Should America Keep Funding Ukraine? Live With Emma Ashford, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a live discussion of America's continued funding of Ukraine's defense against Russia's invasion.
The U.S. government has sent $48 billion in aid—$22.9 billion of it military aid—to Ukraine between the end of January through November 2022, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy appeared in Congress this December to ask for more support before the passage of an omnibus bill containing an additional $45 billion.
This is far money more than has been provided by any other country on the planet but a small fraction of the $796 billion 2022 defense budget, which proponents say makes it a tiny price to pay to provide Ukraine's people with the weapons to defend against a Russian invasion and to weaken a geopolitical foe. Critics say we're spending money we don't have to prolong a war that can't be won.
Join Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller for a live discussion of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the proper role of U.S. foreign policy, and what a realistic end to the conflict might look like with Emma Ashford, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center and columnist at Foreign Policy.
Watch the stream above or by visiting Reason's Facebook page here.
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
Sure. Keep spending billions on Ukraine indefinitely.
The longer the war drags on, the more opportunities for Fiona to submit minor rewrites of her "When Putin attacked Ukraine I decided my sugar daddy Charles Koch should get all the imported cheap labor he wants" column.
#WarIsGoodBecauseItCreatesRefugees
Why indefinitely? Unlike offensive wars started by the United States, this defensive war has a clear and defined objective: push the Russians out.
Why is that a consideration for the US again?
I get paid more than $90 to $100 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on
the accompanying site… http://Www.Smartcash1.com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
Sarcasmic, I know you're a bear of very little brain, but it is Ukraine's defensive war, not the USA's.
If the US gets involved then it becomes an offensive war by America against Russia.
Interesting phrasing. I would too would put Sarc on the opposite end of the bear intellect scale form Yogi.
No, you got it wrong.
(1) The stated objective is to use Ukraine to degrade Russia’s military.(2) The US wants to effect regime change in Russia. (3) The US wants to make the vast fossil fuel reserves in Ukraine available to Western companies. (4) The US wants to blow up large amounts of obsolete US military hardware and generate orders for US military suppliers. (5) The US wants to have Ukraine available for US military bases in the future.
Now, (1-5) are reasonable–if cynical–objectives from a US military point of view, if you believe that global US military dominance is a desirable goal. Those are the reasons the US is sending money to Ukraine.
The Ukrainians or their territorial integrity are of no particular interest to Americans.
The fledgling United States couldn't have beaten the English without help from the French.
I wonder what the people in France thought about that.
Or about how much land was sold in the Louisiana Purchase.
They were in the middle of a global war with England.
A decade later the French guillotined the Royals who aided the Americans
They were probably pretty stoked for us to deliver a damaging blow to the British, considering France’s own conflict with them.
So your answer is "no"?
My answer is that sometimes the little guy needs some help.
Remember when libertarians were against world policing?
Sarc doesn't.
Last I checked, world policing meant sending in the troops. Not military aid. But you equate low wages with chattel slavery. So I'm not surprised when you make stupid statements.
The CIA thanks you for spreading their message free of charge.
"Last I checked, world policing meant sending in the troops. Not military aid."
No. It also includes military aid.
But don't worry folks, he might sound like a neocon, but sarcasmic still insists he's the true libertarian here.
Reason did not remotely support Trump sending military aid to Arabia to deal with their conflict.
If Trump were still in office I’m sure they would be attacking him if he sent aid to Ukraine.
A pro welfare argument in defense of global wars. Didnt see that coming.
Are you aware of what happened in France as a result of bankrolling someone else's war?
You equating US expenditures to help Ukraine with French expenditures to help the US as a fraction of GDP?
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there...pretty soon we'll be talking about real money.
When your money is on fire, throwing gasoline on it is not going to extinguish much.
No.
In fact, given how much money has flown in, we have to ask why victory hasn't been attained.
You're assuming victory is the goal. I suspect the grift is the whole point.
10% for the big guy.
Considering the numbers we're talking about, it's still surprising that Ukraine hasn't won accidentally.
Best way for the house and senate to funnel taxpayer dollars into their Raytheon share payments.
That, and ‘regime change’ in Russia. So a quick victory is unattractive. The neocons want to bleed Russia until Putin is gone. Or until we go to war with Arusha directly.
"Should America Have Funded Ukraine at all?" -No
FTFY
No.
Americans are reeling because of shitty policy. The economy is a shitshow. Even normal shit like groceries are unaffordable right now for many people. Yet the US Gov seems to think that we’re all supposed to suffer for Ukraine.
