By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump stated in an NBC interview that the US has reached an agreement with NATO to supply Ukraine with weapons, with NATO covering the full cost. This deal involves the US sending weapons, including Patriot missile systems, to NATO for distribution. Earlier that day, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had urged leaders to increase aid to Ukraine, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio mentioned ongoing discussions with European countries regarding sharing Patriot batteries with Ukraine. Trump also announced a forthcoming “major statement” on Russia, scheduled for Monday.
Read the original article here
Trump says he struck a deal to _sell_ US weapons to Ukraine through NATO. Let’s unpack this, shall we? It seems the former president is claiming to have orchestrated a plan to get American weapons to Ukraine, but with a twist: instead of the US directly supplying the arms, they’re being funneled through NATO. The immediate question that springs to mind is, why involve NATO in this manner? Is it a strategic move, a way to navigate potential Russian objections, or perhaps something else entirely?
The core of the situation is that Trump’s plan involves selling weapons to NATO, which would then distribute them to Ukraine. This subtly shifts the narrative and perhaps the responsibility. It’s worth noting that these weapons are American-made, and NATO would be the intermediary, which could be seen as a way to maintain a degree of distance while still supporting Ukraine’s defense.
There’s a lot of skepticism surrounding the whole idea, and rightfully so. The phrase “struck a deal” carries a certain weight, especially when it comes from Trump. Some suggest that he’s simply trying to take credit for something the “civilized world” has been pushing for. Others wonder if this is merely a political maneuver, a way for Trump to appear supportive of Ukraine while simultaneously avoiding direct confrontation with Russia.
Let’s be clear, supporting Ukraine has been an important element of the efforts by many countries and organizations for quite some time. The EU, Canada, and other allies have significantly increased their support without the US. This is not some new plan from a former president.
Then there’s the matter of financial gain. The defense companies will be happy about the profits. It is also strongly suggested that Trump may have found a way to personally profit from the deal, which would not be a surprise.
The role of NATO is also key. Would this really be a good thing? Perhaps. It is also suggested that it might make Putin feel like he was right about NATO. The perception is incredibly important in these situations.
Furthermore, Trump’s statements often shift. What he says one day might be contradicted the next. This leads to questions about the genuineness of his actions and the potential for the deal to be altered or rescinded.
It’s also worth considering the implications for the broader geopolitical landscape. How would this deal affect the US’s relationship with NATO, with Russia, and with Ukraine itself? Would it strengthen or strain these relationships? Does this make the US look like it is not part of NATO?
Additionally, this situation highlights the complex political dynamics at play. It is important to remember that the US has already been working on supporting Ukraine. The EU and Canada have already increased their support for Ukraine without the US, which is not a new idea. Patriot missiles are uniquely American and still necessary for support, though, and it appears NATO members are already looking to fill that gap.
There’s also the issue of hypocrisy. The idea that when Democrats provide weapons to Ukraine, it’s somehow bad, but when Trump does the same, it’s “smart,” exposes the inconsistency that is becoming commonplace.
Ultimately, the situation is a mix of political posturing, potentially questionable motives, and the ever-present influence of money. As with many things related to Trump, it’s difficult to know the full truth.