$175 billion spent, zero results. What should we have expected?

Photo above - US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives in Saudi Arabia for Russian peace talks. He is apparently receiving tips from renowned assassin and oppressor crown prince MBS.

I can just see Elon Musk rolling his eyes now. “We spent HOW much? $175 billion!!?? And we have nothing to show for it? Pull the plug . . .”

That $175 billion of course is the total US aid sent to Ukraine so far. To save the nation from Russian invasion and atrocities. Military aid, humanitarian aid, the whole ball of wax. Russia may have spent less on it’s invasion, in terms of rubles (they used outdated legacy weapons and cheap Iranian drones) but has lost hundreds of thousands of men – soldiers, forced conscripts, prisoners on parole, malnourished North Korean dwarves . . .

The progressive press is apoplectic: “How can we abandon Ukraine at a time like this?” How, indeed?
There were only a couple of ways this war could have ended:

- Russia wins in the first 2 weeks, like the Pentagon advised Biden. To everyone's surprise, Ukranian troops and generals proved smarter and more motivated than Putin’s invaders.

- NATO enters the conflict. Either by enforcing a no-fly zone, or activating ground troops. Europe vetoed this because Putin kept going on TV and promising to nuke various nation's capitols. The Biden administration had no maneuvering room and refused to call Putin’s bluff on its own.

- A negotiated settlement, which ratifies the real estate captured at that point in time, and allows Putin to save face, while giving him time to re-arm. This is where we are today.

It’s okay to blame Trump for tossing Hegseth and Rubio into the furnace before they even unpacked. But please recognize that negotiations were Biden's 2025 plan all along. Keep Ukraine out of the news until after re-election, then begin negotiations to decide which flag stays where. If you’re not going to use NATO, or send in US troops unilaterally, it’s your only option. You can't keep spending hundreds of billions forever. The US public is war weary. And unlike war weary Russians, we get to vote about things we don't like.

So yes, Putin wins. If you have another solution, please post it below. In the meantime, let’s move along, shall we?

I dismiss the bluster of French President Macron, who threatened to send French troops to Kiev. This is the guy who was flummoxed by a few dozen striking railroad workers.

Germany is a joke. They're still buying Russian oil and natural gas, keeping Putin’s murderous dream alive. And at the same time wringing their hands and bemoaning the atrocities.

England isn’t going to do anything unless the US does. They only have 10% of US troop strength and only spend 10% as much on their military. And England, Germany and France are all behind on their NATO dues. Besides the USA, only Greece and Poland are up to date. Poland shares a border with Ukraine, and is watching this thing play out nervously.

Defense Secretary Hegseth is a disaster so far. Rubio seems a bit more polished and astute. I don’t buy the notion that Russian negotiators are “experts” who will eat him for lunch. However, I certainly DO buy the notion that Russians are ruthless thugs who don’t care how many people die. That is their secret negotiating power. "Look !!! We just crashed a drone into the Chernobyl containment dome! Bwaaah . . . you're all gonna die!"

I find it both hilarious and deplorable that PBS, CNN and other mainstream media are now screeching in anguish over negotiations. They would have been cheering if this was Biden. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. And those pundit probably couldn’t even figure out the 3 ways this war could end, so they’re morons too.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

How Much U.S. Aid Is Going to Ukraine? | Council on Foreign Relations

US, Russia wrap first Ukraine talks in Saudi Arabia. Europe sidelined

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

business as usual; Europe will keep bashing Trumps attempts at negotiations/ending the war, whilst being too incompetent/lacking the courage to do it themselves. They criticize us for being warmongers & getting involved in things we have no business in, yet when they do it, they expect us to rush to their aid and provide them funding & weapons.

nato's purpose was to prevent a war with russia, not start one; and if they keep antagonizing russia with continued expansion, that's exactly what's going to happen eventually.

most Americans are tired of holding up NATO with their tax dollars with absolutely nothing to gain from it; Europe has had since the end of the cold war to build up their defenses/NATO; the fact that they squandered the opportunity, and wasted time and funds on things like all the greenie bullshit is their problem, not ours.

Europeans have a long history of being petty cutthroats (they started two world wars after all...), I see absolutely no good reason to help them start a third... (and have to bail them out of one, again...)

Ukraine just picked a poor time to try and switch sides; as a former warsaw pact country, they used to be an enemy of the west; they made another huge blunder when they traded much of the former soviet unions nuclear arsenal (which resided mostly in Ukraine after the collapse) back to Russia, effectively eliminating any strategic deterrence; They also agreed not to apply for/join nato, then broke their word by lobbying for membership.

We can't fault Russia for not wanting to have potential nato enemies right on his doorstep; we didn't allow the soviets to put missiles in Cuba (even though we were putting them in Turkey at the time...).

The wisest decision would have been to establish a buffer zone treaty between nato and russia with ukraine, belarus, latvia, estonia, finland, etc. remaining neutral.

simple fact of the matter is, they made themselves a target and let it happen, and nato, despite all their saber rattling & rhetoric, didn't have the balls to prevent it either...

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@wildbill83 There are some valid points in that lot but the mere anti-"Old World" abuse is of neither use nor ornament to anyone, and only demeans you.

Most European countries acknowledge they should pay more to NATO and on their own forces and equipment, without harming taxpayers and public services too much in the process. A difficult balance.

Ukraine gave Russia the former USSR nuclear weapons back, (or scrapped them?), in return for independence and sovereignity in a deal made by the UK, USA, Ukraine and Russia.

Would a neutral "buffer zone" work? With Russia normally, perhaps. With Putin in charge, who knows?

The removal of Russian missiles from Cuba was matched by removal of the US missiles from Turkey; but I remember it was a very frightening time indeed.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@wildbill83 agree that nato's (imagined) purpose was to "prevent war", not win one.

not that war has started, should it's mission change? or should we just disband it and approach this problem unilaterally, or with a smaller "coalition of the willing?"