Fuck that.
We shouldn’t have sent them money to begin with. Basically, every tax paying American has sent almost $550 to Ukraine.
This should be the shortest video ever:
No.
I could see a 30 minute rant of the "are you fucking retarded" variety.
Well, I’d rather see it spent on Ukraine than on people who couldn’t budget their college expenses.
There's considerable overlap there with the people funding Ukraine to improve their war machine stock dividends.
Many have said it, but I will also answer the question: no. Not our fight and the last thing we need is a war with Russia.
I will add that we should be cautious friends with Russia. Since 1992 we have wasted opportunities for peace.
Honestly, the more I see, the less I discount the Russian belief that the U.S. and our allies essentially wanted Russia's post-Soviet economic collapse. Our policies largely seem to have been centered around systematically dismantling their interests.
If I was to be strictly principled about it I might agree. But Putin is a fucking mad man. If he wins in Ukraine do you think he'll stop?
You do know you sound like frigging Donald Rumsfeld circa 2003. But, it's the rest of us who are just Republican trolls.
Never change, sarcasmic, never change.
No kidding. He is a neocon. Who are all democrats now.
If this is what you call arguing in good faith, I'd hate to see you argue in bad faith.
Yesterday, you literally resorted to calling pretty much anyone who disagrees with you here a Republican troll. At that point, as far as I'm concerned, you forfeited any debt of good faith. And, no, pointing out that your overheated claims were as ridiculous as those of Donald Rumsfeld circa 2003 wasn't a bad faith argument. It's just an argument you don't like.
Never change, sarcasmic.
Yesterday, you literally resorted to calling pretty much anyone who disagrees with you here a Republican troll.
Really? I'd like to see the quote where I said that. I think you're just making shit up like the asshats I have on mute.
sarcasmic 1 day ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
Why would she post otherwise? Her statement is true. Most of the people in the comments equate libertarian to Republican, and then accuse libertarians of being leftists when they are critical of Republicans.
.
sarcasmic 1 day ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What I see is a bunch of Republicans getting angry when Reason is critical of their anti-liberty policies.
From one thread. Someone post that for him. He claims im muted.
That's what I thought.
I provided you the comments. You can pretend you didn't say them now.
As posted by JesseAZ (I was working at the time)
sarcasmic 1 day ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
Why would she post otherwise? Her statement is true. Most of the people in the comments equate libertarian to Republican, and then accuse libertarians of being leftists when they are critical of Republicans.
.
sarcasmic 1 day ago
Flag Comment Mute User
What I see is a bunch of Republicans getting angry when Reason is critical of their anti-liberty policies.
Sarc has the memory of a goldfish as well as a pathological liar.
He will try to explain these comments away then threaten to mute you.
Is that a threat or a promise?
Hope for promise. Abc has been trying for months to get muted.
Depends on how much Sarc has had to drink.
Here's what I see you saying.
Because I said that Republican trolls accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being leftists, that means I'm accusing anyone who disagrees with me of being a Republican troll.
That's, well, stupid. I have plenty of conversations with people who disagree with me. But not with the Republican trolls, because they accuse me of being a leftist and then high five with their fellow Republican trolls as they do their victory dance.
Trolls is nowhere in your cited statements. What makes them trolls, disagreeing with you? What makes them republican, disagreeing with you?
“What I see is a bunch of Republicans getting angry when Reason is critical of their anti-liberty policies.”
I guess it’s possible you’re talking about other people and not commenters. It doesn’t seem very likely since a fair amount of Republicans have probably never heard of Reason, let alone criticized it, but it IS possible.
So yeah, world police is totes ok as long as it's Putin.
Repeating your stupid comment doesn't make it smarter.
I hate to break it to you, but the US has overthrown governments without sending a single soldier to places.
Again, the CIA thanks you for their service.
If there was ever anyone too dumb to be a CIA useful tool, it's Sarcasmic.
I don't think he will move on to invading Poland or something if that's what you are asking. I think his main goal is to keep the former USSR/Russian empire in Russia's sphere of influence.
Which it mostly remained until U.S.-backed "Color Revolutions".
Yeah, by extending it to the borders of NATO. He claims to have started the war in part because he didn't want Ukraine to join NATO and be on his doorstep. So instead he wants to conquer Ukraine so he can be on NATO's doorstep. Dude is nuts. Scary nuts.
Does he want to conquer Ukraine?
Putin has stated his intentions here. Not sure why sarc thinks he knows better than what has been stated publicly.
