Zelensky has been putting me in a tough position lately, mostly because I agree with my colleague streiff that some investment in demolishing Russian military strength actually makes sense. The question for me has always been how much and with what accountability. We spend $858 billion a year on defense in the United States. If it costs us $100 billion over two years to degrade Russia’s military capability and decimate its stockpiles (modern Russia is a third-world economy that can’t just replace everything), that’s actually a much better return on our money compared to what we normally spend on the Department of Defense.

With that said, if we look at funding the war in Ukraine as an expenditure for our national defense, shouldn’t we carve those appropriations out of the already sky-high defense budget, reducing spending in other places? It’s no secret the US military is one of the most wasteful, unaccountable entities in existence, but instead, we’ve been handling Ukraine as a separate matter via separate spending packages, stacking money on top of money. //

It is also not our “common victory” if Ukraine is successful in pushing Russia out of its territory. It will be largely Ukraine’s victory because it is their country being attacked. Why does that kind of language rub me the wrong way? Because it is an attempt to make it seem as if the stakes for the United States are equal to that of Ukraine, thereby justifying unlimited spending with absolutely no end game articulated. //

Sojourner
5 days ago edited
The main question and one that should remain at the forefront is: Is US support of UKR in the US' national interest?

I think, yes.

But I also agree with Bonchie; the text rubs me the wrong way. I'm in a good mood this a.m. so I will chalk it up to the problem of crossing over the language divide. But also, having worked in that region for a third of my (30 yr) military career, it's how "they" phrase things. It's always irritating, but often not meant to offend or be pushy. YMMV in how you read it.