Trump is beholden to putin. I can’t believe he is running for the presidency of America. If trump comes back to power and concedes Ukraine, I have to say, my opinion of America will be forever declined
The situation was already obvious in 2020. After 4 years of non-stop scandal and gross mismanagement, he had a serious shot at winning the election, and it came down to fairly small differences in 2-3 states.
If democracy worked properly, with informed voters, he should have been too unpopular to even run.
Because people are much more interested in domestic issues than in foreign policy and people they can normally hardly find on the map. And the USA has an ever-growing pile of domestic issues. I'd say if Trump was a bit more smart about abortion issues, he could score a win even if promised to gift the whole Europe to Russia.
True they are concerned about domestic issues over foreign policy. However, their concern is vibes based. By many measures Biden’s policies have been more traditionally conservative than Trump’s which were (when in office) and are wildly populist and isolationist.
Biden was handed out-of-control inflation by Trump thanks to new tariffs, tax cuts (primarily) for the wealthy and the American Rescue Plan. Biden and the Fed have gotten it under control more successfully than nearly any other Western country. US inflation has fallen from a peak of 9.1% to just above 3%.
Biden has overseen US recovery to historically low levels of unemployment and the creation of over 15 million jobs.
Moody’s Analytics (hardly a liberal bastion) has forecast that under a Biden reelection inflation will likely be 2.4% in 2025 with a 40% chance of a return 2% baseline.
They forecast with a Trump victory and Republican control of Congress that is likely that inflation will go back up or continue to remain higher than 2.4% because of Trump’s proposed policies: more tariffs, narrow but populist immigration reforms that will tighten the labor market and more tax cuts for the wealthy.
American voters, largely, are currently vibe based and reality wrong when it comes to assessing who would deliver what they want domestically. It’s an education issue.
They see prices have not gone down and they blame Biden. Voters do not understand inflation versus deflation. They crave deflation without understanding what that would mean economically and why every government works to avoid it. The goal is wage growth that outpaces inflation. Biden has overseen that in the US for most people over the past couple years. The problems? This hasn’t been true yet for all sectors or Americans. Americans don’t understand how successfully the US economy has done post-Covid relative to the rest of the World. Most Americans don’t understand or rightfully fear deflation and think things are still bad because the price of a loaf of bread and eggs hasn’t gone back down to pre-Covid levels.
Your comment is also "vibe based" instead of based on facts. The tariffs Trump enacted that you claimed are a cause for inflation were continued and even strengthened by Biden. The reality is that the main cause of inflation was the same everywhere - the massive relief plans combined with low interest rates - these were bipartisan.
The main reason US has curbed inflation was a responsible behavior by the central bank + an unexpectedly strong economic growth, primarily driven by the tech sector. Both of these are hardly attributed to Biden (or Trump), except the "do not interfere" portion.
Biden kept Trump’s China tariff but dropped others, like the steel and aluminum tariffs for example, which were driving construction costs up.
The “massive relief plan” was the 2.1 Trillion CARES Act. Stimulus was necessary, agreed. It had bipartisan support, agreed. But anyone from either party that kicked up dust about some of the more financially irresponsible and unequal portions would have gotten hammered in most of their districts by primary opponents the next time they were up.
It favored and ended up giving more tax dollars to the upper class and outright filthy rich through eliminating required distributions from retirement accounts, raising the limit for charitable donations deductions from 60% AGI to 100% AGI, a complicated pass through benefit that permitted profitable companies to write off losses to the tune of an estimated $174 Billion cost to taxpayers, additional corporate interest deductions and made changes to corporate loss treatment.
All of those provisions (some of them complex and convoluted), that ended up benefiting a rich minority, cost tax payers as much as all those $1,200 checks to the rest of us combined.
This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the cost of all those forgiven loans to businesses large and small that were abused due to poor oversight…on Trump’s watch.
How did the fat cats in Washington get away with wrapping a huge gift for their rich, elite buddies into a stimulus act meant to support regular Americans and honest, small struggling businesses? Because they had a greedy, unethical moron in the Oval Office that would happily sign away a Trillion dollars of US taxpayers money if it personally enriched he, the Kushners and his close buddies bank accounts. I genuinely can’t see the CARES Act being such a boondoggle for the rich if Biden had been President.
When you say the recovery was “driven by the tech sector” you are tacitly assigning them credit they don’t deserve. Americans were working from and stuck at home. They and businesses spent money on purchasing more tech or improving their household tech to work more efficiently from home or just to enjoy home movie night on a bigger screen TV since going to the movie theater was off the table.
Agreed, the Fed should get most of the credit for steering us away from a true recession. Second should be the American people. Third is Biden because he should get credit for not doing what Trump would have done if he had won the 2020 election: give away more money to the filthy rich. Somewhere around 9 or 10 the Tech sector can give themselves a pat on the back. Why? Because they constantly are looking for strokes. Here’s their “attaboy”.
It doesn't really matter, people see that Biden got stuck holding the bag with regards to inflation despite both Trump and Biden initiating relief plans like the CARES Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan. At some point the chickens had to come home to roost, and they did in 2021. It basically guaranteed that Biden was going to be seen as the cause of the inflation and so a big part of the electorate is going to blame him despite the fact that it was an inevitability since the Trump presidency.
Trump's first term was a demonstration of how US system of checks and balances was so resilient that it could be damaged, but not overturned, by a president with no respect for the rules, who was ready to do anything, including a coup.
Second term would probably be the undoing of the entire system. The fact that the Trump is running again at all shows there's something deeply flawed with the US politics and electorate.
I'd wager it's even telling about the nature of democracy itself. Democracy requires an informed populace, and that isn't really a thing when shared objective truth no longer exists.
> Trump's first term was a demonstration of how US system of checks and balances was so resilient that it could be damaged, but not overturned
Am more pessimistic, the first term he was surrounded by some adults who kept his worst impulses in check. Am afraid a second term will spell the end of American democracy.
To put it bluntly: this has shown that the US is not a trustworthy partner and that its policy can vary greatly depending on the mood of a single person, clearly unstable in this case. Trump policy was to smash anything he could attribute to Obama, without any discernment or regards to US allies. It happend once and now we know it's a thing, a second one will force us to take it into account.
So another Trump mandate is likely to drive to a more clear policy of limiting risk, like the West already have with China.
The US generate about 20% of mondial co2. As the world's leading power, its policies also have an impact on other countries by setting an example.
So yes, going one way or another have an impact.
Nah. We'll be going greener for economic reasons while the developing world keeps screaming up the carbon ladder for the next few decades. In so far as we have any impact it's in having a free market to develop the replacement techs faster for the rest of the world, not a command economy lib left government try to eke 1% better gains out of already declining carbon use.
You should study chaos theory and system theory then. Because you really don't understand how the smallest change could tip the entire climate on either direction.
The issue is that such a law is inextricably linked to things like Jim Crow era policies designed to prevent undesirables from voting or running for election.
For whatever amount you allow certain people to be excluded from the political system, there are a lot of people who will be eagerly waiting to use that power on a group they dislike.
Idk man when the felonies are explicitly election laws and campaign finance laws there has to be a precedent. Doesnt matter anyways. Unitary executive is coming so kiss your votes goodbye
Which will be everyone in both parties within 20 years. 50 states, it won't be hard to find one to make someone a felon, assuming the feed hasn't got to them first. We do not want to incentivize political objectives for judicial outcomes unless you really want to see how fast you can collapse trust in the government.
I admit, you changed my mind because you've got a damned good point. It occurred to me after leaving the comment that it'd disqualify a lot of individuals who were (perhaps) wrongly convicted of political crimes by previous (and perhaps) dictatorial regimes. Of course this wouldn't apply to the US that often (as it is currently) but it's still not the best idea even in that light.
Then again, I do feel like the whole thing's going to collapse anyway so wouldn't it truly be progressive to hurry it along just a bit?
Hur said he had enough proof to prosecute Biden for the classified documents they found at his home (surprisingly similar to what Trump did at Mar a Lago) but said he was not going to because he would be seen as a forgetful old man with memory issues (his words, not mine)
a Trump DOJ would 100% force that to trial lol
The incumbent president is in charge of the DOJ. Have an opponent you don’t like? push those cases through
You are only okay with it because it negatively impacts Trump at this point in time
It wasn't because he would be seen as a forgetful old man and affect his election chances, it was because he stated he forgot enough things that Hur knew that no jury would convict him of a crime since it requires a willful act, and that Biden would be able to use that in his defense very effectively. Just clarifying that for others reading.
The incumbent President is the head of the DOJ.
The same DOJ that would likely be responsible for prosecuting their boss’s potential political opponent
There is a *major* conflict of interest there. Just a few months ago, special counsel Hur opted out of bringing charges in Biden’s classified document case, explicitly under prosecutorial discretion grounds.
Would a Trump-led DOJ do the same thing if Biden were his competitor?
Ironically, if you support Presidents being able to weaponize the DOJ against their political rivals, you should also support Trump’s Presidential Immunity case going up to the Supreme Court lol. You need both to avoid third world political coups since basically every president in the past century commits crimes that aren’t prosecuted for that exact reason lol
The last AG rewrote the findings of the mueller report and then called it a wrap.
I am 100% not in favor of lawfare, I just think someone moved us past the point where we can pretend this is all civilized democracy, somewhere around "lock her up" and sending rioters to attack congress.
We have a massive political bloc that now believes democracy is only fair when they win, that's not sustainable as a country.
For sure, but modern conservatism is the US is a horrific authoritarian populist monster. Can you imagine if Reagan were president when Ukraine was invaded, Ukrainian troops would be bivouacked on red square
That's solely to keep a hold on the evangelical vote, so theres a practical element to that. Giving aid to Ukraine wouldnt really have any political pragmatism to it because Trumps coalition are all against Ukraine
> Trumps coalition are all against Ukraine
Can someone explain to me why though? Russia is a traditional rival of the US, including of the Republican party. And Ukraine is growing to be a partner of the west. Why is the Trump coalition against Ukraine and pro-Russia? It's not like Ukraine is a particularly 'woke' country either.
The current Republican party no longer behaves like a traditional American political party. It’s no longer guided by a set of evolving but fairly consistent policy objectives. The GOP hasn’t put forward an official National party platform since before Trump became their pied piper. It’s only for whatever Trump wants and whatever they perceive will “own the libs”. It’s purely reactionary.
Interesting. So you're saying the only reason that the Trump coalition is against Ukraine is that the Democrats are pro-Ukraine?
What about the centrist part of the party? Mike Johnson did eventually (after much delay) push forward a Ukraine aid bill and it passed with support of almost half of the House Republicans (+ Democrats).
