Politics

[Red Leg]

In 1990, James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward". Since that date until Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO added Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, with talks of adding Ukraine. Just as the USA would not allow nuclear weapons in Cuba or Mexico, Russia evidently had a redline with Ukraine. Many in this forum will disagree with this, but is it possible that the USA and NATO are the aggressors and instigators of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In March of 2022, (one month after Russia's invasion) a peace plan instigated by Germany and Turkey was basically agreed to between Russia and Ukraine. Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland, etc. basically nixed the plan preferring to have America and NATO support and continue the war.

Could it be that Trump and Vance prefer not to have America in endless conflicts and wars and prefer to focus on the problems in America, and feel that fixing the internal problems are America's primary "National Interests" and not foreign wars.

This is 2024, not 1990. Neither Mikhail Gorbachev nor the Soviet Union exist any longer. Why on earth should the West agree to the creation of a buffer zone for the new Russian state? What right do they have to demand it? More importantly, such demands can only be made when the state making them has the power to enforce them. The USSR, with an army of occupation of 4 million, had the power to create that buffer zone filled with subject peoples in 1946. And we should assist them in replicating that construct?

Power is everything. After all, though the US promulgated the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820's, we could never really enforce it until the War with Spain. Russia has clearly demonstrated over the last three and a half decades that it does not have that power to enforce one now. With Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the strategic genius in Moscow has further cemented that legacy. I think the notion that NATO is the aggressor is frankly fodder for Russian BOTS and R1 Telecastors.

Secondly, we are not at war. I know that seems to run counter to the breathless headlines over on the far right websites - but we are not. We are simply providing the means, however slowly, for the Ukrainian people, who have a strong vote in this process, to defend their own rights to self-determination.

I think Vance is far out his depth with regard to international interests and threats. He has nothing in his background to have provided him that knowledge or experience. With respect to Trump, I do not trust him in the slightest to do what is in the interests of this country over his interests in squaring personal grievances. I could be wrong, but I think there is substantial evidence to that effect.

Personally, if I have to choose between supporting a people's right to self-determination or supporting the brutal aspirations of a dictator to subjugate them, I"ll chose the former every time.

 

[WAB]

In 1990, James Baker told Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward". Since that date until Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO added Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia, with talks of adding Ukraine. Just as the USA would not allow nuclear weapons in Cuba or Mexico, Russia evidently had a redline with Ukraine. Many in this forum will disagree with this, but is it possible that the USA and NATO are the aggressors and instigators of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In March of 2022, (one month after Russia's invasion) a peace plan instigated by Germany and Turkey was basically agreed to between Russia and Ukraine. Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland, etc. basically nixed the plan preferring to have America and NATO support and continue the war.

Could it be that Trump and Vance prefer not to have America in endless conflicts and wars and prefer to focus on the problems in America, and feel that fixing the internal problems are America's primary "National Interests" and not foreign wars.

If the most powerful nation on earth is incapable of managing foreign and domestic affairs simultaneously, we have a much bigger problem than the impending elections.

 

[Tanks]

I cannot understand Trump’s and now Vance’s position on Ukraine. They are not unintelligent, regardless of what else you may say about Trump’s behavior. Are they playing political football with our national interests simply to oppose Biden and appease their base?

Yes. And speaking of the base…

Could it be that Trump and Vance prefer not to have America in endless conflicts and wars and prefer to focus on the problems in America, and feel that fixing the internal problems are America's primary "National Interests" and not foreign wars

Isolationism in today’s global economy can not work. Additionally the amount of $$$ being spent for Ukraine is literally a rounding error in the scope of our budget.

Also, contrary to popular belief among the MAGA people European countries are spending a much much bigger portion of their GDP on Ukraine aid.

I have said this before, Trump’s foreign policies leading to support of Russian interests would damage the World much more than Harris domestic policies that can be throttled by a GOP Senate and/or reversed by future administrations.

I agree with Trump on almost everything but this. Unfortunately, I can not support him as a candidate as this is too important to let him become POTUS.

I did however donate max allowable to Sheehy for MT Senate race and encouraged my kids to do the same. A GOP Senate under a Harris administration would minimize the damage.

 

[Brent in Az]

Yes. And speaking of the base…

Isolationism in today’s global economy can not work. Additionally the amount of $$$ being spent for Ukraine is literally a rounding error in the scope of our budget.

Also, contrary to popular belief among the MAGA people European countries are spending a much much bigger portion of their GDP on Ukraine aid.

I have said this before, Trump’s foreign policies leading to support of Russian interests would damage the World much more than Harris domestic policies that can be throttled by a GOP Senate and/or reversed by future administrations.

I agree with Trump on almost everything but this. Unfortunately, I can not support him as a candidate as this is too important to let him become POTUS.

