The United States Should Continue Supporting Ukraine

The magnitude of popular and political support for Ukraine has recently come into question. Pro-Ukrainian sentiment has been challenged by other breaking news stories, a lack of visible progress on the frontline, and a growing undercurrent of populist critics. Although most lawmakers on Capitol Hill still strongly support aid for Ukraine, upcoming elections could upset this stance. Many Republicans in the MAGA wing of the party have criticized sending support on the basis that it detracts from domestic objectives. The current Republican nominee and favorite for president, Donald Trump, has also made remarks indicating he would alter the nation's stance toward Ukraine if elected in November.

The condemnation from these political figures primarily focuses on the fiscal burden. To date, the United States has allocated $175 billion dollars towards civil and military aid to Ukraine. Over two and a half years of fighting, this comes out to just under $60 billion annually. While this might seem like a lot of money, the Department of Defense was allocated over $886 billion dollars in the 2024 fiscal year. One of the primary objectives of this defense budget is to enable the US military to defend allies in the case of a conflict. Spending under 7% of this budget to cripple one of the most prominent adversaries is the definition of money well spent in this regard.

While it is correct on paper, classifying the cost of aid to Ukraine as $175 billion is misleading. Much of the weaponry sent to Ukraine is not cutting-edge tech and would likely be decommissioned otherwise. The net value of the scrap parts obtained from these systems is far below the stated price added to the tally when they are sent to Ukraine. Even in the case of new weapons, it is not correct to say that money is being sent to Ukraine. When weapons are delivered from military stockpiles, they are backfilled with new items from the military-industrial complex. Therefore, aid to Ukraine can be thought of as a stimulus bill that injects money into the US economy.

To date, the weaponry delivered to Ukraine has made a considerable impact. The Ukrainian war effort would collapse without Western support. In the early phases of the conflict, Western anti-tank munitions repelled Russian advances. Now, Western air defense systems, armored vehicles, and artillery pieces are holding down Russian forces in a costly war of attrition. According to estimates from the British Ministry of Defense, Russia has suffered over 450,000 casualties in Ukraine. Over 17,000 Russian vehicles have been visually confirmed as destroyed or abandoned since February of 2022.

Many, including myself, have recognized that Ukraine simply cannot win the war under the current parameters. However, this is not a valid rationale for cutting support. The primary concern of the US is not to maintain Ukraine's territorial integrity but rather to limit Russia's strength and ability to challenge the current global order. Ukraine has proved to be an exceptional vehicle for grinding down Russian resources at a massive scale. Continuing support might not win the war, but it would likely add a few more years of Ukrainian survival. The resulting losses would degrade the capacity of the Russian leadership to continue with their ambitions.

Some would reject this idea with the belief that damaging Russia is unnecessary and only creates more tension and adversarial behavior. They argue that future Russian antagonism and aggression could be avoided by abandoning Ukraine to its fate. This strategy of appeasement assumes that the only point of tension between Russia and the West is Ukraine itself. This is completely false. There are deep ideological and geopolitical forces that make Russia and the West inherently opposed to each other. If Ukraine was abandoned, these circumstances would not disappear. The Russian leadership would proceed with its ambition to reassert its former spheres of influence. Some form of conflict in the region is inevitable, and avoiding it only serves to strengthen an adversarial Russia. Furthermore, arguments that attempt to demonize the West as being guilty of perpetrating a proxy war ignore the will of the Ukrainian people and hostile Russian intentions.

However, when asked about the invasion, many in the West shift to a propagandistic narrative about defenders of liberty and freedom facing off against unprovoked tyranny. This ideological phrasing of the conflict creates a moral high ground to justify support. This rhetoric is effective at drumming up support but does not accurately depict the rationale of decisions made regarding the war. To start, the reason why support is being provided is not tied to any moral stance. The United States has been more than willing to turn a blind eye to dozens of similar conflicts where there was no geopolitical incentive to intervene.

Furthermore, this propaganda often portrays Vladimir Putin as an idiotic dictator with no cause to invade Ukraine. While there is clearly no morality guiding his decisions, from a purely geopolitical standpoint, the reasons for his invasion are not without merit. To pretend that the United States and its allies are morally superior to unprovoked invasion is to be deluded by propaganda. The United States has instigated many devastating conflicts purely to satisfy geopolitical objectives, such as the war in Vietnam or Iraq. While it might be a cynical opinion, morality and justification are not significantly considered by leaders around the world when engaging in conflict.