logo
Ukrainians are fighting Russia so US troops don't have to

Ukrainians are fighting Russia so US troops don't have to

The Hill10-07-2025
The debate over Ukraine aid often frames the conflict as a choice between domestic American priorities and foreign assistance. But this framing fundamentally misunderstands what is at stake. Ukraine is a direct investment in American national security that could prevent U.S. troops from directly fighting Russian forces in the near future.
Recent statements from Moscow make this calculation clear. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov declared in June that the Ukraine war cannot end until NATO 'pulls out' of the Baltic states. This demand represents a dramatic escalation from Russia's previous position, which focused solely on Ukraine's NATO aspirations. Now the Kremlin is demanding the abandonment of NATO allies who have been treaty-protected members since 2004.
This escalation reveals Russia's true strategic objective: not just preventing Ukraine's NATO membership, but rolling back the alliance's existing commitments. The Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — are full NATO members covered by Article Five, which states that an attack on one member constitutes an attack on all. Unlike Ukraine, any Russian aggression against these nations would legally require direct American military intervention.
The strategic logic is clear: If Russia succeeds in Ukraine and then moves against the Baltics, American soldiers will be legally obligated to fight Russian forces directly. There would be no choice, no debate, no alternative.
Supporting Ukraine today costs money and weapons. Fighting Russia tomorrow under Article Five would cost American lives. The current investment in Ukrainian defense represents perhaps the most cost-effective military expenditure in modern U.S. history.
Critics might argue that Russia's Baltic demands are mere negotiating tactics. But this ignores the pattern of Russian aggression established over the past 16 years: Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014 and Ukraine in 2022. Each time, Western leaders assumed Moscow would be satisfied with its gains — each time, they were wrong.
The difference now is that Russia's next logical target, the Baltics, cannot be abandoned without destroying NATO itself. The alliance's credibility rests on the principle that Article Five means something. If NATO retreats from the Baltics under Russian pressure, the alliance becomes meaningless, and America's security guarantees across the globe lose their deterrent effect.
There is now a unique strategic opportunity. Ukraine has demonstrated remarkable resilience and military capability, effectively serving as a force multiplier for U.S. security interests. Ukrainian forces are doing the fighting that American troops might otherwise have to do later, against a Russian military that grows weaker with each passing month.
The choice facing American policymakers is between stopping Russia in Ukraine or potentially fighting them in the Baltics under conditions far less favorable to U.S. security.
Every dollar spent on Ukrainian defense today is an investment in preventing American casualties tomorrow. Every Ukrainian victory weakens Russia's capacity to threaten NATO members. Every month this conflict continues reduces the likelihood that American troops will face Russian forces in direct combat.
The question isn't whether America can afford to support Ukraine. It's whether America can afford not to.
Khusanboy Kotibjonov is a political science student at New York University.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

U.S. and European Union announce a trade framework
U.S. and European Union announce a trade framework

