20

Why is the US supporting Ukraine so massively?

Hardly a week goes by without some kind of aid package from the US to Ukraine. Clearly, the support is designed to continue the war and the extent of the support surprises me.

The US has been training and arming the Ukrainian military since 2015. Why the enormous effort?

10
  • 8
    see also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/75191/… to put aid levels in perspective. Mar 22, 2023 at 17:54
  • 40
    "under Biden" - you're asking a loaded question, implying that Biden is the determining factor here. The more neutral question would simply ask why the US is supporting Ukraine. If Biden has something to do with it, that's something for answers to address.
    – NotThatGuy
    Mar 23, 2023 at 8:16
  • 32
    This question is based on a false premise (support is fairly weak; we could easily have ensured a quick and decisive victory if we wanted). Mentioning Biden specifically in the question title, this comes across as a thinly veiled attempt at pushing an agenda of the pro-Russia camp in the Republican party... Mar 23, 2023 at 13:51
  • 6
    Lots of comments deleted. Please remember the purposes of comments. Comments are not to be used to debate the subject matter of the question.
    – Philipp
    Mar 23, 2023 at 16:50
  • 7
    The question title includes the (possibly deliberately provocative) words "under Biden" and yet the question body makes no mention of this, nor makes any attempt to question any comparison to the stance of the US prior to Biden... this makes me think that the words "under Biden" were solely included as clickbait and, as such, are redundant and IMHO should be removed (as also mentioned in this comment). Mar 23, 2023 at 23:12

12 Answers 12

146

At 0.4% of GDP total US aid commitments (this includes non-military aid -- military aid is about 0.2% of GDP) are similar to the UK, but only 2/3rds that of Poland. Some people might not consider that "massive", but that's how you have defined it. Also European countries have taken in many Ukrainian refugees. That cost isn't counted in these figures.

It's misleading to look at the "sticker price" of military aid -- much of this has already been produced, and would not be replaced, but would become obsolete and be scrapped (the ideal fate of any military equipment!), so giving it to Ukraine doesn't cost the US the original procurement cost of the hardware.

Of course people don't always know how much the government spends -- be honest, what percentage of GDP did you think was going to Ukraine?

The US is spending about 5.6% of its defence budget to devastate the Russian military. From a pragmatic point of view, that is a very good deal for the US.

You believe that US aid is prolonging the war?

Firstly, ending the war is not in the hands of the US, it is in the hands of Russia.

Suppose the US had not supported Ukraine? Perhaps the war would be "over", and Ukraine subjugated, but Ukraine had defeated Russia's attempt to take Kyiv after a few weeks, before the US aid you are irritated by arrived.

More likely, the war would continue as a "frozen conflict" -- Ukraine would be unable to recover its territory, but Russia would be unable to secure it.

Henry Kissinger favours that outcome, but it will not end the war because the Ukrainians believe they can win, will not accept a settlement with a country waging a genocidal war against them, and know that any agreement will be broken by Russia if they find themselves in a stronger position in the future. See Zelensky's ten point peace plan for what would be acceptable to Ukraine.

Injustice is not a good basis for peace.

If you want the war to end quickly, then a Ukrainian offensive with enough momentum that the Russians cannot reverse it is the most likely way, and that requires more, not less US help.

The above just discusses your two opinions.

Your actual question is: Why is a Russian defeat good for the US, and so worth the US spending money on?

