On February 24 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in a major escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. The invasion caused Europe’s largest refugee crisis since World War II, with around 7.1 million Ukrainians fleeing the country and a third of the population displaced. It has also caused global food shortages. From February 2022 – September 2022 the U.S. government approved approximately $50 billion in economic and military aid for Ukraine. The funding is earmarked for training, equipment, weapons and other support—such as salaries and stipends—for Ukraine’s military and security forces and budgetary support for Ukrainian government operations.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes
@9S7M4NF5mos5MO
We have an obligation to protect our allies; though Ukraine is not part of NATO and therefore this obligation technically does not apply, if Ukraine were to fall, Russia could be emboldened to invade NATO countries, which could lead to the onset of a third world war.
@9XHDWCS2mos2MO
No evidence Russia would invade NATO
that’s the whole reason of invading Ukraine to prevent it becoming “safe” as a NATO member.
Russian has always demanded the right for a buffer zone to protect it form the west
@9FN33KQ1yr1Y
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nation.
@9VZK7943mos3MO
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nations
@9FRLZ35Libertarian1yr1Y
What does being involved with this conflict do for us. Could this money be relocated toward better, more productive and positive things? If your answer is no, you should rethink that.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No
@9GBRKWK1yr1Y
Ukraine is not in NATO, so we are not obligated to protect them. If they were in NATO, we would be obligated to join the war and then cause WW3.
@9TBZLBX4mos4MO
Inflation is sky high due to our national debt that keeps increasing which relates back to us throwing billions at Ukraine.
@9TBJSHRRepublican4mos4MO
Ukraine paid Hunter Biden: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/analysis-hunter-bidens-hard-drive-shows-firm-took-11-million-2013-2018-rcna29462
America Should only worry about the Americas unless provoked: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine
@9GZFKWP1yr1Y
The Minsk accords and Ukraine not in NATO was preserving the peace.
We forced Ukraine to ignore the Minsk accords and we do not care for the lives of Ukrainians.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, and increase the current amount of resources we are providing
@9VYG5YH 3mos3MO
Those who say arming Ukraine will drag us into war with Russia are sorely mistaken. Russia is looking to gain from its invasion, and they are the only ones escalating this war. Whatever weapons we give Ukraine will not escalate the war any further, since the decision is solely on Russia to de-escalate. Russia will not risk their own annihilation and everything they have gained in Ukraine by attacking the US directly. The cost of war with America would be too great, and it would seriously disrupt any precarious edge they may have over Ukraine.
If we capitulate to Russia's demands, we will… Read more
@9GZFKWP1yr1Y
We are at the border of nuclear war. This is a regional dispute and Ukraine failed to ratify the Minsk accords. Wasting money in more death is immoral.
@9GHTFHX1yr1Y
We should not be spending more money on an unwinnable proxy war between the US and Russia. Providing more funding to Ukraine will only prolong the suffering and death of more Ukrainians, increase tensions between US and Russia, and contribute to further violence in the future.
@B27CYJS6 days6D
Russia has been an aggressor since the beginning, here are the list of times Russia has used force against other regions and countries:
First Chechen War (1994–1996)
Second Chechen War (1999–2009)
1992–1993 Georgian Civil War
1999 Dagestan War
2008 Russo-Georgian War
2014 Annexation of Crimea
2014–Present War in Donbas
2015–2024 Syrian Civil War
2022 Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine
2023 Niger and Africa (via Wagner forces, which also fight in Ukraine)
Given this trend, Russia is incredibly likely to continue invading its neighbors. The cost of a broader war would… Read more
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No, we should not get involved in this conflict
@8WMJ89V2yrs2Y
None of our business. Focus on your fellow citizen and immediate community.
@9CLWDVD 1yr1Y
It is our business because Russia is an aggressive, expansionist, colonial power with a nuclear arsenal that threatens our closest allies.
The dissolution of the USSR left Russia with deep-seated insecurities about its western border, leading to a desire for a buffer of influence.
In terms of nuclear threat, the Cold War era was marked by the delicate balance of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This balance, in a twisted way, kept major powers from direct conflicts. While the world has changed, the basic principle remains: a nuclear power engaging in direct conflict with another nuclear power carries too high a risk.
It's not about ignoring the situation, but approaching it differently. For instance, rather than military aid, could we focus more on diplomatic and economic strategies to support Ukraine and stymie Russian aggression?
@9GZJJXF1yr1Y
Ukraine has been committing a genocide against Russians since 2014, and had killed 14,000 civilians up to the date of Feb 24, 2022 (when Russia launched the Special Military Operation). We cannot support mass murder.