Alcoholic delusions?
Conquer. Annex. Replace the current government and try to squash national identity. Do we need to quibble over terms?
Putin doesn't want the Ukronazi homeland in the west. He probably wouldn't care if the Poles reclaimed it so long as they keep the NATO on the current side of the line.
Do you work for Ratheon? Lockmart? Have some ancestry issue with Russia? You sound like Bill Kristol
Amazingly, our international affairs expert Sarc is an alcoholic hobo living in a refrigerator box located in some seedy lids soaked alley. Ostensibly in Maine.
ha ha ha. Russian tanks can't take Ukraine and you have them crossing the Oder on their way to Berlin and the Rhine? Their GDP is less than Italy...taking away the nukes they simply are not a large military power. The Soviets had an empire with twice the population and US trucks, tanks, and planes...and they still struggled to take down Germany.
Russia is very backwards. Has been for a thousand years.
"If I was to be strictly principled about it I might agree. But Putin is a fucking mad man. If he wins in Ukraine do you think he’ll stop?"
Maybe he will not. But that is exceptionally not our problem. Seems to be a, you know, EU issue.
How did funding the mujahedeen in Afghanistan work out?
It was one of things that helped end the Soviet Union.
If you do not think the Soviet Union was worth ending, then I cannot help you.
Unfortunately, Soviet totalitarianism didn't end.
It simply changed its name to the WEF, UN, and globalist establishment.
The global Anglo empire is our real enemy.
Oh good grief.
Really? Because you must be living under a rock if you think that's not happening. And before you say "cOnsPirAcY tHeOrY", spend a little time reading the WEF and UN websites. They're not exactly hiding it.
Neither do the ChiComs, or the democrats. It’s all verifiable conspiracy fact anymore.
The fuckin' Brits sure are. Their empire is all shriveled up but somehow they use our empire to play the Great Game
^
Was $100 Billion not enough?
It wasn't even the 119B GDP of their economy from 2018! Need to protect those Atlantic Council investments.
We should have never funded them in the first place. Think about it for just a second. The United States is engaged in acts of war (by any historically accepted standard) against the world's other massive nuclear power over...the Donbas and Crimea? That's insane. The American people have no interest whatsoever in two sh**holes halfway around the world. And yet, "libertarians" are debating whether we should continue to do so. I guess clownish hyperinterventionism is now libertarian, as long as the right people are engaged in clownish hyperinterventionism. The only role the U.S. ever should have tried to play is to facilitate peace talks at the outset and before this war even started.
What exactly was there to talk about? Russia has no right to conquer Ukrainian territory. It is like someone suggesting negotiations between you and your potential mugger.
And we had now right to sponsor a coup d'etat against their democratically elected (even the E.U. certified that) ally. We did it anyway. And the Ukrainians had no right to tear up the Minsk Accords. They did it anyway. At that point, the reasonable answer is to figure out a settlement that doesn't involve Russia going to war.
Several prominent peole in both parties here have stated that nothing ends until Russia has ‘regime change’. However the fuck that’s supposed to go.
I don't think interpersonal crime is a very good analogy to international relations/wars. Countries don't have individual rights and for the most part (particularly in Europe) borders are what was negotiated at the end of various wars. Or in the case of the former USSR, lines that communist dictators decided to draw for various political and strategic reasons.
And in the international arena, there is no rule of law. There are some pretenses, but pretty much it's still "might makes right". When you get mugged, you either have the power to defend yourself, or you get your shit stolen. In the latter case you can go to the police and maybe they catch the bad guy. But when the stakes are higher, like someone is holding a gun to your head, or an actual shooting war is happening, perhaps you do need to negotiate because the likely alternative is that you don't exist anymore.
I guess you can make the argument that we should be world police if you want to.
You are complaining that the muggee defended himself. We have supplied some of the weapons, but you are acting as if the criminal had a right.
No, I'm complaining that the US government is trying to start a war with a nuclear power over something that doesn't matter to us in any real way. Ukraine can and should defend itself (assuming the people who live there want it defended). I seriously wish them all the best. But I'm not willing to put my own wealth or life on the line to make that happen and I resent other people forcing me to do so. It is matters very little to me whether Ukraine is allied with Russia or with western Europe.
Nation states don't have rights. They have power. If they don't have the power to maintain their own independence, then they stop being nation states. That's how it works and has always worked. Only individuals have rights and it's silly to apply that language when talking about war.
Mickey's going full State supremacist.
