The USSR didn’t "come back"—it collapsed, shattered, and never recovered. What remains is a weakened, demographically dying, economically struggling Russia.
Territory lost by the USSR/Russia since the Cold War began:
The entire Soviet Union dissolved—Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are all gone.
The entire Warsaw Pact flipped to NATO—Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. Germany, the biggest Cold War prize, reunited under the West.
Territory lost by the U.S. and its allies? Zero.
Russia isn’t a rising empire—it’s a wounded animal lashing out, terrified of its own irrelevance. They’re afraid, backed into a corner, and desperately trying to hold onto power. They don’t dictate world affairs.
And as for negotiating with Russia? The U.S. has been doing that for 80 years—and it never made us weak before. Why should it now?
America dictates terms not Russia, and certainly not Europe. If Europe wants to keep playing games, let them but America chooses when, where, and how we engage.
Define "giving up world power." Because last I checked, being a world power means taking care of your own nation first, ensuring its security, economy, and people are strong. If America can’t even secure its own borders, prevent foreign influence on its soil, or manage its own spending, then what exactly are we protecting?
Prioritizing America isn’t weakness it’s a strength. No empire in history lasted long by neglecting its homeland while overextending abroad.
Ukraine isn’t America’s priority or ally, our borders, economy, and strategic position in the Pacific are. Europe is more than capable of handling its own security, and if they aren’t willing to, that’s on them not us.
I get what you’re saying, and I appreciate the thoughtful take. It's enjoyable to engage in an actual discussion about this instead of the usual knee-jerk reactions so thank you!
But here’s the thing. Great powers compete globally, but the real question isn’t whether America competes. It’s how, where, and at what cost. If we’re keeping influence by stretching ourselves too thin, ignoring our own problems, and paying Europe’s defense bill forever, then we’re setting ourselves up for failure just like Britain did.
Ukraine matters to Europe, not really to us. Losing Ukraine isn’t a crisis for America, but losing focus on our own borders, economy, and the Pacific definitely is.
I get that multipolarity has risks, but so does trying to be everywhere all the time. If European security is that important, then Europe should handle it. If they won’t, that’s on them.
If we don’t start prioritizing where America actually needs to be strong, we’re going to wake up one day and realize we’ve spent decades managing other people’s problems while letting our own pile up.
I appreciate the thoughtful response it’s refreshing to have a real discussion rather than the usual knee-jerk reactions.
That said, I think you’ve actually made my point for me. You laid out how Europe is equal to the U.S. in GDP, population, and military availability, all of which just reinforces why it no longer makes sense for the U.S. to keep shouldering the majority of European defense.
If Europe is fully capable, then it should be fully responsible for its own security. That doesn’t mean alliances disappear, but it does mean the dynamic needs to shift. The U.S. has carried this burden for 80 years, and at some point, grown-up nations take full responsibility for their own defense.
I agree that NATO served its purpose mutually during the Cold War. But now that the geopolitical landscape has changed, so should the arrangement. The U.S. has pressing priorities at home, and if Europe is as strong and independent as you say, then it should have no problem stepping up.
If Europe wants full American protection, then maybe it’s time they start paying for it.
Putin started the war, but U.S. policy played a major role in keeping it going. The so-called "adults" spent years writing blank checks, refusing to push for peace, and actively discouraging negotiations.
Trump has been in office for barely a month, and you're already declaring his efforts a "failure"? Wars don’t end in 30 days, especially when the previous administration spent two years fueling it instead of pushing for a resolution.
America operates on its own timeline, not anyone else's. If we want to change our approach to Ukraine, we should do it in a way that aligns with our interests, not because of some artificial urgency. The fact that negotiations are already moving forward with Putin should tell you something: a real process is happening. If the previous administration had done its job, we wouldn’t even be in this mess.
Yes, but making the world a less cruel place requires strength—strength of purpose, strength of character, and intellectual strength to have hard conversations about hard realities. We don’t reduce cruelty by ignoring the harm done by those who break the law. The people you defend are not victims—they are the ones making life harder for others, whether it’s overwhelming social services, committing crimes, or undercutting legal immigrants who followed the rules.
We don’t fight cruelty by sanitizing language or pretending reality isn’t what it is. We fight it by acknowledging hard truths and having the courage to address them honestly, not emotionally.
You are correct finding numbers can be a bit hard. Here is what I have found.
Since President Biden took office in January 2021, the U.S. has experienced a significant increase in illegal border crossings. Reports indicate that there have been approximately 8 million "encounters" at the U.S.-Mexico border during his tenure, a substantial rise compared to previous administrations.
This surge is notably higher than the figures recorded during the Trump administration, which saw approximately 2.4 million encounters over four years.
For graft I was referring to the continual mismanagement of funds by Federal Departments.
