Europe is still one of their biggest markets, a stable continent could integrate further via the belt and road they are already building. China doesn't want a world war, it wants to sell its products. And China is serious about climate change, at some point there will need to be coöperation to avoid a mutual assured destruction type of scenario...

If Europe builds up a unified European security and foreign policy to replace Nato it could become one of the powers in a multi-polar world. It's not going to be easy, but with an economy 10 or more times the size of Russia it shouldn't be impossible either.

The present US government wouldn't recognize morality if it was rotting chained upside-down in its dungeon. None of this BS is about morality.

Poor little Russia was not shaking in its boots at the prospect of NATO, whicyh has never waged a war of aggression, getting one more member - that had been next door all along. But the countries were under Russian occupation not so long ago, especially Ukraine where Stalin perpetrated his greatest atrocity, have plenty to fear from Russia. Putin didn't attack Ukraine out of fear: he wants the grain and the minerals, as well as the territory.
All the oligarchs are out to eat as much of the world's wealth as possible before closing time. — Vera Mont

The US has waged wars of aggression, and that's 2/3 of the NATO. Not wanting an alliance specifically designed to keep your country in check, on your border, seems pretty reasonable to me.

Of course they feel threathened by the loss of controle over Ukraine to a pro-western government. It's a country on their border and so that massively alters the balance of power. What's your point?

, they felt threatened by any loss of control over Ukraine, sovereign nations be damned. You can go over the evidence yourself. Since then, two new NATO members, Europe on a rearmament path, ...

The US has waged wars of aggression, and that's 2/3 of the NATO. — ChatteringMonkey

The US and NATO are separate entities. Why do you think the US wars of aggression required a coalition of consenting nations? Only four of the thirty-two NATO members were involved in Iraq and six in Afghanistan - nowhere near two thirds.

Not wanting an alliance specifically designed to keep your country in check, on your border, seems pretty reasonable to me. — ChatteringMonkey

So, you can understand why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. They've been under threat from Russia their whole lives.

Europe is still one of their biggest markets, a stable continent could integrate further via the belt and road they are already building. — ChatteringMonkey

In terms of market, a disunited and splintered EU offers much the same market and the nations can be played against each other to avoid moves that threaten China's interests.

China doesn't want a world war, it wants to sell its products. — ChatteringMonkey

Obviously it doesn't want a world war. But China cares about a lot more then just selling products, otherwise they would not invest so much into expanding their power projection capabilities.

If Europe builds up a unified European security and foreign policy to replace Nato it could become one of the powers in a multi-polar world. It's not going to be easy, but with an economy 10 or more times the size of Russia it shouldn't be impossible either. — ChatteringMonkey

My problem with that is that multi-polar worlds aren't stable and degenerate into imperial spheres of influence, usually in the course of wars.

In terms of market, a disunited and splintered EU offers much the same market and the nations can be played against each other to avoid moves that threaten China's interests. — Echarmion

They will try to play nations against eachother, but now that the US has forfaited its role as garantor, a European security is what make the most sense for Europe in this kind of world. Geo-political forces are driving it in that direction.

My problem with that is that multi-polar worlds aren't stable and degenerate into imperial spheres of influence, usually in the course of wars. — Echarmion

Maybe you could be right. Big imperial powers tend to become unstable too over time and split or dissolve, it's not certain for example that the US will still be there in a few decades the way they are going at the moment.

The US and NATO are separate entities. Why do you think the US wars of aggression required a coalition of consenting nations? Only four of the thirty-two NATO members were involved in Iraq and six in Afghanistan - nowhere near two thirds. — Vera Mont

2/3 in terms of military/power. And I don't think the current US administration is all that worried about forming coalitions.

So, you can understand why Ukraine wanted to join NATO. They've been under threat from Russia their whole lives.

Ofcourse I understand it from the perspective of the Ukranians. But that's what I mean with not making it about morality. Europa had just been told to take care of it's own security after been asleep for 70 years. The economy isn't doing to hot, and you have the US waving with tariffs and supporting pro-Russian Far-right parties all over Europe. Should Europe have to carry a drawn out war against Russia, and devote a lot of its allready strained budget to the military, where do you think this is going? It's a trap strategically, and would make sure Europe will become technologically dependant on the US for decades to come because that's where it would be forced to buy its weapons.

Soevereignity doesn't mean a whole lot in a world without a police to enforce it.

European or Global Crisis?