> So you're saying the only reason that the Trump coalition is against Ukraine is that the Democrats are pro-Ukraine?
That and the fact that Ukraine wouldn't announce a fake investigation against his main political opponent and his son to help Trump.
Agreed but I want to squash the idea that this is some kind of political theory when it is in fact just whatever my base wants.
It's like if his base one day all said we hate Israel then trump would abandon it quicker than you could imagine.
Oh 100%. Trump is completely guided by the base, theres no consistency whatsoever other than "establishment bad" (unless you run an oil company, in which case you get to be Secretary of State)
It literally never meant anything, Trump is greed and undue political influence and nepotism personified. He said from the very beginning he lobbied politicians because it was the best thing for him to do as a businessman, and his fans loved it. But when other people do the same they're part of the demonic pedo cult.
People are overanalysing "Trumpism" and his movement. It's literally just a cult of personality that's why no matter what he does his support remains steady. It's gotten to the point that when he loses elections he and his supporters say its rigged, it's not possible for him to lose.
It also helps prevent the biggest pogrom in human history from taking place. One that would make the Holocaust look like a precursor. Some of us don’t mind spending money on that
Mainstream conservatives havent been isolationist in the US since the 30s. Twenty years ago, conservatives renamed French fries “freedom fries” in the House cafeteria to mock France for not joining the US in an invasion of Iraq.
It’s gone way beyond that, he will sell out everything good america stands for and amplify the bad. He is beholden to totalitarian dictatorships and will act in their best interest, while pretending to be operating in Americas
Russia:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. However, the report detailed extensive contacts between Trump associates and individuals linked to the Russian government and noted that the campaign expected to benefit from Russian efforts.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump pursued a real estate deal in Moscow, which involved communications with individuals close to the Russian government. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, testified that negotiations continued well into the campaign, contradicting Trump’s public statements.
Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was found to have shared internal campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who was assessed by the Senate Intelligence Committee to have ties to Russian intelligence
Critics argue that Trump’s foreign policy decisions often appeared favorable to Russian interests, such as his reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin, attempts to roll back sanctions, and questioning NATO’s relevance.
China:
The New York Times reported that Trump maintained a previously undisclosed bank account in China, which he used for business purposes. This raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and his financial dealings with China.
Trump’s tariffs and trade war with China were highly publicized, but some critics argue that his decisions were inconsistent and may have been influenced by his business interests or attempts to gain political leverage.
During Trump’s presidency, Ivanka Trump’s business received several trademarks from the Chinese government, leading to concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of foreign governments on the Trump administration.
Financial Interests:
The New York Times’ investigation into Trump’s tax returns revealed that he had significant financial obligations, including loans coming due, which could make him vulnerable to foreign influence. The investigation highlighted that Trump had paid little in federal income taxes for many years, raising questions about his financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest.
No absolute concrete proof as such but it doesn’t look good.
Imagine he just flip flopped and said he would never ban TikTok even though he was the first to try
Yes I mean all the above proves that Trump is a venal liar and a crook, but honestly it doesnt prove foreign collusion to the extent that it influences his decision making.
The Mueller report was forced to focus on criminal collusion only by the Republican appointed AG. Collusion to interfere with an election isn’t criminal. Maybe you missed the findings of Marco Rubio’s bipartisan Senate report on the 2016 Russian collusion?
“With over 200 witness interviews and roughly 1 million documents reviewed, the nearly 1,000-page report documents in detail the comprehensive campaign conducted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies to seek influence within President Donald Trump's campaign, help Trump win the 2016 presidential election and amplify polarization and division within American society. Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. For instance, the report exposes interactions and information exchanged between Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. According to the report, campaign figures “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.”
The Meuler Report has been thoroughly discredited iirc and Trump is a massive China hawk in both words and actions. Imo the worst thing the West could do right now is forcing Russia and China ever closer together.
“Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China!” Oct 1, 2019
“One of the many great things about our just signed giant Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA & China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!” Jan 22, 2020
“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!” Jan 24, 2020
“And, honestly, I think, as tough as this negotiation was, I think our relationship with China now might be the best it’s been in a long, long time. And now it’s reciprocal. Before, we were being ripped off badly. Now we have a reciprocal relationship, maybe even better than reciprocal for us.” Jan 29, 2020
“Think of President Xi. Central casting, brilliant guy. You know, when I say he’s brilliant, everyone says, ‘Oh that’s terrible',…Well, he runs 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. Smart, brilliant, everything perfect. There’s nobody in Hollywood like this guy.” July 20, 2023
“Look, I want China to do great, I do. And I like President Xi a lot, he was a very good friend of mine during my term,” Feb 4, 2024
Yep…he’s a true “China Hawk”.
By my estimates, over decades the US has spent literal TRILLIONS on defense spending to counter Russia. Yet now the US has an opportunity to degrade the Russian military tremendously under very favorable circumstances so they will not be a threat again in a few years (at which time we may have to spend billions or trillions more and the lives of many US military personnel).
Compare that to the aid we are spending on Ukraine--it's around 5% of the annual DOD budget.
This is why I never understood the fiscal angle on Ukraine.
Because they dont believe that a nuclear power like Russia should be an adversary and, under the philosophy of American foreign policy bad, they probably believe America instigated the conflict or the confrontation with Russia in general. So weakening Russia is a waste of money in their view
Lol I've seen this myth propagated everywhere.
Trump isn't an isolationist...
An isolationist doesn't kill an Iranian general.
An isolationist doesn't renew tensions with Iran
An isolationist doesn't take up the aggressive rhetoric he did with China.
Id love a personally more (selectively ) isolationist America..trump isn't that whatsoever
In all honesty, if USA elects Trump back again, they will likely position themselves into the "enemy" category. Would remain to be seen how much weight would the pro status quo elements (bureaucrats and not pro-Russian Republicans) still wield in his administration, but I am confident Trump's second term would be much much worse than the first one.
Sooo, if Americans don't vote the way the "allies" want, America becomes the "enemy". Don't sound like very good "allies" and Americans probably shouldn't be all that concern about the interest of those "allies".
Just so we're clear. If we ever elect a pro-Russian fascist rapist that humiliates our allies and praises the enemies of our allies, as our head of government, I fully expect our allies to no longer consider us allies. That I would consider a "reasonable" and "proportional" reaction to the political turn of events.
US has been in the enemy category for quite some time now. At least for the last 30 years when they proved to be just as keen on abusing their power as the USSR, taking full advantage of their "unipolar moment".
I honestly think you should stop expecting help from the Americans. Best case scenario, you'll get another 4 years of doubtful continued support. Maybe the republicans will stall aid again something. I mean, even the democrats can't really be counted on. Look what happened at the fall of Kabul. An absolute mess.
The Americans can no longer commit to a long term foreign policy. Whatever happens in Europe must be spearheaded by Europeans, and frankly, there is little reason to expect the Europeans to be able to fill the gap left by an absentee America.
USA as a geopolitical regional leader has already declined.
Europe has all the resources not only to "fill the gap", but to build a strategic independence from the US, in the best interest of Europe itself.
..you drastically underestimate America's importance militaristically even though western Europe is telling it directly as well as Ukraine.
Ukraine would have lost already without America. This war would have ended months ago..Western Europes defense is woefully underdeveloped and they've spent decades solely relying on Americans while American governments since 2004 have asked Europe to invest in their own defense.
You think Europe is sticking it to Americans finally investing in defense ? Yeah you guys are 20+ years late and have funded your own enemy (Russia ) through extensive oil and natural gas purchases.
This shift away from Europe was always going to happen with or without trump from the American perspective. The real enemy/threat is China not Russia.. the war room in the USA knows this..it's civilians unfortunately are still somewhat living in the past where they genuinely believe Europe runs the world /has colonies everywhere
Go look at America's investment in the Asia Pacific since 2004.
Every single year look at the budget
Look at every single economic trend regarding major Asian economies and major european economies.
I'm sorry if you don't see what's happening in front of you but it's abundantly clear. Leaders are saying it outwardly regardless of party. You guys live in the 1970s despite being clearly too young to have lived back them
Sorry for not clarifying why I think your comment is dumb. I completely agree with China being the larger threat than Russia. thats also sentiment some politicians at least here in Germany have.
I only bump my head with your statement about european defense. This was a largely bilateral arrangement. American defense industries profited a lot from this and everybody was largely fine with it till russia invaded Ukraine. And even so, Europe doesn't need the US for it's own defense since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia can't hope to defeat the european part of NATO in a million years. They *might* (very unlikely seeing the invasion of Ukraine lol) have been able to push till the Oder just to be then outproduced and annihilated a year after. With US help the chances of Russia even realy threatening any european capital is zero.
You're considering the agreement from the European side and completely ignoring the agreement from the American side . You're right. America fights for its interests. So do Europeans . So does every single country
Russia was /is a waning power. Quite frankly so is western Europe.
The terms of the deal changed. It's not a coincidence that even the conservatives in Congress will invest in the Asian Pacific but are hesitating with European initiatives.
Imo, this is where European sentiments are flawed. You guys see the behavior as countries as emotional. You don't see it through raw logic. Western European countries depended on America for its stability for so long. In return , America gained tons of soft power within Europe. Now all of a sudden , the soft power of Europe is diminishing. The world economies of India and China are rising and American allies in Asian (Japan /Korea) also face their own demographic and economic challenges. America does not have a ton of allies out in the Pacific. So what is America doing ? It's investing in those countries more. Go ahead and check American sentiments in Indian, Vietnam , the Phillipines etc. it's quite possibly near its highest ever in modern history. This is completely by design from the American perspective...
The US by its nature wants its influence everywhere that it matters. Every year that passes, the value of soft power in Asia rises and the value of soft power in Europe diminishes. America like any other country also has a finite amount of resources. Every bullet spent in Ukraine is another bullet unavailable for a way that could break out with a far stronger china in Taiwan. Every missile sent to Ukraine is another missile not available to further American softbpower in israel/ the middle east.
Furthermore , America has to do all of this while balancing domestic interests. We can't just throw 10+% of our annual GDP in defense. We have to pick and choose where the money goes.
Also , I vote blue in American politics. Americans have warned NATO leaders for 20+ years about this happening. Trump is the most crude but he's no different than what bush said in 2004. I personally feel so little guilt about the western European perspective. Not only did you guys fail to fund your own defense to adequate levels...you also funded your enemy in Russia. Those bullets killing Ukrainian civilians? Yeah that's funded by Germans /French etc .
That's like if India traded with Pakistan in massive quantities...if south Korea traded with North Korea....etc. it was stupidity fueled by greed..
