I would say I have gone from ambivalent to supporting sending all the weapons they can use. If we weren't already linked to European defense through NATO I could see an argument for staying on the sidelines. But we are tied to Europe by treaty, trade and to some extent by culture and I think it is na?ve to think that will change any time soon. So if you look at this war as an assault on the security of the eastern NATO allies, as those countries do, then I think it makes sense to support Ukraine for the win.

Now to those who say that we are spending money that should be spent at home, well I sort of agree but I have been around long enough to know that we are always doing the heavy lifting for Europe's defense (NATO couldn't even handle the Balkan war by itself). So if we aren't shipping mega $$$ to Ukraine, then we would be spending the exact same amount of money parking very expensive equipment in Germany. So I think that because a Ukrainian victory will better protect NATO, and because we can't get out of NATO any time soon, I think we might as well ship all that equipment to a battle hardened country that is fighting for its very survival, rather than gathering dust in a warehouse. Also, weren't the Abrams tanks, HIMARS, and Javelin's all intended for a land war in Europe? Might as well put them to work with someone who is fighting for our net benefit.

Also I should disclose that I think Ukraine is the 'good guy' here, but I think my argument is above is valid just on practical terms.