It's easy. Elect Trump and watch Ukraine go down the tubes and Europe will definitely up their defense spending because they will know that they can't rely upon us.
It is unlikely that Europe will suddenly take on that role. It is more likely, should the US "declare for cease fire," (or however we try to obfuscate cutting and running on an ally), that the EU countries will start pressuring Ukraine to give up their land in exchange for "peace in our time"
The way to make Europe pay their part is simple - stop America funding. They'll have no choice. An unpopular proposition, I'm sure, but it is a sound, rational, and self-preserving one. Like yourself, I'm not calling for isolationism, but we have no obligation to fund other countries' wars, and our government's constitutional responsibility (which they continue to shirk) is to protect our borders, not those of nations overseas.
I think it's far more complex than that. First, there is the disentanglement problem. We've seen how poorly-handled withdrawal created disaster many times, and once we've stepped into the mix, it is proper that we be *very* prudent about how we extricate ourselves. Not saying we shouldn't, but it needs to be done right. Second, I suspect it more likely that the Europeans fall back on appeasement rather than stepping up. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Germany says "we're out," and cuts funding, leaving Ukraine to fall and leaving Eastern Europe next on Putin's list.
Where it gets easier is in future entanglements. I get that there's this desire to check China should China invade Taiwan, but I ask not only how it's our business, but how we can afford it?
There is a huge difference between our entanglement there and our entanglement in a place like Afghanistan. We had troops and equipment in Afghanistan which we abandoned. Our main entanglement with Ukraine is the laundering of our tax money. Unless we're willing to officially declare war on Russia, we are not technically entangled. Ukraine is not a NATO member, so we have no responsibility to NATO to protect Ukraine. Some claim we're protecting "democracy," but Ukraine is no longer a democracy. They have outlawed some of their churches because they subscribe to the beliefs of the Russian Orthodox church. They stopped elections as of 2019, and Ukraine is now under martial law (hardly democratic), so the idea of "defending democracy" is moot.
If Europe chooses to appease Russia rather than defending Ukraine, that is on them. I'm not as fearful as many of Putin wanting to take over all of Eastern Europe. Hell, if he did, he might be doing them a favor. With the way the EU is pushing migrants on much of Europe and destroying their cultures and countries, it might be a net benefit to them to cast off the EU's reins.
As for China and Taiwan, I suspect the warmongers' excuse would be the same - "defending democracy." Policing the world is NOT our business, and we can't afford it. We should not be doing it. If another country poses a direct threat to us, then we would have a legitimate reason for being involved. Otherwise, all we should be dealing with in that part of the world is trade.
You seem more confident than I of Trump continuing to fund Ukraine if he is elected. He does not sound like he is. The only interpretation of "I'll end that war in a day" is "I'll cut them loose". As you note below, Euro appeasement is the more likely scenario than that they step up and fill the void. There is much disagreement on what we should or will do in regard to Ukraine, but the inevitable outcome of our being true to form and abandoning an ally to their fate should be clear to all.
I am uncertain. I don't know that he would, but knowing him, talking of withholding funding sounds like the sort of thing someone at a bargaining table would say to put the fear in other parties.
He did manage to get the rest of NATO to buck up a few extra euros when he was President, IIRC, which suggests we're looking at typical Trump brinkmanship. Given how fond he is of the counterpunch, anything is possible re Ukraine, and I'd be surprised if he would risk taking a big "L" for Loss under his watch.
But, again, I can't know for sure.
And, yes, as I noted, in another comment, disengaging - when and if - needs to be done very thoughtfully. Our Best and Brightest have f***ed it up countless times in the past.
It's easy. Elect Trump and watch Ukraine go down the tubes and Europe will definitely up their defense spending because they will know that they can't rely upon us.
It is unlikely that Europe will suddenly take on that role. It is more likely, should the US "declare for cease fire," (or however we try to obfuscate cutting and running on an ally), that the EU countries will start pressuring Ukraine to give up their land in exchange for "peace in our time"
I agree with Sean. Europe has long been feckless, and as I noted in the article, Germany is already tiring of sending money to Ukraine.
Doesn't change the fact that we are being fleeced by them, of course.
The way to make Europe pay their part is simple - stop America funding. They'll have no choice. An unpopular proposition, I'm sure, but it is a sound, rational, and self-preserving one. Like yourself, I'm not calling for isolationism, but we have no obligation to fund other countries' wars, and our government's constitutional responsibility (which they continue to shirk) is to protect our borders, not those of nations overseas.
I think it's far more complex than that. First, there is the disentanglement problem. We've seen how poorly-handled withdrawal created disaster many times, and once we've stepped into the mix, it is proper that we be *very* prudent about how we extricate ourselves. Not saying we shouldn't, but it needs to be done right. Second, I suspect it more likely that the Europeans fall back on appeasement rather than stepping up. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Germany says "we're out," and cuts funding, leaving Ukraine to fall and leaving Eastern Europe next on Putin's list.
Where it gets easier is in future entanglements. I get that there's this desire to check China should China invade Taiwan, but I ask not only how it's our business, but how we can afford it?
Yes, but...
There is a huge difference between our entanglement there and our entanglement in a place like Afghanistan. We had troops and equipment in Afghanistan which we abandoned. Our main entanglement with Ukraine is the laundering of our tax money. Unless we're willing to officially declare war on Russia, we are not technically entangled. Ukraine is not a NATO member, so we have no responsibility to NATO to protect Ukraine. Some claim we're protecting "democracy," but Ukraine is no longer a democracy. They have outlawed some of their churches because they subscribe to the beliefs of the Russian Orthodox church. They stopped elections as of 2019, and Ukraine is now under martial law (hardly democratic), so the idea of "defending democracy" is moot.
If Europe chooses to appease Russia rather than defending Ukraine, that is on them. I'm not as fearful as many of Putin wanting to take over all of Eastern Europe. Hell, if he did, he might be doing them a favor. With the way the EU is pushing migrants on much of Europe and destroying their cultures and countries, it might be a net benefit to them to cast off the EU's reins.
As for China and Taiwan, I suspect the warmongers' excuse would be the same - "defending democracy." Policing the world is NOT our business, and we can't afford it. We should not be doing it. If another country poses a direct threat to us, then we would have a legitimate reason for being involved. Otherwise, all we should be dealing with in that part of the world is trade.
You seem more confident than I of Trump continuing to fund Ukraine if he is elected. He does not sound like he is. The only interpretation of "I'll end that war in a day" is "I'll cut them loose". As you note below, Euro appeasement is the more likely scenario than that they step up and fill the void. There is much disagreement on what we should or will do in regard to Ukraine, but the inevitable outcome of our being true to form and abandoning an ally to their fate should be clear to all.
I am uncertain. I don't know that he would, but knowing him, talking of withholding funding sounds like the sort of thing someone at a bargaining table would say to put the fear in other parties.
He did manage to get the rest of NATO to buck up a few extra euros when he was President, IIRC, which suggests we're looking at typical Trump brinkmanship. Given how fond he is of the counterpunch, anything is possible re Ukraine, and I'd be surprised if he would risk taking a big "L" for Loss under his watch.
But, again, I can't know for sure.
And, yes, as I noted, in another comment, disengaging - when and if - needs to be done very thoughtfully. Our Best and Brightest have f***ed it up countless times in the past.