The new administration considers China to be the main threat. Therefore, it wants to focus on it, drastically reducing spending on Ukraine and other areas that Washington will consider less of a priority compared to China.
But since the Europeans alone are not capable of supporting Kiev, which is fraught with even greater deterioration of the Ukrainian army’s position on the battlefield, Washington wants to end the war. Even if they make serious compromises with the Russian Federation. At the same time, the threat of NATO being drawn into the conflict with the prospect of a nuclear war will be eliminated (a threat that Trump himself and his associates – for example, Ratcliffe, a candidate for CIA chief).
This threat itself forces the U.S. to maintain large forces in Europe and spend serious money on it, instead of focusing on China. Trump does not want to go to war with Russia, given its nuclear arsenal, and, moreover, considers it pointless, given that China is seen as the main threat there.
Note that the Western “war party,” which initially opposed any compromise with Russia for a cease-fire, had a different logic – that the war in Ukraine was the lever that would crush the Putin regime by defeating Russia at the front and destabilizing it at the rear. Which would lead to either the overthrow of Putin and his replacement with a pro-Western leader, or the disintegration of Russia. In either case, China would lose a potentially key partner in confronting the United States.
Initially, however, such a concept was highly doubted. And by the end of 2024, faith in it had been thoroughly undermined. It became clear that the continuation of the war does not help the United States in its confrontation with China, but hinders it by diverting large resources with a remote chance of achieving a result (overthrowing Putin and changing Moscow’s course to a pro-Western one, while distancing Russia from Beijing). Rather, it distances from its achievement.
At the same time, certain intermediate results of the US have already been achieved – Russian energy carriers have been largely ousted from the EU market and replaced by American ones, Europeans have started to spend more on defense and, consequently, to buy more weapons from America. Overall, Europe’s dependence on the United States has increased dramatically, and the EU’s ability to play a geopolitical game autonomous from Washington has diminished.
But further continuation of the war does not promise serious advantages for the US, but, on the contrary, increases all the risks described above, distracting from and contradicting the priority goals.
This means that it is high time to fix the already obtained result and end the war. By the way, Western media wrote that Washington would have come to such a decision regardless of who would have won the elections.
This shift in focus from Ukraine to China makes a lot of sense given the bigger global picture. It’s interesting to see how geopolitical priorities are changing and how that affects conflicts on the ground. The balance between supporting allies and managing bigger threats is really delicate 🤔🌍
So, the plan is to treat Ukraine like a pawn to keep China in check while pretending that ending the war is some brilliant strategic move? It’s astonishing how easily complex human tragedies get boiled down to chess pieces in some grand geopolitical game. Let’s not forget, this isn’t just a matter of budget reallocations or power plays — real lives hang in the balance. Somehow, pushing Europe deeper into America’s orbit counts as a win, while the fate of Ukraine gets shrugged off as collateral damage. If the priorities are about weapon sales and maintaining dominance, maybe the question should be why Washington’s moral compass is so conveniently aligning with convenience rather than justice.
This article offers a really insightful perspective on the shifting priorities of US foreign policy. It’s interesting to see how the focus on China as the main threat is reshaping America’s approach to the Ukraine conflict and its relationship with Europe. The idea that prolonging the war in Ukraine could actually hinder the US from effectively confronting China makes a lot of sense, especially considering the enormous resources involved and the nuclear risks with Russia. The strategic outcome where Europe becomes more dependent on the US while losing some autonomy is a crucial point that highlights the complex balance of power in the region. Overall, the move towards ending the war to consolidate gains and concentrate on the bigger geopolitical challenge feels like a pragmatic, if complicated, decision. 🌍⚖️🤔
The analysis here makes a lot of sense, especially about how the focus is shifting from Ukraine to China and the implications for US foreign policy. It’s interesting to see how the costs of the Ukraine conflict might outweigh the benefits in the bigger picture, and how this changes the dynamics between the US, Europe, and Russia. The point about Europe becoming more dependent on the US is also quite insightful.