A critical contribution to a debate among Trotskyists in the U.S.
By Michael Pröbsting, International Secretary of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT), 7 January 2023, www.thecommunists.net
The Ukraine War has been the most important single event in world politics in 2022 and will remain to be so for the foreseeable future. It's therefore only logical that this war has provoked major debates both within as well as between socialist organizations. Most of these discussions center on the character of the war resp. of the powers involved and, related to this issue, if socialists should call for military aid for the Ukrainian resistance.
The Revolutionary Communist International Tendency (RCIT) and its section in Russia – Socialist Tendency – have sided with the national war of defence of the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion from the very beginning. While we lend no political support for the bourgeois Zelensky government, we call for material support – including military aid – for the Ukrainian resistance. At the same time, we emphasise the dual character of the conflict and the necessity for socialists to oppose both camps in the inter-imperialist rivalry between Russia and NATO. Hence, we advocate an internationalist and anti-imperialist position which we summarise in the slogan: “Defend the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion! Against Russian and against NATO imperialism!“ [1]
There has been a debate for some time between Left Voice, the U.S. affiliate of the Trotskyist Faction (FT, with the Argentinean PTS as the leading party), and Workers Voice, which is the U.S. section of International Worker League (LIT, with the Brazilian PSTU as the leading party). While the FT characterises the Ukraine War as a “proxy war” and refuses to support any side, LIT correctly sides with the Ukrainian resistance.
We do not intend to repeat all our criticism of the FT’s and LIT’s policy as we did already elaborate such in several articles. [2] Furthermore, we already wrote a contribution to the debate between Left Voice and Workers Voice. [3] Recently, three socialist organisations in the U.S. – the Revolutionary Socialist Organizing Project, Denver Communists and Seattle Revolutionary Socialists (RSOP/DC/SRS) – intervened in this debate with a statement titled “No U.S./NATO Arms to Ukraine!”. [4] While we do not agree with their conclusions, we think that the comrades make an interesting contribution which we want to discuss critically in this article.
The wrong thesis of the “proxy war”
Let us begin with a brief summary of the RSOP/DC/SRS statement. The main point of this document is – as the title already suggests – their opposition to any military aid for the Ukrainian resistance fighting against Russia’s invasion.
While the comrades correctly oppose any U.S. military intervention and sanctions against Russia, their position unfortunately “also means opposing any U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine.” However, we should also take note that they somehow relativize this statement by saying: “Opposing U.S. arms to Ukraine is not the same as criticizing Ukrainians for accepting arms from NATO. We should not do that.”
They justify their position by arguing that socialists in the U.S. should focus on opposing their “own” imperialism. “The primary role of U.S. revolutionaries regarding foreign policy is to win as many workers as possible away from support of U.S. imperialism. (…) As an organization in the U.S., Workers’ Voice has forgotten this primary objective. It is so concerned about winning support from Ukrainian workers that it ignores its primary duty of opposing U.S. imperialism.”
In addition, the RSOP/DC/SRS statement shares with the FT the analysis, albeit with some ambiguity, that the Ukraine War is primarily a “proxy war” between NATO and Russia. “The Workers’ Voice position is wrong on two counts: First, the war in Ukraine is not only a war of national independence. It is also an inter-imperialist conflict.”
Based on such a wrong assessment, the comrades argue that the Ukraine’s right of national self-determination is only a subordinated factor. “If a call for self-determination of a nation was used primarily to back the interests of one imperialist power against another, Marxists opposed it. One clear example was the case of Serbia in 1914. (…) The analogy of Serbia 1914 and Ukraine 2022 may not be exact, but it does have strong common elements. Marxists today would like to see Ukraine defeat Russia and win its independence. However, we cannot support U.S. imperialist intervention in this conflict. We must first oppose “our own” imperialist power.”
Here too, the comrades’ position is somehow contradictory as they also express their sympathy for the Ukrainian cause: “Of course we want Ukrainians to defeat the Russian invasion but we cannot sacrifice our opposition to U.S. imperialism to try to bring that about.”
