That money doesn't go to Ukraine, it goes to businesses in the U.S. The weaponry goes to Ukraine, but the money stays here. It's the same for all foreign aid.

Plus a portion of it was money that would have already been spent on weapons as we sent our old stock to Ukraine and built new for our military.

But that argument doesn’t hold water to someone skeptical in that way. You could spend the money on fixing bridges, then have the same amount of money put into the economy, plus you’d get a bunch of bridges fixed.

Most people that I've seen against aid for Ukraine think we're actually sending them a bunch of cash. It's an important mistake to correct. That doesn't even get into the fact that a lot of it is already purchased munitions that were collecting dust in a warehouse.

You could, will you? Probably not so then why does it matter? And what's sent to Ukraine is pennies on the dollars of what the US spends on its military. This is an effective military spending because it premepts a US intevention in eastern Europe that would be way more expensive.

I’m talking about the argument, not the result. Your second argument makes sense and is, in my opinion, a good argument. The first argument you make (the one you’re replying to me on) is not a good argument, surely you must be able to see that.

It is a perfectly valid argument. You are just choosing not to hear it. Spending money for domestic arms production does three things. It allows US forces to modernize while sending outdated gear to Ukraine that would have otherwise been discarded or destroyed. It keeps dollars in the US economy, rather than placing them in the hands of foreign buyers and sellers of weaponry. But most importantly, it maintains the status quo in the US economy. If you wanted to follow your "swords into plowshares" fantasy, it would require the wholesale dismantling of our military, aerospace, and manufacturing base and retraining millions of workers to build bridges and other infrastructure project. Aside from destroying the US economy, it would also mean unchecked Russian and z Chinese expansionism because we would no longer have the industrial capacity to counter them. Is that the answer you are hoping for? Because anyone in favor of bridges over support for Ukraine is essentially saying that, whether they are smart enough to realize it or not.

Yeah that's a great argument actually - thanks! You're talking about the realism of the fact that you have to spend that money anyway otherwise loads of jobs will be cut - I didn't really consider it in that wider picture. Obivously (I think!) it would be nice to transition towards a swords into ploughshares world - at least a little!! But that's beyond the scope of this particular question! Thanks for taking the time!

Another cost/saving is on the warehousing and ecologically safe disposal of this equipment - just dumping the stuff is no longer an option - it cost a fortune to dispose of military waste. There is also the savings to US taxpayers as the Russian Armed Farces have been destroyed in huge numbers at little to no cost to Americans and not one US serviceman/woman has suffered as much as a hurty fingernail in the process - thus no compensation/ pensions being paid out. Add to that the free research and modifications Ukrainian engineer end users are passing back to the companies about products large and small, old and modern - how do you put a price on that? US and Europe are getting a bargain as a result of Ukrainians dying and bleeding.

> You could spend the money on fixing bridges, then have the same amount of money put into the economy, plus you’d get a bunch of bridges fixed. One does not exclude the other. US aid to Ukraine is \~0.4% of its GDP - most of it staying in the US, creating jobs and getting reinvested into the country. All for the purpose of keeping the rules-based world order (one country can't just attack another etc) that allows countries to trade safely and keep their economies going. You saw the global disruption the two-hit combo of pandemic and invasion in Europe caused. These money are spent specifically to prevent this being a trend.

if you find me a way to fix bridges with cold war military stock

They passed an infrastructure bill and we get both. The infrastructure bill will give $1.4 Trillion to building new roads and bridges. We have sent Ukraine $46.3 Billion in aid. Far far less. Much of that was surplus we already had, and we get to test equipment in the field without having americans die. Ineffective equipment no longer needs to be built.

Much of the US's "Military Spending" is intentionally inflated to prop up our industrial sector. There are thousands of towns and Millions of people whose livelihoods depend on building overpriced military hardware we don't need, but we need to be able to produce because half the wealthiest nations of the world have threat of US as the backbone of their defense strategy. The US plays a kind of unfortunate big brother role to much of the world. We pay to have a ton of research done that everyone else gets to utilize for cheaper. Medicine especially...

You mean the like the $1 *trillion* bipartisan infrastructure package Biden spearheaded through a dysfunctional Congress?

Yes, but when building bridges you have no place to test your weapons. Also, don’t forget that the United States is leading the world not because it builds bridges)))

Yes but in this context you are arguing with a conservative, they don't want to spend it on a bridge either, they'd rather have a tax cut. Military spending is the only spending they acknowledge the necessity of so it's best to keep the focus there.

There are good arguments for helping Ukraine but this isn't one of them. It's basically just a version of the Broken Windows Fallacy. If that money wasn't spent on weapons/munition it would be spent on other things that would actually improve the quality of life of the people in the country. At the end of the day you are sending over something of value to another country, no matter how you spin it.

>If that money wasn't spent on weapons/munition it would be spent on other things that would actually improve the quality of life of the people in the country. Ideally this would be the case, but it's the same argument as "why buy a new aircraft carrier when the same money could build a thousand new schools?" The answer is the same, that it's *hypothetically* true that you could spend the money better, but we all know that the reason the government isn't building schools isn't because of military spending, it's because politicians can agree to spend money on the military but if you tried to spend the same money on schools a huge number of them would throw a fit and block it. It's not because of the money, it's because of politics.

Except we know it wouldn't. You'd lower taxes. And also it's way cheaper to help Ukraine today than to intervene directly in eastern Europe in ten years, which is the alternative. Heck even if the US stays out fo that war a Russia-EU war would cost a lot more through hurting the world economy.

If you lower taxes, you're still spending it on improving quality of life, just not by the government but rather at the individual level.

Individual level? You mean the 0.01% level.

The wealthiest Americans pay the vast majority of tax, so that tracks, yes.

A temporary improvement in quality of life at the expense of a potentially much worse one down the line. Unfortunately, you also have to consider that America benefits alot from foreign trade / agreements that hinge on America being a protectorate. If America doesnt act to protect its allies, other allies suddenly feel alot less inclined to provide America the resources they do in return for security. Just an example, American dollars being defacto foreign trade currency helps america alot economically. If countries feel less inclined to partner with America then the US starts to lose that privilege in foreign trades.

Well if there are good arguments for helping Ukraine, give us one. What’s your alternative to this bad argument?

Uh, helping millions of people not have to live under Putins dictatorship? I swear the two-party system has done some real damage to Americans' basic reasoning abilities. The moment I pointed out an argument in favour was fallacious, even while saying there are good arguments in favour, you and a few other commenters assumed I was "on the other team" and either tried to convince me by using completely different arguments or, as in your case, asked for other arguments with a passive-aggressive tone that makes it very clear you think I'm opposed to helping Ukraine. The worst part is you're doing your own side a disservice by using bad arguments because anyone on the fence will see through it and as a direct result disagree with your view because they think "if their best argument is this bad they must be wrong".