The question mark can be dropped.
Yesterday's scenes in the Oval Office horrified the world.
Dealing for Peace. Trump sees this as a game, whereby he holds all the cards, and Zelensky holds none. There was an angry and troubling exchange with bully boy Vance adding to the hostility.

What Zelensky wants: a long-lasting peace with security guarantees before any cease-fire. This is to deter further Russian aggression. He looks to America and Europe to support Ukrainian sovereignty.
Apparently, the bi-partisan talks with US Senate went well. Then came Trump and disaster.

What Trump wants: peace on his and Putin's terms. He views Putin as a friend who can be trusted. Does not speak of him as a dictator and does not view him as the main, initiating aggressor. He wants peace.
So, Trump will not provide security guarantees, because they will not be needed. Trump also stated that Putin would have no problem with Western forces on the ground. Wrong!
Trump called Zelensky a dictator and believes that Ukraine had started the war. Wrong!
Later, he tried to make a joke of it, did he really say that?

Trump wants to recoup money spent on military support for Ukraine by signing a deal for a 'very, big agreement' on 'rare earth and other things'. He has been told by both the UK and France that Europe has contributed more but he doesn't believe this. Starmer, indeed, said that most of the support was gifted.

For all I know, there may well have been deals made but this is not seen as part of a peace-making process. The seeking of long-lasting peace is about defending Ukraine against Putin's war-mongering. The gears are changing to keep pace with an unreliable Trump. In fact, I doubt that even if he decided to provide security guarantees, they would be worth the paper they are written on.


***

As to the game being played.
Trump's words were chilling as he accused Zelensky:
“You are gambling with world war three”.

If Trump is holding all the cards, then this is a threat. If you don't deal nicely with us, then all bets are off. He will side with Putin and others of his ilk. Instead of peace, war will continue and escalate.

"Make a deal, or we're out". And off we merrily go...

And here's another potential reason Echarmion. If China's biggest enemy, the US is befriending next door neightbour Russia as it seems to be doing now, China might start getting a bit worried... . Maybe China would like some counter-balance. The geo-political balance is changing.

The geo-political balance is changing. — ChatteringMonkey

For sure, there is a new world order. That much is obvious.
We have an unpredictable American foreign policy, courtesy of Trump who seems to be siding with Putin and Russia. The US voted with Russia against the UN resolution condemning Putin's war.

A view from France on the way forward:

Dominique de Villepin made his name with a memorable speech to the UN security council in February 2003, just before the US-led invasion of Iraq. De Villepin, the then French foreign minister, in effect signalled France’s intention to veto a UN resolution authorising the war, forcing the US and UK to act unilaterally. He warned that Washington’s strategy would lead to chaos in the Middle East and undermine international institutions.
[...]

“We now have three illiberal superpowers: Russia, China and the US,” De Villepin says. “America can no longer be considered an ally of Europe.” But he warns that the US will not prosper in this disordered, survival-of-the-fittest world it is creating, “because they will be completely isolated”.

He sees Trump’s authoritarian turn as both a crisis and an opportunity for Europe to unite behind a new common purpose. “The consequence of this will be a European awakening of democracy. We’re going to fight for liberal democracy more than ever. Because the question now is really: sovereignty or submission.”

Achieving European sovereignty sounds logical, but how do we get there? De Villepin suggests a three-point plan for a more assertive and independent continent. The first step is to develop a common defence pact in Europe, with a significant boost to the European defence industry. “We urgently need to develop our own systems, and not just buy from the US.” The second is to increase investment in innovation and tech, as outlined in the Draghi report last year, which warned of an “agonising decline” for Europe in the absence of an €800bn annual spending boost. The third step is to strengthen Franco-British collaboration on defence, intelligence, nuclear issues and Ukraine, where De Villepin wants to see clear security guarantees in the event of a treaty and ceasefire. — The Guardian - Europe's moment of truth

There have already been urgent discussions with more in the pipeline.
European leaders are to meet in London on March 2 before a special summit on March 6 to discuss European security and Ukraine.

How this pans out is anyone's guess. So many factors and actors...

Should Europe have to carry a drawn out war against Russia, and devote a lot of its allready strained budget to the military, where do you think this is going? — ChatteringMonkey

If they don't stand up to Russia now, and exhaust its military and economic capability, all of Europe will be salami-sliced. More quickly, if Russia is allowed to gobble up the Ukraine's resources.

