Sure, but those are matters of domestic politics -- the answer is in convincing more people to vote for their own moral values.
But no domestic moral issue will be improved by letting Vlad the Invader have his way in Ukraine.
Nor is Vlad's invasion preventing us from correcting any of our domestic political issues.
The basic issue in Ukraine is whether military conquest and empire building are now suddenly acceptable again?
A Russian victory over Ukraine will increase Russia's population and economy by roughly 1/3, meaning the next weak neighbor Russia attacks will face even greater odds defending itself, and so the Russian Empire will continue growing at its neighbors' expense.
And what's good for the Russians will be doubly good for China and any other two-bit tin-horn Hitler wannabe dictator eyeing their weaker neighbors.
griffin: "Its all a bunch of population reduction, power consolidation, petrodollar preservation BS.
I would avise you to be a bit more discerning in that regard."
Naw... the basics are very simple: Vlad Invaded Ukraine and therefore Vlad must be defeated. There's no objective reason to make it any more complicated than that.
griffin: "And you cannot say the American State would have languised under a week confederation.
You have absoutely no idea what other better initiatives that may have formed upon the death of the Federalist plan.
We can clearly see now that the anti-federalist were very correct in fearing a powerful central government."
The Federalist plan was George Washington's plan and there was no other American leader who could have inspired ratification of a different plan.
Had the US Constitution failed in ratification, we would have simply remained under the old Articles of Confederation and continued to suffer from conditions as they existed in 1787, with rebellions at home, British encroachments in the Northwest Territories and growing disputes among different states over economic and social issues.
Without the Constitution, there is no way a Pres. Jefferson could make the Louisiana Purchase, take on the Barbary Pirates or Madison fight the Brits to a standstill in the War of 1812.
And who were those anti-Federalists?
Well, Jefferson for one, and after ratification joined by other anti-Federalists into a faction Jefferson himself called republicans but his Federalist opponents mocked as "Democratic-Republicans", referring to the "Democratic" French Revolution, which Jefferson favored.
And Jeffersonians liked that word, "Democratic", in time dropping "Republicans" all together and touting their intentions to expand voting to every man "free white and 21", regardless of property.
And it worked, electing Jefferson President in 1801, and what did he do as president? Pretty much everything he'd opposed and criticized Federalists for, plus things they never thought of, including the Louisiana Purchase.
During those days Pres. Jefferson was opposed by a small group in Congress which called themselves "Tertium Quids" or "Old Republicans", strict construction constitutionalists, who did not agree that the Constitution authorized such things as the Louisiana Purchase.
But most former anti-Federalists were happy support "Democratic" Jefferson and then Madison & Monroe in whichever directions they wanted to take our new Republic.
Anti-Federalists of 1788 eventually became today's Democrats.