By Juan Fermin April 27, 2025 at www.nosocialism.com
The U.S. government’s addiction to arming proxies is a dangerous game. In the 1980s, it backed the Afghan Mujahideen to crush the Soviets, only to unleash al-Qaeda, 9/11, and decades of chaos. Today, it’s flooding Ukraine with billions to fight Russia, raising fears of another blowback. On December 22, 2017, the Trump administration approved supplying Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, arming Ukraine with Javelins showed strength, arguably keeping Putin at bay. Under Obama and Biden, Russia invaded its neighbor—twice. Is this history repeating, or a different fight? Let’s strip away the statist spin and face the facts.
The Mujahideen Blowback: A Warning
In 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. saw a chance to bleed its Cold War rival. Through Operation Cyclone, the CIA pumped $3–6 billion in weapons—rifles, Stinger missiles, cash—to the Mujahideen, a chaotic mix of patriots, warlords, and jihadists, via Pakistan’s ISI. Saudi Arabia matched funds, tossing in religious zeal. It worked: the Soviets limped out by 1989. But the U.S. bailed, leaving a fractured mess. Mujahideen factions turned on each other, and foreign fighters like Osama bin Laden formed al-Qaeda in 1988. The Taliban rose from the ashes, hosting al-Qaeda’s 9/11 plot that killed 3,000 Americans. U.S. weapons spread to insurgents across the Middle East, fueling chaos. The lesson? Arming proxies without a plan is like lighting a fuse and walking away.
"No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch"
Ukraine: Trump’s Strength, Obama and Biden Stumble?
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine spans a decade, with a clear pattern: invasions under Obama and Biden, but not Trump. In 2014, under Obama, Russia annexed Crimea and fueled separatists in Donbas, seizing chunks of Ukraine while the U.S. sent blankets and “non-lethal” aid. Obama’s timid response left Kyiv vulnerable. In 2017, Trump flipped the script, approving a $47 million sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles, delivered in 2018. Stored as a “strategic deterrent,” these weapons signaled resolve against Russia’s Donbas proxies. No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch (2017–2021), and supporters credit his tough stance—Javelins, sanctions, and dealmaking—for keeping Putin in check.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine spans a decade, with a clear pattern: invasions under Obama and Biden, but not Trump. In 2014, under Obama, Russia annexed Crimea and fueled separatists in Donbas, seizing chunks of Ukraine while the U.S. sent blankets and “non-lethal” aid. Obama’s timid response left Kyiv vulnerable. In 2017, Trump flipped the script, approving a $47 million sale of 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles, delivered in 2018. Stored as a “strategic deterrent,” these weapons signaled resolve against Russia’s Donbas proxies. No Russian invasion happened on Trump’s watch (2017–2021), and supporters credit his tough stance—Javelins, sanctions, and dealmaking—for keeping Putin in check.
"While Putin’s imperialist ambitions drove the invasion, Biden’s delays and rhetoric didn’t help"
Then came Biden. In 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the biggest European war since 1945. Critics slam Biden’s weakness: slow aid in 2021 as Russian troops massed, mixed signals, and provocative talk of Ukraine joining NATO—a red line for Moscow. Biden’s team called NATO’s door “open” at 2024 summits, enraging Putin, who cited expansion as a pretext for war. While Putin’s imperialist ambitions drove the invasion, Biden’s delays and rhetoric didn’t help. Since 2022, the U.S. has sent over $100 billion in Javelins, HIMARS, tanks, and drones, but early stumbles arguably gave Russia an opening.
"Differences stand out: Ukraine’s Unity: Unlike the Mujahideen’s factions"
Mujahideen Redux? Not Quite
Could arming Ukraine create “another Mujahideen”—a future extremist threat or regional chaos? Some parallels sting:
Could arming Ukraine create “another Mujahideen”—a future extremist threat or regional chaos? Some parallels sting:
- Proxy War: Like Afghanistan, Ukraine’s a proxy fight against a Russian foe, with U.S. weapons pouring in.
- Weapons Risks: Mujahideen Stingers armed terrorists; in Ukraine, small arms have hit black markets.
- Foreign Fighters: Afghanistan drew jihadists; Ukraine attracts volunteers, some with far-right ties, who could go rogue post-war.
- Instability: Afghanistan’s civil war followed U.S. neglect; a prolonged Ukraine war could weaken Kyiv.
But differences stand out:
- Ukraine’s Unity: Unlike the Mujahideen’s factions, Ukraine’s a sovereign nation with a NATO-aligned military.
- No Jihadist Spark: Afghanistan fueled global jihad; Ukraine’s fight is nationalist, not ideological.
- Oversight: The U.S. tracks Ukraine’s weapons with serial numbers, unlike the 1980s free-for-all.
- Western Stake: Ukraine’s in Europe’s heart, tied to NATO and EU plans, not a forgotten backwater.
"Under-supporting Ukraine risks Russian dominance; over-arming without oversight courts chaos"
Risks and Reality
Biden’s late escalation—greenlighting ATACMS strikes inside Russia in 2024—shows grit but risks a wider war, especially with North Korean troops involved. Trump’s team, like JD Vance, calls this reckless, draining U.S. taxpayers. Ukraine’s Azov militia, though integrated, has far-right roots, and a fragile post-war state could let weapons slip. But a Mujahideen-style blowback—global extremism or a new al-Qaeda—is unlikely. Ukraine’s not breeding jihadists, and the West won’t abandon it.
Biden’s late escalation—greenlighting ATACMS strikes inside Russia in 2024—shows grit but risks a wider war, especially with North Korean troops involved. Trump’s team, like JD Vance, calls this reckless, draining U.S. taxpayers. Ukraine’s Azov militia, though integrated, has far-right roots, and a fragile post-war state could let weapons slip. But a Mujahideen-style blowback—global extremism or a new al-Qaeda—is unlikely. Ukraine’s not breeding jihadists, and the West won’t abandon it.
The real issue? Big-government meddling. Obama’s weakness let Russia grab Crimea. Trump’s Javelins drew a line, and no invasion followed. Biden’s NATO promises and early fumbles opened the door for 2022. Under-supporting Ukraine risks Russian dominance; over-arming without oversight courts chaos. Both smell like statist overreach.
"Let’s learn from history, not repeat it"
The Takeaway
At www.nosocialism.com, we stand for freedom, not endless wars. Trump’s 2017 Javelins showed strength, keeping Russia at bay. Obama and Biden’s stumbles—2014 and 2022 invasions—show what happens when weakness meets provocation. Arming Ukraine isn’t a Mujahideen rerun, but it’s not risk-free. Demand accountability: track every weapon, plan for peace, and put taxpayers first. No more blank checks for foreign wars—let’s learn from history, not repeat it.
At www.nosocialism.com, we stand for freedom, not endless wars. Trump’s 2017 Javelins showed strength, keeping Russia at bay. Obama and Biden’s stumbles—2014 and 2022 invasions—show what happens when weakness meets provocation. Arming Ukraine isn’t a Mujahideen rerun, but it’s not risk-free. Demand accountability: track every weapon, plan for peace, and put taxpayers first. No more blank checks for foreign wars—let’s learn from history, not repeat it.
Can Trump’s dealmaking end this war, or is Biden’s escalation a trap? Drop your take below and share this post!
