185
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The good news is that Congress, at the last minute, averted a government shutdown, at least for now. The bad news is that billions of dollars of funding for Ukraine were stripped from the continuing resolution as a sop to House Republicans who want to cut off the embattled democracy altogether.

Aid to Ukraine still has the support of roughly two-thirds of both houses — something you can’t say about many other issues — but a dangerous milestone was reached last week when more House Republicans voted against Ukraine aid (117) than voted for it (101). That reflects a broader turn in Republican opinion, with only 39 percent of Republicans saying in a recent CBS News-YouGov poll that the United States should send weapons to Ukraine and 61 percent saying it shouldn’t.

To do the right thing for Ukraine, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) will now have to go against a growing portion of the Republican base. It is, nevertheless, imperative that he show a modicum of backbone and bring a Ukraine funding bill to the floor immediately. It is not only the right thing to do morally — we have an obligation to support a fellow democracy fending off an unprovoked invasion — but it also is the right thing to do strategically. In fact, it is hard to think of any U.S. foreign policy initiative since the end of the Cold War that has been more successful or more important than U.S. aid to Ukraine.

Yes, in absolute terms, Washington has given a lot of money to Ukraine: $76.8 billion in total assistance, including $46.6 billion in military aid. But that’s a tiny portion — just 0.65 percent — of the total federal spending in the past two years of $11.8 trillion. With U.S. and other Western aid, Ukraine has been able to stop the Russian onslaught and begin to roll it back.

In the process, Russia has lost an estimated 120,000 soldiers and 170,000 to 180,000 have been injured. Russia has also lost an estimated 2,329 tanks, 2,817 infantry fighting vehicles, 2,868 trucks and jeeps, 354 armored personnel carriers, 538 self-propelled artillery vehicles, 310 towed artillery pieces, 92 fixed-wing aircraft and 106 helicopters.

The Russian armed forces have been devastated, thereby reducing the risk to front-line NATO states such as Poland and the Baltic republics that the United States is treaty-bound to protect. And all of that has been accomplished without having to put a single U.S. soldier at risk on the front lines.

That’s an incredible investment, especially compared with U.S. involvement in other recent wars. In Afghanistan and Iraq, both launched under a Republican administration, almost 7,000 U.S. troops were killed and more than 50,000 were wounded while Washington spent more than $8 trillion — only to see Afghanistan fall to the Taliban and Iraq come under Iranian influence.

Republicans who claim to worry so much about corruption in Ukraine, even though there is no evidence that any U.S. aid has been misused, seldom had anything to say about the truly pervasive corruption in Afghanistan and Iraq, which siphoned off billions in U.S. taxpayer dollars. A forensic accountant who audited U.S. spending in Afghanistan from 2010 to 2012 found that about 40 percent of $106 billion in Defense Department contracts “ended up in the pockets of insurgents, criminal syndicates or corrupt Afghan officials.” Yet Republicans never proposed to end funding for that war.

The war in Ukraine also stacks up impressively compared with other proxy wars that Republicans, under the Reagan administration, did so much to support — from Afghanistan to Nicaragua to Mozambique. In Ukraine, we don’t have to worry about our weapons going to anti-American religious fundamentalists such as the Haqqani network. We are funding a free people fighting to preserve a liberal democracy that will be a stalwart member of the Western community for years to come.

Republicans often complain that the United States is doing the heavy lifting and our European allies aren’t doing their fair share. That’s not true in the case of Ukraine. This summer, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy reported that “Europe has clearly overtaken the United States in promised aid to Ukraine, with total European commitments now being twice as large.” Yet, despite the growing European assistance, Ukraine still relies on U.S. support; even combined, Europe and the United States can barely keep up with Ukraine’s need for artillery ammunition and other munitions as it wages an industrialized war of attrition.

By funding Ukraine, we are strengthening transatlantic ties and keeping faith with our closest allies. If we were to cut off Ukraine, that would be an unspeakable betrayal not only of the people of Ukraine but also of all of Europe. Stopping Russian aggression is an existential issue for the entire continent. Cutting off Ukraine would mean that the United States is turning its back on its post-1945 security commitment to Europe — a commitment that has underpinned the longest period without a major-power conflict since the emergence of the modern state system in the 17th century.

Supporting Ukraine is also needed to deter Chinese aggression. Some on the right claim that the war in Ukraine is a distraction from the Pacific, but that’s not how the Taiwanese see it. Taiwan’s representative in Washington noted this year that supporting Ukraine — as Taiwan is doing with humanitarian assistance — “will help to deter any consideration or miscalculation that an invasion can be conducted unpunished.”

