Theoretically if you put on the ballot the question whether the US should help Ukraine in its war with Russia or not, how would American voters vote?

“Help” is such a broad term as to make the issue almost meaningless. Should we give them long range missiles to shoot into Russia possibly provoking nuclear war? Should we send ground troops? Should we send other materiel as we are already? I don’t have an answer to the question as asked.

^Well. If a certain candidate wins in November, there may be no “help,” of ANY kind…AND, the US may (conveniently for Putin,) pull out of NATO…

It would be impossible to answer this as a hypothetical. The reason is that if there were going to be such a question on a ballot, the media would be working overtime to brainwash people into believing whatever the Dems want them to believe. So it would be impossible to answer as the baseline would change from today.

However, hypothetically, if you put the question on the ballot without anyone knowing about it until voting time, it is likely that people would vote against helping Ukraine against Russia. The reasons are several. Asking if the US should help Ukraine in its war effort would leave it up to the American people to decide what is meant. Many would look at it as “should the US get physically into the war on the side of Ukraine?” I can’t think of a single person that is saying “Yes! We should go to war on the other side of the world!!!”

Another attitude I believe would surface is the economic one. Many people are struggling with the economy these days. It is offensive to them that we send billions and billions of dollars to Ukraine while people in this country are struggling.

There would be the ones that would ask “Why should we work so hard to defend Ukraine’s borders when our own borders are ignored?”

The number of people that would look, without prompting or urging, at us being involved in the Ukrainian war as a good thing is very, very small.

What should be remembered is that the United States was one of the countries that guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons. Ukraine had almost 2,000 nuclear weapons on its territory when it became independent and it agreed that these should be removed to Russia in exchange for a guarantee of protection.

I support Ukraine. They don’t need us coming in with boots on the ground. They do need weapons so they can do their own thing which they have been very effective with appropriate equipment. They haven’t asked us to join the fight…only ask for assistance with the fight. They are a PROUD people & don’t mind supporting their own war. They just need access to current equipment!!!

I would change the budget rules to cut $1 from the budget from every additional $1 spent.

Not a good idea to zip zip everything as America is in ~$34 trillions in debt.

I would recommend asking for donations from the taxpayers , and skip the vote.

I think it would be about 50/50 in favor of support vs not.

I think many dislike large amounts of funding going to Ukraine, but many realize that if Putin takes Ukraine, that’s just the beginning. It will embolden him and he will pick the next country to conquer, plus Russia will then have more resources, as it would have the resources of Ukraine.

Similar to the polls, most Americans think the US should not help as much as they are.
While Americans are sympathetic about the issue, it would fail to pass if it went to a vote (which it never would)

I wonder how much of arms to Ukraine are purchased from American weapons manufacturers? Not just from America, but from Europeans buying American arms, to send to Ukraine?

Is America making a profit?

War economics are not focused around profits.

@Forever_Free Even Hell runs on money. Capitalism would say to make as much money as possible. Someone’s making a fortune off of the war?

By the way will Ukraine and Israel, pay back the amount delivered? Or is that a write off?

It’s a write off – this sounds familiar from a previous question.