"Fuck the people of Crimea and Donbass, they have no right to determine their own lives. They belong to Kiev!"
Yeah, I kind of left that one out. I really can't think of any rational principle that you can say that the Ukraine deserves independence from Moscow that doesn't equally apply to Crimea and Donbass vis-a-vis Kiev.
Bingo.
Which isn't even bringing up the whole Kosovo or Libya precedent...
All you are saying they belong to Moscow.
Holy shit, the amount of lying you have to do to yourself to take that position.
What exactly was there to talk about?
let's start with asking why they are borrowing money from my great-grandkids to the tune of 100Billion to escalate this war that isnt any of my business, whichever side of it is right or wrong?
The Russians built, named and populated all the shit they're taking back.
And the people who live there voted overwhelmingly to first declare independence from Ukraine, ask Russia for protection, then eventually to become part of Russia.
What acts of war have we engaged in? Historically the USA has held the position that our peaceful exchange of goods and service should not be construed as an act of war. So I'm not clear on what other actions could be acts of war?
Providing (not selling) war material and, battlefield intelligence, military planning and logistical support to a belligerent in a conflict has usually been treated as an act of war.
And that leaves out the likely bombing of the Nord-Stream pipeline.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/zelensky-tells-letterman-jewish-joke-about-russian-militarys-performance/
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky features in a new episode of David Letterman’s interview series on Netflix, “My Next Guest Needs No Introduction.”
In it, the Jewish Ukrainian leader tells a joke about the state of Russia’s military, to laughs from the audience and host.
“Two Jewish guys from Odesa meet up,” Zelensky says. “One asks the other: ‘So what’s the situation? What are people saying?'”
“And he goes, ‘What are people saying? They are saying it’s a war.'”
“What kind of war?”
“Russia is fighting NATO.”
“Are you serious?”
“Yes, yes! Russia is fighting NATO.”
“So how’s it going?”
“Well, 70,000 Russian soldiers are dead. The missile stockpile has almost been depleted. A lot of equipment is damaged, blown up.”
“And what about NATO?”
“What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet.”
No sane person could possibly answer yes to this question. It boggles the mind.
This isn't the US sending in troops to destabilize an existing government. This isn't nation building. This isn't assassinating a leader and watching a country descend into chaos. This isn't military action with no defined goals or exit strategy.
This is helping out a little guy who is being bullied.
I mean they are just transferring troops to Germany “just in case.” No big deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/world/europe/us-military-germany.html
You sound like every neocon.
this is recklessly escalating a war where a major nuclear power is involved on behalf of a country not part of the NATO pact.
It's insane.
Horray for moral imperatives.
Who next shall we liberate?
And anyone who wants to help them is welcome to do so. I don't want to be forced to do so while at the same time increasing the chances of open war between two nuclear powers.
I can only assume sarc was being sarcastic here.
I think he's backed himself into another intellectual corner here. The "icky trolls" here all say that the U.S. shouldn't be getting involved in this. He can't bring himself to agree with them, even if their position is textbook libertarianism. So, he's worked himself up into thinking there's some imperative to support the war.
Maybe I'm not a textbook libertarian, nor a contrarian. Ever think of that?
Or a libertarian even in a round about way.
I dunno. Talk to Neville Chamberlain.
In a way I sort of hope you are right and this all isn't just pointlessly wasting money and increasing the chances of nuclear war. But I'm sticking with my assessment until I can be convinced that getting involved with Ukraine is preventing something much worse from happening.
I get you. And I'm not going to try to convince you because I'm not convinced that I'm right.
What I do oppose is American blood being shed over this. That's where I draw a definite line.
Your line was crossed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/partner-of-us-veteran-killed-ukraine-says-found-out-facebook-2022-12
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/11/16/us-army-veteran-killed-fighting-on-ukraines-southern-front/
I get that you don't like taxes that are taken from you against your will to be spent on things you don't want. I get the principles.
Thing is, this isn't the Middle East. This isn't Bush waving his dick. This is Eastern Europe, and it's happened before. We know how this story goes if we don't do anything.
Also, and more importantly, I think it's winnable. I don't think Putin will resort to nukes if he's pushed out with conventional weapons, and I think Ukrainians have the will if given the supplies.
Then again I could be totally wrong.
Your entire argument is europe is different from the ME. A geographical argument?
I mean we thought the US could win Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan too.
White Slavs are worth dying for.
Thanks for admitting your shallowness of moral imperatives.
