The U.S. debate over aid to Ukraine has shifted from a moral argument to a negotiation over long-term strategic gains, revealing the complex intersection of values, geopolitics, and practical military concerns.
While much of the conversation focuses on military hardware and funding levels, Dylan Jennings, instructor of history, outlined a deeper imperative behind American involvement: a commitment to political ideals and moral responsibility.
“Any nation that seeks to be more democratic should be a nation I think the United States should want to help,” Jennings said.
In Jennings’s view, support for Ukraine should be more than just strategic; it is fundamentally about standing beside nations that share basic democratic values in opposing authoritarianism.
“By supporting Ukraine, we actually live up to the values that we profess to many nations that we believe in,” he said.
Among younger Hill students, there seems to be skepticism with respect to the size and symbolic representation of US support. Brennan Klier ’28 would prefer to see limited aid tied up with reservations about possible unintended consequences.
“Maybe, a couple dollars,” Klier said. “I think we don’t want to send too much because then it sets, like, hostile intentions, and it doesn’t send good messages to Russia, which is a major power,” Klier said.
Klier believed that aid is justified, but only when large powers commit aggression against small ones.
“I think small increments can help Ukraine because it’s obviously unfair to see a small nation be bullied by a bigger one,” he said.
Some have argued that US influence in Ukraine is negatively affecting both our nations making Ukraine overly dependent both on the time and character of the aid extended from the U.S. Declan Reardon ’28 is a fellow student who thinks there should be sympathy for Ukraine but that they need to carry their own weight when it comes to defense
“I think that Ukraine needs to start helping themselves, instead of wholly relying on us,” he said.
He insisted that it is also important not to turn this into a direct confrontation with Russia, for this will accelerate the escalation of risks, in his view.
“Russia’s our enemy but that doesn’t mean we should try to fight them,” he said.
Whatever the argument on either side, Klier believes U.S. aid is crucial to the defense of Ukraine.
“The US is, like, a large economic power,” Reardon said. “So I feel like it’s any large economic power’s duty to do a little bit to help.”
To Jennings, Ukraine does not only qualify as an ideological partner but also a strategic ally. With one of the largest armies in Europe, Ukraine stands to provide robust intelligence and experience in the goal to deter Russian aggression.
“Ukraine is one of the largest militaries in Europe. If you’re the United States… it would be a nice tool,” he said.
This war is also a battlefield for testing modern warfare functions and technological paradigms, providing critical lessons for the U.S. military.
“Our military can learn quite a bit, especially how to use drones for instance in warfare,” Jennings said.
As well as boosting our military, he also argues that aid to Ukraine will enhance American industrial might.
“It enhances our manufacturing on the domestic front,” Jennings said. “It weakens our geopolitical enemy without a single American casualty.”
Assisting Ukraine serves as a down payment for peace in the future rather than being charity. Should Ukraine be successful and join NATO, that would change the balance of power in Europe and be detrimental to the emergence of major wars.
“This is not charity,” Jennings said. “It is about our geopolitical strategic interest to assist Ukraine.”