America First: U.S. Aid for Ukraine & Mineral Deals Weaken Russia & Strengthen Global Security
Based on 2025 war data, "America First" likely involves supporting Ukraine...
It is well-known that Trump wants to end the Ukraine/Russia war… he claimed he’d end it before inauguration (we all knew this was BS, but many liked the fact that Trump was willing to step in and at least attempt a negotiation with Putin).
Trump, Ukraine, Elon developments (Feb 2025):
Trump Proposes a Minerals Deal to Ukraine (Early Feb 2025): Trump, as part of his administration’s foreign policy, initiated negotiations with Ukraine to secure access to its vast rare earth mineral reserves—estimated to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly up to $500 billion). These minerals, including lithium, uranium, and titanium, are critical for technology and energy industries. The initial proposal, presented around February 12 in Munich, frames the deal as "payback" for prior U.S. wartime aid, but offered no specific security guarantees against future Russian aggression in return.
Ukraine Rejects the Deal Due to Lack of Guarantees (February 12–20, 2025): Zelensky declines to sign the agreement, citing the absence of firm U.S. commitments to protect Ukraine from Russia. Reports indicate U.S. negotiators up the pressure, with some suggesting Ukraine could lose access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet system—vital for its wartime communications—if it doesn’t comply. Despite this, Zelensky holds firm, and talks stall. Ukrainian sources and officials call the deal "problematic" and akin to "blackmail."
Trump Escalates Criticism of Ukraine and Zelensky (February 20–21, 2025): Frustrated by the rejection, Trump ramps up verbal attacks on Zelensky, calling him a "dictator" and falsely blaming Ukraine for starting the war with Russia (despite later acknowledging Russia’s invasion on February 21). He contrasts this with praise for Putin, saying he’s had "good talks" with the Russian leader but "not such good talks" with Ukraine. This shift alarms European allies and signals a potential U.S. policy pivot favoring Moscow.
Musk Piles On, Criticizing Ukraine (February 20–21, 2025): Elon Musk joins the fray. On February 20, he posts on X that Zelensky is "despised by the people of Ukraine," echoing Trump’s rhetoric. Musk’s involvement ties into the minerals dispute, as his company Tesla relies on lithium for batteries, and he’s reportedly critical of Ukraine’s resistance to U.S. demands. His comments amplify the pressure on Kyiv.
Trump Admin Meets with Russian Officials: Amid the Ukraine spat, the Trump admin explored direct engagement with Russia to end the war. On February 18, 2025, U.S. and Russian officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meet in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for 4.5 hours—the first high-level talks since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. On February 20, Rubio suggests a Trump-Putin meeting could follow, contingent on "progress toward ending the war in Ukraine." Trump himself hints at this on February 21, noting Putin "wants to make a deal" but has options. No Trump-Putin meeting is confirmed by February 22, but the possibility looms as Trump aligns more closely with Moscow’s interests.
My thoughts on this scenario… Trump wants minerals from Ukraine for aid the U.S. has already provided, but made no guarantees to continue providing future aid… Zelenskyy doesn’t want to get taken to the cleaners by Trump so rejects the deal.
Elon is clearly on team Trump because he knows it’s the only way to maintain power/influence in the U.S. gov — I’m not sure if Elon is spiraling a bit out of control or just doing what it takes for him to maintain influence.
Trump wants “America First” but had his ego bruised by Zelenskyy rejecting the deal so Trump and Musk piled on Ukraine and are now promoting Russian propaganda on X & Truth Social (blaming Ukraine for starting the war — obviously false). (Related: My Elon Theory: Why Musk Choses Propaganda over Nuance)
The propaganda has gotten so extreme that even Grok 3 recently noted that the “biggest spreader of misinformation” on X is Elon Musk. (This may be censored by now, but this is directly from xAI’s own “maximum truth seeking” model).
Part of me wonders whether this is part of some high-level Palantir-fueled optimal 10D chess strategy… or whether Trump and Elon are reacting impulsively and throwing temper tantrums on social media.
The smartest move, from my vantage point, is: negotiate a deal with Ukraine if possible (a certain % of minerals as payback AND for future funding/support)… this frames it in a way that is “America First” and should resonate with those who are truly America first and not pro-Russia propagandists.
