19

Why is the US supporting Ukraine so massively?

Hardly a week goes by without some kind of aid package from the US to Ukraine. Clearly, the support is designed to continue the war and the extent of the support surprises me.

The US has been training and arming the Ukrainian military since 2015. Why the enormous effort?

whoisit
  • 5,909
  • 23
  • 55
Max Pattern
  • 462
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
  • 8
    see also https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/75191/how-do-ukraine-aid-levels-compare-to-what-was-being-spent-on-afghanistan to put aid levels in perspective. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 22 '23 at 17:54
  • 3
    The question was clarified in comments on one of the answers: the question is mainly about why the USA supports Ukraine but not for example Yemen. It's not about why there is a war in Ukraine; it's not about why they choose to support good things, rather as I understand it it's about the differential between different good things. – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 22 '23 at 21:48
  • 40
    "under Biden" - you're asking a loaded question, implying that Biden is the determining factor here. The more neutral question would simply ask why the US is supporting Ukraine. If Biden has something to do with it, that's something for answers to address. – NotThatGuy Mar 23 '23 at 08:16
  • 32
    This question is based on a false premise (support is fairly weak; we could easily have ensured a quick and decisive victory if we wanted). Mentioning Biden specifically in the question title, this comes across as a thinly veiled attempt at pushing an agenda of the pro-Russia camp in the Republican party... – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Mar 23 '23 at 13:51
  • 1
    Also, for alternative solutions, look at the Exit Strategies question: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/73063/exit-strategies-for-the-ukraine-war – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 14:10
  • 6
    Lots of comments deleted. Please remember the purposes of comments. Comments are not to be used to debate the subject matter of the question. – Philipp Mar 23 '23 at 16:50
  • 2
    Assuming OP is more opposed to military solutions than supportive of Russia (which I kinda saw in now-deleted comments). In that case, the "pacifist angle" has also been asked about. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 23 '23 at 21:26
  • 7
    The question title includes the (possibly deliberately provocative) words "under Biden" and yet the question body makes no mention of this, nor makes any attempt to question any comparison to the stance of the US prior to Biden... this makes me think that the words "under Biden" were solely included as clickbait and, as such, are redundant and IMHO should be removed (as also mentioned in this comment). – Greenonline Mar 23 '23 at 23:12
  • The real question is why is Western Europe so supportive of stopping Putin. I think the answer to that is obvious. As for the US, it will be impossibly expensive to stop Putin later; as he starts running over all of Europe. – Rob Mar 29 '23 at 02:25
  • Voting not to close - the question is indeed biased and not based on honest curiosity. But it has many answers and some good ones that also counter any propaganda quite effectively. As for whether Biden should "edited out" of the title, I don't think so - it is clear that he is in favour of an undivided Ukraine, and in defeating Russia. That is relevant to the question because in the United States, the President is very influential in forming state and foreign policy. Indeed, if there were some other President, and if they weren't interested in getting involved in Ukraine, US wouldn't help. – sfxedit Mar 30 '23 at 05:16

12 Answers12

147

At 0.4% of GDP total US aid commitments (this includes non-military aid -- military aid is about 0.2% of GDP) are similar to the UK, but only 2/3rds that of Poland. Some people might not consider that "massive", but that's how you have defined it. Also European countries have taken in many Ukrainian refugees. That cost isn't counted in these figures.

It's misleading to look at the "sticker price" of military aid -- much of this has already been produced, and would not be replaced, but would become obsolete and be scrapped (the ideal fate of any military equipment!), so giving it to Ukraine doesn't cost the US the original procurement cost of the hardware.

Of course people don't always know how much the government spends -- be honest, what percentage of GDP did you think was going to Ukraine?

The US is spending about 5.6% of its defence budget to devastate the Russian military. From a pragmatic point of view, that is a very good deal for the US.

You believe that US aid is prolonging the war?

Firstly, ending the war is not in the hands of the US, it is in the hands of Russia.

Suppose the US had not supported Ukraine? Perhaps the war would be "over", and Ukraine subjugated, but Ukraine had defeated Russia's attempt to take Kyiv after a few weeks, before the US aid you are irritated by arrived.

More likely, the war would continue as a "frozen conflict" -- Ukraine would be unable to recover its territory, but Russia would be unable to secure it.

Henry Kissinger favours that outcome, but it will not end the war because the Ukrainians believe they can win, will not accept a settlement with a country waging a genocidal war against them, and know that any agreement will be broken by Russia if they find themselves in a stronger position in the future. See Zelensky's ten point peace plan for what would be acceptable to Ukraine.

Injustice is not a good basis for peace.

If you want the war to end quickly, then a Ukrainian offensive with enough momentum that the Russians cannot reverse it is the most likely way, and that requires more, not less US help.

The above just discusses your two opinions.

Your actual question is: Why is a Russian defeat good for the US, and so worth the US spending money on?

  • Russian expansion threatens the US's NATO allies -- with Russia defeated, NATO countries become more secure. Listen to Russian nationalists' rhetoric about Poland and the Baltic states.
  • Russia's friends, such as Iran and North Korea, are a threat to US security interests. Weakening Russia weakens them.
  • US indifference to the fate of Ukraine would send a signal to Putin that he can expand further, and to Xi that he can have Taiwan.
  • As other answers explain in more detail, the US is a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity as part of its agreement to give up its nuclear weapons.
  • There will be opportunities for US companies in the rebuilding of Ukraine, but I would not put much weight on this -- it is the broken windows fallacy. There would also be opportunities if the Ukrainians were spending their money on developing their country rather than reconstructing it. Eventual integration of Ukraine into the EU will be good for the world economy, as global trade will increase.
tgdavies
  • 916
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
  • 22
    See the Treaty of Versailles for what unjust peaces do... – ScottishTapWater Mar 23 '23 at 10:02
  • 44
    Two other points: 1) Some of the military equipment is surplus; since the US is not participating in any active conflict, the gear was "gathering dust" in a military supply depot. 2) The US is obtaining a lot of precious live-combat data on the use of said equipment and intel on the Russian capabilities and tactics. – Mindwin Remember Monica Mar 23 '23 at 10:59
  • 8
    It would help to include the simple legal agreement that the US did promise to assist Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. While it doesn't explain why the magnitude of support is given, it provides the justification. – David S Mar 23 '23 at 16:38
  • 5
    do you think you could add a bullet point about "Appeasement" (i.e. 1938 when Europe gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany to try to avoid WWII but WWII still happened, i.e. 'nothing is more provocative to a dictator than the weakness of free nations')? – syn1kk Mar 23 '23 at 18:07
  • 4
    There is bipartisan support. For the right you have a military opportunity to give Russia "Afghanistan 2.0" and drain their resources. For the left you have an autocratic Russia invading a relatively democratic Ukraine. – Kevin Kostlan Mar 23 '23 at 18:34
  • 20
    To add to this that the West is not starting from nowhere in 2022 and suddenly got annoyed at Russia and overreacted. 2008 Georgia, 2014 Crimea, Transnistria in Moldova, Estonian cyberattacks in 2007... Probably missing some. Basically Russia has been nibbling at the edges for a long time, trying to win back control of its "near abroad". Pretty much everywhere there is a Russian diaspora left over from the USSR, the "Russian brothers" need protection, apparently. Straight from the 1930s playbook. Ukraine decided to fight back. Good on them. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 23 '23 at 21:38
  • 1
    You may want to add a subpoint to your question. Russia is also a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum. They are also obligated to help guarantee Ukraine's territorial integrity (for what it's worth, they are doing a terrible job at this). – Flydog57 Mar 24 '23 at 23:35
77

The US (like any other country supporting Ukraine) is of the view that, in the 21st century, no country is supposed to redefine its borders by force. Any wars aiming for that should remain history ended in the 20th century.