And I don't think the current US administration is all that worried about forming coalitions. — ChatteringMonkey

The present administration is not worried about anything. It's insane and undirected, except toward the profit and aggrandizement of a few oligarchs. They may or may not make land-grabs around the globe - starting with Greenland, which is European property, while Putin bites off Kosovo. Chubby-T will make a deal with Putin, on which one or both will renege, unless one or both is/are assassinated before they can.

It's a trap strategically, and would make sure Europe will become technologically dependant on the US for decades to come because that's where it would be forced to buy its weapons. — ChatteringMonkey

I guess it will - assuming the US weapons industry survives Trump's disastrous economic policy. But it will be done on a very dark market, not as international trade. Then again, there is always China.

For sure, there is a new world order. That much is obvious. — Amity

I don't see order here. I see upheaval, crisis, imminent threat to all life on the planet. But if we do survive this one, I maybe the asteroid will sort us out.

If they don't stand up to Russia now, and exhaust its military and economic capability, all of Europe will be salami-sliced. More quickly, if Russia is allowed to gobble up the Ukraine's resources. — Vera Mont

Let's not overrate Russia's strenght, they have managed to take a small part of Urkraine in 3 years of war where everyone expected it to be over in weeks. Russia will have to recover from this. Europe should use this time to build up strenght, which is the only thing Putin will respect. Time is what Europe needs because it is weak now but has the potential to be stronger.

How it could go wrong is if Europe goes in unprepared without the US in a foolish attempt to become the champion of the free world. A bad economy together with dis-information efforts from all sides will divide or even flip a lot of European countries... there won't be a salami anymore to slice.

How it could go wrong is if Europe goes in unprepared without the US in a foolish attempt to become the champion of the free world — ChatteringMonkey

The current US administration is nothing remotely like the "champion of the free world" and has no intention of saving any country from any aggressor; is, however, intent on getting its greedy little fat hands on Ukraine's resources, even if it has to go halvsies with Putin. Who cheats whom in this arrangement is moot, as far as Ukraine and Europe are concerned (though it's obvious which one is smarter) : they're to be sacrificed and served up to dictators willing to share with the TP monster.

Right, so you agree.

Agree that it's a good idea to sell out Ukraine?
If by 'good', you mean idiotic, self-destructive and downright disastrous - sure.
So now can you stop chattering about that option?

I'll stop chattering if you stop beating the wardrums.

I'll stop chattering if you stop beating the wardrums. — ChatteringMonkey

Like Chamberlain did? It doesn't matter; neither of us has any influence.

Russia isn't in the same position as Germany. It doesn't have the technological and economical dominance to conquer Europe like the Nazi's did.

Wait and watch.

To backtrack a little:

The geo-political balance is changing.
— ChatteringMonkey

For sure, there is a new world order. That much is obvious.
We have an unpredictable American foreign policy, courtesy of Trump who seems to be siding with Putin and Russia. The US voted with Russia against the UN resolution condemning Putin's war. — Amity

I don't see order here. I see upheaval, crisis, imminent threat to all life on the planet. But if we do survive this one, I maybe the asteroid will sort us out. — Vera Mont

The term 'new world order' is, of course, not necessarily the same as 'order'.
I meant it as the major change in American politics with its global implications. A new balance of power in international relations; we see history in the making. Where Trump's vision of 'peace' is all about 'making a deal' and if he says it often enough, and loud enough, he will be seen as 'Peace-maker Extraordinaire'.

He is fixated not just on the riches and power at his fingertips but the holy grail of the Nobel Peace Prize.
One of the reasons he is trying to minimise and decry the efforts of Europe and its leaders. According to him, they have done nothing and are not interested in peace. Zelensky is not interested in peace. Only Trump wants Peace, not War. Really?

Trump and his gang are turning the world upside down with their wilful ignorance and manipulation of facts. I won't go on. The picture is clear. It's a mess!

Their 'order' is their 'state' - their 'organisation' - the scope of their interests has been well planned. Their manner of acting is designed to create this chaotic situation where politicians are scrambling to adjust. Where people's life conditions have dramatically changed for the worse. The supportive systems destroyed.

However, it has its own chaos within, in the form of Trump's madness. His blind hatred, an angry need for revenge, adoration from 'fans' and yes, public acknowledgement by the UK's Royalty. A real honour from a special gentleman. Bigly medieval.

Wait and watch. — Vera Mont

That's all we can do...

