Replies

Unlike Syria, Ukraine isn’t just valuable in itself, for its people and natural resources, it’s also a traditional way station for Russian invasions of Europe. What Trump will do on Ukraine only he knows, but past sweet nothings to Putin accompanied by sanctions or worse on Russia are one reason to view with skepticism the idea he’ll be soft on Russia.

Former NSC Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire. Everyone who knows the history of the region understands that this war is about how much of Ukraine will be permitted to divorce itself from Russian and join the West, likely in a closer reunion with Poland.

For one thing, just on prestige alone, if Putin conquers Ukraine on Trump’s watch, his historical stature rises above Trump’s. Does Trump want to be Hertz, #1, or Avis, an also-ran? His first term suggests Hertz. His urging Europe to spend more on defense is clearly aimed at warding off Russia, as is his reactivation of V Corps and placing it in Poland, in preparation for the stationing of 50K GIs hundreds of miles closer to Russia.

The war is unpopular politically in the U.S., and Trump understands that. However, that doesn't mean that Trump will squander the historic opportunity to weaken Russia's geopolitical position in Ukraine and Belarus. The entire Russian state could collapse as it did in WWI after initially gaining territory in Habsburg Galicia. Cleaving off Kaliningrad into an independent state would enhance security in Europe and push Russia further away from NATO and Europe. While the cost of U.S. support for Ukraine makes headlines, it is mostly obsolete military equipment. Shipping it to Ukraine is likely cheaper than paying to decommission it. I suspect that most of the added cost is for sweet heart contracts for the right connected people in the process. That should be audited to eliminate any unwarranted price increases.

There are flaws in this logic.
The original idea in provoking this war was to force a regime change to put a puppet in change of Russia
Not only it has ultimately failed, a significant Western influence in Russia was completely wiped out and it is going to have a lasting effect, for no less than two generations.
Take into account that two decades ago Washington literally owned Russian politics, it had enough influence to have its way a decade ago, the majority of Russians were pro-Western just three years ago. Now there is no influential group in the society that doesn’t hate the West with a passion. It will reflect on Russian foreign policy for sure.
The attempts to isolate Russia mostly failed, Putin has become a hero of the Third World. He launched a dedollarization campaign that works just fine - a real danger for the US that didn’t exist three years ago.
I’d say that your prediction that a lot is going to be left of Ukraine is overtly optimistic but let’s say a rump state remains.
It is going to be economically unviable requiring enormous support and a huge drain for the West.
Let’s say that Russia is completely divorces from the West.
What is the upside? It has China right across the border.
In light of future Western confrontation with China a lot is said about a maritime blocade of China.
Take into account that the Chinese GDP is only 20% depends on exports right now. Even if a maritime part of it is wiped out which is very unlikely because the US depends on the Chinese goods more than China on export sales, they can afford it to rely on internal economy that makes in excess of 80% of GDP. All they need to keep it running is natural resources. And now they have Russia isolated from the West right across the border which has all they need. What did you achieve this way?