The weirdest part to me is how “support the troops” is always a priority for most in the group opposing Ukrainian support. In fact, military support is usually so critical that they can set aside many of their primary targets of small government and fiscal responsibility.
I get that this isn’t the “our” troops they usually chant about, but it easily could be, especially if Russia continues its aggressive action. It doesn’t seem that it’s that hard to understand that if you’re willing to give the US military nearly a trillion dollars, it isn’t a bad idea to give support to a country actively fighting against this threat.
I guess it really does just come down to people convinced that Russia is somehow not a threat to the US, even though the leaders of “our troops” feel differently.
I’m not particularly concerned about Russia militarily threatening the US, but a strong and emboldened Russia putting pressure on Europe is not favorable for us. Eastern Europe generally speaking has less money and power, and therefore with have trouble defending against Russia. As those nations fall, Russia gains land and resources, which makes them more of a threat to Western Europe. Even at a near stalemate in Ukraine, resources are flowing from us and our allies, bottlenecking supply chain, production, logistics, etc. This leads to challenges in receiving resources, and the price is higher if we can even get shit. If you stop thinking right there, I guess I can see how people might oppose aiding Ukraine. But people who think things through realize that Western Europe in direct conflict with a stronger Russia will only make those exact issues even worse. And decent people don’t even need to realize and understand that because the moral implications of indifference to the massive amount of dead civilians is plenty of reason to be on board. But even a sociopath should be able to understand the concept of “a stitch in time saves nine.”
The weirdest part to me is how “support the troops” is always a priority for most in the group opposing Ukrainian support. In fact, military support is usually so critical that they can set aside many of their primary targets of small government and fiscal responsibility.
I get that this isn’t the “our” troops they usually chant about, but it easily could be, especially if Russia continues its aggressive action. It doesn’t seem that it’s that hard to understand that if you’re willing to give the US military nearly a trillion dollars, it isn’t a bad idea to give support to a country actively fighting against this threat.
I guess it really does just come down to people convinced that Russia is somehow not a threat to the US, even though the leaders of “our troops” feel differently.
https://news.usni.org/2021/08/18/russia-is-top-military-threat-to-u-s-homeland-air-force-general-says
I’m not particularly concerned about Russia militarily threatening the US, but a strong and emboldened Russia putting pressure on Europe is not favorable for us. Eastern Europe generally speaking has less money and power, and therefore with have trouble defending against Russia. As those nations fall, Russia gains land and resources, which makes them more of a threat to Western Europe. Even at a near stalemate in Ukraine, resources are flowing from us and our allies, bottlenecking supply chain, production, logistics, etc. This leads to challenges in receiving resources, and the price is higher if we can even get shit. If you stop thinking right there, I guess I can see how people might oppose aiding Ukraine. But people who think things through realize that Western Europe in direct conflict with a stronger Russia will only make those exact issues even worse. And decent people don’t even need to realize and understand that because the moral implications of indifference to the massive amount of dead civilians is plenty of reason to be on board. But even a sociopath should be able to understand the concept of “a stitch in time saves nine.”