Politics

[Mark A Ouellette]

That's just silly.
The pistol should be Cocked and Locked.

The pistol is a double action semi-auto. Perhaps it is a SIG 226? No need for it to be cocked or the safey locked.

 

[fourfive8]

Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.

The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??

In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.

The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??

In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.

Quagmire for who? If it's a quagmire at this point, it's only for Putin and Russia. Ukraine is fighting for its existence. There are no other countries directly involved in the war that I know of.

Agree with you on learning from history, neglecting to do so is done at your own risk. But to add to your questions, if we say "Okay Vlad, you win, you can have Ukraine, what happens then?"

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.

The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??

In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.

I’d say the neo-isolationists, libertarians and non-interventionists are refusing to learn from the past and choosing to ignore history. These groups make terrible allies that’s for sure. Being willfully ignorant to their own detriment. This isn’t the same world it once was. The economy is global. Our interests extend beyond our borders. To believe otherwise is incredibly shortsighted and foolish. You ignore reality for too long and the cost in treasure and possibly blood you will potentially pay would be exponentially higher than what we’ve spent so far. Why not use this opportunity to degrade an enemy? If not an outright enemy then at least a bad actor whose interests run counter to ours.

 

[Pondoro]

Well Bob, as a percentage of GDP - which I think you might even agree is the only way to compare contributions from wildly different economies, Norway contributes more to the defense of Ukraine than the United States. Through 30 June of 24, the US has provided roughly .35% of its GDP to supporting Ukraine and Norway has provided 0.5 %. Looking at Scandinavia as a whole, Sweden and Finland are contributing .75% - or twice the US contribution in percentage of GDP. Finally, NATO/the EU as a whole has contributed about 20% more in actual dollars and allocated nearly twice the contribution of the US - facts carefully ignored or of no interest to the don't confuse me with information neo-isolationists.

Ukraine Support Tracker - A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine

The Ukraine Support Tracker lists and quantifies military, financial and humanitarian aid promised by governments to Ukraine.

www.ifw-kiel.de

Seriously? Just for future reference, Norway is both a member of NATO and long standing member of the "free world" regardless what definition you use.

Fortunately at least half of the republican party realizes that stopping Russian ambitions in Ukraine and thwarting its reemergence as a real threat alongside an ever more aggressive China is a critical national interest. I frankly think the percentage is actually far higher than that, but a large swath of the party won't acknowledge that criticality thanks to Trump, Carlson, and their ilk. Sadly, far too many people in this country have no understanding of our international interests or how our economic well being is interwoven into the protection of those interests.

What is happening now is because of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the Baltic Sea is becoming a hotspot.. The Kaliningrad Enclave (russian) is a fortress bristling with navy, army and aircraft.. Russian navy vessels have long range missiles capable of hitting most targets within Scandinavia, Poland and at least the eastern part of Germany..they can launch missiles while docked in Kaliningrad..

USAF is currently investing USD 300 million at an airfield in southern Norway..to fly sorties in the Baltic sea. There are similar operations going on in Sweden, Finland, Poland and Germany..

 

[Newboomer]

The pistol is a double action semi-auto. Perhaps it is a SIG 226? No need for it to be cocked or the safey locked.

Still, it needs to be turned over so your hand falls on it naturally. Butt pointing away from the plate.

 

[Red Leg]

Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.

The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??

In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.

I think it is excellent that you finally wish to discuss the subject of Ukraine and Russia and employ "facts." I will be happy to debate them with you however cheap and theatrical you may believe such a discussion might be.

Since I am one who has found reprehensible the behavior of much of my party with respect to the defense of Ukraine specifically and our national interests generally with respect to Russia allow me to clarify it one more time. I should note I have done so at least a dozen times previously, but those may have been ignored as mere debate team tactics.

