The fact that policy makers in this administration like to toss around the word realism to describe their decisions does not make it so. This choice is just as nonsensical as the rest of this administration's foreign policy actions, which are driven by ideology, not any meaningful understanding of realism or any other thoughtful foreign policy construct.
This administration has simply decided, against all evidence, that Putin and Russia are not threats to America. If anything, this decision is based on narcissism instead of good foreign policy sense. Trump wants to believe he's powerful and decisive and tough, the way he views Putin, and Putin plays on that to encourage him to ignore his blatant aggression.
Furthermore, Trump (and his sycophants) believe that Europeans are ungrateful, and should therefore be punished for not kowtowing to the image he has of himself as a great leader instead of a childish buffoon. They ignore the fact that 80 years of U.S. investment in Europe has contributed to the longest period of general peace in modern history—no major war in Europe in almost a century is unprecedented—and that streak could have remained unbroken had Trump not appeased Putin is such a obsequious manner during his first term, setting up the conditions for the invasion of Ukraine.
An actual realist would look at the situation from the perspective of the worst possible outcome and plan against that, as opposed to ideologically driven wishful thinking. Save for nuclear war, the worst possible outcome would be China starting a war in the Pacific at the same time Russia pushes deeper into Europe. The likelihood that they would ally together, or at least deconflict their operations, is almost certain. A true realist would be seeking allies to balance the threat from both directions, working to build up proxies who can fight on our behalf or partners to fight with us, and then confronting aggression on both sides by not only building up our own forces, but working with allies to take the initiative and employ tit-for-tat moves that force both adversaries back within their previous spheres of influence.
The reality is that the policy of abandoning Ukraine, ignoring the threat of Russia, and alienating allies across the board with tariffs—especially on our strongest military allies and trading partners—is the OPPOSITE of realism. It is, as the author said, plain old stupid.
Note: The issue of involvement in the Middle East is almost a non sequitur. No, we don't want to get bogged down in another war in the Middle East, but that has little impact on the policy we should be following towards both Russia and China, which involves confronting their aggression and expansionist tendencies smartly, while reinforcing our allies on both side. The real relevance of the Middle East is logistical—we need to ensure freedom of navigation through the Suez and access to oil in order to prevent the possibility that our adversaries could isolate one potential front from the other.
This is the same brave Republican who voted against Trump's ugly bill:
> Today, I called on the President to address my serious concern regarding reports the United States is withholding critical defense material pledged to Ukraine. This comes as Russia launches the largest aerial assault since the war began, firing over 500 weapons at civilian targets in a single week.
Ukrainian forces are not only safeguarding their homeland—they are holding the front line of freedom itself. There can be no half-measures in the defense of liberty. We must, as we always have, stand for peace through strength.
I have formally requested an emergency briefing from the White House and the Department of Defense to clarify these reports, review our nation’s weapons and munitions stockpiles, and ensure the United States remains fully committed to providing Ukraine with the resources it urgently needs to defend its people and preserve the cause of freedom.
As you say, idiocy is the best way to describe current USA foreign policy and I doubt the word policy is applicable to describe anything they do. They clearly do not care how many people die in any of these wars as their target is profit to USA or USA first. Criminally inhumane actions. This creates greater conflict and solves none. Russia cannot be allowed to conquer Ukraine as it would be emboldened to go further which it does not have the base economic strength to support.
Yes, Colby really like boy who does not know what's going on in the real world.
No. It not realistic. It reflects either self-deception or is treacherous.
Reality imperative:
A Ukrainian victory (the specific criteria of which are open to debate) and the resolute unity of the West in Europe serve as the most effective deterrent against China. Taiwan has repeatedly affirmed this, a sentiment China acknowledges through its actions. Only Trump, Hegseth, Vance, and Colby appear to misunderstand this dynamic or, worse, actively work against the interests of Europe, the West, and in favor of Russia and China.
Furthermore, available data shows that Europe has already provided more material support (financial and military aid) to Ukraine in 2022-2024 than the United States.
The withholding of specific weaponry is particularly unwise, especially from a strategic standpoint. In a hypothetical U.S.-China conflict, the weapons in question would be irrelevant. Any such conflict, mirroring the brief India-Pakistan standoff of 2025, would likely conclude rapidly without significant armed engagement or escalate directly to nuclear exchange. The deployment of MLRS and other missiles already purchased and dispatched to Ukraine would be superfluous in any of such scenarios.
Hi Shevtar. This is not a dumb gamble and not really a gamble at all. It is a methodological realist strategy rooted in political risk. I understand the approach is deeply unsettling and even offensive for some, but the truth is that what he is saying is logical and to some extent rational.
