Please use this thread to continue discussing the war in Ukraine.
All mod instructions from the previous thread remain in force here
Original thread:
Was Ukraine invaded in 2014?
Was Trump President when Russian and Russian backed forces were occupying part of Ukraine?
Did Trump as President hold up aid to Ukraine for scurrilous partisan goals in an abuse of power?
If Trump becomes the next President, he will inherit a situation where Russian and Russian backed forces are occupying part of Ukraine.
The parallels are obvious. So yeah, this 'counter historical' stuff is tiring alright. Does ignoring all the available evidence qualify as 'counter historical stuff' in slogan bingo land?
And before you reply with, you don't know what he will do for sure, well no one does about anybody. So that's a carte blanche to adopt any position, regardless of foundation or merit.
You don't know that Putin won't surrender tomorrow and hand himself over to the Hague. However, there is no basis to propose it as a likely possibility.
But we can make reasonable forecasts based on previous behaviour and available evidence.
And it is entirely reasonable to propose that the overwhelming likelihood is that a Trump win means cutting off of support to Ukraine.
If I were Zelensky, I would try buttering up Trump now.
Talk about ticker tape parades, fireworks, statues, LEGACY! Name a street or a plaza after him, all that jazz, for huge injections of military aid.
It's all showbiz and appearances for Trump.
Get Trump to 'sell' older US equipment to Ukraine, which will pay for newer stuff built by American workers for the US military itself. Win-win.
Play to his ego and self-illusion.
Its primitive stuff, but it is what it is.
@johnnyskeleton is there a reason you're discounting France's nuclear arsenal? I know it's pretty small by comparison to the figures reported for the US or Russia but 300 nuclear warheads would be more than enough to destroy Russia so it's no small threat.
Unlike the UK arsenal, the French weapons are fully under their control too so transfer of that technology to the likes of Poland wouldn't be outside their control either.
He wasn't president in 2014
He wasn't president in 2022
This counter-historical stuff is tiring.
We simply do not know what Trump would have done, or will do.
I think it’s fair to say that even Trump himself doesn’t know what Trump will do or not (he has to survive his cult assassination attempts first and win election second tho)
But if he does the last thing he will want at start of his term is an Afghanistan fiasco x100 as nothing positive politically come of it while it’s not his own money going to help Ukrainians which is path of least resistance
All Zelensky have to do is ask for a **** load of military equipment and promise Trump it be used to hold the biggest parade for him to which he of course be invited and cheered
Which one? And what is the relevance given we have multiple instances now of Trump screwing over Ukraine or trying to screw over Ukraine, in and out of office.
Before the invasion of Ukraine?
Again, as multiple posters have pointed out to you, some of those actions were when Trump was President.
All the available evidence points to Trump's election being worse for Ukraine than Biden or AN other Democrat continuing his policy of support.
And yes it would be unreasonable for the US to withdraw its support from Ukraine at this juncture.
GOP opposing measures by a Biden presidency is not exactly new.
But again, Trump being president and not being president are different things.
However, there is a wider discussion here. The US is embarking on a more isolationtionist foreign policy anyway. The EU and Europe nee to recognise this as the new way of things.
Is it unreasonable for Europe to be able to defend itself and support Ukraine without US help? The average voter in the Rust Belt would certainly think so. From their point of view, why is he the tax payer stumping up the cash when Europeans wont put their own hand in their pocket?
The fact that we in Europe are so reliant on US Defence is an indictment, not of Trump or American Isolationists, but of us, in Europe. We had it good for so long, and yes, I would hope American military aid goes to Ukraine to win that war, but at the end of the day, the well will run dry.
All the available evidence points in the other direction.
Multiple times Trump has held up aid to Ukraine, either directly as President, or through his stooges in Congress.
His VP pick is on record as prominently opposing aid to Ukraine and dumping Russian propaganda.
He's on record as saying he would end it quickly, so what's the quickest way to try to force that… cutting off aid to Ukraine.
It would be the long shot gambler's hope that somehow Trump would be better for Ukraine than Biden.
Whether he is good for Ukraine, as opposed to NATO, however, is an entirely separate issue. I really think he could be a wildcard who could go anywhere from complete abandonment to "I shall be the hero of Ukraine, send in the US Army, and have statues built of me in Kyiv!" And then he can get that military parade in DC he wanted, like there was in 1991.
This x1000
If anyone tries to tell you what Trump is going to 100% do, they are lying. Because they don't know.
No one knows what Trump will do about NATO and Ukraine. Not even Trump knows tbh. He will approach it as it comes on the day or week in question.
I admit that a Trump presidency certainly raises worrying question marks over the future of US support for Ukraine.
It may be Trump just spouting, or it may be that he means it. We just do not know at this stage, as Trump is volatile to say the least. I expect to hear a lot of talks about an off-ramp when/if he gets elected.
He will be keen to do a deal, and appear tough with Putin, but may deliver an ultimatum with Ukraine, "Accept this deal or else…" If such a deal is negotiated, would it include future security guarantees via NATO for Ukraine? It's all up in the air.
But my point with @Overheal was this
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 under Obama.
Trump became president in 2017.
Yet it was their contention that Trump, not Obama who gave Crimea away.
If you are going to give Trump **** for 2017 and Crimea, then you also need to heap 10 times more **** on Obama on how he let Putin have his way for years in various conflict zones. You cant have it both ways.*
*I never said that Obama should have rolled in the US tanks by the way.
Predicting what Trump will say or do is almost impossible with any degree of certainty. He is so mercurial and inconsistent that even if he was genuinely intent on doing X thing now, by February, 2025 he might have gone off the idea, or completely reversed. He could even do X thing one month and do the opposite the following. It's the way he operates.
It is much more useful to look at what he can or cannot do, and also what the rest of the US Government is likely to do in pursuit of, or to work around Trump's policies.
First and foremost, Trump claims that he will get a peace deal on unspecified terms on the basis that he will present these terms and if Ukraine say no they get no more funding and if Russia say no Ukraine gets a massive amount of funding. Leaving aside the conspiracy theories propagated by Russia about the US controlling the Ukrainian government, in reality the only card that the Americans have is to cut, continue or increase aid to Ukraine.
He might threaten to cut aid, but it is unclear if he actually will. Further, the EU is likely to step into the breech in that situation and provide increased aid. Financial and humanitarian aid is straightforward for the EU, and they are currently doing the most on that front. Military aid might be tricky, but it might just be the shot in the arm that European countries need. Further, it is entirely consistent with Trump that a deal would be struck that the US army sells older stocks of ATACMs, GMLRS, Patriot Pac 2 etc to the EU based on double the current book prices (but still cheaper than the replacement costs) and for Trump to claim that he has got a great deal selling old rubbish to the EU at inflated prices etc.
Trump cannot, indeed will not, be able to influence the EU into not supporting Ukraine. He simply has no cards in that regard, short of dismantling NATO (which is unlikely, see below). Indeed, his plan of being antagonistic towards the EU is likely to continue. That is only going to increase the calls in the EU to support Ukraine because we are not like that bad man Trump and we will do what needs to be done.
So as regards Ukraine, the worst that Trump can do isn't as catastrophic as it might seem. They will still get aid - less aid probably, but not no aid. They will continue to fight.
Depending on the terms, Ukraine might also be interested in a cease fire. This is on the basis of continued American aid and they seem to be suffering from manpower issues. So long as Trump does not require them to move from their current positions, I could see a situation where the conflict is essentially frozen during Trump's Presidency. Ukraine will be able to rebuild their economy and military, and they won't feel like they are giving up because their territorial claims remain intact and they can say it was forced upon them.
Needless to say, this would be a bad outcome for Russia, who would be putting off a short term issue for long term pain. Ukraine will not forget what Russia did, and sooner or later will want to get their territory back. With Western support, they can easily get through 4 years of a frozen conflict while they rebuild.
In the best case scenario, Trump throws all his weight behind support for Ukraine after Russia rejects his peace/cease fire proposals.
Trump would obviously be very bad for Europe. He could foist an increased burden on the EU to support Ukraine, and he could threaten to dismantle NATO. However, maybe that is exactly what Europe needs. I don't think anyone can seriously argue that Europe shouldn't have to be capable of defending themselves without US Aid. The only thing that Europe cannot, with enough money, replicate is the US nuclear arsenal. But logically then, the EU would need to have its own shared nuclear arsenal or some of its member states (e.g. Poland) would invest in same. This would be a disaster for the US and would be generally destabilising of the world for no real reason.
I think we need to be realistic about what a Trump Presidency would mean. It isn't the end of the world. We've had 4 years of him before and so he's not a completely unknown quantity. You'd have to hope as well that if floating voters vote for Trump through gritted teeth, they might vote for democrats in congress for checks and balance. There is also the liklihood of resistance by the Department of Defence in the U.S. and even from Republican politicians. It is a challenge but not an insurmountable one. Besides, when have you ever known a politician to say things on the campaign trail and then actually implement them once in power? What Trump seems to like is the power of being the president and being able to claim amazing victories. That can easily be achieved while continuing the same US foreign policy as before.
Will the aid not ultimately come down to a vote in Congress where Ukraine will still likely get a majority?
Russian tactics of divide and conquer seem to be bearing fruit.
This is not good for any of us,let alone Ukraine.
Turbulent times ahead,if Trump becomes President again.
You are right with regards his VP nomination
Trump will hand over the entire country of Ukraine to Putin if he gets in. He's fully bought and paid for by the Kremlin. Nothing less would satisfy the Kremlin with the amount of time and money they've expended on him.
Trump will hand over large portions of Ukraine to Russia and allow them to commit genocide. He's the same guy who literally tried to extort Zelensky for dirt on Biden. His only priority ID himself....