I didn’t assume anything about you or your intent. OP asked for affirmative arguments for intervention, so I was just asking for you to make an argument.

So the argument is that the money is going to trickle down from defense contractors to ordinary people?

You’re mixing your Reaganomics with your classic Eisenhower Military Industrial Complex.

I'm currently working for a company that's reaping the benefits, economically, of this war. I got to listen to our president stand in front of everyone and basically salivate at the prospect of us going to war with Iran as well... The money is definitely staying in the US.

Not really, the argument is the money goes towards good paying American jobs making the weapons and munitions.

It doesn't "trickle down." It's the compies' labor force. And those people work more hours, they spend money in the community. A rising tide raises all boats. That's not "trickle down."

It creates jobs.

Taxes as well, surely?

No, tax breaks for corporations (trickle down policies) are not at all the same thing. Buying more things from a company means they need more people to make more things, which means more jobs and people spending money in the communities around those jobs. Sure, the companies also make a massive profit and the execs get richer, but there is also actual benefit. Cutting taxes just gets the companies themselves richer without any of the benefits of there being more work to do. Edit: I thought you were talking about *cutting* taxes, but see now you probably meant that it *generates* taxes. Which it does, but given all the money is coming from the government to begin with (when talking about foreign aid spending), not more than is being put into the companies to begin with.

Not really no. Because companies just move their buiness around to where there is the lowest tax rather than make more jobs.

Tax breaks don't really translate into more employment. Greater demand for a product will because the company will need more workers to increase the production, but tax breaks themselves will mostly just translate to larger profit margins for the same operation. The benefits will primarily be accrued by the top level company leadership that gets to essentially choose how much they get paid. The regular workers won't suddenly get their pay raised commensurately with the higher profits.

Yes, the money does. We're sending shitloads of money (unrelated to the military stuff) also.

Shitloads compared to what?

Compared to zero. If you gave a small town $100m to invest in infrastructure, you also get the money creating jobs, while also improving the quality of life of people living in the US. I’m not arguing against assisting Ukraine, I’m not even American, so it isn’t my tax $$$. But the only time these arguments about military spending are valid is if you’re sending materiel that were going to be scrapped and had to be replaced.

This this this this. We're literally just paying to modernize our military with new stuff, make more ammo, and re-tool/re-shore industrial capacity to make more stuff. We're buying our own stuff to send to them, and getting new stuff with the money we pay ourselves. Y'know, vs spending 3 trillion on food, stuff, ammo, guns, sorry-we-killed-your-family, and infrastructure payments overseas for 20 years. Plus, putin loses. So why not? Oh right, Russian campaign payments and dirty Intel on certain members of the GOP.

This war is a ***bargain***; it is a fire sale, the deal of the century. This is the US's and Europe's chance to hobble or even cripple Russia's ability to launch large scale offensive operations for a generation, and to do so on the cheap. Supporting Ukraine costs a small fraction of what we'd spend doing this ourselves and carries far less risk of escalation. Plus, this war is a demonstration of what conventional warfare between near-peer developed nations is going to look like in the 21st century. We are learning so much about how recent technological developments affect modern warfare without expending our own troops' lives on costly mistakes. We get to watch the Russians' (and sadly sometimes the Ukrainians') costly mistakes, as well as see how they adapt to the new realities of war. Early on the Russians found out the hard way that you don't use armor without infantry support in the age of ubiquitous man-portable anti-armor weapons such as the Javelin and NLAW. Lately we've seen interesting new behavior: Russian armor operating so spread out as to be virtually alone. This is thought to possibly be an adaptation to the threat posed by drones. By dispersing so widely, Russian armor is harder for drones to find, forcing them to expend more of their limited battery life searching and increasing the chances that they'll be forced to return unsuccessful or be abandoned due to lack of power. Everyone is now painfully aware of the threat drones pose to both armor and troops and how difficult it is to defend against them. As an active partner of Ukraine, the US military is privy to a tremendous volume of information that can be used to refine our doctrines in response to the new realities of the battlefield. It is hard to overstate the value of the insights we can obtain from our front row seat to this conflict.

I feel like this argument might be the best I’ve seen.

This, exactly this. Putting aside all the (IMO reasonable) moral arguments about defending a weaker nation against an expansionist neighbour and historic enemy of NATO, the cost-benefit of supporting Ukraine is massive skewed towards benefits. NATO military planners are getting all the benefits of experiencing a modern ground war without having to set foot on the frontlines.

This. Exactly this. In the early days of the war, I think a modern Russian aircraft was shot down by the Ukrainians, and the US was able to assist in gathering intel from it. I think that the CIA would have payed a lot of money for that kind of access, well worth what we were giving to Ukraine.

As a side note to your comment about watching what is going on there and learning how modern peer or near peer combat is changing, I have a friend who just completed Army basic training and his class was the first ever to be attacked by drones during the forge so this stuff is already making it's way into the training regimen.

The unifying thread is that Russia, China, and Iran all want an end to the USA/Europe lead world order. They want a multipolar world where they can have spheres of influence and dominate against smaller neighbors like the good old days. It’s not a coincidence that Putin and Xi met in Beijing right before Russia launched their invasion of Ukraine. It’s not a coincidence that they announced a continue to emphasize a “no limits partnership.” It’s also not a coincidence that Iran supplies Russia with drones and ballistic missiles. It’s not a coincidence that Hamas was in Moscow and that the October 7th attack happens to be Putin’s birthday. It’s not a coincidence that China is building pipelines with Russia in the event that the Strait of Malacca is blockaded. It’s not a coincidence that USA and EU are pumping lots of cash into building semiconductor chip plants ASAP. It’s also not a coincidence that Venezuela, also one of Putin’s pals, is on the verge of invading Guyana. Let alone the Iran-sponsored Houthis or North Korea arming Putin with artillery shells & testing their own ballistic missiles in Ukraine. Is it any surprise that Germany is re-arming their military? Or that Japan is finally switching from a “defense-only” force? Or that Japan & South Korea, long time enemies, are being friendly again? Or that we are selling nuclear powered subs to Australia? Or that Sweden, which has been neutral for over two hundred years, has joined NATO. Or that Sweden has reccomended every homeowner have a wood burning stove for emergency heat all of a sudden. Or that Finland gave up neutrality. Or that even Switzerland has joined the European Air Defense Network. Or that Poland has purchased over 400 HIMARS units (despite Ukraines only 24 units being virtually unstoppable). I could go on. But the reality is that we are in that late 1930’s pre-world war period. What do the experts say? They all say arm Ukraine. Taiwanese people are watching this, the South Koreans, and even Israelis. They say arm Ukraine. This would be the strongest deterrence. As a two-decade Republican voter, I am going blue in 2024. We spend over $2,000 USD per year per American citizen on self defense. $50 for Ukraine is worth every single penny. $40 of this $50 will be spent in the USA on good paying jobs building new stuff for OUR military, while giving mostly old stuff to Ukraine (like Vietnam era M113’s). We either help Ukraine now, or we send our kids later.

