I haven’t written much about whether the U.S. should spend billions helping the Ukrainians defend their country against Russian invasion. I suppose it was because I didn’t think there was much question. Here is my “take” on the situation.
Ukraine was minding its own business, threatening nobody, when Russia invaded with the clear purpose of erasing their nationhood and making Russians (or corpses) of its inhabitants. How this differed from Hitler invading Poland is for someone else to explain, I don’t see it.
By land area Russia is already the world’s largest nation, and they covet more. Ukraine is large as European nations go but a small fraction of Russia’s size and population.
But the Ukes were defending their homeland, and the Ruskies were fighting on foreign soil for an idea only some of them gave a fig for. Thus the runaway victory Putin expected didn’t happen, the Rus bogged down and the angry Ukes cut them up.
Still, it’s plucky David fighting a massive but not-too-bright Goliath. Since Ukraine, unlike David, has no way to deliver a killing blow, in a long fight with no outside aid Ukraine/David 2.0 gets ground down and loses.
All they ask of us is money and arms, mostly the latter. If we give them arms we turn around and rebuild our stocks and that stimulates our defense contractor economy. We send no Americans to die there wearing our uniforms, any who go are private volunteers who knew the risks.
Is Ukraine corrupt? It certainly had that prewar reputation and was bribing the Biden family. Is wartime Ukraine corrupt? Probably no more than other countries; defending the nation appears relatively popular even to Ukes who might otherwise be crooks.
There isn’t a whole lot in The Atlantic with which I agree. That said, much of the Anne Applebaum column on what the world would resemble if we’d not supported Ukraine looks plausible.