He has just nominated a VP with a consistent record of opposing aid to Ukraine at every turn. Senator Vance has been one of the most strident and committed politicians when it comes to blocking efforts to pass bills to that end. Trump is 78. Whatever influence you choose to believe Vance may or may not have within the administration or on US foreign policy doesn’t negate the fact he would be a heartbeat away.
Trump does have a record as President. Trying to frame that time in a more favourable light is a hard sell. Consider how his former Defence Secretaries have characterised him. Esper & Mattis have expressed withering criticisms speaking of his incompetence, immaturity, & poor judgment. How many Secretaries of State & Defence will he fire in a second term? How many embassies around the world will he again leave understaffed & without ambassadors? We certainly already know he’s destabilising. We obviously don’t need to speculate on that score. I don’t think overall it was a desirable sort of destabilisation, however one might conceive of that notion. The last thing Ukraine or NATO need at this moment is this brand of “wildcard.”
You have said it before (to look at Trump's actions vs his words as regards NATO during his previous term + won't be as bad as people fear), but I don't believe that you can extrapolate from "Trump 1" to "Trump 2".
Not sure if you are trying to reassure yourself here or what? I think Trump was feeling his way to an extent. All those former Generals and experts he was appointing to cabinet positions are gone now. I think a few of them have come out and said he was a disaster that needed to be guide-railed and talked around to avoid making awful decisions (from their pov).
Now he thinks he knows what he is doing, and has built up a group of kooks around him that will be more to his liking, flatter him and indulge his ideas. His awful Vice President choice JD Vance is the new breed, a person who swallows a good bit of Russian propaganda whole and spews it out again.
I think he will be whispering in Trump's ear that Ukraine needs to be cut off, agreeing with him that NATO involvement needs scaling back as many European states and the EU itself are conning the US by not paying protection money, and are just as much a US enemy as "Chy-na". More appointments like him to follow I expect if Trump wins.
Attributing a level of intelligence to the man that just does not exist. What are his advisors thinking?
Honestly manic, you've lost it here, trump's plans would be awful for NATO, his behavior with authoritarians has been to give them what they want, even with Iran, he managed to make it worse and give Iran more autonomy while trying to punish them.
And the only defence is "he won't actually do what he's saying". Which isn't a good reason to support someone.
It does feel like you've been reaching on this topic for the last while. putin will be counting down the days till a trump presidency.
That's the ideal scenario and then there'd be no need for negotiations. It's obviously not going to happen with Putin in charge. Time will tell...
Even while he was castigating NATO countries which weren't spending much on defense, he was at the helm during a shift in US military posture more to the Eastern borders of NATO (Countries which do tend to spend on defence, as it happens), a move which wasn't massively appreciated by Germany at the time (loss of local revenue). His administration also undertook the largest exercises of Army and Navy movement across the Atlantic since the end of the Cold War. The snap test of the entire US military sealift fleet needed to get equipment to Europe (which it has to be said, failed miserably) has not been tried again since.
Whilst certainly he may have destabilised NATO to the tune of "Sure, I'll let Putin invade countries which don't chip in", that may be a positive destabilisation: He has never, to my knowledge, ever said he would abandon those nations which have been chipping in the 2%+, so Baltics, Poland, etc seem safe, and it does seem to have helped push the more recalcitrant nations the correct direction.
The Russians have crossed the river in Vovchansk. Hopefully they don't gain a foothold and are pushed back. The Russians are all in here it seems as they've reduced activity on the border with Sumy. Would love to see them fail to take it.
, he's said he would reduce funding to Ukraine and with every putin interaction he's rolled over and exposed his belly
he's said he would reduce funding to Ukraine and with every putin interaction he's rolled over and exposed his belly
You don't think he would just facilitate Putin's invasion using all the levers at his command?
Would he just leave a small rump in the East (or none at all if Putin insisted on taking the whole country?
If Europe tried to prevent this ,would he just see where the dice fell or would he strongarm it into accepting whatever agreement he came to with Putin
(my hypotheses entirely. Just how I feel things could play out if he has a free hand)
Edit :!s there a general sentiment in America that it owes Europe nothing and that any ties are just transactional?
To be fair, you're talking in circles.
trump would be immeasurably worse for Ukraine than Biden.
He'd destabilise NATO, he's said he would reduce funding to Ukraine and with every putin interaction he's rolled over and exposed his belly.
I'm unsure what point you'd make to counter that other than "he's a blowhard".
After Crimea, Ukraine started moving their army and training to western standards, they didn't do this fast enough, but that wasn't a trump ploy (he tried blackmail and got impeached). Obama was never going to be able to roll US hardware in to defend Crimea. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Yeah, quite as incredible though it may seem!!! More than shocking, in fact!!!😕
I didnt know armour plating had so many uses…….like for 'combat robots' and 'armoured blinds'.
Bargain at 200 roubles.
Just an advert in Russia nowadays.
