If they have 2/3s vote to override his veto, maybe they can finally impeach and convict him of ignoring a law passed by Congress.
They dont even need it to be veto-proof. Just include it in the regular budget, as it has been. He’d have to veto the whole Budget. In any case, the Dems really dont even need to take both houses- as you mentioned there are lost of Republicans who hate Russia and support Ukraine. A budget passed with bi-partisan support will be hard to veto.
But support for Ukraine still continues.
You need Rs who’re willing to stand up to trump. He’s making examples right & left (hah) of those folks now precisely to prevent any R congresscritters wanting to seriously push back on any of his excesses as the 2026 election season gets going.
The Ds need a couple percent over 2/3rds majorities in both houses to do anything to slow down, much less stop, trump’s full court press to personal autocracy. That ain’t happening in any world where I’m not appointed Emperor. Which also ain’t happening.
Ukraine is as doomed as is the USA.
The US isn’t the only nation supplying arms to Ukraine. Poland, Finland, the UK, Germany, Australia, and Russia are also supplying them with a lot of materiel, off the top of my head.
True enough. But …
IMO the Europeans will fail in their goal to support Ukraine without US support. And Ukraine will fail without both US & European support.
By owning trump, Putin will own Europe. All of it. Eventually.
It could go that way, but it’s not the only way. There’s the whole “this shit just got real” realization that might happen when it becomes “only” the E.U. vs Russia. And despite Russia’s aggressiveness, it’s more bluster than bite. The E.U. could kick its ass if the E.U. decided it wanted to.
Imagine Russia partitioned at 80E longitude between the E.U. and China. Who’s going to save Russia from that fate? India, Iran, Brazil? I don’t see it.
Nukes.
I doubt Russia itself will be invaded to any substantial extent, barring things like that small bit of Kursk that Ukraine still holds. I can imagine a scenario where WRT Ukraine we end up with Russia and the USA vs. Ukraine with the support of the EU and China, the latter siding with the EU after they go begging for Chines protection due to having been abandoned by the US.
Does Ukraine survive in that scenario? My guess is that yes, they continue about the same as they are presently because the worst the US can do is cut off support. The other two alternatives, of 1) the US invading Ukraine from a different front or 2) sending American troops to the current front to fight alongside Russian troops, are still too unthinkable at this point.
It’s weird - not enough people today are terrified of nuclear war. As someone who grew up in the 1980s, that seems unfathomable to me.
Other than a small handful of elderly survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, none of us have first hand experience with nukes. That lack of first hand experience is almost certainly why any such terror is theoretical for most people.
Ukraine will be less dependent on the US for weapons.
It seems unlikely Russia will ever pay reparations. Ukraine’s loan won’t come due.
Which in turn decreases the power of nuclear weapons, because most of their practical power stems from the fear of using them. There’s a reason why countries have competed so hard to have nuclear weapons, and to have more of them, despite them never having been used in the past 80 years.
Were those the kind of fire crackers that kept my generation (b. 1963?) so fearful of nuclear war? I don’t think so. We were convinced the use of any nuclear weapon would trigger all of them and thus world-wide extinction.
But beyond that, you don’t need to be terrified of nuclear war to see that any attempt to “Partition Russia” would end with the would be partitioner’s cities in ashes.
Not all conflicts necessarily end in a fight to the bitter end, as exemplified by Russia in World War Two. Many countries capitulate before being completely devastated; for example, Russia in World War One. I feel the current Russian regime is more similar to Tsarist than Communist Russia in terms of structure and stability.
I fail to see how a belligerent with the capacity of utterly destroying their opponents can be made to surrender in such an unconditional way that their country is partitioned.
Made to abandon Ukraine? yes.
Forced to concede some other non-existential condition? sure?
Partitioned? nope.
Yes, it’s extremely unlikely. About the only scenario I could imagine is one in which the Russian government suddenly collapses, China starts moving in to Siberia / Greater Manchuria if for no other reason than to stabilize it after the sudden collapse, and then with the eastern half of the country falling under Chinese control the people in the western, ethnically European part of Russia ask to be absorbed by the EU. Of course all of that assumes some sort of sudden collapse, which is extremely unlikely. As far as a military conquest, the odds are pretty much zero.
Yes, the only route to partition pretty much has to start with internal collapse, once the country no longer effectively exists it can be partitioned.
But an internal collapse would no be made more likely by an external invasion I think, the reverse is more likely due to the “rally around the flag” effect.
The difference between Russia in World War One and Two is that in the first, there was massive internal conflict. When a regime’s primary threat is internal, nukes don’t help. I believe the current Russian regime is brittle enough that anything could happen when it breaks.
That means it’s possible that internal factions could end up working with external forces (with varying degrees of consent vs coercion), up to allowing Russia to be divided between spheres of influences. In the new “world order” that may be evolving, I see Europe as one of the poles, not Russia.
It was just over century ago that a Russian regime collapsed due to external pressure. I’m likely biased because I’ve studied Tsarist Russia and not Communist Russia, but the current regime looks like the former to me.
Edited to add:
It’s very possible that Russia might go the “nuke to the world” route, but I don’t see it as inevitable.
I’ll concede that I hadn’t thought about the WWI scenario.
However I think Putin is far more like Stalin than Nicholas II.
But, if Putin dies, a route to your scenario may be possible.
I’ll note though, that the WWI situation still didn’t end up with a complete surrender, and Russia did not even had nukes then.