  • Russian expansion threatens the US's NATO allies -- with Russia defeated, NATO countries become more secure. Listen to Russian nationalists' rhetoric about Poland and the Baltic states.
  • Russia's friends, such as Iran and North Korea, are a threat to US security interests. Weakening Russia weakens them.
  • US indifference to the fate of Ukraine would send a signal to Putin that he can expand further, and to Xi that he can have Taiwan.
  • As other answers explain in more detail, the US is a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity as part of its agreement to give up its nuclear weapons.
  • There will be opportunities for US companies in the rebuilding of Ukraine, but I would not put much weight on this -- it is the broken windows fallacy. There would also be opportunities if the Ukrainians were spending their money on developing their country rather than reconstructing it. Eventual integration of Ukraine into the EU will be good for the world economy, as global trade will increase.
7
  • 22
    See the Treaty of Versailles for what unjust peaces do... Mar 23, 2023 at 10:02
  • 44
    Two other points: 1) Some of the military equipment is surplus; since the US is not participating in any active conflict, the gear was "gathering dust" in a military supply depot. 2) The US is obtaining a lot of precious live-combat data on the use of said equipment and intel on the Russian capabilities and tactics. Mar 23, 2023 at 10:59
  • 8
    It would help to include the simple legal agreement that the US did promise to assist Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. While it doesn't explain why the magnitude of support is given, it provides the justification.
    – David S
    Mar 23, 2023 at 16:38
  • 5
    do you think you could add a bullet point about "Appeasement" (i.e. 1938 when Europe gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany to try to avoid WWII but WWII still happened, i.e. 'nothing is more provocative to a dictator than the weakness of free nations')?
    – syn1kk
    Mar 23, 2023 at 18:07
  • 20
    To add to this that the West is not starting from nowhere in 2022 and suddenly got annoyed at Russia and overreacted. 2008 Georgia, 2014 Crimea, Transnistria in Moldova, Estonian cyberattacks in 2007... Probably missing some. Basically Russia has been nibbling at the edges for a long time, trying to win back control of its "near abroad". Pretty much everywhere there is a Russian diaspora left over from the USSR, the "Russian brothers" need protection, apparently. Straight from the 1930s playbook. Ukraine decided to fight back. Good on them. Mar 23, 2023 at 21:38
75

The US (like any other country supporting Ukraine) is of the view that, in the 21st century, no country is supposed to redefine its borders by force. Any wars aiming for that should remain history ended in the 20th century.

Otherwise, if one country was allowed to get away with it, many more would be eager to follow. The whole world would engulf in fire then.

So, to prevent that from happening, the US wants Ukraine to be able to tell Russia where to get off: the borders should stay as voluntarily and peacefully agreed in the early 90s.

30
  • 8
    Thx for your good answer. But didn't the USA also invade Iraq, Afghanistan? Mar 22, 2023 at 11:27
  • 89
    @MaxPattern Not to make them parts of the US.
    – Greendrake
    Mar 22, 2023 at 11:28
  • 15
    @alamar sadly they also let Russia get away with semi annexing a part of Moldova back in the 1990s. Mar 22, 2023 at 11:44
  • 17
    The USA is in no way of that view, come on. First, the USA itself is one of the most aggressive, expansionist states in the world, although I will grant that our expansionism is rarely aimed at getting more lands, per se, but it certainly is aimed at getting economic control over resources or getting rid of people who don't give us free access to said resources. Second, the US has happily turned a blind eye to other annexations as already mentioned in other comments (also see Israel) if they weren't hurting our interests. The idea that any country goes to war for altruistic reasons is naive.
    – terdon
    Mar 23, 2023 at 13:55
  • 8
    @terdon The last war that the U.S. fought for expansionism was in something like 1898...
    – reirab
    Mar 23, 2023 at 16:25
42
  • The majority of American public supports providing weapons to Ukraine. Since it is a democracy, the government follows the will of the people and provides military aid to Ukraine.
  • This is consistent with support by other democratic countries (e.g., most of Europe, Canada, Australia), unlike authoritarian countries (e.g., China, Iran, North Korea).

References:

Forty-eight percent say they favor the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine, with 29% opposed and 22% saying they’re neither in favor nor opposed. In May 2022, less than three months into the war, 60% of U.S. adults said they were in favor of sending Ukraine weapons.

