If any of that were actually true, there is no way in hell any members of the EU, or the U.S., would still be sending money and armaments to Ukraine. By definition, we'd have stopped, promised that we wouldn't do it again, and be begging Russia to finish its conquest of Ukraine and start shipping fuel again. Because we would all have been brought to our knees. Right?
If all this is true, why is NATO refusing to engage, including the U.S.?
We are and have been very much engaged in terms of providing critical military support. Because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and we don't want to automatically trigger WW3, we haven't gotten directly involved militarily. But that was also true right at the very outset if this war, long before the loss of Russian fuel had even happened, and long before any possible claim that we were "crippled" or "brought to our knees".
If anything, we have increased our support of Ukraine since the loss of Russia fuel. So if we are "crippled" and "on our knees" before the glory of Mother Russia, we sure have a funny way of showing it.
Two things:
1) We are current 30 trillion 865 billion dollars in debt, when you count in unfunded liabilities, it's 222 trillion. So, should we be sending any money there?
If it were not for the fact that we are the world's reserve currency, we wouldn't be able to print money like drunken sailors. If BRICS has their way they will topple the dollar as the world's reserve currency, we may lose that honor. What do you think that will do to us overnight? Think Zimbabwe.