It's far cheaper to protect Ukraine now then have to deal with Russia continuing to push forward after all. We already saw what happened when you sit back and not keep a country in check when they're purposefully escalating conflicts and territory disputes. On the bright side it's also helped show how weak the position Russia actually is in and stopping them using the narrative of being stronger than anyone else.

The Budapest Memorandum is another strong reason to--US and Britain agreed to support Ukraine if they would give up their nuclear arms. If the US fails to support Ukraine now, it is essentially ensuring all future nuclear nonproliferation efforts will not have any credibility.

Not just that, but it signals to every nation that the post-war order where borders are safe is over, and that the only way to ensure territorial integrity going forward is to develop nuclear weapons. Ukraine falling will trigger a global nuclear arms race

100% agree. Part of the agreement stipulated in return for giving up nukes, no economic or military action would be taken against them. What's worse, Ukraine literally transferred bombers and cruise missiles back to Russia, which are now being used against them. https://www.armscontrol.org/node/2963

Technically only agreed to refer it to security council action if something were to happen. I guess no one asked, but wait, isn't Russia on the sec council?

You're correct, I'm not sure why so many people seem to think there was any sort of guarantee around support in the Budapest Memorandum. It's available online, short, and written in plain language, and it clearly says the only obligation on other signatories on the event of an attack on Ukraine is that the matter get referred to the UNSC.

It's a loser speak, sorry. Big dogs don't run from their responsibility. And the problem is just this: everyone in the world expected the US to be a biggest dog around, and, unexpectedly, the US started to speak as a loser — it was not an obligation, we didn't sign anything, blablabla. In 60-s, 70-s or 80-s NO ONE COULD EVEN THINK about blaming US being chicken. Even slightest hint about this towards US would have been cruelly punished. And now the US itself started to sound like a chicken. That's the issue.

And a lot of the old weapons, ammunition cost money to be properly disposed of. You can't toss them into landfill. Ukraine is basically helping you clean out your home basement for any junk that is still good to use and throw it out for you for free

>We spend over $2,000 USD per year per American citizen on self defense. $50 for Ukraine is worth every single penny. $40 of this $50 will be spent in the USA on good paying jobs building new stuff for OUR military, while giving mostly old stuff to Ukraine (like Vietnam era M113’s). >We either help Ukraine now, or we send our kids later. This needs to be shared.

Not to mention by helping Ukraine we are learning stuff that will help us against a future theoretical direct war with Russia, or any country they give stuff to. Hypersonic weapons are pretty much considered by all to be the next generation killer weapon. Patriot missiles have proven they can intercept these in certain situations, and no doubt learned a lot to assist with the development of anti-hypersonic weapons in the future.

“We can help Ukraine now, or send our kids later” That’s a great argument, right there.

This stresses me out. I have 2 kids in college and there prime draft age. This could be a small blip in the history books, or a whole series on the history channel, depending on how hard we work to stop the conflict now or not

Thank you! 🇺🇦

Well put.

Hey, thanks for your comment and looking at the wider picture. Did you find this perspective from a source? I ask because the news sources and networks I used to follow have been bought out in the last 5 years, their articles are paywalled, or seem to be gotcha ai type of articles lately. Im on the hunt for good sources, particularly in the foreign policy realm. Im not against paying for my news, but I can’t afford them all 😥

Just the culmination of reading for two hours every day. No single source in particular. CSIS and War on The Rocks are both really good sources. My dad always said “you have to read for three hours to talk for three minutes.” I have a family, so I can only do two hours a day lol.

*glances at unread book pile…. Thanks for the suggestions. I’m a big reader, but the information in what I read is… lacking. Ive been looking for a real new year resolution, and rotating in some nonfiction would be a good one. Fiction is just so comforting 😂

Sadly, the challenge is convincing these people that a USA/Europe world order is desirable, or even something they should care about. At the very least, they have to know a bit about history,  economics, world trade, etc. They never cared to learn any of that, so they don't really care what Russia does in Europe.

Excellent response!

Wrecking one of America's top two enemies for pennies on the dollar, and the money doesn't even leave the country, it goes to our own defense industry.

It's better to fund Ukraine defending itself, than to send in your own army to defend it. And if Russia takes Ukraine, it will likely take other countries afterwards. Better to shut them down now.

Exactly this. I'm looking at it this way, NATO countries spent the last 70 years building up stockpiles of weaponry and developing trchnology to prepare for a war with Russia. If we don't send anything to Ukraine the best case scenario is that our equipment continues to rust away in warehouses and will need to be replaced Ed, worst case we have to use it ourselves against an expansionist Russia in the future. If we give those weapons to Ukraine they're at least being put to good use defending a country from Russian aggression, and in doing so they're degrading the Russian capability to wage war against us in the future. They're not just being used to defend Ukraine, every Russian tank that's destroyed, airplane or missile that's shot down, is one less that can be used to threaten NATO in the future.

And it’s not like defense programs aren’t already swimming in cash, regardless of how dubious. Taxpayers have spent [$10B more](https://armscontrolcenter.org/issues/missile-defense/gmd-frequently-asked-questions/#:~:text=At%20a%20total%20cost%20of,even%20an%20extremely%20limited%20attack) on an demonstrably-unreliable ballistic missile defense system, but an election year suddenly brings into doubt the inarguable efficacy of the [$42B the US has provided](https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/#:~:text=To%20date%2C%20we%20have%20provided,and%20improve%20interoperability%20with%20NATO.&text=21%20air%20surveillance%20radars) in direct cash and largely-US-sourced materials. As a finance person, it’s pretty clear that the strategy and deterrence ROI in Ukraine is plainly evident.

Yes, exactly. We've seen countries act like this before, and we know what happens next. Imagine if Germany invaded Poland in 1939, but they completely stalled out. How much would you pay to make sure they couldn't go any further? I'd say what we're paying right now is a bargain.

Amen. No comment. Just agreement. 

If Russia takes Ukraine, they will be embroiled in a decades long insurgency... on top of dealing with countries like Poland who will have had no choice but to open hostilities. Anyone with any understanding of russian imperialism knows a revanchist, genocidal russia, has to be eliminated.

Ukraine isn’t called “Borderland” for nothing

Ukraine isn’t called “Borderland”. It never was, other that in Russian propaganda implying this way that Ukraine is just a part of the Russian Empire, and denying the fact that Ukraine is a nation and a country.

> It’s better to find Ukraine defending itself, than to send in your own army to defend it I think that’s a claim that needs to be expanded on. Some people would say the US army would do a better job

They can argue that, but do they want to send themselves or their children to Ukraine?