Forty-eight percent say they favor the U.S. providing weapons to Ukraine

Aamer Madhani and Emily Swanson "Ukraine aid support softens in the US: AP-NORC Poll". Associated Press, February 15, 2023: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-biden-politics-poland-33095abf76875b60ebab3ddf4eede188


Americans are still largely supportive of some sort of aid to Ukraine, though. In a preelection November poll from TIPP Insights, 68 percent of registered voters said it’s important for the new Congress to direct assistance to Ukraine. And in a YouGov/CBS News poll released earlier this week, 64 percent of adults said they preferred their representatives to support U.S. aid to Ukraine rather than oppose it.

Forty-Two Countries Have Provided Military Aid to Ukraine

By Share of GDP, East European Countries Are Giving the Most to Ukraine

Cooper Burton and Zoha Qamar "How Americans' Support For Aiding Ukraine Has Evolved". FiveThirtyEight, January 13, 2023: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-support-aid-ukraine/


Jonathan Masters and Will Merrow "How Much Aid Has the U.S. Sent Ukraine? Here Are Six Charts" Council on Foreign Relations, February 22, 2023: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

13
  • 8
    The poll you cite says that a majority opposes sending money to Ukraine.
    – user10094
    Mar 22, 2023 at 14:43
  • 9
    @anemyte Most likely war-weariness. The longer a conflict drags on, the less supportive people are likely to be of it. The Vietnam War is a famous example.
    – F1Krazy
    Mar 22, 2023 at 14:44
  • 6
    @Timkinsella That's true, but the answer only discusses the support for sending weapons to Ukraine, which remains high.
    – F1Krazy
    Mar 22, 2023 at 14:45
  • 10
    @Timkinsella The question is asking about weapons. This was the only thing I addressed in my answer, so let's stay on topic here. Mar 22, 2023 at 14:53
  • 10
    that is one of the questions in the post. also fwiw the premise "since it is a democracy, the government follows the will of the people" is pretty tenuous, and not just because it is refuted by the data on the line below the one you want to cite.
    – user10094
    Mar 22, 2023 at 14:58
26

the support is designed to continue the war

It's easy to assume that an "eternal war" is USA's goal, but you have to consider that them giving more materiel to Ukraine so that they could win quickly is also controversial.

None in the least because Russia might go nuclear (which they pretty much threaten, in more less vague terms every day on state TV, albeit through the mouths of "non-official" talking heads).

And also because a certain wing of the Republican party (which seems in fact to include all their presidential candidates for the next election, except Pence and Haley) opposes an increase in support for Ukraine.

So the current level of support is really a compromise, in many respects. (If you want me to be a bit theoretical: defensive realism + logrolling are the two angles above.)


Why the enormous effort?

You're kinda shifting the goalposts here. It's "enormous" because Russia still has a lot of raw military power, so simply checking them to a stalemate requires plenty of materiel. There hasn't been a war of this magnitude in Europe since WW2; millions of rounds of artillery used etc. And Russia can strike deep in Ukrainian territory destroying/disabling their factories (and power infrastructure, etc.) while Ukraine can't do nearly the same amount of standoff damage to Russia's industry. (And the US choice to limit's Ukraine ability to do that by not giving them Tomahawks and what not is clearly a political choice; see 1st half of this answer.)

7
  • Thank you for your good and qualified answer. I will think about it and possibly come back to it later. Have a nice day! Mar 22, 2023 at 11:29
  • 1
    @tgdavies I dont know what your link is supposed to prove. Here's an actual list
    – user44167
    Mar 22, 2023 at 15:15
  • 3
    For completeness' sake: Mike Pence and Nikki Haley have made statements favoring more support for Ukraine.
    – DLosc
    Mar 22, 2023 at 18:40
  • 1
    @DLosc: indeed, Pence was rather clear. Probably why Fox News didn't quote him that much. As for Haley, her last clear statements were pretty dated (2021?) Mar 22, 2023 at 19:07
  • 3
    @DLosc: Yeah, she said it's "a war we have to win" in June 2022 (on TBN) and then used the same phrase on NBC apparently in Feb 2023. twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1626197029268631559 AP wasn't exactly clear on the dates, but she said it more than once. In fact, in the latter piece she smacks Biden for not having Ukraine given enough stuff to win early. Mar 22, 2023 at 19:25
22

The US, as one of the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, guarantees the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The Memorandum itself does not require the US to defend Ukraine themselves but it would justify them doing so. It certainly justifies supporting Ukraine.