We should finally also note that the RSOP/DC/SRS statement distinguishes itself positively from the FT analysis by suggesting that not only the U.S. but also Russia is an imperialist power. [5]
On national wars and imperialist interference
As we did explain on numerous occasions, it is wrong to characterize the war in the Ukraine primarily as a “proxy war”. Of course, it is true that such an element exists since it takes place against the background of an accelerating inter-imperialist rivalry where both camps attempt to utilize the war to their advantage.
However, this has been the case in nearly all national wars which took place in periods of Great Power rivalry. Just think about France’s support for the U.S. War of Independence against Britain in 1775-83, the support of France and other Western power for the Polish insurrection against Russian occupation in 1863-64, the support of Napoleon III for the Italian Risorgimento, Russia’s support for the Balkan peoples in their war against the Ottoman Empire in 1912, Western and Nazi Germany’s support for Ethiopia against Italy in 1935-36, Western support for China as well as for various partisan struggles in South East Asia as well as in Europe during World War II, etc. Such kind of interference by one or several Great Powers did not remove the legitimate character of such national wars. [6]
The comrades’ reference to Serbia and its role in World War I is misplaced. This was a World War with all Great Powers participating so that ¾ of the world population was affected by this catastrophe. The Entente powers sent armies to the Balkans where the Serbian troops fought as part of their joint command. Today, no Western Power has deployed its troops to wage war against Russia – neither in the Ukraine nor anywhere else. Of course, this could change in the future and, as we have repeatedly said since 24 February, this could change the character of the Ukraine War and, consequently, our tactics. But it would be utterly wrong to define our tactics for today on the basis of possible developments tomorrow.
Furthermore, the comrades should take into account that the relationship between Russia and the Ukraine has been historically shaped by national oppression. The Ukrainians fight Putin’s invasion not because Western governments tell them to do so but because they want to keep their fundamental national rights. Surely, Western weapons make their struggle militarily more effective. Without such weapons they would be forced to wage a more “primitive” war with a larger component of guerrilla struggle. But their goals would be pretty much the same as they are currently: defeating the Russian occupiers and liberating the occupied territories.
We ask those comrades criticising our analysis: what would the Ukraine do differently without Western support? Would they stop fighting the Russian invaders and rather welcome them? Would they support Russification, pardon “Denazification”? Would they not trying to liberate their territories? The answers to such questions are obvious!
We repeat that this does not mean that we deny that there exists a “proxy element” in this conflict. This is why we have always insisted that revolutionaries in both imperialist camps must reject all forms of chauvinist-militarist policy. This includes strong opposition to economic and financial sanctions as well as to all forms of chauvinist hatred against “Russian culture”, “Western LGBT decadence”, etc.
Does support for deliveries of arms mean support for U.S. military intervention?
As we already said, the RSOP/DC/SRS statement claims that socialists should oppose military aid for the Ukrainian resistance because that would represent a form of “U.S. imperialist intervention in this conflict.“ This is a wrong argument.
First, if military aid would transform a national war into a proxy war in the service of this or that Great Power, there would have been hardly any national war in history. As we noted above, such a form of intervention of one or the other imperialist power has happened many times in history. We ask the RSOP/DC/SRS comrades: were the U.S. Trotskyists wrong in supporting the Chinese national war against Japanese imperialism from 1937 onwards? Were they wrong to do so despite the material support which Washington lent to China and despite the economic sanctions which it imposed against the Land of the Rising Sun? Were they wrong to do so during World War II when U.S. imperialism was at war with Tokyo? And we could ask the same question about the national war of the Yugoslavian partisans and various other struggles during World War II, about the Ethiopian War in 1935-36 when the Western powers imposed sanctions against Italy, etc. In our opinion, the Fourth International was absolutely right in continuing their support for all these just wars of national defense.
The comrades might object that one must not be naïve as the Western powers give weapons not because they are interested in the Ukraine’s national self-determination but for their own reason. Obviously, this is true. However, this is not the whole story. It is the same with the Ukrainian side. They ask for weapons not because they want to serve Western interests but because they need such to fight back against Putin’s invasion. Both sides have their “egoistic” reasons. In one case, these are imperialist motives. In the other case these are the motives of a people in a semi-colonial country resisting the occupation of another Great Power. In the case of the Ukraine War, these two interests overlap. In such a situation, Marxists have to differentiate. While we oppose the interests of U.S. imperialism, we also support national self-determination of oppressed nations. Hence, we consider Ukraine “egoism” as legitimate and, therefore, support military aid for their cause.