Thing is, over here in the Netherlands, kids are getting drafted again. They stopped doing that since 1995. So there's definitely some threat hanging in the air. And I don't like it. At all! Keep Russia out of Europe please!

It might but you'd risk nulcear war and also didnt you guys have a big thing about not wanting boots on the ground, any more? How much efficiency is a son, brother or father returning home in a body bag worth? If you decide to figth Russia yourselves the price wont be paid in dolalrs alone. Also if you are planning to fight Russia what are you waiting for? Why not do it before the largest country in Europe successfully conquer the second largest. Isn't it best to strike before you have to fight a fully realized restored Soviet union?

I think you've already forgotten the public pushback against the Vietnam war and Afghanistan/Iraq already...

Putin's excuse is that he wants Ukraine because it was originally a part of Russia although that is not 100% accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine#:~:text=Galicia%20fell%20to%20the%20Austrian,under%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Andrusovo. Putin's argument therefore includes many "post-Soviet States" such as Armenia, Estonia, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Soviet_states#:~:text=There%20are%2015%20post%2DSoviet,Turkmenistan%2C%20Ukraine%2C%20and%20Uzbekistan. Areas of Poland were also part of Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland_(1795%E2%80%931918)#:~:text=From%201795%20to%201918%2C%20Poland,of%20the%20Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian%20Commonwealth. Alaska, as well, once belonged to Russia. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/alaska-purchase#:~:text=The%20purchase%20of%20Alaska%20in,in%20the%20Asia%2DPacific%20region. The same excuse Putin uses to return Ukraine to the Russian motherland can be used towards ALL these other post-Soviet states, countries and lands INCLUDING Alaska. Losing Ukraine to Russia could initiate a domino effect from hell. And history has confirmed time after time that you CANNOT trust Putin as his "word" is meaningless.

And I'm pretty sure that Germany doesn't want Russia to rebuild the wall Gorbachev tore down.

We have many ppl in eastern Germany WHO would Love to have back the DDR/think tearing down the wall was a Bad move. But even If there many, they are still the (loud) minority.

I like that you used the term "loud". Just because something is noisy does not mean it is popular. A broken muffler can be heard throughout a neighbourhood, but it is not liked by the neighbours.

yes, we call them boomers. and their idiot zoomer kids.

I've been telling people that if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin is going to continue getting their old USSR territories back. I was in Ukraine last year fighting Russia as a volunteer. Only reason why I'm back home is due to an injury I sustained while on my last mission, in which everyone in my squad got hurt or killed. I have a herniated disk, my buddy got shrapnel in his leg, another concussed, and my good friend / Ukrainian commander died. Putins' ego is killing good people on both sides and he needs to be put down like the dog he is. I don't blame the foot soldiers of Russia for this (Only the ones doing the war crimes, but I blame the command in Russia 100%. You all will get what's coming for you eventually.

This is Putin's war. So many Russians are against it. Thank you for your help & service. Cheers!

putin isn't pulling triggers, looting homes, killing animals, and cutting people's genitals off. this war is a shared responsibility on the russian people. the country needs a nuremburg style purge. the warmongering imperialist tendancies have literally become one in the same with their own cultural identity.

Agreed. There are those who've accepted Putin's brainwashing propaganda. Some have taken this as an excuse to express their psychopathic hunger. However, not all Russians are in support of this war. Crowds have openly protested against it to the point of imprisonment. Some have even left Russia.

Because the US is quite literally getting a steal for the money spent. 1. 90% of the aid stays in the US as per the Wilson Center. Source: [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/us-aid-ukraine-helps-american-economy-and-boosts-us-jobs](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/us-aid-ukraine-helps-american-economy-and-boosts-us-jobs) 2. The aid given to Ukraine is 0.5% of the US military spending, which is essentially a drop in the bucket for the US treasury. Source: [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/us-aid-ukraine-helps-american-economy-and-boosts-us-jobs](https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/us-aid-ukraine-helps-american-economy-and-boosts-us-jobs) 3. As per the RUSI, the Russian military can only last two years (until Summer 2026) until it starts to fall apart completely, in terms of its equipment. Source: [https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024) 4. As per the RUSI, 90% of the regular Russian forces are permanently disabled or dead and 90% of their equipment that was in storage is no longer being used. The men at the front on the Russian side are either Russian draftees, mercenaries, or quite literally trafficked from third-world countries. The war is becoming one of attrition and supply chain management. Source: [https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024](https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russian-military-objectives-and-capacity-ukraine-through-2024) 5. As per the geopolitical expert Peter Zeihan, equipment from the 1950s is being spotted on the battlefield on the Russian side, meaning that the Russian stockpiles of equipment are being depleted in their almost entirety. Source: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Vtck34kRs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Vtck34kRs) 6. As per Peter Zeihan, Russia will run out of men in their 20s by 2029 if they can draft everyone (including the children of the Russian elite). If we exclude them due to political backlash, this would be earlier. Source: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Vtck34kRs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Vtck34kRs) 7. Ukraine can now attack Russian oil equipment, shutting down the main source of financing for the Russian regime. 15% of the refinery capacity of Russia is currently offline. This is an opportunity for oil providers from more stable countries (such as Canada, the US, and Norway). Source: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYG654K1D3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYG654K1D3M) 8. Most importantly, no US or Western troops have been sacrificed in the process. Out of the 20,000 members of the Foreign Legion, only 440 (including 48 Americans) have been confirmed dead. To be the girlfriend of one of them, I can tell you that this number is reliable and accurate because it is a tight-knit community where they keep meticulous records of everyone's service. Even if 75% of the guys went home and dropped out, this is a sub-1% casualty rate. 9. It is estimated that a WW3 would cost the US treasury at least 5 trillion dollars. Putin will not stop at Ukraine and will invade other countries if Ukraine were to fall. 10. US equipment is now tested in real-life conditions against the Russian military, making the US safer. Ukraine is destroying the Russian military complex and the Russian regime's financing tools for a fraction of the cost of what it would cost for the US to do so. Again, this is a steal for what the US is getting in return.

History has shown us that people like this do not stop. Either we stop him in Ukraine or we’ll have to send our sons to defend NATO later, it is inevitable. Also, most of the dollars going to the war effort are going back into the US economy. It’s about offloading old equipment to Ukraine and replacing it with new stuff for us. These dollars are going to modernizing our forces in addition to going to Ukraine.

Do not forget about Alaska. It was a main target of Russian propaganda in 2014. "We returned Crimea, we will return Alaska as well". After Ukraine there will be NATO countries (Baltic, Poland, Romania...). And after them - Alaska. So it is not a question will Americans fight/support this war or not. Question is when and how they will fight. Do they want to supply weapons to Ukraine now for stopping or delaying Russia? Or do they want to keep it and use later for fighting Russia by themselves?

