Why the U.S. should continue to support Ukraine

I want to do something a little different this week and focus on one main thing. Last week I mentioned a possible second Trump term would not be the best thing for Ukraine. Earlier this week Trump chose Ohio senator JD Vance to be his Vice President nominee. This is also not good for Ukraine. So, I wanted to lay out why I think it’s so important for the U.S. to continue to support Ukraine’s existential defense against Russia. 

I will focus my arguments on areas of national interest, as Trump and Vance want to put American interests first. But, before I do that, of course there is a strong moral argument to continue to support Ukraine. Russia has continually violated international law by threatening the use of nuclear weapons, targeting civilians, engaging in war crimes and kidnapping children. The combination of Putin’s rhetoric that Ukraine does not really exist, and the forced removal of children and others gets very close (if not reaches) to the standard of genocide. The continued war creates immeasurable suffering for the people of Ukraine as well as Russia. I would argue that providing humanitarian assistance is a moral duty of the United States and that providing military aid to allow Ukrainians to defend themselves is morally justified. 

But let’s focus on what is in the interests of the U.S. without considering morality, as Trump or Vance might want us to. Continued support of Ukraine is in the interests of the U.S. because it advances our security, political and economic interests. All of these are interrelated as well and difficult to separate. They all feed into each other, which makes the benefits of supporting Ukraine even greater. 

Preventing Russian aggression in Ukraine will increase U.S. security because Russia will pose less of a threat to American allies, such as Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Poland, etc., as well as serve as a deterrence for other security concerns, such as China. A destabilized Europe with a victorious Russia and emboldened China in East Asia does not serve American security interests.  

Let’s work from the assumption that Russia does pose a threat to not only Europe, but a destabilized Europe is also a threat to the U.S. (remember WWII). U.S. support for Ukraine has led to a significant weaking of Russia’s military without any member of the U.S. military exposed to risk and for a relatively small price tag. As the data above indicate, from the beginning of the war to April 30^th of this year, the U.S. has allocated 74 billion euros and committed an additional 24.7 billion. That is a large number, but it represents 0.34% of total US GDP. That number includes humanitarian, financial and military assistance. Russia has lost a staggering number of military equipment and troops for a small investment by the U.S. (sorry, I know it is disconcerting to talk about loss of life in dollars and cents, but I’m trying to pretend I don’t care about morality) 

As the data indicates, it is not just the U.S. that is supporting Ukraine. Trump and Vance often call for Europe to do their part as well and it turns out that Europe is. According to the data, as an absolute amount they have given more money than the U.S. and many of the countries have given more as a percentage of their GDP. For example, both Estonia and Denmark have given more aid more than 1.6% of their GDP. Europe is doing its part. 

But what about China. A common argument is that America’s real threat is China and by supporting Ukraine it takes resources and attention away from China. What this argument misses is that continued support for Ukraine serves as a deterrent to future Chinese aggression. Many of the same people who make this argument also criticized Biden for pulling out of Afghanistan (something that Trump wanted to do as well) and it argued that it showed American weakness, which emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine. Given that logic, wouldn’t it also be true that if the U.S. were to abandon Ukraine, China may be emboldened to invade Taiwan? The best and cheapest way to prevent that from happening is to show China that the U.S. will support countries against aggression. 

A final way that this is in U.S. security interests is that the U.S. is sending much of its older weapons and munitions to Ukraine and will replace it with newer stock that is more reliable. It is essentially a forced updating of U.S. military supplies. In addition, the U.S. is ramping up its weapons and munitions productive capabilities, so if you are someone that wants a strong, American military, this is all good news. 

Continued support for Ukraine is in the political interests of the U.S. because it strengthens alliances and relationships that give the U.S. more influence and power around the world. I have written several times before about how important NATO is and how much stronger it has grown. The old axiom about NATO, attributed to its first secretary-general Lord Ismay, is that NATO’s purpose was to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. The U.S. has a security and political interest to keep a strong NATO that allows them some influence on the European continent. Abandoning Ukraine and letting Europe take care of its security problems would severely weaken the political and economic influence that the U.S. has on the continent and would strengthen organizations such as the EU. America would effectively be on the outside looking in. 

American support for basic international law and human rights is also something that generates political influence and goodwill. Of course, the U.S. does not have a perfect track record in this area and has broken international law and violated human rights. It is not perfect. But the international system set up after World War II, with a focus on the rights of sovereign countries and the rights of individuals, has benefitted the U.S. tremendously. Russia’s naked aggression and horrific actions in Ukraine are a clear threat to that order. So, even if you’re not concerned about the touchy-feely stuff about war crimes and the like, the weakening of that order is a weakening of American influence around the world. 

Support for Ukraine also demonstrates to other U.S. allies that America will help them when they need it most. Again, the same arguments people have made about Afghanistan apply here. If America abandons Ukraine will that improve relations with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia? Not to mention France, Germany and the UK? It will demonstrate that the U.S. is an unreliable partner and make it more difficult for the U.S. to get needed cooperation from countries in the future. 

Finally, continued support for Ukraine is in America’s economic interests. Again, it’s not best to think about economic gain when we are discussing loss of life. I am not suggesting that the U.S. should force this war to go longer than is needed only that the U.S. is responding to a situation that Russia made. And, as I’ve written before, the idea that “peace” is attainable by withdrawing support for Ukraine so they will be forced to negotiate with Russia is not a real peace. Russia will still commit violence against Ukrainians and the situation will still be vulnerable for war in the future. So, I am working under the assumption that the U.S. can continue to support Ukraine in an effort to create a much better post-conflict situation or stop its support for Ukraine resulting in continuing violence against Ukrainians. 

With all that said, one result of the conflict is that the U.S. energy production and exports to Europe have grown considerably. The U.S. is producing more oil than ever before and more than Russia or Saudi Arabia. It is also exporting more liquified natural gas to Europe as the result of Europe turning away from Russia for its energy. This is obviously an economic benefit to the U.S. Again, this is not a reason to continue the war unnecessarily, but if the U.S. were to leave Europe these gains in the energy sector would be less stable. 

Additionally, the increased production of weapons and munitions creates jobs in the U.S. New plants are opened, such as one in Mesquite, TX earlier this year, that mean more jobs and money flowing into the economy. The U.S. has also seen an increase in purchases of its military equipment by other countries, with more than $80 billion worth of materials sold in 2023. I know that this leads to military-industrial complex talk and that wars are only started and continued to benefit businesses. But the U.S. didn’t start this war and I think the security, political and moral reasons to continue to support Ukraine help counter this argument. 

Finally, to whatever extent continued support for Ukraine leads to stability in Europe and prevents Chinese aggression in East Asia, this is also economically beneficial. This stability allows the U.S. to maintain strong trade ties to European countries and, probably more importantly, to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, as well as China for that matter. Instability in Asia leading to a general decrease in economic production of these countries would be very bad for the American economy. The electronics and chips produced in Taiwan especially, but also Japan and South Korea, are important to the U.S. in many ways. While the U.S. is trying to ramp up its domestic production in these areas (also good for the economy as the map below demonstrates) they are still reliant on continued trade with Asian allies. Abandoning Ukraine would make these trade connections more vulnerable. 

So, there is a brief argument for why the U.S. should continue to support Ukraine. There are things that I left out, points that were underdeveloped and counterarguments I did not address. But I just wanted to lay out the general framework of the argument. Again, who knows what will happen in the next few months with the U.S. election (who could have predicted an attempted assassination) but if Trump is elected in November, the discussion of whether to continue support Ukraine will become more prominent and important.