@9GT59LRLibertarian1yr1Y
The Ukrainian government has release reports detailing its own corruption, they have fired multiple government officials for corruption, and the aid which we provide is clearly not having an effect on their ability to win the war given their recent lack of progress.
@9FRLZ35Libertarian1yr1Y
We have spent $113 Billion on Ukrainian aid. Take into account now how many smaller issues could be dealt with the paid for with only millions of those dollars. We gain nothing from pumping money into this war that is at a stand still and we only aggravate Russia and lessen the chances of peace.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, but only provide humanitarian aid
@9GT59LRLibertarian1yr1Y
The Ukraine is wildly corrupt and any aid sent to them will likely be squandered by corrupt officials.
@9FRLZ35Libertarian1yr1Y
The Ukraine v. Russia conflict does not provide anything for us, put us at risk or require our intervention. Ukraine holds no geopolitical interest to us and this conflict is between Russia and Ukraine. It has been blown out of proportion by the media and further supporting it is an act of fueling the military industrial complex.
@9HRL78N1yr1Y
We are $34 Trillion in debt, we cannot afford to provide welfare to our own- let alone welfare to the planet
@9LPSBFB 9mos9MO
Instead of providing humanitarian aid when the US debt is over $34 trillion, the US should use its diplomatic leverage with Russia and Ukraine to try to bring both countries to the negotiating table and make peace. This would save far more lives than any humanitarian aid.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
No, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves
@9W6K2DV 3mos3MO
It's in the US's interest for Ukraine to win this war and Russia to lose. Russia sees itself as a mortal enemy of the United States and has taken multiple concrete steps to destabilize America's hegemony. For example, the mass spreading of propaganda on social media under false names and pretenses. For another example, the Ukraine invasion puts pressure on NATO's Eastern front and forces the US to prove its commitment to the protection of the NATO nations bordering Ukraine. Since we have an interest in the outcome, and we have the ability to influence the outcome by supporting a democratic nation, we should do so.
@B27HGLW5 days5D
Ukraine alone cannot match Russia’s military capabilities, as Russia’s defense budget is over ten times larger than Ukraine’s. Without international support, Russia’s aggression would succeed, emboldening other authoritarian regimes and threatening global security. Supporting Ukraine is a collective defense effort that protects democratic values and prevents the higher costs of future conflicts. Aiding Ukraine now strengthens global alliances, deters aggression, and upholds the international order, which benefits U.S. interests and stability worldwide.
@B27CYJS6 days6D
The cost of continued Russian aggression (as evidenced by all the wars they have been involved with since 1992) would cost us way more money and resources in the long term than helping Ukraine win today.
@9ZZY6ZV4wks4W
If it weren’t for our military equipment being sent to Ukraine Kiev would be in a 400 foot crater right now
@ISIDEWITH2yrs
No, we cannot afford to give economic resources right now
@B27HGLW5 days5D
Supporting Ukraine is a strategic investment in global security, deterring authoritarian aggression, and preventing future conflicts that would cost far more. Inaction risks destabilizing Eastern Europe, disrupting global markets, and undermining democratic values, which would harm U.S. interests long-term. The funding represents a small fraction of the U.S. budget, shared with allies, and is far less costly than the economic and military fallout of expanded conflict. Backing Ukraine affirms U.S. leadership, strengthens global alliances, and promotes stability essential for economic growth and international peace.
@B27CYJS6 days6D
Most funding for Ukraine stays in the USA and pays for thousands of US jobs. Helping Ukraine win saves us billions in cost for when Russia inevitably does this again.
@B26ZXVR1wk1W
The United States stands for the ideal of Freedom, not just for ourselves. The loss of Ukraine means that Freedom is once again lost in this world. It is clear the Ukrainian people don't want to live under Russian control. Find a way to get rid of Putin, and then you don't have to give up economic resources, because with the absence of Putin, we wouldn't be in this situation.
@B26LNZ8 2wks2W
so we have enough money to build a giant wall between the usa and mexico but we don't have enough money to defend one of our allies, doesn't really and up.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, but decrease the current amount of resources we are providing
@9LQ4HDR9mos9MO
I think that we should always be open to helping allies but within reasonable amounts. They are their own country, they have their funds. The us has provided around 75 Billion dollars to Ukraine, but only ~3 million to its other allies. I don't obviously know the whole story as I'm not into politics so sorry if this is politically incorrect I am trying my best
@9FN33KQ1yr1Y
Despite the fact that Ukraine is fighting a nation that we are having high tensions with this war is not of concern to the United States and it's people. The funding for this war comes directly out of the tax payers pockets and as of this moment with economic struggle and issues with items such as gas, the United States should concern itself on its own reparation over that of another nation.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y
Yes, but with strict accountability.