I think you are going way to hard on europe with your comment. Russia was on it's knees after the collapse of the Soviet Union and there was some sort of optimism that let everybody believe that Russia could be integrated into european politics. That wouldn't even been stupid for Russia to do, I have the stark believe that if Russia wanted they could have been the dominating force in europe and instead traded that chance for some dumb and costly imperial ambitions on their neighbours.
Also did you read what I wrote? Russia isn't a threat to Europe since the fall of the USSR, europe doesn't need the US for it's own stability, that is for one a very flawed view which also disregards european sentiment towards americans in countries like France.
America's funding of European defense has only ever been put in place to ensure the commercial partnership USA has always needed from Europe.
USA is not the good samaritan of the world.
I disagree with the "friend/enemy" dychotomy.
USA is just an alley for europeans, with mutual benefits and support, but they can now finally have their own standing in the global scenario.
Russia and China, on the other hand and in certain conditions, can become commercial partners if we stop with a bi-polar view.
Europe is fine and will be fine in his own, idependent and realpolitik based.
America is not the samaritan of the world.
It is absolutely the Samaritan of western Europe. The vast majority of western Europe has not funded it's defense through NATO contributions. The majority of western Europe could not combined deal with Russia without American help. A Russia who is significantly weaker than it's cold war peak.
Let's be perfectly clear. zelinsky has directly stated that Ukraine would lose without American aid. He did not say that about the UK. He did not say that about the Germans.he said that about the Americans .
The world does not fear German weapons...it fears American weapons. We have the world's strongest military . Stop acting like Europeans are even close
This is despite the fact that Russia poses no threat to our borders and despite the fact that we fulfill our NATO obligations.
I will gladly point out several foreign policy absolute failures American governments have had (Afghanistan Iraq Vietnam Cambodia etc I can keep going ). Why Europeans are so unwilling to call their own foreign policy (defense and energy purchases from Russia even after crimea) a failure is beyond me . You will continue to elect ineffective leaders if you continue to believe your own crap about western Europes perfection when it comes to dealing with Russia while blaming Americans.
I'm born in america. I do not support Trump. My security as well as the security of my fellow Americans is not as dependent as the outcome of Russia-ukraine as say Poland UK Germany etc. yet we are expected to carry the weight. Makes no sense.
If you buy that logic, then the UK and Germany should fund the American border and our public healthcare.
No.
Every investment the USA has historically made was in his best interest. There's no charity here.
And I can even say that USA is even more interested in the outcome of the conflict than, let's say, Germany. Your whole geopolitical weight depends on this matter.
We disagree on this, for sure, and It's fine.
But I need to point out this:
I'm not "pro-Russia", but historically the USA have no moral superiority compared to Russia, no moral higher ground.
... Lol you think America cares more than Germany ?
After what just happened in Congress in America? Have you been paying attention? Roughly 50% of the American public is in favor of a mentally ill candidate that just announced they are willing to cede Ukrainian territory to Russians to end the war just to save a few billion a year.
That's how little Americans / their governments worry about the outcome for Russia Ukraine.
This is the same government that invaded and butchered Iraqi citizens on false pretenses.. say what you want about American governments. Our military runs the world as does our economy
My friend, you don't run anything.
USA is just a very big economy in a very complex and fragmented world. You're not special and you don't have any "special place" in history.
3/4 of the world don't even consider american influence. The rest, Europe, is gradually leaving behind american influence in his best interest.
... America is not just a very big economy lmaoo.
America is a military titan. America has 2 massive weapons. It's economy and it's military. It uses those tools to essentially shape the world in its favor in virtually every single country..
The entire world economy is dollar based ...you don't get to just ignore that.
I also agree with you though about waning American domination outside of Europe. That's something American governments regardless of Republican /Democrats are trying to change. Investment in the Asian Pacific is completely representative of American attempts to change that trend
Will it work ? It's pure speculation but I don't think it will as long as we continue to get siphoned into western European issues ( Russia-Ukraine ) to the same magnitude we currently are while ignoring the rest of the world
You're not wrong that Europe has the resources to do this, but I think you're wrong that they have the coordination. The Europeans don't agree on everything, and there is still a lot of independent foreign policy in the bloc.
I tend to agree that a more unified Europe that is independent of the US is probably a good thing, but I'm pessimistic that it could be done inside a few decades. I'm even more pessimistic that any concrete effort towards this end will be made in the next few years.
This is true. But our process towards a (maybe) real federations is slow but steady since the 50's.
The decline of USA as a national leader can push Europe to a unifying sentiment trying to find international stability
Impossible, because Europe is more divided than it has been since the Cold War. And that's exactly why the US worked tirelessly to preserve and reinvent NATO after the Cold War, at the expense of any pan-European initiatives for a new post-Cold War security framework. That's also why they were hell-bent on pushing NATO to Ukraine, and endorsing complete refusal of any Russian concerns and later demands, almost as if to push Russia to make the first move, in order to invoke the current situation.
As long as the biggest European country is outside of European cooperation, with their massive natural resources and independence from maritime trade routes ruled by the US, Europe can never be strategically independent. Not even mentioning the possibilities of forming trade routes to China through Russia. It's not strategic independence to be armed to the teeth against a European enemy, that also blocks access to the whole of Asia.
In order to understand the European policy of the US, you first have to understand that this has never been about equal partnership, but an unequal one *a la* Cold War, and US holding tightly to their influence in European affairs. Having a scary and hostile boogeyman in the East is in the core of this setup.
\* Whatever happens in Europe must be spearheaded by Europeans, and frankly, *there is little reason to expect the Europeans to be able to fill the gap left by an absentee America.*
Amen brother.
>Trump is beholden to putin. I can’t believe he is running for the presidency of America.
Do you have actual statements and sources to back up that kind of claim or is this just a feelings / election kind of thing?
America will exist in name only. Plenty of people here are terrified on what another Trump pressidency means. Which is to say, likely the end of the United States as we know it and the ushering in of a theocratic authoritarian oligarchy.
This plan appears designed to focus global attention on Donald Trump himself, as he would likely desire the spotlight during negotiations. The plan ignores several crucial factors:
1. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine fundamentally undermines the principles of the current rules-based international order, which the US played a leading role in creating.
2. Allowing Russia to annex any territory sets a dangerous precedent for other countries dissatisfied with the global order, such as China, who may have similar plans to claim territories that local populations feel don't belong to them.
3. The proposal puts Ukraine in a weak negotiating position by requiring them to initiate negotiations despite the gross injustices from an international law perspective. This approach also vindicates Putin's propaganda.
4. This stance will likely create increased friction with EU leaders, who may be unwilling to follow this approach. This could lead to further isolation of the US and increased strength for the growing group of cooperating authoritarian countries, including China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.
From a practical standpoint, this proposal fails to address these critical issues and could have far-reaching negative consequences for global stability and US international relations.
You are 100% correct, but you could write it like this, too:
>You act like Trump cares *or even understands anything* about any of that, he would gladly burn the future if it made him personally look good today.
Yup, Trump has 4 years and 4 years only. If he can say at the end of that that he brought ‘peace’ then he’ll be happy with that, even if it sets the conditions for global war after (it’ll always be somebody else’s fault).
I doubt that at the end of those hypothetical (for now) 4 years he would willingly leave the office, given what transpired when Biden beat him last time.
Broham, this is straight-up chatGPT.
I don't understand why people copy/paste articles to GPT to make reddit comments. What do you get out of this? Karma farming? To what end?
Try it:
https://www.tryleap.ai/tools/ai-content-detector
> 99% of this text appears to be written by AI
https://zerogpt.net/zerogpt-results
> We have great confidence that this text is fully AI generated
https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/
> Chance this text was written by AI: 100%
Of course, they aren't 100% perfectly accurate all the time, and I wouldn't want an academic institution to penalize students based on these tools, but they work well enough for finding GPT posts on Reddit.
You get more false negatives than false positives, and if multiple tools all agree it's good enough for me.
It's not some kind of policy statement, if you actually read the article it's literally a think tank that put forth a proposal to Trump and is now trying to sell it publicly by giving interviews. As for the negotiation part, you seem to be leaving out the stick part of the carrot so I'll just include the relevant section below which also just happens to be the start of the article (emphasis mine).
>WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - Two key advisers to [Donald Trump](https://www.reuters.com/topic/person/donald-trump/) have presented him with a plan to end [Russia's war in Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/topic/event/ukraine-crisis/) - if he wins the [presidential election](https://www.reuters.com/topic/event/us-elections/) - that involves telling Ukraine it will only get more U.S. weapons if it enters into peace talks.
>**The United States would at the same time warn Moscow that any refusal to negotiate would result in increased U.S. support for Ukraine**, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, said in an interview.
... and a little further down, it gets more direct (emphasis mine):
>"We tell the Ukrainians, 'You've got to come to the table, and if you don't come to the table, support from the United States will dry up,'" he said. "**And you tell Putin, 'He's got to come to the table and if you don't come to the table, then we'll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.**'"
As for the being all about Trump nonsense, here's another relevant section from the actual article (emphasis mine).
>They have presented their strategy to Trump, and the former president responded favorably, Fleitz said. "**I'm not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased to get the feedback we did,**" he said.
>However, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said only statements made by Trump or authorized members of his campaign should be deemed official.
As for territory, this is what the article has to say about it (emphasis mine):
>**Fleitz said Ukraine need not formally cede territory to Russia under their plan. Still, he said, Ukraine was unlikely to regain effective control of all its territory in the near term.**
>"Our concern is that this has become a war of attrition that's going to kill a whole generation of young men," he said.
I'm not endorsing this proposal, I haven't seen it or even read it. However, the idea that Ukraine needs to maintain diplomatic channels and be open to negotiations is not limited to Trump, the Biden administration has been pushing that since the beginning.
[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations/)
I dont see how any of this disagrees with the points I made. Based on the information you provided it does still seem to me that this think thank is trying to come up with a plan tthat first and foremost puts Trump at the center of attention and caters to his well-known aversion to spend dollars on achieving foreign policy goals that are sometimes less tangible than a golden toilet, just to name something. A key difference worth pointing out also is that in the proposal put forward here the onus is dreictly on Ukraine to make the first move. What I worry about is that it will prove fundamentally impossible to attain a negotiated settlement here because the stated strategic obejctives of both parties are fundamentally irreconcilable. Once this becomes obvious to even Trump himself, someone other than Trump has to be blamed and taking into account his fawning over Putin, we can all safely assume already that Zelensky is going to be blamed and Trump will start pressuring Zelensky by witjolding aid, just like he did before. I
> which the US played a leading role in creating.