My party, no one else, led by the imbeciles who make up the Freedom Caucus and their supporters, held up all US military aid to Ukraine for half a year. Vladimir Putin and his legions could not have carried out a more successful strategic military strike against the Ukrainian Armed Forces and its people than that. Those who supported that delay provided aid and comfort to Putin and his forces and materially aided Russia in its effort to subjugate the Ukrainian people and Russia's strategic goal to resurrect the threat posed to the West by the Soviet Union. By definition, those politicians and the people who supported them acted as Russian allies. Those are facts. Policy has consequences.

With respect to ignoring history, perhaps your finger is pointing the wrong direction. So let's review the actual performance of the Russian military since the turn of the last century. During the Russo Japanese War of 1904-05, the Russian Navy and Army were soundly defeated by Japan. During WWI 1914-17, the Russian Army, which vastly outnumbered the Central Powers committed to the Eastern Front, was defeated and forced to make a separate peace. During the Russo Polish War of 1919-21, the Polish Republic defeated the Russian host. During the Winter War of 1939-40, Finland, a far smaller nation, fought the Russian Army to bloody standstill and achieved a negotiated settlement. Finland then joined Germany in its invasion of Russia with a peace treaty with the USSR concluded in 1944. While clearly not a Finnish victory, it also did not result in the subjugation of Finland which was a Russian strategic objective. Perhaps putting the icing on that strategic failure, Finland is now a NATO member. The USSR was indeed among the victors in the Second World War, but even most Russian historians will acknowledge that was only possible due to the enormous economic and materiel support of the US, particularly from 1941-43. In Afghanistan, they failed again in spite of their overwhelming numbers. They did eventually succeed in Chechnya, but even there many historians view it as a Pyrrhic victory.

Secondly, it is a false equivalency (one of those cheap debate terms) to equate the Soviet Army and manpower resources to that of Russia. To remind, Ukraine isn't fighting the Soviet Union. In 1989, the Soviet Union had a population of 250 million people. Russia has a population of 144 million. The Soviet Union manned its forces in WWII through draconian mobilization to defend the Motherland. The little KGB thug in the Kremlin does not dare initiate general mobilization in Russian Federation - particularly in the region of the old Duchy of Moscow which includes Moscow and St. Petersburg to press the invasion of Ukraine and snuff out the right of its people to self-determination.

With respect to your imagined conversation with Putin, I think is also largely devoid of factual content. The Russian military is being defeated. They can not even exercise air superiority over their own territory much less Ukraine. Moreover, their fighters, fighter bombers, strategic bombers and the smart munitions that make them effective are being destroyed in their own bases within Russia. Their army essentially has lost all of its pre-war modernized platforms, and the majority of its experienced soldiers and leadership. There are no million troops waiting in the wings. The Black Sea Fleet was defeated and the remnants withdrawn from the Black Sea. The Russian economy is being held together by baling wire and scotch tape.

They aren't going to match expenditures either. The artificial bulwarks that the Russian government put in place in the spring of 2022 are starting to fail. As of this morning, 100 rubles will buy one dollar and nine cents. I think it is also safe to say the likes of South Africa and Venezuela are not going to save the Russian economy. It is also interesting that the Indian prime minister, holder of a major Russian economic lifeline, met with Zelensky last week.

Finally, the last thing Russia can survive is a nuclear exchange with the West. Putin and his military know this. So does China. Additionally, Putin has no assurance of the state of his own nuclear arsenal. What he can be assured of is that virtually every US and British warhead will get through and accurately strike its target and perform as designed. He also has absolute assurance that in such an exchange, however catastrophic for the West, Russia its people and its culture will cease to exist on this planet. It really isn't much of an option.

I'll add that Ukraine knows Russian military history intimately - willingly or unwillingly, they participated in much of it. It is one of the things that drives their determination to defeat Russia and its ambitions to reclaim them into servitude. I just wish this administration and my party showed a few ounces of that commitment.

 

[Red Leg]

What is happening now is because of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the Baltic Sea is becoming a hotspot.. The Kaliningrad Enclave (russian) is a fortress bristling with navy, army and aircraft.. Russian navy vessels have long range missiles capable of hitting most targets within Scandinavia, Poland and at least the eastern part of Germany..they can launch missiles while docked in Kaliningrad..

