Liberals and Democrats remain fixated on Ukraine, clinging to every possible rationale to justify ongoing U.S. funding. As usual, they’re quick to label President Trump as “Hitler” for not aligning with their desires.
The reasons against continued U.S. financial support for Ukraine are compelling. Over the last three years, America has funneled over $120 billion to Zelensky, covering both military and other forms of aid.
Yet, in a recent meeting, Zelensky confessed to President Trump that he cannot account for these funds. When U.S. officials pressed him on his victory strategy, he admitted to having none.
This indicates that further U.S. support would merely pour more money into a bottomless pit, devoid of a war-ending strategy or a timeline for when this endless funding will cease.
President Trump proposed a savvy deal to Zelensky: financial aid in exchange for Ukraine’s mineral resources, coupled with the implied defense of U.S. forces managing the extraction.
However, Zelensky turned down this mutually beneficial offer, opting instead for unconditional financial support without giving anything in return. Trump aptly noted Zelensky’s unwillingness to negotiate.
Predictably, media outlets are distorting this situation, likening Trump to Hitler once again, and falsely asserting that he wants Zelensky to capitulate to Russia. But that’s not Trump’s stance.
Negotiation requires mutual concessions. Zelensky’s refusal to budge equates to a rejection of negotiations. Trump’s statement that Zelensky is not negotiating is factual—not Russian propaganda, as the media portrays.
Pro-Ukraine advocates continue to fabricate reasons to compel U.S. support for Ukraine. A popular argument is that Ukraine was promised U.S. protection when it relinquished its nuclear arsenal.
But there is no formal agreement; the Budapest Memorandum only vaguely promises protection from nuclear, not conventional, attacks.
Another angle they’ve attempted is a supposed NATO imperative, which falls flat as NATO protection exclusively applies to member states—and Ukraine is not part of NATO.
The media accuses Trump of “abandoning” Ukraine. But Trump is within his rights to withdraw U.S. support, as America holds no obligation to defend Ukraine.
The latest ludicrous argument is that the U.S. owes military defense to Ukraine because of its participation in the Afghanistan war.
This claim is so preposterous it hardly deserves rebuttal. Nonetheless, for clarity’s sake, let’s debunk it: the Afghanistan war, though U.S.-led, was a NATO operation sanctioned by the UN, where Ukraine, as a member, took part.
From 2001 to 2021, Ukraine deployed a total of 1,600 troops, averaging just 30 personnel at any given time. The costs of Ukraine’s deployment were largely covered by NATO and international partners.
Ukraine’s limited involvement in Afghanistan cannot compare to the scale of U.S. support in Ukraine’s conflict with Russia and does not justify further aid.
Some are now suggesting NATO should instantly admit Ukraine to permit NATO intervention, which would be a severe misjudgment and a blatant breach of NATO protocols.
NATO maintains stringent membership standards detailed in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the Membership Action Plan (MAP). Potential members must satisfy political, military, and economic criteria, including territorial integrity, democratic governance, and military alignment with NATO.
Ukraine struggles in these areas: ongoing territorial disputes with Russia, corruption issues, and incomplete NATO military integration.
Though there has been progress, these obstacles continue to block Ukraine’s NATO membership.
Ignoring these rules to welcome Ukraine into NATO could lead to the U.S. withdrawing from the alliance.
Despite the claims by Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and some liberal Europeans, neither NATO nor Europe is prepared to confront Russia without U.S. backing.
While media outlets may label Trump as Hitler or a Kremlin puppet for pulling U.S. support from Ukraine, the truth is that Trump is simply being a realist.
According to Zelensky himself, there is no victory path for Ukraine. Thus, negotiation is his only choice—yet he refuses to engage.
Trump also highlighted a crucial point: the continued U.S. support has given Zelensky a false sense of security, making him even less willing to negotiate. Cutting off that support might force Zelensky to face reality—he will not win and must negotiate, conceding something to Putin.
Even the deployment of 1,600 Ukrainian troops to Afghanistan over two decades—at others’ expense—does not alter this truth. As the saying goes, reality tends to have a conservative bias.