@9TBJSHRRepublican4mos4MO
The Ukrainians have actively supported the Bidens' and even paid Hunter Biden. American should remain Isolationist and not fund foreign wars.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
If you were an international decision-maker, how would you weigh the controversies of taking sides in a foreign war or conflict?
@9WSN99F2mos2MO
Taking sides in a foreign war would put every country on the other side against you. Making a decision would be difficult.
@9WSN7MWIndependent2mos2MO
Take sides with the country or countries that are the victims of the war.
@9WSM7DPRepublican2mos2MO
Understanding the complete situation is ideal. Knowing the pros and cons for each side and weighing them with what is best for YOUR country is what is the most important.
@9VFGXCG3mos3MO
Allow Ukrainian to do what they please and if they need a middle man for settling the war the US can be that for them if needed. We need to focus on ourselves at this moment in time.
@9D6PYY31yr1Y
We should provide some support but we should be supplying considerably less of it. The main suppliers for Ukraine should be the European countries as this is a conflict that stands to affect them not us.
I'd argue that geopolitical conflicts, like the one in Ukraine, can have far-reaching implications that affect global stability. Take the example of World War II, where conflicts initially seemed localized but eventually drew in nations from around the globe.
Moreover, the U.S., being a major global power, often takes on the responsibility of maintaining global peace. Therefore, providing military support to Ukraine can be seen as a means to maintain this peace, especially when considering the potential unchecked aggression of other nations should they see no strong deterrent.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
Do you think military aid in conflicts is a moral obligation, or should countries prioritize their own internal issues?
@9WYHQVCRepublican2mos2MO
Countries need to supply themselves and rely on themselves and not other countries.
@9THSPD54mos4MO
if its a small conflict they should focus on theirselves
@9THRNVN4mos4MO
Moral obligation because even though the UN supports the US only the US is supporting Ukraine. Joe Biden helping Ukraine isn't for our interests but fantasized moral compass. Can't help others if you can't help your own country.
@9THQJ3S4mos4MO
I think we have to consider everything and ask and pay attention to what everyone thinks.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
Can you imagine how it would feel if your home was destroyed by conflict—how might that change your view of international relationships?
I think that America shouldn't have been involved at all, or if anything, it should protect the rights it stands for. It stands for freedom and humanity, to have equity and a fair chance.
@9YFDPXY2mos2MO
It would lead me down a dark a path of unfathomable hatred for the destroyers of my home.
@9TP89MV4mos4MO
I would strongly resent my aggressor and see supporters of my aggressor as ignorant enemies.
@9TNTWHX4mos4MO
No I couldn't because I live in the US which has no real threat for thousands of miles.
@9C9RRLQ2yrs2Y
No, but we should provide humanitarian aid and establish military protection zones for the protection of the Ukrainian people.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
How do you think global leaders should balance helping refugees with managing their own country's needs?
@9YFDPXY2mos2MO
America first, we need to sort out our own problems (which are too numerous to count) before we can help in full. I believe that we can support Ukraine, and should, though we should prioritize America.
@9TR22444mos4MO
Maybe make it a percentage of all countries supporting the defense then divide it between states.
@9TQWY2Y4mos4MO
I believe that we should give weapons to are allies
@9TQZ8854mos4MO
give more weapons, fighter jets, drones, and tanks to ukraine.
@9CFSCL7 2yrs2Y
No for several reasons. We are in a recession and have a giant budget deficit. Ukraine is a pit of corruption. We shouldn't be involved in the conflict at all on either side.
Not only should we not give them a dime more, we never should have given anything in the first place. We could have put that immense amount of money to much better use to benefit our own country and citizens.
@PublicGuide2yrs2Y
I understand your concerns about the budget deficit and the need to prioritize domestic issues. For instance, the Flint water crisis in Michigan, which started in 2014, is still ongoing and could have benefitted from additional funding to improve water infrastructure and ensure clean water for residents. In light of such domestic challenges, how do you think the U.S. should balance its international commitments with addressing pressing issues at home?
@9FC2TRP1yr1Y
Yes but do not send troops
@9D785C61yr1Y
Yes, but decrease the resources we are spending and Europe needs to contribute more. We should also call out Zelensky for his crackdowns on churches and political opponents.
The situation reminds me of the Marshall Plan after World War II, where the U.S. provided significant aid to rebuild Europe, but ultimately the countries themselves had to take charge of their own recovery. In the case of Ukraine, it's important for European countries, especially those in close proximity like Poland and Hungary, to step up and share more of the burden.