Many people in the Western World including but not limited to the EU, the UK and the US see the invasion of Ukraine by Russia (but also already the annexation of Crimea in 2015) as a strongly aggressive act. For the EU and UK geographical proximity might be a stronger factor. For the US, although they probably see China as the bigger rival, they surely still see some rivalry with Russia, at least wanting to contain it. And the US have interests worldwide.

The US can surely argue with democratic values that are defended in Ukraine, where a more or less democracy is attacked by an undemocratic autocracy. That by itself is a threat: Russian aggression weakens the democratic part of the World.

But the US can also argue about security interests. A weakened Russia would probably pose less of a threat than a triumphant one. A victorious Russia would pose a great danger to surrounding countries. And the credibility of the US as global power, source of stability and defender of smaller nations would be undermined. Who knows what China would or others would do next if the US would not support Ukraine now.

On the other hand, one should keep the scale of the support in context. The US support of Ukraine is barely enough to stop Russian advances currently. Significantly, it's not enough to drive Russia back to the borders of before the war.

And even if the already delivered (not promised) US aid (militarily and economically) would sum up to $100 billion in the last year, it would be rather small in comparison to other incidents (invasion of Iraq ~$3 trillion, bailouts during the financial crisis in 2008 ~$500 billion in the US, cost of the Pandemic 2020-2022 >$10 trillion worldwide). For comparison the yearly US GDP is $23 trillion, so the delivered support to Ukraine is surely below 0.5% of the GDP. Substantial, but not massive on the scale of past crises.

Your estimation is wrong. The US support to Ukraine is a carefully estimated measure to keep Russia from winning the war and keeping it from profiting too much from this aggression by imposing high costs on Russia, but that's about it.

About your statement about prolonging the war. That of course depends on what end of the war you envision. Russia could stop the war any day (didn't even need to start it). So depending on how you would like to end the war, it would be clear how different actors should behave. From a Western perspective, it's up to Ukraine to decide what to do and how to achieve a peace with Russia. That's the problem with autocracies like Russia. They do need much less to take into account moral considerations and can spend more of their own lives at will. Otherwise this war might have ended already one year ago. Why is that not so irritating?

27
  • 4
    The Budapest Memorandum was, if one is honest, a favor to the Western world. Ukraine was the country with the most nuclear weapons in 1994, after Russia and the USA. At the same time, Ukraine was and is one of the poorest countries in Europe, one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Mar 22, 2023 at 15:54
  • 11
    @MaxPattern Sure, there are all kinds of arguments that still can be made and maybe they would even change something (or maybe not). I just wanted to show you how the Western world in general seems to think currently: taking everything together Russia is more wrong and Ukraine is more right and that Ukraine must be protected from Russia and that's why it supports it. What other answer have you expected? Mar 22, 2023 at 16:15
  • 3
    @MaxPattern "A Europe with a functioning Russia connection would be a good Europe." This. So much this. More than anything I wish a co-operating Russia as opposed to one that sees bogeymen at their borders. Even well before this war the stories of local businesses pulling out of Russia, due to problems with organized crime and such, were becoming more frequent. I don't know how serious the Russians think such problems are. Largely because they have next to no experience with a free market economy. Democracy is not a switch you can simply flip on/off. Mar 23, 2023 at 10:05
  • 3
    @JyrkiLahtonen It's a bit too late to wish for a co-operating Russia, isn't it? 30-10 years ago this might have been an important topic. Giving a few billion dollars for free to Russia then would have been a bargain if it would have avoided today. Of course nobody knows really. But wishing for a democratic, peaceful Russia is just wishful thinking currently. A bit like the wish that Hitler would have never happened. The past is history now. Mar 23, 2023 at 10:22
  • 3
    @MaxPattern The Budapest Memorandum ... favor to the Western world. ... one of the most corrupt countries in the world.. Careful, that's showing a lot more bias than just wanting to see less violence. Keeping nuclear state numbers down benefits everyone, not just "the West". Second, Transparency International 2021 puts Ukraine at 122. Not great, but hardly a basis for your claim (Russia is 136 FWIW). Makes me think the question is not being asked in good faith. Mar 23, 2023 at 21:49
8