I did however donate max allowable to Sheehy for MT Senate race and encouraged my kids to do the same. A GOP Senate under a Harris administration would minimize the damage.

So....... foreign policy is more important to you then the homefront?
What would we hedge against gaining a Senate majority that may not happen, or losing a razor thin House majority, allowing free reign from a Harris Presidency?

If you vote for Trump, you can always take a long hot shower afterwards. Significantly better then the stench of a Harris voter.

Some of you are way too absorbed in this Russian/Ukraine conflict if that is the driving force for not supporting Trump.

 

[Tanks]

So....... foreign policy is more important to you then the homefront?
What would we hedge against gaining a Senate majority that may not happen, or losing a razor thin House majority, allowing free reign from a Harris Presidency?

...

We can NOT recover from Trump's foreign policy short of an actual war in a future administration. Harris domestic policy can be recovered from. It is not one being more important than the other, but risks associated with each.

I have hedged against Harris Presidency having a free rein, that's why I had a long conversation discussing various strategies with my banker and estate attorney the other week. Right after election we will execute depending on the House and Senate makeup if Harris wins.

Someone mentioned that I should look forward to paying investment income being taxed as regular income instead of the current 23% or so. That is not an issue as there are strategies for it.

There is a whole industry based on minimizing taxes legally.

 

[Wheels]

If the most powerful nation on earth is incapable of managing foreign and domestic affairs simultaneously, we have a much bigger problem than the impending elections.

Perhaps that is our problem. Are we actually managing our domestic affairs. We have an out of control budget due to both Republicans and Democrats, inflation, open borders, an administrative state influencing domestic elections with the FBI pushing Russia Gate through the NSD knowing it was not true. DOD paying Stephen Halper to set up Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. 50 current and former CIA officials telling the world that Hunter Biden's laptop looked like Russian disinformation while the FBI and CIA knew it was his actual computer. FBI through Comey setting up Flynn. DOS through Vindeman, Ciaramella, Nuland making up a narrative about a phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy leading to impeachment. (they had to change the narrative after Trump released the tape) DOJ's lawfare against Trump. I could go ad Infinium on the administrative state but it doesn't seem many care.

As to foreign affairs the CIA has influenced dozen of elections since their founding with the help of DOS, starting with Italy in 47, too many to begin notating in Central and South America, the Arab Spring and yes, even Ukraine. DOS and CIA through The National Endowment for Democracy and USAID spending $5B to help overthrow Yanukovych. The DOS along with the ambassador and Victoria Nuland even handed out water bottles in Maidan Square. Now Ukraine's President has shut down the Church and stopped elections. Does America really care about Democracy or just controlling countries.

Are there times for DOS and CIA to get involved in these things. Certainly. The problem is the administrative state is completely off the rails running amuck throughout the world.

Overall it doesn't seem like America is doing a very good job either internationally or domestically.

 

[Tanks]

...

Overall it doesn't seem like America is doing a very good job either internationally or domestically.

That does not mean we have to retreat from the international stage though. Nature abhors a vacuum, who would you like to replace USA's influence, Russia, China et al?

I'd rather USA be involved and sometimes make mistakes than give free rein to our adversaries.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

This is 2024, not 1990. Neither Mikhail Gorbachev nor the Soviet Union exist any longer. Why on earth should the West agree to the creation of a buffer zone for the new Russian state? What right do they have to demand it? More importantly, such demands can only be made when the state making them has the power to enforce them. The USSR, with an army of occupation of 4 million, had the power to create that buffer zone filled with subject peoples in 1946. And we should assist them in replicating that construct?

Power is everything. After all, though the US promulgated the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820's, we could never really enforce it until the War with Spain. Russia has clearly demonstrated over the last three and a half decades that it does not have that power to enforce one now. With Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the strategic genius in Moscow has further cemented that legacy. I think the notion that NATO is the aggressor is frankly fodder for Russian BOTS and R1 Telecastors.

Secondly, we are not at war. I know that seems to run counter to the breathless headlines over on the far right websites - but we are not. We are simply providing the means, however slowly, for the Ukrainian people, who have a strong vote in this process, to defend their own rights to self-determination.

I think Vance is far out his depth with regard to international interests and threats. He has nothing in his background to have provided him that knowledge or experience. With respect to Trump, I do not trust him in the slightest to do what is in the interests of this country over his interests in squaring personal grievances. I could be wrong, but I think there is substantial evidence to that effect.

Personally, if I have to choose between supporting a people's right to self-determination or supporting the brutal aspirations of a dictator to subjugate them, I"ll chose the former every time.

What is your opinion of Trump’s foreign policy during his first term?

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

We can NOT recover from Trump's foreign policy short of an actual war in a future administration. Harris domestic policy can be recovered from. It is not one being more important than the other, but risks associated with each.