Oh look. The resident retard is trying to be clever again. At this point we're talking about military aid. About bombs and bullets. Not soldiers. As I just said above, I draw the line at shedding American blood.
You specifically said this time it's worth it (and specifically exclude the ME), and you admit that it's about the composition of the people you want to help.
You are indeed shallow.
Did you know that the word "slave" comes from the fact that Slavs were used as slaves throughout Europe long before the African slave trade? I'm citing Thomas Sowell, and he's not a bullshitter.
Why is it that you want to see a people so downtrodden that the word "slave" comes from how they've been treated, and watch them get kicked around yet again?
Talk about shallowness and moral imperatives.
I thought part of being an American was standing up to bullies.
I thought part of being an American was standing up to bullies.
Prior to the progressive era, being American was about not sticking our nose in the other hemisphere. It's called the Monroe doctrine.
You've been watching too much WW2 "rah rah rah" propaganda.
Do you think the world would be better off had America not gotten involved?
Yes I’m straying off the libertarian plantation on this one. Sue me.
In what, Ukraine? Probably, if for no other reason than because the EU would actually stop doing any business with Russia, but Putin has them by their thermostats.
Had. Nordstream bombed. But they do have trucks and rail.
"In what, Ukraine?"
Which sentence are you responding to? My first sentence referred to last in the post I was replying to, and the second referred to the general topic.
I thought it was obvious.
The progressive era, as foreign policy goes, didn't end until Trump.
Specify better.
So not principled.
Japan attacked us (ok FDR was incompetent in foreign policy but that conflict was going to occur anyway) and Hitler declared war on us. It wasn't like WWI where we had NO business getting involved. And WW2 ended with Poland being occupied just like it started. Germany was in ruins, the Brits were broke and their empire gone and the USSR had eastern europe. A few years later China went red. WW2 wasn't the great victory the left portrays.
TBF, it was a great victory for us as we emerged as the only real superpower for a few years and had all the manufacturing and agriculture the world so desperately needed.
But this is 2022 and European and Asian countries have long range missiles and aircraft, so there is no way we are escaping Episode III unscathed. (Yes, I know the Pacific front was pretty scathed in WW2, not to mention the soldiers.)
You are free to enlist in the Trotsky brigade. Seriously did you not read John Q Adams on foreign wars of "liberation?" How any libertarian can think we exist to make the world safe for democracy aka Goldman Sachs, central banks, gender insanity, abortion and cultural marxism? The battle is here in America for liberty and we are losing badly to the public sector authoritarians...
I don't want to "watch them get kicked around". I prefer not to watch them at all.
What happens in Eastern Europe simply isn't any of America's business.
Let the Europeans clean up their own backyard and pay for their own defense.
Everyone always has their reason to give up their principles.
That's the excuse totalitarian war mongers like you always come up with.
Sarc just sit back, and take another drink of whatever rotgut you got hand on. This is way beyond you.
"Should America Keep Funding Ukraine?"
No.
Russia is a threat to the Euros; left them provide their own defense. I'm tired of paying for their welfare programs.
Why is this a debate. Two corrupt eastern european countries are at war. Wow this occurred all the time and the US never got involved. Hell even in 56 and 68 we did nothing. But Putin is more dangerous than the USSR? Really? And in that question when you see the folks (beyond the MIC) promoting our involvement start to see why. For the left this is a legacy of Trotsky versus Stalin. And even the Czar. The left who run academia, the media and foreign policy these days in the US never got over who won that battle. To them Putin is the Czar and Stalin in one. Zelinsky is Trotsky. Hell he even dresses like a revolutionary. Old world grudges should stay in the old world. Leave America out of it.
NATO considers Putin less dangerous and they think they can win. It's 3.2 million NATO soldiers against 800000 Russian soldiers. Ukraine is sacrificing its people to soften up Russia, and then NATO will see whether to go all the way or just put more NATO bases on Russia's border.
The objective is obviously eliminating Russia as a competitor, regime change in Russia, gaining access to strategic locations, and getting access to Ukraine's fossil fuel reserves.
If you're a psychopathic neocon of the Dr. Strangelove variety, this looks like a golden opportunity.
NATO was already on Russia's doorstep with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in NATO for years before the invasion of Ukraine. The excuse of a threat to security by way of an adjacent NATO nation falls flat under the lightest of scruteny. The rest of the former "eastern block" can only hope that Ukraine stands and holds.
That's b.s. NATO in the Baltics and Poland were already a big problem for Russia, but one Russia could potentially deal with.