USAF is currently investing USD 300 million at an airfield in southern Norway..to fly sorties in the Baltic sea. There are similar operations going on in Sweden, Finland, Poland and Germany..

You are correct, though I think of Kaliningrad now more as an indefensible outpost that will suck up enormous Russian resources to maintain. It was always problematic, but they can not now move an asset on or under the Baltic without it being under constant NATO observation. The advantage of the Norwegian base is not so much for strike assets as it will be for reconnaissance capability.

Secondly, the naval port, by nuclear standards represents an easily destroyed target. I am confident that they would not launch many missiles from there.

 

[Tanks]

.........this is not our backyard, you guys take care of it...bob

Unfortunately, the World is our backyard in a global economy. Isolationist policies as we have seen from the likes of Chamberlain prior to WW II does not work as history attests.

Additionally, the return we are getting with a miniscule portion of our defense budget (destruction of Russian military capabilities) with no loss of US lives, is a good investment.

Not to mention it sends a message to China vis a vis Taiwan. Do we want a message to China that we will stand by and do nothing?

Just look at what is going on in the Middle East where Biden administration did try a policy of appeasement towards Iran which emboldened the Iranians to bolster their surrogates (Hezbollah, Yemen, Hamas, etc.) and we have a mess in our hands that can lead to a regional war.

 

[Alistair]

Save for the one or two Russia-Putin supporters who speak openly, none here I’m aware of are apologists for or support the current Russian policy in Ukraine. Stating otherwise and accusing those falsely for being on Putin’s side is cheap, junior high debate team theatrics- attempting to create an obviously false narrative.

The questions or recurring thoughts in my mind are very simple: 1) why so many would rather destroy the country than allow Trump back in the WH? 2) why ignore the history of all wars since WW1? Specifically on Russia… answer these questions: realistically, what does the end game in Ukraine look like? What happens if Putin/Russia simply says, “No, you can’t have Eastern Ukraine back”. “If you pour a trillion dollars in aid to Ukraine, we (Russia) and aligned countries will match it to a stalemate.” “If you pour a million troops into the front we will likewise match that to a stalemate.” “If you push into Mother Russia, we will nuke your ass”. Ignoring history usually carries an unintended burden of consequences. Russia/Soviet Union has already demonstrated their cultural mentality, in the plain sight of history. Look no farther back than Stalin. Estimates run as high as 12 million Russian troops were sacrificed to the front lines to stop the German advance. Let the numbers sink in… Does it really matter if that was tactically stupid or not??

In the end, how in hell would WW3 serve the vital national interests of the US? The unsupported false narrative and premise of the verbiage, “vital national interests”, is often used to support the ever increasing US involvement in the Ukraine quagmire.

I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).

Option 1: The US explicitly supports Russian goals here.
Pros: The quickest and cheapest way to end the Ukraine war. Better relations with Russia.
Cons: A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO almost certainly dissolves. The US probably faces sanctions from most of its major trade partners. Russia becomes significantly more powerful (do we think they'd be a trustworthy ally in the medium to long term?). Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Also not exactly a popular plan with the US electorate, which would make it very difficult politically.
Conclusion: Probably not aligned to US strategic interests, or the interests of the US people. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. Not a good idea.

Option 2: The US absolves all responsibility, cuts all aid, does nothing.
Pros: Saves some money, Ukraine has a decent chance of winning anyway at this juncture.
Cons: The chances of Russia winning go up dramatically. A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO possibly dissolves. Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Politically divisive, but probably popular enough to be feasible politically.
Conclusion: A viable option. However, it would rather run contrary to all US activity in Europe in the past 70 years and certainly loses the US power and influence abroad. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. If we are to dig into the historical context, this plan hasn't gone well for the US in the past (citation: The 1920's). Probably not smart in a highly interconnected world built on international trade.