Otherwise, if one country was allowed to get away with it, many more would be eager to follow. The whole world would engulf in fire then.

So, to prevent that from happening, the US wants Ukraine to be able to tell Russia where to get off: the borders should stay as voluntarily and peacefully agreed in the early 90s.

Greendrake
  • 1,873
  • 8
  • 18
  • 8
    Thx for your good answer. But didn't the USA also invade Iraq, Afghanistan? – Max Pattern Mar 22 '23 at 11:27
  • 90
    @MaxPattern Not to make them parts of the US. – Greendrake Mar 22 '23 at 11:28
  • 15
    @alamar sadly they also let Russia get away with semi annexing a part of Moldova back in the 1990s. – JonathanReez Mar 22 '23 at 11:44
  • 17
    The USA is in no way of that view, come on. First, the USA itself is one of the most aggressive, expansionist states in the world, although I will grant that our expansionism is rarely aimed at getting more lands, per se, but it certainly is aimed at getting economic control over resources or getting rid of people who don't give us free access to said resources. Second, the US has happily turned a blind eye to other annexations as already mentioned in other comments (also see Israel) if they weren't hurting our interests. The idea that any country goes to war for altruistic reasons is naive. – terdon Mar 23 '23 at 13:55
  • 2
    Read on on Westphalian Sovereignty for the academic claims involved here. None of the US wars since the Spanish American war has been expansionist, although they have been involved in a lot of wars. – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 14:21
  • 3
    @terdon Then for non-altruistic reasons, consider food security. Russia messing with the global supply of wheat is a non-trivial impact on the US as well as the rest of the world. – Graham Mar 23 '23 at 15:51
  • 5
    @Graham yes, and there are also very real security concerns with the idea of allowing annexation of land in Europe. And I have altruistic reasons to oppose the war too, as I'm sure you do, I'm just saying that such reasons aren't really what foreign policy is based on, they're only what is used to sell foreign policy to the public. And that to the rest of the world, given the atrocities committed by US troops around the world and the situation at home, when the US gets on a moral high horse, it kinda loses the argument. – terdon Mar 23 '23 at 15:59
  • 9
    @terdon The last war that the U.S. fought for expansionism was in something like 1898... – reirab Mar 23 '23 at 16:25
  • 4
    @reirab I didn't claim the US has fought any expansionist wars, I said it was an expansionist nation. However, I should probably not have used the term expansionist, I suspect I don't understand its academic/official definition. I thought the rest of the sentence would make it clear that I am not referring to adding territory but increasing the country's sphere of economic influence. I still call that expansionist in my head, but I freely concede that might just be sloppy terminology on my part. – terdon Mar 23 '23 at 16:28
  • I think this answer could be improved and would respond to some of the comments if you explained why wars of territorial expansion are inherently more destabilizing or more likely to lead to a world "engulfed in fire" than wars for control of resources, political control etc that don't formally incorporate territory into the aggressor country. –  Mar 23 '23 at 22:49
  • @Timkinsella: That's a logical fallacy. Arguing "A implies B" does not require addressing whether C also implies B or which of A or C produces more of B. And it certainly should not be interpreted as "C doesn't imply B". – Ben Voigt Mar 23 '23 at 22:57
  • @BenVoigt If someone tries to explain why the US condemns A by saying "because A leads to B," it seems a pretty valid rebuttal to say "but the US condones and often itself does a very similar thing, C, and C has as much propensity to lead to B as A does." –  Mar 23 '23 at 23:05
  • 1
    @Timkinsella: Not even close (to being a valid rebuttal argument). Hypothetically, C may lead to desirable outcome D, which outweighs B. (and note that avoiding undesirable outcome E is a desirable outcome of a sort). Whether C or not C has absolutely nothing to do with A, and one can discuss A without taking any position on C. – Ben Voigt Mar 23 '23 at 23:08
  • @BenVoigt yes, and I'm asking what that desirable outcome is. If the person who offered the answer thinks US wars of aggression that don't annex territory have more "desirable outcomes" than Russian wars of aggression that do, then that's really the heart of the matter and should be included in the answer to see off the obvious objection I and others have made. –  Mar 23 '23 at 23:12
  • 2
    @Timkinsella Whether/why local wars for territory are inherently much more likely to cause global wars than local wars for resources/influence would be a nice separate question. – Greendrake Mar 24 '23 at 00:40
  • @Timkinsella: That's completely off-topic and unrelated to this discussion. – Ben Voigt Mar 24 '23 at 14:11
  • @BenVoigt it’s off topic to raise a point that refutes the assertion in the answer? You say the US condemns a war because it has a principled interest in world peace and it’s off topic to ask how that hypothesis squares with the fact that the US frequently wages or condones wars of choice? –  Mar 24 '23 at 17:14
  • Also did you just stop tracking your own abstraction of the argument? You said “C implies B” fails to rebut if there’s some desirable D that C achieves. Then the question of how such a D could exist is somehow off topic? D by the way in this formalism is something that outweighs B which is a world “engulfed in flames” –  Mar 24 '23 at 17:43
  • @Timkinsella: C and D are both off-topic in the abstraction. A is the topic, and B is directly connected to the topic. C and D are not directly connected and there is no rebuttal argument based on C that affects A. – Ben Voigt Mar 24 '23 at 18:33
  • @terdon Whether you meant to or not, you did indeed claim that. The answer says that, "no country is supposed to redefine its borders by force." You then responded, "the USA is in no way of that view." This answer has nothing to do with "expanding spheres of economic influence" (which every country seeks to do.) It's about wars of territorial conquest. If your comment is not about territorial expansion, then you should delete it, as it is irrelevant to this answer. – reirab Mar 24 '23 at 18:35
  • @BenVoigt In that case one might wonder why you introduced D and pointed to it to make your point... Anyway, thank you and have a good day. –  Mar 24 '23 at 19:18
  • @Timkinsella I really don't think that your point refutes the assertion in the answer. If someone is an asshole and does bad things from time to time it doesn't mean they would be fine with getting themselves into a big trouble (which the whole world engulfed in fire would be for every country including the US). – Greendrake Mar 24 '23 at 23:26
  • 2
    @reirab I think his answer is pretty clear. As he said, USA turned the blind eye to other annexations, even in the 21st century. Ergo, USA is NOT in the view "that, in the 21st century, no country is supposed to redefine its borders by force". – dosvarog Mar 25 '23 at 16:19
  • @dosvarog I was referring mostly to his first point, which is really not addressing the answer at all. As for the Israel trope being brought up, while I definitely don't agree with all of Israel's actions, like most other's who bring it up, terdon ignores the fact that Israel was fighting wars against countries who attacked it with the explicitly-stated purpose of destroying it as a country. I'm sure if Ukraine had invaded Russia with the goal of destroying it, the U.S. response would have been rather different. But instead the opposite is what actually happened. – reirab Mar 25 '23 at 17:27
  • @reirab if israel's ongoing de facto annexation of areas of the west bank is less objectionable because the West Bank was once controlled by a country that attacked israel (as jordan did after israel bombed egypt in 1967 and also in 1948 after israel's land grab and mass ethnic cleansing of arabs in the nakba) you’ll recall that a country that once controlled ukraine invaded and tried to destroy Russia twice in the 20th century. collaborators of the nazi occupation are still widely celebrated as national heroes in Ukraine and Ukraine has enacted laws to restrict Russian culture. –  Mar 26 '23 at 01:36
  • Any unbiased person can see these facts do not justify Russia’s invasion any more than Israeli-Jordanian hostilities from more than 50 years ago justify theft of Palestinian lands in 2023. Yet strangely one nation is allowed to reshape its borders and another isn’t. –  Mar 26 '23 at 01:36
  • @dosvarog What "other annexations" has the US turned the blind eye to? They have never recognised Palestine as a state in the first place. Kosovo is independent and not annexed to any country. – Greendrake Mar 26 '23 at 07:02
  • @Greendrake if for whatever reason theft of Palestinian land doesn't count for you, Israel also annexed the Sinai peninsula and the Golan heights as a result of the six day war that they initiated by bombing Egypt. you may recall that while in office Trump formally recognized Israel's annexation of the Golan heights. –  Mar 27 '23 at 11:04
  • @Timkinsella Lots of shit happened in the 20th century. The point is that the world should leave that behind, learn lessons and move on now to live in the future, not in the past. – Greendrake Mar 27 '23 at 11:18
  • @Greendrake ok, fukuyama –  Mar 27 '23 at 11:43
43
  • The majority of American public supports providing weapons to Ukraine. Since it is a democracy, the government follows the will of the people and provides military aid to Ukraine.
  • This is consistent with support by other democratic countries (e.g., most of Europe, Canada, Australia), unlike authoritarian countries (e.g., China, Iran, North Korea).

