Response: Financial Support for the War in Ukraine Is Not the Path to Peace

Max Bergmann’s recent article in CSIS argues for ramping up Western financial and military support for Ukraine as a means to counter Russia’s aggression. However, such an approach risks perpetuating the conflict rather than resolving it. Here are key reasons why continued financial support for the war in Ukraine is a flawed strategy:

1. Prolonging Human Suffering

Increasing military aid fuels an endless cycle of violence. Bergmann in his article states, “Russia has found its footing, created a manpower pipeline, and built up its industrial capacity to fight a long war.” If this is the case, all further weapons support for the west would mean is more casualties and destruction on both sides. Civilian lives, cultural heritage, and critical infrastructure continue to be lost while global powers engage in a proxy war. Negotiation, not escalation, should be the focus of international efforts.

2. Draining Economic Resources

The proposed financial aid packages could reach hundreds of billions of dollars, straining Western economies already grappling with inflation, housing crises, and underfunded social programs. The United States can ill-afford to direct more resources toward war, especially when we ourselves are struggling with a housing affordability crises, healthcare challenges, and  environmental risks. Instead of investment into a “long war”, funds could be redirected toward humanitarian aid, refugee support, and global peace-building initiatives.

3. Escalation Risks Global Security

Militarizing the conflict further risks escalating the war beyond Ukraine’s borders. History teaches us that wars fueled by external military aid can spiral out of control, dragging the world into wider conflict. We need to look no further than the Syrian civil war to see the harm that U.S. involvement in proxy wars can cause.

4. Prioritizing Diplomacy Over Militarization

The belief that peace comes through military strength overlooks the power of diplomacy. Pressuring all parties toward peace talks with international mediation would be a more sustainable path. Offering incentives for peace rather than weapons for war could change the diplomatic calculus.

5. Undermining Global Stability

Sanctions, arms races, and expanded defense budgets disrupt global markets and deepen international divisions. Financial commitments toward peace-building—such as supporting post-war reconstruction and economic development in Ukraine—would lead to lasting stability, not temporary battlefield gains.

A Path Forward

Peace in Ukraine cannot be won through arms alone. It requires a reorientation from militarization to diplomacy, negotiation, and economic support for civilian recovery. Western nations should invest in peace talks led by neutral international bodies and resist further militarization that only extends human suffering.

Lasting peace is not built on weapons—it is built on justice, dialogue, and reconciliation. Supporting Ukraine should mean supporting its future, not funding perpetual war.