Russian Special Forces in the 200th Independent Motor Rifle Brigade of the Northern Fleet training with reindeer sleds. Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
President Trump’s policies have been called hypocritical. On one hand, he is determined to counter Russia and China—going so far as to propose buying Greenland—while on the other, he opposes continued funding for the war in Ukraine.
But there is no contradiction.
The administration’s focus on the dual threats posed by China and Russia remains clear. The difference is that Trump prioritizes protecting the U.S. homeland over defending Europe.
By acquiring Greenland and increasing U.S. defense capabilities there, the United States would be countering Chinese and Russian incursions into the Arctic and the waters directly surrounding the U.S. homeland, as well as Canada.
This would strengthen America’s strategic position in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions, keep sea lanes open for trade, and help keep the naval and air forces of hostile actors away from the North American continent.
Trump’s preference for ending U.S. funding of the Ukraine war is not a shift in defense priorities, but rather a question of efficacy and a desire to avoid escalation into a world war.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has publicly admitted that he has no clear plan for victory.
This aligns with military assessments that point to a significant imbalance between Russian and Ukrainian forces.
Russia, the second most powerful military in the world, vastly outmatches Ukraine, which didn’t even rank among the top ten before the war, and has since lost millions of people.
An estimated 6.9 million Ukrainians have fled the country, representing more than 16% of the pre-war population.
Zelensky’s chances of achieving a military victory are now even lower than they were in the first year of the conflict.
Some have argued that if remaining in Ukraine and defending the country is not a priority for 16% of its citizens, it raises the question of why it should be a priority for the United States.
Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies were supposed to cripple the Russian economy and end Moscow’s ability to wage war.
However, Russia continues to earn substantial revenues from energy sales to Europe.
At the same time, China and India routinely bypass sanctions by purchasing Russian oil above the cap price, keeping the Russian economy afloat.
Even NATO member Turkey has provided military aid to Russia.
After nearly three years, the Russian economy has not collapsed, and there is no indication it will in year four.
At the same time, Europe continues to buy Russian energy, indirectly funding Moscow’s war machine, while pressuring the United States to finance Ukraine’s defense.
There is also growing talk in Europe of NATO becoming directly involved in the war—despite Ukraine not being a member. Such escalation would almost certainly trigger a world war, dragging the U.S. into a conflict it did not initiate.
Many American conservatives have long questioned the country’s commitment to NATO, particularly since the U.S. covers nearly 70% of NATO’s total defense spending (separate from its 15.8% share of NATO’s common budget).
It seems illogical for the U.S. to bankroll Europe’s defense while Europe helps finance Russian aggression.
A popular trope circulating online says that 750 million Europeans are demanding that the United States, with a population of just 340 million, defend them from Russia, a country of about 145 million.
This highlights the absurdity of Europe, made up of roughly 40 countries and located next door to Russia, expecting the U.S., 5,000 miles away, to shoulder the burden of their defense while they systematically dismantle their own militaries.
For decades, Europe has imposed more restrictions on American imports than the U.S. has on European goods.
Despite this imbalance, most European countries and the EU as a whole run a trade surplus with the United States, benefiting significantly from U.S. trade.
At the same time, the U.S. continues to provide substantial financial aid to the region, particularly to Central and Eastern Europe.
In fiscal year 2023 alone, the U.S. allocated approximately $19.6 billion in foreign aid to Europe and Eurasia, covering military, economic, humanitarian, and governance-related support.
Despite receiving American trade and aid advantages, most European countries continue to underinvest in their own defense.
Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, only two European NATO members—Greece and the United Kingdom—met the alliance’s 2 percent GDP defense spending target.
Most European states had also eliminated military conscription, yet they expect American volunteers to defend them—an expectation increasingly questioned by U.S. conservatives.
Adding to these frustrations is the issue of Turkey, a NATO member that consistently undermines U.S. interests. Turkey supports Islamist militant groups in Syria that have targeted American allies.
Its capital, Ankara, has also allowed ongoing violations of international sanctions against Russia.
In September 2023, the U.S. sanctioned five Turkish companies and a Turkish national for aiding Russia in sanctions evasion, including repairing sanctioned military vessels and supplying dual-use goods with military applications.
In May 2024, the U.S. imposed further sanctions on over 280 individuals and companies, including Turkish firms, for providing Russia with critical military technology and equipment.
Then, in April 2025, Turkey’s largest oil refiner, Tüpraş, resumed purchases of Russian Urals crude, raising questions about Ankara’s compliance with the G7 price cap on Russian oil exports.
There have also been reports that Russia has used U.S. banks to transfer billions of dollars to Turkey, potentially bypassing international sanctions. Numerous Turkish companies have been identified as intermediaries, trading with Russian entities or acquiring U.S.-made goods on Russia’s behalf.
The inability of Europe, NATO, or Ukraine to defeat Russia, recapture Crimea, or fully expel Russian forces makes it clear that there is no realistic military path to victory for Ukraine—unless the United States intervenes directly.
But such an intervention would almost certainly trigger a world war. And a world war would be catastrophic not only for Ukraine, but for Europe and the United States as well.
Since direct U.S. involvement would benefit no one, and continued aid is unlikely to deliver a Ukrainian victory, there is little justification for sending more money with each new appropriations bill.
The post Greenland vs. Ukraine: Understanding Trump’s National Security Priorities appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