In 1994 the US provided security assurances to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear stockpile (which at the time was the third largest in the word). 20 years later Russia invaded and annexed sovereign Ukrainian land (Crimea). Seeing as the US had assured Ukraine that its territorial sovereignty would be respected, that obliged the US to act in Ukraine's defense.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum is sufficient on its own to explain the US's somewhat vigorous response to Russia's current invasion of Ukraine. It also explains why the UK, the second Western signatory of the memorandum, has been perhaps the most generous supporter of Ukraine since the invasion in 2022.

5
  • 3
    But it looks like the question is more explicitly refering to Biden personally, then USA.
    – convert
    Mar 22, 2023 at 22:21
  • 6
    @convert Question just says US under Biden, but we don't have any other US currently. That's why the "under Biden" part is effectively redundant. Mar 22, 2023 at 23:14
  • Nothing in the memorandum talks about signatories being obliged to defend Ukraine. They're only obliged to not attack it. Mar 24, 2023 at 1:18
  • @convert I agree with Trilarion's argument that there is only one current president and right now that is Biden. I suppose one might ask the question about why is Biden honoring an agreement signed almost 30 years ago when Clinton was president. I doubt it has much to do with both being Dem presidents. Rather, Biden surely understands that it is important for the US to uphold its commitments. 30 years ago Ukraine was given assurances. If the US does not try to uphold those assurances, will any country trust the US going forward?
    – Special_K
    Mar 24, 2023 at 9:02
  • 1
    @JonathanReez I agree that the letter of the memorandum does not require the US to become an active participant in the conflict. Security assurance were provided, not guarantees. But let's not kid ourselves, while there were no explicit guarantees, the US, UK, and Russia were [i]promising[/i] Ukraine that it would be safe. The spirit of the agreement was that the other signatories would assure that Ukraine was protected.
    – Special_K
    Mar 24, 2023 at 9:07
0

Because Ukraine is actually the front for the world map chess game between US and Russia. Whoever dominates this chess piece today will have the momentum and image to project superpower status in the world.

On the russia side, losing Ukraine will mean ceding to NATO. Winning ukraine will embolden them to further eat into Europe in the future. For the US, losing ukraine will mean NATO is basically projecting weakness, crumbling the influence they have on the world. Winning ukraine will send a defeatist message to the communist world, further eating into their ambitions for imperalism in today's day and age.

15
  • 9
    "the communist world" Communist world? Is this answer from 30 years ago? Mar 23, 2023 at 5:49
  • 2
    russia, china and countries under their influence Mar 23, 2023 at 7:33
  • 7
    @MarcusTham In case you missed it: The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Russia is no longer ruled by a communist party.
    – gerrit
    Mar 23, 2023 at 7:40
  • 3
    And China is communist in name only these days. There's still an East vs West split, but it's not about Communism anymore.
    – bharring
    Mar 23, 2023 at 14:36
  • NATO's job is to protect members of NATO, and Ukraine isn't a member. It was also part of the former USSR, and taking it over is "restoring pat glory" so not quite in the same category as Korea or Vietnam (which were seen as game pieces -- dominoes -- in the Cold War). Mar 24, 2023 at 18:02
0

Not mentioned yet: this is a clear sign to other countries that fighting against NATO is a supremely bad idea. If old NATO weapons and NATO training are already this effective, who is going to challenge NATO directly? Even China will have to consider this demonstration.

