On 28 March 2024, “Open to Debate,” in conjunction with the Council on Foreign Relations, hosted a live debate in NYC on the question: "Should Congress Stop Funding the War in Ukraine?" Retired Army Lt. Colonel Danny Davis and I answered yes: it was the morally and strategically correct policy to pursue. Ambassador Paula Dobriansky and Heather Conley, the President of the German Marshall Fund, argued no: continued funding of Ukraine’s war effort is the smart policy moving forward.
Good debate, but no new arguments. Biggest takeaway for me: 2 male vets want war to end whilst 2 women who've never seen combat want war to continue. And they should have challenged on assertion Putin breaks all agreements. It was EU and UA who used Minsk as a cover to buy time for UA to build up army.
Yes, it should. It should also stop funding the war in Palestine. The death and destruction caused by Israel should be condemned by the world. Actually, it was, at the UN, but the US vetoed it!!
As soon as the “no” side mentioned that American business interests in Ukraine needed protection, I realized that is what this is really about. Yes, deny Russia this country, but by all means, don’t deny U.S. corporations their investment and profits.
I'm a bit astonished by the low intellectual level of the discussion, regarding the level of education, work experience and current positions of the participants.
Ambassador Dobriansky making the military Keynesian point several times over ('most of this money we're spending on Ukraine actually stimulates our own economy and innovation'), then a few minutes later saying this war is going well because Putin is now spending a lot of money on his military.
Hence, Russia and Putin are getting weaker.
Miss Conley constantly time wasting, trying to put some emotional angle into an already not very convincing argumentation. Almost got somewhere with her closing argument until the 'Ukrainians are choosing to die for their country' was somehow considered a positive note to end on. And of course the '2013 revolution had nothing to do with the US' sidenote is not going to get her an Oscar.
John and Daniel could have done a better job at specifying why they think that the war is a lost cause in general and why they think 2024 will bring moving frontlines as opposed to 2023.
Obviously not to convince the opposite side (Putin cannot be trusted so no negotiation in any way make any sense, any other bad actor in the world will identify with bad Putin and also start wars, the 'three days to Kiev' story...) but it would have been enlightening to many others.
Watching those two women make their arguments made me sick to my stomach. I agree with much that has been written so far. Thank you John for your continued commitment and work on this issue.
This debate reminds me of the words of that great American philosopher, Kenny Rogers: "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. (John and Danny). "You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table. There'll be time enough for counting, when the dealing's done." (Paula and Heather) The question is, which words of wisdom apply here? John and Danny start with the fundamental reality of the situation. Paula and Heather refuse to believe what John and Danny are telling them. They essentially argue that the US needs to continue to make possible a losing game, because as long as the Ukrainian patriots are willing to continue to die for what they refuse to acknowledge is a losing game, it serves American geopolitical interests. I am with John and Danny. The latter course of conduct is deeply, deeply immoral.
The “No” side of this debate could barely contain their glee at the fact that they are actually advocating pumping a ton of money into the defense industry and creating a little “laboratory for innovation” in Ukraine. It is pretty gross. That said, as a socialist, I do not fully line up with Mearsheimer’s hawkishness on China either. While talk of international law and international institutions probably gets people laughed out of the room with the impotent state of both (after 30 years of assault by the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Israel), the imperative for a workable international diplomatic system with teeth to meet the challenges of climate change seems equally clear. Restraint and realism are certainly what is needed now, but it would be a shame if all of that was done simply in the service of a better cold war outcome than something like a better internationalist outcome.
'Hater' Conley deserves to be awarded the Swastika. These 'NO' advocates have already ruined Ukraine and Europe and are on their way to ruining the US as well. There are things that money cannot buy, common sense is one of them. Once again I agree with Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the voice of sanity in a turbulent ocean of madness and dark interests.
Does it matter that the debate happened to be male vs. female? Its men in Ukraine who have to fight while the women get a free pass. Perhaps men have a higher sensitivity to the risk?