(Many “influencers” on social media are paid by Russia and/or Russian agencies. Russia is also prolific at creating fake accounts that seem credible. Some of the pro-Russia influencers don’t even live in the U.S. but market themselves as Americans or “America First”).
The reality is that “America First” is mostly getting ROI for funding Ukraine… a certain threshold of minerals is ideal/fair. Cozying up to Russia and Putin doesn’t really give us much of anything… letting Ukraine fight for its sovereignty and weakening Russia is a win for the U.S. and truly “America First.”
I. Ukraine-Russia War Context & Territorial Gains by Russia
A.) From the 2014 Crisis to the 2022 Invasion
2014 Maidan Revolution
Triggering Event: Popular protests in Kyiv (initially about an EU association agreement) escalated after President Viktor Yanukovych backtracked on European integration. Protesters demanded an end to corruption and closer ties with the West.
Yanukovych’s Ouster: Under public pressure, he fled to Russia, prompting the installation of a Western-leaning interim government. Russia denounced these events as a “coup” and began moves to protect its perceived interests.
Annexation of Crimea: Seizing the strategic peninsula in March 2014, Moscow claimed it was defending ethnic Russians. The West largely condemned this as an illegal land grab in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
Russia’s Clandestine War in Donbas (2014–2021)
Covert Operations: Russian forces and proxies (the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk “People’s Republics”) fought the Ukrainian army. Moscow denied direct involvement despite overwhelming evidence of arms, funding, and even Russian regular troops present.
Minsk Agreements: A diplomatic attempt to stabilize the conflict, these accords never fully stopped the fighting. Russia repeatedly used the ongoing tensions to pressure Ukraine and the West.
Escalation to Full-Scale Invasion (February 2022)
Shifting to Overt War: Citing “denazification” and “protecting Russian speakers,” Russia launched a massive multi-front assault into Ukrainian territory. Western and Ukrainian analysts describe this as part of President Vladimir Putin’s ambition to block Ukraine’s Western integration and reassert Russia’s historical influence over post-Soviet states.
B.) Year-by-Year Land Seizure and Relative Costs
2022 Campaign
Territory Gained: Approximately 80,000 km², including significant parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia provinces, plus deeper penetration into Donetsk and Luhansk (collectively known as Donbas).
Cost to Russian Forces:
Casualties: Western estimates put Russian killed and wounded in the tens of thousands within months—shockingly high for such a short time.
Logistics Failures: Analysts note Russia’s poor coordination, leading to stalled convoys near Kyiv, shortages of modern weapons, and rusting or abandoned equipment.
2023: A Slowing Momentum
Additional Russian Gains: Approximately 4,200 km², mostly in contested areas around Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Vuhledar in Donetsk.
Casualties & Sanctions:
Russian troop losses reached over 150,000 by some credible estimates (killed, wounded, missing), with many newly mobilized and undertrained soldiers thrown into battle.
Western sanctions began to bite more sharply—restricting the import of semiconductor tech, specialized machinery, and other critical goods.
2024: Minimal Advances at Extreme Cost
Land Seized: Another 4,168 km² captured, often small pockets in the Donbas region, reflecting the war’s attritional nature.
Surging Casualties: Ukrainian intel pegged Russian losses at 420,000 for 2024 alone—this figure includes thousands killed or rendered combat-ineffective. Even if partially inflated, it signals enormous attrition.
Economic Strain: Russia’s GDP contracted by an estimated 7–10% since the invasion began, with industries starved of Western parts and foreign investment. The mobilization of hundreds of thousands of men also hurt domestic productivity.
Early 2025 Status
At this stage of the war, Russia is certainly “winning” but at an insane cost with significant diminishing ROI. They are losing a lot of troops and equipment and it’s taking a significant toll for very little gain.
Total Territory Under Occupation: Roughly 20% of Ukraine—encompassing Crimea, swaths of Donbas, and land corridors in the south.
Sustainability Concerns:
Russia’s “victories” are overshadowed by high troop fatalities and a battered economy.
Ukraine continues receiving Western arms (despite political shifts in the U.S.), denying Russia any swift, decisive breakthrough.
II. Ukraine’s Mineral Wealth & “Repayment” Talks with the U.S.
The amount of “rare earth minerals” in Ukraine was recently overhyped or exaggerated in the mainstream media/news.
