U.S. Must Help Ukraine
America’s assistance to Ukraine has been protested by some on the right and some on the left. Both sides are dead wrong.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must not be seen as a singular event. Vladimir Putin has dreamed of reestablishing the Soviet Empire, and his Ukrainian assault is merely the first step. That is why Eastern European nations, especially Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania have so vocally sounded the alarm. Indeed, even Germany, which has been largely pacifist since its defeat in the Second World War, realizes that it will eventually be targeted by Moscow if the first step of taking over Ukraine is accomplished.
Those two sides of the American political scene have different reasons for their objections to helping Ukraine.
Those on the left disdain military expenditures of any type, believing it takes funds away from domestic spending. They also absurdly fail to see much difference in American foreign policy and that pursued by Russia.
On the right, there are at least three primary objections.
One is that focusing on Moscow’s misdeeds takes attention and resources away from dealing with China, the primary threat to the U.S. The fallacy of this concept is seeing Russia and China as separate problems. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea represent a singular, combined danger to the free world. China is providing a great deal of the financing Putin needs for his Ukrainian War. Iran is assisting with specialized weapons. North Korea I said to be assisting as well. President George W. Bush coined the phrase, “Axis of Evil,” and the description is wholly appropriate.
The second is that the U.S. shouldn’t worry about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine while there is an invasion going on in the southern border of our own nation. The dramatic influx of illegals, largely organized by criminal cartels using many of those immigrants for drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other organized criminal activities is, indeed, a threat to United States, but it is not occurring due to a lack of either funds or military equipment. It is clearly a policy choice by the Biden Administration. That influx could be rather quickly stopped by the White House if it chose to do so. Both Biden and his Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas have openly and boldly lied to the public. They have done just about everything possible to encourage illegal immigration, and clearly refuse to do anything to respond to the desperate pleas of law enforcement officials, governors, and mayors. If Ukraine and Russia didn’t even exist, that crisis on the Southern border would go on unless and until Biden decided to stop it.
The third objection is that, given the illicit financial contacts Biden has had with Ukraine, it cannot be ruled out that either he or some corrupt officials in that nation may profit from U.S. funds. On April 16, 2014, then-Vice President Biden met with his son’s business partner, Devon Archer, at the White House. Five days later, Vice President Biden visited Ukraine, and he soon after was described in the press as the “public face of the administration’s handling of Ukraine.” The day after his visit, on April 22, Archer joined the board of Burisma. Six days later, on April 28, British officials seized $23 million from the London bank accounts of Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Fourteen days later, on May 12, Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma, and over the course of the next several years, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board.
While it appears clear that there is a dirty connection between the Biden family and Ukraine, the Russian invasion, and all that it indicates for future aggression against other nations, must not be ignored. President Zelensky is doing all he can to fight corruption in his nation. Hopefully, the U.S. House of Representatives will succeed in fighting corruption here at home.
Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government
Follow Us