Many Republicans understand that. “It’s certainly not the time to go wobbly,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said recently. But the MAGA wing of the party, led by former president Donald Trump, has turned against the war because of its isolationism and soft spot for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, a war criminal whom some on the right ludicrously see as a champion of Christian values.

Ironically, many on the right claim to want a negotiated solution to the conflict while doing everything possible to ensure that Putin has no incentive to negotiate seriously. The more Republicans do to endanger aid to Ukraine, the more likely Putin is to assume he can outlast the West and keep fighting.

Once upon a time, Republicans understood the need to resist the “evil empire.” As a former Republican, it sickens me to see so many Republicans so eager to do Moscow’s bidding. But, mercifully, the vast majority of members of Congress — including many Republicans — still staunchly support Ukraine. McCarthy cannot let the MAGA caucus block the best investment the United States can make in its own security.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

You can't call yourself a true patriot if you don't relish the thought of an old adversary perishing in a war against someone else. Its gotta be obvious the Republican party is compromised at this point, especially after allegations over the years.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Nationalism doesn’t usually end well.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

They are self ascribed patriots. I'm just calling them out. Please, don't start a nationalist party.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I’d rather start an Internationalist party. ;)

[-] hark@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Why couldn't we have helped Russia after the collapse of the USSR instead of letting it languish and turn into what it has become today? That would've saved a lot of lives, but I suppose then you couldn't have that eternal enemy to show off how much of a patriot you are.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

We could have, and we should have. But those choices were made by different people than us. Maybe if we had made some other choices instead of just nationalist ones we could have had an ally by now. But as you said, we'd have no eternal enemy to point to, and imperialists love state enemies.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The choices being made right now are being made by different people than us (the literal us). Voters largely have little say in US foreign policy.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Voters absolutely have a say in foreign policy because they absolutely have control over how their representatives vote. If anything, they have undue influence due to rampant gerrymandering.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell because I've seen your other posts and let's just say your takes are really something, so it's hard to tell if you're being serious.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

My takes are the truth, which rubs a lot of people here the wrong way.

If you don't believe you have a say in foreign policy, consider that maybe as small a number as 100k Americans just ousted the Speaker of the House.

It's not my fault most people don't understand politics at all.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I both agree and disagree, but you are blaming the US/West far too much. Russia was not a US colony, and there is no manual on how to fix a country when it collapses. It's not entirely clear how we could've helped, especially in a manner that didn't just look like enriching private corporations or wealthy Russian oligarchs.

What happened in the end is a very common story -- a place is having economic hardship and struggle, a strongman leader restores stability, the strongman rules as a tyrant. The tyrant longs for old days of glory, and so forth.

I disagree with the commenter above that we should relish the thought of Russia's defeat because they were a former adversary. I wish things had happened far differently. My disdain is largely for Putin, not for Russia itself. We can learn from the past, but the fact remains -- Putin and Russia must fail in Ukraine for peace to be established, innocent lives to be saved, and sovereignty to be respected. Ukraine is not Russia's colony, and Putin needs to be punished for forgetting that.

Say Russia loses and Putin is deposed. What do you think the US and West should do in that situation? This isn't some gotcha question, I'm genuinely interested in what you think would be the best path forward for the Russian people to thrive and have a peaceful democracy.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There is a manual on how to fix a country when it collapses and it was written after world war 2. We saw how Germany was punished after world war 1 and how it didn't solve the underlying problems. The problem was solved when Germany got proper support instead of being let to fester in economic misery. It takes a village to raise to raise a child and a world to raise a country. Instead, the US sought to exploit the fall of the USSR with "free market" BS and laundering money for the wealthy to maximize wealth extraction.

When this war has ended, my hope is that the world extends a hand to help Russia diversify its economy and become more stable. We should also dismantle cold war era organizations like NATO, whose only goal is to act as an adversary. We need to emphasize cooperation.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's the thing though, proper support and enriching the wealthy aren't mutually exclusive here. Whatever aid we provide, some big companies will benefit and oligarchs will get richer. Either way though, I think we can agree that while the West was not obligated to do more, they should have done more. And I am completely with you on a global effort to rebuild and stabilize Russia as a liberal democracy. We need to make sure the country doesn't fall into ruin again and give us Putin 2.0.

I will have to disagree on NATO though, largely because countries like Ukraine are going to want defensive assurances for a very long time after this. It provides peace of mind to the smaller nations that we won't allow them to be conquered by neo imperialist upstarts. What I do think though is NATO needs to expand into a general defensive pact. Perhaps it should become an agreement by the largest military powers that they will defend all democracies from attack, or something.

