In March 2014, Russian soldiers entered Ukraine and took control of several strategic positions within the country. The following month the Ukrainian parliament declared that its territory was officially being occupied by Russia. The invasion was immediately condemned by the U.S. and other U.N. member states as a direct invasion of a sovereign country and an act of war. In response NATO countries began military exercises in the region including the addition of 600 U.S. ground troops in Poland. Opponents of military action argue that the conflict the U.S. should not get involved in regional…
Read more35% Yes |
65% No |
29% Yes |
49% No |
4% Yes, we should provide them weapons to defend themselves but not send our troops |
8% No, we should pursue diplomatic options instead |
2% Yes, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine threatens the balance of power in the region |
7% No, we should stay out of conflicts that do not directly threaten us |
See how support for each position on “Ukraine” has changed over time for 148k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Ukraine” has changed over time for 148k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@57697SG3yrs3Y
Ukraine needs to sort itself out, first. Once they have a legitimate government in place, then we can help them. As it stands, the only reason we are there is to protect corporate interests, particularly those of members of the current Presidential administration.
@575Z7FZ3yrs3Y
Engage in diplomatic talks to ease tensions and rehabilitate the region so that all stake holders walk away with something to gain. It also ensures that the people in this region are saved from more bloodshed, have their own voices heard and can move on.
@5FJCR9Z3yrs3Y
Yes- we should outlaw major war by declaring "The next country to invade another we will turn to glass within 24 hours of their aggression. As the leading superpower we will not tolerate war- and any organization acting on behalf of a country or claiming to- will reduce that country's population to zero. Again- we WILL NOT tolerate war any longer. The age of peace has finally come to the earth. Be productive, and TRADE. IF you decide to fight, we will kill you. Simple decision.
@5759BST3yrs3Y
Yes, but only with supplies and equipment.
@5H4JKB23yrs3Y
No, and the US needs to honor the agreements made between Gorbechev and Reagan and stop agitating Russia for geopolitical reasons.
@amadios3yrs3Y
The UN Security Counsel should decide if the use of force is appropriate
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Ukraine” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH16hrs16H
Russia's military death toll in Ukraine has now passed the 50,000 mark, the BBC can confirm.In the second 12 months on the front line - as Moscow pushed its so-called meat grinder strategy - we found the body count was nearly 25% higher than in the first year.BBC Russian, independent media group Mediazona and volunteers have been counting deaths since February 2022.New graves in cemeteries helped provide the names of many soldiers.Our teams also combed through open-source information from official reports, newspapers and social media.More than 27,300 Russian soldiers died in the second year of combat - according to our findings - a reflection of how territorial gains have come at a huge human cost.Russia has declined to comment.The term meat grinder has been used to describe the way Moscow sends waves of soldiers forward relentlessly to try to wear down Ukrainian forces and expose their locations to Russian artillery.The overall death toll - of more than 50,000 - is eight times higher than the only official public acknowledgement of fatality numbers ever given by Moscow in September 2022.The actual number of Russian deaths is likely to be much higher.Our analysis does not include the deaths of militia in Russian-occupied Donetsk and Luhansk - in eastern Ukraine. If they were added, the death toll on the Russian side would be even higher.Ukraine, meanwhile, rarely comments on the scale of its battlefield fatalities. In February, President Volodymyr Zelensky said 31,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed - but estimates, based on US intelligence, suggest greater losses.Former prisoners have also described the high price paid by their comrades."If you sign up now, be ready to die, mate," says Sergei, in an online forum for Storm fighters and their relatives, where information is shared.He claims to be a former inmate who has been fighting in a Storm unit since October.Another forum member says he joined a Storm platoon of 100 soldiers five months ago and is now one of just 38 still alive."Every combat mission is like being born again."
@ISIDEWITH21hrs21H
In a significant move to strengthen its military capabilities amidst the ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has signed a new mobilization law aimed at reinforcing the country's exhausted forces. This legislation marks a pivotal step in Ukraine's efforts to address the acute troop shortages that have become a critical issue as the war with Russia continues. The new law introduces a comprehensive overhaul of the army mobilization rules, requiring all men aged between 18 and 60 to register with the armed forces, a measure that underscores the severity of the situation and the country's determination to bolster its defense capabilities.The legislation not only mandates registration but also introduces higher payments for volunteers, providing an incentive for more citizens to join the fight. Additionally, it establishes new punishments for those who dodge the draft, signaling a strict approach to ensuring compliance and maximizing manpower. This move comes as Ukraine seeks innovative solutions to sustain its defense efforts against the backdrop of a prolonged conflict that has drained its resources and manpower.The law's enactment has been met with mixed reactions, highlighting the challenges and sacrifices faced by the Ukrainian population in these tumultuous times. However, it also reflects a strong national resolve to defend the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity against external aggression. As Ukraine continues to navigate the complexities of this conflict, the international community watches closely, with many expressing support for the country's right to self-defense and sovereignty.This development is a testament to the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian leadership and its people in the face of adversity. As the conflict with Russia shows no signs of abating, Ukraine's new mobilization law represents a critical step in adapting to the demands of modern warfare and ensuring the nation's continued resistance against aggression.As the situation evolves, the effectiveness of this new legislation in bolstering Ukraine's military forces and its impact on the broader conflict will be closely monitored. The law's implementation is a clear indication of Ukraine's commitment to securing its future, even as it faces one of the most challenging periods in its history.
