Before the most recent vote in Congress for more U.S. aid to Ukraine, Marisa Herman, a Newsmax senior reporter, argued her case for more aid in “10 Reasons Ukraine Aid Is Good for America.”
Here are her “10 key reasons experts say U.S. support for Ukraine should be continued”:War, Christianity, and…Laurence M. VanceBest Price: $8.95Buy New $9.95(as of 09:10 UTC — Details)
- Putin’s aggression must be stopped.
- Putin’s atrocities need a response.
- Russia is targeting evangelical Christians for persecution.
- Ukraine wants only to regain its sovereign territory.
- Russia has not “won” the war.
- Russia is rearming for a larger war.
- Most Ukraine aid goes to U.S. contractors.
- Europe fears a coming attack on NATO.
- Support for Ukraine signals to China: Do not invade Taiwan.
- Give Ukraine aid to let Trump bring peace.
In her discussion of each point, she gives not a single reason why Ukraine aid is good for America.
The best she can do under the first point is this: “In his many speeches since the Ukraine war began, Putin has frequently stated his real aim is to end America’s ‘unipolar’ status as a world power and NATO’s hegemony over Europe.”
Putin’s supposed aim would actually be good for America.
And the best she can do under the seventh point is this: “Of the proposed $61 billion Ukraine aid funding, it is estimated nearly two-thirds, or $40 billion, would go toward U.S. defense contractors that produce missiles, munitions, and military gear. By approving the aid funding, the money not only stays in the U.S., it also helps employ tens of thousands of Americans.”
This is crony capitalism at its worst. It is pure military Keynesianism. Why doesn’t the government just give the money directly to defense contractors instead of running it through Ukraine? Wouldn’t that be good for America? But why stop there? Why doesn’t the government just give money to every business in America? Wouldn’t that be good for America? Wouldn’t that help employ tens of thousands of Americans? Wouldn’t that be good for America?
Herman’s tenth point (“Give Ukraine aid to let Trump bring peace.”) is her weakest and most ludicrous attempt to justify U.S. aid to Ukraine. “Some critics of Ukraine aid like the idea of keeping the embattled nation afloat for another year, hoping Trump is elected to work out a peace agreement.” And what if Trump isn’t elected? Should the United States prop up Ukraine for four more years? And so what if he is elected? Does anyone actually believe Trump’s boast: “If it’s not solved, I will have it solved in 24 hours with Zelenskyy and with Putin, and there’s a very easy negotiation to take place, but I don’t want to tell you what it is because then I can’t use that negotiation.” Herman apparently does. But if Trump has the magic touch, then why doesn’t he just solve the war problem right now and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars?
Some questions are in order.
Why does Putin’s “aggression” need to be stopped by America?
Why do Putin’s “atrocities” need a response from America?
Why is Russia “targeting” evangelical Christians for persecution the responsibility of America?Rethinking the Good WarLaurence M. VanceBuy New $5.95(as of 12:45 UTC — Details)
Why is Ukraine’s desire “only to regain its sovereign territory” the concern of America?
Why should America take sides in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine or China and Taiwan?
Why should America care whether Russia or Ukraine wins the war?
Why is Russia “rearming for a larger war” the concern of America?
Why should Europe fearing “a coming attack on NATO” be the concern of America (The U.S. should not be a member of NATO.)
And as the great Ron Paul said back in 2014 about the Russian annexation of Crimea: “Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?”
The $64,000 question is simply this: Who appointed the United States to be the sheriff, guardian, and overseer of the world?
Der Friedensstifter 