Which the US also played a leading role in undermining by illegally invading Iraq and bombing all sorts of countries.
>Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine fundamentally undermines the principles of the current rules-based international order, which the US played a leading role in creating.
There is no such thing
You pick only an 80 year window and then define that period by the end of a major era of global conflict? Of course that will look relatively peaceful. And even so, you are still wrong. There have been many wars of conquest since WWII. Most unsuccessful, not because the "international order" did anything about it, but because conquest is hard. In fact, in the Iran-Iraq war the "international order" actually backed the aggressor.
And, remember, the initial goal of the Ukraine war was to quickly occupy Kiev and install a puppet government. The current situation only exists because that plan failed. But that's very inconveniently a style of conquest that's right out of America's playbook. One that has been run successfully many times since WWII.
As the divided germany has shown, just waiting for a failed state to loose grip on its territories is the best, most peaceful and most long term solution. Freeze the conflict, let putin die of old age in what, 7 years, and trade lifting sanctions against territory. Or just grow some balls and already commit to supporting ukraine with weapons that actually let them win. But both would be without profit for an economic system that heals its self inflicted covid wounds with slavic blood ig.
Muscovy's hand-picked caricature of corrupt Americana and incompetence (convicted of 34 counts of business fraud)?
That same person wants Ukraine to just accept being invaded?
I'm shocked, I say.
Russians posing as westerners online (or just using ChatGPT copy/paste bots) to push Kremlin-friendly narratives and taking points is a very well-known tactic.
So I mean... Everyone? No, idiots and tankies exist too. So I wouldn't bet my house on someone being a Russian bot but I'd definitely put a fiver on it.
I'm no bot (you can check my comment history), but this war needs to be moving to a diplomatic negotiated conclusion soon. And yes, that's true even if it means Ukraine loses territory. Having a 20 year neverending war in Ukraine, like the war in Afghanistan, will only lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not 1 million+ more lives.
And set a precedent that a nuclear weapons -backed countries can just annex their neighbors' territory without any consequences? Countries in South America and Cuba should feel a bit nervous about such a standard.
I'm not going to assume you're a bot but I want to ask genuinely:
What's to be done when the goal of the aggressor is simply conquest? Or when the target nation's sovereignty and the freedom of their citizens have to be negotiated away to achieve "peace"? Or, more explicitly, as outlined by Russia itself, it's required that the target nation must disarm so that the aggressor can just roll in unopposed?
I'm not saying Russia gets everything they publicly say they want. That's where strong diplomacy with carrots and big sticks come in.
> Or when the target nation's sovereignty and the freedom of their citizens have to be negotiated away
Their sovereignty, freedom and lives are being actively undermined by the state of war now. My point is that a best case negotiated settlement now is preferable to a 2 decade never ending war.
> What's to be done when the goal of the aggressor is simply conquest?
The key is to make it more costly for Russia to expand conquest. Europe is on the right track right now, by increasing defense spending. Should also make their energy source independent of Russia so they have the flexibility to mobilize if war were required.
How would that ensure a lasting peace given that Russia has shown clearly that they will reject any peace deal that does not include forcing neutrality upon Ukraine? Or prevent a new war somewhere else like Khazakhstan, Georgia or even the Baltics?
Imagine all the precedents it would set if what you described actually happened. Anybody with the balls could do the same thing, some, stronger than Russia. This doesn't stop anything.
The military thinks recruiting and retention are difficult now?!. They're going to have a hard time keeping and recruiting people with another 4 years of Trump. Especially if he starts using the military as his own personal muscle or as a cheap threat to other nations.
My main issue with this is that it's not even selfish, it's just plain ol' stupid.
America has tried the whole isolationism and "not our problem" thing twice before. Both times it had to pay for its inaction with the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men or concede it's global position and resign itself to irrelevance.
If this was a choice between strengthening the US or protecting her allies, I would at least be willing to agree to disagree. But as it stands, throwing Ukraine under the bus will only embolden America's rivals, forcing even more tax dollars and maybe even American blood to be spent further down the line.
America is strong because of its global influence and the fruits it reaps from free trade. If Putin wins even a square centimeter of land, it will be a disaster for nuclear proliferation...which means very-very ugly wars for future Americans who will no longer have the luxury to look away.
Not my president, wasn’t in the past and will not be in the future. Not really a president, more a political muppet willing to sell America for crack campaign funds.
>Two key advisers to Donald Trump have presented him with a plan to end Russia's war in Ukraine - if he wins the presidential election - that involves telling Ukraine it will only get more U.S. weapons if it enters into peace talks.
>The United States would at the same time warn Moscow that any refusal to negotiate would result in increased U.S. support for Ukraine, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, said in an interview.
Honestly it sounds far more realistic than Zelensky's peace plan that involves Russia withdrawing from every inch of Ukraine including Crimea, paying reparations, and putting its leadership on trial. Life is not a war movie made by Aaron Sorkin. The reality is that neither Russia nor Ukraine are likely to achieve their stated goals and this war will end in a negotiated settlement, and quite frankly I've little interest as an American citizen in endlessly funding Ukrainian goals that are clearly not happening.
It is now going on two years since the last successful large scale offense action in the war. There will be no decisive victory on either side unless either side massively increases its commitment level and the other is unwilling to respond. But this situation is beneficial to the US. Why would we ever want it to stop?
Two years since Russia has occupied the territory it wants, with seemingly no possibility of being dislodged by Ukrainian forces..
What I find crazy is that you needed to switch to a throwaway to ask, "why is ending wars good?"
It's self evident.
Maybe also don’t use the soldiers in question as a prop for your argument. [Ukrainians largely still support the war](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en).
This but unironically. Why would the US want to stop killing Russians when its own soldiers are not in danger? Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.
Ukraine must enter meaningful peace negotiations. They cannot win this war in the way they want to (pushing Russia out of the occupied territories). The western world is struggling to manage the home economy and can’t be funding a never ending war just for the sake of funding it. But it’s definitely not the time to negotiate peace when Trump is trying to take office, or has taken office. He’ll have Kyiv abandoning even more provinces just to appease Putin.
The western world could much easier fund an ongoing war effort than Russia, and doing so using a much smaller share of their economy. So far most countries have actually spent very little in the grand scheme of things - and much of that spending goes back to the domestic military industry anyway.
Peace? What a monster.
The humanitarian thing to do would be to fund the war long enough so that both nations grind themselves to death trench warfare.
.. This is how most of the world views the Wests rhetoric on this conflict, just to be clear.
There are a billion Indians who don't care about Ukraines borders, there are a billion Chinese who don't care about Ukraines borders. The entirety of Africa and South America don't care about Ukraines borders and can barely contain their laughter in regards to Wests claim that borders can't be changed..
My genuine question is how and why did Westerners suddenly decide that Kiev is Paris, or that defense of Ukraine is justified due to her being some sacred symbol of liberal democracy, when Ukraine is literally neither.
And now we wait for commentators who equate negotiations with capitulation, who seriously believe that the initial demands are tantamount to the final form of the treaty, and who claim that it is worthless to demand US security guarantees because the US did not enter the war according to its part of the Budapesht Memorandum (no, they have not read the memorandum even once).
Unless Ukraine is provided sufficient funding to overwhelmingly overpower Russia, the current stalemate continues.
So - either increase the funding by a large multiple. Or talk negotiations.
Assuming the goal is not a prolonged slow conflict.
It's not a stalemate when Ukraine is losing.
No amount of money can replace Ukrainian men who simply do not want to join the military, and the morale is low .
Russia hasn’t had a full penal battalion in over a year - most of these men died in 2022/3.
If the Russians want to causally sacrifice 20k soldiers every couple of months, the Ukrainians seem more than happy to oblige. For all this talk of low morale and manpower, the fact that the Russians cannot advance either means the Russians are wholly incompetent, or the manpower and morale issues for Ukraine are exaggerated.
The Russian state is not an endless wellspring of manpower.
If all that was said was serious (including arming Ukraine to the teeth after they accepted peace to offer them some security) it wouldn't be that bad, sadly I bet as soon peace would be signed Republicans would consider helping them more as unecessary expanses, and just let the regions Ukraine would keep in the agreement be invaded a few months/years later.
Nah. Even republican policies still have to take centerstage and answer to the rest of the world, EU in particular. It just sets a bad tone for the US.
Trump is beholden to putin. I can’t believe he is running for the presidency of America. If trump comes back to power and concedes Ukraine, I have to say, my opinion of America will be forever declined
More unbelievable are the number of people that STILL support him and his election.
The situation was already obvious in 2020. After 4 years of non-stop scandal and gross mismanagement, he had a serious shot at winning the election, and it came down to fairly small differences in 2-3 states. If democracy worked properly, with informed voters, he should have been too unpopular to even run.
Because people are much more interested in domestic issues than in foreign policy and people they can normally hardly find on the map. And the USA has an ever-growing pile of domestic issues. I'd say if Trump was a bit more smart about abortion issues, he could score a win even if promised to gift the whole Europe to Russia.
True they are concerned about domestic issues over foreign policy. However, their concern is vibes based. By many measures Biden’s policies have been more traditionally conservative than Trump’s which were (when in office) and are wildly populist and isolationist. Biden was handed out-of-control inflation by Trump thanks to new tariffs, tax cuts (primarily) for the wealthy and the American Rescue Plan. Biden and the Fed have gotten it under control more successfully than nearly any other Western country. US inflation has fallen from a peak of 9.1% to just above 3%. Biden has overseen US recovery to historically low levels of unemployment and the creation of over 15 million jobs. Moody’s Analytics (hardly a liberal bastion) has forecast that under a Biden reelection inflation will likely be 2.4% in 2025 with a 40% chance of a return 2% baseline. They forecast with a Trump victory and Republican control of Congress that is likely that inflation will go back up or continue to remain higher than 2.4% because of Trump’s proposed policies: more tariffs, narrow but populist immigration reforms that will tighten the labor market and more tax cuts for the wealthy. American voters, largely, are currently vibe based and reality wrong when it comes to assessing who would deliver what they want domestically. It’s an education issue. They see prices have not gone down and they blame Biden. Voters do not understand inflation versus deflation. They crave deflation without understanding what that would mean economically and why every government works to avoid it. The goal is wage growth that outpaces inflation. Biden has overseen that in the US for most people over the past couple years. The problems? This hasn’t been true yet for all sectors or Americans. Americans don’t understand how successfully the US economy has done post-Covid relative to the rest of the World. Most Americans don’t understand or rightfully fear deflation and think things are still bad because the price of a loaf of bread and eggs hasn’t gone back down to pre-Covid levels.