In the fervor to continue pouring billions into Ukraine, Heather and Paula exhibit a stunning callousness towards the destructive realities of war, alongside a glaring ignorance of historical context. Their advocacy for unrestrained U.S. aid under the guise of moral obligation and strategic interests blatantly disregards the profound human costs—lives lost, families shattered, societies upended. It's morally reprehensible to position such geopolitical chess games over the value of human life.
Furthermore, their position suffers from a selective amnesia about historical precedents that caution against such aggressive postures. Recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the U.S. stood on the brink of nuclear war to prevent Soviet missiles on its borders. Yet, now, proponents like Heather and Paula deny Russia’s analogous concerns with NATO's encroachment—a hypocrisy that not only undermines their credibility but also betrays a dangerous bias in understanding global security dynamics.
Most disturbingly, there's an air of detachment in their arguments, as if the war's devastation is a distant concept rather than a brutal reality. If Heather, Paula, and indeed any staunch supporter of such policies believe so fervently in the righteousness of their stance, perhaps they should advocate for a policy where their own loved ones are the first to be drafted into these front-line combat roles they so zealously support. Maybe then, the real costs of war, the screams, the blood, and the tears, would become palpable to them.
This isn't just about strategic interests or demonstrating support for democratic values—it's about recognizing the weight of advocating for war. And until Heather, Paula, and their ilk can show a genuine grasp of both the historical echoes and the human tragedies their positions so flippantly ignore, their arguments remain not only fundamentally flawed but deeply inhumane.
I shared the recording since the day it was uploaded on YouTube. Even on LinkedIn. I was also one of those who believed that is a moral cause, at the beginning. In Romania we a political science professor who, from time to time, presented the situation from a realist perspective. Now I feel that the people, without knowing, have blood on their hands and any delay makes us more guilty. Ukrainians are not our suckers who have to pay with blood for our comfort or for the corrupted bureaucracy.
Good debate, but no new arguments. Biggest takeaway for me: 2 male vets want war to end whilst 2 women who've never seen combat want war to continue. And they should have challenged on assertion Putin breaks all agreements. It was EU and UA who used Minsk as a cover to buy time for UA to build up army.
Yes, it should. It should also stop funding the war in Palestine. The death and destruction caused by Israel should be condemned by the world. Actually, it was, at the UN, but the US vetoed it!!
As soon as the “no” side mentioned that American business interests in Ukraine needed protection, I realized that is what this is really about. Yes, deny Russia this country, but by all means, don’t deny U.S. corporations their investment and profits.
I'm a bit astonished by the low intellectual level of the discussion, regarding the level of education, work experience and current positions of the participants.
Ambassador Dobriansky making the military Keynesian point several times over ('most of this money we're spending on Ukraine actually stimulates our own economy and innovation'), then a few minutes later saying this war is going well because Putin is now spending a lot of money on his military.
Hence, Russia and Putin are getting weaker.
Miss Conley constantly time wasting, trying to put some emotional angle into an already not very convincing argumentation. Almost got somewhere with her closing argument until the 'Ukrainians are choosing to die for their country' was somehow considered a positive note to end on. And of course the '2013 revolution had nothing to do with the US' sidenote is not going to get her an Oscar.
John and Daniel could have done a better job at specifying why they think that the war is a lost cause in general and why they think 2024 will bring moving frontlines as opposed to 2023.
Obviously not to convince the opposite side (Putin cannot be trusted so no negotiation in any way make any sense, any other bad actor in the world will identify with bad Putin and also start wars, the 'three days to Kiev' story...) but it would have been enlightening to many others.
Watching those two women make their arguments made me sick to my stomach. I agree with much that has been written so far. Thank you John for your continued commitment and work on this issue.