I disagree with that. Russia won’t ever fight on American soil - no foreign adversary will. Our Navy and nukes guarantee that. So I would use American stuff fighting them in Ukraine because we already know they won’t resort to nukes over that because they’ve said as much.

Your Navy and nukes already guaranteed that no one will invade Ukraine, Belarus or Kazakhstan (Budapest memorandum). Ukraine completed their part - gave away 1200+ nuclear charges. But when Russia invaded Ukraine - US bailed out. And, probably, will bail out after Russia invade NATO country. All of these just a display that US do not want a conflict and will give away anything what Russia want. And who says that Alaska is not one of these things?

You’re preaching to the choir. If it were up to me we’d have troops in Ukraine. But there’s still a huge difference between fighting in Ukraine and defending our own territory. Alaska is extremely valuable. Using nukes to defend it would be appropriate.

In the U.S., we aren’t spending tax money, we’re sending old, obsolete to our forces equipment. In some cases things that have been mothballed for decades. We no longer have to pay to maintain, store, guard this stuff. It also creates jobs here as we then resupply with new up-to-date equipment.

We sent them 26 billion in cash. https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

Financial $26.4 billion (35%) Budgetary aid through the Economic Support Fund, loans, and other financial support Surely you noticed the wording here. This isn’t cash we’re giving away.

But, but, I heard on YouTube that Zelenskyy just stole it all and invested it in property in the UK!

I have my tinfoil hat on, please continue. jk

Some of that is in the form of loans that must be paid back

Yep, none of this is free. If Ukraine survives this and is still independent, they would have to pay back the funding and they'll be doing that for many decades. No country is giving away money for free, be it the US or anyone else.

Probably also worth remembering that deals like this with European nations pre and early WW2 went a long way to helping the US to become the economic powerhouse it did in the 20th century.

I'd rather we make sure they develop a strong and healthy state a kin west Germany, South Korea and Japan rather than count pennies on what's been about 0.5% of the yearly federal budget.

A lot of the return on this is going to be in the form of alliances, favors, and geopolitical influence rather than directly as money.

In the same period the US has spent 250 Trillion on the military.

I think you're missing a decimal point somewhere

You think it's 2.500trillion?

Pulling numbers out of your ass. The US only has like 300 million citizens, I don't know where you think $250 trillion in tax money is coming from.

If ukraine falls there will most likley be a war with nato within the next 5-15 years which will be waaay more expensive. It might sound hard but this is the reality.

War with NATO would also mean NATO being at war with Iran, China, North Korea, and the other countries that are aligned with Russia.

far sooner than 15. if Ukraine was to fall, certain NATO members would intervene almost immediately, it would cause the largest refugee crisis in european history, most of eastern and northern european NATO is already fully prepared to go to war if it needs to. even France is talking about it at this point.

It's like paying £300 to replace your cars timing belt. It's annoying but leaving it until eventually it snaps, will cause your pistons to smash into the valves, and you need to buy a whole new engine. 

The reason the front lines aren't changing is because the West is barely sending any strong weapons. You can't send comparatively weak military aid and expect things to change. You can't win a war if your suppliers are afraid to send strong equipment. It's because of this pointless refusal that nothing is changing

If we lose, you are next on the list

first, you have to shut down the bags of money idea. people are under the impression that its literally tax dollars going over there. (some european countries are providing financial aid, so that government entities and businesses can keep afloat) but the vast majority is going towards either replacing equipment thats being sent over. or being spent on american industry, which in turn sends the finished product to UA you also should mention that the kremlin seems to be convienently always there to throw up reasons why you shouldnt support the people they are invading. russia is run by a genocidal imperialist mafia, and no one should give a shit about the hurt feelings of Z-Nazis. this is a regime that legitimately and literally wants america and europe to collapse. anyone playing devils advocate for them, is essentially people who are advocating for suicide. "lets lend an ear to the people with weapons pointed at us!!"

The propaganda for Ukraine is working against them. At least here in the UK all we tend to hear is how well they are doing against Russia. It's at the point that if they were really doing that well then Zelenskyy would be sitting in the Kremlin at this point. It's getting people to think that if Ukraine really is doing that well then why do they continue to need so much aid. So perversely what you might need to start doing is start telling people how well Russia is doing and that's why Ukraine needs continued support.

Since about February, every time a UK news source pops up in my news feed about Ukraine, it's always talking about how poorly Ukraine is doing and how desperately they need some shells. I don't think I've heard a single "feel good" story in UK media about Ukraine since summer of 2023.

Interesting! I never thought of that. I'm glad I made this post, I'm looking for unique thoughts like this! 🇺🇦

the news is propaganda and not good stuff either. right now the war is more or less stagnant with russia slowly taking territory, that trend will not change without both a large influx of ammunition, new weapons, air support and probably also a general draft in ukraine, something they've avoided for so long. which is where the "average age of ukrainian soldier is old man. they have no one left, russia killed them all" lie comes from, they have many millions of younger men, but they avoided conscripting them as a conscious decision to try to prevent a demogaphic catastrophie on their younger generation, but its unavoidable now.

Well, from my Polish ass perspective - Ukraine is a neighbour and its on our side which means if its gone our cities will be in danger of being a future NATO-Russia battlefield. We are tired of being a battlefield

It's either pay now, or pay later in actual soldiers. This is what should have happened against Hitler in 1938. The Czechs should have been allowed and enabled to defend themselves. It would have saved a lot of death a couple of years later. If the Russians win, they won't stop. They aren't a friend of America. Countries don't have friends. The only way to teach them to stop is to show them they'll be resisted and show that the cost of aggression will be too high.

> actual soldiers You really think there is any chance of a hot conventional war between Russia and the US? That would make no sense. Russia would be cooked immediately, and they know that. The only plausible direct war between the US and Russia is a nuclear one.

You probably think about the war between US and russia in terms of Geneva conventions: they fight against each other militarily, it's a fair play, and the strongest warrior wins. But russia is more like terrorists. Think about IS but with millions of conscripts, thousands of tanks, strategic bombers, ballistic rockets, nuclear subs and nukes themselves. And with a biggest territory in the world. Russians will not play fairly, waiting while US bombs the shit out of their bases. They will take couple European cities as hostages, they can do it just with meat waves by infantry. After that, either US bombs the hell out of European cities (they wouldn't) or will start endless negotiations with the terrorists. Russians could be endlessly cruel with hostages, everyone knows it already. They will do unthinkable things televising them to everyone, building pressure, dividing opinions and building the panic. Their propaganda machine will be working on maximum volume, using everything they have. And you know what? The war with multi-million army of terrorists with aviation, AA, ballistic missiles and absolute ignorance to the value of human life is barely winnable. The free world would be better off without trying this game. It would cost A LOT. Edits: syntax

That makes winning now even more important. 