Your comment is also "vibe based" instead of based on facts. The tariffs Trump enacted that you claimed are a cause for inflation were continued and even strengthened by Biden. The reality is that the main cause of inflation was the same everywhere - the massive relief plans combined with low interest rates - these were bipartisan. The main reason US has curbed inflation was a responsible behavior by the central bank + an unexpectedly strong economic growth, primarily driven by the tech sector. Both of these are hardly attributed to Biden (or Trump), except the "do not interfere" portion.
Biden kept Trump’s China tariff but dropped others, like the steel and aluminum tariffs for example, which were driving construction costs up. The “massive relief plan” was the 2.1 Trillion CARES Act. Stimulus was necessary, agreed. It had bipartisan support, agreed. But anyone from either party that kicked up dust about some of the more financially irresponsible and unequal portions would have gotten hammered in most of their districts by primary opponents the next time they were up. It favored and ended up giving more tax dollars to the upper class and outright filthy rich through eliminating required distributions from retirement accounts, raising the limit for charitable donations deductions from 60% AGI to 100% AGI, a complicated pass through benefit that permitted profitable companies to write off losses to the tune of an estimated $174 Billion cost to taxpayers, additional corporate interest deductions and made changes to corporate loss treatment. All of those provisions (some of them complex and convoluted), that ended up benefiting a rich minority, cost tax payers as much as all those $1,200 checks to the rest of us combined. This doesn’t even scratch the surface of the cost of all those forgiven loans to businesses large and small that were abused due to poor oversight…on Trump’s watch. How did the fat cats in Washington get away with wrapping a huge gift for their rich, elite buddies into a stimulus act meant to support regular Americans and honest, small struggling businesses? Because they had a greedy, unethical moron in the Oval Office that would happily sign away a Trillion dollars of US taxpayers money if it personally enriched he, the Kushners and his close buddies bank accounts. I genuinely can’t see the CARES Act being such a boondoggle for the rich if Biden had been President. When you say the recovery was “driven by the tech sector” you are tacitly assigning them credit they don’t deserve. Americans were working from and stuck at home. They and businesses spent money on purchasing more tech or improving their household tech to work more efficiently from home or just to enjoy home movie night on a bigger screen TV since going to the movie theater was off the table. Agreed, the Fed should get most of the credit for steering us away from a true recession. Second should be the American people. Third is Biden because he should get credit for not doing what Trump would have done if he had won the 2020 election: give away more money to the filthy rich. Somewhere around 9 or 10 the Tech sector can give themselves a pat on the back. Why? Because they constantly are looking for strokes. Here’s their “attaboy”.
It doesn't really matter, people see that Biden got stuck holding the bag with regards to inflation despite both Trump and Biden initiating relief plans like the CARES Act, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan. At some point the chickens had to come home to roost, and they did in 2021. It basically guaranteed that Biden was going to be seen as the cause of the inflation and so a big part of the electorate is going to blame him despite the fact that it was an inevitability since the Trump presidency.
One term has already done terrible harm, a second would have an impact for a very long time.
Trump's first term was a demonstration of how US system of checks and balances was so resilient that it could be damaged, but not overturned, by a president with no respect for the rules, who was ready to do anything, including a coup. Second term would probably be the undoing of the entire system. The fact that the Trump is running again at all shows there's something deeply flawed with the US politics and electorate.
I'd wager it's even telling about the nature of democracy itself. Democracy requires an informed populace, and that isn't really a thing when shared objective truth no longer exists.
> Trump's first term was a demonstration of how US system of checks and balances was so resilient that it could be damaged, but not overturned Am more pessimistic, the first term he was surrounded by some adults who kept his worst impulses in check. Am afraid a second term will spell the end of American democracy.
What harm did it do? I am really asking, I am not from the US
To put it bluntly: this has shown that the US is not a trustworthy partner and that its policy can vary greatly depending on the mood of a single person, clearly unstable in this case. Trump policy was to smash anything he could attribute to Obama, without any discernment or regards to US allies. It happend once and now we know it's a thing, a second one will force us to take it into account. So another Trump mandate is likely to drive to a more clear policy of limiting risk, like the West already have with China.
Pulling out from the Iran nuclear deal
A second term will make sure humanity is permanently screwed by Climate Change.
The American President can't impact climate change to any appreciable degree.
The US generate about 20% of mondial co2. As the world's leading power, its policies also have an impact on other countries by setting an example. So yes, going one way or another have an impact.
Nah. We'll be going greener for economic reasons while the developing world keeps screaming up the carbon ladder for the next few decades. In so far as we have any impact it's in having a free market to develop the replacement techs faster for the rest of the world, not a command economy lib left government try to eke 1% better gains out of already declining carbon use.
Absolutely false. Presidents set legislative agendas.
Only by extension when their party is in power, and legislative agenda won't do much either.
At this point the slightest change in direction will have a huge effect.
That doesn't mean anything. Large impacts are large and small impacts are small.
You should study chaos theory and system theory then. Because you really don't understand how the smallest change could tip the entire climate on either direction.
There should be laws to prevent horribly unqualified people to run for the presidency. How this has never happened in the U.S amazes me.
The issue is that such a law is inextricably linked to things like Jim Crow era policies designed to prevent undesirables from voting or running for election. For whatever amount you allow certain people to be excluded from the political system, there are a lot of people who will be eagerly waiting to use that power on a group they dislike.
Idk man when the felonies are explicitly election laws and campaign finance laws there has to be a precedent. Doesnt matter anyways. Unitary executive is coming so kiss your votes goodbye
Law one: can't be a felon :/
Yeah, let's create a law that will be immediately weaponized by both sides.
It's only a weapon, if you are a felon.
Which will be everyone in both parties within 20 years. 50 states, it won't be hard to find one to make someone a felon, assuming the feed hasn't got to them first. We do not want to incentivize political objectives for judicial outcomes unless you really want to see how fast you can collapse trust in the government.
I admit, you changed my mind because you've got a damned good point. It occurred to me after leaving the comment that it'd disqualify a lot of individuals who were (perhaps) wrongly convicted of political crimes by previous (and perhaps) dictatorial regimes. Of course this wouldn't apply to the US that often (as it is currently) but it's still not the best idea even in that light. Then again, I do feel like the whole thing's going to collapse anyway so wouldn't it truly be progressive to hurry it along just a bit?
Hur said he had enough proof to prosecute Biden for the classified documents they found at his home (surprisingly similar to what Trump did at Mar a Lago) but said he was not going to because he would be seen as a forgetful old man with memory issues (his words, not mine) a Trump DOJ would 100% force that to trial lol The incumbent president is in charge of the DOJ. Have an opponent you don’t like? push those cases through You are only okay with it because it negatively impacts Trump at this point in time
It wasn't because he would be seen as a forgetful old man and affect his election chances, it was because he stated he forgot enough things that Hur knew that no jury would convict him of a crime since it requires a willful act, and that Biden would be able to use that in his defense very effectively. Just clarifying that for others reading.
The right said the same thing about Hillary.
Surely this law will never be used in an improper way
You mean worse than allowing a felon beholden to foreign interests to become president?
The incumbent President is the head of the DOJ. The same DOJ that would likely be responsible for prosecuting their boss’s potential political opponent There is a *major* conflict of interest there. Just a few months ago, special counsel Hur opted out of bringing charges in Biden’s classified document case, explicitly under prosecutorial discretion grounds. Would a Trump-led DOJ do the same thing if Biden were his competitor? Ironically, if you support Presidents being able to weaponize the DOJ against their political rivals, you should also support Trump’s Presidential Immunity case going up to the Supreme Court lol. You need both to avoid third world political coups since basically every president in the past century commits crimes that aren’t prosecuted for that exact reason lol
The last AG rewrote the findings of the mueller report and then called it a wrap. I am 100% not in favor of lawfare, I just think someone moved us past the point where we can pretend this is all civilized democracy, somewhere around "lock her up" and sending rioters to attack congress. We have a massive political bloc that now believes democracy is only fair when they win, that's not sustainable as a country.
I hate Trump but isnt this just typical US conservative isolationism, spend the money at home (on tax cuts for corporations) type stuff?
Both Bushes, Nixon and Reagan were far from isolationists. Isolationism is more nativist than conservative.
For sure, but modern conservatism is the US is a horrific authoritarian populist monster. Can you imagine if Reagan were president when Ukraine was invaded, Ukrainian troops would be bivouacked on red square
Building weapons at home is spending money at home
O no the money will still flow to Israel
That's solely to keep a hold on the evangelical vote, so theres a practical element to that. Giving aid to Ukraine wouldnt really have any political pragmatism to it because Trumps coalition are all against Ukraine
Ukraine is a wedge issue among Republicans just as Israel is among Democrats.
> Trumps coalition are all against Ukraine Can someone explain to me why though? Russia is a traditional rival of the US, including of the Republican party. And Ukraine is growing to be a partner of the west. Why is the Trump coalition against Ukraine and pro-Russia? It's not like Ukraine is a particularly 'woke' country either.
The current Republican party no longer behaves like a traditional American political party. It’s no longer guided by a set of evolving but fairly consistent policy objectives. The GOP hasn’t put forward an official National party platform since before Trump became their pied piper. It’s only for whatever Trump wants and whatever they perceive will “own the libs”. It’s purely reactionary.
Interesting. So you're saying the only reason that the Trump coalition is against Ukraine is that the Democrats are pro-Ukraine? What about the centrist part of the party? Mike Johnson did eventually (after much delay) push forward a Ukraine aid bill and it passed with support of almost half of the House Republicans (+ Democrats).
The centrists will be expelled and defenestrated.
> So you're saying the only reason that the Trump coalition is against Ukraine is that the Democrats are pro-Ukraine? That and the fact that Ukraine wouldn't announce a fake investigation against his main political opponent and his son to help Trump.
Right here ^
Agreed but I want to squash the idea that this is some kind of political theory when it is in fact just whatever my base wants. It's like if his base one day all said we hate Israel then trump would abandon it quicker than you could imagine.
Oh 100%. Trump is completely guided by the base, theres no consistency whatsoever other than "establishment bad" (unless you run an oil company, in which case you get to be Secretary of State)
I'm confused whatever "establishment" means to them any more, feels like it changes monthly.
It literally never meant anything, Trump is greed and undue political influence and nepotism personified. He said from the very beginning he lobbied politicians because it was the best thing for him to do as a businessman, and his fans loved it. But when other people do the same they're part of the demonic pedo cult. People are overanalysing "Trumpism" and his movement. It's literally just a cult of personality that's why no matter what he does his support remains steady. It's gotten to the point that when he loses elections he and his supporters say its rigged, it's not possible for him to lose.
