Your article raises some valid historical points, but it fundamentally misses the mark on the most critical issue: America’s interests. It’s astounding that in all your analysis, there’s little acknowledgment that the U.S. is not Ukraine’s servant. We’ve poured billions of dollars into a conflict with no clear endgame and an increasingly diminished return on investment. To suggest that Ukraine—a country entirely dependent on American aid for its survival—gets to dictate the terms of peace is not just naïve; it’s absurd.
Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia relies almost exclusively on the United States and, to a lesser extent, Europe. Yet your article implies that America has no right to enforce a resolution that prioritizes its own interests. That is not how global power works. If Ukraine cannot guarantee its own security or fund its own war, it does not get to call the shots. Period. Pretending otherwise ignores the very real power dynamics at play.
Your dismissal of those who suggest “ending the war” as “childish” is a cheap shot that fails to engage with the legitimate concerns many Americans have about this endless military and financial commitment. It’s not childish to ask why we should continue writing blank checks for a war that does nothing to secure our borders, strengthen our economy, or protect American lives. It’s pragmatic. And your condescension doesn’t change that.
The crux of your argument seems to hinge on some fantasy scenario where the U.S. massively escalates aid, pushes Ukraine to victory, and achieves a “real peace.” But let’s be real—this isn’t 2022. Ukraine has been outmaneuvered, outnumbered, and outgunned. The West’s dithering early on may have cost Ukraine its chance at a decisive win, but that ship has sailed. No amount of HIMARS, tanks, or F-16s will change the reality on the ground now: Ukraine cannot win this war outright. Continuing to dump resources into a losing battle is the opposite of strategic thinking.
You also misread Trump’s likely approach. Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine’s feelings or optics. He cares about claiming credit for ending a costly, unwinnable conflict. And honestly, that’s what the American people want too. This isn’t about “defeating Russia”; it’s about stopping the hemorrhaging of American tax dollars into a war that has no bearing on our day-to-day lives. Trump forcing Ukraine and Russia to the table to sign an unfavorable peace treaty isn’t just realistic—it’s the smart play. America gains nothing from propping up a country that cannot stand on its own, no matter how noble you think the cause is.
At the end of the day, the truth is simple: Ukraine is a pawn in a much larger game, and pawns don’t get to make the rules. If America decides it’s time for peace, then it’s time for peace. And no amount of moralizing about Ukraine’s sovereignty changes the fact that our resources, not their resolve, are what’s keeping this war alive.
I think you miss one of my fundamental points. I don't believe that the war will end if the United States stops funding Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians will keep fighting (perhaps with European support) because *they will not accept a peace deal without security guarantees*. In other words, I don't believe that the war will end even if Trump cuts off aid. That is why I think he'll be forced to go a different route if he truly wants to *end the war*.
I think American interests are a completely separate matter. If I were a cynic I would argue that the United States *benefits* from the conflict. The aid to Ukraine costs pennies compared to the US defense budget and its GDP. The US has appropriated (not given) a total of $175 billion over 2.5 years. That is a mere 0.2% of your GDP per year to significantly weaken America's second biggest adversary. If your sole concern was American prosperity, then you would cynically want to keep the war going as is and fight to the last Ukrainian. Hopefully that is not your position though.
You raise some interesting points, but I think your argument still overlooks key realities, particularly the dependency of Ukraine on U.S. aid and the larger strategic costs for America. Let’s address your claims directly.
First, while I acknowledge that the Ukrainians are a proud and resilient people, the idea that they can mount any meaningful resistance without U.S. aid is, frankly, wishful thinking. How many times have we heard over the past two years that without immediate approval of more U.S. aid, Ukraine will crumble? This messaging has been relentless—and for good reason. The fact is, without American funding, weapons, and logistical support, Ukraine simply cannot sustain the level of warfare necessary to hold off Russia, let alone reclaim territory. Beyond that, Ukraine wouldn’t even have the strategic infrastructure to coordinate its defenses without U.S. support. Take Starlink, for example: without this U.S.-backed system, Ukraine would lose its critical internet connectivity on the battlefield. Add to this the reality that much of Ukraine’s ability to mount offensives depends on U.S. intelligence, which provides precise targeting and coordination capabilities that the Ukrainians simply cannot replicate on their own. Europe, for all its rhetoric, has begrudgingly sent aid and has consistently failed to meet even their own minimal defense budget commitments. Do you really believe they’ll step up and replace the United States as Ukraine’s primary benefactor? History and pragmatism suggest otherwise.
