Cutting through the emotion of this dust up, both sides made their points. What we are dealing with is often called the “Sunk Cost Fallacy.” While this is often associated with businesses it is also seen in many aspects of life. The sunk cost fallacy is the human tendency to persist with an endeavor—whether it involves money, effort, or time—simply because we’ve already invested in it, even when the ongoing costs outweigh the benefits. When we succumb to this fallacy, we make choices that defy our best interests, effectively digging ourselves into an ever-deeper hole with each irrational decision.
For my Vets for Trump blog readers, let’s break down the concept of “sunk costs” in the context of the Ukraine-Russia war—a term that’s been buzzing around as the conflict drags into its fourth year. Sunk costs in this discussion refer to the resources—money, lives, equipment—already spent on a venture that can’t be recovered, regardless of future outcomes. In this war, both sides have poured in massive investments: Russia has likely spent hundreds of billions on military operations since 2022, including troop deployments, equipment losses, and canceled arms deals, while Ukraine has received hundreds of billions in Western aid, much of it for weapons and support. These are costs already sunk, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions displaced, numbers that can’t be undone no matter who “wins.”
This sunk-cost dynamic plays a big role because it can trap leaders into doubling down rather than cutting losses, a human tendency known as the sunk-cost fallacy. For Russia, President Putin might feel compelled to push forward despite setbacks, having committed vast resources and national prestige, fearing that retreating would undermine his authority—much like historical examples of leaders from imperial Japan to the U.S. in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, & Afghanistan. Ukraine, backed by the West, faces a similar bind: with so much aid and sacrifice invested, abandoning the fight could feel like squandering that effort. For veterans, this might echo missions where pride or prior investment kept strategies alive despite diminishing returns. The challenge is whether negotiators can look past these sunk costs to seek a pragmatic peace, or if the fallacy will keep the war grinding on, draining more resources with no clear endgame.
Zelenskyy, while looking like a spoiled child in my opinion, has valid concerns about the long-term reliability of any peace deal, given the uncertainty of future enforcement. While figures like Trump, Vance, and other assertive American leaders might broker peace in the short term, the United States’ foreign policy is notoriously inconsistent, shifting with each new presidential administration. This unpredictability—something I’ve discussed with friends well before this conflict—poses a significant challenge for nations accustomed to stable, predictable diplomatic frameworks. For countries relying on consistent international agreements, navigating America’s fickle approach can be daunting.
This volatility highlights a paradoxical strength of dictatorial regimes: their ability to maintain a steady foreign policy without the disruptions of electoral cycles. Unlike representative systems, where policy can swing wildly based on public opinion or leadership changes, dictators can enforce a unified stance, offering a degree of reliability—albeit at the cost of freedom. While this doesn’t justify authoritarianism, it underscores the difficulty allies and adversaries alike face in trusting America’s long-term commitments, a factor Zelenskyy and others must weigh heavily in negotiations.
This is where Trump’s strategic brilliance shines through. By proposing American investment in Ukraine, he positions the country under the protective umbrella of U.S. national interests, reducing the need for NATO involvement or the deployment of military hardware. This approach aligns with the guiding principle of nearly all American leaders: safeguarding the nation’s economic and strategic investments. Even if a less assertive leader takes office, the stakes of protecting those interests would likely galvanize national support, compelling decisive action to secure our investment, ensuring stability regardless of political shifts.
Discover more from Veterans for Trump
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very informative.
There are no “good guys” in this war. Despite the relative innocence of the Russian and Ukranian people, BOTH governments are corrupt.
President Trump is trying to end the senseless bloodshed. This is a worthwhile endeavor.
I agree it is a good idea to not spend more (good) money after the “sunk costs” (bad money) that has already been expended. Good “read” on the sutuation.
Why do the NATO countries not want to include Ukraine? From what I know about the deal Trump was offering, was pretty good for Ukraine and America. Would pay us back with minerals, etc., and create the opportunity for Ukraine to get the money out of their ground to rebuild the country.
Hi Nancy, the answer to that is a complex one. Something we have mentioned before is it would be, to the Russians, like the Cuban Missile Crisis was to the United States. To put it the way our friend Vlad Lemets put it, “imagine Russia and China aligned with Canada against the USA and put advanced military hardware and personnel in place on our border. We would likely retaliate like Kennedy did in the 60s. For a more complex answer see below:
NATO countries have hesitated to admit Ukraine into the alliance for several interconnected reasons, rooted in geopolitics, security concerns, and internal dynamics. Here’s a breakdown of the key factors:
Russia’s Opposition and Escalation Risk: Russia views NATO expansion eastward, especially to Ukraine, as a direct threat to its sphere of influence and national security. Ukraine’s potential membership has long been a red line for Moscow, as evidenced by its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022. NATO countries, wary of provoking a broader conflict—potentially even a direct military confrontation with a nuclear-armed Russia—have been cautious about extending membership to Ukraine, which could trigger Article 5 (collective defense) obligations.
Ukraine’s Ongoing Conflict: NATO typically requires aspiring members to resolve territorial disputes and achieve stability before joining. Ukraine’s active war with Russia, including the occupation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, makes it a risky candidate. Admitting a country mid-conflict could immediately draw NATO into war, something many members, particularly those in Western Europe, are keen to avoid.
Lack of Consensus Among NATO Members: NATO operates on unanimity—all 32 members must agree on new admissions. Countries like Germany and France have historically been skeptical of Ukraine’s membership, favoring a more conciliatory approach toward Russia to maintain economic ties (e.g., energy dependence pre-2022) and avoid destabilizing Europe further. Even post-2022, some members worry about overextending the alliance’s commitments.
Ukraine’s Internal Challenges: NATO membership demands democratic governance, rule of law, and military interoperability. While Ukraine has made strides since 2014, corruption, political instability, and military modernization remain hurdles. Some NATO countries question whether Ukraine fully meets the alliance’s standards, though this is less openly cited than strategic concerns.
Strategic Ambiguity as Leverage: Keeping Ukraine in a gray zone—neither fully in NATO nor abandoned—allows NATO to support Kyiv with aid and weapons without the binding commitment of membership. This flexibility lets the alliance pressure Russia while avoiding an irreversible escalation. For instance, at the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO promised Ukraine and Georgia eventual membership but set no timeline, a stance reaffirmed in later years.
The debate’s evolved since Russia’s 2022 invasion—public support for Ukraine’s NATO bid has grown, especially in Eastern Europe and the U.S., with leaders like Biden expressing openness to it “in the future.” But practical and political roadblocks persist, balancing solidarity with Ukraine against the risk of a wider war. What’s your take on where this might head?