So...in the end it's fine if Russia wins.
That is not what I said.
I said Europe can carry Ukraine, if the US walks away, to focus on the Pacific.
And Trump may not walk away from UA completely, but may walk away from negotiations and just let the fighting play out with minimal US involvement going forward.
If Putin angers Trump badly enough here towards the end, Trump may even increase sanctions on Russia, and the drop in global oil prices is already hurting Putin's pocket books.
Because I can assure you, the people of Estonia and Latvia wouldn't think so.
Neither would those in the Causcus regions.
Because they are for sure next.
Maybe, maybe not; Ukraine didn't have the Article 5 option, and Congress did ratify the NATO charter, so it's not just an Executive Branch decision if Russia makes a move on NATO itself.
But it's not Ukraine not willing to work with the US, it'd Russia.
Russia isn't willing to actively engage in peace or ceasefire talks and constantly stalls and pushes it along.
Ukraine jumps at every opportunity.
Zelensky doesn't seem willing to accept he may need to give formal, legal claim to certain areas to Russia, not just labeling them 'occupied territories', in order to get a deal. I think that's the main hang-up on the UA side, besides the mineral deal.
And Putin/Russia is not exactly making Trump happy either, as he's said several times recently. Trump has refrained from publicly insulting Putin or Russia during negotiations, which is just sensible, and has been getting shit on for it.
Add in blaming zelesnky when his government still probably would not have signed the mineral deal is funny.
If neither Zelensky or his gov would sign the mineral deal, then why the fuck did he request to come to the White House to sign it?
Because it wasn't Trump or Rubio that invited Zelensky, he asked to come, and then made the diplo clusterfuck of the century in the Oval Office.
This entire point now is due to Russia, not Ukraine
But to the eyes of the world the US is willing to let bullies go if it means we arnt actually invovled.
Russia is being an aggressive bunch of dipshits, yes, and playing fuck-fuck games diplomatically that are trying Trump's patience.
Ukraine on the other hand has been a source of grief for Trump since his first term, thanks to Vindman's fuckery with the Zelensky call that lead to that sham impeachment attempt by Pelosi, then we have the NAFO-types who have been hating on Trump and the GOP since long before the election, the UA supporter who tried to shoot Trump at his golf course, then finally Zelensky's insulting actions in the Oval Office.
Trump's not really a fan of either side, but if Russia is the group who causes Trump to stop trying for peace, UA is likely to see aid maintained at whatever level they can pay for, while Russia won't see sanctions eased. If UA is the side that drives Trump away, then expect sanctions on Russia to be eased and nearly all aid/sales to Ukraine halted.
So you best hope it is Russia that drives Trump away from negotiations.
Maybe that's why Iran hasn't been bombed yet, maybe that's why we lowered the tariffs on electronics from China.
Iran hasn't been bombed because we are currently trying to negotiate a deal that caps enrichment of a civie nuke program, while blapping the Houthi's, who are the Ayatollah's last remaining useful proxy in the area.
However, Trump has set a time line for those negotiation, and if it falls through/the Ayatollah keeps trying to delay, then the B-2s and their MOPs will be visiting Fordow and other Iranian nuclear sites.
Trump isn't a warfighter, he's a businessman, something you constantly seem to forget in your foreign policy desires; military force is never going to be his first option.
Almost like our current president wants to avoid war at any cost, and only throws threats around but has so far shown that our enemies only care for strength showings, not threats of sanctions
Again, Trump is a businessman, not a warfighter, and will not pursue military actions as first options, if he believes he has economic and political tools he can use first.
Trump doesn't like people being killed, military or civie, and he will not initiate actions that will result in killing, if he believes he has other options.
However, when Trump runs out of peaceful options, he can also pull a Solemani on nearly a moments notice.
We could disagree about how much what happens to Ukraine affects the US but that's not actually the important question. The important question is, what is the difference between how the US is affected by what happens to the Ukraine in our absence relative to how the US is affected by the US sending aid to Ukraine as well as what actually happens in Ukraine.
Given Zelensky and co keep waffling on the minerals deal, which would actually see Ukraine become a net benefit to the US, how the US is affected by what is happening in Ukraine really depends on if UA/Zelensky have a modified mineral deal they will sign in a few days/next week or so.
If the US isn't getting something back out of Ukraine for all the aid/sales/intel we have provided, then what happens in UA isn't terribly important to the daily life of the average American.