References:

Forty-eight percent say they favor the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine, with 29% opposed and 22% saying they’re neither in favor nor opposed. In May 2022, less than three months into the war, 60% of U.S. adults said they were in favor of sending Ukraine weapons.

Forty-eight percent say they favor the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine

Aamer Madhani and Emily Swanson "Ukraine aid support softens in the US: AP-NORC Poll". Associated Press, February 15, 2023: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-biden-politics-poland-33095abf76875b60ebab3ddf4eede188

Americans are still largely supportive of some sort of aid to Ukraine, though. In a preelection November poll from TIPP Insights, 68 percent of registered voters said it’s important for the new Congress to direct assistance to Ukraine. And in a YouGov/CBS News poll released earlier this week, 64 percent of adults said they preferred their representatives to support U.S. aid to Ukraine rather than oppose it.

Forty-Two Countries Have Provided Military Aid to Ukraine

By Share of GDP, East European Countries Are Giving the Most to Ukraine

Cooper Burton and Zoha Qamar "How Americans' Support For Aiding Ukraine Has Evolved". FiveThirtyEight, January 13, 2023: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-aid-ukraine/

Jonathan Masters and Will Merrow "How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts" Council on Foreign Relations, February 22, 2023: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
  • 1
    Thanks for the poll results, very interesting. Though as you said the majority of people supports the aid, it's clear that there is a downward trend on all points listed. I wonder why... – anemyte Mar 22 '23 at 14:38
  • 8
    The poll you cite says that a majority opposes sending money to Ukraine. –  Mar 22 '23 at 14:43
  • 9
    @anemyte Most likely war-weariness. The longer a conflict drags on, the less supportive people are likely to be of it. The Vietnam War is a famous example. – F1Krazy Mar 22 '23 at 14:44
  • 6
    @Timkinsella That's true, but the answer only discusses the support for sending weapons to Ukraine, which remains high. – F1Krazy Mar 22 '23 at 14:45
  • 1
    @Timkinsella No, the majority is in favor by double digit percentage: "Forty-eight percent say they favor the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine, with 29% opposed" – Timur Shtatland Mar 22 '23 at 14:47
  • 1
    @TimurShtatland I said "money," not "weapons". weapons account for less than half of the dollar amount of all US aid to ukraine. –  Mar 22 '23 at 14:53
  • 11
    @Timkinsella The question is asking about weapons. This was the only thing I addressed in my answer, so let's stay on topic here. – Timur Shtatland Mar 22 '23 at 14:53
  • 10
    that is one of the questions in the post. also fwiw the premise "since it is a democracy, the government follows the will of the people" is pretty tenuous, and not just because it is refuted by the data on the line below the one you want to cite. –  Mar 22 '23 at 14:58
  • 3
    @Timkinsella: Duh, clearly there was popular support [prolly] for a long time to even send money. And the 37%/38% split is within the margin of error of 4.2%; a bunch 23% don't seem to care. So I find you repeatedly raising that point rather poor in both substance and form, i.e. 1% net against which is (a) recent and (b) within the margin of error. – the gods from engineering Mar 22 '23 at 23:01
  • Good points, despite your insulting tone @Fizz –  Mar 23 '23 at 00:01
  • 1
    For context, it would be interesting to know what % of GDP is spent on the war effort in both Russia and Ukraine. – gerrit Mar 23 '23 at 07:39
  • 3
    Perhaps this is a little nit-picky, but 48% is not a majority. It is a decisive plurality in this case, but it is not a majority in any case. – reirab Mar 23 '23 at 16:28
  • 1
    I wish it were possible to sort that final graph by proximity, because there's a clear correlation and such a sorting would identify exceptions to that rule. – Ben Voigt Mar 23 '23 at 23:01
26

the support is designed to continue the war

It's easy to assume that an "eternal war" is USA's goal, but you have to consider that them giving more materiel to Ukraine so that they could win quickly is also controversial.

None in the least because Russia might go nuclear (which they pretty much threaten, in more less vague terms every day on state TV, albeit through the mouths of "non-official" talking heads).

And also because a certain wing of the Republican party (which seems in fact to include all their presidential candidates for the next election, except Pence and Haley) opposes an increase in support for Ukraine.