While Ukraine possesses considerable deposits of critical minerals, its REE (rare earth elements) share is modest — only ~1.15% of global reserves (not the ~5% often claimed) — and much of the resource-rich territory is under Russian occupation.
A.) Scope & Strategic Importance of Ukraine’s Resources
Rare Earth Elements (REEs)
~1.15% of Global Reserves: Ukraine’s REEs—such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium—are vital for high-tech applications (e.g., fighter jets, electric vehicles, and missile guidance systems). However, they constitute only about 1.15% of global reserves, especially when compared to China’s dominant share.
Strategic Relevance: Although REEs are important, Ukraine’s real leverage lies in its broader array of critical minerals.
Critical Minerals Beyond REEs
Lithium: Ukraine hosts one of Europe’s largest lithium deposits, with estimates between 500,000 and 760,000 tons LCE, crucial for batteries and energy storage.
Titanium & Graphite: With approximately 7% of global titanium and 20% of global graphite reserves, Ukraine’s resources are essential for aerospace, defense, and industrial applications.
Theoretical Wealth: While some estimates peg Ukraine’s total mineral wealth at around $14.8 trillion, this figure is theoretical—assuming full extraction, which is hampered by war damage and legal complexities.
Russian Control & Its Implications
Occupied Territories: Key regions like Donbas and Zaporizhzhia, which contain roughly 50% of Ukraine’s REE deposits and substantial shares of other critical minerals, are under Russian control. This not only limits Ukraine’s access but also strengthens Russia’s military-industrial base.
Strategic Denial: By holding these areas, Russia can offset Western sanctions by securing domestic resource supplies.
B.) Zelenskyy’s Offer to Trump: Mineral Partnerships
Contextualizing the Offer
Not a Simple “Repayment”: Contrary to certain right-wing claims, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sees mineral deals as part of a broader economic + security arrangement—open to Western investors who aid Ukraine’s war effort and reconstruction.
Initial Discussions (September 2024): Zelenskyy, during meetings at Trump Tower, proposed preferential access for U.S. companies to mine rare earths, lithium, titanium. He implied these deals would strengthen U.S. interest in Ukraine’s defense.
Trump’s Perspective
Offsetting War Expenditures: The U.S. has poured $100+ billion into Ukraine (military + humanitarian). Trump wants tangible returns to justify further support, framing mineral access as a partial recoup.
Negotiation Hurdles: Trump’s initial demand for up to 50% controlling stake in key deposits clashed with Zelenskyy’s insistence on “fair” joint ventures. As of early 2025, they’re seeking a compromise in the 20–30% range, with robust oversight from Kyiv.
Trump’s Deal Announcement (February 25, 2025)
Overview: On February 25, 2025, Donald Trump announced that Ukraine had "essentially agreed" to provide the U.S. with access to $500 billion worth of rare earth minerals. This deal is part of a broader negotiation framework tied to the continued flow of U.S. military and financial aid, which has exceeded $100 billion since 2022.
Negotiation Evolution: Initially, the U.S. proposed a 50% controlling stake in Ukraine’s rare earth deposits and other state-owned resources. However, Zelenskyy rejected these terms due to inadequate security guarantees, leading to revised negotiations aiming for a 20–30% stake, with Kyiv retaining oversight.
What the U.S. is Likely to Gain
Access to Critical Minerals: Beyond REEs—which are only a small part of the equation—the U.S. is expected to secure access to strategic minerals like lithium, titanium, and graphite. These resources are critical for advancing electric vehicles, defense capabilities, and industrial applications.
Partial Ownership/Revenue Sharing: Current reports suggest that the U.S. might obtain a 20–30% stake or revenue-sharing rights in Ukrainian-controlled deposits, managed through a joint investment structure.
Long-Term Strategic Benefits: While immediate returns are limited by war damage and contested territories, this arrangement is viewed as a long-term investment aimed at reducing reliance on China and securing stable supply chains.
C. Limitations, Challenges, Future Outlook
Practical Challenges
War Damage & Infrastructure: Extensive damage to mining operations, transportation networks, and energy infrastructure means that new projects could take 15–20 years to become fully operational.