I have hedged against Harris Presidency having a free rein, that's why I had a long conversation discussing various strategies with my banker and estate attorney the other week. Right after election we will execute depending on the House and Senate makeup if Harris wins.

Someone mentioned that I should look forward to paying investment income being taxed as regular income instead of the current 23% or so. That is not an issue as there are strategies for it.

There is a whole industry based on minimizing taxes legally.

I seriously think you’re underestimating the damage these people can do. Have you not been paying attention the last four years?

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Yes. And speaking of the base…

Isolationism in today’s global economy can not work. Additionally the amount of $$$ being spent for Ukraine is literally a rounding error in the scope of our budget.

Also, contrary to popular belief among the MAGA people European countries are spending a much much bigger portion of their GDP on Ukraine aid.

I have said this before, Trump’s foreign policies leading to support of Russian interests would damage the World much more than Harris domestic policies that can be throttled by a GOP Senate and/or reversed by future administrations.

I agree with Trump on almost everything but this. Unfortunately, I can not support him as a candidate as this is too important to let him become POTUS.

I did however donate max allowable to Sheehy for MT Senate race and encouraged my kids to do the same. A GOP Senate under a Harris administration would minimize the damage.

Also, I can’t help but notice that every time you talk about Harris being the best choice you always talk about your own finances and the fact that you believe you have that covered. As long as you’re in good shape then everything is OK? What if these people get both houses of Congress and end the filibuster? I don’t understand your confidence in future congressional elections.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, politics are downstream from culture. Conservatives ignored culture for far too long and it’s come back to bite us. Thankfully we’re making inroads in that department but I fear it’s too little too late. This is the folly of folks in the middle or who are socially liberal outright while also being conservative fiscally.

You need to hold your nose and cast your ballot like the rest of us.

 

[Wheels]

That does not mean we have to retreat from the international stage though. Nature abhors a vacuum, who would you like to replace USA's influence, Russia, China et al?

I'd rather USA be involved and sometimes make mistakes than give free rein to our adversaries.

I agree it doesn't mean we need to retreat from the international stage. What I am saying we don't need to meddle in every potential election and conflict that arises around the world.

You have mentioned that you don't like Trump's foreign policies and don't trust him on the international stage. What did Trump do in his first term regarding international policy that you disagree with or make you feel that way?

 

[freefall]

I seriously think you’re underestimating the damage these people can do. Have you not been paying attention the last four years?

He doesn't know that prices have gone up. He thinks the economy is doing great.

 

[Wheels]

This is 2024, not 1990. Neither Mikhail Gorbachev nor the Soviet Union exist any longer. Why on earth should the West agree to the creation of a buffer zone for the new Russian state? What right do they have to demand it? More importantly, such demands can only be made when the state making them has the power to enforce them. The USSR, with an army of occupation of 4 million, had the power to create that buffer zone filled with subject peoples in 1946. And we should assist them in replicating that construct?

Power is everything. After all, though the US promulgated the Monroe Doctrine in the 1820's, we could never really enforce it until the War with Spain. Russia has clearly demonstrated over the last three and a half decades that it does not have that power to enforce one now. With Sweden and Finland joining NATO, the strategic genius in Moscow has further cemented that legacy. I think the notion that NATO is the aggressor is frankly fodder for Russian BOTS and R1 Telecastors.

Secondly, we are not at war. I know that seems to run counter to the breathless headlines over on the far right websites - but we are not. We are simply providing the means, however slowly, for the Ukrainian people, who have a strong vote in this process, to defend their own rights to self-determination.

I think Vance is far out his depth with regard to international interests and threats. He has nothing in his background to have provided him that knowledge or experience. With respect to Trump, I do not trust him in the slightest to do what is in the interests of this country over his interests in squaring personal grievances. I could be wrong, but I think there is substantial evidence to that effect.

Personally, if I have to choose between supporting a people's right to self-determination or supporting the brutal aspirations of a dictator to subjugate them, I"ll chose the former every time.

Does Russia have the power they had in 1946. Not at all. What they still have is 6,000 nuclear weapons and the ability to destroy the world. America is now talking about giving Ukraine the ability to strike deep into Russia. Putin has said that is a red line. Is it Putin's red line. I don't think we know. We expanded NATO into the Baltics and found out it wasn't a red line for Putin so we looked to do the same with Ukraine and found it was his red line.

A peace agreement was on the table in March of 2022 and America nixed it. This war could be over and hundreds of thousands of people still be alive but that didn't mix with the Biden Administrations/Administrative States desires, because it called for Ukraine to be a neutral state that wouldn't have any ties to an organization like NATO.

I don't know anything about the people that run the Doomsday Clock but I do find it interesting that we are now closer to midnight than at anytime since it was started in 1947. This includes 1953 and 1962. We are here all because America didn't want a peace that in principle was fine with the Russian and Ukrainian governments.