1
  • 2
    Bill Maher gives an accurate description of the methodology you describe. Its just that here both US and Russia are doing it.
    – user44167
    Mar 24, 2023 at 18:51
-3

The Democrats being democratic were vehemently vocal since 2012 about opposition to a recently genocidal police rogue state and a very powerful white nation run by a rogue spy in the middle of the map of the Eurasia. Involvement in Russian reality, history, culture, peace, literature has been minimal as none of the recent US leaders has the cultural toolset to convince Putin to run his nation responsibly and safely, which would be a gamble and a compromise of human rights.

The democrats poised themselves as the arch-enemies of Putin before coming to power, giving no de-escalation timetable, as a result of Georgia invasion, overt spy poisonings, corruption of the Russian constitution, the support of puppet police states in the former USSR, including Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The democrats therefore motioned that they were only interested attrition, hostile talks and minimizing the influence of Russia under a police state.

As it stands, leading democrats were on the offensive-defensive and poised increase war games all around the Russian border of all former USSR states which could be allied.

Nobody imagined that Putin would feel paranoid, crazy, agressive denigrated and vilified enough to attempt a full-scale invasion of Ukraine using all of the Russian military machine, and America has been fast to shore up the allied state of Ukraine with as much defensive power as it can muster, because the entire combative-military degeneration of both sides is a complete disaster, and the US doesn't have any other choice now to avoid a formerly genocidal police state regain some of it's former power.

6
  • 1
    I cannot get how much the answer is fact and how much sarcasm. Maybe you're not a native English speaker (Or I am just dense...). Upvoted anyway because its still a good answer in stating (a) history does not magically start in Feb 2022. (b) Its not Biden the person nor US at large but the Democrats who's main plank is Russophobia
    – user44167
    Mar 25, 2023 at 6:13
  • @Raveesh There has been an inversion in opinions on Russia between the two US parties in the last 7 years. The Russian threat has been a cornerstone for GOP politics for the gross majority of my life, but apparently people have completely forgotten and now think that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. See politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13994/… Mar 25, 2023 at 7:07
  • Good answer! I think the same @bandybabboon! Mar 25, 2023 at 7:33
  • I can't make out what this answer is trying to say, if it's even an answer at all. You try to paint democrats as unreasonable ("giving no de-escalation timetable"), but then you paint them as reasonable in the very same sentence ("... as a result of Georgia invasion, overt spy poisonings..."). But both of these things are just telling a story to promote a narrative, rather than answering the question of why (which is what has been asked).
    – NotThatGuy
    Mar 25, 2023 at 15:25
  • @TemporalWolf Yeah two cataclysims in 2016 — Trump and Hillary. Hillary's loss meant that old fashioned money-power DNC needed change. Trump started the split between MAGA-Reps and RINO-Reps. And in that process the traditional GOP-bogeyman Russia(gate) shifted over to the Dems.
    – user44167
    Mar 26, 2023 at 4:46
-3

There were some good answers. However, I did not find a satisfactory answer for me. This is also because the topic of Biden was not really addressed. The aspect that an escalation existed before the actual use of force was either completely or partially ignored. So actually since 1992 (the beginning of US-Ukraine relations) through 2014 to 2022. And my question had the context of Biden, because Biden has always had a fixed hostile image on the subject of Russia. I believe that there would have been no war in Ukraine under Sanders. But I can't prove it. But that applies to both sides.

