Russia - threadbanned users in OP

That poll you quote says evenly divided on financial aid. So, no, not 'more'. Evenly divided doesn't equal 'more'.

@[Deleted User]

Other countries won't have the luxury of giving up. Poland won't be giving up, Finland won't be giving up, the Baltics wouldn't be giving up, Sweden wouldn't be giving up. Basically, every country laying in any way east of the old Iron Curtain line has good cause to be wary of a Russia seeking to reassert its Cold War era sphere of influence and could not afford to sit back and let it happen.

But this isn't even to mention that there are going to be a few times when what the military-industrial complex and what is morally correct align, and this is true in the case of Ukraine. Since that is one of the big money interests in the USA, they will have the lobbying power to ensure that aid to Ukraine continues, no matter who control the United States government. Additional to that, it remains that there is geo-political interest in the U.S. continuing to back Ukraine. A Ukraine which chases Russia out of its country, and becomes a member of the collective West would be a useful and relatively stable ally, especially after the rebuilding process was completed, and all of this achieved with no American soldiers deployed.

So, if Putin is waiting for U.S. interest to wane over Ukraine, he may be waiting a while.

The U.S. who lets Ukraine go swing would be the same U.S. who becomes an unreliable ally in NATO ala Trump's wittering, so eastern European countries would have no choice but to step up, whatever that may take.

NATO countries have more capacity to ramp up production of ammunition and other associated war materials than Russia does right now. They're not the ones going cap in hand to Iran, China and North Korea, as Russia are.

The stuff which the U.S. gives to Ukraine is but a pittance in the grand scheme of their military industry. The U.S. could handle military aid to both Ukraine and Taiwan if the political (read:lobbyist) will is there, which it would be.

That might be the case in some conflicts but things have really gone too far in this case. There comes a point of no return. The challenge is how to manage this using conventional warfare and limiting spread to neighbouring states. This conflict is not going away and could blow up further.

The Romanian part of Moldova (i.e. almost all of it) is highly pro-Western. Lukashenko had to whip out the AK and put on a pathetic show of strength to hold on to power a couple of years ago and Bulgaria have been supplying aid to Ukraine as well. Almost every country in Eastern Europe is not going to choose Russia if push comes to shove. Hungary might push NATO and the EU for concessions, but they know where their bread is buttered.

Most NATO countries have not been in an officially declared war in a long time, yet their arms industries went on. Suffice it to say that they can ramp up arms production if the geo-political interest is there to do so. If funds are short to pay for this, the requisitioned billions upon billions of Russian assets can go a long way towards paying for this.

I think the U.S. allies will stay with them on this one, especially in Europe where it is significantly more of an existential matter.

The best way to slap BRICS down is to show them that aggressive military expansion isn't an option.

All wars end in negotiations. Some are long and protracted. Some are 'sign this declaration of surrender'.