Why are we giving Ukraine ANY military assisance?

What’s the point? They don’t appear to be willing to use it anyway. Does Ukraine have artillery? Answer: Yes. Are they using it? Answer: No.


They are afraid that the Russians will shoot back. Does Ukraine believe that they can drive out the Russians with a few pot shots from sniper rifles? Zero chance. You can’t have a war of independence without any battles. They know where the Russians are. Kill them. The Russians will respond with greater force. And Ukraine will eventually succumb. Maybe. But, if mother Russia is receiving a hundred dead soldiers per week, how long will the Russian people support Putin’s war of conquest? The Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan not because they were weaker, but because the cost was too high. Ukraine has the means to resists. But they are afraid to do so.

There are pro Russian factions within Ukraine.

So… it is a lot lot complicated than you think it is.

Then you tell me. What kind of military aid should they get? And what should they do with it? How is military aid helping them at all? Uncomplicate it for me.

There isn’t right now in Ukraine a national unity like one would expect in a country like Germany or France in a time of war.

That is the first thing that complicates matters.

The second thing that complicates matters is that if the pro European faction of Ukraine is left out in the wind, then the Pro Russian forces are able to take over politically as well as militarily.

That benefits Putin greatly.

So the question is to support the pretty much stalemate in Ukraine while working to make gains where possible or cut it lose to Russia.

While the first thing may seem to be a problem of foreign funding on our part, the second outcome is much much worse for long term Western interests.

You still have not answered the question. What should Ukraine do with the military aid if not to use it for military purposes? Obama sent them blankets. Trump sent them Javelin anti tank missiles. What do you propose they do with these anti tank missiles?

1 Like

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) released the following statement regarding President Trump’s decision to provide U.S. assistance to Ukraine:

“I welcome the administration’s decision to release funds appropriated by Congress to help Ukraine reform and strengthen its defense capabilities, defend its sovereignty, counter Russian aggression, and advance the cause of political and economic reforms to cement that country’s positive democratic trajectory.

“I criticized President Obama for not responding more swiftly and forcefully to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I joined my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in pushing that Administration to provide assistance to Kyiv.

“President Trump made the right call to expand the types of military assistance we’ve provided, including lethal defensive weapons, so Ukraine can better defend its sovereignty against Russian aggression."

Your reply does not contain the answer I’m looking for. I’ll ask again. What good is sending military aid to a country under invasion if that aid is not going to be used? I’m looking for your thoughts not Mitch’s.

I propose the United States mind its own ******* business and stop stirring up ants nests in Russia’s back yard. Cutoff further aid and write off what has already been sent.

It would be helpful if we understood your thoughts better.

Is it your contention that unless the Ukraine uses what we’ve given them to drive out Russia, the aid is useless?

Why do you think that would be the best approach?

No one knows the answer.

When Russia invaded Crimea, there was no way that the US was going to go to war with Russia over it.

That is just the fact.

Since then, the government has pinged ponged between pro Russian and Pro European factions, with the pro European ones gaining the upper hand lately.

I will agree that Obama’s response wasn’t the best… but we weren’t going to go to war over it and a lot has changed on the ground over the years.


Why cede Ukraine to Russian influence?

I’m interested in libs response to your post. I said basically the same thing while back and it triggered em. :popcorn:

I believe in helping countries defend themselves against bullies and tyrants if possible. But if we send them 100 javelin anti tank missiles and they are not used against Russian tanks, the Russians will simply seize them.

1 Like

The Ukrainians have the means to resist. We cannot force them to resist.

Not our ******* business, any more than Vietnam was our ******* business. I despise interventionism, regardless of country.

And more often than not, our interventionism ultimately turns to ****. Vietnam, Project Ajax, Lebanon, ad naseum.

Vietnam got a gold mine of United States equipment in 1975. If we had never sent the stuff in the first place, they wouldn’t have it. We already made a mistake. Lets not double down by sending more stuff.

A faction of Ukrainians have the means to resist.

And yes we cannot force them… but what is the gain from cutting off support to the Pro Western faction and ceding Ukraine into Russian influence?

Trump sent them Javelin anti tank missiles. What do you propose they do with these anti tank missiles?

Use them as a way to keep the tanks from advancing where they are.

Remember… where the Russians are occupying Ukraine is ethnically Russian and politically aligned with them.

This sort of absolutism doesn’t seem workable IRL.

1 Like