One possible answer would have been: The great interest is that Russia is down economically, militarily and politically. This would make obsolete the outdated myth that Russia is a dangerous counterpart to the Western world. With Russia's downfall, completely new starting positions for the USA would develop in other theatres of the world. And this would be clearly in favour of the USA. This would even surpass Trump's campaign slogan: "Make America great again". And since the US could not go to war directly against Russia, it could be that Ukraine and the Ukrainian population would be misused for this purpose.

For me, however, this would be the beginning of a dystopian world. In the last few days I remember a beautiful saying that was spray-painted on a bunker in Hamburg:

"Imagine it's war and nobody goes". That's what I wish for with this rotten war in Eastern Europe.

4
  • 3
    I think you grossly overestimate how big an impediment Russia has been for the US to "develop" "completely new starting positions" "in other theatres of the world". The US doesn't need "Russia's downfall" simply because Russia has been rolling down to deep shit by itself for internal reasons since mid-00s, and has not been any real competition or threat to the US interests anywhere anymore like the USSR was.
    – Greendrake
    Mar 25, 2023 at 9:57
  • 1
    If Russia is down economically, militarily and politically, then why does US need to attack Russia?
    – sfxedit
    Mar 25, 2023 at 18:24
  • 1
    Supporting Ukraine is a misuse of Ukraine? I don't get it and this is by far not the only part I have difficulties understanding from this answer. Biden was the only one critical of Russia? Sanders was a serious contender for becoming president? Russia has no nuclear weapons left? New starting positions all over the world, when the war is taking place in Donbass? And what is a rotten war? Are there any other wars? Mar 27, 2023 at 19:53
  • Perhaps ask separate question asking specifically if USA's position on Ukraine is driven primarily or significantly by Biden himself? As-is, the question here is mostly taken as asking why the US has the stance it does.
    – bharring
    Apr 5, 2023 at 19:52
-4

The USA has a first past the post system of democracy similar to the UK. This gives the illusion of democracy but in fact is likely closer to the Chinese one party system than true democracy.

The US has a legacy fear of Russia. This fear arose again in Trump v Clinton election and despite the exposé by Matt Taibi the notion of Russian election interference seems to persist.

For a nation on shaky foundations, Russia seems a great scapegoat on which to project and divert concern from national issues.

Russia repeatedly said it would not permit NATO in Ukraine. Initially Obama resisted arming Ukraine militarily but then the US under Trump and Biden gave military support to Ukraine and continued to support Ukraine's right to join NATO.

The US government backed Rand foundation issued a document, Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. It recommended that the best way to destabilise Russia was through Ukraine.

When Russia finally decided to act on what it saw as a security issue, the USA said the invasion was unprovoked despite years of diplomatic attempts by Russia to keep NATO and Russia's great enemy (USA) off its borders. This is straight out of the pentagon's playbook.

Ukraine and Russia agreed in principal to a ceasefire in April 2022 but following the visit of Boris Johnson, the deal was aborted, apparently as Ukraine were told they would lose UK/ US support if they dealt with Putin.

John Kirby (National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications) recently said it would not consider the ceasefire suggestions put forward by China.

A third world war was close to happening when Russia attempted to put missile bases in Cuba in response to the bases the US put in Turkey. The US would not allow missile bases in Cuba but it seems to think it should be allowed to have them on Russia's border.

It all seems to suggest that the US is content for the war to continue in the hope of destabilising Russia despite the horrific lose of Ukranian and russian lives.