NATO in Ukraine creates a huge additional threat to Russia, and one that's much harder to defend against. The difficulties the Russian military has right now are proof enough of that.
On top of that, Ukraine has vast fossil fuel reserves and is important for Russia's fossil fuel exports. For them to fall under the control of the EU and NATO was a big threat to Russia's primary revenue stream.
The idea that spending 13% of the US defense budget is "a small fraction" is ludicrous. This is an enormous amount of spending.
Hm if only there was a clear libertarian position on fighting or funding foreign wars that are literally on the other side of the world from our society, that didn’t need to be debated.
One thing often glossed over is the consequences of continuing funding, and quite frankly sending men (don't start any shit about US manned AWACs not providing intel to Ukraine or US instructors not teaching them how to use complex weapon systems) and material (realistic estimates are that important US weapons like shoulder fired anti tank and aircraft weapons and mobile anti aircraft weapons will not be at pre Ukraine levels for two or three years at best and that assumes no supply chain issues or needs for other conflicts), to aid Ukraine. Not to mention how our grandchildren will still be paying interest on the "funding" of Ukraine.
From a business point of view the concept of ROI for the Ukraine investment (and I use that term liberally) makes no sense.
No one really believes that Ukraine will beat Russia solo, without ground troop support and without ever striking the heart of Russia. What modern war was won with the winning side not bombing the heck out of the enemy's major cities, supply lines, etc?
Zelensky is a Napoleon wannabe who's drunken with visions of glorious victory. And the west indulges in such rhetoric. In reality, any victory in Ukraine will be pyrrhic. There might not be much Ukraine left if and when Russia withdraws, the postwar fallout and political purging will ensure that if becomes an albatross on the EU for years to come.
Remember, Ukraine is effectively forbidden to directly invade Russia. The entire conflict on their soil. They have to blow up their own land to beat Russia. Every aid that goes to Ukraine should be included with a stern reminder to Zelensky that his objective is more peace and less victory.
Putin is knocking on Europe's door, not our door. We need to stop trying to save the whole damn world. WE DO NOT HAVE MONEY, WE PRINT MONEY TO HURT OURSELVES!
Come on, most of the stuffs you are sending to Ukraine until now were on the road to garbage. If anything, it saved you the cost of demilitarization.
“ This is far money more than has been provided by any other country on the planet”
From state.gov:
Since its founding in 1948, the United States has provided Israel with over $125 billion in bilateral assistance
Try again.
Give it a few months.
It costs a lot to fund terrorism.
Not another penny should be sent to the Ukrainian Nazis. The Russian Federation is fighting to put an end to Corporate Globalism and the American MIC.
They need to give me a reason why the continued aggressive actions from NATO (at least from a Russian perspective) should be the continuing goal.
Not only no but they never should have in the past either.
Reason editor in chief Mingo-Mango-Mongo (aka "sarcasmic") is showing her true colors. And I'm not just talking about her ridiculous juvenile "bad girl" dye jobs.
I mean are we shocked sarc is defending DNC and Neocon priorities? One of his big complaints of the current GOP is they aren't like the neocon GOP of a decade ago.
What we have here is the Russian oligarchy attempting to reconquer a portion of the old Russian Empire. There is an argument that tolerating that sort of behavior will destabilize the relatively peaceful global power structure. You can disagree with that assessment, but it is not clear that the US has no interest in Ukraine maintaining its territorial integrity.
Google pay 200$ 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.WORKSCLICK.COM
The Russians haven't changed their demands in 8 years.
-keep NATO out
-recognize Crimea as Russian (which was the result of sovereign constitutional process, unlike the current Ukraine government)
-recognize the autonomy of DPR and LPR
-stop attacking the people of those regions
Ukraine offers absolutely nothing for the American people. At this point, Ukraine is much more our enemy than Russia is.
Will it destabilize peace more than causing Russia to saber rattle with tactical nukes? That is where we are headed.
The Russians have no right to those demands and no right to try to enforce them by violence.
The last sentence is sheer boneheadedness.
It's not bananas.
What the fuck has Russia taken from us?
Not a damn thing.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is integral to corruption and taking our money- on top of putting us at risk of nuclear conflict.
Fuck your conception of rights when you think the people of Donbass and Crimea should have no say in their own future, but be forever slaves to Kiev.
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 $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link------------------------------------>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ 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.WORKSFUL.COM
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ:) GOOD LUCK.:)
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE WORK
Yes, poor drunk, raging alcoholic Sarc.