The US is no longer the only superpower in the world. It cannot allow China to dominate the Asia Pacific region and challenge its hegemony, especially as this is where the bulk of the world’s growth and development will be centred.
Europe has been asleep at the wheel for too long. The pivot in priorities is not abandonment, it is a necessary correction. It forces Europe to take the defence of its own lands seriously. That is not a bad thing. There is no longer enough (or maybe never was), to police everything simultaneously, and the neocons are no longer in charge.
Maybe the biggest risk for the US is being pulled into yet another forever conflict in the Middle East, where significant resources have already been poured in with questionable strategic return.
I would agree that cutting an already agreed deal raises serious questions about the US commitment to its principles and what it means to act in a gentlemanly or honourable way. At the same time, simply put, the US cannot care more about Ukraine than the Europeans do.
The hope must be that if US decision makers are indeed viewing the world through a realist lens, then ethics are still the frame holding it all together.
No. It not realistic. It reflects either self-deception or is treacherous.
The issue isn't whether the U.S. remains a superpower or not; it's about accurately understanding global realities—a comprehension demonstrably lacking in individuals like Trump, Musk, Hegseth, and especially Colby.
Reality imperative: A Ukrainian victory (the specific criteria of which are open to debate) and the resolute unity of the West in Europe serve as the most effective deterrent against China. Taiwan has repeatedly affirmed this, a sentiment China acknowledges through its actions. Only Trump, Hegseth, Vance, and Colby appear to misunderstand this dynamic or, worse, actively work against the interests of Europe, the West, and in favor of Russia and China.
Furthermore, available data shows that Europe has already provided more material support (financial and military aid) to Ukraine in 2022-2024 than the United States.
The withholding of specific weaponry is particularly unwise, especially from a strategic standpoint. In a hypothetical U.S.-China conflict, the weapons in question would be irrelevant. Any such conflict, mirroring the brief India-Pakistan standoff of 2025, would likely conclude rapidly without significant armed engagement or escalate directly to nuclear exchange. The deployment of MLRS and other missiles already purchased and dispatched to Ukraine would be superfluous in any of such scenarios.
Hi Valerii and thanks for responding. Respectfully, I disagree on several key points.
China will not be deterred by the US doubling down in Europe. It will quietly welcome the dilution of US military readiness elsewhere. China’s internal signals suggest it views the late 2020s, likely before 2030, as the decisive window to attempt reunification with Taiwan. If the US does not pivot soon in political, military, and industrial terms, it risks being overstretched at the moment of greatest danger in the Indo Pacific.
The idea that a Ukrainian victory is the “best” deterrent to China is wishcasting. What does victory even look like in this context? Taiwan’s security depends far more on the credibility of direct US force projection in the region than on events in Eastern Europe. If anything, draining US resources into Europe undermines deterrence in Asia.
On European contributions, matching or even briefly exceeding US aid in a single calendar year does not imply strategic leadership. Europe still lacks the logistics, satellite intelligence, ISR capabilities, and command structure to operate independently. A few tank battalions and scattered ammunition pledges do not change that. We all need to step up massively and the burden should be ours to lead.
The US should be a balancer of last resort. It should provide the strategic backstop and nuclear umbrella, not remain the primary donor, planner, and enabler in a European war. That model is no longer viable. It cannot continue as the sole supplier of critical conventional weapons. That is terrible European defense policy.
This was exactly Eisenhower’s concern when NATO was created. He warned that if US troops remained in Europe for more than 10 years without Europe becoming self-reliant, the project had failed. 75 odd years later and where are we?
That said, I agree that promises already made, even by a previous administration, should be honoured. Fulfilling commitments is both prudent and principled. And to be clear, none of this is a criticism of the courage and determination shown by Ukraine’s fighters. I wish them success.
China has been deterred already. China too, like Putin, thought they would need a week or so to take over Taiwan, but when Moscow failed in Eastern Europe in 2022, Beijing had to completely rethink their strategy in the Ocean.
Taiwan knows it, that’s why Taiwan has said it loudly many times.
Hello Valerii. In my humble opinion it would be unwise to compare Putin to China. China, through its Hundred Year Marathon and thousand year civilisation view, has likely gamed out many scenarios in depth. It would be irresponsible for the US military to assume otherwise.
Or... you become autocrat and make friends with other autocrats, which happens to be exactly the list you have here.
The fact that policy makers in this administration like to toss around the word realism to describe their decisions does not make it so. This choice is just as nonsensical as the rest of this administration's foreign policy actions, which are driven by ideology, not any meaningful understanding of realism or any other thoughtful foreign policy construct.