10
  • 3
    If you want to debate, better go to meta but very quickly, a wrong reaction to conventional could be nuclear and that would be catastrophic. Risk goes up as per Mearsheimer, Chomsky etc.
    – SeanJ
    Mar 23, 2023 at 17:42
  • 1
    "This fear arose again in Trump v Clinton election" does not sound a statement from a one party state...
    – prosfilaes
    Mar 24, 2023 at 0:08
  • 1
    Fair enough, I though pointing Russia article 6 request concerning missiles was a good idea but changed the link to reference Cuba and Russia existential threat! Doesn't really matter too much, the upvoted post maintains that US did not block the ceasefire last year when all commentary points to the opposite. It's all just propaganda now, Wade wrote an interesting letter at the start blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/30/… Nobody seems to care. the war could be stopped tomorrow but instead the slaughter continues.
    – SeanJ
    Mar 24, 2023 at 0:12
  • 1
    @prosfilaes in China people need to get elected and presumably cite the weakness of their opponents. If the political options are the same in the US which they seem to be excluding abortion, there is no choice imho, (Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee). We're not much better in Europe, just smaller with a slightly different system which makes things a bit more democratic.
    – SeanJ
    Mar 24, 2023 at 0:16
  • 1
    @prosfilaes at senior levels no but there are local elections aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181249 Yes, there are more choices in the US primaries but it seems a big fuss over nothing when the ultimate caliber of the selected presidential is taken into account. Maybe I shouldn't have put that comment in but it's how I feel and for me the US has been in serious decline since the 90s when the war on drugs affected freedom to such a degree and prison populations increased hugely per capita. Anyway, just my two cents.
    – SeanJ
    Mar 24, 2023 at 0:48
-10

"Why is the US under Biden so strongly supporting Ukraine in the war?"

Energy and strengthening the USA by weakening Europe. For the USA, the mix of Germany as a technology location and Russia's cheap energy resources has always been a problem. This war shows impressively how 20 years of economic boom in Germany crumbles within a few months. Even if some in Europe do not feel it yet. Europe is economically as well as politically not well. And an important reason for this is the loss of Russian energy resources. In Europe, some small and medium-sized companies have already changed or announced to change the location Germany for other energy secure locations. Indicated were production relocation to the USA or even China (BASF). And since Germany is unfortunately no longer the innovation stronghold and the industrial sector is also breaking apart, Europe's leading economic nation will falter. And so will the whole of Europe.

To solve the energy problem in Europe, gas could flow directly from Ukraine to Western Europe if the Ukrainians (USA) win the war. And maybe it plays then also a small role that Biden son sat with the largest Ukrainian gas supplier of the country Burisma in the supervisory board (2014 to 2019).

For me, this can be a sign that this war was planned by the USA for a long time. In order to protect this long-term investment, Biden's USA is currently investing a lot of money in Ukraine.

The USA does it for humanistic reasons? No. It doesn't. Unfortunately, there are many war zones in the world. Yemen or in middle and east and west Africa, a disgusting war of extermination has been raging for years. Here we do not help. At least not to this extent. The USA has always acted in this way. Sometimes stronger, sometimes less. In my opinion, Biden is the one who is exaggerating the most.

8
  • 7
    Do you have a source for any of this? Especially for the "war was planned by the USA for a long time".
    – prosfilaes
    Mar 22, 2023 at 22:49
  • 2
    German economy is still growing in 2023. The war benefits the German weapons industry, which is a significant economic sector. Cynically, Germany also benefits from Ukrainian refugees, who help reduce the shortage of labour in many sectors.
    – gerrit
    Mar 23, 2023 at 7:41
  • 1
    Moin @gerrit! The IWF reports less growth for Germany. That is a fact. For 2023, GDP is expected to grow by only 0.1 per cent. Quasi stagnation. In a capital-driven world, stagnation is defacto a problem. Unfortunately, your assumption that Ukrainian refugees will eliminate the labour shortage is wrong. Many academically trained Ukrainians do not get licences in Germany (doctors, teachers) although they want to work. Fortunately, things are different in IT. But I am hopeful that this will change soon. Mar 23, 2023 at 8:00
  • 2
    @gerrit The arms industry in Germany is the winner of the war, but with a share of about 0.26% of the GDP it is rather a niche. Mar 23, 2023 at 8:00
  • 1
    @prosfilaes Source 1: savethechildren.de/news/… Source 2: sueddeutsche.de/politik/… Mar 23, 2023 at 8:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .