Analyst: US support for Ukraine may have to last "decades"

At this point, the United States has sent more than $17 billion in cash and military aid to Ukraine for that nation’s fight against the Russians. The United States has been far and away the largest, most generous patron of Ukraine’s government of any of the allies who are supporting this effort. But this has dragged on for quite a while now and it is long past time to begin seriously discussing the obvious question. How long are we supposed to keep this up? In fairly short order, the money we’ve sent to Ukraine will more than double the annual budget for the FBI. We’ve already given Ukraine more than five times the amount of aid we give to Israel each year, one of our closest and most important allies and one that exists in close proximity to multiple states that publicly proclaim their intention to drive them into the sea.

With all of that in mind, you are not a “pawn of Vladimir Putin” if you ask the government to explain what the long-term plan is and how much longer this will be sapping our resources and provoking our adversaries. The world is spiraling out of control at the moment and our continued firehose of advanced weapons and cash into Ukraine which they use to attack the Russians isn’t exactly enhancing our prospects of stability. Over at Defense One, analyst Erik Swabb takes a crack at this question and arrives at a depressing conclusion. In his opinion, even if the war ends or at least winds down to smaller and more infrequent skirmishes, we will need to continue funding Ukraine’s government and military forces for at least the next decade and potentially much longer. He begins by admitting that it is “fair” to ask this question.

How Soviet - was your schooling, if you don't even understand something as basic as ownership? If you live under any normal form of capitalism you should be familiar with the concept. It doesn't matter if they had the power to launch or not, it is a simple matter of OWNERSHIP - the bases, the launch equipment, the transport equipment etc. AND the warheads were the property of the UNION of Soviet Socialist Republics, and were installed in several Soviet Socialist Republics.

Russia inherited the kit left in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Ukraine inherited the kit left in the Ukrainian SSR.

That is why Ukraine, not Russia, had the job of maintaining or disposing of the nukes.
Which is why Ukraine was able to negotiate to get rid of its nukes.

Here's an analogy which might help you to see how the fundamentals of property ownership applied.

Whenever I have workmen doing major renovations on my property I tend to have to sign something when the job's complete. It's not unusual at all for that wrap-up to involve some confirmation (sometimes even me signing a bit of paper) to the effect of, everything left behind once they depart is waste for me to dispose of

Every now and again, I'll get a call a few days later from a contractor to the effect of, "I think I left some of my tools in your garage". Thing is, whatever you think morally about it, if he had me sign a bit of paper saying that I get the job of disposing of everything he left behind, he's made his "tools" my my "waste" to get rid of. So it's my property. He can't just walk into my garage and take those tools back; he has to ask me if I'll be so kind as to hand them back. Because I'm a nice guy I will give him his tools back, but the letter of the law says he and I both signed paperwork to the effect of, whatever he leaves behind is mine therefore it is my decision not his.

So if he had done a particularly poor job, I could refuse to return them unless he redid the unsatisfactory work. All kinds of scenarios play out but the main thing is, it's up to me if he gets his tools back, because legally they're not his and it's not up to him. The only real complication I'd have is if the tools were on a hire purchase contract.

That's what happened with the nukes in the independent states.

This article by no means is on Ukraine's side, but it goes pretty thoroughly through the reasons why some in America wanted Ukraine to hang onto the nukes and become an independent superpower, while others lobbied Ukraine to hand them over to Russia.

https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-have-retained-soviet-nuclear-weapons/

The article confirms Ukraine didn't have the means to use the nukes but it did have technical ownership of them. It could've done what Khazakstan and Belarus did, but instead it decided to return the nukes SIMPLY IN RETURN FOR RUSSIA SIGNING A NON-AGGRESSION TREATY WITNESSED BY USA AND UK. That decision didn't just benefit Russia as well as Ukraine, it put the "brotherly love" between the former SSRs into writing. And that choice is the only thing that kept Putin's foot on the brake pedal for so long... Without the Budapest Memorandum Ukraine would've been Groznyfied as soon as Putin thought they were ready to be absorbed into his fascist empire. What changed? COVID, and America booking it out of Kabul. If there ever was a time to commit a treaty violation that'd drag the USA and UK into a regional dispute, it was after Biden ballsed up Afghanistan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.