Option 3: The US continues to half-ass things as it's doing now.
Pros: Relatively low risk, relatively low cost. Ukraine probably wins, Russia is certainly degraded as a future threat. NATO partners are reassured, US foreign influence is maintained if not strengthened. Encourages other bad actors to tread carefully.
Cons: It costs money. It marginally increases the chance of further US military involvement and sours relations with Russia. The US may not do enough for Ukraine to prevail (although from what we're currently seeing, I think this is a low probability).
Conclusion: A very viable option. Seems to have popular support in the US for the most part, so politically expedient. Achieves US foreign policy goals for minimal expenditure and risk of US servicemen (although, of course not 0 expenditure).

Option 4: The US goes all in, boots on the ground, substantially increased support.
Pros: Ukraine definitely wins, Russia definitely folds, NATO is greatly reassured and US foreign policy is secured. Really, really encourages other bad actors to stay in their lane.
Cons: Hugely unpopular politically. Massively expensive, greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.
Conclusion: Probably not a good idea from a cost / benefit perspective.

Of the options presented here (things that the US can actually do), only 2 or 3 are really options.

The end goal of those options will be some kind of negotiated peace. The only power that the US has here is in dictating what the terms of that agreement look like, and what the country wants to signal to foreign allies and enemies.

Linking this back to the upcoming election, I'm reasonably confident that the Dems will continue with option 3 if they come to power. It is, after all, what they're doing now. I consider this the best option.

Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.

If we're to believe that his comments about 'Ending the conflict in a day' are serious instead of just stupid bluster as per usual (for the record, I don't believe this myself), then that actually brings option 1 into play.

That's the ONLY route that the US has to end this quickly and decisively. Pressure Ukraine into folding. The US doesn't have any options to categorically force Russia to capitulate that quickly. Excepting perhaps Option 4, which realistically would be complete political suicide for whomever proposes it, and possibly comes with a nomination for the 'Stupidest Decision Ever Made By A Human' award by bringing about nuclear armageddon.

Overall conclusion: When it comes to Ukraine, I have far more confidence in Harris' administration to handle it competently that I do Trumps'.

If it's an important enough issue to outweigh all the other policies that I think the Dems will do worse is a different question...

 

[bob meadows]

I am not advocating for isolation . we have Canada on top and the whole of S America below us.
funny we cant fix the problems in our own country, but believe we can in other countries. lets fix us.

lets "fix" our immediate..S A... neighbors....we can have a global economy with out killing/helping to kill everybody......and what is the oft used phrase...our national security? what is that? ...Iran who helped get them where they are at today?

the middle east?...there is no fixing it, never has been, never will be. they don't want it. the only fixing is the total destruction of one side or the other....so the idea of using Ukraine's as cannon fodder is a good thing? fine let their neighbors fight for them.....

if you want a war lets do it right, want to send a message ? .....then do what we did to japan.....minus the rebuild.......we don't have to have our hand in everybody's else's business....bob

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).

Option 1: The US explicitly supports Russian goals here.
Pros: The quickest and cheapest way to end the Ukraine war. Better relations with Russia.
Cons: A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO almost certainly dissolves. The US probably faces sanctions from most of its major trade partners. Russia becomes significantly more powerful (do we think they'd be a trustworthy ally in the medium to long term?). Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Also not exactly a popular plan with the US electorate, which would make it very difficult politically.
Conclusion: Probably not aligned to US strategic interests, or the interests of the US people. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. Not a good idea.

Option 2: The US absolves all responsibility, cuts all aid, does nothing.
Pros: Saves some money, Ukraine has a decent chance of winning anyway at this juncture.
Cons: The chances of Russia winning go up dramatically. A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO possibly dissolves. Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Politically divisive, but probably popular enough to be feasible politically.
Conclusion: A viable option. However, it would rather run contrary to all US activity in Europe in the past 70 years and certainly loses the US power and influence abroad. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. If we are to dig into the historical context, this plan hasn't gone well for the US in the past (citation: The 1920's). Probably not smart in a highly interconnected world built on international trade.