So the current level of support is really a compromise, in many respects. (If you want me to be a bit theoretical: defensive realism + logrolling are the two angles above.)

Why the enormous effort?

You're kinda shifting the goalposts here. It's "enormous" because Russia still has a lot of raw military power, so simply checking them to a stalemate requires plenty of materiel. There hasn't been a war of this magnitude in Europe since WW2; millions of rounds of artillery used etc. And Russia can strike deep in Ukrainian territory destroying/disabling their factories (and power infrastructure, etc.) while Ukraine can't do nearly the same amount of standoff damage to Russia's industry. (And the US choice to limit's Ukraine ability to do that by not giving them Tomahawks and what not is clearly a political choice; see 1st half of this answer.)

the gods from engineering
  • 158,594
  • 27
  • 390
  • 806
22

The US, as one of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The Memorandum itself does not require the US to defend Ukraine themselves but it would justify them doing so. It certainly justifies supporting Ukraine.

Many people in the Western World including but not limited to the EU, the UK and the US see the invasion of Ukraine by Russia (but also already the annexation of Crimea in 2015) as a strongly aggressive act. For the EU and UK geographical proximity might be a stronger factor. For the US, although they probably see China as the bigger rival, they surely still see some rivalry with Russia, at least wanting to contain it. And the US have interests worldwide.

The US can surely argue with democratic values that are defended in Ukraine, where a more or less democracy is attacked by an undemocratic autocracy. That by itself is a threat: Russian aggression weakens the democratic part of the World.

But the US can also argue about security interests. A weakened Russia would probably pose less of a threat than a triumphant one. A victorious Russia would pose a great danger to surrounding countries. And the credibility of the US as global power, source of stability and defender of smaller nations would be undermined. Who knows what China would or others would do next if the US would not support Ukraine now.

On the other hand, one should keep the scale of the support in context. The US support of Ukraine is barely enough to stop Russian advances currently. Significantly, it's not enough to drive Russia back to the borders of before the war.

And even if the already delivered (not promised) US aid (militarily and economically) would sum up to $100 billion in the last year, it would be rather small in comparison to other incidents (invasion of Iraq ~$3 trillion, bailouts during the financial crisis in 2008 ~$500 billion in the US, cost of the Pandemic 2020-2022 >$10 trillion worldwide). For comparison the yearly US GDP is $23 trillion, so the delivered support to Ukraine is surely below 0.5% of the GDP. Substantial, but not massive on the scale of past crises.

Your estimation is wrong. The US support to Ukraine is a carefully estimated measure to keep Russia from winning the war and keeping it from profiting too much from this aggression by imposing high costs on Russia, but that's about it.

About your statement about prolonging the war. That of course depends on what end of the war you envision. Russia could stop the war any day (didn't even need to start it). So depending on how you would like to end the war, it would be clear how different actors should behave. From a Western perspective, it's up to Ukraine to decide what to do and how to achieve a peace with Russia. That's the problem with autocracies like Russia. They do need much less to take into account moral considerations and can spend more of their own lives at will. Otherwise this war might have ended already one year ago. Why is that not so irritating?