Russian Occupation: With key deposits in occupied territories, full access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth remains uncertain until the conflict is resolved.
Ongoing Negotiations: Although Trump’s announcement sets the stage, the exact terms of the deal are still unfolding as of February 26, 2025. The specifics of what the U.S. will ultimately receive remain incomplete.
Long-Term Opportunities
Post-War Reconstruction: Should Ukraine stabilize post-conflict, U.S. companies may play a crucial role in rebuilding the mining sector, securing profitable concessions over time.
Economic Diversification: Access to critical minerals could help the U.S. diversify its supply chains and reduce dependence on Chinese resources, aligning with broader “America First” economic policies.
Balancing Domestic and International Interests: Any final deal must address Ukrainian concerns over national sovereignty while satisfying U.S. demands for tangible economic returns.
Assessment: While the media has overhyped Ukraine’s REE potential, the true strategic value lies in its broader array of critical minerals. The recent announcement by Donald Trump on February 25, 2025, regarding a deal for access to $500 billion worth of rare earth minerals is part of ongoing negotiations. The U.S. is poised to gain access—likely through partial ownership or revenue sharing—to vital resources like lithium, titanium, and graphite, although immediate benefits are constrained by war damage and Russian occupation. Ultimately, the final terms of the deal will depend on the evolving geopolitical situation and post-war reconstruction efforts.
III. Dispelling the Myth that Helping Ukraine Undermines U.S. Military Readiness
A.) Right-Wing Talking Point: “We’re Giving Ukraine All Our Weapons and Leaving Ourselves Exposed”
Reality: Surplus and Older Inventory
Retired or Excess Equipment: Much U.S. gear transferred to Ukraine (e.g., older M113 APCs, older HMMWVs, certain artillery pieces) had been sitting in storage or earmarked for phase-out.
Quantities vs. U.S. Stockpiles: The U.S. still retains advanced front-line hardware (e.g., modern M1A2 tanks, F-35 fighters), and the aid largely includes older models or standard issue firearms.
Simultaneous Modernization
Production Upscale: With bipartisan congressional support, the Pentagon is funding new Javelin/Patriot/HIMARS lines to replace items sent overseas, effectively jump-starting the defense industrial base.
Practical Testing: The war environment offers real-time data on weapon performance, letting the U.S. refine next-gen capabilities.
No Large Troop Deployments or Combat Roles
Major Distinction: The U.S. is not deploying combat brigades to Ukraine, so there’s no diminishment of American force posture in Europe or Asia-Pacific. All military forces deployed from U.S. and NATO to Ukraine are in non-fighting roles.
NATO Cohesion: By helping Ukraine, NATO members share intelligence and standardize around Western platforms. This synergy can enhance overall alliance deterrence, not weaken it.
B.) Strategic Benefits vs. Exhaustion Fears
Resource Diversion Fear
Counterpoint: The U.S. defense budget stands at $886+ billion for FY2025—aid to Ukraine, while substantial, is still a fraction of total spending.
Real Impact: Leadership in Washington ensures that the gap left by transferred equipment is quickly filled or even upgraded.
Avoiding Larger Future Conflicts
Deterrence Value: If Russia is bogged down and weakened, it’s less likely to pose a direct threat to NATO states. This prevents a scenario where the U.S. might otherwise commit large-scale troops to an Article 5 confrontation.
Cost-Benefit Rationale: Billions spent now on supporting Ukrainians who do the actual fighting can deter a multi-trillion-dollar conflict the U.S. would be forced to fight directly later.
IV. Scenarios, Likely Outcomes, and Timeframes
This section lays out two broad scenarios: (A) the U.S. continues or modestly expands its current level of support for Ukraine, and (B) Trump (or a similar administration) dramatically reduces or ends American aid. We also include estimated timeframes for each outcome.
A.) If the U.S. Continues Supporting Ukraine
12–18 Months (Mid-/Late 2026)
Stalemate with Occasional Ukrainian Gains: Ukraine, buoyed by Western-supplied arms and intelligence, can prevent major Russian breakthroughs. Small offensives—like the rumored push near Mariupol—could claw back limited territory. Russian troops suffer ongoing attrition. Morale problems and supply bottlenecks (especially in advanced electronics) worsen.