Option 3: The US continues to half-ass things as it's doing now.
Pros: Relatively low risk, relatively low cost. Ukraine probably wins, Russia is certainly degraded as a future threat. NATO partners are reassured, US foreign influence is maintained if not strengthened. Encourages other bad actors to tread carefully.
Cons: It costs money. It marginally increases the chance of further US military involvement and sours relations with Russia. The US may not do enough for Ukraine to prevail (although from what we're currently seeing, I think this is a low probability).
Conclusion: A very viable option. Seems to have popular support in the US for the most part, so politically expedient. Achieves US foreign policy goals for minimal expenditure and risk of US servicemen (although, of course not 0 expenditure).

Option 4: The US goes all in, boots on the ground, substantially increased support.
Pros: Ukraine definitely wins, Russia definitely folds, NATO is greatly reassured and US foreign policy is secured. Really, really encourages other bad actors to stay in their lane.
Cons: Hugely unpopular politically. Massively expensive, greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.
Conclusion: Probably not a good idea from a cost / benefit perspective.

Of the options presented here (things that the US can actually do), only 2 or 3 are really options.

The end goal of those options will be some kind of negotiated peace. The only power that the US has here is in dictating what the terms of that agreement look like, and what the country wants to signal to foreign allies and enemies.

Linking this back to the upcoming election, I'm reasonably confident that the Dems will continue with option 3 if they come to power. It is, after all, what they're doing now. I consider this the best option.

Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.

If we're to believe that his comments about 'Ending the conflict in a day' are serious instead of just stupid bluster as per usual (for the record, I don't believe this myself), then that actually brings option 1 into play.

That's the ONLY route that the US has to end this quickly and decisively. Pressure Ukraine into folding. The US doesn't have any options to categorically force Russia to capitulate that quickly. Excepting perhaps Option 4, which realistically would be complete political suicide for whomever proposes it, and possibly comes with a nomination for the 'Stupidest Decision Ever Made By A Human' award by bringing about nuclear armageddon.

Overall conclusion: When it comes to Ukraine, I have far more confidence in Harris' administration to handle it competently that I do Trumps'.

If it's an important enough issue to outweigh all the other policies that I think the Dems will do worse is a different question...

You missed the option of increased support, minus boots on the ground. This seems the option with the best opportunity to force Russia to the negotiating table and therefore the best option to end the war.

 

[Red Leg]

I think this is a good thought experiment for anyone to run, whatever their position, so let us explore options (actual options, not pie-in-the-sky rhetoric).

Option 1: The US explicitly supports Russian goals here.
Pros: The quickest and cheapest way to end the Ukraine war. Better relations with Russia.
Cons: A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO almost certainly dissolves. The US probably faces sanctions from most of its major trade partners. Russia becomes significantly more powerful (do we think they'd be a trustworthy ally in the medium to long term?). Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Also not exactly a popular plan with the US electorate, which would make it very difficult politically.
Conclusion: Probably not aligned to US strategic interests, or the interests of the US people. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. Not a good idea.

Option 2: The US absolves all responsibility, cuts all aid, does nothing.
Pros: Saves some money, Ukraine has a decent chance of winning anyway at this juncture.
Cons: The chances of Russia winning go up dramatically. A massive loss of confidence (i.e soft power) in the US amongst all existing allies worldwide. NATO possibly dissolves. Signals to other bad actors (eg. China, North Korea, Iran) that the US is totally fine with a bit of cheeky expansionism, even if the target is a nominal US ally and you're not flavor of the month. Politically divisive, but probably popular enough to be feasible politically.
Conclusion: A viable option. However, it would rather run contrary to all US activity in Europe in the past 70 years and certainly loses the US power and influence abroad. Significantly increases the possiblity of of US / China war in the Pacific, or a NATO nation / Russia conflict in Europe, or an escalation of the Isreal / Islamic Nations war. If we are to dig into the historical context, this plan hasn't gone well for the US in the past (citation: The 1920's). Probably not smart in a highly interconnected world built on international trade.

