Posted on 07/14/2025 9:04:56 AM PDT by Angelino97
When asked on July 7 whether the United States would be sending more weapons to Ukraine, President Donald Trump responded in the affirmative. “We have to, they have to be able to defend themselves,” Trump told reporters, referring to the Ukrainians. “They’re getting hit very hard. Now they’re getting hit very hard. We’re gonna have to send more weapons.”
Many foreign policy analysts in Washington and Europe greeted the remarks with a sigh of relief. Six days earlier, the Trump administration suspended some U.S. arms shipments to Ukraine in a move American defense officials at the time said was part of a broader review of the U.S. military’s munitions stockpiles.
That decision elicited a mix of disappointment, panic and anger, with U.S. lawmakers—including some within Trump’s own Republican Party—calling the move counterproductive to White House’s aims of pressuring Russia’s President Vladimir Putin into a serious peace process.
Yet the latest dizzying rollercoaster ride on Ukraine aid misses a crucial point: a pause, however temporary, was always inevitable at some point. And because the U.S. military and the U.S. defense-industrial base are vastly overstretched and burdened with numerous flash-points in multiple regions simultaneously, it’s likely a similar situation will happen again.
All of this boils down to a simple proposition: The United States is simply doing too much, the consequence of an outdated U.S. foreign policy of primacy that Washington continues to lean on. In general, primacy is a resource-intensive approach that seeks to defend a state’s status as the world’s foremost power by keeping competitors down and allies close.
Maintaining dominance over the international system is the name of the game, and U.S. administrations under Republican and Democratic presidents alike sought to ensure American power was unrivaled and unchallenged.
Such a strategy was workable in the 1990s and early 2000s, when America was at the cusp of its unipolar moment and other challengers—like Russia and China—were either too weak or uninterested to resist U.S. policy. Washington’s unipolar moment has long since passed. The United States may still be the world’s strongest superpower, but it’s no longer a hegemon free to do what it likes.
China, whose economy is more than 15 times larger than it was at the turn of the century, is now a strong (if not the strongest) military and economic power in Asia with both the intent and capability to balance Washington in its neighborhood.
Russia may be dealing with systemic problems in terms of demographics and economics—not to mention a three-year war in Ukraine that is churning through young Russian men by the hundreds every week—but it’s nevertheless led by a man, Vladimir Putin, who is willing to use force in an attempt to cling to whatever sphere of influence Moscow has left.
The foundations of U.S. foreign policy have failed to catch up with a world order that is becoming more multipolar with time and where middle powers in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia are constantly on the lookout for opportunities.
This is bad news for the Trump administration because a correct diagnosis of international politics as it currently exists is a prerequisite for smart policy. What we have instead is an attachment to an old stratagem that creates more problems than it solves.
Indeed, primacy is not a risk-free enterprise. As recent history has shown, it can lead to hubris, shallow thinking and a sense of unbridled self-importance, whereby every international challenge—no matter how small—is viewed as an urgent and present danger.
Prioritization—determining what interests are truly vital to U.S. security and prosperity, where to expend the country’s limited resources and which challenge should be left for allies or partners to manage—falls by the wayside as U.S. policymakers increasingly buy into the fallacy that America is the only state with the capacity and responsibility to solve the world’s problems.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s description of America as “the indispensable nation,” made in 1998, is still very much a core tenet of U.S. foreign policy in 2025.
Trump may repeatedly crow about allies in Europe and Asia not picking up their fair share of the defense burden, but the sheen of primacy hasn’t worn off yet. Despite reorientation from fighting counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East to competing with China in the Pentagon’s strategy documents over the last decade, the U.S. force posture remains global, hindering the purported shift to the Indo-Pacific that U.S. defense planners frequently talk about.
Desperately clinging to a dying hegemony means shortchanging military readiness over the long-term, rapidly moving military resources thousands of miles at a time without due regard for long-term strategy and expending defense assets at a rate that current production can’t match. Eventually, those decisions will add up and result in difficult decisions down the line, like the one Washington just confronted regarding Ukraine.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Trump called him on Thursday to confirm he wanted to enter into a deal with NATO allies to sell them arms for aid to Ukraine.
Trump said billions of dollars worth of U.S. arms would be purchased from allies like Germany, Finland and Denmark that will be "quickly distributed" to Ukraine.
Trump has tried to make peace. He has cut aid to Ukraine to show Russia he is serious. In response, Putin has slapped away any hand offering peace. OK, there is no choice now but to support Ukraine.
Any aid to Ukraine should come only AFTER Zelinski turns over irrefutable evidence of the Biden’s corruption...and perhaps Hillary’s.
“Many foreign policy analysts in Washington and Europe greeted the remarks with a sigh of relief.”