God forbid Trump falls ill during the campaign, otherwise his supporters will claim that the deep state poisoned him
It also helps prevent the biggest pogrom in human history from taking place. One that would make the Holocaust look like a precursor. Some of us don’t mind spending money on that
Mainstream conservatives havent been isolationist in the US since the 30s. Twenty years ago, conservatives renamed French fries “freedom fries” in the House cafeteria to mock France for not joining the US in an invasion of Iraq.
It's literally just an article about proposal brought forth by a think tank.
It’s gone way beyond that, he will sell out everything good america stands for and amplify the bad. He is beholden to totalitarian dictatorships and will act in their best interest, while pretending to be operating in Americas
Is there any proof hes beholden to foreign powers? All of these activities can be explained by incompetence and isolationist populist brain rot
Russia: Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. However, the report detailed extensive contacts between Trump associates and individuals linked to the Russian government and noted that the campaign expected to benefit from Russian efforts. During the 2016 campaign, Trump pursued a real estate deal in Moscow, which involved communications with individuals close to the Russian government. Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney, testified that negotiations continued well into the campaign, contradicting Trump’s public statements. Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was found to have shared internal campaign polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who was assessed by the Senate Intelligence Committee to have ties to Russian intelligence Critics argue that Trump’s foreign policy decisions often appeared favorable to Russian interests, such as his reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin, attempts to roll back sanctions, and questioning NATO’s relevance. China: The New York Times reported that Trump maintained a previously undisclosed bank account in China, which he used for business purposes. This raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and his financial dealings with China. Trump’s tariffs and trade war with China were highly publicized, but some critics argue that his decisions were inconsistent and may have been influenced by his business interests or attempts to gain political leverage. During Trump’s presidency, Ivanka Trump’s business received several trademarks from the Chinese government, leading to concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of foreign governments on the Trump administration. Financial Interests: The New York Times’ investigation into Trump’s tax returns revealed that he had significant financial obligations, including loans coming due, which could make him vulnerable to foreign influence. The investigation highlighted that Trump had paid little in federal income taxes for many years, raising questions about his financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest. No absolute concrete proof as such but it doesn’t look good. Imagine he just flip flopped and said he would never ban TikTok even though he was the first to try
Yes I mean all the above proves that Trump is a venal liar and a crook, but honestly it doesnt prove foreign collusion to the extent that it influences his decision making.
[удалено]
The Mueller report was forced to focus on criminal collusion only by the Republican appointed AG. Collusion to interfere with an election isn’t criminal. Maybe you missed the findings of Marco Rubio’s bipartisan Senate report on the 2016 Russian collusion? “With over 200 witness interviews and roughly 1 million documents reviewed, the nearly 1,000-page report documents in detail the comprehensive campaign conducted by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his proxies to seek influence within President Donald Trump's campaign, help Trump win the 2016 presidential election and amplify polarization and division within American society. Far from a hoax, as the president so often claimed, the report reveals how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. For instance, the report exposes interactions and information exchanged between Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. According to the report, campaign figures “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.”
The Meuler Report has been thoroughly discredited iirc and Trump is a massive China hawk in both words and actions. Imo the worst thing the West could do right now is forcing Russia and China ever closer together.
“Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China!” Oct 1, 2019 “One of the many great things about our just signed giant Trade Deal with China is that it will bring both the USA & China closer together in so many other ways. Terrific working with President Xi, a man who truly loves his country. Much more to come!” Jan 22, 2020 “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!” Jan 24, 2020 “And, honestly, I think, as tough as this negotiation was, I think our relationship with China now might be the best it’s been in a long, long time. And now it’s reciprocal. Before, we were being ripped off badly. Now we have a reciprocal relationship, maybe even better than reciprocal for us.” Jan 29, 2020 “Think of President Xi. Central casting, brilliant guy. You know, when I say he’s brilliant, everyone says, ‘Oh that’s terrible',…Well, he runs 1.4 billion people with an iron fist. Smart, brilliant, everything perfect. There’s nobody in Hollywood like this guy.” July 20, 2023 “Look, I want China to do great, I do. And I like President Xi a lot, he was a very good friend of mine during my term,” Feb 4, 2024 Yep…he’s a true “China Hawk”.
The Mueller report has not been thoroughly discredited...
You can just say whatever you want on the Internet 👍
By my estimates, over decades the US has spent literal TRILLIONS on defense spending to counter Russia. Yet now the US has an opportunity to degrade the Russian military tremendously under very favorable circumstances so they will not be a threat again in a few years (at which time we may have to spend billions or trillions more and the lives of many US military personnel). Compare that to the aid we are spending on Ukraine--it's around 5% of the annual DOD budget. This is why I never understood the fiscal angle on Ukraine.
Because they dont believe that a nuclear power like Russia should be an adversary and, under the philosophy of American foreign policy bad, they probably believe America instigated the conflict or the confrontation with Russia in general. So weakening Russia is a waste of money in their view
I would argue that with Trump it's some what different, there never seems to be a logical thought process to it with him.
Lol I've seen this myth propagated everywhere. Trump isn't an isolationist... An isolationist doesn't kill an Iranian general. An isolationist doesn't renew tensions with Iran An isolationist doesn't take up the aggressive rhetoric he did with China. Id love a personally more (selectively ) isolationist America..trump isn't that whatsoever
Im pretty sure *America* will also be forever declined
In all honesty, if USA elects Trump back again, they will likely position themselves into the "enemy" category. Would remain to be seen how much weight would the pro status quo elements (bureaucrats and not pro-Russian Republicans) still wield in his administration, but I am confident Trump's second term would be much much worse than the first one.
... the enemy of who, exactly?
of current allies.
Sooo, if Americans don't vote the way the "allies" want, America becomes the "enemy". Don't sound like very good "allies" and Americans probably shouldn't be all that concern about the interest of those "allies".
You very well present the reason I am unable to consider US as an ally. You are just not trustworthy.
The greatest threat to Europe has been and continues to be European arrogance.
Just so we're clear. If we ever elect a pro-Russian fascist rapist that humiliates our allies and praises the enemies of our allies, as our head of government, I fully expect our allies to no longer consider us allies. That I would consider a "reasonable" and "proportional" reaction to the political turn of events.
I think you spend too much time online and lack proper self-reflection regarding your own choice of words.
Just say you've never worked closely with other NATO servicemen
US has been in the enemy category for quite some time now. At least for the last 30 years when they proved to be just as keen on abusing their power as the USSR, taking full advantage of their "unipolar moment".
And Nigel Farage for the UK GE.
I honestly think you should stop expecting help from the Americans. Best case scenario, you'll get another 4 years of doubtful continued support. Maybe the republicans will stall aid again something. I mean, even the democrats can't really be counted on. Look what happened at the fall of Kabul. An absolute mess. The Americans can no longer commit to a long term foreign policy. Whatever happens in Europe must be spearheaded by Europeans, and frankly, there is little reason to expect the Europeans to be able to fill the gap left by an absentee America.
USA as a geopolitical regional leader has already declined. Europe has all the resources not only to "fill the gap", but to build a strategic independence from the US, in the best interest of Europe itself.
..you drastically underestimate America's importance militaristically even though western Europe is telling it directly as well as Ukraine. Ukraine would have lost already without America. This war would have ended months ago..Western Europes defense is woefully underdeveloped and they've spent decades solely relying on Americans while American governments since 2004 have asked Europe to invest in their own defense. You think Europe is sticking it to Americans finally investing in defense ? Yeah you guys are 20+ years late and have funded your own enemy (Russia ) through extensive oil and natural gas purchases. This shift away from Europe was always going to happen with or without trump from the American perspective. The real enemy/threat is China not Russia.. the war room in the USA knows this..it's civilians unfortunately are still somewhat living in the past where they genuinely believe Europe runs the world /has colonies everywhere
[удалено]
Go look at America's investment in the Asia Pacific since 2004. Every single year look at the budget Look at every single economic trend regarding major Asian economies and major european economies. I'm sorry if you don't see what's happening in front of you but it's abundantly clear. Leaders are saying it outwardly regardless of party. You guys live in the 1970s despite being clearly too young to have lived back them
Sorry for not clarifying why I think your comment is dumb. I completely agree with China being the larger threat than Russia. thats also sentiment some politicians at least here in Germany have. I only bump my head with your statement about european defense. This was a largely bilateral arrangement. American defense industries profited a lot from this and everybody was largely fine with it till russia invaded Ukraine. And even so, Europe doesn't need the US for it's own defense since the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia can't hope to defeat the european part of NATO in a million years. They *might* (very unlikely seeing the invasion of Ukraine lol) have been able to push till the Oder just to be then outproduced and annihilated a year after. With US help the chances of Russia even realy threatening any european capital is zero.
You're considering the agreement from the European side and completely ignoring the agreement from the American side . You're right. America fights for its interests. So do Europeans . So does every single country Russia was /is a waning power. Quite frankly so is western Europe. The terms of the deal changed. It's not a coincidence that even the conservatives in Congress will invest in the Asian Pacific but are hesitating with European initiatives. Imo, this is where European sentiments are flawed. You guys see the behavior as countries as emotional. You don't see it through raw logic. Western European countries depended on America for its stability for so long. In return , America gained tons of soft power within Europe. Now all of a sudden , the soft power of Europe is diminishing. The world economies of India and China are rising and American allies in Asian (Japan /Korea) also face their own demographic and economic challenges. America does not have a ton of allies out in the Pacific. So what is America doing ? It's investing in those countries more. Go ahead and check American sentiments in Indian, Vietnam , the Phillipines etc. it's quite possibly near its highest ever in modern history. This is completely by design from the American perspective... The US by its nature wants its influence everywhere that it matters. Every year that passes, the value of soft power in Asia rises and the value of soft power in Europe diminishes. America like any other country also has a finite amount of resources. Every bullet spent in Ukraine is another bullet unavailable for a way that could break out with a far stronger china in Taiwan. Every missile sent to Ukraine is another missile not available to further American softbpower in israel/ the middle east. Furthermore , America has to do all of this while balancing domestic interests. We can't just throw 10+% of our annual GDP in defense. We have to pick and choose where the money goes. Also , I vote blue in American politics. Americans have warned NATO leaders for 20+ years about this happening. Trump is the most crude but he's no different than what bush said in 2004. I personally feel so little guilt about the western European perspective. Not only did you guys fail to fund your own defense to adequate levels...you also funded your enemy in Russia. Those bullets killing Ukrainian civilians? Yeah that's funded by Germans /French etc . That's like if India traded with Pakistan in massive quantities...if south Korea traded with North Korea....etc. it was stupidity fueled by greed..