Option 3: The US continues to half-ass things as it's doing now.
Pros: Relatively low risk, relatively low cost. Ukraine probably wins, Russia is certainly degraded as a future threat. NATO partners are reassured, US foreign influence is maintained if not strengthened. Encourages other bad actors to tread carefully.
Cons: It costs money. It marginally increases the chance of further US military involvement and sours relations with Russia. The US may not do enough for Ukraine to prevail (although from what we're currently seeing, I think this is a low probability).
Conclusion: A very viable option. Seems to have popular support in the US for the most part, so politically expedient. Achieves US foreign policy goals for minimal expenditure and risk of US servicemen (although, of course not 0 expenditure).

Option 4: The US goes all in, boots on the ground, substantially increased support.
Pros: Ukraine definitely wins, Russia definitely folds, NATO is greatly reassured and US foreign policy is secured. Really, really encourages other bad actors to stay in their lane.
Cons: Hugely unpopular politically. Massively expensive, greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.
Conclusion: Probably not a good idea from a cost / benefit perspective.

Of the options presented here (things that the US can actually do), only 2 or 3 are really options.

The end goal of those options will be some kind of negotiated peace. The only power that the US has here is in dictating what the terms of that agreement look like, and what the country wants to signal to foreign allies and enemies.

Linking this back to the upcoming election, I'm reasonably confident that the Dems will continue with option 3 if they come to power. It is, after all, what they're doing now. I consider this the best option.

Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.

If we're to believe that his comments about 'Ending the conflict in a day' are serious instead of just stupid bluster as per usual (for the record, I don't believe this myself), then that actually brings option 1 into play.

That's the ONLY route that the US has to end this quickly and decisively. Pressure Ukraine into folding. The US doesn't have any options to categorically force Russia to capitulate that quickly. Excepting perhaps Option 4, which realistically would be complete political suicide for whomever proposes it, and possibly comes with a nomination for the 'Stupidest Decision Ever Made By A Human' award by bringing about nuclear armageddon.

Overall conclusion: When it comes to Ukraine, I have far more confidence in Harris' administration to handle it competently that I do Trumps'.

If it's an important enough issue to outweigh all the other policies that I think the Dems will do worse is a different question...

I concur with @Wishfulthinker580

Option 5 Increased support - particularly military hardware.

Pros The fastest way to end the war through a negotiated peace in Ukraine's favor. Has been a viable option since spring of 22. Reassures NATO, stabilizes Europe, curtails both Russian ambitions and Chinese goals to divide US strategic focus.
Cons Somewhat more expensive, but much could be accomplished through Presidential drawdown authority. Almost certainly impossible if the neo-isolationists attain power through Trump.
Conclusion The US can provide 330 or 630 M1 tanks from storage as easily as it can 33. Similar proportions of Bradleys (most popular platform in the war) are available. Nothing would be quicker to encourage a quick start to negotiations.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Speaking of isolationism, abandoning an ally and what not, did we not practically abandon the Kurds after ISIS was knocked out? Would it not have been better to foster and fortify that relationship and keep a foothold in the area? Or is that not the case?

Also, everyone likes to (rightfully) pile on Biden for the Afghan exit but Trump had planned to do the same thing. Even if it was done in a less disastrous manner it still would have been a terrible decision, geopolitically speaking that is.

 

[Tanks]

You missed the option of increased support, minus boots on the ground. This seems the option with the best opportunity to force Russia to the negotiating table and therefore the best option to end the war.

I was going to mention this as well.

am not advocating for isolation . we have Canada on top and the whole of S America below us.
funny we cant fix the problems in our own country, but believe we can in other countries. lets fix us.

The two, Ukraine and our own issues are not mutually exclusive. Also, "fixing us" is not a matter of capability but a matter of will and intent.

Donald Trump is (IMO) far more likely to lean towards option 2. That's popular with his base, it ties in with his generally isolationist foreign policy positions, it's a great political talking point to show he's done something (which continuing the current option 3 approach wouldn't be). I consider this to be an awful option for the US to take from a long term strategic perspective, but realistically doesn't constitute an existential threat to the nation.