Donbas Battlefield Grind: Expect continued urban warfare in places like Bakhmut or Avdiivka. Russia can still field artillery, but its capacity to launch large-scale maneuvers is constrained by casualties and equipment shortages.
Potential End-Game by 2027–2028
Russia’s Exhaustion or Shift in Leadership: Prolonged high casualties and economic isolation could undermine the Putin regime’s stability, compelling a negotiated settlement. Alternatively, an internal power shuffle might arise from elite dissatisfaction.
Negotiation Lines and Security Guarantees: A partial Russian pullback could become feasible if Moscow sees no path to a decisive victory. Some analysts envision a “frozen conflict,” akin to post-2014 lines but with better Western guarantees for Ukraine’s security.
Challenges for Full Liberation (Crimea/Donbas): Even with robust Western help, fully ejecting Russia from entrenched positions (especially Crimea) is a tall order militarily. A “best plausible case” might see Ukraine controlling most invaded territories except possibly some portion of Donbas/Crimea pending future talks.
B.) If Trump Slashes or Ends U.S. Aid
First 6–12 Months (Mid-2025 to Early 2026)
Immediate Gaps in Munitions and Logistics: Ukraine relies on U.S.-provided artillery shells, drones, and advanced systems (e.g., HIMARS). A major aid cut reduces these flows drastically, forcing Ukraine onto the defensive. European allies (led by Poland, UK, Germany) can’t fully replace U.S. volumes, though they try to increase deliveries.
Russian Exploitation of the Vacuum: Expect renewed offensives as Russia senses weaker resistance. Potentially large territorial gains, especially in southern Ukraine, to secure more coastline or key industrial hubs like Dnipro.
Peace Under Duress by 2026
Forced Negotiations: Ukraine, starved of resources, might be forced into an unfavorable settlement that concedes large swaths of Donbas and recognizes Russia’s hold over them.
Strategic Consequences for the U.S.: Emboldened Russia could see this as a green light for future aggression, possibly targeting Moldova or pressuring NATO’s eastern flank. American credibility in defending partners is eroded, raising long-term defense costs if Russia or other adversaries test the U.S. again.
V. Indirect Gains from Weakening Russia
Even beyond the moral or strategic rationale, U.S. interest can be served when Russia’s capabilities decline. This section explores the indirect economic and geopolitical benefits from Russia being tied down in Ukraine.
Reduced Threat to NATO Allies
Cost Avoidance in a Larger Conflict: If Russia remains bogged down, it’s less able to threaten Poland or the Baltic States—averting a direct NATO confrontation that would be far costlier for the U.S. in blood and treasure. Studies by Rand Corporation suggest that containing Russia in Ukraine might save hundreds of billions in potential future U.S. military outlays.
Energy and Commodity Rebalancing
Shift in Global Energy Markets: As Russia loses clout (and pipeline access to Europe), the U.S. can sell more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to European partners, boosting U.S. energy exports. European states diversify away from Russian oil and gas, promoting renewables or importing from other sources, including American suppliers.
Long-Term Commercial Opportunities: The war prompted many Western multinationals to exit Russia, creating openings elsewhere (e.g., Central/Eastern Europe) for U.S. businesses. A weaker Russia fosters a climate more amenable to Western trade in those regions.
Containment of Authoritarian Influence
Undermining a Key Anti-U.S. Ally of China: A Russia forced to focus inward can’t collaborate with Beijing as effectively on challenging U.S. influence globally. Weakening Russia’s power projection across the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America (where it has historically meddled or sold arms) can reduce anti-American sentiment and competition.
Security Tech Boom
Defense Industry Spillovers: Supporting Ukraine drives R&D and upscaled production lines (e.g., anti-drone tech, loitering munitions, next-gen armor). This can spin off into new American patents, jobs, and advanced capabilities.
Data-Driven Improvements: The war also provides real-time battlefield data for U.S. private-sector technology (sensors, satellite imaging, AI-based targeting). This fosters innovation that can later apply to civilian markets.
VI. Mineral Trade as Right-Wing Satisfaction (“Even Trade”)
Because some U.S. conservatives desire a “transactional return” for the billions spent on Ukraine, mineral partnerships offer a potential middle path: they give the U.S. citizens tangible “America First” sentiment and economic benefits while keeping Ukraine afloat.
