I don't feel this is going to persuade anyone, and I feel like I'm just screaming into the void, but here's my take nonetheless. I'm a glutton for punishment I guess.
Firstly, Ukraine. Do I care about Ukraine?
Yes, a little, but only to a point. They clearly have strategic importance to America (hard to argue that when Donald is oh so clearly stating that they sit on strategically valuable rare earth metals, not to mention their implications in African and Middle Eastern food supply - i.e influence over OPEC).
Do I care about them personally, and am I particularly bothered about their hardships? Honestly, not much. Not my country, not my problem. It's a shame that they're in the situation that they are, but from a realpolitik standpoint, altruism is not a major driver of policy. National interest is. You simply find (and then talk about) the altruistic reasons to justify the real reason, often after the fact.
Therefore, my position is that Ukraine should be supported as far as our national interest lie, and no further.
That national interest lies in 3 camps.
1. Bleed the Russians. They are not our friends, they will never be a reliable ally, reducing their military is in our interests, because it's one less opponent that we need to worry about either in Europe, or in partnership with China. Part of that is in destroying their military capability (job pretty much done), and part is in ensuring that when they start rebuilding in the next decade, they have as little in the way of money and resources available to do so as possible (i.e Don't let them take Ukraine and gain leverage over Saudi etc on food, don't let 'em take Ukraine and gift them billions of dollars of rare earth metals, don't give 'em Ukrainian GDP or conscripts).
2. Present a message of strength to enemies. America is reliable, America is strong, America won't allow petty dictators to do what they want. That's a good lesson for Russia to learn, and also a good one for Beijing to take away from this situation, not to mention Iran and North Korea.
3. Present a message of strength to allies. America has your back, you don't need to get strong yourselves, hang onto your subordinate position, no worries.
Note; none of this has anything to do with helping Ukraine, or right or wrong, or emotions.
It is pure, unfeeling, pretty ruthless logic aimed at maximizing the safety and the influence of the 'donor' nation. America first and all that.
I think that these national interests DO support the provision of aid to Ukraine in this conflict. Not to help Ukraine, but because they're literally fighting our battle for us... and in doing so we get what we want 'on the cheap' in terms of cost, materiel, casualties.
Sticking with these national interests.
Camp 1 & 2 are I think pretty self evident, but Camp 3 is maybe more confusing. Why would America want weak allies?
The reason is simple; militarily weak allies are reliable allies.
A nation that cannot protect its own sovereignty against foreign threats is not an independent nation. They are a client state, solely dependent on another for their very existence. That gives whomever guarantees that safety an immense amount of leverage.
What does that have to do with Europe?
Well, it's a common myth that the US and the EU are friends, allies, partners. But that's not really true.
What is true is that they're friends, allies, and partners RIGHT NOW. Begrudgingly at that.
Sources:
A new ECFR poll points to Europeans’ widespread (but not universal) reassessment of the transatlantic relationship, and extensive opportunities for the new US president to divide them if they do not…
ecfr.eu
As political, media and public attention increasingly focus on the 2024 US election, America’s stature in the world in the Biden era will be a subtext. How Europeans view the United States will be of particular salience in congressional and presidential debates over aid for Ukraine, America’s...
www.gmfus.org
Most Europeans feel that America is not an ally, but more of a necessary evil with whom they need to strategically cooperate, but don't particularly like. Interestingly, they have pretty much the same opinion of China...
View attachment 668938
View attachment 668931
View attachment 668937
View attachment 668936
Not exactly results that indicate any real depth of common goals or brotherhood.
And yet... when America asks Europe to do something, they generally do it, even if they don't want to. Support for the Iraq War in the UK for instance had approval ratings of about 45% at the time the UK joined, had dropped to below 20% 1 year in. Yet, the UK stuck it out for the duration. Why?
If today, the US sanctions China and requests that the EU do the same, they probably would. It's not in the EU's interest to do so, but they'd begrudgingly comply. Why?
Because they hate Russia more than they hate the US, and they need the US if Russia gets ideas.
View attachment 668933
So, onto hypotheticals.
Let's say Trump gets what he wants, the EU starts building up a proper military instead of the sham they have now.
Well, the US has stronger allies, but then... would they still be allies? The pressing need isn't there any more, and it's not like the EU and US are particularly culturally aligned otherwise. Certainly they'd be less inclined to unilaterally support US interests in that scenario. That's pretty undeniable.
It's also pretty likely that they might be a bit more friendly to China without the US prodding 'em away.
So that brings us onto the other question: Does a EU pulling it's weight militarily allow America to spend less on it's own military? People on this thread are certainly suggesting that a stronger NATO helps the US with it's national debt problem. But would it?
I'd submit that it probably doesn't. The EU can probably then be trusted to deal with Russia with less US support, but America is mostly spending a lot on the military to manage China, not Russia. That doesn't change.
What might change is that if the US does decide that war with China is now necessary... they're more likely to be fighting alone.
That (in my opinion) is why the US has basically allowed other NATO members to freeload for the last 40 odd years.
Not because they're weak, or soft, or gullible. But because thy know that in doing so, they maintain their 'sovereign territories abroad' (i.e Europe). It gets the US influence, it keeps all those nations in lockstep with US foreign policy even if they have no desire to cooperate, it keeps those nations as subordinate client nations.
Britain did the same with much of its empire at some point or another. For example, post a fleet in the Pacific so that a. Australia doesn't feel the need to build up a defensive force of their own against Russia, Japan, or China, and b. so that if Australia gets rebellious, you can squash 'em easily. A win win.