Another objection might be that military aid is just another form of imperialist intervention like imperialist sanctions. We think this is also a mistaken view. In our opinion, support for military aid must not be confused with support for imperialist sanctions and expropriation as there is a clear difference between these two things. Imperialist sanctions and expropriation hands over, or increases, economic power of an imperialist state and its monopoly bourgeoisie. In contrast, military aid hands over weapons to the Ukraine. One measure strengthens an imperialist state, the other strengthens a semi-colonial country under attack by a Great Power. In other words, there exists a difference in class character between these measures.
A critique might object that military aid might increase the influence of the donor. Surely, this is the case to a certain degree. But this does not mean that such aid automatically transforms the relationship into one of a master and his servant. There are numerous cases where such military aid did not result in such a relation. Think about the U.S. Independence War, about the partisans on the Balkans, etc. The task of socialists is not to oppose such military aid for a just war but to oppose any political conditions attached. Likewise, socialists in a country like the Ukraine have to counter any influence of imperialist “friends” and to advocate a policy of working-class independence.
Supporting military aid means voting for voting for military budget?
The RSOP/DC/SRS statement also raises another criticism: “If Workers’ Voice had representatives in Congress, its voting position would be very similar to the pro-imperialist members of the DSA! They would presumably vote for continuing the U.S./NATO arms shipments to Ukraine. This would be like Social Democratic parliamentarians in 1914 Germany voting for “war credits” for World War I. (…) This is not a revolutionary Marxist position!”
We are not without criticism of the LIT comrades (to which Workers Voice belong) as they advocate imperialist sanctions against Russia – and at the same time deny the latter’s imperialist character! But on this issue, the RSOP/DC/SRS comrades are mistaken. Supporting military aid does not mean one would have to vote in the parliament for the governments’ bill. This would be a grave opportunist mistake since such a vote would reflect confidence in the (imperialist) governments foreign and military policy towards the Ukraine.
Leon Trotsky had a similar discussion with Shachtman in 1937, at that time a leader of the U.S. section of the Fourth International. He reported about this discussion in his well-known book “In Defense of Marxism”.
“On September 18, 1937, Shachtman wrote me:
“You say, ‘If we would have a member in the Cortes he would vote against the military budget of Negrin.’ Unless this is a typographical error it seems to us to be a nonsequitur. If, as we all contend, the element of an imperialist war is not dominant at the present time in the Spanish struggle, and if instead the decisive element is still the struggle between the decaying bourgeois democracy, with all that it involves, on the one side, and fascism on the other, and further if we are obliged to give military assistance to the struggle against fascism, we don’t see how it would be possible to vote in the Cortes against the military budget. … If a Bolshevik-Leninist on the Huesca front were asked by a Socialist comrade why his representative in the Cortes voted against the proposal by Negrin to devote a million pesetas to the purchase of rifles for the front, what would this Bolshevik-Leninist reply? It doesn’t seem to us that he would have an effective answer. …” (My emphasis.)
This letter astounded me. Shachtman was willing to express confidence in the perfidious Negrin government on the purely negative basis that the “element of an imperialist war” was not dominant in Spain.
On September 20, 1937, I replied to Shachtman:
“To vote the military budget of the Negrin government signifies to vote him political confidence. … To do it would be a crime. How we explain our vote to the anarchist workers? Very simply: We have not the slightest confidence in the capacity of this government to conduct the war and assure victory. We accuse this government of protecting the rich and starving the poor. This government must be smashed. So long as we are not strong enough to replace it, we are fighting under its command. But on every occasion we express openly our nonconfidence in it: it is the only one possibility to mobilize the masses politically against this government and to prepare its overthrow. Any other politics would be a betrayal of the revolution.”