"This is going to be great television" - Trump on the Oval Office blow-up with Zelensky.
This characterisation of his bully boy set-up says it all. It's all a game to him. He holds all the cards, Zelensky has none. We will see...

European and world leaders coming together for Ukraine summit, London.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/mar/02/ukraine-war-volodymyr-zelenskyy-keir-starmer-donald-trump-us-europe-eu-russia-defence-latest-live-news#top-of-blog

Interestingly, it looked like Ukrainian ambassador to the UK and former commander in chief of Ukrainian armed forces Valerii Zaluzhnyi, tipped to be a potential candidate in future Ukrainian presidential elections, has just got in too, arriving in the same way as other leaders, through the main entrance (unlike other ambassadors).

Is this a part of the usual diplomatic protocol for these events, or could this be a way of responding to US (and Russian) comments on Ukrainian elections to send a signal that whoever is the future Ukrainian leader is aligned with what is being discussed in London today? — The Guardian - Ukraine Peace Summit

Those present:

Front row from left:

Finland’s president Alexander Stubb
France’s president Emmanuel Macron
Britain’s prime minister Keir Starmer
Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk.

Center row from left:

Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sánchez
Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen
European Council president Antonio Costa
Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau
Romania’s interim President Ilie Bolojan.

Back row from left:

Nato secretary general Mark Rutte
the Netherlands’prime minister Dick Schoof
Sweden’s prime minister Ulf Kristersson
Germany’s chancellor Olaf Scholz
Norway’s prime minister Jonas Gahr Store
Czech Republic’s prime minister Petr Fiala
Italy’s prime minister Giorgia Meloni
Turkey’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan.

The term 'new world order' is, of course, not necessarily the same as 'order'.
I meant it as the major change in American politics with its global implications. A new balance of power in international relations; we see history in the making. Where Trump's vision of 'peace' is all about 'making a deal' and if he says it often enough, and loud enough, he will be seen as 'Peace-maker Extraordinaire'. — Amity

Yes, I realize it meant change in the balance of power. Just can't resist some fun with words. What I meant was that, atm, it's all up in the air; we can't tell whether will land on its ass or its head - for damn sure, not on its feet! - or whether there ever will be a balance again, or just more flux and heave until we blow it all up.
He may get a chunk of Ukraine - after all, he's had it in for the Zelensky government since 2019, when they wouldn't give him any dirt on Biden - but he's not getting that medal. Meanwhile, he and his merry band of monsters are tearing apart their own country. There may not be an America left that holds any kind of power in the world. Probably China's turn anyway. At least they don't want to accelerate climate change.

Maybe you could be right. Big imperial powers tend to become unstable too over time and split or dissolve, it's not certain for example that the US will still be there in a few decades the way they are going at the moment. — ChatteringMonkey

You have now a former Superpower dissolving it's power and the other Superpower shedding it's power by it's own actions.

The first example is of course Putin's Russia, with the Russian dictator hell bent on correcting the greatest tragedy of his lifetime, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and trying to reinstate Russian power to it's former glory. He gambled heavily and won big with a bold military operation of annexing Crimea. But then, as usual, he thought that it was true what his underlings eagerly said to him, that the rest of Ukraine would be a walkover, that he could quickly take Kyiv and install a puppet regime there and annex parts of Ukraine to create again Novorossiya. Then Russia would be back on it's former glory and could deal with Europe.

Well, the luck of the gambler change and he was mired into a large conventional war.

The second example is far more curious, and I think never has happened in history. Simply put it, the two power sharing parties in the US have always have their "fringe" groups, but with Trump, populists with ties to the alt-right took over the Republican party. In the first Trump administration, when Trump hadn't so much thought he would win, this fringe wasn't ready and many parts of the administration was manned with conventional conservative Republicans. But after January 6th, Trump has gained total control of the party and molded the old Republican party to a MAGA crowd, which has no resemblence with being conservative and old school Republican. Nobody will question him, because anybody that would oppose him is threatened with a MAGA candidate opposing him or her in the primaries. And better to lose in the general election, than be banished by the MAGA tribe.

And with power going to his head, Trump as the "Master of the Universe" starts with royal decrees called executive orders (because why would he try anything as difficult and time consuming as passing legislation) to mold the US and the World to his liking. Make Gaza a resort! Annex Greenland and Panama, make Canada the 51st state of the US, have a drug-war in Mexico! And then of course, have quickly a peace in Ukraine and get that Nobel-prize, just like Obama. And do deals with Russia.

