If Ukraine fights off Russia, then the chances of Russia invading a NATO country would fall to almost zero. It would also substantially reduce the chances that China invades Taiwan. Those would both be very expensive to the US. Much cheaper just to give Ukraine weapons.
Those are the upsides, what are the downsides if Ukraine still loses, or gets split up like Korea, anyways?
Is the net balance in favour of supplying weapons? This is the type of analysis I've not seen done yet across thousands of articles, essays, blog posts, etc...
Even if Ukraine ultimately loses some of their sovereign territory, supplying them with weapons is a cheap way to degrade Russian military capabilities with no risk to US forces or our NATO treaty allies. What we have spent on military aid to Ukraine is a tiny fraction of our overall military budget so for the USA there is really no downside. Regardless of who loses, we still win. Some people may be uncomfortable with putting it in such stark amoral terms but that is the geopolitical reality of how such decisions are made.
I assume you mean downsides geopolitically, because the financial costs are sunk either way.
There are several losing states (complete annexation, split like Korea). However, there are only two main ways Ukraine can lose. The world can stop sending free weapons or even with free weapons Ukraine is defeated.
It's hard for me to think of any way that "the west stops sending weapons" is not more likely to result in Russian or Chinese aggression. Is China more emboldened by "US arms without US military personnel lost a war" or "the US can be counted on to lose interest in any conflict over 2 years"?
So it doesn't matter what the downsides are[0]. It seems like no matter what, the US is better off helping Ukraine.
[0] Unless Putin pushes the big red button. But that topic has been written about extensively.
It seems possible for the Russian decision makers to be so angered that they will want to take revenge, to spend their built up political/technological/social/cultural capital to intentionally weaken the US, EU, etc.
Nuclear weapons are practically an all-or-nothing proposition, but nowadays there a lot of other ways to deliver some intermediate amount of 'revenge'.
And it's a lot easier to destroy then create, as the war has shown, I estimate the asymmetry is easily 100 to 1. That is to say $1 of novichok, or whatever nasty means, can easily cause $100 worth of damage, and the combined economic size difference isn't even 20 to 1.
Because if we don't, Russia will show the world that might makes right. And China will take Taiwan, etc.
Like peace in society, international peace exists because aggressive elements make an economic calculation, and stay calm. Once that math changes you get riots and wars.
Like when the US gave stingers to the Afghani, we don't support Ukraine for moral reasons (perhaps partly) but mainly because it's in our interest.
To be fair, might absolutely does make right in international politics still. The only reason we are even talking about Ukraine is that the Russian 3-day invasion totally failed and open up the opportunity for the west to sanction them and support Ukraine.
It weren't for that fact, the ability for countries like Germany to trade oil with Russia still would have totally overridden any possibility of sanctions.
And the West very frequently does not get involved in areas where terrible things are happening so long as those areas aren't really in their interests.
Which doesn't justify Russia in any form shape or way. Personally, because it's individuals we aren't involved in international politics and we are still perfectly valid in criticizing Russia for being hilariously evil.
And because in the world of might makes right, Russia is also losing.
So it doesn't really matter. Any Russian who tries to make this argument might be correct in calling out hypocrisy, but their weak and stagnant nation lacks the might to make the right.
Ukraine got invaded by a foreign power that is committing war crimes, taking territory that isn't theirs and repeatedly threatening other neighboring countries.
We should have given them this support when Russia took crimea, but didn't. The least we can do now is follow through on our agreement.
(Plus all of the other reasons in this thread -- there are fantastic reasons for the western nations to support Ukraine's defense separate from those I'm referring to here)
> 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]
> 2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
> 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
> 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
> 5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
> 6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]
IMO, the war crimes thing, unless very egregious, is not a very good argument. Because if there is a war, there will be war crimes, and wartime-legal actions that are as bad as war crimes, too. Basically, you start a war, you awaken the monster, and everything that happens is your responsibility. A "small" amount of war crimes is par for the course. The US did it, too!
> Basically, you start a war, you awaken the monster, and everything that happens is your responsibility.
Correct, Russia invaded Ukraine and committed war crimes. Thus why Russia can be penalized for those war crimes as a country, even though the crimes were committed by individual soldiers.
> if there is a war, there will be war crimes
And if you have a city, people will commit crimes too. Should we not punish those either?
> IMO, the war crimes thing, unless very egregious, is not a very good argument. Because if there is a war, there will be war crimes, and wartime-legal actions that are as bad as war crimes, too. Basically, you start a war, you awaken the monster, and everything that happens is your responsibility. A "small" amount of war crimes is par for the course. The US did it, too!
I don't know I think the scales of rape and torture of civilians by Russia in Ukraine is pretty egregious.
Because Ukraine is a democratic state/western ally being invaded by it's much bigger and meaner neighbor and will cease to exist if we do not help them defend themselves.
We don't have to give them to Ukraine, but doing so generally furthers our interests.
> On 20 March 2022, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a ban on 11 political parties for ties with Russia: Opposition Platform — For Life, Party of Shariy, Nashi, Opposition Bloc, Left Opposition, Union of Leftists, Derzhava, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialist Party of Ukraine, Socialists Party and Volodymyr Saldo Bloc.
Given history - one such party helped Russia take Crimea in 2014, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Unity - that seems reasonably prudent in the pursuit of still being able to be a proper democracy in the future.
But if the people vote for a party, should they not be allowed to be in power? I mean that is the definition of democracy, right? The people in Donbas, Crimea, etc. voted for many of these claimed pro Russian parties.
No, during a war and martial law, it’s best not to let enemy sympathizers run your government. No one gets free elections if Russia annexes you.
Democracy isn’t a suicide pact; you don’t have to let Hitlers take power in a crisis. Ukrainian law provides for martial law, and their Supreme Court upheld the bans. That’s democracy functioning too.
Curious, it appears it’s not as prevalent as I would expected - to see an obvious injustice and cruel atrocity being committed - and feel satisfaction seeing that the victim is getting assistance.
You don't have to, but I would regard it as prudent: so that the USA - and many other countries - don't become like, or part of, Russia.
Think of Ukraine as being somewhat similar to Vietnam.
If Ukraine falls, then Taiwan is fucked, North Korea will fuck Japan and just plain say goidbye to Europe (socialist bastards that we are).
Domino theory was false in the Vietnam War. "Contagion" didn't spread further than Laos and Cambodia, and the Vietnamese themselves deposed the Khmer Rouge in favor of moderates due to the latter's extremism and massacres.