The tone of my reply only feebly reflects the … amazement which Shachtman’s opportunist position produced in me. Isolated mistakes are of course unavoidable but today, two and a half years later, this correspondence is illuminated with new light. Since we defend bourgeois democracy against fascism, Shachtman reasons, we therefore cannot refuse confidence to the bourgeois government.” [7]
The RSOP/DC/SRS comrades basically repeat Shachtman’s logic and conclude from this that one must not support weapon deliveries for the Ukraine.
U.S. revolutionaries need to break with “Americanism”!
We shall conclude our article with pointing to a methodological problem in the RSOP/DC/SRS statement. It seems to us to that the comrades suffer from an extraordinary national-centredness which they disguise by displaying a hard-core anti-imperialist approach against their “own” ruling class.
As we noted above, the comrades recognise not only the imperialist character of Russia but express also their sympathy for the Ukrainian people (“we want Ukrainians to defeat the Russian invasion “). They even say that they do “not criticize Ukrainians for accepting arms from NATO.” At the same time, they oppose such military aid and accuse Workers’ Voice for its supposed “support for U.S. imperialist intervention”.
How do the RSOP/DC/SRS comrades justify such a contradictory position? Basically, by reducing a key issue of world politics and of internationalist struggle to a national, American issue. A war in Eastern Europe is viewed with American glasses and subordinated to what these comrades consider as tasks of American socialists. Comrades, this is not internationalism, this is Americanism!
From where did you get the idea that U.S. socialists should subordinate their international solidarity to their policy of fundamental opposition against their own ruling class? Certainly not from Marx, Lenin or Trotsky! Marx and Engels called the labor organisations in Western Europe to support the Polish insurrection in 1863-64 against Russia despite the pro-Polish sympathies of Napoleon III and other governments. As we did show in other works, U.S. Trotskyists continued their support for China despite the fact that Washington also sided with the Middle Kingdom. [8]
No, comrades, surely, the U.S. is a beautiful country but, sorry to say so, it is not the centre of the world! You should derive your tactics from an analysis of world politics and from the internationalist tasks of international socialism – not from national considerations of American socialists!
Trotsky’s words against some ultra-leftists which demonstrated a similar mechanistic approach have not lost their relevance. „In ninety cases out of a hundred the workers actually place a minus sign where the bourgeoisie places a plus sign. In ten cases, however, they are forced to fix the same sign as the bourgeoisie but with their own seal, in which is expressed their mistrust of the bourgeoisie. The policy of the proletariat is not at all automatically derived from the policy of the bourgeoisie, bearing only the opposite sign – this would make every sectarian a master strategist; no, the revolutionary party must each time orient itself independently in the internal as well as the external situation, arriving at those decisions which correspond best to the interests of the proletariat. This rule applies just as much to the war period as to the period of peace.“ [9]
Furthermore, comrades, proletarian internationalism does not mean that every socialist organization focuses on opposing its “own” bourgeoisie. Surely, socialists in imperialist countries must never defend “their fatherland” and neither must they support the policy of their respective ruling class. But their tactics towards this or that class struggle in another country, this or that national liberation war on another continent – all this must be derived from an international and not from an American perspective!
If opposition against one’s “own” bourgeoisie is sufficient for internationalism, what for do socialists need an International? This basically means “everyone for himself” but no joint strategy, commonly elaborated and subordinated to common international priorities in the class struggle! Such an approach is typical for national-centered groups but must not be the starting point for internationalist socialists!
We hope that the RSOP/DC/SRS comrades reconsider their position. This would be all the more urgent because the coming period will see more such kind of national wars combined with one or the other form of Great Power interference. Revolutionaries need to take an internationalist position, elaborated with comrades in other countries, so that they can jointly intervene in these class struggles.
[1] We refer readers to a special page on our website where more than 150 RCIT documents on the Ukraine War and the current NATO-Russia conflict are compiled: https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/compilation-of-documents-on-nato-russia-conflict/. In particular we refer to the RCIT Manifesto: Ukraine War: A Turning Point of World Historic Significance. Socialists must combine the revolutionary defense of the Ukraine against Putin’s invasion with the internationalist struggle against Russian as well as NATO and EU imperialism, 1 March 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/manifesto-ukraine-war-a-turning-point-of-world-historic-significance/
[2] For our critique of LIT see e.g. Michael Pröbsting: Shall Socialists Call for “Nuclear Disarmament”? A comradely critique of a pacifist slogan raised by LIT-CI, 2 October 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/shall-socialists-call-for-nuclear-disarmament/; by the same author: Ukraine War: Revolutionary Defensism and Non-Revolutionary Defensism. A comradely critique of LIT-CI which falsely combines its defence of the Ukraine with support for Western imperialist sanctions against Russia, 15 July 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/ukraine-war-revolutionary-defensism-and-non-revolutionary-defensism/; Ukraine War: Supporting Western Sanctions Is Impermissible for Socialists! Support for the Ukrainian resistance must be combined with consistent anti-imperialism (a comradely critique of LIT-CI), 1 June 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/ukraine-war-supporting-western-sanctions-is-impermissible-for-socialists/; LIT-CI “Would Undoubtedly Defend Russia”. Recent articles of LIT-CI reveal a dangerous step towards social-imperialism, 29 March 2022, www.thecommunists.net, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/lit-ci-would-undoubtedly-defend-russia/; Is Russia “Dependent on Western Imperialism”? Critical remarks on the LIT-CI statement on the current NATO-Russia conflict, 14 February 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/critical-remarks-on-lit-ci-statement-on-the-current-nato-russia-conflict/; For an extensive critique of the position of FT/PTS on the Ukraine War see e.g. Michael Pröbsting: No to Workers Boycott against Russia but Yes to Boycotting the Ukraine? On the support of the PTS/FT for boycott actions against arms shipments for the Ukraine, 26 March 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/pts-ft-workers-sanctions-against-ukraine/.
[3] Michael Pröbsting: Ukraine War: A Mistaken Polemic. Reply to a critique of the FT/PTS of LIT-CI’s defence of the Ukraine, 13 September 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/ukraine-war-a-mistaken-polemic/
[4] Revolutionary Socialist Organizing Project, Denver Communists and Seattle Revolutionary Socialists: No U.S./NATO Arms to Ukraine! 22 December 2022, https://www.leftvoice.org/no-u-s-nato-arms-to-ukraine/. All quotes are from this statement if not indicated otherwise.
[5] The RCIT has published numerous documents about capitalism in Russia and its rise to an imperialist power. The most important ones are several pamphlets by Michael Pröbsting: The Peculiar Features of Russian Imperialism. A Study of Russia’s Monopolies, Capital Export and Super-Exploitation in the Light of Marxist Theory, 10 August 2021, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-peculiar-features-of-russian-imperialism/; by the same author: Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism and the Rise of Russia as a Great Power. On the Understanding and Misunderstanding of Today’s Inter-Imperialist Rivalry in the Light of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism. Another Reply to Our Critics Who Deny Russia’s Imperialist Character, August 2014, http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialism-theory-and-russia/; Russia as a Great Imperialist Power. The formation of Russian Monopoly Capital and its Empire – A Reply to our Critics, 18 March 2014 (this pamphlet contains a document written in 2001 in which we established for the first time our characterisation of Russia as imperialist),http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/; see also these essays by the same author: Russia: An Imperialist Power or a “Non-Hegemonic Empire in Gestation”? A reply to the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz, in: New Politics, 11 August 2022, at https://newpol.org/russia-an-imperialist-power-or-a-non-hegemonic-empire-in-gestation-a-reply-to-the-argentinean-economist-claudio-katz-an-essay-with-8-tables/; Russian Imperialism and Its Monopolies, in: New Politics Vol. XVIII No. 4, Whole Number 72, Winter 2022, https://newpol.org/issue_post/russian-imperialism-and-its-monopolies/; Once Again on Russian Imperialism (Reply to Critics). A rebuttal of a theory which claims that Russia is not an imperialist state but would be rather “comparable to Brazil and Iran”, 30 March 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/once-again-on-russian-imperialism-reply-to-critics/. See various other RCIT documents on this issue at a special sub-page on the RCIT’s website: https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-russia-as-imperialist-powers/.
[6] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: A Marxist Slogan and its Caricature. On the social-imperialist distortion of the slogan “The Main Enemy Is At Home” in the context of the Ukraine War and the Taiwan Strait Crisis, 17 August 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/the-marxist-slogan-the-main-enemy-is-at-home-and-its-social-imperialist-distortion/; by the same author: The Ukraine War and the Second Sino-Japanese War: A Historical Analogy. The dual tactic of Marxists in the Ukraine War today draws on the approach of their predecessors in the war between China and Japan in 1937-41, 10 March 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/worldwide/global/ukraine-war-second-sino-japanese-war-a-historical-analogy/
[7] Leon Trotsky: From a Scratch—To the Danger of Gangrene (1940), in: Leon Trotsky: In Defense of Marxism (1942), Pathfinder Press, New York 1973, pp.128-129, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/22-scratch2.htm
[8] See on this e.g. Michael Pröbsting: A Marxist Slogan and its Caricature. On the social-imperialist distortion of the slogan “The Main Enemy Is At Home” in the context of the Ukraine War and the Taiwan Strait Crisis; by the same author: The Struggle of Revolutionaries in Imperialist Heartlands against Wars of their “Own” Ruling Class. Examples from the history of the RCIT and its predecessor organisation in the last four decades, 2 September 2022, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/the-struggle-of-revolutionaries-in-imperialist-heartlands-against-wars-of-their-own-ruling-class/
[9] Leon Trotsky: Learn to Think: A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists (1938); in: Trotsky Writings 1937-38, pp.332-333, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/05/think.htm
FAQs
Who has helped Ukraine the most? ›
ukraine war
Data from the Ukraine Support Tracker shows that, as a single country, the U.S. has provided by far the most aid to Ukraine, followed by EU institutions ($37.2 billion), the UK ($7.5 billion), Germany ($5.8 billion) and Canada ($5.1 billion).
This assistance package will provide Ukraine with hundreds of additional armored vehicles, including Stryker armored personnel carriers, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled vehicles.
Why is United States helping Ukraine? ›The United States, our allies, and our partners worldwide are united in support of Ukraine in response to Russia's premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustified war against Ukraine.
What is the issue between Russia and Ukraine Short answer? ›Relations between the two countries became hostile after the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, which was followed by Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, and the war in Donbas, in which Russia backed the separatist fighters of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic.
Who has helped Ukraine with weapons? ›Nato members have pledged to send more ammunition to Ukraine, to make sure its armed forces don't run short. The US, the UK and Germany are also sending tanks, and Germany is allowing other Western countries to send German-made tanks from their fleets.
Who in the world is helping Ukraine? ›US, EU and European states provide most of the military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.
How many countries are sending military aid to Ukraine? ›The Ukraine Support Tracker lists and quantifies military, financial, and humanitarian aid pledged to Ukraine since January 24, 2022. It covers 40 countries, specifically the EU member states, other members of the G7, as well as Australia, South Korea, Turkey, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, China, Taiwan and India.
How many countries are helping Ukraine? ›More than 70 countries and institutions have pledged over 1 billion euros to help Ukrainians through the winter amid the Kremlin's ongoing military attacks on civilian infrastructure, including the electricity grid.
How many tanks has Ukraine lost in Ukraine? ›Ukraine's total T-80 inventory in February 2022 was just 88 tanks, according to a count by one open-source analyst. In a year of hard fighting, the Ukrainian brigades have lost at least 42 T-80BVs that analysts can confirm: nearly half the inventory.
Why NATO not sending troops to Ukraine? ›Why isn't Nato sending troops to help Ukraine? Nato countries are not sending troops to Ukraine for fear of provoking a direct conflict with Russia. They also refused to operate a no-fly zone over Ukraine, for the same reason.
What is the latest weapons from US to Ukraine? ›
The major announcement was the inclusion of 50 M2-A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles for the Ukrainian military. These armored vehicles — enough to outfit a mechanized infantry battalion — will come with 500 tube-launched, optically sighted, wire-guided, or TOW, anti-tank missiles and 250,000 rounds of 25 mm ammunition.
What would happen if the US went to war with Russia? ›A full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would see global food systems obliterated and over 5 billion people die of hunger.
Why is Ukraine important to world? ›Ukraine is an important breadbasket, producing around half of the world's sunflower oil. According to the USDA , Ukraine accounts for 15% of global trade in corn and 10% of of global wheat trade.
What are the effects of Russia and Ukraine war? ›The Russia-Ukraine war created a great deal of geopolitical turbulence and a host of problems in the global economy. Since the war began, prices for energy and agricultural products have started to rise. Instability in the global economy has different effects on different regions.
Is Russia running out of ammunition? ›The U.S. government just assessed that Russia will run out of serviceable ammunition in 2023.
How many tanks has Russia lost in Ukraine? ›LONDON—Russia has likely lost more than 2,000 tanks in its war in Ukraine, more than half of its operational tank fleet, according to estimates released Wednesday from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Has Germany sent weapons to Ukraine? ›'Unwavering solidarity' Germany already has delivered significant military aid to Ukraine, including Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft guns and the first of four IRIS-T surface-to-air missile systems.
Who is Ukraine's best ally? ›The United States enjoys cordially friendly and strategic relations with Ukraine and attaches great importance to the success of Ukraine's transition to a democratic state with a flourishing free market economy.
How strong is NATO compared to Russia? ›The combined total of Nato military personnel currently exceeds 5.4 million – around four times as many as Russia, according to Statista. It has about five times as many aircraft, four times as many armoured vehicles and three times as many military ships.
Are any countries sending military help to Ukraine? ›The US is the largest provider of military assistance to Ukraine, having committed $30 billion since the start of the Biden administration. $29.3 billion of that assistance has been provided since February 2022.
How many tanks has Ukraine received from the west? ›
KYIV, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Ukraine will receive 120 to 140 Western tanks in a "first wave" of deliveries from a coalition of 12 countries, Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Tuesday.
How much equipment has Russia lost in Ukraine? ›The total figure for Russia's equipment losses -- when infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and other vehicles are added to the tanks -- is almost 9,100, Oryx's website says. Ukraine's total equipment losses are 2,934, Oryx says.
How many tanks has Ukraine knocked out? ›Ukraine's Army General Staff (AGS) per its Jan. 30 morning situation estimate reported AFU units have to date claimed they knocked out, destroyed or captured 3,601 Russian main battle tanks since the start of the war – literally more tanks than the entire active duty Russian army had operational at the start of 2022.
How many tanks did Ukraine get? ›German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in parliament on Wednesday said that his government would send 14 Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, wrapping up months of deliberation and several days of tense negotiations with NATO partners.
Why has Russia lost so many tanks in Ukraine? ›No, Russia's accelerating tank losses are the result of leadership and morale problems more than they are any technological imbalance on the battlefield. Half of the tanks the Russians have written off since early September were abandoned by their crews and seized by the Ukrainians.
Can a country be kicked out of NATO? ›As of 2023, no member state has rescinded their membership, although it has been considered by several countries. Notwithstanding, a number of former dependencies of NATO members have never applied for membership subsequent to their becoming independent states.
When did Russia leave NATO? ›In October 2021, following an incident in which NATO expelled eight Russian officials from its Brussels headquarters, Russia suspended its mission to NATO and ordered the closure of the NATO office in Moscow.
Can the US pay off its debt? ›Can the U.S. Pay Off its Debt? As budget deficits are one of the factors that contribute to the national debt, the U.S. can take measures to pay off its debt through budget surpluses. The last time that the U.S. held a budget surplus was in 2001.
What country has the US given the most aid to? ›But since Russia's invasion in February, Ukraine has become far and away the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. It's the first time that a European country has held the top spot since the Harry S. Truman administration directed vast sums into rebuilding the continent through the Marshall Plan after World War II.
What countries does the US borrow money from? ›- Japan. Japan held $1.08 trillion in Treasury securities as of November 2022, beating out China as the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt.3 The low and negative yield market in Japan makes holding U.S. debt attractive. ...
- China. ...
- The United Kingdom. ...