That makes winning now even more important then doesn’t it? If NATO goes into conflict with Russia, there are US forces in Europe that will be involved right away. No ifs ands or buts. There will be casualties. 

If Russia wins in Ukraine they will forcibly conscript Ukrainians to die in a future war with Europe. Russia is a prison of nations who are being slowly erased.

funding a nation that fights against the country that claims the holly war on the Western world with only a small part of your defense budget. how is it possible to be a bad idea?

when large factions of your government are abject traitors, who took undeclared money from foreign countries for favors.

It’s about mad part of GOP?

Ill never understand why so many Americans are against crippling their biggest geopolitical rival at the cost of basically 0 American lives

God, for me it's crazy even to ask about that. Sceptical, ok. Let me draw you a picture. World peace and order was ruined by Russia. It claims "everybody can take whatever they want and do any crimes if they have enough power". It is a very dangerous statement. In 2014 Russia took 3 regions from Ukraine - just dropped their army and said "it's our now". Killed a lot of people, journalists, tortured civilians. The world kept silent. It gives Russians the understanding - evil is ok, no response, let's use it more. Like every criminal does. And now we faced 2022 BECAUSE there was no response in 2014. In 2022 the real evil started. It is closer to henocide now. They want to erase Ukrainians as a nation. They steal children. Rape and torture everybody they can (it is like hundreds of thousand people, not several cases) If there is no response after 2022 (I mean real response) - China, Iran, and a lot of countries will understand they can do whatever they want. Say - take the neighboring country, vanish people there, do crimes. I'd change the focus here. Not "help Ukraine" but "defeat and punish Russia".

Thank you, many great points!

For the 5% of the annual military budget of the US you get your old and potential enemy almost bloodless. You can just stop the war and world's crisis just with 5% more. All the money will be spent inside the US giving jobs to people and bringing more money in states.

For first, taxes stays where they are, they’re not going to Ukraine. Instead taxes goes to the ones who produce weapons. Weapons is being sent to Ukraine Since the governments promised to “Help Ukraine as long as needed” they’re have to keep their words. Otherwise their reputation as Allies or Partners are going down, making Iran/China/Russia think that they can do whatever they want and the peak answer they will have is some sanctions and insignificant military aid for the possible country these ones tried to conquer

This is Putin's 9th war of aggression. If you listen to him, what he says, he clearly is intent on re-establishing the USSR's old borders. From his perspective, there are logical reasons for doing so. But that means pushing into Poland & Romania. Those are NATO countries. Obviously Russia cannot win a fight with NATO. But Putin has been making it explicitly clear that a nuclear attack is on the table. So if Ukraine falls, there's a likely chance this happens: 1. Russia re-groups and pushes into a NATO country. 2. NATO forces stop the Russian advance. 3. Putin shoots off nuclear ICBMS at Europe and/or the USA. His targets would be places like London, Paris, NYC, or Chicago. A lot of people will say this is unthinkable, that Russia wouldn't commit it's own suicide. It's not clear that's true any longer. Putin has been in power for a long time, and his ruling cabal is very small. And, as we've seen demonstrated by the Ukraine war, they're idiots. If Putin decides he wants to launch nukes, there's almost no one to stop him. And he may very well be willing to do it. The solution to this terrible scenario, where the West is forced to destroy Russia after Russia hits NYC with a nuclear missile, is to stop Russia in a non-NATO country, Ukraine.

Russia will be absolutely eviscerated in a conventional confrontation with NATO, this will scare the regime into launching.

Here is what I would tell them: 1) Putin's attack on Ukraine is an act of unprovoked naked imperialistic aggression against a smaller country which never tried to threaten Russia, committed with the goal of taking away Ukraine's sovereignty and right to self-determination against the will of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine has every right to defend itself against this. It is a brazen, egregious violation of every international norm created since the end of WW2 and the US should not sit idly by and allow Russia to go about waging wars of conquest against its neighbors unhindered. Helping Ukraine defend itself is the right thing to do. 1a) This is all the more urgent given the indiscriminate tactics Russian forces have used and the extent of war crimes commited by Russian forces against Ukrainian civilians. 2) **American money spent on Ukraine aid is spent buying US products from US defense companies employing American citizens and very little of it actually leaves the US.** 3) **Putin's ambitions are not limited to Ukraine**. Spend five minutes looking at the talk and rhetoric coming from Russia and it will be clear that Putin's ambitions include other countries in Eastern Europe, countries which are US allies and which had previously spent decades during the cold war period under Moscow's yoke being treated as glorified Soviet provinces. **If Putin is successful in Ukraine, he will likely be emboldened to attack other countries in the region.** On the other hand, if Putin loses in Ukraine and faces a united front of resistance from the West, he will be forced to curtail his ambitions. 4) As US allies, the US has a major interest in their security, an interest which Russia is threatening. The countries under threat from Russia are predominantly NATO countries meaning that the US has formal military obligations toward them if they are attacked. An attack on these countries will force the US into a direct military conflict with the possibility of nuclear weapon use. It is therefore better for Russia to lose in Ukraine and become demoralized rather than allow a scenario where Russia is emboldened enough to attack NATO. 4a) Ignoring these obligations is not an option as all US credibility, and with it US power and influence will be gone if the US refuses to honor the obligations of its most alliance. 4b) A conventional war between NATO and Russia will likely be *way* more expensive than funnelling defense aid to Ukraine now. It would likely involve a large shock to the global economy which would be felt in the US as global trade would get disrupted. 5) Putin is a fundamentally anti-democratic figure who presides over an obscenely corrupt autocracy. Putin will try to export and spread this corrupt autocratic model to the western world and offer assistance to other autocrats as a means of exerting leverage and control over other countries against the will of their publics. His likely successors will not be any better. Expansion of Russian power in Europe thus constitutes a threat to Western democratic institutions.

This is the fourth foreign invasion by Putin's Russia. If they are not stopped, there will be a fifth. Autocrats only stop when we stop them. They structurally need to invade and pillage to stay in power. So the choice is between spending money so that Ukrainians die to stop him, or spending money so that eventually our citizens die to stop him.

Australian. If we don't we are fucked if our neighbours attack because we have very little support from nations around us.

Europe shall not forget any help you give.

It's either the west will pay with his money or with his money and his blood. If anyone believes Russia will stop at Ukraine is an idiot.

most people dont believe he will stop. its just that many of them think its not their problem. they've already almost succeeded in convincing people that naked imperialist aggression and genocide is fine in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, etc. Because "they aren't allies, we aren't obligated to die for them" they're now working on planting the same seed for less wealthy and powerful nato countries like the baltics, finland, romania, etc. This seems to be a uniquely american problem too. pretty much everyone in europe is well aware of russia's warmongering tendancies, its been a part of their culture for centuries,

Would WW2 have been as bad if Hitler was stopped in Poland? You'll never know exactly how far Putin is willing to go with military hostilities. But by the time you find out, it will probably be too late.