I don’t share in their relief. I see more expenses for us to go to a wasted effort. In time, the Ukraine is going to have to crawl from under the rubble they have left and be willing to talk and settle on this the opposite of what they did in 1991. In the mean time the US is throwing weapons to a former satellite territory of Russia that has wealth and they want it back. It took 20 years for Russia to demand it but the time is here now.
Except for black sites and labs along with minerals, we have no allegiance with the Ukraine as they are not a member of the NATO that is throwing them a bone for trade and allowing us to be squatters, we have no other real interest. So as long as we can stay, and continue free trade, it doesn’t mean anything to the US who we pay rent to. Their bread was buttered a little over 35 years ago. Now they are paying interest, also.
wy69
That may have been a necessary attempt for optical purposes, but it was silly and delusional at best.
Trump was acting like the U.S. is a neutral party when it has been taking one side of this conflict for years.
Agee. Give Ukraine to Russia and let them rebuild it
good luck wid dat...
The Three Gorges dam is about to blow a gasket.
Trump Ending Free Foreign Aid: ‘Free Ride’ Is Over
President Donald Trump vowed on the campaign trail to end free foreign aid, and while Democrats, lawyers, and judges are pushing back on his agenda, Trump says the rebalancing of the global order on both trade and defensive weapons is necessary.
“The United States of America has been ripped off on trade (and military!), by friend and foe, alike, for decades,” Trump wrote in a Monday morning Truth Social post. “It has come at a cost of trillions of dollars, and it is just not sustainable any longer – and never was!”
The “long free ride” has come to a long overdue end, according to Trump.
“Countries should sit back and say, ‘Thank you for the many year’s long free ride, but we know you now have to do what’s right for America,’” his post concluded. “We should respond by saying, ‘Thank you for understanding the situation we are in. Greatly appreciated!’”
Trump’s post comes as he is expected to announce a defensive arms deal with Ukraine that would supply it with Patriot missile systems and other defensive weapons amid Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unrelenting war in Ukraine.
Trump had attempted diplomacy with Putin – even once warning Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy that he does not “hold the cards” and should try to talk peace with his longtime aggressor – but Trump’s frustration over Putin sticking a finger in his face has come to a head.
“We will send them Patriots, which they desperately need, because Putin really surprised a lot of people: He talks nice and then bombs everybody in the evening,” Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews outside of Washington on Sunday night.
“But there’s a little bit of a problem there. I don’t like it.
“We basically are going to send them various pieces of very sophisticated military equipment. They are going to pay us 100% for that, and that’s the way we want it.”
He plans to meet NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte to discuss Ukraine and other issues this week.
Information from Reuters was used to compile this report.
The efforts to “make peace” were nothing but proposals of “be reasonable, do it my way”, personal charm, flattery etc.
They have well explained and defined national interests that have not changed.
And we never offer them anything in return. We get what we want, a breather for rest and refit like we got with Minsk II, NATO peacekeepers moving in and embedding with Uke forces, a no-fly starts, Blackrock moving in to rebuild.
And we do not offer them anything in return. No SWIFT, no return of the stolen hundreds of billions of cash and metals, no ending sanctions, no repair of Nordstream, no neutral status of Ukraine they couldn’t reverse in a day with a statement.
Basically, our negotiations are they give up everything, we get all we want except a withdrawl. They are winning, and know Trump cannot even control DC and will likely lose the house at midterms.
You nailed it. The “peace” proposals are aimed at optics for morons.
America’s foreign policy is “broken” today because it has been unsustainable — and often incoherent — for decades.
This is key. Hopefully, no more aid, only loans.
Wykoff offered Putin US recognition of Russian ownership of Crimea, sanctions removed, and US economic cooperation on energy. Ukraine would have received some vague security guarantee with no NATO membership.
Putin rejected the deal and demanded Ukraines surrender.
Ceasefire
Permanent ceasefire
Both sides immediately engage in technical implementation negotiations
Ukraine security guarantee
Ukraine receives robust security guarantee
Guarantor states will be an ad hoc grouping of European states plus willing non-European states
Ukraine will not seek to join NATO
Ukraine may pursue EU membership
Territory
US provides de jure recognition of Russian control of Crimea
US provides de facto recognition of Russian control of Luhansk
US provides de facto recognition of Russian-controlled parts of Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Kherson
Ukraine regains territory in Kharkiv Oblast
Ukraine regains control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant through US control and administration of the plant, with electricity distributed to both sides, and also the Kakhovka Dam
Ukraine enjoys unhindered passage on Dnieper River and control of the Kinburn Spit
Economics
United States and Ukraine will implement economic cooperation/minerals agreement
Ukraine to be fully reconstructed and compensated financially
Sanctions on Russia resulting from this conflict since 2014 will be removed
U.S.-Russian economic cooperation on energy and other industrial sectors
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-peace-deal-proposals-set-out-by-us-talks-paris-2025-04-25/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.