NoDataDumpNoContribution
  • 9,607
  • 2
  • 31
  • 59
  • I'm not sure GDP is the right basis for military spending. And therefore has the right significance. I would rather use the government expenditures. Here, the picture is different. Despite the high GDP, government revenues are negative. This is the case for many countries (government revenue - government spending). – Max Pattern Mar 22 '23 at 15:53
  • 4
    The Budapest Memorandum was, if one is honest, a favor to the Western world. Ukraine was the country with the most nuclear weapons in 1994, after Russia and the USA. At the same time, Ukraine was and is one of the poorest countries in Europe, one of the most corrupt countries in the world. – Max Pattern Mar 22 '23 at 15:54
  • 1
    Not a good feeling to know that this country is the third largest nuclear power in the world. However, the memorandum only says that the UN will come to Ukraine's assistance if it is considered to have non-nuclear weapons instead of nuclear weapons. It is debatable whether Russia had really issued such a threat against Ukraine. Furthermore, the UN is not the United States. – Max Pattern Mar 22 '23 at 15:54
  • 11
    @MaxPattern Sure, there are all kinds of arguments that still can be made and maybe they would even change something (or maybe not). I just wanted to show you how the Western world in general seems to think currently: taking everything together Russia is more wrong and Ukraine is more right and that Ukraine must be protected from Russia and that's why it supports it. What other answer have you expected? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 22 '23 at 16:15
  • 2
    I agree with you!! Putin's invasion was a crime against Ukraine and against Russia's own people. A quick end of the war. But also a reappraisal of the war, within the EU together with Russia, would be my wish. A Europe with a functioning Russia connection would be a good Europe. – Max Pattern Mar 22 '23 at 16:24
  • 3
    @MaxPattern "A Europe with a functioning Russia connection would be a good Europe." This. So much this. More than anything I wish a co-operating Russia as opposed to one that sees bogeymen at their borders. Even well before this war the stories of local businesses pulling out of Russia, due to problems with organized crime and such, were becoming more frequent. I don't know how serious the Russians think such problems are. Largely because they have next to no experience with a free market economy. Democracy is not a switch you can simply flip on/off. – Jyrki Lahtonen Mar 23 '23 at 10:05
  • 3
    @JyrkiLahtonen It's a bit too late to wish for a co-operating Russia, isn't it? 30-10 years ago this might have been an important topic. Giving a few billion dollars for free to Russia then would have been a bargain if it would have avoided today. Of course nobody knows really. But wishing for a democratic, peaceful Russia is just wishful thinking currently. A bit like the wish that Hitler would have never happened. The past is history now. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 23 '23 at 10:22
  • 1
    @JyrkiLahtonen I completely agree with you. If Russia gives in to this war and starts to cooperate, it would be a huge merit for the people of Ukraine and Russia. But also for the whole world (famine in South Asia, Africa). Is this just a dream? I am so sick of the current situation on our earth that I would reserve a one-way SpaceX ticket to Mars. – Max Pattern Mar 23 '23 at 10:42
  • Interestingly, whether Russia should be regarded as a foe or a friend was one of the topics of the 2012 US presidential election. And the US electorate appeared to widely sided against considering Russia a foe. Obviously that changed in 2014. (There were a lot of political arguments in 2012, this one just one of them) – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 14:34
  • @MaxPattern "A quick end of the war" would be welcome in the US, I'm certain, but what paths are there to that end? Ukraine could surrender to an aggressive power that has given every indication of wanting to wipe them out as a state and a culture. Or the US could enter the war in earnest, send in troops, and risk nuclear armageddon. Neither of those sounds like an improvement over the status quo. – Cadence Mar 23 '23 at 18:25
  • @Cadence You miss giving more aid to Ukraine quicker as a possible additional option. This would not require the US to send in troops but could increase the pressure on Russia without increasing the risk of nuclear armageddon (or does MAD not exist anymore)? MAD should keep armageddon of the table as long as there is no direct confrontation between Russia and the US. Of course nobody knows for sure how this war will end. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 23 '23 at 18:38
  • @Trilarion It's possible that more support will bring things to a close somewhat faster, but I still wouldn't expect that to be a "quick end". Material aid can only help so much without sending people to use it, and that's another line NATO has been reluctant to cross. – Cadence Mar 23 '23 at 19:09
  • @Cadence I'd say it's not only possible, it's definitely making a big difference. Just look at the Iraq war when the US army lost (almost) none of their Abrams M1 tanks and Iraq lost all of their T72 (or some other number). Why? Because of obvious differences in equipment (and training). So maybe throw in training to the equipment and a strong change in balance should occur. The West only delivers as much as sufficient to stop Russia currently, but not enough equipment as to beat it, even though it maybe would be able to do so if it wanted. We'll never know for sure of course. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 23 '23 at 20:44
  • 3
    @MaxPattern The Budapest Memorandum ... favor to the Western world. ... one of the most corrupt countries in the world.. Careful, that's showing a lot more bias than just wanting to see less violence. Keeping nuclear state numbers down benefits everyone, not just "the West". Second, Transparency International 2021 puts Ukraine at 122. Not great, but hardly a basis for your claim (Russia is 136 FWIW). Makes me think the question is not being asked in good faith. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 23 '23 at 21:49
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica If you say for a 122nd most corrupted country in the world that it is "not great", then you and I have a very different notion of what is "great". For example, Croatia and China, which are 63rd and 66th respectively, are "not great". 122nd place is "corrupted sh**hole". Same as 136th place. And "favor to the world" means that Ukraine back then was ruined state whose nuc. weapons would end on black market. RF at least had political will and power to contain those weapons. Which they didn't get for free, BTW. They took whole Ukrainian debt (and others') on themselves. – dosvarog Mar 25 '23 at 16:50
  • 1
    @dosvarog "They took whole Ukrainian debt (and others') on themselves." And guaranteed Ukrainian territory integrity in the very first line but ended up invading it themselves instead and threatening to use that very buckwheat weapons against anyone. What good they have brought to the world. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 25 '23 at 17:06
  • 3
    @dosvarog my point is that this Q sounds like a lot of Tucker Carlson talking points. along with its insistence on "Biden". what's the OP's point, that you can invade your neighbor if they're sub -120 on the Transparency International index? and the favor to the West of giving up the nukes is a load of BS. Not least with regards to Russia itself, which might not benefit all that much from having a nuclear neighbor that had good reasons not to be keenly pro-Russian - cough, Holodomor, cough. Everyone did everyone a favor w Budapest memorandum, the only problem is Russia reneged. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 25 '23 at 17:16
  • 2
    Another problem at the time - early 90s - , though there were some vague attempts in that direction, the West did not do enough to help Russia improve its economy and governance. Highly-paid McKinsey type consultants pushing spreadsheets from posh Moscow hotels is about it. If Putin and his sorry kin ever lose power and there is genuine Russia demand for reform, we should reach in our pockets and help - pennies saved then are costing us plenty now. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Mar 25 '23 at 17:24
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica I love it when people bring up Holodomor (or Gladomor) while conveniently forgetting that at the same time there was drought all over ex-USSR and that with Ukrainian deaths (nearly 4 mil. people) there were also Russian deaths (nearly 3,3 mil. people). And Kazahstan people also (1,3 mil). (src: http://history.org.ua/LiberUA/978-966-02-7025-1/978-966-02-7025-1.pdf) - sry if you don't know Ukrainian, you can learn it or use Google Translate. I don't see anyone caring to much about Russians' Gladomor. Also, it was never proven that it was deliberate plan to... – dosvarog Apr 01 '23 at 13:19
  • ...exterminate Ukrainians. Logically, there would not be so many Russian deaths (almost close to Ukrainian) if that was some evil plan to eliminate Ukrainians.

    Regarding favour to the West... Well, everybody has it's opinion. Mine is that that was some kind of "favour" to West. Because nuclear weapons on black market possibly used by terrorists in western countries is certainly not West's wish.

    Also, as I already said, Russia paid dearly those weapons. It took ALL of the debt of ALL of the countries from ex-USSR. They all had clean start, and I see Ukrainians used opportunity very well.

     – dosvarog Apr 01 '23 at 13:26
  • @dosvarog In a way Russia is paying dearly for taking the nuclear weapons now. Would Ukraine have still nuclear weapons, would Russia never have invaded Ukraine, would thousands of Russians still live and Russian economy thrive much more. Everyone would be richer and more alive now. Of course this is a bit hypothetical so it might be true or might not be true. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Apr 01 '23 at 14:46
  • @dosvarog the problem with your little narrative is that the USSR did not supply the area with food, took out food from it and actively prevented people from leaving it. Anyway, nice rewriting of history to suit your prejudices. Sadly, despite your exhortations to the contrary I will not stop referring to Holodomor when it seems appropriate. Too bad. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Apr 01 '23 at 17:26
  • @dosvarog 4 million people dying out of 25 million (or 16% of the population) is quite a bit different from 3.3 million out of 140 million (or 2.4%). (Those are 1920 figures, so the population may have grown a bit, but the impact didn't change.) – prosfilaes May 19 '23 at 00:52
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica If there was a drought across the WHOLE country and everybody was starving how could country supply area with food? And what exactly has that, "and preventing people to leave" have with the fact that Russian population also took the hit? Russian population was also striped of food and was being kept from leaving. They also took hit, and yet, you along with others somehow chose to ignore that fact even when you are given Ukrainian source of data. Tell me exactly, how did I "rewrite" history? I gave you data. So please, tell me. – dosvarog Jun 09 '23 at 11:37
  • @prosfilaes Your point? It looks like you would say that Mao Zedong's idiotic Cultural Revolution that ended up with some 40-80 millions of deaths is not a big deal because 40 mil. is "just" around 5% of then population. – dosvarog Jun 09 '23 at 11:43
  • @prosfilaes I apologize for another comment... You have small error in your calculations, average population of Ukraine in 1932 was 32 millions, not 25. You can see data here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#Between_WWI_and_WWII – dosvarog Jun 09 '23 at 11:50
  • @dosvarog It was a famine across the USSR, but it was devastating in the Ukraine. Quibbling about the numbers (which I said were from 1920) doesn't change that. – prosfilaes Jun 10 '23 at 21:46
8

In 1994 the US provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear stockpile (which at the time was the third largest in the word). 20 years later Russia invaded and annexed sovereign Ukrainian land (Crimea). Seeing as the US had assured Ukraine that its territorial sovereignty would be respected, that obliged the US to act in Ukraine's defense.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is sufficient on its own to explain the US's somewhat vigorous response to Russia's current invasion of Ukraine. It also explains why the UK, the second Western signatory of the memorandum, has been perhaps the most generous supporter of Ukraine since the invasion in 2022.