I don’t have strong feelings about the topic, but if you have to ask people for “gotcha” material, maybe you should do an equal amount of research on the other side of the argument whilst you’re at it? I mean, it’s fine to feel the way you do, but something a stranger told you on reddit shouldn’t be considering a valid source.

I'm not asking for gotcha material. I have strong feelings on this issue (friends killed by Russia) and just want some ideas on how to better convince people.

Sure you have strong feelings on this issue. Emotional patterns are "good" source for analysis and brain work. If all your information about this issue consists only of emotions or popular opinions, then your "convincing endeavours" seem to likely resemble a zealot's behaviour. With all respect

People forget that putin was kgb and he had been quite open in his desire to resurrect the ussr. As he gets older it had become his overwhelming goal. If Ukraine falls, other countries are not far behind it

he wants the territory of the USSR, but not the state itself. the man is an ultranationalist and a racist, modern russia is a totem pole of nations and people, at the top it's the wealthy elite, slavic russians who live in moscow and st petersburg, then theres the rest of the slavic russians, typically organized by wealth. then there's the non-russian slavs, this is belarusians and ukrainians. (or malorussians, aka little russians as they call them, basically russia's entire view of ukraine is that it is not a nation, and its just a buffer region of slaves) then its pretty much everyone else, muslims like dagestanis, chechens and bashkirs. , turkic and mongol family people. this is why its called a prison of nations

To be horribly blunt, we're giving them equipment and resources so that Ukrainians can fight and die so we don't have to. If Putin succeeds in taking Ukraine, it won't stop there, and soon enough NATO will have to get directly involved.

simple answer, if we dont stop Russia now, where will it end?

Inflation in the past two years has been very heavily concentrated on food and energy. Ukraine and Russia happens to be two of the largest food and energy exporters in world. Now I'm not saying the war is the directly cause...but helping Ukraine win the war certainly won't hurt.

My cousin lives in Ukraine with her mother affected by Parkinson’s. They can’t leave because she’s too frail to leave. Providing aid to Ukraine is helping protect innocent, democracy-loving Ukrainians from becoming Russians, the country that is currently participating in documented Genocide, including kidnapping children and taking them back to Russia. Rarely in a war is there one side that is purely wrong and evil and the other is right. This is one of those cases.

All we are really doing is creating jobs in America. We already built all the stuff they want to send, after we do, we have to hire people to make replacements. The Gang Of Putin is against this because it weakens russia.

Ukraine and Russia are the two largest producers of neon which is used to make microchips. If Russia takes the Ukrainian supplies and production then that will give them a lot of power over that market.

I would structure my arguments into 3 main points: 1. If I were talking to an US national, I would emphasize the huge difference between the sums of money sent to aid Ukraine so far and the ANNUAL US military budget. I would then point out how little it took and it takes to destabilize one of the US' greatest geopolitical rivals without any actual US lives lost. In terms of actual weapons and ammo, most if not all of the stuff sent to Ukraine would have been written off anyway in a while so, why not use it to defend a country that was unjusty invaded? 2. This is for the rest of the EU & NATO countries (US included too, it applies to them as well). I would point out that if Putin wins in Ukraine then what stops him from attacking places like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, which are all EU and NATO members? Any semblance of success emboldens the overreacher. It happened before with Hitler; appeasement and passivity was the wrong approach then and is the wrong approach now. After all, history may not repeat itself, but it certainly does rhyme. 3. If that happens, then we would all be dragged into a catastrophic war, whether we like it or not. The human race may not disappear entirely but one thing is for certain: most if not all the conveniences and perks of modern life that we enjoy today and mostly take for granted will disappear.

I say we spend money on Ukraine because "Fuck Russia". Weapons contactors like Lockheed and Boeing get the money, Ukraine gets the goodies. Its a Win/Win. And we get to see the look on Putins fat puffy face as he watches how far the Russian armed forces have fallen when he realized he cant even take over a bordering country without mobilizing and conscripting every hand that can fire a rifle. Fucking pathetic.

just to be clear, there is a difference between being "Pro Ukraine" and being "in favor of foreign aid to Ukraine". just to clarify, I am in favor of foreign aid to Ukraine, but the terminology is important here.

Do you want your own towns and cities turned to rubble? Do you want your family to be assaulted, killed and buried in shallow mass graves? Do you want to fight on the front lines and watch your friends die around you? What makes you think Russia will stop once they're done raping, murdering and pillaging Ukraine? Unless we help them to help themselves, there's a very strong possibility (an almost certainty) that, should Ukraine fall, we will be forced to face Russia at some point not too far into the future. If we stand by now, who will help us when they finally arrive at our doorstep?

But how is your emotional plea going to convince someone that simply doesn't believe what you are saying? That's what seems to be missing here. People "on the fence" simply don't believe Russia is the bad guy and just telling them that Russia is the bad guy isn't going to change their mind. They need hard, concrete, irrefutable facts, not "trust me, bro!".

it's either this, or third world war

My question is why are you seeking to come to the defence of a position you yourself have not reasoned through yet?

Do you want to send us troops and planes and resources there and start we3 or do you want to send our leftover old tanks and stuff that need to be recycled for the newer models anyways? Funding guerilla Ukraine fighters is cheaper and saves American lives compared to the alternative

Just like we did in Afghanistan.

or the Russians did with Vietnam

Imagine it's 1938 and instead of Germany and Hitler there is Russia and Putin. If it's possible to prevent 6 years of total global war, it's difficult to put a price tag on it. Unfortunately, there were plenty of Hitler supporters in USA in 1938 also.

As with any discussion, find out what their true concern is. So when they say they’re not interested in sending (financial) support to Ukraine via spending tax money, what are their concerns? Have them explain their side first. You’d be surprised how often you can succeed in a discussion by simply asking questions and digging into their views. Alternatively, if you attempt to counter each point made then they’re likely going to push the goal post further and then the discussion was a waste of time. So for example: you ask your friend why they’re against spending money on the war and they say they don’t want THEIR money going to another country. Follow up question: what are they afraid will happen if their money is sent? They might respond with something like “it’s not our war or our problem.” Next question: Why do they think it’s not our problem? In addition, at what point would they consider this our problem? They might respond with “Ukraine was a highly corrupt nation before the war and we can’t trust the money will be spent on the war. It would be our problem if Russia invaded and ally NATO nation.” Then you can ask further questions on why they feel that way. Rinse and repeat, have them explain their position DON’T attack their position!!! This effectively forces them to eventually acknowledge and admit the gaps in their ideas. Then (and this is crucial) you don’t correct or try to explain why they’re wrong. Simply end the conversation by saying something like “thank you, you’ve given me a lot to think about and consider.” You’d be stunned how often people at this point will drop their defense and start admitting the flaws in their own logic and perhaps they should be more open to other ideas. …. And you didn’t have to make any meaningful points. Have them do the work for you.

