Pirate's Cove

Yeah, well, that’s all well and good, but, what’s the strategy? Where’s the money going? Ukraine really hasn’t done all that much with the gobs of military materials NATO members, particularly the U.S., has given it. The government has been acting rather authoritarian, has cracked down on Christians, it’s well known that graft is huge in their government, and they’ve even tried to sell some of the military goods we’ve sent them

‘No Time to Go Wobbly’: Why Britain Is Lobbying U.S. Republicans on Ukraine

When David Cameron, Britain’s foreign secretary and onetime prime minister, visited Washington last month, he took time out to press the case for backing Ukraine with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the far-right Georgia Republican who stridently opposes further American military aid to the country.

Last week, Boris Johnson, another former prime minister, argued that the reelection of Donald Trump to the White House would not be such a bad thing, so long as Trump comes around on helping Ukraine. “I simply cannot believe that Trump will ditch the Ukrainians,” Johnson wrote in a Daily Mail column that read like a personal appeal to the candidate.

If the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States has taken on an air of special pleading in recent weeks, it is because Britain, rock solid in its support for Ukraine, now views its role as bucking up an ally for whom aid to the embattled country has become a political obstacle course.

British diplomats said Cameron and other senior officials had made it a priority to reach out to Republicans who were hostile to further aid. For reasons of history and geography, Britain recognized that support is not as “instinctive” for Americans as it for the British, according to a senior diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the matter.

Why does Britain care?

Many Britons view the war in Ukraine — just over three hours away by plane — as almost on their doorstep, and their support reflects a fear that a Russian victory would pose an existential threat to the security of Europe and Britain. Addressing the Ukrainian Parliament this month, Sunak described military aid as “an investment in our collective security” and said, “if Putin wins in Ukraine, he will not stop here.”

Yet, Britain has only spend the dollar equivalent of $16.384 billion. The US has spent at least $113 billion. But, no one is quite sure how much exactly, because our government accounting stinks. If Britain is so concerned about an “existential threat” why are they not doing more?

Britain’s army chief, Gen. Patrick Sanders, warned in a speech Wednesday that Britons were now a “prewar generation,” who could be pressed into service to confront a military threat to Europe from an emboldened Russia. Downing Street later clarified that Sanders was not opening the door to peacetime conscription.

Emboldened, eh? Like when Biden was vice president and Putin took Crimea? Or how, under Biden’s presidency, his Afghanistan withdrawal plan was horrific, which emboldened Putin? If Britain wants more U.S. support, why not pony up their own money? Say, 40 billion pounds instead of 3.2 billion? Perhaps Britain is getting more out of supporting Ukraine, what does the U.S. get? What, exactly, is the difference in a Ukraine controlled Ukraine and a Russia controlled Ukraine? None of these “you big meanie Republicans need to support Ukraine” articles give actual reasons as to why we should. As to what we get out of it. “Protect Democracy”? Zelensky has cancelled elections this spring. We don’t get grain from Ukraine. Britain does. But, while exports are down, they’re are still growing and shipping. Ukrainians are still going on holiday. What’s the strategy here? What’s the endgame?

Heck, if Russia is a threat to Europe, why has the U.S. spent way more on Ukraine than all of the EU NATO nations?

Read: Britain Tells GOP To Not Go Wobbly On Ukraine Or Something »