Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus
-
Yesterday was the first time since WW-II that the US voted with Russia and against Western Europe on an issue of European security. Yes, my perspective on that will remain consistent.
-
Yesterday was the first time since WW-II that the US voted with Russia and against Western Europe on an issue of European security. Yes, my perspective on that will remain consistent.
@jon-nyc Yes, consistently absurd, as you zoom in on the UN resolution and keep America's material support of Ukraine out of focus. Voila, America is Russia's ally, the magic of selectively focused rhetoric. I understand such rhetoric is your reality, but not all of us are that silly.
-
@Horace What do you think is the "read" of the situation from Europe allies and others who voted for the resolution? Do you believe that they feel there has been a shift in US policy towards Ukraine or are they dismiss it as only words?
-
@Horace What do you think is the "read" of the situation from Europe allies and others who voted for the resolution? Do you believe that they feel there has been a shift in US policy towards Ukraine or are they dismiss it as only words?
@taiwan_girl Of course there's been a shift from Biden's plan of indefinite support for Ukraine at a level where they're slowly losing the war, to be limited only by any agreement Ukraine can reach with Russia before Kiev is taken. That shift has been towards practical measures to end the conflict. You can read the US's response at the UN in the other thread, just posted by LD.
I am sure most people on this forum are well equipped cognitively and emotionally to dismiss UN resolutions as empty virtue signaling. In this particular case, it is being taken seriously, because the resolution happens to align with certain talking points that many of us subscribe to.
-
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
-
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
@89th said in Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus:
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
Trump wants to be friend of winner.
-
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
@89th said in Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus:
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
So you continue underfunding Ukraine and not giving them the tools to win? Or do you escalate? What’s your answer?
The Brad
-
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
@89th said in Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus:
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
This perspective does not even motion towards an alternative path forward that doesn't end with either Russia taking Ukraine, or a military escalation between nuclear powers. The conversation is not serious until at least that much is understood.
-
@89th said in Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus:
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
So you continue underfunding Ukraine and not giving them the tools to win? Or do you escalate? What’s your answer?
@LuFins-Dad said in Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus:
@89th said in Some nascent spines in the GOP Caucus:
It seems Trump is most interested in ending the conflict, regardless of who wins and who loses. He wants the "I ended the war" headline (just like his other headlines he's chasing) without thinking about the true impact. Many times in our country's past we could've taken the easier path to placate to an enemy in order to resolve a conflict, but to what end... to what precedent...?
I'm guessing in a few months the war will be over and Russia will have annexed a good 20% of the country (east side), which makes Putin the semi-winner. SAD
So you continue underfunding Ukraine and not giving them the tools to win? Or do you escalate? What’s your answer?
Yes, escalation to one degree or another was the answer. Certainly the credible threat of it was step one. Trump has the personality to do it rather credibly if he had tried, IMO.
-
Yeah step one is to make it 100% clear that this will not end with Russia taking even one inch of Ukraine. Negotiate from there. The art of the deal... no?
Since I'm playing with monopoly money, to answer your question @LuFins-Dad , I would force Ukraine to join NATO and immediately call Russia's bluff. Might end the war, might convert it into a Russia-China-Iran world war conflict that they quickly back away from knowing it would dismantle their already crumbling economies.
-
Imagine if Trump had just started trolling Russia. Talking about how ruinous the war has been for their economy. How many soldiers they’ve lost. Stories about their ever desperate methods of recruitment. How they controlled more Ukrainian territory in March of 2022 than they do now (true story). Teasing them for needing to import weapons and men from the third world. Quoting Russian strategists talking about how this would be a theee day war. Etc etc. He’d have been good at it. Really.
-
He would have been good at that. But brinksmanship over nuclear war with Russia is not what he ran on. It is hardly obvious that such brinksmanship would have ended up better for Ukraine and the west, but anybody is free to have that opinion and attempt to back it up, as they please.
