America has always stood for freedom, democracy, and the defense of those who cannot defend themselves. These are noble ideals, ones that have guided our foreign policy for decades. But as we continue to pour billions into Ukraine, it is time to ask a hard question: At what cost to our own nation?
There is no denying that Volodymyr Zelensky is a courageous leader. He stayed when he could have fled, stood when others would have fallen, and has rallied his people in the face of overwhelming odds. But let’s be clear—sacrifice for one’s country is not unique to Ukraine. Here in America, we have men and women who stand ready to do the same. Every Marine, soldier, sailor, and airman takes an oath knowing that their life may one day be the price of our security. We respect bravery, but we should not let admiration cloud our judgment.
Broken Promises and a Forgotten Agreement
Beyond the moral case for supporting Ukraine, there is a history that many conveniently ignore. In the wake of the Cold War, the United States and NATO made a commitment to Russia—one that involved not expanding NATO further eastward. While some may argue that no formal treaty was signed, the spirit of that agreement was clear. The encroachment of Western military alliances toward Russia’s borders was always a red line. Imagine for a moment if China or Russia built military bases in Mexico or Canada. Would we accept that? Would we sit idly by as adversaries strengthened their foothold next door?
We cannot be so naïve as to believe that this war exists in a vacuum, separate from decades of geopolitical maneuvering. None of this justifies Russia’s invasion, but it does challenge the narrative that this war is simply about democracy versus dictatorship.
The Cost to America
Even if we set aside history, the reality is that America is facing enormous challenges at home. We have a national debt surpassing $34 trillion. Our southern border is in chaos. Crime is rising in major cities, and our veterans—those who have given everything for this country—are too often left to struggle. And yet, we have sent over $100 billion to Ukraine with little accountability.
Where is this same level of urgency when it comes to fixing our own country? We are told we must support Ukraine because "freedom is at stake." But whose freedom? America’s security is not directly threatened by this war. Ukraine is not a NATO ally, nor is it a vital strategic partner. So why is their sovereignty more important than securing our own borders or taking care of our own people?
The Danger of Misplaced Priorities
Supporting Ukraine is not just about defending a smaller nation against a larger aggressor. It has become a political litmus test—a symbol of Western unity and defiance against Russia. But foreign policy should be guided by national interest, not sentiment. We should ask ourselves:
What is the end goal? Are we prepared to fund this war indefinitely?
What does victory even look like? Ukraine reclaiming every inch of its territory? Regime change in Russia?
At what point does this provoke a larger war? The deeper we get, the more we risk direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia.
These are not comfortable questions, but they are necessary ones. We should always support allies where it makes sense, but that support must be measured, strategic, and rooted in our national interests. Right now, our priorities are misplaced.
America cannot save the world while neglecting its own people. It is time for us remember that before it is too late.
One of the questions that regularly comes to mind for me regarding this conflict: at what point were diplomacy and peace talks pursued by the United States and its allies—let alone even just discussed as an option?
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s close advisor Davyd Arakhamia was himself present for the March 2022 talks with Russia in Belarus that would have halted the invasion. Arakhamia stated on the record that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson came to Kiev after the Belarus summit and said: “Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war.”
Making an analogy: if I were out at the bar with friends, and a belligerent drunk much bigger than one of my friends came up on us and said he was going to beat the shit out of my buddy, I’d de-escalate. “This isn’t going to make anyone’s night better; let’s get an Uber and get outta here,” etc. Sure, some might immediately start throwing punches and brawling, but a reasonable and clear headed adult should take the high road and try to calm the situation.
That we don’t have anyone in our state department willing to take a rational approach and de-escalate a conflict like this, is sad. Much more, our allies directly encouraged open conflict rather than pursuing a calm and measured solution.