I think this is completely reasonable. If your country is at risk of being overtaken and you want to keep fighting for sovereignty, you should do any reasonable deal (especially if you aren’t even using the rare Earth minerals/elements).
Appeasing “America First” Critics
Argument of Reciprocity: Right-wing voices often say, “We’re spending billions—what do we get back?” Access to valuable rare earths, lithium, or titanium can be showcased as a direct payoff, rather than altruistic support.
Potential Agreement Structure: A portion of Ukraine’s critical mineral extraction—say 20-30%—is contracted to U.S. firms, guaranteeing them a share of profits or resources. Ukraine retains ownership but grants significant operation rights.
Balancing Ukraine’s Sovereignty Concerns
Not a Fire Sale: Zelenskyy’s government opposes ceding large chunks of national wealth to foreign control. They prefer joint ventures with oversight, ensuring Ukraine isn’t exploited or forced to forfeit future growth.
Security Commitments Tied In: Deals might stipulate that in exchange for continued weapons deliveries and economic aid, Ukraine guarantees favorable terms for American companies post-war (e.g., tax benefits, infrastructure priority).
Risks and Feasibility
War-Zone Realities: Some high-value deposits are near combat zones—makes immediate extraction risky. Reconstruction of roads, rail, and factories is needed, so investment is likely a medium- to long-term project (3–5 years minimum post-conflict).
Domestic Politics in the U.S.: While it may placate some conservatives, others might still oppose “foreign entanglements” altogether. Meanwhile, Democrats could worry about potential profiteering or the optics of exchanging weapons for resources.
Overall Net Benefit: If done transparently, the U.S. recovers some costs via resource contracts, Ukraine secures advanced capital and continued defense aid, and Russia’s aggression is contained.
VII. Which Countries Want Ukraine to Win
Beyond the U.S., several key nations and groupings actively support Ukraine’s victory rather than merely a negotiated stop:
Core NATO/EU Allies
Poland, Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): Heightened sense of threat due to shared history under Soviet occupation. Poland alone has given $4.5+ billion in equipment and training, seeing Ukrainian success as directly bolstering Polish security.
United Kingdom: One of the biggest military donors outside the U.S., providing advanced missiles (Storm Shadow) and training. PM Keir Starmer’s “100-year pact” with Zelenskyy aims to ensure Britain’s long-term involvement in rebuilding post-war Ukraine.
Germany: After early hesitation, Berlin became a key donor, supplying Leopard 2 tanks, IRIS-T air defense, etc. Hopes a Ukrainian victory reaffirms Europe’s post–World War II norms against territorial conquest.
France: President Macron has sought a leading diplomatic role, but ultimately backs a Ukrainian win to protect European stability.
Other Major Supporters
Canada: Over $10 billion in aid; historically strong diaspora ties to Ukraine. Trains Ukrainian forces via “Operation UNIFIER.”
Nordic Countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark): Sweden and Finland especially invested since applying to (or joining) NATO. They want Russia’s aggression checked at Ukraine’s borders. Norway provides advanced air defense systems, plus financial support from its sovereign wealth fund.
Mixed or Ambiguous
Hungary (Viktor Orbán): Frequently vetoes or delays EU sanctions/aid, echoing some Russian narratives. Believes a “quick peace” (conceding territory) is preferable.
Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan): Sells Bayraktar TB2 drones to Ukraine yet maintains strong economic ties with Russia (gas, trade). Attempts to broker partial deals (e.g., grain corridors) but not overtly pushing for a Ukrainian victory.
Non-Western Powers
China, India: Publicly call for dialogue. They do not champion Ukraine’s complete victory nor do they openly endorse Russia’s aggression, focusing on neutrality and avoiding disruptions to trade or global markets.
Iran, North Korea: Provide covert or limited support to Russia (e.g., drones, weaponry), wanting to see the U.S. presence diminished in world affairs.
Net Effect: A broad Western coalition (led by the UK, Poland, Baltics, and strongly supported by Germany, France, Canada) actively wants Ukraine to push Russia back. Some outliers within the EU, like Hungary, prefer a freeze or immediate peace deal that concedes territory. Non-Western giants mostly hedge, prioritizing stability over a pro-Kyiv stance.
