Allegan County News & Union Enterprise Clare County Review & Marion Press Columns Commercial Record Commercial-News, Penny Saver, & Sturgis Sentinel Courier-Leader & Flashes LaFayette Sun

Mike’s Musings: History tells us money, weaponry will not help Ukraine

Why are we still supplying Ukraine with taxpayer money and weapons? Wouldn’t the hundreds of billions of dollars we have sent to fight the proxy war against Russia, be put to better use at home? I certainly think so.
We have been told by our leaders for over 70 years that we must enter in to global conflicts to protect freedom at home. These global conflicts have taken a huge toll on us- many thousands of young men and women have died fighting, while much needed improvements at home have been set aside to fund the endless conflicts.
I ask you, what has been accomplished by these conflicts?
The Korean War over time has made South Korea and wealthy nation, but its counterpart North Korea has become a nuclear power ruled by a despot that my fire missiles at us at any time. Beyond China and Russia, North Korea, and its unpredictable leader, is of grave concern to the United States.
Remember Viet Nam? We invested thousands of troops and billions of dollars to fight a war to protest “freedom” against Communism. Well that didn’t work out very well. We hastily left after many years of fighting and the Viet Cong overrunning Saigon. But with that loss, a unified Vietnam is a very progressive country nowadays, no thanks to us.
Next came the conflict in Iraq. We committed troops there to fight for freedom, eliminated Saddam Hussein, and quickly eradicated the enemy. But we left a government in turmoil despite our best efforts at nation building. To this day, Iraq is unstable, and basically under the influence of its bitter enemy, Iran.
Next it was on to Afghanistan for another freedom fighting excursion. Troops were committed, money was sent, all to no avail. Like Russia (Soviet Union) before us, we spent a couple of decades trying to plant our brand of freedom there, only to leave abruptly leaving behind citizens and billions of dollars of military weaponry that is now in the hands of the Taliban and China. Afghanistan has reverted to the control of the fundamentalist U.S. hating Taliban.
And now we are providing money and weaponry to Ukraine, all in the name of freedom for the brave Ukrainians and us here in the U.S. The fear is if Russia wins, they will move on Poland or another NATO nation to expand their imperialistic ideals.
I find it strange, however, that the very countries we are protecting, the NATO countries, are supplying very little to their fighting neighbor, Ukraine. Germany, the richest European country be far, has thrown a few billion dollars at the war, but really seems quite disinterested. Ditto Italy, Spain, etc. etc. This appears to be a Ukrainian war effort propped up by U.S. taxpayer dollars.
I’d rather see those dollars help U.S. citizens. Shut off the money spigot to Ukraine and what will you get? Most likely peace. If the funds and weapons stop coming, Zelenskyy would be forced to the bargaining table.
I fear however, the U.S. Military Industrial Complex will escalate, rather than look for a peaceful solution. And just like the conflicts of the past 70 years, after trillions of dollars and many of our fine men and women lost at war, freedom will evade Ukraine. We will have fought, again, for nothing.
We need to seek a peaceful solution and not perpetuate a war that will overextend our resources. Learn from past conflicts. War won’t necessarily bring freedom.

6 Replies to “Mike’s Musings: History tells us money, weaponry will not help Ukraine

  1. So your idea is that Ukraine should negotiate a peace settlement with the people who attacked them without provocation? The people who already stole Crimea from them. The people who kidnapped their children. The people whose cities were destroyed. Or should they just surrender? You disgust me. Your Fox News is showing.

    1. I agree, this is different from every example Mr. Wilcox gave. Vietnam was a civil war that we thought would tilt power toward China. The Korean War was a civil war too and South Korean would disagree that our involvement didn’t solve anything. In Iraq we entered without provocation and tried to create a democracy where none had existed before. In Ukraine we are countering an unprovoked aggressor whose intent is to destroy a democracy. In the others we committed troops and in Ukraine we have not. If we do not stand for the principle of defending democracy what do we stand for?

  2. I reserved some hope when I first read the headline in the March 9, 2023 Commercial Record article by publisher, Mike Wilcox: “Our money, weapons won’t help Ukraine.” Patently false, I thought that there must be more to it. There wasn’t.

    I thought that this might be a call to do more to assist, to join the Uniting for Ukraine program, for example, with instructions on how to sponsor Ukrainian families fleeing Russia’s invasion, or even a call to join the International Legion of Territorial Defence of Ukraine–to do in person what Ukrainians have been doing themselves to defend their homeland.

    Maybe it would contain the message that US dollars cannot restore lost Ukrainian lives. Money or weapons cannot remove the Russian shrapnel from the Ukrainian music student who met her end walking a bridge in Chernihiv, nor can it return the young man who left Mariupol State University to suffer a direct hit by a Russian projectile in defense of his nation’s eastern border. True, our money and weapons cannot help restore these lives or the lives of the thousands of Ukrainian civilians and service personnel killed by Russian Federation forces or the Wagner Group.

    Disappointingly, Wilcox’s message, instead, was one of fatigue and frugality, a call for enabling Russian imperialism and lending passive support to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Stop spending US dollars and sending retired weapons platforms, and peace will be achieved. Ukraine can head to the negotiation tables and hand over the Crimea and Russian separatist-held areas in Luhansk and Donetsk regions. A slice of Moldova perhaps?

    In support of this isolationist approach, Wilcox lists ties, losses, and botched direct US military conflicts as reasons not to further contribute to Ukraine’s defense. If one is struggling for analogies, perhaps the American Civil War or the Second World War would be more appropriate.

    Wilcox also suggests that NATO nations, especially Germany, “are supplying very little to their fighting neighbor, Ukraine.” This is despite German Chancellor Olav Scholz stating last month that Germany will support Ukraine “as strongly and as long as necessary.” Apparently, Wilcox, like I, would like to see more from Germany than the $14.8B provided so far. As Scholz mentioned on the anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion: “What impresses us all very much–that is the determination and courage of the Ukrainians, how they defend their freedom.” Somehow, Wilcox interprets this as disinterest.

    Voices like Wilcox’s and those of obstructionists and presidential hopefuls on the right are making the world safer for authoritarianism. Regardless of what NATO nations, including our own, do or do not do to help, I stand by Ukraine. If Wilcox is fatigued, perhaps he should close that laptop, and take a nap, maybe “musing” something about world peace on the way out. The world has a war to win.

Leave a Reply