I just want to circle about something you just said about these non-military solutions being

in the way.

And I want to come back to the case to be made for why the US should arm Ukraine.

Oh, yeah.

This is something that is I'm struggling with as a leftist because the kind of humanitarian

case, the humanitarian desire to support a group of people who is being invaded citizens

through no fault of their own who are trying to stay in their homes and protect their communities

is obvious.

But the part of the conversation that gets hop skipped over is whether or not the United

States of America should be playing a role in supporting the distribution of arms.

So there's like a couple of parts to this.

One, America's involvement period, two, whether it should become from offering quote-unquote

lethal aid as opposed to humanitarian aid.

That first question is really the imperialism question, right?

How is America determining?

How is the nation determining when it doesn't does not get into conflicts?

Because the fact that it's failure to intervene in other humanitarian moments, some of which

are ongoing and some of which are of our own design, we contributed to, causes some on

the left to see this as despite being perhaps more morally virtuous than other moments, ultimately

reflective of some kind of pretext and absent in ability to articulate a kind of moral line

here, a moral litmus test, an interventionist litmus test, you're always going to have people

who at the end of the day, despite their kind of emotional response or their abstract humanitarian

...