For example, we should send financial aid but not weapons…or we should send money and weapons but no direct military intervention?

39 comments

  3. Its hard to say, I think we are doing fine with what we are doing. The main concern is 20 years from now what happens. We saw in Afghanistan that our assistance against the Soviets came back to bite us. We wouldn’t want to give weapons that can be used against us in the future, that’s the main concern. Ukraine wasn’t exactly our best buddy before the war and I hope the alliance continues after, but Eastern Europe has many problems and it would be easy for weapons to end up in the wrong hands if they are not accounted for.

  4. I think our current strategy is working well. Provide Ukraine with weaponry and intelligence while working to isolate Russia diplomatically. Now if Russia uses nukes, all bets are off and I think we would intervene with air power at the very least.

    I don’t think Ukraine and Afghanistan are comparable. Ukraine is a coherent state with an ever-growing sense of national identity and a desire to join both the EU and NATO. Essentially everything Afghanistan wasn’t.

  5. I’m for giving them any equipment they can use effectively, and if it falls into ~~Bolshevik~~ ~~Soviet~~ Russian hands it’s not giving China any secret sauce. If we can train them on Abrams and we have spares to give, go ahead.

  6. To the mat.

    Send them whatever conventional weapons they need.

    As for intervention, I would support it in certain circumstances. Like if the Russians used a nuke in Ukraine I’d support us sinking their Black Sea fleet. But outside of a nuclear issue I don’t think I could support direct intervention. Particularly not boots on the ground.

  7. The last time we gave a country a bunch of money and weapons to fight off the Russians, it backfired pretty badly.

    I don’t think repeating history is a good idea.

  8. I don’t know nor do I envy those who have to make those decisions.

    The general consensus in the country is that we should provide financial aid and weapons but not directly intervene militarily but I remember how many of those weapons were used against us after similar situations during the Cold War. Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden are extremely obvious examples. It’s not like the United States and Ukraine were especially strong allies before. Those same weapons might be used against American citizens one day.

    I’m also conscious of the fact that direct and indirect intervention is a bit of semantics. There’s no shortage of Americans who blame Saudi Arabia for 9/11 for far less official financing then what we’re providing Ukraine. It’s not that hard to imagine leaders of a nuclear nation coming to the conclusion that our financial aid, weapons, ammunition, training, and intelligence amounts to very direct intervention.

    On the other hand I am sympathetic to the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine and the people are suffering because of it.

  10. Most people seem to be upset that we keep giving them billions for them to keep their government open while we at home are staring down the barrel of a recession… partly because of this war. If we can afford to help them why can’t we afford to help ourselves?

  12. Besides supplying weapons, I think we should be doing more to resolve the conflict and bring peace. War is hell, and the less of it the better.

  14. None. US foreign policy is the reason this war started and the reason it is being prolonged. America is not the world’s police and this imperialistic attitude has killed millions world wide. If I were to compromise in order to resolve the mess we’ve made, our aid should be contingent on Ukraine seeking peace negotiations and prosecute their war criminals.

  15. People will hate me for saying so, but to be honest I think there has been far too much brinkmanship and I believe the United States has perused an extremely aggressive foreign policy in Ukraine and this was partially responsible for the tensions between Ukraine in Russia which precipitated the invasion (obviously none of this justifies Putin’s brutal and illegal invasion)

    The main actions I support are humanitarian aid and the opening of pathways for refugees. I think it could also be valuable to assist Russian conscripts with desertion as that removes soldiers from the war without death. I am not in favor of tactical support or advice for Ukraine as that brings us closer to the possibility of full NATO-Russia nuclear exchange. Broadly, I am not in favor of weapon shipments as I think it does little more than extend the length of the war an lead to vastly more death as well as, again, increase nuclear tension. As much as Russia is clearly on the back foot right now, I worry they will begin a large scale bombing campaign like that seen in Iraq, which has thankfully been absent so far in this war. Even worse is the possibility of the usage of tactical nuclear weapons, which only becomes more likely the more it seems like a “NATO v Russia” conflict.

    I could probably be swayed to supporting weapon shipments paired with particular diplomatic goals, as currently Ukraine defines victory as complete control of the separatist regions and crimea, and even with a complete collapse of Russia I don’t see that happening short of an ethnic cleansing.

    I think about the Cuban missile crisis a lot. I think about the phrase “sleepwalking into war” a lot. I think this is a very bad and dangerous war and I think far too many people are concerned with “winning it” rather than stopping it. I don’t think it’s possible to win, not for Russia, not for the US or EU, and least of all for Ukraine which seems like a pawn captured by cynical great powers.

  16. I don’t know. I’m not an expert on foreign relations. I think letting Russia get a taste for blood is a bad idea and if we have to send in troops to support Ukraine that would be a defensible war. But I don’t know if it’s a good idea to pressure Russia quite that hard and I don’t want to wind up with a situation where we end up using military influence to make a puppet out of Ukraine.

