It’s predictable that sentiment towards supporting Ukraine is reducing as the Russian war slogs on. Spending on Ukraine, when we have so many challenges at home, is hard to understand. That’s why media outlets need to improve the questions they ask so the public has a better understanding. There are many reports from the media centered around polls, and interviews with policy makers, that stop short.
Assume we end support for Ukraine to focus on domestic challenges. What happens next? Odds are Russia takes Ukraine. Vladimir Putin and his higher-ups have made it very clear there is a strong desire to rebuild Russia to its prominent regional dominance. Odds are, he would need to replenish his military while basking in some nationalist pride for a bit. That would induce the West to think once again they are satisfied (we saw this after Crimea).
Then, which of the former Warsaw Pact members does he want to put back in his empire and in what order? What about Moldova, Georgia, Bosnia, the Balkans?
Many might think Russia reassimilating those now independent countries is a negligible risk and it’s better to not get involved, while keeping the money at home. What’s after that? Russia is even stronger at that point so would they start trying to disrupt and destabilize NATO countries?
As Russia does what it historically has done, at what point do we get involved and at what scale? Is the return on investment better if we help Ukraine now, or is it better to wait and deal with a bigger Russia problem down the road while building up our alliances?
Understanding our policy makers rationale would enable us to make better decisions when we vote. Please improve your questions!
Scott Reichard, Holladay