Elaine McCusker
Many Americans are concerned about the cost of aid to Ukraine. It took the U.S. Congress seven months to approve the last funding measure to provide aid. A November Pew poll indicates that most Americans support helping Ukraine, yet roughly a quarter believe that Washington has been providing too much assistance. Elected officials, including the Vice President-elect JD Vance, continue making misleading comments about being “half a trillion dollars in the hole for the Ukraine conflict.” The billionaire Elon Musk, who is helping the incoming Trump administration sort out plans to cut federal spending, posted on social media last February that it was “insane” for the United States to continue its investment in Ukraine.
Such worries are understandable. The United States is faced with numerous challenges. Illegal immigration, financing the national debt, competition with China, war in the Middle East, and a generally unpredictable global security environment all compete for attention and resources. It is not surprising that it is difficult for Washington to sort out its priorities.
But Americans worried only about the cost of helping Ukraine are thinking about the issue in the wrong way. They should be worried about the cost of not helping Ukraine. Right now, by providing aid to Kyiv, the United States is preventing Russia from directly menacing eastern and central Europe, which would doubtless consume even more U.S. resources. Washington may, in fact, be deterring a direct war between NATO and Moscow, one in which U.S. forces would have to fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment