-
I'm not talking about humanitarian aid, I absolutely support that, and looking after refugees who are able to get out. I'm talking about military assistance - giving the Ukranian government the means to prolong the conflict. That's what I don't support.
frank9755-
Oh I see. That's a tough question. If (and it's a big if) the stories about the shortcomings of the Russian army are true, it seems possible that if Ukraine is given a flow of good weapons and training, Ukraine could stop them advancing and force them to settle for a 'Crimea corridor' strip. Wouldn't that be better than allowing Russia to occupy Kyiv etc? It's impossible to answer really...but my instinct would be that if the majority of Ukrainians really want to fight, they should be helped. It's their country. Plus, if Putin is given an easy win, he will probably go on to terrorise people somewhere else.
nick_h.
That's a rather simplistic argument if you don't mind my saying so. For one thing you're overlooking the newness of the Ukraine refugee issue. The perceived needs of Ukrainians have shock value now, but that will fade. In a few months some people will say "I've already given to Ukrainians once, I can't keep doing it". Others will get bored and move on to the next crisis. Palestinians, Yemenis, Somalis and others have all been through the same cycle. A DEC appeal is started when a crisis is new, but as the DEC organisers would no doubt confirm, public support wanes over time.
The public also get crisis fatigue, because there are so many crises happening simultaneously, and the almost universal availability of electricity and camera phones and internet services and social media means that we get information about every crisis pushed at us all the time. It would be easy to make a list of 500 groups of people in desperate need, people whose lives we could save for the price of a beer. Then there's the animals in need. And the plants. Getting the help you deserve is a competitive business.