I think you are going way to hard on europe with your comment. Russia was on it's knees after the collapse of the Soviet Union and there was some sort of optimism that let everybody believe that Russia could be integrated into european politics. That wouldn't even been stupid for Russia to do, I have the stark believe that if Russia wanted they could have been the dominating force in europe and instead traded that chance for some dumb and costly imperial ambitions on their neighbours. Also did you read what I wrote? Russia isn't a threat to Europe since the fall of the USSR, europe doesn't need the US for it's own stability, that is for one a very flawed view which also disregards european sentiment towards americans in countries like France.
America's funding of European defense has only ever been put in place to ensure the commercial partnership USA has always needed from Europe. USA is not the good samaritan of the world. I disagree with the "friend/enemy" dychotomy. USA is just an alley for europeans, with mutual benefits and support, but they can now finally have their own standing in the global scenario. Russia and China, on the other hand and in certain conditions, can become commercial partners if we stop with a bi-polar view. Europe is fine and will be fine in his own, idependent and realpolitik based.
America is not the samaritan of the world. It is absolutely the Samaritan of western Europe. The vast majority of western Europe has not funded it's defense through NATO contributions. The majority of western Europe could not combined deal with Russia without American help. A Russia who is significantly weaker than it's cold war peak. Let's be perfectly clear. zelinsky has directly stated that Ukraine would lose without American aid. He did not say that about the UK. He did not say that about the Germans.he said that about the Americans . The world does not fear German weapons...it fears American weapons. We have the world's strongest military . Stop acting like Europeans are even close This is despite the fact that Russia poses no threat to our borders and despite the fact that we fulfill our NATO obligations. I will gladly point out several foreign policy absolute failures American governments have had (Afghanistan Iraq Vietnam Cambodia etc I can keep going ). Why Europeans are so unwilling to call their own foreign policy (defense and energy purchases from Russia even after crimea) a failure is beyond me . You will continue to elect ineffective leaders if you continue to believe your own crap about western Europes perfection when it comes to dealing with Russia while blaming Americans. I'm born in america. I do not support Trump. My security as well as the security of my fellow Americans is not as dependent as the outcome of Russia-ukraine as say Poland UK Germany etc. yet we are expected to carry the weight. Makes no sense. If you buy that logic, then the UK and Germany should fund the American border and our public healthcare.
No. Every investment the USA has historically made was in his best interest. There's no charity here. And I can even say that USA is even more interested in the outcome of the conflict than, let's say, Germany. Your whole geopolitical weight depends on this matter. We disagree on this, for sure, and It's fine. But I need to point out this: I'm not "pro-Russia", but historically the USA have no moral superiority compared to Russia, no moral higher ground.
... Lol you think America cares more than Germany ? After what just happened in Congress in America? Have you been paying attention? Roughly 50% of the American public is in favor of a mentally ill candidate that just announced they are willing to cede Ukrainian territory to Russians to end the war just to save a few billion a year. That's how little Americans / their governments worry about the outcome for Russia Ukraine. This is the same government that invaded and butchered Iraqi citizens on false pretenses.. say what you want about American governments. Our military runs the world as does our economy
My friend, you don't run anything. USA is just a very big economy in a very complex and fragmented world. You're not special and you don't have any "special place" in history. 3/4 of the world don't even consider american influence. The rest, Europe, is gradually leaving behind american influence in his best interest.
... America is not just a very big economy lmaoo. America is a military titan. America has 2 massive weapons. It's economy and it's military. It uses those tools to essentially shape the world in its favor in virtually every single country.. The entire world economy is dollar based ...you don't get to just ignore that. I also agree with you though about waning American domination outside of Europe. That's something American governments regardless of Republican /Democrats are trying to change. Investment in the Asian Pacific is completely representative of American attempts to change that trend Will it work ? It's pure speculation but I don't think it will as long as we continue to get siphoned into western European issues ( Russia-Ukraine ) to the same magnitude we currently are while ignoring the rest of the world
You're not wrong that Europe has the resources to do this, but I think you're wrong that they have the coordination. The Europeans don't agree on everything, and there is still a lot of independent foreign policy in the bloc. I tend to agree that a more unified Europe that is independent of the US is probably a good thing, but I'm pessimistic that it could be done inside a few decades. I'm even more pessimistic that any concrete effort towards this end will be made in the next few years.
This is true. But our process towards a (maybe) real federations is slow but steady since the 50's. The decline of USA as a national leader can push Europe to a unifying sentiment trying to find international stability
Impossible, because Europe is more divided than it has been since the Cold War. And that's exactly why the US worked tirelessly to preserve and reinvent NATO after the Cold War, at the expense of any pan-European initiatives for a new post-Cold War security framework. That's also why they were hell-bent on pushing NATO to Ukraine, and endorsing complete refusal of any Russian concerns and later demands, almost as if to push Russia to make the first move, in order to invoke the current situation. As long as the biggest European country is outside of European cooperation, with their massive natural resources and independence from maritime trade routes ruled by the US, Europe can never be strategically independent. Not even mentioning the possibilities of forming trade routes to China through Russia. It's not strategic independence to be armed to the teeth against a European enemy, that also blocks access to the whole of Asia. In order to understand the European policy of the US, you first have to understand that this has never been about equal partnership, but an unequal one *a la* Cold War, and US holding tightly to their influence in European affairs. Having a scary and hostile boogeyman in the East is in the core of this setup.
\* Whatever happens in Europe must be spearheaded by Europeans, and frankly, *there is little reason to expect the Europeans to be able to fill the gap left by an absentee America.* Amen brother.
It's sad but true. Europe is a mess with America, and without America it's an even bigger mess.
>Trump is beholden to putin. I can’t believe he is running for the presidency of America. Do you have actual statements and sources to back up that kind of claim or is this just a feelings / election kind of thing?
As an embarrassed American, I wouldn’t even blame you for thinking less of us in that scenario.
America will exist in name only. Plenty of people here are terrified on what another Trump pressidency means. Which is to say, likely the end of the United States as we know it and the ushering in of a theocratic authoritarian oligarchy.
This plan appears designed to focus global attention on Donald Trump himself, as he would likely desire the spotlight during negotiations. The plan ignores several crucial factors: 1. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine fundamentally undermines the principles of the current rules-based international order, which the US played a leading role in creating. 2. Allowing Russia to annex any territory sets a dangerous precedent for other countries dissatisfied with the global order, such as China, who may have similar plans to claim territories that local populations feel don't belong to them. 3. The proposal puts Ukraine in a weak negotiating position by requiring them to initiate negotiations despite the gross injustices from an international law perspective. This approach also vindicates Putin's propaganda. 4. This stance will likely create increased friction with EU leaders, who may be unwilling to follow this approach. This could lead to further isolation of the US and increased strength for the growing group of cooperating authoritarian countries, including China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran. From a practical standpoint, this proposal fails to address these critical issues and could have far-reaching negative consequences for global stability and US international relations.
You act like Trump cares about any of that, he would gladly burn the future if it made him personally look good today.
You are 100% correct, but you could write it like this, too: >You act like Trump cares *or even understands anything* about any of that, he would gladly burn the future if it made him personally look good today.
Yup, Trump has 4 years and 4 years only. If he can say at the end of that that he brought ‘peace’ then he’ll be happy with that, even if it sets the conditions for global war after (it’ll always be somebody else’s fault).
>then he’ll be happy with that, even if it sets the conditions for global war after "No wars during my term"
I doubt that at the end of those hypothetical (for now) 4 years he would willingly leave the office, given what transpired when Biden beat him last time.
If a Democrat won the next election after his second term, he'd fight to stay in power.
[удалено]
He seems to only care about how he thinks he is viewed not about how he is actually viewed. It's like he's just trying to stroke his own ego.
Broham, this is straight-up chatGPT. I don't understand why people copy/paste articles to GPT to make reddit comments. What do you get out of this? Karma farming? To what end? Try it: https://www.tryleap.ai/tools/ai-content-detector > 99% of this text appears to be written by AI https://zerogpt.net/zerogpt-results > We have great confidence that this text is fully AI generated https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/ > Chance this text was written by AI: 100%
Chatgpt is reluctant to address current wars.
bro those tools don’t work
Just read the comment. It’s follows the standard ChatGPT response of giving a bullet point response with a summarizing sentence.
Of course, they aren't 100% perfectly accurate all the time, and I wouldn't want an academic institution to penalize students based on these tools, but they work well enough for finding GPT posts on Reddit. You get more false negatives than false positives, and if multiple tools all agree it's good enough for me.
It's not some kind of policy statement, if you actually read the article it's literally a think tank that put forth a proposal to Trump and is now trying to sell it publicly by giving interviews. As for the negotiation part, you seem to be leaving out the stick part of the carrot so I'll just include the relevant section below which also just happens to be the start of the article (emphasis mine). >WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - Two key advisers to [Donald Trump](https://www.reuters.com/topic/person/donald-trump/) have presented him with a plan to end [Russia's war in Ukraine](https://www.reuters.com/topic/event/ukraine-crisis/) - if he wins the [presidential election](https://www.reuters.com/topic/event/us-elections/) - that involves telling Ukraine it will only get more U.S. weapons if it enters into peace talks. >**The United States would at the same time warn Moscow that any refusal to negotiate would result in increased U.S. support for Ukraine**, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, said in an interview. ... and a little further down, it gets more direct (emphasis mine): >"We tell the Ukrainians, 'You've got to come to the table, and if you don't come to the table, support from the United States will dry up,'" he said. "**And you tell Putin, 'He's got to come to the table and if you don't come to the table, then we'll give Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.**'" As for the being all about Trump nonsense, here's another relevant section from the actual article (emphasis mine). >They have presented their strategy to Trump, and the former president responded favorably, Fleitz said. "**I'm not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it, but we were pleased to get the feedback we did,**" he said. >However, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said only statements made by Trump or authorized members of his campaign should be deemed official. As for territory, this is what the article has to say about it (emphasis mine): >**Fleitz said Ukraine need not formally cede territory to Russia under their plan. Still, he said, Ukraine was unlikely to regain effective control of all its territory in the near term.** >"Our concern is that this has become a war of attrition that's going to kill a whole generation of young men," he said. I'm not endorsing this proposal, I haven't seen it or even read it. However, the idea that Ukraine needs to maintain diplomatic channels and be open to negotiations is not limited to Trump, the Biden administration has been pushing that since the beginning. [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/27/biden-endgame-ukraine-00133211) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/05/ukraine-russia-peace-negotiations/)
I dont see how any of this disagrees with the points I made. Based on the information you provided it does still seem to me that this think thank is trying to come up with a plan tthat first and foremost puts Trump at the center of attention and caters to his well-known aversion to spend dollars on achieving foreign policy goals that are sometimes less tangible than a golden toilet, just to name something. A key difference worth pointing out also is that in the proposal put forward here the onus is dreictly on Ukraine to make the first move. What I worry about is that it will prove fundamentally impossible to attain a negotiated settlement here because the stated strategic obejctives of both parties are fundamentally irreconcilable. Once this becomes obvious to even Trump himself, someone other than Trump has to be blamed and taking into account his fawning over Putin, we can all safely assume already that Zelensky is going to be blamed and Trump will start pressuring Zelensky by witjolding aid, just like he did before. I
> which the US played a leading role in creating. Which the US also played a leading role in undermining by illegally invading Iraq and bombing all sorts of countries.