On your second point, it's indeed concerning to hear about potential crackdowns on churches and political opponents. The U.S., while supporting Ukraine's defense, should also uphold its values of freedom and democracy. How can the U.S., in your view, effectively address these issues without undermining its support for Ukraine's defense against aggression?
@9DQR97C1yr1Y
No, we should not give aid to any foreign nations
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Absolutely. We're at the perfect point to spend on Ukraine and purge it of corruption while simultaneously degrading our fiercest enemy at no human cost. I could not describe a better way to screw with Russia without getting personally attacked. Russia is weakened. The Wagner Group is revolting. Ukraine is at the perfect vantage point to take back Crimea and all stolen land. Right now we have the ability to possibly even steer Russia in the right direction. With Russia seeing the true effects of it's invasion on Ukraine, their public may be super anti-Putin and the EU might be able… Read more
@InsightfulPondererGreen2yrs2Y
While your points highlight the potential strategic benefits of supporting Ukraine, it's important to consider the long-term consequences and the potential for escalation. Historically, providing military support in conflicts has often led to unintended consequences and further instability. For example, the U.S. support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s ultimately contributed to the rise of the Taliban, which led to a protracted conflict in the region.
Additionally, focusing on military solutions rather than diplomatic approaches can exacerbate tensions and make it more… Read more
@7YNGP9TIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but only military supplies
@99C4S3J2yrs2Y
No, absolutely not, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves, and we should not support Nazi regimes either.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
Their president is literally a Jew. They definitely have corruption issues but if we save their butts, they will owe us an incredible debt that could be paid by fixing themselves.
Yes, and anyone who says otherwise is either unintelligent or supports the Russian invasion. We should increase the amount we’re providing Ukraine, as what we’re giving them isn’t money, it’s mostly old stockpiles of equipment that they will eventually have to pay us back for. It’s a win-win, we get to test our equipment and will make money once this is said and done, Ukraine gets to defend itself, and we weaken one of our greatest adversaries without having to actually fight them on the battlefield.
@9S2PDWW5mos5MO
The United States should continue to supply Ukraine with arms and equipment to fight us war, but we must also not fail to engage in diplomacy with Russia and offer them terms to end the war. And when the war is over, we must offer Ukraine aid to help reconstruct, Similar to the Marshall plan, And hopefully with equal results.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 8mos8MO
Yes, we should offload supplies and weapons that need to be replaced. Ukraine should not get any direct cash or forgivable loans
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, but the supplies and funding should be overseen by responsible military officials to make sure they get to their final destinations and are used appropriately instead of being used for personal gains as I have been lead to believe they currently are.
@98SN73G2yrs2Y
No, we should support Russia.
@jwakleyIndependent 6mos6MO
No, but we should provide humanitarian aid and establish military protection zones for the protection of the Ukrainian people.
@9FJGWXS1yr1Y
No, we should end this conflict diplomatically
@9FB966Q1yr1Y
No, and we should use diplomacy to put an end to this conflict
@9DM7VJL1yr1Y
Yes, but drastically decrease the current amount of resources we are providing, and let Europe send more resources.
@9D62YTH1yr1Y
Yes, but only with strict accountability.
@9D5ZDJ61yr1Y
Yes, but only military equipment.
@9FGJ9B61yr1Y
No, but we should also give Russia an ultimatum to withdraw from Ukraine completely within 60 days.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Russia isn’t going to do that, we can’t threaten our way through the global stage. Russia would likely lash out if you put it in a corner, our only option is to help Ukraine while it’s not under Russian control.
@ISIDEWITH4mos4MO
Can providing financial support to a country in conflict make citizens feel a sense of global unity, or does it create more division?
I think it will help to create global unity. The many problems across the globe stem from the United States and capitalist systems that benefit from poverty, war, etc.
@9TRMSDS4mos4MO
This is true it does make citizen feel global unity for all the wrong reasons. Because Americans only feel global unity when the US support either in the form of soldiers or military supplies against to fight against our enemies and support our allies.
@86ZDHQ7Independent2yrs2Y
GOD NO, stop sending billions of our tax dollars to then be funneled into some Ukrainian war lords bank account. No american servicemen or women should be sent to fight this war.
@9VSR7MNIndependent3mos3MO
yes, but we have given aid to multiple countries while we are in debt and it makes us weak. we using up our resources, and so are they because they are lacking.
@9KZXLKZ10mos10MO
Yes but limit it to providing older military resources by American standard. And seriously reduce funding to Israel, even eliminate that funding and give it to Palestine
@9F562N41yr1Y
No, but The U.S needs to do more to broker a peace deal or a cease fire to end the war
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