- An estimated $236 billion in improper payments were made, encompassing over-payments, underpayments, and payments lacking proper documentation.
- The DOD hasn't passed an audit in in 7 years! We can not account for our spending or our military assets.
- The whole US Aid thing is also part of that graft. US dollars going to questionable endeavors to enrich a few.
There are many more examples from FEMA and other organizations. The examples illustrate a systemic issue with the federal governments financial management.
That’s not even remotely comparable. The United States and Ukraine are vastly different in terms of military capability, geographic positioning, and strategic importance. Putin annexing a couple of U.S. states is a laughably unrealistic scenario—he can barely hold the territory he's taken from a country bordering his own.
The war in Ukraine is tragic, but it’s not our war. The idea that we must commit endless resources to it just because it’s happening is not a rational foreign policy stance. A stronger America means prioritizing where we spend our strength, not blindly throwing resources at conflicts that don’t directly threaten us.
Sure, the military-industrial complex benefits—but the military-industrial complex always benefits. That’s not a justification for continued involvement; it’s just a fact of how defense spending works. If anything, this strengthens my argument; why not prioritize military production and readiness for the Pacific, where our actual strategic interests lie?
As for "field testing," that’s a pretty thin silver lining to justify indefinite support. Wars evolve regardless, and we don't need to offload billions in weapons to foreign conflicts just to learn how modern combat works. If we’re going to spend, let’s spend where it serves America’s direct security, not someone else’s.
The assertion that America's wars cost us $30 trillion is not accurate. As of 2012, the national debt stood at approximately $16 trillion, with a significant portion resulting from domestic spending and the financial crisis, not solely military engagements. Our debt is not that large because of the wars, are they contributors of course, are they the long pole in the tent, not even close.
America is under no obligation to provide endless support to Ukraine. The notion that it's our duty to act as the world's arsenal is misguided. While assistance can be strategic, perpetually fueling a conflict without a clear path to peace is neither noble nor wise. It's time to prioritize diplomatic solutions over an indefinite cycle of military aid.
Why can’t it? Stating that America should prioritize itself is a direct and unapologetic stance. Brevity is not a lack of thought—it’s efficient communication. Dismissing a position because it’s concise rather than engaging with its merits is a weak argument. I recognize that some dislike this perspective and will seize any opportunity to undermine it, but that doesn’t make it any less valid.
Everyone has their own take on how they behaved. You say they acted like children, others say Zelensky was disrespectful. Either way, I’d rather have leaders willing to push back than the so-called "adults" who let this war start and then kept it going on autopilot.
Whether a deal was fully locked in or not, what we do know is that previous leadership had years to find an off-ramp and failed. The last group of "adults" spent years writing blank checks and getting nothing in return. If the current approach shakes things up and forces real discussion, maybe that’s exactly what’s needed. Looking out for America’s best interests doesn’t mean playing nice—it means knowing when to say enough.
My understanding is that a deal was in place. President of Ukraine publicly reneged on that deal and took what was supposed to be more of an announcement as an opportunity to grandstand and renegotiate the deal that had been worked out.
Things got heated. I am not really that upset about this. I have been in far worse meetings with far less at stake. I am glad that our leaders are not letting people we are trying to help push us around. Usually such meetings are not public and basically most people don't get to see the sausage making of diplomacy.
I am more embarrassed that previous Presidents let foreign leaders come to our country and stomp for candidates or make demands of us.
As I said personal freedoms. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms off the top of my head. These may not be important to other countries so they may not feel their lose of them as anything important. Hence my statement we may in fact view freedom differently one from one another.
You know I don't actually follow that take to be honest. I find this an interesting and important topic. So I am responding where a statement trips my fancy. I mean I am getting down voted all the time so not like I am doing it for the attention. I have opinions on this and have been thinking about the geo political climate intently for the last few years, as such I see no reason I can't chime in. Is there some policy about not being overly engaged in a topic I was unaware of?
I don't agree that it is a bad look. People on welfare are taking from the system and people who cross our borders and enter and stay in our country without visas are illegal. People who look at such things with "horror" dehumanize the conversation by refusing to admit the harsh truths of the world. It is like they bathe themselves in weakness and virtue signaling. They hide from how cruel the world is and try to bring everything down to some tame level that doesn't exist solely so they can control the discourse.
Some understand it fine but are realizing the influence we get isn't worth it. Stop acting like we are idiots for not wanting to engage with geopolitical power games as much as we have been. We know our history, we know our place in the world, we understand all the trade offs, and we may actually not feel they are worth it at this time.
It is the constant refrain of "if they disagree with us they are not informed or are not as intelligent as we are". It is as if they can't believe people could have informed opinions that differ from theirs...wild...