The United States can not afford to be the go-to problem solver of global crises

Greta Carrasco, Opinions Editor

Raid sirens echoed through the street as Russia began their full scale invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. Citizens located in eastern Ukraine began moving west in order to avoid the violence, while others stayed put and got ready to fight. Amidst this chaos countless people called the United States and NATO to step up and help provide military resources and humanitarian aid for Ukraine. 

It has been a year since the fighting started. The United States has already sent thousands of armed equipment, food and medical supplies for both civilians and soldiers at the frontlines, but the constant call to be more involved in the war has become deafening. Not only have we supplied $76.8 billion worth of resources as of 2022, but the president recently announced he will send an additional $500 million in military aid. 

It is extremely important for the United States to be a leader in helping solve the world’s problems, but as with anything, there are limits, including sending aid to countries in need. People can not expect more money to be sent in this singular cause. And supporting global conflicts is only one area where the U.S. is expected to help; caring for nations impacted by natural disasters is another huge responsibility. In the past, there have been floods in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Thailand as well as the droughts in China and Philippines and the earthquakes in Turkey, Syria and Japan— all of which the United States was expected to help. As of Feb. 19, The United States has already sent $100 million in an earthquake relief fund for Syria and Turkey. Nobody can deny these countries need help, but at some point, tough choices have to be made. The U.S’s humanitarian budget is $10.5 billion, and these expenses add up to a hefty amount. We cannot provide unlimited financial aid in one issue if we are expected to help in crises that are happening and will continue to happen around the world.

The United States also should not be the go-to problem-solver of all foreign crises. European countries such as France, Germany and Britain could step up and help the neighboring nations, especially since they have direct and efficient routes, better than those of the United States. Although humanitarian aid is important, we need to set limits on how much we can provide. Considering the Russia versus Ukraine war, if it were to last for longer, financial sacrifices will need to be made.

There are too many economic and political barriers that we cannot surpass at this time. 

The best thing for us to do at this moment is stand back and help little by little. Of course, focusing on budgeting when the risk of death is in place is not that simple, but in order to continue having resources to send, we first have to solve our own issues. The president sending more money to Ukraine when we are being impacted by an economic recession as well as an increase of prices by 9.1% is adding to the negative impact here. It is extremely important for countries like the United States to help when needed, but we have to know our limits.