And the asset and his handler have a wonderful relationship as Trump will help Putin from the quagmire that Putin is in Ukraine and Trump can be lured to believing that he will get lucrative deals from Russia. If Trump fell for those talks of having hotels in Moscow earlier, he surely will fall for Russia deals worth billions and billions of dollars.

This will alienate the European allies of the US, which Trump sees no importance in valuing. They, perhaps with the exception of Hungary, talk of those values that Trump's enemies, Obama and Biden, talked so much about, like international rules based order and the stuff. Hence in his ignorance, Trump will push away the former allies of the US. Trump simply doesn't understand how irritating is for someone like Musk and Vance supporting Germany's AfD. It is similar to what Putin did in the US. Now some might argue that Trump can easily change his stance, but I disagree. He has never said anything negative of Putin, ever.

Yet it's always the ineptness of Trump that will backfire here. I gather that there's not going to be the Trump peace in Ukraine, just as the new shared friendship with Russia won't become the success story that Trump think it will be. Trump has already started the smear campaign against Ukraine.

And anyway, Trump's popularity will fall with the economy, which is heading likely to a recession. But even if then Trump has to focus on the domestic economy, he has already done a huge disservice to the US.

Yet it's always the ineptness of Trump that will backfire here. I gather that there's not going to be the Trump peace in Ukraine, just as the new shared friendship with Russia won't become the success story that Trump think it will be. Trump has already started the smear campaign against Ukraine. — ssu

I think Trump will organize a yalta-like moment where he sits down with Putin and maybe XI and/or Modi too, to settle the war, come up with the beginnings of a new plan for Europa and the middle east with less involvement of the US, so they can re-locate forces to the pacific to where the balance of power has shifted.

They will leave the war, whether Europe agrees with it or not. And then Europe will be faced with a decision to either continue the war, and face possible consequence of twarting Trump, or go along with it and agree to peace on his terms.

Now there's a lot of support for continuing the war, but I don't expect that to last when the consequences of it start to dawn on the more pragmatic elites in Europe.

And really you can look at it in two ways, 1) a bunch of illiberal autocrats carving up the world that must be opposed at all cost, or 2) the beginnings of a more stable organisation of the region without the US.

I think we should stop fighting the geo-political wave lest we drown, and try to ride it in a direction that actually has some potential.

Thanks to you both. Most interesting to hear your thoughts and speculations as to the European and Global Crisis. Useful analyses to consider.

And with power going to his head, Trump as the "Master of the Universe" starts with royal decrees called executive orders (because why would he try anything as difficult and time consuming as passing legislation) to mold the US and the World to his liking. Make Gaza a resort! Annex Greenland and Panama, make Canada the 51st state of the US, have a drug-war in Mexico! And then of course, have quickly a peace in Ukraine and get that Nobel-prize, just like Obama. And do deals with Russia.
[...]
Yet it's always the ineptness of Trump that will backfire here. I gather that there's not going to be the Trump peace in Ukraine, just as the new shared friendship with Russia won't become the success story that Trump think it will be. Trump has already started the smear campaign against Ukraine. — ssu

And really you can look at it in two ways, 1) a bunch of illiberal autocrats carving up the world that must be opposed at all cost, or 2) the beginnings of a more stable organisation of the region without the US.

I think we should stop fighting the geo-political wave lest we drown, and try to ride it in a direction that actually has some potential. — ChatteringMonkey

***

Pertinent to the conversation. Another Opinion Piece and summary of where we're at:

Trump has utterly changed the rules of engagement. World leaders must learn this – and quickly.

It’s not only about Donald Trump. It’s not just about saving Ukraine, or defeating Russia, or how to boost Europe’s security, or what to do about an America gone rogue.

It’s about a world turned upside down – a dark, fretful, more dangerous place where treaties and laws are no longer respected, alliances are broken, trust is fungible, principles are negotiable and morality is a dirty word. It’s an ugly, disordered world of raw power, brute force, selfish arrogance, dodgy deals and brazen lies. It’s been coming for a while; the US president is its noisy harbinger.

Take the issues one at a time...
[...]

Russia must be reminded that the west has teeth, too – and will, if forced, resist Putin’s unlawful aggression with everything it has got. Enough of Trump’s scaremongering nonsense about a third world war. Putin is a mass murderer, not a mad murderer. He’s also a coward.