 

[jeanes]

This looks like a strategy focused on growth. What could possibly go wrong? Just look at the potential returns!

Everything has a topper. Posted on my living room wall is a 50 TRILLION dollar note from Zimbabwe. Its there to remind me what can happen with bad fiscal policies.

 

[Tanks]

...

You have mentioned that you don't like Trump's foreign policies and don't trust him on the international stage. What did Trump do in his first term regarding international policy that you disagree with or make you feel that way?

His first term has nothing to do with it. It is a different world and challenge now. I can only go by what Vance has said recently and Trump alluded to previously (see my post previously for the exact quote), which is to force Ukraine to capitulate to Russia.

He doesn't know that prices have gone up. He thinks the economy is doing great.

I know prices on some consumer goods have gone up. Some have stayed about the same. Economic indicators though, show improvement.

I went through my Amazon purchases for the last 8 years. 24 3oz can of cat food was $35.76 on Jan. 2017, $35.76 on Jan. 2021 and $37.99 today. Price on a lot of items have not changed much over the years.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

He doesn't know that prices have gone up. He thinks the economy is doing great.

Don’t worry it’s doing fine and getting better apparently

 

[John Wasmuth]

As Rome burned………

 

[Red Leg]

Does Russia have the power they had in 1946. Not at all. What they still have is 6,000 nuclear weapons and the ability to destroy the world. America is now talking about giving Ukraine the ability to strike deep into Russia. Putin has said that is a red line. Is it Putin's red line. I don't think we know. We expanded NATO into the Baltics and found out it wasn't a red line for Putin so we looked to do the same with Ukraine and found it was his red line.

A peace agreement was on the table in March of 2022 and America nixed it. This war could be over and hundreds of thousands of people still be alive but that didn't mix with the Biden Administrations/Administrative States desires, because it called for Ukraine to be a neutral state that wouldn't have any ties to an organization like NATO.

I don't know anything about the people that run the Doomsday Clock but I do find it interesting that we are now closer to midnight than at anytime since it was started in 1947. This includes 1953 and 1962. We are here all because America didn't want a peace that in principle was fine with the Russian and Ukrainian governments.

He does in fact have the ability to commit national and cultural suicide. Would that result in the destruction of the world? No one really knows because no one knows the actual status of the Russian arsenal. Obviously, some of it will work as designed and reach their targets. That would indeed be a catastrophe. However, essentially all of ours will work, reach their targets with unerring accuracy, and Putin knows it.

Negotiations break down for all sorts of reasons. I would simply suggest accessing as broad a set of assessments of those talks as possible. The notion that it was anyone's fault - American, British, Russian, or Ukrainian is just simplistically wrong. Negotiations are particularly difficult when the conditions on the ground are changing rapidly advantaging one side and then the other. Putin's claim that the agreement was there to be reached is as specious as claims the CIA, State, the UK, Zelensky, or some mysterious force stalled them. Dozens of influences were at work in a volatile military environment.

The attached article in Foreign affairs is the most thorough I know of that has studied that series of meetings in Belarus and Turkey. I do not necessarily agree with all of the authors' assumptions, but the review is the most thorough I have found. Pick your villain, or realize sometimes there really isn't one. This is a brief summary of their conclusions.

"A final agreement proved elusive, however, for a number of reasons. Kyiv’s Western partners were reluctant to be drawn into a negotiation with Russia, particularly one that would have created new commitments for them to ensure Ukraine’s security. The public mood in Ukraine hardened with the discovery of Russian atrocities at Irpin and Bucha. And with the failure of Russia’s encirclement of Kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky became more confident that, with sufficient Western support, he could win the war on the battlefield. Finally, although the parties’ attempt to resolve long-standing disputes over the security architecture offered the prospect of a lasting resolution to the war and enduring regional stability, they aimed too high, too soon. They tried to deliver an overarching settlement even as a basic cease-fire proved out of reach."

The Talks That Could Have Ended the War in Ukraine

A hidden history of diplomacy that came up short—but holds lessons for future negotiations.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[Neophyte]

America would be fine in this so called global economy if they were isolationist in action.

Those who don’t believe so are just parroting the communist narrative. For the uninformed that’s the democrat narrative. Kick all foreign companies out, sorry Rigby, stop importing foreign goods and services, and return to America first, foremost, and always.

 

[Tanks]

America would be fine in this so called global economy if they were isolationist in action.

Those who don’t believe so are just parroting the communist narrative. For the uninformed that’s the democrat narrative. Kick all foreign companies out, sorry Rigby, stop importing foreign goods and services, and return to America first, foremost, and always.

You won't be exporting anything either. I don't think farmers would like that, neither would auto companies, Boeing, computer companies etc., etc.. Millions of jobs would be lost. You want to go back to horse and buggy days? Become Amish.