Today’s meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin centers on a crucial objective:
securing Putin’s support for limiting Iranian uranium enrichment. For the United States, the
challenge is clear — it cannot sustain engagement on three fronts simultaneously:
Ukraine, Taiwan (China), and the Middle East involving Iran and Israel.
Ukraine is expected to derail any Trump-Putin proposals by refusing to concede even a single
inch of its territory. This stance is backed by French President Macron’s “plucked cock”
posture and the UK government. However, Trump appears indifferent to these European
positions. Should mediation fail, this could be the right moment for the U.S. to step back,
leaving Ukraine’s defense entirely to the European Union.
The EU, however, lacks both the means and the financial capacity to sustain such an effort.
In the end, this would likely allow Putin — at the cost of more lives — to take the contested
territories. This outcome would not rest solely on Putin’s shoulders but also on a Europe
described as a collection of “plucked cocks,” all noise without substance.
From a financial perspective, the burden on the U.S. is significant. For example, the
satellite and communications coverage provided by Elon Musk’s network to Ukraine costs
approximately $800 million per month — totaling $9.6 billion annually — and is currently
paid entirely by the U.S. If Washington were to withdraw this support, the EU would be
unable to shoulder the expense. Without these systems, Ukraine could face collapse within
three weeks. Moreover, Ukraine owes $546 billion in arrears to the U.S., a result of the
Biden administration’s policies — raising the question of who will pay and when these
amounts will be recovered, if at all, perhaps only by mineral rights for the USA.
Who Benefits from Prolonging the War?
Within the United States, several interest groups and strategic perspectives could see
benefits in sustaining the conflict rather than moving quickly toward a negotiated
settlement. These motives often intersect politics, economics, and global power strategy.
U.S. Hegemony
From a geopolitical standpoint, maintaining U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict can
reinforce American leadership within NATO, ensure continued influence over European security
policy, and constrain Russia’s strategic reach. Proponents of this view see the war as a
proxy theater to weaken an adversary without direct U.S. troop deployment, preserving global
U.S. primacy.
Weapons Lobbyists and the Defense Industry
The U.S. defense sector — including major contractors and their lobbyists — has seen
significant financial gains from wartime production orders. Billions of dollars in weapons
and ammunition supplied to Ukraine are replenished through Pentagon contracts, supporting
employment and revenue for the defense industry. Critics argue that these economic
incentives, combined with lobbying influence in Washington, create a vested interest in
sustaining military aid flows for as long as politically viable.
Conclusion
Fiscally, it may be better for Ukraine to reject any Putin-Trump agreement, prompting the
U.S. to withdraw. Such a move would contribute to deficit reduction and align with Trump’s
“America First” doctrine, instead of continuing with inherited costs and pursuing the
USA/NATO encroachment in violation of USA/NATO/Russia agreements:
- OSCE Helsinki Final Act (1975) & Paris Charter (1990)
- NATO’s Assurances on Eastward Expansion (1990–1991)
- Budapest Memorandum (1994)
- Partnership for Peace (PfP) (1994)
- NATO–Russia Founding Act (1997)
The term “USA/NATO/Russia agreements” generally refers to post–Cold War understandings aimed at
preventing direct NATO military expansion into former Soviet spheres of influence. These include
verbal assurances in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward beyond a reunified Germany, and the
1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, in which NATO pledged not to deploy substantial combat forces or
nuclear weapons in new member states. While not always codified in binding treaties, Russia has
long viewed these commitments as political guarantees that have been eroded over time.