On February 24 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. The invasion caused Europe’s largest refugee crisis since World War II, with around 7.1 million Ukrainians fleeing the country and a third of the population displaced. It has also caused global food shortages. From February 2022 – September 2022 the U.S. government approved approximately $50 billion in economic and military aid for Ukraine. The funding is earmarked for training, equipment, weapons and other support—such as salaries and stipends—for Ukraine’s military and security forces and budgetary support for Ukrainian government operations.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Ukrainian Defense Funding
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
Yes
@B584GVS 6 days6D
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 based on U.S. security assurances, and keeping that promise is vital for U.S. credibility and global stability. So far, U.S. aid—less than 5% of our defense budget—has helped Ukraine severely weaken Russia’s military without sending American troops. Supporting Ukraine now prevents a far more expensive and dangerous conflict later, making it a smart investment in both peace and national security.
@B5963NW4 days4D
It's their war an Russia did not wage war with America, so either wage war with Russia or stay out of forgien affairs.
@B59CZL24 days4D
We need to back off of any agreement where we signed to stand with Ukraine, because I believe that we need to talk about peace and how to get peace settled in war instead of funding that war.
@B596M984 days4D
We shouldn't send our own soldiers to fight in a foreign war. Vietnam War was a lesson and we should only fund.
@B599BX74 days4D
Yes I heavily agree with this statement. Ensuring that the world stays peaceful and our enemies stay weak is important to prevent a large scale war including the United States directly occurs.
@9S7M4NF9mos9MO
We have an obligation to protect our allies; though Ukraine is not part of NATO and therefore this obligation technically does not apply, if Ukraine were to fall, Russia could be emboldened to invade NATO countries, which could lead to the onset of a third world war.
@9XHDWCS6mos6MO
No evidence Russia would invade NATO
that’s the whole reason of invading Ukraine to prevent it becoming “safe” as a NATO member.
Russian has always demanded the right for a buffer zone to protect it form the west
@9FN33KQ2yrs2Y
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nation.
@9FRLZ35Libertarian2yrs2Y
What does being involved with this conflict do for us. Could this money be relocated toward better, more productive and positive things? If your answer is no, you should rethink that.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
No
@9TBJSHRRepublican8mos8MO
Ukraine paid Hunter Biden: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462
America Should only worry about the Americas unless provoked: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine
@9FN33KQ2yrs2Y
Inflation from last year has risen to 4.9% and 18.6% from 2023, combined with other economic struggles America should work on sustaining and improving the state of the economy in the US.
@9GBRKWK2yrs2Y
Ukraine is not in NATO, so we are not obligated to protect them. If they were in NATO, we would be obligated to join the war and then cause WW3.
@9GZFKWP1yr1Y
The Minsk accords and Ukraine not in NATO was preserving the peace.
We forced Ukraine to ignore the Minsk accords and we do not care for the lives of Ukrainians.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
Yes, and increase the current amount of resources we are providing
@9VYG5YH 7mos7MO
Those who say arming Ukraine will drag us into war with Russia are sorely mistaken. Russia is looking to gain from its invasion, and they are the only ones escalating this war. Whatever weapons we give Ukraine will not escalate the war any further, since the decision is solely on Russia to de-escalate. Russia will not risk their own annihilation and everything they have gained in Ukraine by attacking the US directly. The cost of war with America would be too great, and it would seriously disrupt any precarious edge they may have over Ukraine.
If we capitulate to Russia's demands, we will… Read more
@9GZFKWP1yr1Y
We are at the border of nuclear war. This is a regional dispute and Ukraine failed to ratify the Minsk accords. Wasting money in more death is immoral.
@B27CYJS4mos4MO
Russia has been an aggressor since the beginning, here are the list of times Russia has used force against other regions and countries:
First Chechen War (1994–1996)
Second Chechen War (1999–2009)
1992–1993 Georgian Civil War
1999 Dagestan War
2008 Russo-Georgian War
2014 Annexation of Crimea
2014–Present War in Donbas
2015–2024 Syrian Civil War
2022 Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine
2023 Niger and Africa (via Wagner forces, which also fight in Ukraine)
Given this trend, Russia is incredibly likely to continue invading its neighbors. The cost of a broader war would… Read more
@9GHTFHX2yrs2Y
We should not be spending more money on an unwinnable proxy war between the US and Russia. Providing more funding to Ukraine will only prolong the suffering and death of more Ukrainians, increase tensions between US and Russia, and contribute to further violence in the future.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
No, we should not get involved in this conflict
@8WMJ89V2yrs2Y
None of our business. Focus on your fellow citizen and immediate community.
