they instantly become beleaguered heroes to the Grabbers Of Pussy. If in addition they ban every last seed and twig of hemp with a death sentence, Republican looters will send Guardsmen out to knock over banks and mug old ladies to ship them cash. But if instead they surrender to the Orthodox KGB, those same results will obtain automatically, to whoops of joy from Leslie Graham Cracker and Marge Greene Teeth. If Putin wins, Trump wins.
"ending U.S. weapons transfers and military funding to other countries." US exporting of mystical, shoot-first prohibitionism has kept all points south of Brownsville wallowing in Hoovervilles and fighting over who gets to lick the blacking off of the US Congress' boots. The USA invaded Panama and Colombia, occupies Ecuador, keeps Peru and Bolivia in banana-republic confusion and poverty by banning export trade items Europeans and Americans would pay billions to have. Bert Hoover let Customs and dry agents murder unarmed civilians to similarly subjugate Americans. That and bullying girls by proxy is what God's Own Prohibitionists are all about.
The democrats and this administration are spending billions to secure the borders of Syria, Egypt & The Ukraine, while specifically blocking any funding or requirements to secure our own borders. They are a disgrace!
I've seen enough Ancient Aliens to know the pyramids need to be protected.
What happened to the people telling Elon Musk he could have ended world hunger with the money he spent on Twitter? Surely we could have solved it and then some with all the money we have given Ukraine. Arent there more people in poor countries dying of hunger than there are dying in Ukraine? I used to see commercials about all these starving kids in Africa. Won't somebody think of the children?
See SAGN's comment below...
And alphabet's even greater ignorance
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> http://WWW.PAYNET2.COM
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website. see it,
Click Here to Copy…… http://Www.Smartcash1.com