Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for military aid, NATO, sanctions, diplomatic strategy, and the path toward ending the war.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares Ukraine approaches — but there's much more to explore.
Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 created the largest land war in Europe since World War II. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians, displaced over 6 million Ukrainians internally and driven 6 million more to flee abroad, devastated Ukraine's infrastructure, and fundamentally altered the European security landscape. It has also raised existential questions about the international order: Can one country invade and annex territory from another? If the answer is yes, the rules-based system that has prevented great power conflict since 1945 is effectively dead.
The United States has been Ukraine's largest military supporter, providing over $175 billion in combined assistance. But American support is politically contested. Democrats largely support continued aid. Republicans are deeply divided — some support Ukraine, others want to reduce or end aid. The Common Good Party takes a clear position: support Ukraine's defense as a strategic necessity, push for fair burden-sharing with European allies, pursue diplomatic solutions from a position of strength, and hold Russia accountable for its aggression.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — the strategic logic, the costs, and what each means for American security and global stability.
How the three approaches stack up on Ukraine and NATO policy.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Military aid | Continue robust support | Divided — reduce or end vs. maintain | Continue with accountability and burden-sharing |
| Diplomatic approach | Support Ukraine, negotiate when ready | Push for quick settlement | Negotiate from strength, no rewarding conquest |
| NATO | Strengthen alliance, support Ukraine path | Question commitment, demand burden-sharing | Strengthen NATO, European 2% minimum, Ukraine path open |
| Sanctions | Maintain and expand | Mixed — some support, some oppose | Maintain, enforce, close evasion routes |
| Ground troops | Oppose direct deployment | Oppose direct deployment | Oppose — support without direct combat |
| Burden-sharing | Encourage allies, US leads | Demand Europe pay more, reduce US share | Fair distribution — Europe must meet 2%+ GDP defense |
| Reconstruction | International framework, US contributes | Europe should lead, limit US costs | Seized Russian assets fund reconstruction |
| War crimes | Support ICC investigations | Support accountability, skeptical of ICC | Full accountability — support international tribunals |
| Nuclear risk | Maintain deterrence, avoid escalation | Don't be intimidated, show strength | Clear deterrence, diplomatic risk reduction, no capitulation |
| Timeline | Support as long as needed | Push for quick resolution | Support + active diplomacy — endurance with purpose |
Sources: Congressional Research Service, Department of Defense, NATO, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick summary.
Democrats have led on Ukraine support, providing the majority of military and economic aid packages. The party supports continued military assistance for as long as needed, maintaining and expanding sanctions, supporting Ukraine's eventual NATO membership path, holding Russia accountable for war crimes through international institutions, and maintaining the broad Western coalition. Democrats frame Ukraine support as essential to defending democracy and the rules-based international order.
Democrats correctly identify the strategic stakes. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, it signals to every authoritarian regime that territorial conquest is viable as long as you have nuclear weapons. The precedent would directly threaten NATO allies, embolden China regarding Taiwan, and unravel the security architecture that has prevented great power conflict since 1945. The investment in Ukraine is a fraction of what a broader European conflict would cost.
The "as long as it takes" framing lacks a diplomatic strategy for how the war ends. Military support without a political endgame risks an indefinite conflict. Democrats have also not pushed hard enough on European burden-sharing — European allies have increased defense spending but still rely disproportionately on American capabilities. And the party has been slow to develop a comprehensive sanctions enforcement strategy that closes the evasion routes through China, India, Turkey, and other intermediaries.
For more on the strategic context, see the full Ukraine explainer.
Republicans are deeply divided. One faction supports continued Ukraine aid as a strategic necessity. Another, growing faction argues that the US should reduce or end support, push for a quick settlement, and focus on domestic priorities and the China threat. Republican critiques include: Europe should pay more, the money could be spent at home, there is no clear endgame, and the US risks nuclear escalation. Some Republican leaders have proposed conditioning aid on auditing and accountability measures.
The demand for European burden-sharing is legitimate and overdue. European allies should be spending 2% or more of GDP on defense — many are not. Accountability for aid is reasonable. And the concern about nuclear risk, while sometimes overstated, reflects a real danger that demands serious engagement. The focus on China as a strategic priority is also correct — but supporting Ukraine and deterring China are complementary, not competing, objectives.
Cutting Ukraine aid does not save money on domestic priorities — the aid packages primarily fund US defense industry production, sustaining American jobs and industrial capacity. Pushing for a "quick settlement" without leverage means accepting Russian territorial gains — rewarding the invasion and incentivizing future aggression. Abandoning Ukraine would destroy US credibility with every ally worldwide, particularly in the Indo-Pacific where allies are watching to see if America keeps its commitments.
The argument that Ukraine is a distraction from China gets the strategic logic backwards. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, China's calculation on Taiwan changes dramatically. If territorial conquest works for Russia, it can work for China. Supporting Ukraine is deterring China — by showing that the US and its allies will respond to aggression with sustained, united action.
For more on strategic implications, see our Ukraine explainer.
The Common Good Party supports Ukraine's defense as a strategic and moral necessity — with three additions that neither party has delivered: genuine burden-sharing requirements for European allies (2% GDP defense minimum enforced, not aspirational); active diplomatic pursuit of a settlement framework (support with purpose, not open-ended); and seized Russian assets funding reconstruction (the aggressor pays, not US taxpayers). We oppose US ground troops but support continued military aid, intelligence sharing, and training. We maintain sanctions and push to close evasion routes. We support Ukraine's NATO path within a broader peace framework.
Unlike the Democratic approach, we insist on burden-sharing and a diplomatic endgame — not "as long as it takes" without a strategy for how it ends. Unlike the Republican approach, we recognize that abandoning Ukraine destroys American credibility and invites further aggression. Our framework is: support from strength, negotiate with purpose, share burdens fairly, and make the aggressor pay. This is not idealism — it's strategic realism.
History is clear on what happens when democracies abandon allies under attack. The 1938 Munich Agreement, which sacrificed Czechoslovakia to avoid conflict with Germany, led directly to World War II. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances, is already being tested. If those assurances prove meaningless, no country will ever voluntarily disarm again. The cost of supporting Ukraine — roughly 5% of the annual US defense budget — is a fraction of what the consequences of failure would cost.
Ukraine policy may seem distant, but it affects American security, economy, and global standing. Here's what the CGP approach means.
Want to explore the full Common Good foreign policy framework? See our policies on defense, nuclear weapons, and China.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about Ukraine and NATO policy.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full Ukraine explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into Ukraine and NATO policy.
If America abandons its commitments in Ukraine, every ally and every adversary will notice. Read the full plan and see which approach protects American interests and global stability.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.