Why Biden Prioritizes Ukraine Over the U.S.
As many have commented, President Joe Biden's decision to prioritize Ukraine over the U.S. in the current geopolitical climate is often misunderstood. There are several compelling reasons why this approach is both strategically and morally sound.
The Strategic Depletion of Russian Military Resources
Ukraine has been receiving massive support from NATO countries, particularly the United States, which has significantly reduced Russia's ability to wage war or defend itself. This strategic move is a long-term initiative designed to drain Russia of its military resources over generations. Without losing a single American soldier, the U.S. and its allies have been able to weaken Russia economically and militarily. Every dollar spent by Russia on rebuilding its military is a dollar it can't invest in other critical areas such as cyber operations or disinformation campaigns to sway American public opinion.
Supporting Ukraine as a Deterrent to Future Conflicts
The realpolitik of international relations dictates that we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. While the plight of Ukraine is indeed important, the broader objective is to ensure strategic stability. By assisting Ukraine, the U.S. is not only supporting a partner but also creating a significant barrier to Russian aggression. The symbolic and practical support to Ukraine serves as a strong deterrent, making future aggression less likely.
Long-Term Implications and Deterrence
The potential for President Putin to escalate his efforts means that continued Ukrainian resistance is a crucial element in maintaining peace and preventing wider conflict. If Ukraine were to lose, the U.S. might need to spend double or triple the current amount on security measures, including the deployment of significant forces in Poland to deter further Russian moves. Putin, with his track record of aggressive actions, will undoubtedly feel tempted to escalate his conflict further.
A Critique of Alternative Policies
Some critics argue that the responsibility for funding school security primarily lies with states and districts rather than the federal government. However, this argument misses the broader context of international threats. The Fed, through supporting Ukraine, indirectly supports education and public safety by fostering a secure environment for citizens to thrive. This is not just a symbolic shift but a necessary move to address the roots of instability and potential future conflicts.
Conclusion: A Unity of Purpose
Ironically, what unites almost all Democrats and a majority of Republicans is the wisdom and necessity of supporting Ukraine. This bipartisan agreement demonstrates that the imperative to stand against authoritarianism and support vulnerable allies is a non-partisan issue. The aid to Ukraine is not just about defending a nation; it's about safeguarding a global system that upholds democratic values. While there is much to complain about with various policies, the support for Ukraine remains a testament to the unity of purpose that can overcome partisanship.
In summary, the strategic support for Ukraine serves both short-term defensive purposes and long-term strategic interests. By helping Ukraine, the U.S. is effectively countering Russian aggression, preserving international stability, and ensuring a safer future for generations to come.
Do you share the view that supporting Ukraine is a wise and necessary policy? Share your thoughts in the comments below.