VIII. Musk, Putin, and Rumors of “Requests for Help”
No Confirmed Recent Direct “Ask” by Putin
X (Twitter) Speculation: Various unverified sources claim President Putin reached out to Elon Musk to request advanced technology or Starlink-like coverage for Russian forces. Official Kremlin and Musk statements do not confirm any fresh overture post–January 2025.
Past Communications: The Wall Street Journal reported on earlier calls between Musk and Putin, where the Kremlin asked about Starlink coverage limitations in select conflict zones—particularly after Musk’s partial restriction of Starlink use by Ukrainian drones over Crimea. Musk has not publicly acknowledged any newly requested “help” from Russia, beyond stating that a peaceful settlement is preferable.
Musk’s Potential Leverage
If Trump Goes Isolationist: Musk’s close ties to Trump could shape U.S. policy. For instance, limiting Starlink in Ukraine if the administration seeks a quick settlement or if Russia demands it as part of any negotiations.
Speculations About a Tech “Alliance” with Russia: Largely rumor. Musk’s interests revolve around Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink in the West. Collaborating with a heavily sanctioned Russia seems unlikely unless major geopolitical shifts occur.
Implications
Ukraine’s Reliance on Starlink: A sudden denial of Starlink to Ukrainian forces would be a major blow to their communications, especially in forward areas.
Need for Clear U.S. Policy: If the White House (under Trump or otherwise) signaled an official stance on maintaining Starlink for Ukraine, Musk’s ability to cut it unilaterally would be constrained—though private sector autonomy remains an issue.
IX. Debunking Right-Wing/Russian Propaganda
Even with some nuance in the U.S. debate, a series of myths persist in right-wing and Russian state media:
“Pivoting to Russia Over EU Helps the U.S.”
Reality:
The EU’s collective GDP stands at ~$16 trillion, whereas Russia’s hovers around $1.8 trillion—less than some EU member states alone.
Russian leadership is openly anti-American, stifling private enterprise, and subject to broad sanctions. A serious trade alliance with Russia is not only economically smaller but politically toxic.
“Helping Ukraine Depletes U.S. Arsenal, Leaving Us Defenseless”
Facts: As previously discussed, the U.S. predominantly sends older or surplus gear, plus invests in backfilling and modernization. No major operational readiness shortfall has been reported by the Pentagon.
“Zelenskyy Murdered an American Journalist”
Misrepresentation: Gonzalo Lira’s death in Ukrainian custody is real, but official findings point to possible medical neglect. No evidence shows Zelenskyy personally ordered any killing.
Musk’s tweets amplifying that rumor lack proof. Even if true, could you imagine if an American journalist was in Russia promoting anti-Russia content during the war? Most right-wingers would’ve simply called him retarded in the first place or said some variant of “FAFO.”
“Ukraine Pays U.S. Politicians Under the Table”
Ongoing Conspiracy:
Right-wing influencers insinuate Ukraine engages in bribes or hush-money deals to secure unlimited U.S. funding.
In truth, Ukraine’s approach involves official mineral partnerships or reconstruction contracts for Western companies. No credible documentation suggests direct covert payoffs to American politicians.
“Nuclear Threat Means We Should Let Russia Have Land”
Counterargument:
Yielding territory to nuclear blackmail sets a catastrophic precedent. If nuclear states can invade neighbors without robust pushback, it undermines global nonproliferation efforts and stability.
China, India, and other major powers also quietly discourage nuclear escalation, viewing it as globally destabilizing.
Right-Wing Influencer Funding & Propaganda (New Evidence of Propaganda)
The DOJ discovered 2 RT employees were covertly funding Russian propaganda via right-wing influencers who were associated with Tenet Media.
It is unclear as to whether these individuals had to promote/make pro-Russia content or if they naturally are drawn to Russia (making it a mutually beneficial deal).
Who? Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, and Lauren Southern were linked to allegations that they were paid substantial sums—reportedly up to $400,000 per month and nearly $10 million in total—via channels like Tenet Media, an entity that was allegedly funded by RT and the Russian Government.
Implication: Such payments suggest that some right-wing voices might not be entirely independent; instead, they could be part of a coordinated effort to promote narratives that align with Kremlin objectives. These narratives include claims that U.S. aid to Ukraine is a wasteful burden and that pivoting toward Russia would be economically preferable—a view that is factually and strategically flawed.