Special_K
  • 127
  • 3
  • 3
    But it looks like the question is more explicitly refering to Biden personally, then USA. – convert Mar 22 '23 at 22:21
  • 6
    @convert Question just says US under Biden, but we don't have any other US currently. That's why the "under Biden" part is effectively redundant. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 22 '23 at 23:14
  • Nothing in the memorandum talks about signatories being obliged to defend Ukraine. They're only obliged to not attack it. – JonathanReez Mar 24 '23 at 01:18
  • @convert I agree with Trilarion's argument that there is only one current president and right now that is Biden. I suppose one might ask the question about why is Biden honoring an agreement signed almost 30 years ago when Clinton was president. I doubt it has much to do with both being Dem presidents. Rather, Biden surely understands that it is important for the US to uphold its commitments. 30 years ago Ukraine was given assurances. If the US does not try to uphold those assurances, will any country trust the US going forward? – Special_K Mar 24 '23 at 09:02
  • 1
    @JonathanReez I agree that the letter of the memorandum does not require the US to become an active participant in the conflict. Security assurance were provided, not guarantees. But let's not kid ourselves, while there were no explicit guarantees, the US, UK, and Russia were [i]promising[/i] Ukraine that it would be safe. The spirit of the agreement was that the other signatories would assure that Ukraine was protected. – Special_K Mar 24 '23 at 09:07
0

Because Ukraine is actually the front for the world map chess game between US and Russia. Whoever dominates this chess piece today will have the momentum and image to project superpower status in the world.

On the russia side, losing Ukraine will mean ceding to NATO. Winning ukraine will embolden them to further eat into Europe in the future. For the US, losing ukraine will mean NATO is basically projecting weakness, crumbling the influence they have on the world. Winning ukraine will send a defeatist message to the communist world, further eating into their ambitions for imperalism in today's day and age.

Marcus Tham
  • 101
  • 1
  • 9
    "the communist world" Communist world? Is this answer from 30 years ago? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 23 '23 at 05:49
  • 2
    russia, china and countries under their influence – Marcus Tham Mar 23 '23 at 07:33
  • 7
    @MarcusTham In case you missed it: The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Russia is no longer ruled by a communist party. – gerrit Mar 23 '23 at 07:40
  • 3
    And China is communist in name only these days. There's still an East vs West split, but it's not about Communism anymore. – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 14:36
  • NATO's job is to protect members of NATO, and Ukraine isn't a member. It was also part of the former USSR, and taking it over is "restoring pat glory" so not quite in the same category as Korea or Vietnam (which were seen as game pieces -- dominoes -- in the Cold War). – Owen Reynolds Mar 24 '23 at 18:02
  • @gerrit Its interesting that communist USSR which ended 30 years ago is considered irrelevant to today's realities whereas the Nazi and Fascist parties of Europe that ended 80 years ago still provide adjectives in daily use (and fights!) As for this answer, the objections can be answered by simply adding an "ex-" before "communist" (Or just change communist to Warsaw pact or CSTO or COMECON or CIS or ...) –  Mar 25 '23 at 05:36
  • This answer is good. It could be bettered by (a) explaining the chess metaphor as geopolitics. In particular it almost comes to stating the real issue viz. there are three levels: individuals, states, super-powers. Just as states sacrifice individuals in thousands for their ends, super-powers sacrifice entire states without compunction. And Ukraine is the 'front' of the western and the eastern block. You almost say this. Inserting this exploicitly would make this an even better answer (b) clarifying the sarcasm –  Mar 25 '23 at 05:48
  • @Raveesh The history of the Soviet Union is certainly relevant to understand the background of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, just like the history of (Nazi) Germany is important to understand the role of Germany in Europe today, but Russia is not currently Communist (it never was, as communism is a utopia that never existed in any community with more than a few dozen members, but that's a different question) and Germany is not Nazi. – gerrit Mar 27 '23 at 06:47
  • @gerrit When every Tom DIck and Harry today call every other Harry Dick and Tom a 'fascist' or a 'nazi' today are they invoking German history? How come the Soviet world is considered nonexistent and Putin's (supposed) attempt to restore it insufferably irredentist (and fascist) whereas the current actions of the 'democratic' west are full of love and goodwill? –  Mar 27 '23 at 06:54
  • @Raveesh To your first question: Yes, they are (at least for the case of "nazi"; see the role of nazi accusations in Russian propaganda regarding Ukraine). To your second question: The post-Soviet world exists, but it is not the "communist world". I don't understand what you mean by "full of love and goodwill". Your link is about Afghanistan, which was illegally invaded by the US and allies in 2001, and where the Soviet Union fought a war in the 1980s. Did you mean to link something else? – gerrit Mar 27 '23 at 06:56
  • That is a very different issue @gerrit — who 'owns' the right to say We defeated the Nazis in 1945. That is about actual history and may well be a more important ideological aspect of the Ukraine war than territory. Hint: (a) Who planted their flag on the Reichstag in 1945? (b) Which of the allies had nearly 40 times the causalties as the next? and yet (c) continues to be villified from the time of Woodrow Wilson through Reagan till date? –  Mar 27 '23 at 07:06
  • Did you mean to link something else? I was being sarcastic @gerrit. In plainer language, was reminding that US atrocities continue today with brazen impunity and why much of the world — 90% by Jef Sachs' estimate — sympathizes with Russia in this Ukraine mess. Not because we wish a single Ukrainian death or even ill but because this is ultimately a Russia-NATO war not a Russia-Ukraine war. Its Ukraine's great misfortune that it has a comedian as president who cannot distinguish mayhem in reality from prancing with his lady on Vogue magazine. –  Mar 27 '23 at 08:59
  • @Raveesh US atrocities do not justify Russian atrocities. "Someone else does bad" was never a defence for anything, and never will be. Nor does "We were part of a country that defeated the Nazis 80 years ago at immense cost to our country" justify atrocities (today or in the past). In any case, both Russia and Ukraine paid this immense cost in World War II, as both were part of the Soviet Union. (I think Ukraine was entirely or at least mostly occupied by the Nazis, but Russia only for the westernmost parts, so Ukraine arguably paid an even higher price, if that matters for anything). – gerrit Mar 27 '23 at 09:12
  • @gerrit There was no Russia and no Ukraine countries in the 1940s, only USSR. [By your calculation Stalin was Georgian, not Russian]. Which returns to the original point of this debate: communism is over, whereas fascism meaningfully exists. Sounds more like Russophobia driving wishful thinking than fact –  Mar 27 '23 at 09:22
  • @Raveesh There were Russian and Ukrainian Soviet Republics in the 1940s, Russian and Ukrainian languages, and different ethnicities. Ukraine even had its own UN membership. Of course Stalin was Georgian. I don't know if he was росси́йский (citizen of the Russian RSFSR), but he certainly wasn't ру́сский (ethnic Russian). – gerrit Mar 27 '23 at 09:28
0

Not mentioned yet: this is a clear sign to other countries that fighting against NATO is a supremely bad idea. If old NATO weapons and NATO training are already this effective, who is going to challenge NATO directly? Even China will have to consider this demonstration.