Los Angeles Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

U.S. and European Union announce a trade framework

EDINBURGH, Scotland — The United States and the European Union reached a tariff deal Sunday after a brief meeting between President Trump and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen. A White House deadline was days away from imposing punishing import taxes on the 27-member EU, which is America's leading global trading partner. 'It was a very interesting negotiation. I think it's going to be great for both parties,' Trump said. The make-or-break talks were meant to head off trade penalties — and promised retaliation from Europe — that could have sent shock waves through economies around the globe. Trump and Von der Leyen held private talks at one of Trump's golf courses in Scotland, then emerged a short time later saying they had reached an 'across the board' agreement. In remarks before the session, Trump pledged to change what he characterized as 'a very one-sided transaction, very unfair to the United States.' 'I think the main sticking point is fairness,' he said while also noting, 'We've had a hard time with trade with Europe, a very hard time.' Von der Leyen had said the U.S. and EU combined have the world's largest trade volume, encompassing hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars. Trump said the stakes involved meant a deal should be pursued. 'We should give it a shot.' Von der Leyen said Trump was 'known as a tough negotiator and deal maker,' which prompted the president to interject, 'But fair.' She said that, if the agreement is successful, 'I think it would be the biggest deal each of us has ever struck.' For months, Trump has threatened most of the world with large tariffs in hopes of shrinking major U.S. trade deficits with many key trading partners. More recently, he had hinted that any deal with the EU would have to 'buy down' the currently scheduled export tax rate of 30%. The Republican president pointed to a recent U.S. agreement with Japan that set tariff rates for many goods at 15% and suggested the EU could agree to something similar. Asked whether he would be willing to accept tariff rates lower than that, Trump said, 'No.' As for the threat of retaliation from the Europeans, he said: 'They'll do what they have to do.' Their meeting came after Trump played golfed for the second straight day at his Turnberry course. The president's five-day visit to Scotland is built around golf and promoting properties bearing his name. A small group of demonstrators at the course waved American flags and raised a sign criticizing British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who plans his own Turnberry meeting with Trump on Monday. Other voices could be heard cheering and chanting, 'Trump! Trump!' as he played nearby. On Tuesday, Trump will be in Aberdeen, in northeastern Scotland, where his family business has another golf course and is opening a third next month. The president and his sons plan to help cut the ribbon on the new course. Joining Von der Leyen were Maros Sefcovic, the EU's chief trade negotiator; Bjorn Seibert, the head of Von der Leyen's Cabinet; Sabine Weyand, the commission's directorate-general for trade; and Tomas Baert, head of trade and agriculture at the EU's delegation to the U.S. The deadline for the Trump administration to begin imposing tariffs has shifted in recent weeks but was now firm, the administration said. 'No extensions, no more grace periods. Aug. 1, the tariffs are set, they'll go into place. Customs will start collecting the money and off we go,' U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told 'Fox News Sunday.' He added, however, that even after that, 'people can still talk to President Trump. I mean, he's always willing to listen.' Without an agreement, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, including such diverse items as beef, auto parts, beer and Boeing airplanes. If Trump eventually made good on his threat of tariffs against Europe, it could mean that items including French cheese, Italian leather goods, German electronics and Spanish pharmaceuticals would be more expensive in the United States. The U.S. and Britain, meanwhile, announced a trade framework in May and a larger agreement last month during the Group of 7 meeting in Canada. Trump says that deal is concluded and that he and Starmer will discuss other matters, though the White House has suggested it still needs some polishing. Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

Trump boasts of deporting the ‘worst of the worst.' LA raids tell a far different story
Trump boasts of deporting the ‘worst of the worst.' LA raids tell a far different story

Miami Herald

time38 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Trump boasts of deporting the ‘worst of the worst.' LA raids tell a far different story

