Posted on Oct 25, 2023
Latest Ukraine Updates - United States Department of State
477
7
3
3
3
0
My Comments - Why should the United States Support Ukraine? Much of that in my mind says to protect the blood and treasure of our military. Experts have reasons to believe this and even more benefits for the US as follows:
1. Russian victory would embolden our enemies.
If we cut off U.S. weapons, intelligence, and other support today, Putin would prevail.
2. A Ukrainian victory will help deter China.
If the United States won’t stand fast for Ukraine, an internationally recognized sovereign state, how likely is a stalwart defense of Taiwan? Failure to save Ukraine would decimate our credibility in defense of Taiwan, thus making war more likely.
3. Support for Ukraine will restore the Reagan Doctrine
The Vietnam War had soured Americans on sending U.S. troops to fight in distant lands. Reagan found anti-communist partners willing to fight our common enemies. They needed U.S. weapons, training, and intelligence, as well as financial, diplomatic, and humanitarian support.
4. Victory will save the U.S. billions
Ukraine is reducing the amount of money the United States will have to spend defending Europe — without risking American lives to do it. The British defense ministry estimates that 97 percent of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine. For every Russian tank, plane, and infantry division the Ukrainians eliminate, the United States will have to spend that much less to deter Russian aggression in the decades to come. The costs of a Russian victory in Ukraine would be astronomical. “After absorbing Ukraine, Putin would likely absorb Belarus in a Russia-Ukraine-Belarus confederation,” former national security adviser Stephen Hadley reports.
5. A proving ground for new weapons
The New York Times reports: “Ukraine has become a testing ground for state-of-the-art weapons and information systems, and new ways to use them, that Western political officials and military commanders predict could shape warfare for generations to come.”
6. Arming Ukraine is revitalizing our defense industrial base
Aid to Ukraine creates jobs in the United States and energizes its defense industrial base, which had dangerously atrophied after the Cold War. Jones recently conducted a series of U.S.-China war games and found that the United States, without stepped-up production, would run out of precision weapons within a week after fighting began. Therefore, the side benefit is the realization that we must restore arms to defend our homeland. Perhaps we can use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on immigration on the defense of “we the people.”
7. The Russian invasion has strengthened U.S. alliances
This could be vastly improved if we had leadership in our current administration. Even without leadership, sixteen NATO allies (more than half the alliance’s members) increased defense spending in 2022. As a percentage of GDP, the United States is tied for ninth in spending on Ukraine.
8. Victory helps prevent nuclear proliferation
In December 1994, the Clinton administration brokered an agreement called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which Ukraine agreed to give up those weapons. In exchange, the United States and Britain promised “to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression,” while Russia pledged to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia has pledged to become a nuclear power as well, and other Persian Gulf states will follow suit. Failure in Ukraine would mean more nuclear states and more wars of aggression and could possibly lead to WWIII.
9. Victory in Ukraine is achievable.
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army, advised that Ukraine needs tanks and armored vehicles to carry infantry; long-range precision artillery; air-defense systems; and advanced fighter jets. “Those are the ingredients to be successful,” Keane said.
Poor US leadership is either withholding or slow-rolling delivery of those key ingredients. It was only in January 2023 that the administration agreed to provide M1A1 Abrams tanks. Rather than sending tanks from pre-position stockpiles in Europe, they decided to send new ones from the States with a one-year predicted delivery date. It begs the question; what leadership is in our current administration?
Sources: The Washington Post, New York Times, DOD, and Gen. Jack Keane, Ret. ISW.
increased defense spending = http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/no-free-riding-here-european-defense-spending-defies-us-critics/
is tied for ninth = https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
brokered an agreement = chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
1. Russian victory would embolden our enemies.
If we cut off U.S. weapons, intelligence, and other support today, Putin would prevail.
2. A Ukrainian victory will help deter China.
If the United States won’t stand fast for Ukraine, an internationally recognized sovereign state, how likely is a stalwart defense of Taiwan? Failure to save Ukraine would decimate our credibility in defense of Taiwan, thus making war more likely.
3. Support for Ukraine will restore the Reagan Doctrine
The Vietnam War had soured Americans on sending U.S. troops to fight in distant lands. Reagan found anti-communist partners willing to fight our common enemies. They needed U.S. weapons, training, and intelligence, as well as financial, diplomatic, and humanitarian support.
4. Victory will save the U.S. billions
Ukraine is reducing the amount of money the United States will have to spend defending Europe — without risking American lives to do it. The British defense ministry estimates that 97 percent of the Russian army is now committed to Ukraine. For every Russian tank, plane, and infantry division the Ukrainians eliminate, the United States will have to spend that much less to deter Russian aggression in the decades to come. The costs of a Russian victory in Ukraine would be astronomical. “After absorbing Ukraine, Putin would likely absorb Belarus in a Russia-Ukraine-Belarus confederation,” former national security adviser Stephen Hadley reports.
5. A proving ground for new weapons
The New York Times reports: “Ukraine has become a testing ground for state-of-the-art weapons and information systems, and new ways to use them, that Western political officials and military commanders predict could shape warfare for generations to come.”
6. Arming Ukraine is revitalizing our defense industrial base
Aid to Ukraine creates jobs in the United States and energizes its defense industrial base, which had dangerously atrophied after the Cold War. Jones recently conducted a series of U.S.-China war games and found that the United States, without stepped-up production, would run out of precision weapons within a week after fighting began. Therefore, the side benefit is the realization that we must restore arms to defend our homeland. Perhaps we can use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on immigration on the defense of “we the people.”
7. The Russian invasion has strengthened U.S. alliances
This could be vastly improved if we had leadership in our current administration. Even without leadership, sixteen NATO allies (more than half the alliance’s members) increased defense spending in 2022. As a percentage of GDP, the United States is tied for ninth in spending on Ukraine.
8. Victory helps prevent nuclear proliferation
In December 1994, the Clinton administration brokered an agreement called the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which Ukraine agreed to give up those weapons. In exchange, the United States and Britain promised “to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression,” while Russia pledged to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia has pledged to become a nuclear power as well, and other Persian Gulf states will follow suit. Failure in Ukraine would mean more nuclear states and more wars of aggression and could possibly lead to WWIII.
9. Victory in Ukraine is achievable.
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army, advised that Ukraine needs tanks and armored vehicles to carry infantry; long-range precision artillery; air-defense systems; and advanced fighter jets. “Those are the ingredients to be successful,” Keane said.
Poor US leadership is either withholding or slow-rolling delivery of those key ingredients. It was only in January 2023 that the administration agreed to provide M1A1 Abrams tanks. Rather than sending tanks from pre-position stockpiles in Europe, they decided to send new ones from the States with a one-year predicted delivery date. It begs the question; what leadership is in our current administration?
Sources: The Washington Post, New York Times, DOD, and Gen. Jack Keane, Ret. ISW.
increased defense spending = http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/no-free-riding-here-european-defense-spending-defies-us-critics/
is tied for ninth = https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303450/bilateral-aid-to-ukraine-in-a-percent-of-donor-gdp/
brokered an agreement = chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
Latest Ukraine Updates - United States Department of State
Posted from state.gov
Ukraine
Russia
Office of the President (POTUS)
Budget
Congress
Posted 6 mo ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
1
1
0
I think they need to drug test the people that provided this information. 1. Putin has what he wants and Ukraine doesn't have enough men to take it back. 2. China could care less about Ukraine and Ukraine's chances of even getting back the territory they held before the invasion, let alone the Ethnic Russian areas and Crimea are next to none. 3. There aren't any communist on either side of this debate. The Reagan Doctrine was formed when the Soviets/Warsaw Pact was in Thuringia, not in a historically Russian dominated area. 4. Not spending Billions on a war that is a losing proposition will save us billions. Pulling our troops out of every shithole where it isn't any of our business would save us billions. 5. What? Supporting a war so we can test weapons. Have we lost all our moral compasses. 6. Same thing. Supporting a war because it's good for business without that war being of vital national interest just adds to the evidence we are becoming morally bankrupt. 7. No it hasn't. Let's be honest, NATO has been a joke since the fall of the Soviet Union held up by US financing. 8. Yes, provoking a war with the only other nation that has a massive nuclear stockpile is a great way to prevent a nuclear war. There is some bad logic. 9. No, Ukraine is lost without Western intervention, which hasn't got any support in Europe and not much here from those that are going to fight it.
Keane is a relatively bright man, but he is a Vietnam era soldier that hasn't ever fought a near peer battle.
Keane is a relatively bright man, but he is a Vietnam era soldier that hasn't ever fought a near peer battle.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google