Because if Trump, DeSantis, or someone equally as extreme manages to win the presidency, they’ve been pretty clear that they’re going fuck Ukraine over.

I realize that that is what you are claiming. I'm asking you to show the evidence for this. Why do you think that the US will end support for Ukraine?

Major figures in both parties have said that support is going to continue. This isn't a particularly partisan issue.

But Republicans are holding up the current Ukraine aid bill in the House.

Republicans aren't holding up the Ukraine aid bill in the House because they're opposed to Ukraine aid. Even the people holding it up have stated that. They're holding up the Ukraine aid bill because it's a big, important bill, and they're trying to use it as leverage to get their border policy -- which is a big crowd-pleaser for their voters -- through.

Similarly, Democrats aren't holding up the Israel aid bill in the Senate because they're opposed to Israel aid. They're doing it for the same reason.

This stuff happens on a pretty regular basis in the US political system, and it's part of how the system works. There are three different entities that can affect the legislative process -- two legislative houses and the Presidency -- and it's rare for both parties to control all three. In any situation other than that, you'll see parties blocking legislation to obtain leverage to get what they want.

But Trump said that he would end the war in 24 hours.

Trump also said in his last campaign that he would have Mexico pay for a wall between the US and Mexico. Trump has put numerous short statements out on campaign that aren't even consistent with his own statements; I remember him saying that he would increase H1-B visas in one campaign stop in his last campaign where that was popular, and decrease them in another. He's made quite a few one-liners like that, and they don't wind up translating into policy.

When Trump was in office, he was pretty unremarkable from a policy standpoint. How he presented himself was unusual. But he didn't represent dramatic change from a policy standpoint. Hell, even the "wall" that was the centerpiece of his last campaign -- and some wall was built -- was a rehashed form of Bush's fence that he scored points with voters on.

There are two parties in the US. These parties are centrist, big-tent, and from a policy standpoint, don't dramatically differ. Most policy stays pretty similar from administration to administration. But even if they did differ, most foreign policy isn't driven at the political level -- the people who are doing that are bureaucrats lower down in the executive branch. They don't change from election to election. There are rare exceptions, like popular opposition to the Vietnam War, where politics does get seriously involved. But that's not the norm. The US has had the same parties in place for a long time, and US foreign policy doesn't whipsaw back and forth election by election. This isn't our first time around the block on this.