I agree with you on all points. I think Trump is flawed but he does try to do best for America, although sometimes miscalculating. Trump is not a war monger, he genuinely dislikes war and deaths but he is wrong on Ukraine and Putin. Putin's war is for himself, not Russia. I do not understand why Trump does not see that. Perhaps he admires Putin for his long tenure, in theory, because Russians approve and reelect him?
I respect your opinion, and you make good arguments, but I will tell you the argument for why the USA and other Western countries should not get involved in this and why Trump is reticent to do so. It comes down to the cost of it. It's huge. The USA has spent $195 billion USD on this war and has a $40.39 trillion national debt. That is a lot of money. The numbers are not as massive for Canada or other nations, but still a lot, both in terms of the cost of the war and national debt. The UK wants young men to go to war in Ukraine, to feed the meat grinder there, while letting an Islamist invasion take over the UK. What does the USA get out of this war? It's more evident to me what they get from backing Israel in the Middle East (Islamism represents an existential threat to the USA), but Ukraine? There is also the issue of where the money went. It made a few people very rich, including Zelensky. Ukraine is a corrupt country. It is not a democracy.
As for the kids, why are they still in the war zone? Anyone with any sense would get them to a safer country. Another sad thing about that war is the human cost on both sides. It should end. Ukraine won't get what it wants, but at least there will still be a country. If they continue, there won't be. Putin is an evil man, without a doubt, but the USA is under no obligation of any kind to continue it. Another thing to consider: China is sitting back, watching Russia and the USA drain their bank accounts for this war, biding its time for world domination. I get the geopolitical arguments for the war, and the moral arguments, and I am certainly not for American isolationism, but I'm sharing why so many conservatives are hesitant to commit even more funds to it, a case (as they see it) of throwing good money after bad.
“We can’t afford to help Ukraine” leaves out the cost of abandoning it. America had spent approximately $116 billion on the broader response through March 2026—not simply handed that amount to Ukraine. Part of that spending buys equipment from American manufacturers and replenishes American stockpiles.
And withdrawing support is one thing; pressuring Ukraine to accept terms favourable to Putin is another. That helps the aggressor. Trump buying fuel from Russia (which doesn’t work to lower the price of diesel; the problem is being driven by issues in the Strait of Hormuz) helps the Russian war effort.
Appeasement is never cheap. If Putin concludes that aggression succeeds and Western commitments are negotiable, what happens when he tests Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia? Those countries are NATO members. An attack on one brings our collective-defence obligations into play and risks a direct war between nuclear powers.
That outcome is not inevitable. Preventing it is precisely the point of deterrence. The question is whether helping Ukraine resist now costs less than confronting an emboldened Russia later.
But you are right about the debt issue; I just think that Ukraine shouldn’t be the first to face cost cuts.
I agree with you on all points. I think Trump is flawed but he does try to do best for America, although sometimes miscalculating. Trump is not a war monger, he genuinely dislikes war and deaths but he is wrong on Ukraine and Putin. Putin's war is for himself, not Russia. I do not understand why Trump does not see that. Perhaps he admires Putin for his long tenure, in theory, because Russians approve and reelect him?
I respect your opinion, and you make good arguments, but I will tell you the argument for why the USA and other Western countries should not get involved in this and why Trump is reticent to do so. It comes down to the cost of it. It's huge. The USA has spent $195 billion USD on this war and has a $40.39 trillion national debt. That is a lot of money. The numbers are not as massive for Canada or other nations, but still a lot, both in terms of the cost of the war and national debt. The UK wants young men to go to war in Ukraine, to feed the meat grinder there, while letting an Islamist invasion take over the UK. What does the USA get out of this war? It's more evident to me what they get from backing Israel in the Middle East (Islamism represents an existential threat to the USA), but Ukraine? There is also the issue of where the money went. It made a few people very rich, including Zelensky. Ukraine is a corrupt country. It is not a democracy.
As for the kids, why are they still in the war zone? Anyone with any sense would get them to a safer country. Another sad thing about that war is the human cost on both sides. It should end. Ukraine won't get what it wants, but at least there will still be a country. If they continue, there won't be. Putin is an evil man, without a doubt, but the USA is under no obligation of any kind to continue it. Another thing to consider: China is sitting back, watching Russia and the USA drain their bank accounts for this war, biding its time for world domination. I get the geopolitical arguments for the war, and the moral arguments, and I am certainly not for American isolationism, but I'm sharing why so many conservatives are hesitant to commit even more funds to it, a case (as they see it) of throwing good money after bad.
“We can’t afford to help Ukraine” leaves out the cost of abandoning it. America had spent approximately $116 billion on the broader response through March 2026—not simply handed that amount to Ukraine. Part of that spending buys equipment from American manufacturers and replenishes American stockpiles.
And withdrawing support is one thing; pressuring Ukraine to accept terms favourable to Putin is another. That helps the aggressor. Trump buying fuel from Russia (which doesn’t work to lower the price of diesel; the problem is being driven by issues in the Strait of Hormuz) helps the Russian war effort.
Appeasement is never cheap. If Putin concludes that aggression succeeds and Western commitments are negotiable, what happens when he tests Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia? Those countries are NATO members. An attack on one brings our collective-defence obligations into play and risks a direct war between nuclear powers.
That outcome is not inevitable. Preventing it is precisely the point of deterrence. The question is whether helping Ukraine resist now costs less than confronting an emboldened Russia later.
But you are right about the debt issue; I just think that Ukraine shouldn’t be the first to face cost cuts.