LOS ANGELES - They called them the 'worst of the worst.' For more than a month and a half, the Trump administration has posted a barrage of mugshots of L.A. undocumented immigrants with long rap sheets. Officials have spotlighted Cuong Chanh Phan, a 49-year-old Vietnamese man convicted in 1997 of second-degree murder for his role in slaying two teens at a high school graduation party. They have shared blurry photos on Instagram of a slew of convicted criminals such as Rolando Veneracion-Enriquez, a 55-year-old Filipino man convicted in 1996 of sexual penetration with a foreign object with force and assault with intent to commit a felony. And Eswin Uriel Castro, a Mexican convicted in 2002 of child molestation and in 2021 of assault with a deadly weapon. But the immigrants that the Department of Homeland Security showcase in X posts and news releases do not represent the majority of immigrants swept up across Los Angeles. As the number of immigration arrests in the L.A. region quadrupled from 540 in April to 2,185 in June, seven out of 10 immigrants arrested in June had no criminal conviction - a trend that immigrant advocates say belies administration claims that they are targeting 'heinous illegal alien criminals' who represent a threat to public safety. According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of ICE data from the Deportation Data Project, the proportion of immigrants without criminal convictions arrested in seven counties in and around L.A. has skyrocketed from 35% in April, to 46% in May, and to 69% from June 1 to June 26. Austin Kocher, a geographer and research assistant professor at Syracuse University who specializes in immigration enforcement, said the Trump administration was not being entirely honest about the criminal status of those they were arresting. Officials, he said, followed a strategy of focusing on the minority of violent convicted criminals so they could justify enforcement policies that are proving to be less popular. 'I think they know that if they were honest with the American public that they're arresting people who cook our food, wash dishes in the kitchen, take care of people in nursing homes, people who are just living in part of the community … there's a large segment of the public, including a large segment of Trump's own supporters, who would be uncomfortable and might even oppose those kinds of immigration practices.' In Los Angeles, the raids swept up garment worker Jose Ortiz, who worked 18 years at the Ambiance Apparel clothing warehouse in downtown L.A., before being nabbed in a June 6 raid; car wash worker Jesus Cruz, a 52-year-old father who was snatched on June 8 - just before his daughter's graduation - from Westchester Hand Wash; and Emma De Paz, a recent widow and tamale vendor from Guatemala who was arrested June 19 outside a Hollywood Home Depot. Such arrests may be influencing the public's perception of the raids. Multiple polls show support for Trump's immigration agenda slipping as masked federal agents increasingly swoop up undocumented immigrants from workplaces and streets. ICE data shows that about 31% of the immigrants arrested across the L.A. region from June 1 to June 26 had criminal convictions, 11% had pending criminal charges and 58% were classified as 'other immigration violator,' which ICE defines as 'individuals without any known criminal convictions or pending charges in ICE's system of record at the time of the enforcement action.' The L.A. region's surge in arrests of noncriminals has been more dramatic than the U.S. as a whole: Arrests of immigrants with no criminal convictions climbed nationally from 57% in April to 69% in June. Federal raids here have also been more fiercely contested in Southern California - particularly in L.A. County, where more than 2 million residents are undocumented or living with undocumented family members. 'A core component of their messaging is that this is about public safety, that the people that they are arresting are threats to their communities,' said David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. 'But it's hard to maintain that this is all about public safety when you're going out and arresting people who are just going about their lives and working.' Trump never said he would arrest only criminals. Almost as soon as he retook office on Jan. 20, Trump signed a stack of executive orders aimed at drastically curbing immigration. The administration then moved to expand arrests from immigrants who posed a security threat to anyone who entered the country illegally. Yet while officials kept insisting they were focused on violent criminals, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a warning: 'That doesn't mean that the other illegal criminals who entered our nation's borders are off the table.' As White House chief adviser on border policy Tom Homan put it: 'If you're in the country illegally, you got a problem.' Still, things did not really pick up until May, when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller ordered ICE's top field officials to shift to more aggressive tactics: arresting undocumented immigrants, whether or not they had a criminal record. Miller set a new goal: arresting 3,000 undocumented people a day, a quota that immigration experts say is impossible to reach by focusing only on criminals. 'There aren't enough criminal immigrants in the United States to fill their arrest quotas and to get millions and millions of deportations, which is what the president has explicitly promised,' Bier said. 'Immigration and Customs Enforcement says there's half a million removable noncitizens who have criminal convictions in the United States. Most of those are nonviolent: traffic, immigration offenses. It's not millions and millions.' By the time Trump celebrated six months in office, DHS boasted that the Trump administration had already arrested more than 300,000 undocumented immigrants. '70% of ICE arrests,' the agency said in a news release, 'are individuals with criminal convictions or charges.' But that claim no longer appeared to be true. While 78% of undocumented immigrants arrested across the U.S. in April had a criminal conviction or faced a pending charge, that number had plummeted to 57% in June. In L.A., the difference between what Trump officials said and the reality on the ground was more stark: Only 43% of those arrested across the L.A. region had criminal convictions or faced a pending charge. Still, ICE kept insisting it was 'putting the worst first.' As stories circulate across communities about the arrests of law-abiding immigrants, there are signs that support for Trump's deportation agenda is falling. A CBS/YouGov poll published July 20 shows about 56% of those surveyed approved of Trump's handling of immigration in March, but that dropped to 50% in June and 46% in July. About 52% of poll respondents said the Trump administration is trying to deport more people than expected. When asked who the Trump administration is prioritizing for deporting, only 44% said 'dangerous criminals.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass have repeatedly accused Trump of conducting a national experiment in Los Angeles. 'The federal government is using California as a playground to test their indiscriminate actions that fulfill unsafe arrest quotas and mass detention goals,' Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for Newsom told The Times. 'They are going after every single immigrant, regardless of whether they have a criminal background and without care that they are American citizens, legal status holders and foreign-born, and even targeting native-born U.S. citizens.' When pressed on why ICE is arresting immigrants who have not been convicted or are not facing pending criminal charges, Trump administration officials tend to argue that many of those people have violated immigration law. 'ICE agents are going to arrest people for being in the country illegally,' Homan told CBS News earlier this month. 'We still focus on public safety threats and national security threats, but if we find an illegal alien in the process of doing that, they're going to be arrested too.' Immigration experts say that undermines their message that they are ridding communities of people who threaten public safety. 'It's a big backtracking from 'These people are out killing people, raping people, harming them in demonstrable ways,' to 'This person broke immigration law in this way or that way,'' Bier said. The Trump administration is also trying to find new ways to target criminals in California. It has threatened to withhold federal funds to California due to its 'sanctuary state' law, which limits county jails from coordinating with ICE except in cases involving immigrants convicted of a serious crime or felonies such as murder, rape, robbery or arson. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department requested California counties, including L.A., provide data on all jail inmates who are not U.S. citizens in an effort to help federal immigration agents prioritize those who have committed crimes. 'Although every illegal alien by definition violates federal law,' the U.S. Justice Department said in a news release, 'those who go on to commit crimes after doing so show that they pose a heightened risk to our Nation's safety and security.' As Americans are bombarded with dueling narratives of good vs. bad immigrants, Kocher believes the question we have to grapple with is not 'What does the data say?' Instead, we should ask: 'How do we meaningfully distinguish between immigrants with serious criminal convictions and immigrants who are peacefully living their lives?' 'I don't think it's reasonable, or helpful, to represent everyone as criminals - or everyone as saints,' Kocher said. 'Probably the fundamental question, which is also a question that plagues our criminal justice system, is whether our legal system is capable of distinguishing between people who are genuine public safety threats and people who are simply caught up in the bureaucracy.' The data, Kocher said, show that ICE is currently unable or unwilling to make that distinction. 'If we don't like the way that the system is working, we might want to rethink whether we want a system where people who are simply living in the country following laws, working in their economy, should actually have a pathway to stay,' Kocher said. 'And the only way to do that is actually to change the laws.' In the rush to blast out mugshots of some of the most criminal L.A. immigrants, the Trump administration left out a key part of the story. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, its staff notified ICE on May 5 of Veneracion's pending release after he had served nearly 30 years in prison for the crimes of assault with intent to commit rape and sexual penetration with a foreign object with force. But ICE failed to pick up Veneracion and canceled its hold on him May 19, a day before he was released on parole. A few weeks later, as ICE amped up its raids, federal agents arrested Veneracion on June 7 at the ICE office in L.A. The very next day, DHS shared his mugshot in a news release titled 'President Trump is Stepping Up Where Democrats Won't.' The same document celebrated the capture of Phan, who served nearly 25 years in prison after he was convicted of second-degree murder. CDCR said the Board of Parole Hearings coordinated with ICE after Phan was granted parole in 2022. Phan was released that year to ICE custody. But those details did not stop Trump officials from taking credit for his arrest and blaming California leaders for letting Phan loose. 'It is sickening that Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass continue to protect violent criminal illegal aliens at the expense of the safety of American citizens and communities,' DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