Things like NATO will naturally die when they are no longer relevant. People really didn't care as much about it before the Ukraine invasion, and much of the left questioned why we even had it. Russia has made it relevant again. In a hundred years, it may exist only on paper, if Russia and the West have jolly cooperation.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

NATO was no longer relevant when the USSR collapsed and the cold war supposedly ended. It took over a quarter of a century of irrelevance for this war to happen and it's not unreasonable to think that NATO played a role of escalation in order to ensure job security.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

NATO is application only. It's growth is because Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation. It drove people to NATO for safety.

[-] goldenlocks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Turns out when a country is commiting genocide and refuses to stop, military action is required.

Plus, wasn't this a UN sanctioned attack?

[-] goldenlocks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Read the article there's a whole section on why this wasn't a good idea: Arguments against strategic air power

It didn't help the situation, and ended up killing a lot of civilians.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It is not definitively stated that it didn't help the situation. The article provides just as much evidence that it was decisive in Yugoslavia capitulating.

At the end of the day, we can agree that the civilian casualties were unacceptable, and upon discovering unexpected conditions, NATO should have called off the attack and reconsidered their approach.

It's intellectually dishonest however to make a condemnation either way with certainty. It's a disputed event without consensus. It's perfectly valid to say that it's unclear if it actually helped the situation or made it worse, but it's incorrect to suggest a historical consensus on its judgment. As with pretty much every modern conflict, you'll have academics who condemn US intervention and who condemn US inaction.

The one thing I can definitely say though is it was unconscionable to use cluster bombs, and that was incredibly fucked up.

[-] goldenlocks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't believe for a second that NATO cared about the civilians or infrastructure. They were governing by force like you said Russia was in your first comment.

Russia sought to exert power through punishment instead of cooperation

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't call the terrible market reforms that created the oligarchs "help". That "broken people culturally inured" line is nonsense. You're like those racists who think black people are genetically programmed for crime.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Except unlike racism, which is nonsense, countries do in fact have a persistent cultural zeitgeist

[-] hark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So when the US elected Trump, they were "a broken people culturally inured to welcoming and even demanding tyrants"?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, rather the US is very prone to demagoguery by nationalists.

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Dressing up the word doesn't change anything. Nationalism runs rampant in the US. You can see it in all the flag-waving, the chants of "U-S-A, U-S-A, Number 1, Number 1!", American exceptionalism, and constant claims of being the greatest country on Earth.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's not dressing up a word, it's just using the right word.

You're making my point back to me

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

You can't call yourself human if you relish the thought of war.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Don't dehumanize what humanity is capable of.

[-] Lightor@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

You don't have to relish war, but you can be hopeful about the outcome. The unfortunate reality is, to keep peace you must be ready for war.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

You can't call yourself human if you're not willing to fight monsters.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Helping Ukraine isn't relishing war. Yes, peace would be better, but that's entirely in Russia's control. If Mexico invaded the US and seized a state or two, does anyone think that the US would just sign a peace treaty and give up those states? (I mean, maybe if it was Mississippi or Alabama.) No, we'd strike back until we took back every inch of territory that we had lost.

Russia could have peace tomorrow by pulling their troops out and agreeing to never again invade a sovereign country. (I'm sure there were be more conditions before it would be a lasting peace, but that would be a great start.) Russia's idea of "peace," though, is "Ukraine becomes part of Russia and everyone in Ukraine who doesn't like this is tortured, raped, and then killed."

It's a false equivalence to pretend that fighting to free your country from an invading force is the same as fighting as part of the invading force.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We certainly aren't fighting to free our country!

We're giving Ukraine juuust enough support to never lose, but not enough to ever win. The goal isn't to free Ukraine, the goal is the weaken Russia.

America would prefer this war never ends.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Eh I wouldn't go that far. I have no desire for the UK nor Germany to perish in a war for instance. And I don't want to see Russia perish in war. But they must absolutely lose in Ukraine, unequivocally.

I would've preferred to see them be a thriving democracy, perhaps one that had figured out how to better mix capitalism and communism. We could have shared our cultures and combined our knowledge to make massive scientific advancements.

But Russia didn't choose that path. And now they have to be defeated. They promoted far right candidates in the West with the intent of destabilizing countries, and they actively spread COVID misinformation. If there's to be a hope for democracy and a free Russian people, we have to do everything we can to defeat the Putin regime.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I agree with you. But I am tired of these "Patriots" supporting a country that does nothing but destabilize ours and sells oil. If they are the true red-blooded patriots they say they are then they should be lining up to pay Ukraine themselves.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I completely agree, but it's good to know your audience. I usually save that language directly for the traitorous fucks, and try to be more conciliatory otherwise. It's often better for getting people to see your viewpoint and agree.

this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
185 points (100.0% liked)

politics

20722 readers
3167 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS