The Moral Case fo Aid to Ukraine

‘);
googletag.cmd.push(function () {
googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’);
});

document.write(”);
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) {
if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) {
googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”);
}
});
});
}

Most conservatives are revolted by the horrors committed by Hamas. For some reason they tolerate the same well-documented behavior by Russia. Gilad Erdan, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, equates them. It’s worth investing seven minutes listening to his UN speech. He calls Ukraine an ally, and a fellow canary in the terrorist coal mine. He announced advanced military aid, including Israel’s excellent air defense systems.

There’s a thought experiment in moral theory. Can a person justify ignoring a toddler drowning in shallow water and continue walking by? The justification cannot be that rescuing the child is inconvenient. Ukrainian children aren’t drowning. They are being kidnapped and sent to replenish Russia’s depleted population — 20 thousand verified and still counting. Can we justify walking by that? Ukraine is merely asking for equipment, not troops. What’s being requested is barely an inconvenience for us. 

Let’s examine the reasons for walking by.

• Ukraine is corrupt. That’s the reputation but not the reality. “More than 160 officials across 20 federal oversight agencies monitor US aid to Ukraine…. Dozens of reports have been completed with dozens more in the works. ‘Investigations related to the Ukraine response have not yet substantiated significant waste, fraud, or abuse.'” Critics highlight one famous case. The perp was caught and the money recovered. By limiting our aid to hardware and training we eliminate embezzlement.
• Europeans should provide the majority of aid. This is Trump’s position. I agree. The Europeans already provide the majority of aid. That will be true even when the pending authorization passes.
• We’re running out of equipment. Other than artillery shells we aren’t. Let’s produce some more shells. 
• Ukraine isn’t holding elections. During both world wars neither England nor France held elections. Nobody doubts that a huge majority of Ukrainians support the war.
• We can’t afford it. There are many wasteful programs that should be cut. Ukrainian aid of $60 billion dollars isn’t one of them. That’s $40 billion in equipment and $20 billion in training. The military trainers will be there anyway. That’s not a blank check, nor should it be.
• NATO expansion provoked Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance. It poses no threat to Russia. Tucker resorts to hysteria. He excuses Russia because it fears nuclear weapons on its border. There are no nuclear weapons in countries which border Russia. Okay, there are nuclear weapons in China and North Korea. They aren’t provoking Russia.
• Ukrainians are unwilling to fight. Ukrainian civilians have been under constant bombardment for over two years. The Nazi bombing of southern England — the blitz — lasted eight months. Even under these conditions the Ukrainians show no signs of quitting. 
• We can’t supply equipment forever. There’s a massive effort to reestablish Ukraine’s defense industry.
• Ukraine can’t win. To the hard-hearted realist, this doesn’t matter. We should prolong Russia’s suffering as long as possible. That’s not my view. The smart money (including at least three four-star generals)  bets that with proper equipment Ukraine can win.

In the absence of American aid, the ground war is stalemated. The sea and air are different stories. Without a navy, Ukraine sank 25% of the Black Sea Fleet and damaged many other ships. Just this week Ukraine sank the patrol ship Sergei Kotov. Russia has been forced to move the remaining ships out of Crimea to the Russian port of Novorossiyskt. Free of Russia’s navy, Ukrainian agricultural exports are at prewar levels. When the Kerch Bridge is completely destroyed there will be no ships to supply Crimea.

Russia is losing planes at an accelerating rate. With the arrival of Israeli technology, even I might feel sorry for Russian pilots. 

Attitudes about this war largely depend on attitudes about Russia. Russian imperialism is constant throughout its history. There’s a straight line that connects Russian Tsarist, Soviet, and post-Soviet policy. Tucker thinks Russia has changed. He’s wrong.