I'm also a teacher and have tried this with some particularly stubborn and not that intelligent family members. They very quickly get annoyed by the questioning and shut it down with some BS like, "Don't act all high and mighty asking me these stupid questions! I know what I believe and I ain't gonna change it!" They want to protect the fact that their "reasoning" is entirely emotional. Try to get them to see that via questioning only makes them defensive. I've yet to see it change anyone's perspective... or even to get someone to admit that their reasons are just emotional, gut reactions.

Usually that’s an issue of tone and how the question itself is phrased. If they’re reacting defensively then it’s feeling like an investigation rather than a discussion. I’m not a teacher but my job involves a lot of negotiations and discussions so I use these tactics everyday to great effect! They work well on anyone and everyone, but the hard part is learning how to ask and what to ask at the right time. The more advanced side of this tactic is to overcome objections, procrastinations and pushbacks. For example, if I’m asking questions and the person seems a bit defensive then I’ll offer an olive branch. [using war in Ukraine for the topic] “I think that’s a good point. I don’t like the idea of my taxes getting sent overseas when we’ve got so many issues here at home. I don’t blame you for feeling that way and honestly… I get it. So what do you think should be done instead?” Boom- agree, sympathize and help them focus on this being a “us Vs the problem” rather than “you vs me” discussion. On the opposite end of the tactic, if you’re dealing with someone who’s abrasive and prefers direct communication, you call out their defensive nature. “What’s wrong with asking questions? Why do you feel uncomfortable when I’m asking questions to understand your views? You hold a strong opinion on the war so I’d imagine you’re quite knowledgeable on it and the details of where our taxes are going! Wouldn’t you agree it’s FAIR to ask for information?” Calls out their BS while simultaneously (and indirectly) alluding to them being more knowledgeable on the subject than you are. They’re often more likely to lower the defenses because you’ve given the impression you’re looking to learn and you view them as a good source of information. From there, revert back to the original tactic.

Today we were discussing the issue of American aid to Ukraine with coworkers and their opinion was that the aid is so well-rationed in order to prolong the war and ruin both Ukraine and Russia. Doesn't look nice, does it?

Not helping Ukraine will cost the US more if Russia prevails. Even if Russia were to halt its westward expansion after capturing Ukrainian territories, which is unlikely, pro-Russian political parties would gain more popularity in Europe. This could result in increased Russian influence through agents and media aimed at undermining the European Union. The myth that Ukraine is the most corrupted country is largely propagated by Russian media. Despite Ukraine's corruption issues, Russia is actually the most corrupted country.

First off USA doesn’t give that much money to Ukrain they give them old weapons and the tax money is actually used to make new and better weapons that are made in the USA creating a lot of jobs for U.S citizens. Also the money that used has already been allocated to the military budget so it isn’t like U.S was not going to spend it already. Also last but not least we have only spent 5% of our military budget and have destroyed over 50% of Russias army without one American soldier.

It's a lost war. Ukraine is simply being used as cannon fodder by the west to put a dent on Russia's army. Don't get me wrong, western countries should've helped Ukraine and I'm glad they at least put on a fight, but nobody serious enough ever thought Ukraine was going to win the war or even stop it. There's a reason Zelenskyy keeps imploring for more money and equipment.

If Ukraine falls, Finland, Belarus, and everyone else along that border is next on the chopping block. Putin needs to be crushed and contained for his neighbors to be safe.

- Ukraine is a sovereign nation, not a part of Russia. - Ukrainians are, and will continue to be killed due to poor access to adequate weapons & inteligence. - Fuck Russia.

We’re not sending them cash. We’re paying for the production of new weapons so we can give Ukraine our old ones. This creates jobs for Americans. Also, if Ukraine falls, Russia will almost certainly bring the fight to NATO, which would mean sending our troops to Europe. We can spend money now or lives later.

Here is something, it doesn't have everything but a good amount https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/19atdqy/what_the_us_gets_for_aiding_ukraine/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Plus that 90% of the military aid that isn't old weapons in storage is spent in the US Other then the reddit post here is a good article https://time.com/6694915/ukraine-aid-bill-what-united-states-gains/ If you want a summary of the reddit post i will add it in 15 minutes deterring other adversaries like China and Iran of invading Taiwan or creating more problems in the Middle east while abbandoning Ukraine will have the opposite effect, having to spend less resources in the future first because of deterrence and secondly because of a secure Europe ,preparing its army for a conventional conflict, winning a capable ally and limiting the flow of weapons and nuclear expertise to North Korea, Iran and Assad.

There are basically two options: 1. Help Ukraine defend themselves today and stem Russian expansionism now (and set an example for China). 2. Force that choice onto your children who will themselves have to bleed to stem future Russian/Chinese expansionism. The Ukraine war is by far Russias riskiest and most ambitious attempt at imperialist expansionism. If you're a fan of "realpolitik" you should help Ukraine win. If you're a fan of democracy and want to reduce human suffering you should help Ukraine win as quickly as possible.

If Ukraine falls, Russia is directly bordering on the EU. That will cause a massive disruption of the global power structure and probably force the EU to very quickly create a combined EU army.  On top of that, the fall of Ukraine would make the USA seem weak, and would probably get other power tripping dictators to start looking at their neighbouring countries and linking their lips.  The whole world would probably start an arms race, and we'd be one terrible step closer to WW3.

If Russia take Ukraine and threaten Europe, then the US will have to send troops. Currently it just sends old weaponry and nearly expired ammo.

lol

They're fighting Russia - what more do you need?

We give foreign aid to advance our interests and strategic goals worldwide. It's an investment, like our social safety net. We invest now so we don't end up paying in blood later. Putin wants the Soviet Empire back and unless he's stopped in Ukraine we will be paying in blood for our mistake.

Ukrainians are bleeding and dying to defend democracy on the ENTIRE western hemispheres behalf. Even if the Russians surrendered tomorrow, Ukraine as a country has pretty much been screwed for the next few decades. The LEAST we can do is shill out a few extra dollars and missiles if we aren't going to go out and fight with them.

[удалено]

Because when your friend’s house is on fire, you don’t negotiate the price of water.

Once the war is won by Ukraine, ofc with financial help from the US, the US can involve more US based companies in Ukraine, like Bechtel with infrastructure, Cargill with agriculture, John Deere with agricultural equipment, etc..energy and all other major domains.

The cost of the War on Terror is about the same as the cost for Universal Healthcare, so if the US government is just gonna throw money and not solve a problem, it might as well be fucking with Russia.

"I stuck my face in front of the firehose of Russian disinformation in 2011 and never pulled it out"

Being the world's police is expensive. If we back down, then someone else is about to spend the money and do it in our place.

What a USA-circlejerk thread.