As for the relative cost of the war, the numbers you cite conveniently ignore the broader implications. The Secretary of Defense has already admitted that our munitions reserves are dipping below advised levels, leaving us vulnerable if a conflict with China over Taiwan were to erupt. Are you suggesting that weakening our ability to defend Taiwan—a much more strategically vital interest for the United States—is a worthwhile tradeoff for a proxy war in Eastern Europe? Because if so, I would call that not just shortsighted but reckless.
And let’s not ignore the broader financial reality here. Sure, the money spent on Ukraine may be a small fraction of our GDP, but the United States has a $33 trillion debt problem that nobody seems interested in factoring into these calculations. Every dollar we send to Ukraine is another dollar we borrow, and there’s no plan or prospect of repayment. Even if you take the cynical position that prolonging the war weakens a strategic adversary, how much longer are we supposed to throw resources into this conflict without a return? There’s a fine line between strategic investment and being trapped by the sunk cost fallacy, and we’re dangerously close to crossing it.
In the end, my position remains clear: America’s interests come first. Continuing to fund Ukraine indefinitely, especially when there’s no realistic endgame in sight and no broader plan for American security, is not in our national interest. Without U.S. support, Ukraine wouldn’t just lose funding—it would lose the tools, like Starlink and strategic intelligence, that make even its current resistance possible. You may hope for a scenario where Europe steps up or Ukraine fights on valiantly without us, but hope is not a strategy. It’s time to face the facts: the United States cannot afford to bankroll this war endlessly, either financially or strategically, and it’s not our responsibility to do so.
Your article raises some valid historical points, but it fundamentally misses the mark on the most critical issue: America’s interests. It’s astounding that in all your analysis, there’s little acknowledgment that the U.S. is not Ukraine’s servant. We’ve poured billions of dollars into a conflict with no clear endgame and an increasingly diminished return on investment. To suggest that Ukraine—a country entirely dependent on American aid for its survival—gets to dictate the terms of peace is not just naïve; it’s absurd.
Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia relies almost exclusively on the United States and, to a lesser extent, Europe. Yet your article implies that America has no right to enforce a resolution that prioritizes its own interests. That is not how global power works. If Ukraine cannot guarantee its own security or fund its own war, it does not get to call the shots. Period. Pretending otherwise ignores the very real power dynamics at play.
Your dismissal of those who suggest “ending the war” as “childish” is a cheap shot that fails to engage with the legitimate concerns many Americans have about this endless military and financial commitment. It’s not childish to ask why we should continue writing blank checks for a war that does nothing to secure our borders, strengthen our economy, or protect American lives. It’s pragmatic. And your condescension doesn’t change that.
The crux of your argument seems to hinge on some fantasy scenario where the U.S. massively escalates aid, pushes Ukraine to victory, and achieves a “real peace.” But let’s be real—this isn’t 2022. Ukraine has been outmaneuvered, outnumbered, and outgunned. The West’s dithering early on may have cost Ukraine its chance at a decisive win, but that ship has sailed. No amount of HIMARS, tanks, or F-16s will change the reality on the ground now: Ukraine cannot win this war outright. Continuing to dump resources into a losing battle is the opposite of strategic thinking.
You also misread Trump’s likely approach. Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine’s feelings or optics. He cares about claiming credit for ending a costly, unwinnable conflict. And honestly, that’s what the American people want too. This isn’t about “defeating Russia”; it’s about stopping the hemorrhaging of American tax dollars into a war that has no bearing on our day-to-day lives. Trump forcing Ukraine and Russia to the table to sign an unfavorable peace treaty isn’t just realistic—it’s the smart play. America gains nothing from propping up a country that cannot stand on its own, no matter how noble you think the cause is.
