Because it is resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands Ukrainians?
It is easy to tell other people to go die for you.
Ukrainians do not want to be owned by Russia. Ukraine is being invaded by Russia. Why end it, if "ending it" means Ukraine gets taken over by Russia, and the people of Ukraine do not want that?
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.
The harsh truth is that Ukrainians are giving their lives for the freedom of Europeans and probably a chunk of the rest of the world population. Once one of the sides fully wins, Europe will get less safe, since the next step would be WMD.
We have not established a no-fly-zone, we have under delivered on promises, we abandoned them even after the mineral deal, and we have repeated lied and slandered their country while parroting Kremlin propaganda.
They're on your side that we should be doing those things to protect Ukraine. Like we promised all those decades ago.
It is profoundly clear that Ukraine sought protection in exchange for their actual protection. And regardless of the actual "required" protections, we have clearly violated the spirit of the agreement and proven to the whole world that the US is not to be trusted as a policing force for real conflicts - only those it chooses to start for financial or political gain - and that non-prolifération is a failure of a policy that only leads to becoming a victim of a lopsided war.
Now, Iran acts as the finalizing example that any nation without nukes is a nation without true sovereignty. Even North Korea is treated with more respect.
> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
Mineral deal protection racket.
> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Russia has threatened Ukraine with nuclear retaliation, even if they have not done it.
I absolutely oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine and think that we (and other allies) should continue giving them the means to resist. But at the same time Ukraine shouldn't have left themselves so vulnerable by letting their military collapse prior to 2014 through a combination of corruption and apathy. In an anarchic world order you can't depend on anyone else to keep you safe.
Genuine question: Why do you think politicians in US and EU would care about that?
Everything I've seen for the last ten years or so feels familiar. That very cult got a little watered down and has consumed the politics of the nation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumai...
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, it's Marx. But mostly its Marx sorta responding to Mikhail Bakunin, the father of anarchism [0].
The question to these early socialists was: Why the fuck are these French peasants supporting Louis Napoleon III for president? It makes zero fucking sense. They were tearing their hair out trying to understand it.
Marx takes Bakunin to task in the novella above, and it's worth the full read if you still can't figure out why MAGA loves Donny. But, to me, Bakunin is still right and Marx was still wrong.
TLDR: Those French peasants really hated the bourgeois. So much so that they elected Napoleon III to president, knowing he would eventually take over in a coup and kill their nascent democracy, just because his election would piss off the effete bourgeois in the cities. The peasants know their life sucks and then they die. But the damn know-it-all bourgeois just need their faces rubbed in it, goddamnit. They know they are in a class war and they aren't winning it. The bourgeois don't, they think that they might make it out of the war, but the peasants know better and need to teach them a lesson. I'm heavily paraphrasing Bakunin here.
As for Donny, look, I think Bakunin's take on the French in 1850-ish is the right one here. The MAGA types know that Donny is a monster. But they really hate the DEI stuff and the liberal urban elites, more so than they hate Donny. They want these bourgeois liberals to feel the pain. It really does come down to 'liberal tears'.
Now, unfortunately, the proletariat here in 2025 are looking down the barrel of another 30 years in the middle east, literally. And the GWOT was already hard enough on them the last time. They do not like the idea of another war that they will be fighting and that the bourgeois will largely forget is occurring at all. Iran will decidedly not be 'liberal tears', but more concern trolling out of the Grey Lady, which MAGA really hates.
Once boys start coming back in body bags, yeah, sure, more patriotism, of course. And the proles and bourgeois will be at odds again, with sympathy coming from the bourgeois and not 'liberal tears'. Driving home that message of how MAGA is on the loosing side of the class war again.
But, and this I think is critical, they aren't going to be looking at Donny the same way. The 'fun' will have been had, and the reality of living on the loosing side will sink in again. It's pretty much what happened to Napoleon's congress in the 1870s after the Prussian war. Well that and Emperor Napoleon was captured in battle.
Anyway, Donny is in real danger, per Marx and Bakunin's take in 1850, of loosing his coalition with Iran. And, just like with Louis, I don't think Donny really knows that.
[0] no, not pitchforks and molotovs anarchism, but an-archy, without rulers old school anarchism.