This debate reminds me of the words of that great American philosopher, Kenny Rogers: "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. (John and Danny). "You never count your money when you're sittin' at the table. There'll be time enough for counting, when the dealing's done." (Paula and Heather) The question is, which words of wisdom apply here? John and Danny start with the fundamental reality of the situation. Paula and Heather refuse to believe what John and Danny are telling them. They essentially argue that the US needs to continue to make possible a losing game, because as long as the Ukrainian patriots are willing to continue to die for what they refuse to acknowledge is a losing game, it serves American geopolitical interests. I am with John and Danny. The latter course of conduct is deeply, deeply immoral.
The “No” side of this debate could barely contain their glee at the fact that they are actually advocating pumping a ton of money into the defense industry and creating a little “laboratory for innovation” in Ukraine. It is pretty gross. That said, as a socialist, I do not fully line up with Mearsheimer’s hawkishness on China either. While talk of international law and international institutions probably gets people laughed out of the room with the impotent state of both (after 30 years of assault by the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Israel), the imperative for a workable international diplomatic system with teeth to meet the challenges of climate change seems equally clear. Restraint and realism are certainly what is needed now, but it would be a shame if all of that was done simply in the service of a better cold war outcome than something like a better internationalist outcome.
'Hater' Conley deserves to be awarded the Swastika. These 'NO' advocates have already ruined Ukraine and Europe and are on their way to ruining the US as well. There are things that money cannot buy, common sense is one of them. Once again I agree with Professor John J. Mearsheimer, the voice of sanity in a turbulent ocean of madness and dark interests.
The United States should stop funding anything outside of its borders.
Does it matter that the debate happened to be male vs. female? Its men in Ukraine who have to fight while the women get a free pass. Perhaps men have a higher sensitivity to the risk?
In the fervor to continue pouring billions into Ukraine, Heather and Paula exhibit a stunning callousness towards the destructive realities of war, alongside a glaring ignorance of historical context. Their advocacy for unrestrained U.S. aid under the guise of moral obligation and strategic interests blatantly disregards the profound human costs—lives lost, families shattered, societies upended. It's morally reprehensible to position such geopolitical chess games over the value of human life.
Furthermore, their position suffers from a selective amnesia about historical precedents that caution against such aggressive postures. Recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the U.S. stood on the brink of nuclear war to prevent Soviet missiles on its borders. Yet, now, proponents like Heather and Paula deny Russia’s analogous concerns with NATO's encroachment—a hypocrisy that not only undermines their credibility but also betrays a dangerous bias in understanding global security dynamics.
Most disturbingly, there's an air of detachment in their arguments, as if the war's devastation is a distant concept rather than a brutal reality. If Heather, Paula, and indeed any staunch supporter of such policies believe so fervently in the righteousness of their stance, perhaps they should advocate for a policy where their own loved ones are the first to be drafted into these front-line combat roles they so zealously support. Maybe then, the real costs of war, the screams, the blood, and the tears, would become palpable to them.
This isn't just about strategic interests or demonstrating support for democratic values—it's about recognizing the weight of advocating for war. And until Heather, Paula, and their ilk can show a genuine grasp of both the historical echoes and the human tragedies their positions so flippantly ignore, their arguments remain not only fundamentally flawed but deeply inhumane.
I shared the recording since the day it was uploaded on YouTube. Even on LinkedIn. I was also one of those who believed that is a moral cause, at the beginning. In Romania we a political science professor who, from time to time, presented the situation from a realist perspective. Now I feel that the people, without knowing, have blood on their hands and any delay makes us more guilty. Ukrainians are not our suckers who have to pay with blood for our comfort or for the corrupted bureaucracy.
The applause for Meirsheimer was anemic. War lust- that's the U.S.
It was horrifying to hear your arguments labeled “Russian disinformation.” The nerve of your opponents!
Here are LLM-derived tabular, visual, and textual summaries of that debate:
https://complexiathesinker.substack.com/p/llm-over-should-congress-stop-funding
God those two ladies were insufferable