I would agree that Ukraine being wiped off the map, or overrun, or stuck in an increasingly gruesome war for years wouldn't throw the US into absolute chaos; but neither would the cost of the aid we've been sending, or double or triple the aid we've been sending. It's ridiculous to wash our hands of a globally destabilizing conflict just because it's not so destabilizing that it will tear the world asunder. And yes, I am positive that a future where the US mostly or totally washes its hands of Ukraine is more destabilizing than a future where it maintains or increases support.
If Ukraine can pay for 2-3x the amount of supplies they are getting/asking for/buying, and it doesn't impact our ability to supply and stockpile gear for use in the Pacific, great.
But we aren't at a point of production capacity where that is the reality on the ground, from what I've seen; production bottlenecks are still such we have to chose between stockpiling some gear for the Pacific or sending it to Ukraine (if they've paid for it), we cannot always do both at the number Ukraine wants/needs.
Lastly, I have a question. The reason for the question is not to accuse or imply; it is because I have seen what appear to be multiple different motivations for people opposing US aid to Ukraine and I can't really remember what signs you in particular have shown. So please tell me how much these factors motivate your stance (please feel free in your response to modify any of these to more closely suit your personal position):
1. Desire to reduce human suffering equally across the board
2. Desire to reduce human suffering in non-aggressor nations (especially Ukraine as the battlefield nation but also the world to the extent applicable) with some, but reduced, consideration for the immediate well being of the population of the aggressor nation, and even less consideration for long term economic effects etc. on the aggressor.
3. Desire to reduce human suffering in the United States specifically regardless of the cost to others, even if highly disproportionate
4. Desire to avoid any foreign military entanglement even if no US troops are at risk because of bad experiences earlier this century.
5. Belief that aid to Ukraine necessarily reduces US ability (including political will and allies) to respond to Chinese aggression AND that this reduction is more harmful on net than the results of aid withdrawal.
6. Other (please specify)
My issues with current aid to Ukraine is based on a few things:
1) Zelensky fucked up what should have been an easy signing visit, a visit he requested, and then people in UA and the EU began lying about it being an 'ambush', while at the same time Vance saying Europe no longer get to free ride on US defense and abuse the US economy and no longer seems to share some value with the US due to their internal political action regarding free speech and the illegal immigrant/jihadi issues was considered a 'betrayal'.
Ungrateful, two-face, and outright gaslighting actions by UA/EU in regards to Trump and Vance have burned a lot of my previous goodwill toward UA.
2) UA is not in a position where it can do more than hold the line, and maybe limited raids into places like Belgorod, and they may have overplayed/overstayed their operation in Kursk. This is when UA is continuing to have manpower/recruiting issues and frankly the leadership is more Soviet minded than NATO-styled, and it's causing a feeling of 'Are we throwing good muntions and money after bad out of pride/unwillingness to admit UA isn't using it wisely?'.
If Europe wants to keep throwing good money and muntions after bad, that's on them, but the US has other responsibilities in the Pacific where we could be stockpiling munitions for a fight with the CCP, and if no amount of aid/sales will get UA the victory they want and aren't being used wisely by UA, then those muntions might be of better effect to the US public by having them stockpiled in the Pacific.
3) Because it seems no amount of previous support for UA matters, the second someone says that UA is making mistakes and needs to reign in it's expectations. That burns a lot of goodwill from people who used to be ardent UA supporters, and makes it so UA seem ungrateful and unwilling to deal with any reality that might involve them giving up lands in legal, formal documentation, not simply calling places 'occupied', and that no amount of desire for NATO membership will make it happen for UA.
4) The timeline for confrontation with the CCP has constantly been getting shorter, they may make a move on Taiwan within this year, so time is not on the side of the US and we therefore have to make some hard choices about stockpiling for that fight vs selling/sending things to UA. We do not have years to build up our stocks while selling to UA, and if things go hot with Taiwan, we may not even have the spare heavy lift capacity to ship much shit to Europe as a whole, never mind UA.
We do not have the time to do things the way UA and the EU would like, partly because the EU has been playing so nice with the CCP and Russia for decades, EU underspending on NATO so the US is more stretched in the Pacific where NATO isn't useful most of the time, and because the 'End of History' bullshit so many prior admins in the US and west had bought into.