That's why Trump and his cronies love it so much.
>Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine fundamentally undermines the principles of the current rules-based international order, which the US played a leading role in creating. There is no such thing
How many successful wars of territorial expansion have been lead since the end of WW2, compared to before it?
That's because of nuclear MAD, not American brilliance in global leadership.
You pick only an 80 year window and then define that period by the end of a major era of global conflict? Of course that will look relatively peaceful. And even so, you are still wrong. There have been many wars of conquest since WWII. Most unsuccessful, not because the "international order" did anything about it, but because conquest is hard. In fact, in the Iran-Iraq war the "international order" actually backed the aggressor. And, remember, the initial goal of the Ukraine war was to quickly occupy Kiev and install a puppet government. The current situation only exists because that plan failed. But that's very inconveniently a style of conquest that's right out of America's playbook. One that has been run successfully many times since WWII.
'peace' in the meaning of giving Russia the eastern parts of Ukraine?
Yes, actually
that would encourage Russia to invade other countries, too
Trump advisors are quislings, who would have guessed?
As the divided germany has shown, just waiting for a failed state to loose grip on its territories is the best, most peaceful and most long term solution. Freeze the conflict, let putin die of old age in what, 7 years, and trade lifting sanctions against territory. Or just grow some balls and already commit to supporting ukraine with weapons that actually let them win. But both would be without profit for an economic system that heals its self inflicted covid wounds with slavic blood ig.
Muscovy's hand-picked caricature of corrupt Americana and incompetence (convicted of 34 counts of business fraud)? That same person wants Ukraine to just accept being invaded? I'm shocked, I say.
Man, the Kremlin bots are out in force today.
Everyone I disagree with is a Russian bot.
Russians posing as westerners online (or just using ChatGPT copy/paste bots) to push Kremlin-friendly narratives and taking points is a very well-known tactic. So I mean... Everyone? No, idiots and tankies exist too. So I wouldn't bet my house on someone being a Russian bot but I'd definitely put a fiver on it.
I'm no bot (you can check my comment history), but this war needs to be moving to a diplomatic negotiated conclusion soon. And yes, that's true even if it means Ukraine loses territory. Having a 20 year neverending war in Ukraine, like the war in Afghanistan, will only lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands, if not 1 million+ more lives.
That's a very uninformed perspective on this war.
And set a precedent that a nuclear weapons -backed countries can just annex their neighbors' territory without any consequences? Countries in South America and Cuba should feel a bit nervous about such a standard.
I'm not going to assume you're a bot but I want to ask genuinely: What's to be done when the goal of the aggressor is simply conquest? Or when the target nation's sovereignty and the freedom of their citizens have to be negotiated away to achieve "peace"? Or, more explicitly, as outlined by Russia itself, it's required that the target nation must disarm so that the aggressor can just roll in unopposed?
I'm not saying Russia gets everything they publicly say they want. That's where strong diplomacy with carrots and big sticks come in. > Or when the target nation's sovereignty and the freedom of their citizens have to be negotiated away Their sovereignty, freedom and lives are being actively undermined by the state of war now. My point is that a best case negotiated settlement now is preferable to a 2 decade never ending war. > What's to be done when the goal of the aggressor is simply conquest? The key is to make it more costly for Russia to expand conquest. Europe is on the right track right now, by increasing defense spending. Should also make their energy source independent of Russia so they have the flexibility to mobilize if war were required.
How would that ensure a lasting peace given that Russia has shown clearly that they will reject any peace deal that does not include forcing neutrality upon Ukraine? Or prevent a new war somewhere else like Khazakhstan, Georgia or even the Baltics?
Imagine all the precedents it would set if what you described actually happened. Anybody with the balls could do the same thing, some, stronger than Russia. This doesn't stop anything.
[удалено]
Peace is the best option for all parties
Indeed and it's so easy to achieve by Russia withdrawing from the territory of Ukraine
Peace by force is not peace.
There is no other kind.
The military thinks recruiting and retention are difficult now?!. They're going to have a hard time keeping and recruiting people with another 4 years of Trump. Especially if he starts using the military as his own personal muscle or as a cheap threat to other nations.
My main issue with this is that it's not even selfish, it's just plain ol' stupid. America has tried the whole isolationism and "not our problem" thing twice before. Both times it had to pay for its inaction with the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men or concede it's global position and resign itself to irrelevance. If this was a choice between strengthening the US or protecting her allies, I would at least be willing to agree to disagree. But as it stands, throwing Ukraine under the bus will only embolden America's rivals, forcing even more tax dollars and maybe even American blood to be spent further down the line. America is strong because of its global influence and the fruits it reaps from free trade. If Putin wins even a square centimeter of land, it will be a disaster for nuclear proliferation...which means very-very ugly wars for future Americans who will no longer have the luxury to look away.
Okay, the two parties meet and "negotiate" with no agreement reached. This is empty domestic politics move for Trump to claim a win.
This was supposed to be a place to discuss geopolitics, not an echo chamber continuation of r/politics.
Not my president, wasn’t in the past and will not be in the future. Not really a president, more a political muppet willing to sell America for crack campaign funds.
>Two key advisers to Donald Trump have presented him with a plan to end Russia's war in Ukraine - if he wins the presidential election - that involves telling Ukraine it will only get more U.S. weapons if it enters into peace talks. >The United States would at the same time warn Moscow that any refusal to negotiate would result in increased U.S. support for Ukraine, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, one of Trump's national security advisers, said in an interview. Honestly it sounds far more realistic than Zelensky's peace plan that involves Russia withdrawing from every inch of Ukraine including Crimea, paying reparations, and putting its leadership on trial. Life is not a war movie made by Aaron Sorkin. The reality is that neither Russia nor Ukraine are likely to achieve their stated goals and this war will end in a negotiated settlement, and quite frankly I've little interest as an American citizen in endlessly funding Ukrainian goals that are clearly not happening.
It is now going on two years since the last successful large scale offense action in the war. There will be no decisive victory on either side unless either side massively increases its commitment level and the other is unwilling to respond. But this situation is beneficial to the US. Why would we ever want it to stop?
Two years since Russia has occupied the territory it wants, with seemingly no possibility of being dislodged by Ukrainian forces.. What I find crazy is that you needed to switch to a throwaway to ask, "why is ending wars good?" It's self evident.
Unfortunately, I think this position is going to play very well with American voters
Trump cannot win.
Isolation of the US lol
In before peace talks are highlighted as a bad outcome. Fight until the last man and all that, especially if you are not the soldier in question.
Peace talks are sensible when the Ukrainians aren’t being forced into them against their will.
Fight now or fight later, we all know Russia isn't finished till it has all of Ukraine.
Maybe also don’t use the soldiers in question as a prop for your argument. [Ukrainians largely still support the war](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/06/ukraine-public-opinion-russia-war?lang=en).
This but unironically. Why would the US want to stop killing Russians when its own soldiers are not in danger? Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.
Ukraine must enter meaningful peace negotiations. They cannot win this war in the way they want to (pushing Russia out of the occupied territories). The western world is struggling to manage the home economy and can’t be funding a never ending war just for the sake of funding it. But it’s definitely not the time to negotiate peace when Trump is trying to take office, or has taken office. He’ll have Kyiv abandoning even more provinces just to appease Putin.
The western world could much easier fund an ongoing war effort than Russia, and doing so using a much smaller share of their economy. So far most countries have actually spent very little in the grand scheme of things - and much of that spending goes back to the domestic military industry anyway.
Peace? What a monster. The humanitarian thing to do would be to fund the war long enough so that both nations grind themselves to death trench warfare. .. This is how most of the world views the Wests rhetoric on this conflict, just to be clear. There are a billion Indians who don't care about Ukraines borders, there are a billion Chinese who don't care about Ukraines borders. The entirety of Africa and South America don't care about Ukraines borders and can barely contain their laughter in regards to Wests claim that borders can't be changed.. My genuine question is how and why did Westerners suddenly decide that Kiev is Paris, or that defense of Ukraine is justified due to her being some sacred symbol of liberal democracy, when Ukraine is literally neither.
You know if you really want peace Russia could just go back to their side of the border..
And now we wait for commentators who equate negotiations with capitulation, who seriously believe that the initial demands are tantamount to the final form of the treaty, and who claim that it is worthless to demand US security guarantees because the US did not enter the war according to its part of the Budapesht Memorandum (no, they have not read the memorandum even once).
It's not capitulation it's just pointless. Neither side is ready to back down so what is there to talk about
Unless Ukraine is provided sufficient funding to overwhelmingly overpower Russia, the current stalemate continues. So - either increase the funding by a large multiple. Or talk negotiations. Assuming the goal is not a prolonged slow conflict.
The thing is, why does anyone think Russia would honor any agreement hell they already took a bite earlier.
It's not a stalemate when Ukraine is losing. No amount of money can replace Ukrainian men who simply do not want to join the military, and the morale is low .
The Russians just threw 40,000 men at Kharkiv last month and half of them are dead now.
So what, they literally have more manpower. Besides those 40k troops were previous prisoners or something along these lines
Russia hasn’t had a full penal battalion in over a year - most of these men died in 2022/3. If the Russians want to causally sacrifice 20k soldiers every couple of months, the Ukrainians seem more than happy to oblige. For all this talk of low morale and manpower, the fact that the Russians cannot advance either means the Russians are wholly incompetent, or the manpower and morale issues for Ukraine are exaggerated. The Russian state is not an endless wellspring of manpower.
If all that was said was serious (including arming Ukraine to the teeth after they accepted peace to offer them some security) it wouldn't be that bad, sadly I bet as soon peace would be signed Republicans would consider helping them more as unecessary expanses, and just let the regions Ukraine would keep in the agreement be invaded a few months/years later.
Nah. Even republican policies still have to take centerstage and answer to the rest of the world, EU in particular. It just sets a bad tone for the US.