  17. I dont like the idea of bankrolling a war for a country who openly despised us not two years ago and will go back to despising us as soon as its convenient.

    I say we let Europe take care of Europe. They have plenty of fucking money to fight their own petty wars. If the EU is so damned concerned then THEY can step up.

    Lets use our money and materiale to take care of America first and foremost. War with Russia over Ukraine does absolutely nothing for us.

    I also hate how people went from hating Ukraine alongside Trump but love it under Biden. Fickle idiots being led by the nose into spending money unnecessarily.

    And especially now that Russia has proven to a be extraordinarily thin paper tiger its time to turn our attention toward an actual threat like China and its “strategic” acquisition of energy and food production in Asia and Africa while we cut our own production.

    Meanwhile calls for peace are being ignored by BOTH sides. Both… i cant believe this shit. Especially all these fucking online war mongers, not a one of them will set foot on any battleground.

  18. The US should help Ukraine win the war. Trying to nitpick fine lines at this point mostly serves the purpose of weakening support.

  20. I think backing Ukraine when it isn’t a NATO member undermines the purpose of NATO. Being a NATO member provides the benefit of collective defence but also imposes the burden of collective defense. NATO defending and upholding nations who aren’t NATO members provides the benefit without imposing the burden. The question then becomes, why be a NATO member if you can get the benefit without the burden?

  22. No line, article 5 that shit. Nukes are a bad idea but not off the table (If anyone’s asking me, that is). Russia is a menace to itself and others.

  23. We’re doing all we need to do, weapons and training. Ukraine seems to have this under control with what we, and the west, have given them.

  24. It depends. As of right now I think we are doing and have done about as much as we should.

    If Putin uses Nuclear weapons, I think we should have feet on the ground and direct air support to some extent.

  25. We should do whatever we can, short of starting a nuclear war. Which is what I think we are doing, more or less.

  26. Providing them weapons, ammo, supplies, & intel is a cheap & easy way to kick Putin in the balls, so I’m all in favor of it.

  27. I think all that money is better spent elsewhere.

    “Sure, we can’t fix anything in this country, help any migrants or poor people, but we can foot a weekly $1 billion bill to participate in another European circlejerk”

  29. Our current course of action seems to be working well enough. I’d rather avoid provoking Russia anymore than necessary. Nuclear weapons change perspective beyond simply combatting and containing a hostile nation anymore.

  30. Weapons and money. The US is currently knocking out one of our major geopolitical adversaries for a fraction of our yearly military budget.

  31. Send money, send weapons, provide military advisors, sanction Russia, but no direct troops on the ground.

  32. What to supply:

    1. Weapons systems
    2. Intelligence
    3. Training
    4. Logistical support (food, fuel, ammo)
    5. U.S. Servicemembers in an advisor role, explicitly forbidden from taking a combat role.

    What not to supply:

    1. US Servicemembers in a combat role in Ukraine

    . . .but IF, Russia escalates to the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, that equation changes and Vladimir Putin just became an existential threat to humanity and must be eliminated immediately *by any means necessary*.

  33. We’re doing alright but I think we should also provide an out for Russia. They’re becoming isolated diplomatically speaking, and I think we should put an offer on the table. Not meet all of their demands, but a “this is the best you’re gonna get and it’s either fuck or walk” kind of situation.

    I say this because there is the off chance Russia uses nuclear weapons, especially with all the talk from Putin himself and Biden. These would almost undoubtedly be something that is technically not a nuke in the typical sense but a “tactical” nuke used on the battlefield. If this happens, all bets are off and we get involved directly.

    I’d rather that not happen, because while I think we’d certainly win (especially judging by Russia’s track record in Ukraine, they are not prepared to fight a world power like the United States, who actually has real firepower and logistical prowess), but this whole situation is one I’d rather not be in in the first place. Even under the technicality of using a “tactical nuke,” I don’t think we’d let such a precedent slide where you can use nukes as long as they’re “diet nukes.” But who knows how long that shit goes for. How many lives get lost, how it tips the world order, how it keeps us fighting.

    So if we provide a diplomatic out for them, something sweet but obviously to their disadvantage (because fuck em at this point, why not), they’ll be less likely to want to dig themselves deeper into that hole, and hopefully avoid the point of no return. And ideally, we could just not ever have to get directly involved, even in this hypothetical situation.

    TLDR, we should keep the support up, get involved only if absolutely necessary, but should also be more diplomatic and pragmatic in our approach because that’s the only way I can see this coming to a quick and less bloody end, imo.

  37. I think we should do everything possible without escalating it further.
    Military budget is best spent actually fighting our enemies instead of waiting around to be scrapped, so give them everything we can. Especially since they’ve proven they’re very capable.

    The more Russia is economically isolated and militarily weakened, the better positioned NATO will be to worry about China next.

    Maybe we’ll see the last of the dictatorships end in our lifetime, or at least have them become so weak that they’re irrelevant.

  38. We should be sending them more supplies and more support. Anything short of boots on the ground.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like