MSalters
  • 5,467
  • 16
  • 29
-3

The Democrats being democratic were vehemently vocal since 2012 about opposition to a recently genocidal police rogue state and a very powerful white nation run by a rogue spy in the middle of the map of the Eurasia. Involvement in Russian reality, history, culture, peace, literature has been minimal as none of the recent US leaders has the cultural toolset to convince Putin to run his nation responsibly and safely, which would be a gamble and a compromise of human rights.

The democrats poised themselves as the arch-enemies of Putin before coming to power, giving no de-escalation timetable, as a result of Georgia invasion, overt spy poisonings, corruption of the Russian constitution, the support of puppet police states in the former USSR, including Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The democrats therefore motioned that they were only interested attrition, hostile talks and minimizing the influence of Russia under a police state.

As it stands, leading democrats were on the offensive-defensive and poised increase war games all around the Russian border of all former USSR states which could be allied.

Nobody imagined that Putin would feel paranoid, crazy, agressive denigrated and vilified enough to attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine using all of the Russian military machine, and America has been fast to shore up the allied state of Ukraine with as much defensive power as it can muster, because the entire combative-military degeneration of both sides is a complete disaster, and the US doesn't have any other choice now to avoid a formerly genocidal police state regain some of it's former power.

bandybabboon
  • 2,918
  • 1
  • 11
  • 19
  • 1
    I cannot get how much the answer is fact and how much sarcasm. Maybe you're not a native English speaker (Or I am just dense...). Upvoted anyway because its still a good answer in stating (a) history does not magically start in Feb 2022. (b) Its not Biden the person nor US at large but the Democrats who's main plank is Russophobia –  Mar 25 '23 at 06:13
  • @Raveesh There has been an inversion in opinions on Russia between the two US parties in the last 7 years. The Russian threat has been a cornerstone for GOP politics for the gross majority of my life, but apparently people have completely forgotten and now think that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. See https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13994/what-caused-the-rep-party-members-dramatic-shift-on-views-on-russia – TemporalWolf Mar 25 '23 at 07:07
  • Good answer! I think the same @bandybabboon! – Max Pattern Mar 25 '23 at 07:33
  • I can't make out what this answer is trying to say, if it's even an answer at all. You try to paint democrats as unreasonable ("giving no de-escalation timetable"), but then you paint them as reasonable in the very same sentence ("... as a result of Georgia invasion, overt spy poisonings..."). But both of these things are just telling a story to promote a narrative, rather than answering the question of why (which is what has been asked). – NotThatGuy Mar 25 '23 at 15:25
  • @TemporalWolf Yeah two cataclysims in 2016 — Trump and Hillary. Hillary's loss meant that old fashioned money-power DNC needed change. Trump started the split between MAGA-Reps and RINO-Reps. And in that process the traditional GOP-bogeyman Russia(gate) shifted over to the Dems. –  Mar 26 '23 at 04:46
  • @Raveesh You're using very loaded language. Also worth noting MAGA-Reps share almost no political pillars with the prior Republican party. If anything, they would be the "RINOs" and their movement would be better classified in some other way. – TemporalWolf Apr 06 '23 at 01:17
-3

There were some good answers. However, I did not find a satisfactory answer for me. This is also because the topic of Biden was not really addressed. The aspect that an escalation existed before the actual use of force was either completely or partially ignored. So actually since 1992 (the beginning of US-Ukraine relations) through 2014 to 2022. And my question had the context of Biden, because Biden has always had a fixed hostile image on the subject of Russia. I believe that there would have been no war in Ukraine under Sanders. But I can't prove it. But that applies to both sides.

One possible answer would have been: The great interest is that Russia is down economically, militarily and politically. This would make obsolete the outdated myth that Russia is a dangerous counterpart to the Western world. With Russia's downfall, completely new starting positions for the USA would develop in other theatres of the world. And this would be clearly in favour of the USA. This would even surpass Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America great again". And since the US could not go to war directly against Russia, it could be that Ukraine and the Ukrainian population would be misused for this purpose.

For me, however, this would be the beginning of a dystopian world. In the last few days I remember a beautiful saying that was spray-painted on a bunker in Hamburg:

"Imagine it's war and nobody goes". That's what I wish for with this rotten war in Eastern Europe.

Max Pattern
  • 462
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9
  • 3
    I think you grossly overestimate how big an impediment Russia has been for the US to "develop" "completely new starting positions" "in other theatres of the world". The US doesn't need "Russia's downfall" simply because Russia has been rolling down to deep shit by itself for internal reasons since mid-00s, and has not been any real competition or threat to the US interests anywhere anymore like the USSR was. – Greendrake Mar 25 '23 at 09:57
  • 1
    If Russia is down economically, militarily and politically, then why does US need to attack Russia? – sfxedit Mar 25 '23 at 18:24
  • 1
    Supporting Ukraine is a misuse of Ukraine? I don't get it and this is by far not the only part I have difficulties understanding from this answer. Biden was the only one critical of Russia? Sanders was a serious contender for becoming president? Russia has no nuclear weapons left? New starting positions all over the world, when the war is taking place in Donbass? And what is a rotten war? Are there any other wars? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Mar 27 '23 at 19:53
  • Perhaps ask separate question asking specifically if USA's position on Ukraine is driven primarily or significantly by Biden himself? As-is, the question here is mostly taken as asking why the US has the stance it does. – bharring Apr 05 '23 at 19:52
-4

The USA has a first past the post system of democracy similar to the UK. This gives the illusion of democracy but in fact is likely closer to the Chinese one party system than true democracy.

The US has a legacy fear of Russia. This fear arose again in Trump v Clinton election and despite the exposé by Matt Taibi the notion of Russian election interference seems to persist.

For a nation on shaky foundations, Russia seems a great scapegoat on which to project and divert concern from national issues.

Russia repeatedly said it would not permit NATO in Ukraine. Initially Obama resisted arming Ukraine militarily but then the US under Trump and Biden gave military support to Ukraine and continued to support Ukraine's right to join NATO.

The US government backed Rand foundation issued a document, Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. It recommended that the best way to destabilise Russia was through Ukraine.

When Russia finally decided to act on what it saw as a security issue, the USA said the invasion was unprovoked despite years of diplomatic attempts by Russia to keep NATO and Russia's great enemy (USA) off its borders. This is straight out of the pentagon's playbook.

Ukraine and Russia agreed in principal to a ceasefire in April 2022 but following the visit of Boris Johnson, the deal was aborted, apparently as Ukraine were told they would lose UK/ US support if they dealt with Putin.

John Kirby (National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications) recently said it would not consider the ceasefire suggestions put forward by China.

A third world war was close to happening when Russia attempted to put missile bases in Cuba in response to the bases the US put in Turkey. The US would not allow missile bases in Cuba but it seems to think it should be allowed to have them on Russia's border.

