Should the world tolerate Putin’s violent, revisionist imperialism?
When framed that way, Ukraine is not just a recipient of aid. It’s the front line of a much larger confrontation—between authoritarian conquest and international law, between aggression and accountability.
Here’s how to break that reframing down:
It’s Not About “Supporting Ukraine”
That sounds like a moral favor.
This is about stopping a pattern of behavior that, if left unchecked, will extend beyond Ukraine’s borders—and possibly beyond Europe.
It’s About Putin’s Pattern
Crimea (2014): Annexed by force, no meaningful consequences.
Georgia (2008): Partial occupation, same story.
Ukraine (2022): Full-scale invasion, mass atrocities, targeting civilians.
Next? Moldova? The Baltics? NATO states?
Putin has publicly stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy and that he intends to “restore” Russian greatness. This is not bluster—it’s a blueprint.
Precedent Matters
If Russia is allowed to carve up Ukraine or drag it into permanent instability, what message does that send to:
China and its ambitions toward Taiwan?
Iran and its influence in the region?
Any authoritarian leader who sees violence as a way to solve political problems?
Cost Now vs. Cost Later
Yes, aid to Ukraine is expensive. But letting Putin succeed is far more costly—in blood, destabilization, and possibly a direct NATO conflict down the line.
The Right Framing
So the question should be:
Do we stop Putin now, or deal with the consequences of appeasement later?
Because this isn’t just about Ukraine’s sovereignty—it’s about whether modern democracies still have the spine to stand up to naked aggression.
Should we support Ukraine?
The real issue is this:
Should the world tolerate Putin’s violent, revisionist imperialism?
When framed that way, Ukraine is not just a recipient of aid. It’s the front line of a much larger confrontation—between authoritarian conquest and international law, between aggression and accountability.
Here’s how to break that reframing down:
It’s Not About “Supporting Ukraine”
That sounds like a moral favor.
This is about stopping a pattern of behavior that, if left unchecked, will extend beyond Ukraine’s borders—and possibly beyond Europe.
It’s About Putin’s Pattern
Crimea (2014): Annexed by force, no meaningful consequences.
Georgia (2008): Partial occupation, same story.
Ukraine (2022): Full-scale invasion, mass atrocities, targeting civilians.
Next? Moldova? The Baltics? NATO states?
Putin has publicly stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy and that he intends to “restore” Russian greatness. This is not bluster—it’s a blueprint.
Precedent Matters
If Russia is allowed to carve up Ukraine or drag it into permanent instability, what message does that send to:
China and its ambitions toward Taiwan?
Iran and its influence in the region?
Any authoritarian leader who sees violence as a way to solve political problems?
Cost Now vs. Cost Later
Yes, aid to Ukraine is expensive. But letting Putin succeed is far more costly—in blood, destabilization, and possibly a direct NATO conflict down the line.
The Right Framing
So the question should be:
Do we stop Putin now, or deal with the consequences of appeasement later?
Because this isn’t just about Ukraine’s sovereignty—it’s about whether modern democracies still have the spine to stand up to naked aggression.
Share this:
Like this: