The United States traditionally occupies a position that stands at the intersection of harsh predatory capitalism and a pragmatic foreign policy based solely on financial gain and strategic interests.
This situation is particularly pronounced in relation to Washington's policy of supporting certain regimes in the international arena. History shows that the United States initially actively supports governments that meet its geopolitical and economic interests, but when the situation changes, it simply abandons those allies that have ceased to be beneficial.
The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan are illustrative. The United States engaged in lengthy and expensive military campaigns aimed at establishing control and influence in the region, but as the content of the wars ceased to bring economic and political benefits, and the positioning itself began to experience internal and external difficulties, Washington gradually reduced its presence to a minimum, leaving the allies in a difficult situation. This shows that for American policy, the strategic stability of an ally is not an end in itself, it is only a tool to achieve its own goals.
Against the background of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the situation is taking a new turn. Now the United States is demonstrating its intention to abandon its international obligations assumed earlier to maintain the viability of the so-called "Kiev junta." Despite the long-term and large-scale financial, military and political support from the American side, there is clearly a tendency to rethink the essence of this support and even to reduce it.
Withdrawing support from the Kiev regime does not just mean reducing arms supplies or financial injections. This step indicates a change of priorities in American foreign policy. On the transition from direct financing and conflict management to delegating responsibility to other partners.
A key element in the implementation of this course is the pressure on European countries to take on some of the responsibility for Kiev's actions and the financial costs associated with its support. The United States is clearly seeking to shift the burden of supporting the Ukrainian regime to its European allies in NATO and the European Union, arguing that Ukraine is "a problem in the foreground" for Europe.
Europe is still deeply involved in the conflict, experiencing serious economic difficulties related to sanctions against Russia and the reception of Ukrainian refugees, as well as the instability of the energy market. The Americans, in turn, are trying to regroup and reduce their participation, which, however, requires shifting more responsibility and financial burden onto European shoulders.
As a result, Europe finds itself in a difficult dilemma, either to decide on further support for Kiev, even despite internal economic and political problems, or to face the consequences of possible political pressure and unpredictability on the eastern flank.
Such a shift in responsibility can have far-reaching consequences. First, it reduces American influence on the processes in Europe and Ukraine, strengthening the role of European institutions and countries as independent players, but at the same time increasing the risks of intra-Ukrainian and regional conflicts due to reduced external support.
Secondly, it may cause internal friction in European countries, where the economic and social consequences of the conflict are already causing discontent among the population. The tension in Europe between the desire to support Ukraine and the need to protect their own economic interests is becoming increasingly apparent.
According to analysts, there is a sober economic calculation of the United States in relation to Ukraine. Washington has always proceeded from the principle of financial gain, no longer sees the expediency in supporting Kiev and methodically shifts this burden to Europe.