It all seems to suggest that the US is content for the war to continue in the hope of destabilising Russia despite the horrific lose of Ukranian and russian lives.

SeanJ
  • 1,050
  • 1
  • 7
  • 15
  • but it seems to think it should be allowed to have them on Russia's border. This could use a citation that US or NATO planned to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine (but not the Baltic states, and having withdrawn them from Turkey, which are already NATO?). – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 16:51
  • Agree. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine -- article 6 . But I should have phrased it better. I'll try and improve – SeanJ Mar 23 '23 at 17:05
  • Article 6 was conventional weaponry not just nuclear. And required most NATO forces to not be permitted in most other NATO countries or open seas. – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 17:10
  • 3
    If you want to debate, better go to meta but very quickly, a wrong reaction to conventional could be nuclear and that would be catastrophic. Risk goes up as per Mearsheimer, Chomsky etc. – SeanJ Mar 23 '23 at 17:42
  • I don't mean to debate whether or not US or NATO has made the claim; only pointing out that your citation doesn't match the claim you're using it to support. – bharring Mar 23 '23 at 18:55
  • 1
    "This fear arose again in Trump v Clinton election" does not sound a statement from a one party state... – prosfilaes Mar 24 '23 at 00:08
  • 1
    Fair enough, I though pointing Russia article 6 request concerning missiles was a good idea but changed the link to reference Cuba and Russia existential threat! Doesn't really matter too much, the upvoted post maintains that US did not block the ceasefire last year when all commentary points to the opposite. It's all just propaganda now, Wade wrote an interesting letter at the start https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/30/why-the-us-and-nato-have-long-wanted-russia-to-attack-ukraine/ Nobody seems to care. the war could be stopped tomorrow but instead the slaughter continues. – SeanJ Mar 24 '23 at 00:12
  • 1
    @prosfilaes in China people need to get elected and presumably cite the weakness of their opponents. If the political options are the same in the US which they seem to be excluding abortion, there is no choice imho, (Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee). We're not much better in Europe, just smaller with a slightly different system which makes things a bit more democratic. – SeanJ Mar 24 '23 at 00:16
  • @SeanJ No, people in China don't need to get elected in the same way. They have no opponents for the most part; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_voting_results_of_the_National_People%27s_Congress_of_China shows very few cases where there was opposition at all, with the "opponents" scoring 0.07% of the vote at the highest. It is said that in the US, the voters have to compromise, but in a Parliamentary system, that's left to the parties. While both parties are centrist, non-voter opinions don't matter, and most of the voters see a stark difference between the two parties. – prosfilaes Mar 24 '23 at 00:29
  • 1
    @prosfilaes at senior levels no but there are local elections https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181249 Yes, there are more choices in the US primaries but it seems a big fuss over nothing when the ultimate caliber of the selected presidential is taken into account. Maybe I shouldn't have put that comment in but it's how I feel and for me the US has been in serious decline since the 90s when the war on drugs affected freedom to such a degree and prison populations increased hugely per capita. Anyway, just my two cents. – SeanJ Mar 24 '23 at 00:48
-10

"Why is the US under Biden so strongly supporting Ukraine in the war?"

Energy and strengthening the USA by weakening Europe. For the USA, the mix of Germany as a technology location and Russia's cheap energy resources has always been a problem. This war shows impressively how 20 years of economic boom in Germany crumbles within a few months. Even if some in Europe do not feel it yet. Europe is economically as well as politically not well. And an important reason for this is the loss of Russian energy resources. In Europe, some small and medium-sized companies have already changed or announced to change the location Germany for other energy secure locations. Indicated were production relocation to the USA or even China (BASF). And since Germany is unfortunately no longer the innovation stronghold and the industrial sector is also breaking apart, Europe's leading economic nation will falter. And so will the whole of Europe.

To solve the energy problem in Europe, gas could flow directly from Ukraine to Western Europe if the Ukrainians (USA) win the war. And maybe it plays then also a small role that Biden son sat with the largest Ukrainian gas supplier of the country Burisma in the supervisory board (2014 to 2019).

For me, this can be a sign that this war was planned by the USA for a long time. In order to protect this long-term investment, Biden's USA is currently investing a lot of money in Ukraine.

The USA does it for humanistic reasons? No. It doesn't. Unfortunately, there are many war zones in the world. Yemen or in middle and east and west Africa, a disgusting war of extermination has been raging for years. Here we do not help. At least not to this extent. The USA has always acted in this way. Sometimes stronger, sometimes less. In my opinion, Biden is the one who is exaggerating the most.

Maik Lowrey
  • 311
  • 1
  • 7
  • 7
    Do you have a source for any of this? Especially for the "war was planned by the USA for a long time". – prosfilaes Mar 22 '23 at 22:49
  • 2
    German economy is still growing in 2023. The war benefits the German weapons industry, which is a significant economic sector. Cynically, Germany also benefits from Ukrainian refugees, who help reduce the shortage of labour in many sectors. – gerrit Mar 23 '23 at 07:41
  • 1
    Moin @gerrit! The IWF reports less growth for Germany. That is a fact. For 2023, GDP is expected to grow by only 0.1 per cent. Quasi stagnation. In a capital-driven world, stagnation is defacto a problem. Unfortunately, your assumption that Ukrainian refugees will eliminate the labour shortage is wrong. Many academically trained Ukrainians do not get licences in Germany (doctors, teachers) although they want to work. Fortunately, things are different in IT. But I am hopeful that this will change soon. – Maik Lowrey Mar 23 '23 at 08:00
  • 2
    @gerrit The arms industry in Germany is the winner of the war, but with a share of about 0.26% of the GDP it is rather a niche. – Maik Lowrey Mar 23 '23 at 08:00
  • 1
    @prosfilaes Source 1: https://www.savethechildren.de/news/ostafrika-eine-viertelmillion-kinder-2021-an-hunger-gestorben/ Source 2: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/usa-haushalt-kongress-ukraine-hilfe-1.5720929 – Maik Lowrey Mar 23 '23 at 08:42
  • @MaikLowrey Many things are special about Ukraine compared to South Sudan, in particular for Europeans. – gerrit Mar 23 '23 at 10:02
  • @MaikLowrey Yes, the difficulty for Ukrainian refugees to get their certificates accepted for the German labour market is a political issue in Germany, but quite tangential to the question of military support to Ukranian self-defence. – gerrit Mar 23 '23 at 10:08
  • 1
    @gerrit Yes, that is of course correct. But the comment was necessary because I was referring to your comment ("German economy is still growing in 2023"). Germany still has an excess demand due to the Korona years. In the automotive sector, sales dropped enormously after 2022. As soon as the demand overhang from 20/21 is worked off, there will be more layoffs in this sector. And this sector is Germany's crown jewel ("unfortunately!!"). – Maik Lowrey Mar 23 '23 at 10:55