Zim: "Yes, we are facing an 'existential crisis' . . . But Ukraine is not it. Ukraine is more like a boil on our butt. Russia is not the big bad boogie man it used to be . . . But the Euroweenies need to recognize their peril and make Ukraine their problem.
If I was Trump . . . What I would do is give Ukraine more long range weaponry and tell them to hammer more of Russia's oil industry and their railroads. Then I'd tell Putin that he can either make a sweet deal for peace with Ukraine or I'll give them MORE long range weaponry so they can do to Russia what Russia has been doing to Ukraine.
After that I'd advise Putin that he needs to start thinking about the possibility of China..."
That is another way to go! But it starts with us GIVING Ukraine, again. And - unfortunately - then we need to GIVE more. And then we need to GIVE more, again, to keep those weapons functioning with munitions.
So it doesn't really end the cost to the US, at all, but, rather, commits us to continue to participate, at real opportunity and real cost, for many years to come. It's not like Ukraine is paying for any of the munitions (except in lives, of course).
In addition, during that whole extended period of US involvement there is a very real risk that something could get really out of hand (or *arranged* to get out of hand) which could force NATO -- which means the US -- to step in. All it takes is something going slightly wonky in Poland, Finland, or any other NATO country. Plenty of people would like that to happen, indeed, so it almost certainly would happen, eventually.
Why run that risk? How does it benefit the US?
On the other hand -- as Trump has been hinting -- the US actually developing a "trust but verify" TRADING and diplomatic relationship with Russia can (a) Aid the US's economic strength (b) help us reach Autarky (c) greatly disturb China (d) promote world peace.
And it can do all that constructively, to the benefit of the US.
| 