This administration has simply decided, against all evidence, that Putin and Russia are not threats to America. If anything, this decision is based on narcissism instead of good foreign policy sense. Trump wants to believe he's powerful and decisive and tough, the way he views Putin, and Putin plays on that to encourage him to ignore his blatant aggression.
Furthermore, Trump (and his sycophants) believe that Europeans are ungrateful, and should therefore be punished for not kowtowing to the image he has of himself as a great leader instead of a childish buffoon. They ignore the fact that 80 years of U.S. investment in Europe has contributed to the longest period of general peace in modern history—no major war in Europe in almost a century is unprecedented—and that streak could have remained unbroken had Trump not appeased Putin is such a obsequious manner during his first term, setting up the conditions for the invasion of Ukraine.
An actual realist would look at the situation from the perspective of the worst possible outcome and plan against that, as opposed to ideologically driven wishful thinking. Save for nuclear war, the worst possible outcome would be China starting a war in the Pacific at the same time Russia pushes deeper into Europe. The likelihood that they would ally together, or at least deconflict their operations, is almost certain. A true realist would be seeking allies to balance the threat from both directions, working to build up proxies who can fight on our behalf or partners to fight with us, and then confronting aggression on both sides by not only building up our own forces, but working with allies to take the initiative and employ tit-for-tat moves that force both adversaries back within their previous spheres of influence.
The reality is that the policy of abandoning Ukraine, ignoring the threat of Russia, and alienating allies across the board with tariffs—especially on our strongest military allies and trading partners—is the OPPOSITE of realism. It is, as the author said, plain old stupid.
Note: The issue of involvement in the Middle East is almost a non sequitur. No, we don't want to get bogged down in another war in the Middle East, but that has little impact on the policy we should be following towards both Russia and China, which involves confronting their aggression and expansionist tendencies smartly, while reinforcing our allies on both side. The real relevance of the Middle East is logistical—we need to ensure freedom of navigation through the Suez and access to oil in order to prevent the possibility that our adversaries could isolate one potential front from the other.
This is the same brave Republican who voted against Trump's ugly bill:
> Today, I called on the President to address my serious concern regarding reports the United States is withholding critical defense material pledged to Ukraine. This comes as Russia launches the largest aerial assault since the war began, firing over 500 weapons at civilian targets in a single week.
Ukrainian forces are not only safeguarding their homeland—they are holding the front line of freedom itself. There can be no half-measures in the defense of liberty. We must, as we always have, stand for peace through strength.
I have formally requested an emergency briefing from the White House and the Department of Defense to clarify these reports, review our nation’s weapons and munitions stockpiles, and ensure the United States remains fully committed to providing Ukraine with the resources it urgently needs to defend its people and preserve the cause of freedom.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, Jul 2, 2025
908.2K
https://x.com/RepBrianFitz/status/1940451015125246089
As you say, idiocy is the best way to describe current USA foreign policy and I doubt the word policy is applicable to describe anything they do. They clearly do not care how many people die in any of these wars as their target is profit to USA or USA first. Criminally inhumane actions. This creates greater conflict and solves none. Russia cannot be allowed to conquer Ukraine as it would be emboldened to go further which it does not have the base economic strength to support.
You’re right about everything, but you neglect the most important element: K R A S N O V
Yes, Colby really like boy who does not know what's going on in the real world.
No. It not realistic. It reflects either self-deception or is treacherous.
Reality imperative:
A Ukrainian victory (the specific criteria of which are open to debate) and the resolute unity of the West in Europe serve as the most effective deterrent against China. Taiwan has repeatedly affirmed this, a sentiment China acknowledges through its actions. Only Trump, Hegseth, Vance, and Colby appear to misunderstand this dynamic or, worse, actively work against the interests of Europe, the West, and in favor of Russia and China.
Furthermore, available data shows that Europe has already provided more material support (financial and military aid) to Ukraine in 2022-2024 than the United States.
The withholding of specific weaponry is particularly unwise, especially from a strategic standpoint. In a hypothetical U.S.-China conflict, the weapons in question would be irrelevant. Any such conflict, mirroring the brief India-Pakistan standoff of 2025, would likely conclude rapidly without significant armed engagement or escalate directly to nuclear exchange. The deployment of MLRS and other missiles already purchased and dispatched to Ukraine would be superfluous in any of such scenarios.
Hi Shevtar. This is not a dumb gamble and not really a gamble at all. It is a methodological realist strategy rooted in political risk. I understand the approach is deeply unsettling and even offensive for some, but the truth is that what he is saying is logical and to some extent rational.