@ISIDEWITH1 day1D
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) announced Tuesday he will co-sponsor a resolution to oust Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) from the House’s top job.Massie told his colleagues during a closed-door conference meeting that he will co-sponsor the motion to vacate resolution filed late last month by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), according to three GOP lawmakers in the room, becoming the first lawmaker to publicly join Greene’s effort.Massie’s announcement came less than 24 hours after Johnson unveiled the outline of a plan to move foreign aid through the House, which includes voting on three separate bills to send assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan and a fourth measure that pertains to other national security priorities.But in a departure from his previous positions, Johnson did not include border security provisions in the plan after months of Republicans — including the Speaker — demanding that any aid for Ukraine be paired with legislation to address the situation at the southern border, sparking intense opposition among conservatives.Speaking to reporters after Tuesday’s meeting, Massie referenced Johnson’s decision to put Ukraine aid on the floor — in addition to his handling of government funding and the reauthorization of the U.S.’s warrantless surveillance authority — to explain why he is now backing the ouster effort.“There’s only one person right now who could stop us from going into what happened last fall, and that’s Mike Johnson,” Massie said, referring to the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in October.“He’s cleaning the barn, that’s obvious,” he continued. “He had three things to do: He wanted to do an omnibus that broke all the spending records, he wanted to do FISA without warrants, now he wants to do Ukraine. Those are the three things. There are people riding him like a horse here; they don’t care when the horse collapses — I do, because it’s gonna throw our conference into turmoil.”The Kentucky Republican said he asked Johnson to resign from the Speakership during the closed-door conference meeting, which the Louisiana Republican declined to do.ohnson responded to the growing ouster effort on Tuesday, calling it “absurd.”“I am not resigning and it is, in my view, an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion when we are simply here trying to do our jobs,” Johnson said at a press conference in the Capitol. “It is not helpful to the cause, it is not helpful to the country, it does not help the House Republicans advance our agenda which is in the best interest of the American people here — a secure border, sound governance — and it’s not helpful to the unity that we have in the body.”Both Greene and Massie have declined to say when they might trigger a vote on the motion-to-vacate resolution, but the support from the pair of conservatives means Johnson will more than likely need Democratic support to remain Speaker if the issue comes to the floor.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH3mos3MO
The two-state solution is a proposed diplomatic solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal envisions an independent State of Palestine that borders Israel. Palestinian leadership has supported the concept since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez. In 2017 the Hamas (a Palestinian Resistance…
@ISIDEWITH3wks3W
In a series of developments that have stirred the political landscape, former President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the presidential bid of independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., describing it as 'great for MAGA.' Trump's remarks came after Kennedy announced his vice-presidential pick, further intensifying the political discourse. Trump, in his characteristic style, took to social media to express his views, labeling Kennedy as the 'most radical left' candidate in the race and highlighting the liberal credentials of Kennedy's running mate, Nicole Shanahan. Despite his criticism of their political stance, Trump views Kennedy's candidacy as beneficial for his MAGA movement, suggesting it could potentially divide the Democratic vote.Kennedy, a figure who has long been associated with controversial views, particularly on the rule of law and established science, has drawn criticism and concern from various quarters. His decision to run for president and the subsequent endorsement by Trump has sparked a flurry of reactions, with some seeing it as a strategic move that could impact the Democratic Party's chances in the upcoming elections. Allies of President Joe Biden have expressed alarm over Kennedy's bid, fearing it could siphon off crucial votes from the left, thereby posing a significant threat to Biden's reelection efforts.The political dynamics surrounding Kennedy's candidacy and Trump's endorsement underscore the complex and often unpredictable nature of American politics. As the race for the presidency heats up, the strategies employed by candidates and their supporters are coming under increased scrutiny. The potential impact of Kennedy's run on the Democratic vote is a topic of much speculation, with analysts and political observers closely monitoring the situation.Trump's support for Kennedy, despite their ideological differences, highlights the former president's tactical approach to politics. By endorsing a candidate who could potentially weaken his opponents, Trump is playing a strategic game, aiming to maximize his own chances of success. This move has not only added a new dimension to the political landscape but has also raised questions about the future direction of both the Republican and Democratic parties.As the United States gears up for another presidential election, the emergence of candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the reactions they provoke from figures like Donald Trump are indicative of the shifting sands of American politics. With the electorate increasingly polarized, the outcome of the election remains uncertain, and the strategies adopted by candidates will be crucial in determining the path forward.