Harvard nemesis wants Trump's college crusade to reach every campus
Harvard nemesis wants Trump's college crusade to reach every campus

Miami Herald

time39 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Harvard nemesis wants Trump's college crusade to reach every campus

Christopher Rufo, the conservative activist who has been influential in the White House's efforts to reshape higher education, now wants to expand the campaign well beyond the elite schools that have borne the brunt of the pressure. Rufo says the Education Department is considering a proposal that would ensure all U.S. universities that receive federal funding - the vast majority - adopt many of the same conditions that Columbia University agreed to in a deal this week. He sees the plan, which he first outlined with the Manhattan Institute this month, as a way to swiftly broaden President Donald Trump's higher-education agenda. 'I know for a fact that it circulated through the White House and through the Department of Education,' Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said in an interview in Gig Harbor, Washington, where he lives and works. The Trump administration has used federal funding as leverage to press schools to align with its priorities, from battling campus antisemitism to reassessing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. This week, the White House finalized a $221 million agreement with Columbia that imposes new conditions tied to these issues, the first such deal with an Ivy League school. Harvard, a primary target, is fighting the administration's efforts in court even as it negotiates a possible settlement. Talks are underway with Cornell University, Northwestern and Brown to reinstate previously frozen funds, while institutions such as Duke and Johns Hopkins are facing mounting pressure as grant suspensions threaten to disrupt research programs and international student pipelines. Under Rufo's proposal, schools would be subject to demands including purging their institutions of diversity initiatives or other programs focused on specific minority groups; harsh and swift disciplinary measures for student protesters; the publicization of demographic data in admissions decisions; and hiring conservative faculty. The terms would be baked into universities' contracts with federal agencies for research funding - and, if taken a step further, could be incorporated into the powerful accreditation system that determines colleges' eligibility to receive federal financial aid. 'Columbia has its unique issues, Harvard has its own unique issues. But after you go through the list of the next six or seven universities, there has to be a point where there's a general, blanket policy,' said Rufo, 40. 'The particular negotiations, in that sense, are just the opening bid.' Secretary of Education Linda McMahon appeared to endorse the proposal last week when she congratulated Rufo in a post on X and called the plan 'a compelling roadmap to restore integrity and rigor to the American academy.' When reached for comment, an Education Department spokesperson referred Bloomberg to McMahon's post and said there was no mention of implementation plans. But Rufo said he is optimistic that the statement will turn into policy sometime in the next few months. 'This set of principles is a fairly reasonable compromise,' Rufo said. 'I think the president should just impose it as a condition.' The efforts are already spreading piecemeal to an increasingly broad swath of higher education. On Wednesday, the Education Department announced civil rights investigations into scholarship programs at five colleges, including the University of Michigan, the University of Miami and the University of Nebraska Omaha. A series of federal investigations at George Mason University, a regional public college in Virginia, seem aimed at forcing out president Gregory Washington over his past support for DEI initiatives - a move that successfully led to University of Virginia president Jim Ryan's resignation last month. But while they've been indirectly affected by the chaos, most of the country's patchwork of 4,000 colleges and universities have escaped direct federal threats. Robert Kelchen, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, said the administration is clearly laying the groundwork for a more wide-ranging attack on higher education. 'I think they're trying to move in that direction, especially on things like DEI,' he said. 'It's clear the administration is using every lever they can think of.' Rufo isn't a White House adviser or a federal employee, but he has strong influence among conservative education reformers, including many currently working for the Trump administration. He rose to prominence crusading against DEI programs and played an instrumental role in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' education agenda in 2023. His profile rose higher still after he spearheaded a public campaign to oust former Harvard president Claudine Gay over plagiarism allegations - one of the initial seismic reverberations of the campaign to change higher education. One of Rufo's main proposals is tied to accreditors, historically powerful but until recently largely uncontroversial entities that focus on ensuring educational quality and financial health. They also are responsible for determining if institutions are eligible for federal student aid. Rufo said the White House should 'turn the screws' on accreditors and then use them as a proxy for reform. 'We want to say that every accreditor needs to have these minimum principles and enforce them at universities,' he said. Trump has called accreditation his 'secret weapon,' and in April he issued an executive order calling for reform. He threatened to strip federal recognition from accreditors 'engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of federal law.' For Rufo, the stakes of that order are clear: Accreditors must enforce the conservative view of antidiscrimination law, including by ensuring colleges aren't engaging in DEI initiatives. Almost every accreditor has already eliminated language in their standards around diversity and inclusion, but Rufo said they should go a step further and adopt some version of the standards laid out in his proposal. 'The goal is to extend all of this basically to federal financial aid,' Kelchen said. 'The administration so far has not gone after that, maybe because it could be seen as political overreach. But they can work through the accreditors to do that.' If that happens, Rufo said it would 'shift the whole university sector on a new course.' 'That's my goal: To change the culture of the institutions as a whole,' he said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store