The US is no longer the only superpower in the world. It cannot allow China to dominate the Asia Pacific region and challenge its hegemony, especially as this is where the bulk of the world’s growth and development will be centred.
Europe has been asleep at the wheel for too long. The pivot in priorities is not abandonment, it is a necessary correction. It forces Europe to take the defence of its own lands seriously. That is not a bad thing. There is no longer enough (or maybe never was), to police everything simultaneously, and the neocons are no longer in charge.
Maybe the biggest risk for the US is being pulled into yet another forever conflict in the Middle East, where significant resources have already been poured in with questionable strategic return.
I would agree that cutting an already agreed deal raises serious questions about the US commitment to its principles and what it means to act in a gentlemanly or honourable way. At the same time, simply put, the US cannot care more about Ukraine than the Europeans do.
The hope must be that if US decision makers are indeed viewing the world through a realist lens, then ethics are still the frame holding it all together.
No. It not realistic. It reflects either self-deception or is treacherous.
The issue isn't whether the U.S. remains a superpower or not; it's about accurately understanding global realities—a comprehension demonstrably lacking in individuals like Trump, Musk, Hegseth, and especially Colby.
Reality imperative: A Ukrainian victory (the specific criteria of which are open to debate) and the resolute unity of the West in Europe serve as the most effective deterrent against China. Taiwan has repeatedly affirmed this, a sentiment China acknowledges through its actions. Only Trump, Hegseth, Vance, and Colby appear to misunderstand this dynamic or, worse, actively work against the interests of Europe, the West, and in favor of Russia and China.
Furthermore, available data shows that Europe has already provided more material support (financial and military aid) to Ukraine in 2022-2024 than the United States.
The withholding of specific weaponry is particularly unwise, especially from a strategic standpoint. In a hypothetical U.S.-China conflict, the weapons in question would be irrelevant. Any such conflict, mirroring the brief India-Pakistan standoff of 2025, would likely conclude rapidly without significant armed engagement or escalate directly to nuclear exchange. The deployment of MLRS and other missiles already purchased and dispatched to Ukraine would be superfluous in any of such scenarios.
Hi Valerii and thanks for responding. Respectfully, I disagree on several key points.
China will not be deterred by the US doubling down in Europe. It will quietly welcome the dilution of US military readiness elsewhere. China’s internal signals suggest it views the late 2020s, likely before 2030, as the decisive window to attempt reunification with Taiwan. If the US does not pivot soon in political, military, and industrial terms, it risks being overstretched at the moment of greatest danger in the Indo Pacific.
The idea that a Ukrainian victory is the “best” deterrent to China is wishcasting. What does victory even look like in this context? Taiwan’s security depends far more on the credibility of direct US force projection in the region than on events in Eastern Europe. If anything, draining US resources into Europe undermines deterrence in Asia.
On European contributions, matching or even briefly exceeding US aid in a single calendar year does not imply strategic leadership. Europe still lacks the logistics, satellite intelligence, ISR capabilities, and command structure to operate independently. A few tank battalions and scattered ammunition pledges do not change that. We all need to step up massively and the burden should be ours to lead.
The US should be a balancer of last resort. It should provide the strategic backstop and nuclear umbrella, not remain the primary donor, planner, and enabler in a European war. That model is no longer viable. It cannot continue as the sole supplier of critical conventional weapons. That is terrible European defense policy.
This was exactly Eisenhower’s concern when NATO was created. He warned that if US troops remained in Europe for more than 10 years without Europe becoming self-reliant, the project had failed. 75 odd years later and where are we?
That said, I agree that promises already made, even by a previous administration, should be honoured. Fulfilling commitments is both prudent and principled. And to be clear, none of this is a criticism of the courage and determination shown by Ukraine’s fighters. I wish them success.
China has been deterred already. China too, like Putin, thought they would need a week or so to take over Taiwan, but when Moscow failed in Eastern Europe in 2022, Beijing had to completely rethink their strategy in the Ocean.
Taiwan knows it, that’s why Taiwan has said it loudly many times.
Hello Valerii. In my humble opinion it would be unwise to compare Putin to China. China, through its Hundred Year Marathon and thousand year civilisation view, has likely gamed out many scenarios in depth. It would be irresponsible for the US military to assume otherwise.
It was not a comparison of China v Putin. It was an illustration that China is watching, that they understand things well, unlike Colby.
https://substack.com/@adenauer597603/note/c-131768881?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1npyai
You are right for sure Valerii. It should be of great concern to the West.
Perhaps it is wise of us to remember that being an enemy of the US is dangerous, but being a friend can be fatal.