I think you're at least a bit wrong in that this is about a lot more thn simply the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.
Turning on an ally during wartime doesn't just create problems for Ukraine's ability to defend itself (although it will be interesting to see whether Europe ups spending to compensate) - it removes the US as a percieved ally of liberal democracies worldwide.
So, not that you're wrong on those points, but that they miss the USA's broader commitments. It might make sense to commit to an undesirable outcome, if it fits into a wider strategy.
> The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.
Nobody outside of the US has seen the US as that since at least the gulf war. US involvement since the 90s in foreign issues has been primarily for selfish purposes.
The US has a position as "leader of the free world" which it occupies, at least partly, because it is percieved as committed to supporting democracy and freedom worldwide.
Turning on an ally during wartime doesn't just create problems for Ukraine's ability to defend itself (although it will be interesting to see whether Europe ups spending to compensate) - it removes the US as a percieved ally of liberal democracies worldwide.
So, not that you're wrong on those points, but that they miss the USA's broader commitments. It might make sense to commit to an undesirable outcome, if it fits into a wider strategy.