Given Trump’s treachery and threats to cut military aid, only a strong, united Europe stands a chance of preventing Ukraine’s defeat on the battlefield.Were Ukraine forced to capitulate to a Kremlin deal and lose its sovereignty, it would set a disastrous precedent for free people everywhere, from Taiwan and Tibet to Moldova, Estonia, Panama and Greenland.

Marco Rubio, Trump’s obsequious secretary of state, spoke revealingly last month about his vision of a 21st-century world dominated by the US, Russia and China, and divided into 19th-century geopolitical spheres of influence. It was necessary to rebuild US relations with Moscow, Rubio argued, to maintain this imperious tripartite balance of power.

This is the partitioned future that awaits if Trump’s surrender strategy prevails and he and Putin carve up Ukraine.

Such a global catastrophe was foretold. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell describes a nightmare world divvied up between three great empires or superstates, Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia, which deliberately stoke unceasing hostilities. Their shared characteristics: totalitarianism, mass surveillance, repression, immorality, gross inhumanity. Sound familiar?

Annalena Baerbock, foreign minister of Germany, a country that knows much about fascism, past and present, recently said that a “new era of wickedness has begun”. Ukrainians, under occupation, are only too familiar with the evil that has descended upon their heads.

This is the violent, lawless dystopia towards which the Americans in the Oval Office are leading us. Unless they are stopped. Unless we fight. Unless Europe resists.
— The Guardian - Simon Tisdall

BTL Comments are open and should be interesting to read...

I think Trump will organize a yalta-like moment where he sits down with Putin and maybe XI and/or Modi too, [...] — ChatteringMonkey

Do you think he'll continue to have enough domestic support?
At the moment, it seems to be going down among the general population and officials.
When asked, some of Trump's voters wanted a cultural revolution in the US, "anti-woke", against homosexual marriage, etc, not an alliance with Putin.
Some fans don't care much either way about much of anything, but just want Trump; I'm guessing they're a (small) minority.

Maybe there's also a question of what Vance might do, and/or Johnson/others.

Quite a difference:

Jan 6, 2021 - Capitol Building in Washington DC - against election


Mar 1, 2025 - Times Square in New York - for Ukraine

The piece is still written from within the liberal democratic paradigm we had been living in up to the beginning of the year until Donald burst the bubble.

It's important to realise we too have been living in a propaganda bubbel... both sides had their propaganda. A lot of the things that have been dismissed as Russian propaganda were actually true. This was a war instigated by the US trying to expand its sphere of influence, it was the US and Europe that have made negotiations and a peace deal impossible, Zelenski has been cultivating or at least using "blood and soil" nationalism to gather troops, etc etc...

So it's not that world has changed per se, it was allways clear to the outside world that what we were doing was not what we said we were doing... it just wasn't clear to us.

Liberal democracy had become the only viable alternative with the idea of 'nimmer weider' in mind, and that entailed exclusion of the far left and far right from political dialogue because that were the forces that let us to all these attrocities. So the natural tendency is to view violations of our values in these terms, i.e. Putin or Trump are the second coming of Hilter. But this isn't the thirties of last century, Putin will not conquerer Europe if only because he can't. That's not to say we shouldn't be vigilant, there was a certain reasoning behind the exclusion of the extremes, it could devolve into that again, but I don't think it necessarily allways does.

Do you think he'll continue to have enough domestic support?
At the moment, it seems to be going down among the general population and officials.
When asked, some of Trump's voters wanted a cultural revolution in the US, "anti-woke", against homosexual marriage, etc, not an alliance with Putin.
Some fans don't care much either way about much of anything, but just want Trump; I'm guessing they're a (small) minority.

Maybe there's also a question of what Vance might do, and/or Johnson/others. — jorndoe

Yeah I think foreign policy isn't exactly what most American are worried about. The domestic policies musk is trying to implement at home seem a lot more problematic on that account.

It looks like he's making an alliance with Putin from our point of view because he's moved so much towards Russia's position, has similar authoritarian values etc etc... but I don't think that's actually what's going on. I think he really wants to make a peace deal, and realises that he will need to make these concessions to Russia to get it done. He would probably like more cooperation with Russia for economical reasons and maybe to drive a wedge between Russia and China, but that doesn't happen overnight because of geo-political realities. If he gets a peace deal I think the Americans will mostly be fine with that eventhough it was a loss and 'betrayal' of Ukraine... he can allways say all of this was Bidens fault (which it to a large extend was).

Vance is much more ideologically driven, but reduced US intervention in the world fits perfectly within that frame of regionalism, multi-polar world etc.