Der Preis des russischen Sieges: Warum es Amerika mehr kosten würde, Putin gewinnen zu lassen, als die Unterstützung der Ukraine

[SS from essay by Elaine McCusker, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2019 to 2020, she served as the Pentagon’s Deputy and then Acting Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller).]

Many Americans are concerned about the cost of aid to Ukraine. It took the U.S. Congress seven months to approve the last funding measure to provide aid. A November Pew poll indicates that most Americans support helping Ukraine, yet roughly a quarter believe that Washington has been providing too much assistance. Elected officials, including the Vice President-elect JD Vance, continue making misleading comments about being “half a trillion dollars in the hole for the Ukraine conflict.” The billionaire Elon Musk, who is helping the incoming Trump administration sort out plans to cut federal spending, posted on social media last February that it was “insane” for the United States to continue its investment in Ukraine.

Such worries are understandable. The United States is faced with numerous challenges. Illegal immigration, financing the national debt, competition with China, war in the Middle East, and a generally unpredictable global security environment all compete for attention and resources. It is not surprising that it is difficult for Washington to sort out its priorities.

It is not an uninteresting article, but imo fails to capture the dichotomy of the positions of the current and future administration. The current administration would not let Russia win because it realizes that the current return on investment is high. This is nothing new, it just needs to balance public perception and its aim in Ukraine, while also ensuring no further escalation.

The next administration may let Russia win in the short-term, but there is also a question about its willingness to intervene if Russia were to attack a NATO country. Hence, this notion of the “deal of the century” does not necessarily make sense if one does not care to solidify the American presence in Europe after conceding some kind of victory to Russia in Ukraine. If the next administration stops supplying Ukraine, I find it hard to believe it will then increase its presence in Europe. Hence, there is no deal to be had, because it will not up its presence in Europe, at least not if they remain in power for the foreseeable future.

Now, the essence of the debate, as always, is if America’s isolationist tendencies are short-sighted / damaging to its economy, i.e., to what extent the US is better off economically by pretending Russia is not a threat.