At the end of the day, the truth is simple: Ukraine is a pawn in a much larger game, and pawns don’t get to make the rules. If America decides it’s time for peace, then it’s time for peace. And no amount of moralizing about Ukraine’s sovereignty changes the fact that our resources, not their resolve, are what’s keeping this war alive.
I think you miss one of my fundamental points. I don't believe that the war will end if the United States stops funding Ukraine. I think the Ukrainians will keep fighting (perhaps with European support) because *they will not accept a peace deal without security guarantees*. In other words, I don't believe that the war will end even if Trump cuts off aid. That is why I think he'll be forced to go a different route if he truly wants to *end the war*.
I think American interests are a completely separate matter. If I were a cynic I would argue that the United States *benefits* from the conflict. The aid to Ukraine costs pennies compared to the US defense budget and its GDP. The US has appropriated (not given) a total of $175 billion over 2.5 years. That is a mere 0.2% of your GDP per year to significantly weaken America's second biggest adversary. If your sole concern was American prosperity, then you would cynically want to keep the war going as is and fight to the last Ukrainian. Hopefully that is not your position though.
You raise some interesting points, but I think your argument still overlooks key realities, particularly the dependency of Ukraine on U.S. aid and the larger strategic costs for America. Let’s address your claims directly.
First, while I acknowledge that the Ukrainians are a proud and resilient people, the idea that they can mount any meaningful resistance without U.S. aid is, frankly, wishful thinking. How many times have we heard over the past two years that without immediate approval of more U.S. aid, Ukraine will crumble? This messaging has been relentless—and for good reason. The fact is, without American funding, weapons, and logistical support, Ukraine simply cannot sustain the level of warfare necessary to hold off Russia, let alone reclaim territory. Beyond that, Ukraine wouldn’t even have the strategic infrastructure to coordinate its defenses without U.S. support. Take Starlink, for example: without this U.S.-backed system, Ukraine would lose its critical internet connectivity on the battlefield. Add to this the reality that much of Ukraine’s ability to mount offensives depends on U.S. intelligence, which provides precise targeting and coordination capabilities that the Ukrainians simply cannot replicate on their own. Europe, for all its rhetoric, has begrudgingly sent aid and has consistently failed to meet even their own minimal defense budget commitments. Do you really believe they’ll step up and replace the United States as Ukraine’s primary benefactor? History and pragmatism suggest otherwise.
As for the relative cost of the war, the numbers you cite conveniently ignore the broader implications. The Secretary of Defense has already admitted that our munitions reserves are dipping below advised levels, leaving us vulnerable if a conflict with China over Taiwan were to erupt. Are you suggesting that weakening our ability to defend Taiwan—a much more strategically vital interest for the United States—is a worthwhile tradeoff for a proxy war in Eastern Europe? Because if so, I would call that not just shortsighted but reckless.
And let’s not ignore the broader financial reality here. Sure, the money spent on Ukraine may be a small fraction of our GDP, but the United States has a $33 trillion debt problem that nobody seems interested in factoring into these calculations. Every dollar we send to Ukraine is another dollar we borrow, and there’s no plan or prospect of repayment. Even if you take the cynical position that prolonging the war weakens a strategic adversary, how much longer are we supposed to throw resources into this conflict without a return? There’s a fine line between strategic investment and being trapped by the sunk cost fallacy, and we’re dangerously close to crossing it.
In the end, my position remains clear: America’s interests come first. Continuing to fund Ukraine indefinitely, especially when there’s no realistic endgame in sight and no broader plan for American security, is not in our national interest. Without U.S. support, Ukraine wouldn’t just lose funding—it would lose the tools, like Starlink and strategic intelligence, that make even its current resistance possible. You may hope for a scenario where Europe steps up or Ukraine fights on valiantly without us, but hope is not a strategy. It’s time to face the facts: the United States cannot afford to bankroll this war endlessly, either financially or strategically, and it’s not our responsibility to do so.