Liberals and Democrats are so invested in Ukraine that they are grasping at any possible straw to justify continued U.S. funding. And, of course, they are calling Trump Hitler for not doing exactly what they want.
The case against continued U.S. funding for Ukraine is strong. Over the past three years, the U.S. has provided Zelensky with over $120 billion in total aid, including military and other assistance.
Yet, at his meeting with President Trump, Zelensky admitted he cannot account for the money. When U.S. officials asked him what his plan for victory was, he admitted he had none.
This means continued U.S. support would just be more money thrown into a bottomless pit, with no strategy to end the war and no estimate of when this endless funding would stop.
Trump offered Zelensky a brilliant deal: financial aid in exchange for Ukraine’s mineral resources, with the added benefit of implied U.S. defense, as American personnel would be stationed there overseeing the extraction.
Zelensky rejected this win-win proposal, preferring instead to receive free money while giving nothing in return. Trump has rightly pointed out that Zelensky is unwilling to negotiate.
The media, in their usual distortion, are now calling Trump Hitler for this as well, falsely claiming that he wants Zelensky to surrender and let Russia win. But that is not what Trump said.
By definition, a negotiation requires both sides to make concessions. Since Zelensky refuses to yield anything, he has also rejected negotiations outright. Trump’s statement that Zelensky refuses to negotiate is a fact—not Kremlin propaganda, as the media claim.
The pro-Ukraine crowd has tried every fabricated excuse to claim the U.S. is obligated to support Ukraine. One of their favorite arguments is that Ukraine was promised U.S. protection when it gave up its nuclear weapons.
However, there is no such agreement on paper—only the Budapest Memorandum, which, at best, offers Ukraine protection from a nuclear attack, not a conventional one.
Next, they tried pushing some kind of NATO imperative, but this is nonsense since NATO protection only applies to NATO members—and Ukraine is not a member.
The press keeps using terms like “abandoning” to claim that Trump is abandoning Ukraine. But this is an accurate statement.
Trump is allowed to abandon Ukraine. He is allowed to halt U.S. support. The U.S. is in no way obligated to defend Ukraine.
Now, their latest foolish argument is that the U.S. should defend Ukraine because Ukraine participated in the Afghanistan war.
This argument is so absurd that it almost doesn’t need addressing—but for the sake of clarity, here’s why the Afghanistan war is a false equivalent and does not justify continued U.S. support for Ukraine’s endless war with Russia.
The war in Afghanistan, though led by the U.S., was a NATO operation authorized by the UN, and Ukraine, as a UN member, participated.
Between 2001 and 2021, Ukraine deployed a total of 1,600 troops, with an average of just 30 personnel on the ground at any given time. Most of the funding for Ukraine’s deployment was covered by NATO and international allies.
Ukraine’s limited participation in Afghanistan is nowhere near comparable to the scale of U.S. support for Ukraine’s war against Russia and does not justify sending billions more in aid.
Here’s your revised version with improved flow and clarity while keeping your meaning intact:
Along with the many other spurious arguments being made in favor of supporting Ukraine, some are now suggesting that NATO should admit Ukraine immediately to justify NATO intervention. However, this would be a grave error and a blatant violation of NATO rules.
NATO has strict membership criteria, primarily outlined in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty and the Membership Action Plan (MAP). To join, a country must meet political, military, and economic standards, including territorial integrity, democratic governance, and military interoperability.
Ukraine falls short in key areas: it has unresolved territorial conflicts with Russia, struggles with corruption and rule of law, and has yet to fully integrate NATO military standards.
While some progress has been made, these challenges continue to prevent Ukraine from meeting NATO’s accession requirements.
If these rules were ignored and NATO accepted Ukraine under current conditions, the U.S. would be extremely likely to withdraw from the alliance.
Despite claims from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and various liberal voices in Europe, NATO and Europe are not prepared to face Russia without U.S. support.
While the media may call Trump Hitler or a Kremlin stooge for withdrawing support for Ukraine, the reality is that Trump is simply a realist.
According to Zelensky himself, Ukraine has no path to victory. That means he has no choice but to negotiate—yet he refuses to do so.
Trump also raised a very real point: continued U.S. support has given Zelensky a false sense of security, making him even more reluctant to negotiate. Withdrawing that support may force Zelensky to wake up to reality—he is not going to win and will have to negotiate, yielding something to Putin.
And this is despite the 1,600 troops Ukraine sent to Afghanistan over 20 years ago—at someone else’s expense. That is not Moscow propaganda; it is simply the truth. As the old saying goes, reality has a conservative bias.
The post Ukraine’s Afghanistan Involvement: No Blank Check for U.S. Aid appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.