- Belgium. ...
- Luxembourg.
Will Russia run out of weapons? ›
At a briefing on December 12th a senior American defence official said that, at current rates of use, Russia could sustain “fully serviceable” tube and rocket artillery ammunition only until early 2023.
What is the new US weapon 2022? ›Next Generation Squad Weapon
For the first time in 65 years, Soldiers will field a new standard service weapon. In the spring of 2022 the Army announced that the Next Generation Squad Weapon, consisting of the XM5 rifle and XM250 light machine gun, will replace the M4 carbine, M16 rifle and the M249 light machine gun.
The United States has given Ukraine dozens of different munitions and weapon systems. In most instances, the amounts given to Ukraine are relatively small compared to U.S. inventories and production capabilities.
Who is stronger America or Russia? ›Ranked 73rd. In short, Russia is ranked 2nd out of 140 in military strength while the US is ranked 1st. As per the army population, Russia has 142,320,790 soldiers while The US has 334,998,398 soldiers. The available manpower is 69,737,187 with Russia and 147,399,295 with the United States.
Has the US ever invaded Russia if so when? ›Unfortunately, this is not the plot for another trashy mini-series. The United States actually did invade and occupy Russia during the end of World War I. An understanding of America's invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union in 1918-1919 is important for two reasons.
Why can't Americans go to Russia? ›Do not travel to Russia due to the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces, the potential for harassment against U.S. citizens by Russian government security officials, the singling out of U.S. citizens in Russia by Russian government security officials including for detention, the ...
What does Ukraine supply the world? ›Agricultural products are Ukraine's most important exports. In 2021 they totaled $27.8 billion, accounting for 41 percent of the country's $68 billion in overall exports. Ukraine is normally the world's top producer of sunflower meal, oil, and seed and the world's top exporter of sunflower meal and oil.
Why is the Ukraine war important to the US? ›The war in Ukraine raises national security concerns for the United States and its European allies. Successful assistance to Ukraine and deterrence of Russia from further aggression—in Ukraine and elsewhere—will depend on continued efforts by DOD and the intelligence community.
How will the war in Ukraine affect us? ›The global food supply will likely be disrupted as well. And we can expect to face pressure from our European allies to take in Ukrainian refugees, who are now fleeing their country in droves. The war in Ukraine will also drive inflation even higher, resulting in less buying power for every American family.
How is the war in Ukraine affecting the world economy? ›The global economy is expected to slow further in the coming year as the massive and historic energy shock triggered by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine continues to spur inflationary pressures, sapping confidence and household purchasing power and increasing risks worldwide, according to the OECD's latest ...
How will the Russia-Ukraine war affect the economy? ›
Shocks from the Ukraine conflict will cause the economy in the larger region of Europe and Central Asia to fall by more than 4% this year. By the end of the year, Russia's economy is expected to shrink by over 11%, and Ukraine's by over 45%, the bank predicts.
How will Russia and Ukraine affect the US economy? ›American businesses depend on Russia and Ukraine for a plethora of commodities. According to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (Figures 1a and 1b), four critical ones— neon gas, palladium, platinum and pig iron — will be in short supply.
Why are US allies with Ukraine? ›The United States established diplomatic relations with Ukraine in 1991, following its independence from the Soviet Union. The United States attaches great importance to the success of Ukraine's transition to a modern democratic state with a flourishing market economy.
What is America's involvement with Ukraine? ›U.S. assistance to Ukraine is targeted to promote political and economic reform and to address urgent humanitarian needs. The U.S. has consistently encouraged Ukraine's transition to a democratic society with a prosperous market-based economy.
Who is the United States allies with 2022? ›Qatar. On January 31, 2022, President Joe Biden announced that Qatar would be made a major non-NATO ally, citing its assistance during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021.
Will NATO defend Ukraine? ›And it does not change our commitment to support Ukraine. NATO is not party to the conflict. But we provide support to Ukraine so it can uphold its right for self-defence, enshrined in the UN Charter. Ours is a defensive Alliance.
Which countries are allies with the US? ›The United States has bilateral relations with many countries in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. also has treaty allies – Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and Thailand.