Considering Russia is the clear aggressor in this, and given the history of the ill treatment of the Ukrainians at the hands of the Russians, historically, the Ukrainians have every right to defend their homeland.
We should be well aware of the Russian tactic of infiltrating a region then stirring up enough pro-Russian sentiment (through mere invasion, propaganda, and those who would sell their mothers for whatever the Russians have to offer) and then holding 'elections' based on that shift in population and sentiment to justify a military ("security") action. Kosovo, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, the list goes on.
We know what is right, and what is wrong. It's pretty evident.
Corruption has been the hallmark of post WWII governments in Eastern Europe, and that often includes Russian influences. Sad to say, our own previous Administration has proven to be riddled with that same problem, and only the accounting of the enormous sums thrown about by that bunch will expose the depth and breadth of that. It is epic in its proportions, and is the culmination of repeated iterations of the same players, going back beyond the beginning of this century. Many of those actors are still alive, fat and happy, and they did that with our money.
As for the current government of Ukraine, the idea of a comedian standing for his nation, as president, doing what he must do to gather the resources to continue to fight is not as alien as one might think. (I suggest Bedtime for Bonzo for those who might have trouble with that concept.)
Not all he deals with will be pure in sentiment or action, but the job must get done in the face of an existential threat. That comedian had the resources to sit safely on a sideline somewhere, but did not. He refused, saying words to the effect of 'I don't need a ride, I need ammo.'
His adversary is one we have known to negotiate in bad faith. Agreements are seldom good longer than it takes the high acid stock they are printed on to begin to yellow. The syndrome of territorial acquisition is well documented, all in the name of safeguarding 'his' people while subjugating others. Look at the populations removed from the Donbas, and tell me where they were shipped off to. What is their status?
>crickets<
Can we continue to supply Ukraine? Yes, we can, but now in exchange for something for ourselves, not just a giveaway.
Europe's motives may be more urgent, considering this invasion is just a harbinger of things to come. Much closer, it is better for them to counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, just down the block rather than in their own back yards.
They, too, have a very real, albeit fading, memory of cities reduced to rubble in conflict; whole towns wiped off the map, for all practical purposes.
Their motive to supply Ukraine for the purpose of keeping the war fighting down the street is apparent. Ours, not so much, except the memories of twice going to that continent for the purpose of stopping an aggressor, and spilling the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans there, many of whom remain interred on those shores.
Can we make a difference? Sure. But the question is one of whether we should do so as a matter of trade or whether we should do so as military intervention.
It is 1939. We are coming out of a poor period, economically. Our manufacturing is worn out or nonexistent, a result of a slump brought on by the economic factors of The Great Depression. The European continent is erupting in conflict, slowly at first, with the seemingly non-adversarial expansion of a major power, growing increasingly hungry for more.
We need to rebuild our worn out domestic manufacturing capabilities, our own military is equipped with the small developments since the last war, and a lot of leftover technology from it, though we have made some progress with aircraft carriers.
Once again, we can do this, rebuild our manufacturing here, upgrade our own military, and employ more Americans. For those who say we should not be known as the manufacturers/exporters of weapons, someone will build them. Most likely, that someone will be us, or the manufacturing might of our most likely next peer adversary, might built largely by our own trade and ingenuity, the latter purchased or stolen. When peace comes, that same manufacturing can be re-tooled for other purposes. The plants that made pistols can make sewing machines again, 'red ball express' trucks will be more civilian in configuration.
We have been here before. Only now we can trade for the implements we provide.
A bargain for the resources we crave, a reason to ensure their security, but not to a level that demands direct intervention.
A trade deal with Zelenskyy is more likely to be honored than one with the Russians.
Recall, if you will, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, the Russians were supposed to safeguard it, not invade.
Given the source up until this administration of 'funding for Ukraine' and the way that funding was sidelined, stashed, diverted, and otherwise abused to do things other than what it supposedly appropriated for, I have little doubt that the amount that ever got to Ukraine was a small fraction of what was alleged to go there. That money trail needs to be followed, not just to identify who and where the corruption lies/lay, but to even get a real accounting of how much it actually cost to provide what level of assistance there.
My bet is that the lion's share (minus the 'big guy's' cut) of those funds never made it. Sell Ukraine the tools they need to win their war.
As for the lack of elections in Ukraine during wartime, need I mention the fourth term of FDR? Not a lack of elections, but a certain departure from previous practices, and one that has not happened at any other time in our history, done to maintain 'continuity' during the war.
The logistics of carrying out a national election on the battlefield, in areas occupied by an enemy, when millions have left as refugees, with many towns in ruin, are something never faced by Americans in our history. Even during our War Between the States, the only ones voting were secure from the ravages of that conflict, fought primarily in the invaded South, whose citizens had no vote.
Like it or not, Zelenskyy is President of the Ukraine for the duration of the war or his life, whichever ends first. If we view him as soiled for dealing with the Biden Administration in desperation to save his country, sometimes getting your hands dirty comes with the job. At the very least he has demonstrated just how willing he is to defend his homeland.
Let him 'wash up' and come to the table.
