Skip to main content

Support Ukraine: contact your representatives.


Congress has held up another support package to Ukraine. The simple fact that the aid package has been delayed is a win for Putin’s authoritarian regime.

I’ll start with what you should do, then a little about why, then address some objections to Ukraine aid.

What you should do

Please contact your Senators and Representatives to the US Congress and ask them to support Ukraine aid. Find them here.

The US government, acting on behalf of US citizens, can do things that individuals just can’t do. That’s why contacting your elected officials is important.

I also encourage you to contribute regularly to alleviate the ongoing suffering Russia causes. Here are some I have supported:

  • Lutheran Disaster Response, Eastern European Crisis Fund, which supports Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees who have fled to nearby countries.

  • Razom For Ukraine, which supports Ukraine in a variety of ways, which can include supplies for civilians or troops (but not weapons).

  • Safe Skies, which raises money for radar systems to prevent drone and bomb strikes in civilian areas.

Why support Ukraine in these ways?

Russia attacked Ukraine without provocation. They have waged a war without regard for civilian casualties–in fact, they have targeted civilians when it suits their purposes. Where Russia has occupied Ukrainian areas they have committed war crimes: killing civilian leaders (mayors, etc), mistreating women, forcing men into Russia’s army, and kidnapping children (ie sending children to Russia to be adopted by Russians).

In a broad geopolitical sense, this is a Colonial war. Russia invaded another country simply because they wanted that country’s stuff. If the US signals that this is “okay,” then Russia, China, and others will look to expand further.

The objections

I already contacted my representatives, and they brought up some standard talking points in opposition to Ukraine aid. I’ll summarize their points and make a comment:

  • We need more accountability (people might steal the money).

    • The vast majority of the aid going to Ukraine is in the form of military equipment and supplies. Ukraine is clearly using these supplies to fight a war.

    • There likely is some corruption in Ukraine–a Ukrainian General was recently charged with attempting to steal funds. I don’t have illusions that we’re sending this aid to a perfect country, any more than I am under the illusion that we have a perfect country here. Ukraine is a former Soviet state, trying to break from that corrupt past, trying to determine their own fate. Compare them to Russia, where it’s not even considered corruption–it’s normal. In Russia, Generals always become rich, and the rich never have to serve in the military. In Ukraine, there are disagreements between the civilian leadership and military leadership–that’s normal in a difficult situation. In Russia, when people in the military disagree with Putin, they tend to disappear.

  • We need to fix the US border situation first.

    • Cop-out alert! When people point to a very difficult, politically charged issue and say “We can’t do anything else until this is solved,” it’s usually a cop-out. We can clearly support Ukraine now, and continue to work on the border problems at the same time. They are in no way mutually exclusive.

  • We don’t see a clear path to military victory for Ukraine, so it doesn’t make sense to support them.

    • This response was especially disappointing to me.

    • Seriously. This is like looking at the Vietnam War and saying, “Well, North Vietnam isn’t going to march its armies across America and conquer Washington DC, so they might as well give up.”

    • Ukraine achieves a victory every day it prevents Russia from seizing more territory. Neither side has a clear upper hand on the front lines. But stalling Ukraine aid gives Russia an upper hand.

That’s all. In my view, US support for Ukraine is an excellent investment. An aggressive Russia that wins in Ukraine is a threat to peace and stability in Europe, and emboldens China to expand in Taiwan and elsewhere. People don’t like to imagine that there could be real global conflict–but Russian victory in Ukraine would bring us much closer to that danger.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi

Welfare for the wealthy

I was struck by today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not literally, but in the Crossroads section, on opposite sides of the spread, were two articles that reflect our nation's "welfare for the rich." On 2J, a local economics instructor's article "Tax for Miller Park didn't help economy." He criticized a previous article which had suggested the opposite. The previous article was based almost entirely on reports by Major League Baseball, which clearly has a huge bias. This week's article takes an objective look, and summarizes that taxpayer's don't get much in return, but the fat cat players and executives of MLB walk away with huge paychecks. The drive to fund new ballparks almost never starts with taxpayers--it starts with the deep pockets of baseball executives, PR campaigns and connections with political power. On 3J, George Will was taking on the Fed ("What the Fed should never do"), rightly criticizing it for bailing out Bear