@9CLWDVD 2yrs2Y
It is our business because Russia is an aggressive, expansionist, colonial power with a nuclear arsenal that threatens our closest allies.
The dissolution of the USSR left Russia with deep-seated insecurities about its western border, leading to a desire for a buffer of influence.
In terms of nuclear threat, the Cold War era was marked by the delicate balance of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This balance, in a twisted way, kept major powers from direct conflicts. While the world has changed, the basic principle remains: a nuclear power engaging in direct conflict with another nuclear power carries too high a risk.
It's not about ignoring the situation, but approaching it differently. For instance, rather than military aid, could we focus more on diplomatic and economic strategies to support Ukraine and stymie Russian aggression?
Sounds like America during 1800s
@9FRLZ35Libertarian2yrs2Y
We have spent $113 Billion on Ukrainian aid. Take into account now how many smaller issues could be dealt with the paid for with only millions of those dollars. We gain nothing from pumping money into this war that is at a stand still and we only aggravate Russia and lessen the chances of peace.
@9GT59LRLibertarian2yrs2Y
The Ukrainian government has release reports detailing its own corruption, they have fired multiple government officials for corruption, and the aid which we provide is clearly not having an effect on their ability to win the war given their recent lack of progress.
@9GZJJXF1yr1Y
Ukraine has been committing a genocide against Russians since 2014, and had killed 14,000 civilians up to the date of Feb 24, 2022 (when Russia launched the Special Military Operation). We cannot support mass murder.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
Yes, but only provide humanitarian aid
@9LRT5YH1yr1Y
We are in so much debt. We cannot afford to keep sending aid to Ukraine. That funding should be spent back home in the US instead.
@9GT59LRLibertarian2yrs2Y
The Ukraine is wildly corrupt and any aid sent to them will likely be squandered by corrupt officials.
@B2BLS5C4mos4MO
Now, we only want to provide humanitarian aid, because if soldiers come, then Russia may see this as an act of war.
@9HRL78N1yr1Y
We are $34 Trillion in debt, we cannot afford to provide welfare to our own- let alone welfare to the planet
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
No, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves
@9W6K2DV 7mos7MO
It's in the US's interest for Ukraine to win this war and Russia to lose. Russia sees itself as a mortal enemy of the United States and has taken multiple concrete steps to destabilize America's hegemony. For example, the mass spreading of propaganda on social media under false names and pretenses. For another example, the Ukraine invasion puts pressure on NATO's Eastern front and forces the US to prove its commitment to the protection of the NATO nations bordering Ukraine. Since we have an interest in the outcome, and we have the ability to influence the outcome by supporting a democratic nation, we should do so.
The Budapest Memorandum, signed in 1994, assured that the United States would military support and defend Ukraine in the event of an attack, in return for them giving up their nuclear weapons.
@B36D4DJ3mos3MO
Their entire country is being bombed and devastated, but despite that, they are building up their defense industry and mustering everything they can. But it's not enough, we must ensure that our ally is capable. We have international agreements with them and we cannot abandon someone who worked with us during our times of strife and diplomatic progress. We MUST NOT BOW DOWN TO RUSSIA!!!
As a member nation of NATO, the United States has an obligation to provide support to Ukraine. By not supporting Ukraine, we are allowing our enemies (Russia) to succeed.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
No, we cannot afford to give economic resources right now
@B584GVS 6 days6D
Not funding Ukraine now could cost far more later. If Russia succeeds, it may embolden further aggression against NATO allies, potentially triggering a direct U.S. military response—a vastl more expensive and dangerous outcome. Current aid is a cost-effective investment in global stability, preventing a larger war and protecting the U.S.-led international order that supports global trade, security, and our own economy.
@B52BBRC2wks2W
If we truly can't afford to provide economic resources, then we should attempt to help in other ways
If we can afford to provide Israel with immense amounts of funding essentially at Netanyahu's beck and call, then we can afford to provide aid to Ukraine, a country that is in more dire need of aid than the strongest military power in the middle east.