No Comparable Evidence from Ukraine: There is no similar evidence that Ukraine funds American influencers despite allegations.
X. “America First” Arguments for Sustaining Ukraine
Territorial Gains and Costs
Russia holds ~20% of Ukraine yet bleeds manpower and resources at an unsustainable rate.
Allowing this aggression to stand threatens long-term U.S. strategic interests (signaling that land grabs can succeed).
Minerals and Partnerships
Ukraine’s Offer: Reasonable resource-sharing deals, not an outright “repayment,” can ensure the U.S. sees tangible economic returns over time.
Right-Wing Satisfaction: This path satisfies demands for a transactional relationship—Western arms in exchange for beneficial access to rare earths and other critical materials crucial to American industry.
Not Draining U.S. Military
Support to Ukraine uses a fraction of the U.S. defense budget, with minimal effect on readiness.
The conflict actually fosters defense-sector innovation and real-world data, strengthening the U.S. in the long run.
Indirect Gains from Weakening Russia
A Russia bogged down in Ukraine poses less threat to NATO, spares the U.S. from potential larger wars, and reorients global energy/trade patterns in ways that can benefit American exporters.
Outcomes and Timeframes
With Consistent U.S. Aid: By 2027–2028, Russia likely faces exhaustion, possibly accepting a partial pullback.
If Aid Is Cut: Ukraine could falter within 6–12 months, ceding territory under duress, and the U.S. might face costlier conflicts down the road.
Coherence with “America First”
A Pragmatic View: Maintaining aid (especially with some offset via mineral deals) allows the U.S. to contain a dangerous aggressor at relatively modest cost, keeps allied unity strong, and preserves credibility.
Risks of Isolationism: Halting assistance abruptly undermines deterrence, invites more aggressive moves by authoritarian powers, and loses potential economic dividends from a pro-Western Ukraine.
Final Thoughts: Backing Ukraine is “America First”
Supporting Ukraine isn’t charity—it’s a strategic investment. For $20–30 billion a year (just 3% of the U.S. defense budget), we: weaken Russia, deter China (reduces risk of Taiwan invasion), and secure economic leverage while avoiding future conflicts.
Strategic Edge: Russia controls ~20% of Ukraine but is bleeding resources (700,000 casualties, 32% of GDP on defense). Sustained aid keeps Moscow bogged down until 2027–2028, reducing its ability to threaten NATO or U.S. interests.
Economic Payoff: Ukraine holds $50–100 billion in critical minerals (lithium, titanium), plus $20 billion in U.S. defense contracts and billions in LNG exports to Europe—securing U.S. energy dominance and tech supply chains.
“America First” Fit: This isn’t endless war—it’s economic and military leverage without committing U.S. troops. It prevents a stronger Russian resurgence and refutes the myth of Russia as an ally (its GDP is smaller than Texas’s).
Why Not Cut a Deal Now?
A quick peace (e.g., a 2025 Trump-Putin deal) saves money short-term but sacrifices leverage:
Short-Term Win: Saves $20–30 billion annually, claims a diplomatic “win.”
Long-Term Risk: Russia regroups by 2028, Ukraine’s resources slip away, China is emboldened, and future conflicts cost far more.
The Playbook: Win Without Overreach
Secure Economic Payoffs: Lock in resource deals with Ukraine now—access $300–500 billion in minerals.
Increase Pressure: Tighten sanctions, rally allies, and use China’s trade leverage to squeeze Russia further.
Maintain U.S. Support: Frame aid as an investment in jobs, defense, and energy—preventing a $200+ billion future war. Or frame it as U.S. ripping off Ukraine in mineral deals to satisfy “America First” mentality.
Keep Diplomacy Open: Push peace on U.S. terms—Ukraine’s sovereignty, U.S. resource access, and strategic stability.
The Verdict
Backing Ukraine maximizes U.S. strength, secures key resources, and prevents bigger wars—making it the true “America First” move. Cutting aid now saves pennies but risks a resurgent Russia and lost economic dominance.
(Side note: Supporting Ukraine also boosts U.S. democratic credibility and global influence—a nice bonus, but not the main driver.)