I actually consider Option 1 or Option 2 to be a situation where we can not recover from for decades, if at all, Worldwide. Of all the things at stake in this election this is my red line. I think anything Harris can propose to do we can stop if we gain control of the Senate or a future GOP administration can reverse it.

And don't get me wrong, a Harris administration, if their tax policies are enacted, will cost my family dearly. Still, I'll go with Harris as a better choice if the alternative is Option 1 or 2 in regard to Ukraine with Trump.

I just pray we get a GOP Senate regardless of who becomes the President.

 

[Alistair]

You missed the option of increased support, minus boots on the ground. This seems the option with the best opportunity to force Russia to the negotiating table and therefore the best option to end the war.

Fair point. I guess that'd be Option 3.5, whilst still sending something, but less might be 2.5.

I suspect that this option is unlikely to happen under Harris, but almost 100% guaranteed not to happen under Trump.

 

[BSO Dave]

There have been times when African-American individuals referred to some African-American who chose to leave the Democratic party for the Republican party as not being "real blacks." Seems a stupid thing to strip a person of their identity because you disagree with their politics, check that, it's dangerous actually.

I get your point, but in this particular circumstance, I don't see the "real" Jews to "real" Blacks as a direct comparison... Any particular race or religion that bases their entire doctrine on the eradication of another race or religion goes far beyond mere political disagreement wouldn't you agree?

Blacks who decide to think for themselves by bucking the democratic party's generational indoctrination of their race as pure identity politics is vastly different in my view than Jew who is either apathetic or against to their own self-preservation as an individual and as a race. They are certainly entitled to take whatever position they like, but they do so at their own peril...

In any event, my remarks were not to generalize or marginalize any ethnic or racial group. They were simply meant to pose a question to which the answer confounds me... A sheep that sacrifices itself to the wolves, or one that even rationalizes the wolves' behavior may indeed be a "real" sheep, just not a very bright one that is going to live very long...

 

[Pondoro]

I concur with @Wishfulthinker580

Option 5 Increased support - particularly military hardware.

Pros The fastest way to end the war through a negotiated peace in Ukraine's favor. Has been a viable option since spring of 22. Reassures NATO, stabilizes Europe, curtails both Russian ambitions and Chinese goals to divide US strategic focus.
Cons Somewhat more expensive, but much could be accomplished through Presidential drawdown authority. Almost certainly impossible if the neo-isolationists attain power through Trump.
Conclusion The US can provide 330 or 630 M1 tanks from storage as easily as it can 33. Similar proportions of Bradleys (most popular platform in the war) are available. Nothing would be quicker to encourage a quick start to negotiations.

This is by far the best option General.. By implementing this Russia will be forced to stand down for military, political and economical reasons.. New sanctions have been added lately (from the US) their economy is already holding together with wire and tape as you said...it will implode sooner or later..

Added mil. support such as new tank regiments and more air support will give Ukraine the strenght to push the russians out of their territory. That will also be Putins demise..

 

[BSO Dave]

Well Bob, as a percentage of GDP - which I think you might even agree is the only way to compare contributions from wildly different economies, Norway contributes more to the defense of Ukraine than the United States. Through 30 June of 24, the US has provided roughly .35% of its GDP to supporting Ukraine and Norway has provided 0.5 %. Looking at Scandinavia as a whole, Sweden and Finland are contributing .75% - or twice the US contribution in percentage of GDP. Finally, NATO/the EU as a whole has contributed about 20% more in actual dollars and allocated nearly twice the contribution of the US - facts carefully ignored or of no interest to the don't confuse me with information neo-isolationists.

Rightly so in my opinion... European countries both in and out of NATO should be contributing considerably more per capita than the U.S... Russian expansion is an immediate existential threat to Europe... They have much more to lose and a lot faster...

 

[bob meadows]

tanks...true, will and intent. if we cant muster up the will to fix our country we have no business telling other countries what to do......I wonder if other countries get tired of us constantly telling them what they should do. .....least anyone thinks I am a pacifist, totally the opposite.

rather have dems in office?....if you like having lybtgqfuckheads in the white house, representing our country......bob