>So, given that, what's the ethical action Sometimes the winning move is not to play, there's good arguments for supporting the humanitarian funds, but I disag

>So, given that, what's the ethical action Sometimes the winning move is not to play, there's good arguments for supporting the humanitarian funds, but I disagree that foreign civilians should directly fund someone else's military (and the weapons used to kill others). Of course I'd rather there not be a war at all and I'm a strong proponent of self-defense (I'm not Ukrainian however and Russia isn't directly attacking me currently), but I don't think it's ever ethical (from a principled standpoint) to personally (as a civilian) fund the killing of others (even if it's an unfortunate reality that can't be avoided). If my elected government is concerned about the interest of my country enough that it believes it is beneficial to ensure the safety/sovereignty of my country (and/or related allies) to support Ukraine's military is an entirely different situation than asking ordinary people to directly finance weapons that will likely be used to kill (even if in self defense from another invading country). All of that is assuming the weapons remain in the "right" hands as well. Personally I would feel bad if a weapon I helped fund got taken by the opposing soldiers and used to kill people from the side I were intending to help defend. The chances of ever finding out about something like that happening directly is slim, but it's a distinct possibility. tl;dr I think it's improper to delegate military funding decisions (and potential consequences) onto normal civilians for something that should be at a greater military / governmental level.