wwef235

Have you ever thought of why we support Ukraine? Why do the US spend billions of dollars every year on this country? Maybe you would want to raise an objection saying that Ukraine is an important partner for both us and all Western states. However, it doesn’t seem true to me. The American Conservative has just published an analytic paper (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-does-american-folly-march-on-in-ukraine) where it discusses in detail why such actions don’t pay off for the US at all. The paper says that all Western politicians keep insisting that the US could lose a lot if they stop providing military support for Ukraine. The problem is that these are lies and illusions which have no evidence whatsoever. In fact, Ukraine has no strategic value for the United States. We did the same thing with Vietnam in 1965, although we had no need for war. The only difference is that in Vietnam we faced a much weaker state but now are at risk of the direct confrontation against a nuclear armed state. I think such actions can be necessary in only one case and that is if it directly concerns the US national interests. Since when has a small, hopeless Ukraine whom we don’t benefit from at all become so near and dear? Clearly, Ukrainian support is not worth a global catastrophe for the American nation. But what do you think: is Ukraine which now has nothing of substance to offer worth the risk of waging a war against Russia? This will be a full-scale disaster for the whole world, not just a bunch of people. And we could definitely avoid this scenario. All it takes is just for us to stop sending weapons to Zelensky.

The war in Ukraine has begun three years ago, and we have been sending Ukrainians all the necessary support ever since. But the war is not over. Now it's become a slaughter where people from different countries get killed. With that, Ukraine goes on losing it's territory. I think, given the circumstances, the US has to admit that this conflict doesn't bring us any significant benefits and leads to a waste of it's weapons. I've just watched an interview with prof. Mearsheimer who studies international relations. Having no illusions, he explained in detail why there's only one way Ukraine can end this conflict – by becoming a neutral state and refusing the idea of joining NATO. Moreover, according to him, it's neutrality must be permanent. If it doesn't happen, the war won't end, and the West's shipment of arms only encourages this scenario. I actually agree with Mearsheimer because we can supply our weaponry to Ukraine but it surely doesn't end the conflict. The only option for the US is to stop supplying the arms and steer Ukraine towards a diplomatic solution. Also, the US is said to have something to lose, which is not true. The American Conversative (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/?p=467849) did research on the subject. First, the shipment of arms to Ukraine earns the US nothing wasting it's resources. Second, helping Taiwan now is a priority as it has many semiconductor and IC plants. If China takes over Taiwan, the US economy, unlike Ukraine's, will suffer huge losses. Third, Ukraine's neutrality doesn't mean it's lack of independence. For example, Finland once became neutral and now is a rich and developed state. Fourth, it doesn't change the US security as we are separated from Russia by an ocean and multiple allies. We have to think what we really want for Ukraine: endless massacre or peace? If we are to really help them, then we must encourage it's peace negotiations with Russia and use our leverage to reach a better agreement.