No, Ukraine should rely on their own resources to defend themselves

A common non sequitur in this line of thinking is to deflect by saying, “But the US did X,” as if past American actions somehow justify Russia’s current aggression. This is disingenuous; one can criticise American military interventions without using them to excuse Russia’s invasion. The notion that opposing Russia equates to supporting American wars is overly simplistic and disregards the unique context of each conflict. Another flawed argument is that, because the US used nuclear weapons in WWII, Russia is somehow justified in threatening nuclear force to achieve conquest in Ukraine. This false equivalence dismisses critical differences in context, motive, and impact and undermines the importance of maintaining strong, principled opposition to wars of conquest in any form.

Ultimately, being willing to sacrifice a nation of 44 million people to appease an autocratic government that, as of writing this, has occupied parts of more than one nation, is inviting it to help itself. We learned this lesson with trying to appease Hitler to avoid War; we cannot afford to try appeasement again. The fear that the Kremlin will use nuclear weapons against the West and its allies for aiding Ukraine is unfounded; there is no benefit to Russia to use nuclear weapons for any reason other than existence. They threatened nuclear weapons and invasion at every step of the way, and it has yet to manifest, because they know that they cannot pull it off. We cannot keep treating russia like it is an omnipotent state, else we give them power to seek dominion over sovereign nations.