@B4GBH5R1mo1MO
Supporting Ukraine is not just about immediate financial costs—it's an investment in global stability and security. The war in Ukraine has profound implications for the international order, and a failure to support Ukraine could embolden authoritarian regimes, destabilize Europe, and lead to greater conflict in the future. If Russia were to succeed, it could set a dangerous precedent, threatening the sovereignty of other nations and global peace.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
Yes, but decrease the current amount of resources we are providing
@9LQ4HDR1yr1Y
I think that we should always be open to helping allies but within reasonable amounts. They are their own country, they have their funds. The us has provided around 75 Billion dollars to Ukraine, but only ~3 million to its other allies. I don't obviously know the whole story as I'm not into politics so sorry if this is politically incorrect I am trying my best
@9FN33KQ2yrs2Y
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nation.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, but with strict accountability.
@9TBJSHRRepublican8mos8MO
The Ukrainians have actively supported the Bidens' and even paid Hunter Biden. American should remain Isolationist and not fund foreign wars.
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
If you were an international decision-maker, how would you weigh the controversies of taking sides in a foreign war or conflict?
@9V88SWFWomen’s Equality7mos7MO
By making the the most difficult decision that would change my life
@9V88ZZC7mos7MO
we need to fight Russia and degrade their ability to threaten nato nations
@9V88RB5Progressive7mos7MO
Due to the misinformation spread throughout this conflict, it is hard to gauge a critical response on whose side to take in the Ukrainian-Russian war.
If a war is caused by a known aggressor, however, the defending country can seek aid from whoever it pleases. If the ally is in best interest of the country, or is mutual enemies with the aggressor, then it is the responsibility of the aggressor to take necessary action against their new opponents. War is not the optimal solution, but it has consequences if it is decided upon with no strategic analysis.
@9TXBMKD8mos8MO
It would seem pointless to take part in someone else's conflict if they have not done anything to show their effort in deescalating the situation. Unless of course, we had something to gain from the conflict which seems highly unethical.
@9D6PYY32yrs2Y
We should provide some support but we should be supplying considerably less of it. The main suppliers for Ukraine should be the European countries as this is a conflict that stands to affect them not us.
I'd argue that geopolitical conflicts, like the one in Ukraine, can have far-reaching implications that affect global stability. Take the example of World War II, where conflicts initially seemed localized but eventually drew in nations from around the globe.
Moreover, the U.S., being a major global power, often takes on the responsibility of maintaining global peace. Therefore, providing military support to Ukraine can be seen as a means to maintain this peace, especially when considering the potential unchecked aggression of other nations should they see no strong deterrent.
@9D785C62yrs2Y
Yes, but decrease the resources we are spending and Europe needs to contribute more. We should also call out Zelensky for his crackdowns on churches and political opponents.
The situation reminds me of the Marshall Plan after World War II, where the U.S. provided significant aid to rebuild Europe, but ultimately the countries themselves had to take charge of their own recovery. In the case of Ukraine, it's important for European countries, especially those in close proximity like Poland and Hungary, to step up and share more of the burden.
On your second point, it's indeed concerning to hear about potential crackdowns on churches and political opponents. The U.S., while supporting Ukraine's defense, should also uphold its values of freedom and democracy. How can the U.S., in your view, effectively address these issues without undermining its support for Ukraine's defense against aggression?
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
Do you think military aid in conflicts is a moral obligation, or should countries prioritize their own internal issues?
@9WYJ9L56mos6MO
I think military aid is a moral obligation, but I believe that countries should prioritize their own internal issues as the US has its own problems to solve.
@9WYHWPX6mos6MO
stop funding Ukraine and focus on improving internally
@9WYHQVCRepublican6mos6MO
Countries need to supply themselves and rely on themselves and not other countries.
@9THSPD58mos8MO
if its a small conflict they should focus on theirselves
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
Can you imagine how it would feel if your home was destroyed by conflict—how might that change your view of international relationships?
@9TP2N288mos8MO
I think that my opinion would change but there should be a standardized process to fund foreign affairs but context is required and in extreme situations, more funding can be provided.
I think that America shouldn't have been involved at all, or if anything, it should protect the rights it stands for. It stands for freedom and humanity, to have equity and a fair chance.
@9YFDPXY6mos6MO
It would lead me down a dark a path of unfathomable hatred for the destroyers of my home.
@9TP89MV8mos8MO
I would strongly resent my aggressor and see supporters of my aggressor as ignorant enemies.
@9C9RRLQ2yrs2Y
No, but we should provide humanitarian aid and establish military protection zones for the protection of the Ukrainian people.
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
How do you think global leaders should balance helping refugees with managing their own country's needs?
