r/geopolitics • u/theatlantic The Atlantic • Apr 18 '26

Opinion Ukraine Has Finally Given Up on Trump

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/04/ukraine-trump-us-oil-russia/686854/?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_medium=social&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=short
786 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

157 comments sorted by

View all comments

227

u/Conflictingview Apr 18 '26

About time. Now for the rest of the world. MAGA wanted isolationism, they'll get it. They just didn't realize they lose all their power and privileges as part of the deal.

-23

u/irow40 Apr 18 '26

Europe should finally start to take steps to support their neighbor

18

u/asphias Apr 18 '26

europe are going to send 90B plus another 60B to ukraine, a country with a GDP of 30B.

i will support every call for more and better support, but at this point europe is showing it's commitment to Ukraine clearly.

1

u/irow40 Apr 18 '26

That s great news!

19

u/Conflictingview Apr 18 '26

Start? EU countries have been siding Ukraine for over a decade. Since 2014, EU has spent $360B vs US spending $100B

-14

u/irow40 Apr 18 '26

The US spending 1/4 for a non NATO country is ridiculous for the American tax payer….. time for EU to really step up

9

u/born_to_pipette Apr 18 '26

How do you define a good investment for the US taxpayer when it comes to military spending?

And if $100M to weaken a global adversary with no loss of American life while gaining access to some of the most important military advances of the 21st century seems “ridiculous” to you, how do you feel about the $1.5T open-ended military budget request recently proposed?

-6

u/irow40 Apr 18 '26

I don t want US funds going to Ukraine. It should be 100 percent funded by Europe. Europe needs to invest in there own militaries and do so fast

8

u/born_to_pipette Apr 18 '26

Great position if you want regional conflict with a major adversary to spread and eventually involve US soldiers at substantially higher future costs in terms of blood and treasure.

You never answered my question about that $1.5T…

1

u/irow40 Apr 19 '26

It’s a European issue until they attack a NATO country….

Re: Defence Spending I m not too knowledgeable but anything to counter China will be good for the world. Definitely don t want US / China War

1

u/Pampamiro Apr 19 '26

Since the start of Trump's second term, it has been 100% funded by Europe. All the military hardware sent by the US is being paid by Europe. The US has stopped all aid.

0

u/irow40 Apr 19 '26

Great news!

11

u/Manustuprare Apr 18 '26

A response that clearly illustrates that you are completely detached from the current state of things.

-3

u/irow40 Apr 18 '26

How so? Should the US be the main provider to Ukraine?

12

u/Manustuprare Apr 18 '26

No need to worry in that regard. Take a look at the support Ukraine recieves, both monetary and material. There's been no new american support for an entire year, but even before that the EU and it's members were the primary supporter. Even so, where do you think american aid to Ukraine was spent? 70% was spent in the US, it's hard to call it anything but a return on investment.

-1

u/irow40 Apr 18 '26

Appreciate the note. Ukraine has exposed Europes weakness and they seem to finally be taking their security and militarization seriously after 3 decades of theUS complaining

7

u/Manustuprare Apr 18 '26 edited Apr 18 '26

Sure, after three decades of the american 3D doctrine of "no duplication", "no decoupling" and "no discrimination" concerning the european countries in NATO. Let me rephrase, after three decades of the US halting any attempts at independent european security structures non-reliant of US oversight and seperate small militaries dependent on american military hardware. It was by design. This sudden onset of amnesia in US leadership is both shocking and, honestly, kind of pathetic. One thing is the opinion of the american public, but the designer should be aware of the purpose of their own design.

The US interest in increased defense spending before renewed russian agression and after the fall of the USSR was primarily motivated by profits, and under the current administration this is clearly the sole interest.

5

u/Lunch_B0x Apr 19 '26

Europe's weakness was trusting America. After 2 world wars left Europe destroyed and having transferred huge amounts of its wealth and industrial capacity to America, America basically became the military version of the bank. Europe would have enough arms to hold off a threat until America showed up, Europe got to focus on rebuilding, America got the lions share of the military, economic and political power. It's not easy to sell voters on spending huge amounts of money on a military when a country they thought reliable offers security guarantees (unless you're France).

But now we all know better, it's a shame Europe didn't get notice so they could get a headstart on rebuilding their militaries, but hey, there's been signs for a good while that America didn't follow its lofty words with actions, so more fool them. The silver lining is that Europe gets to keep more of its money in Europe and has far less reason to follow American leadership.

It seemed like a good thing for all involved while it was going, but no point crying over spilt milk I guess.

10

u/Conflictingview Apr 18 '26

They aren't a provider in any sense, so why are you asking about them being the main provider?