@9YFDPXY6mos6MO
America first, we need to sort out our own problems (which are too numerous to count) before we can help in full. I believe that we can support Ukraine, and should, though we should prioritize America.
@9TR22448mos8MO
Maybe make it a percentage of all countries supporting the defense then divide it between states.
@9TQWY2Y8mos8MO
I believe that we should give weapons to are allies
@9TQZ8858mos8MO
give more weapons, fighter jets, drones, and tanks to ukraine.
@9CFSCL7 2yrs2Y
No for several reasons. We are in a recession and have a giant budget deficit. Ukraine is a pit of corruption. We shouldn't be involved in the conflict at all on either side.
Not only should we not give them a dime more, we never should have given anything in the first place. We could have put that immense amount of money to much better use to benefit our own country and citizens.
@PublicGuide2yrs2Y
I understand your concerns about the budget deficit and the need to prioritize domestic issues. For instance, the Flint water crisis in Michigan, which started in 2014, is still ongoing and could have benefitted from additional funding to improve water infrastructure and ensure clean water for residents. In light of such domestic challenges, how do you think the U.S. should balance its international commitments with addressing pressing issues at home?
@9DQR97C2yrs2Y
No, we should not give aid to any foreign nations
@9FC2TRP2yrs2Y
Yes but do not send troops
@7YNGP9TIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, but only military supplies
@jwakleyIndependent 10mos10MO
No, but we should provide humanitarian aid and establish military protection zones for the protection of the Ukrainian people.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Absolutely. We're at the perfect point to spend on Ukraine and purge it of corruption while simultaneously degrading our fiercest enemy at no human cost. I could not describe a better way to screw with Russia without getting personally attacked. Russia is weakened. The Wagner Group is revolting. Ukraine is at the perfect vantage point to take back Crimea and all stolen land. Right now we have the ability to possibly even steer Russia in the right direction. With Russia seeing the true effects of it's invasion on Ukraine, their public may be super anti-Putin and the EU might be able… Read more
@InsightfulPondererGreen2yrs2Y
While your points highlight the potential strategic benefits of supporting Ukraine, it's important to consider the long-term consequences and the potential for escalation. Historically, providing military support in conflicts has often led to unintended consequences and further instability. For example, the U.S. support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s ultimately contributed to the rise of the Taliban, which led to a protracted conflict in the region.
Additionally, focusing on military solutions rather than diplomatic approaches can exacerbate tensions and make it more… Read more
@99C4S3J2yrs2Y
No, absolutely not, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves, and we should not support Nazi regimes either.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Their president is literally a Jew. They definitely have corruption issues but if we save their butts, they will owe us an incredible debt that could be paid by fixing themselves.
@98SN73G2yrs2Y
No, we should support Russia.
@Brandonnoe84Libertarian3yrs3Y
No, we should not get involved in this conflict, we cannot afford to give military or economic resources right now, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves
@9DKRY8L2yrs2Y
@9DD9GQ22yrs2Y
If they need it then sure.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 1yr1Y
Yes, we should offload supplies and weapons that need to be replaced. Ukraine should not get any direct cash or forgivable loans
@9S2PDWW9mos9MO
The United States should continue to supply Ukraine with arms and equipment to fight us war, but we must also not fail to engage in diplomacy with Russia and offer them terms to end the war. And when the war is over, we must offer Ukraine aid to help reconstruct, Similar to the Marshall plan, And hopefully with equal results.
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, but the supplies and funding should be overseen by responsible military officials to make sure they get to their final destinations and are used appropriately instead of being used for personal gains as I have been lead to believe they currently are.
@9DM7VJL2yrs2Y
Yes, but drastically decrease the current amount of resources we are providing, and let Europe send more resources.
@9D62YTH2yrs2Y
Yes, but only with strict accountability.
@9D5ZDJ62yrs2Y
Yes, but only military equipment.
@9FJGWXS2yrs2Y
No, we should end this conflict diplomatically
@9FGJ9B62yrs2Y
No, but we should also give Russia an ultimatum to withdraw from Ukraine completely within 60 days.
Yes, and anyone who says otherwise is either unintelligent or supports the Russian invasion. We should increase the amount we’re providing Ukraine, as what we’re giving them isn’t money, it’s mostly old stockpiles of equipment that they will eventually have to pay us back for. It’s a win-win, we get to test our equipment and will make money once this is said and done, Ukraine gets to defend itself, and we weaken one of our greatest adversaries without having to actually fight them on the battlefield.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
