Politics

[Neophyte]

And our downward spiral continues.
It’s already been proven that communist, what democrats are, can’t fix the economy. I’m voting for the Second Amendment and the economy. Only one candidate is capable of doing that.

 

[Red Leg]

I think most people have foreseen this from the beginning. Do you actually believe Crimea was going to be returned to Ukraine? Also, those areas in the south and east have been a problem for quite some time. I think it’s naive to believe that things were going to return to normal after this is over. The way things are escalating I think it’s best to negotiate and end it. If we and others had been willing to give more support at the beginning it might’ve ended with a complete Russian withdrawal while retaining Crimea but that time has passed.

Taiwan is obviously an all or nothing situation unlike Ukraine. It’s plain to see for everyone at this point that Russia will most likely not be taking Ukraine in its entirety. The US and Europe are going to go for that. Now that Ukraine has invaded Russia proper they have some leverage for the negotiations that are increasingly likely and have been hinted at by both parties.

I’m curious what you thought the current or possible Harris administration was going to get accomplished?

Of course everyone in the world knows if Trump was in office the invasion wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Period.

The problem with your response, and frankly that of Vance who seems to be incredibly ignorant about Europe, is it ignores the reality of Ukrainian and Russian history, and the reality on the battlefield.

After being beaten back from Kyiv and driven from the Kharkiv province, in an act of political desperation, Russia announced the annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces. Even Donetsk, which had the largest Russian speaking population, is not fully under Russian control. The other provinces are truly Ukrainian. They voted in the mid 90th percentile to be part of Ukraine in the 1991 independence referendum. By the way, even Donetsk was in the high 80th percentile. Russia doesn't even hold the capitals of Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. As @WAB notes, the Ukrainians have defeated the Russian Navy and Air Force in and above the Black Sea, putting Crimea at great risk (which voted in the 70th percentile to be part of Ukraine).

So, why on earth should the United States help Russia achieve its brutal strategic objectives which it is to date incapable of achieving on its own? Moreover, achieving those objectives would leave Russia stronger, and far more capable of putting pressure on Western Europe than at any point since the collapse of the Soviet Union. How is that in any way remotely in the interests of this country?

In turn, that growing Eurasian threat can only serve to divert our focus from the Pacific at a time when Chinese power is growing ever stronger. Hence, Xi's eagerness to demonstrate his support for Russia's initial invasion in February of 22.

When Vance ignorantly or naively (I am not sure which is worse) suggests Russia be allowed to simply achieve its war aims, we are allying ourselves with Vladimir Putin. It is simply incomprehensible to me any informed person would support such an outcome to this conflict or such behaviour by our leadership.

 

[Pondoro]

I am totally shocked if Trump and Vance really want to go this way...to handle Ukraine to Putin on a plate..their ignorance on this is nothing but scary..and cowardly..not to mention plain outright dangerous to western Europe..

How will the rest of NATO react to such a decision..? It will be a political 180 turn leaving the alliance in complete disarray.. !

This is what worry me most if those 2 get in power...

 

[wesheltonj]

I’ve never really understood the importance of the Russian Black Sea fleet. It has to travel through two NATO countries to reach the open sea. In a war with NATO, what is the likelihood that they would have free passage through Turkey and Greece? Slim and none come to mind.

 

[Pondoro]

I’ve never really understood the importance of the Russian Black Sea fleet. It has to travel through two NATO countries to reach the open sea. In a war with NATO, what is the likelihood that they would have free passage through Turkey and Greece? Slim and none come to mind.

They still have the ability to attack Ukraine and NATO states like Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey from where they are..if it should come to that..

In case of war with NATO they will never get to pass the Bosporus straight..

 

[Hunter4752001]

The point of the Russian Black Sea fleet is that it is their only warm water fleet on that side of the continent. It gives Russia the potential to project naval power into the eastern end of the Mediterranean especially the Middle East and Suez. To achieve that they need to control Crimea (their main naval base) and the costal regions (if not all of) Ukraine. Likewise they would have had the expectation that Romania and Bulgaria would come back into their orbit by either choice or coercion. Greece is effectively a non issue. Putin in particular had put a lot of work into cultivating relationships with Erdogan. Many expected that Turkiye may have broken with NATO and sided with Russia given what they perceived as hostility etc from the West. However, to their great credit, Turkiye has stood solidly with NATO and Ukraine.
I believe this is the reason for the current conflict. Controlling Ukraine is essential to control the black Sea. Control of the Black Sea is essential to control of the Eastern Mediterranean and an essential element of control of Middle eastern energy assets and a key part of the strategic deployment of forces in a conflict with NATO.

 

[Altitude sickness]

Those Russian Black Sea ships would be on the bottom at the opening moment we went to war with Russia.

With no “apparent” US offensive weapons within thousands of miles of the area. Very quickly. they would all be sunk.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I was wondering where Trump got the idea that pushing migrants eating pets was a good idea when there were many more examples of issues with migrants like draining of resources, crime etc.
She helped him with debate prep and is part of his entourage now. Even MTG thinks she is a far right loon. Trump is really working hard to lose this election.

View attachment 633642

I don't think anyone really thought about it, but the eating the pets line has and will continue to resonate hugely with both sides. Almost everyone has pets and they are highly protective of them. Go on instagram, the memes on Trumps line are dominant, everywhere. Not as big as the George Floyd blowup of course but I will bet Kamala laughing at him will cost her a lot of votes.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/record-1-2-trillion-interest-194844790.html

A Record $1.2 Trillion Interest Payments Are Blowing Up The Federal Budget​

Over $3 billion per day in interest payment

• The U.S. government will spend a record $1.2 trillion on interest payments in 2024, the highest amount ever recorded.
• Interest payments are driven by a combination of deficit spending, especially during the pandemic, and the Federal Reserve's campaign of anti-inflation interest rate hikes.
• The trajectory of the deficit could be influenced by the election.
• While both Democrats and Republicans propose new tax cuts and spending that could push up the deficit, Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed tax increases on the wealthy and corporations, to offset them.
• The U.S. government is on track to spend more than $1 trillion on interest payments this year, surpassing military spending for the first time in history.
  
  Interest payments on the national debt (held by the public in the form of Treasury securities) will cost the government $1.2 trillion in the government's fiscal year ending in October, the Treasury Department said in a monthly report on the budget. Net interest outlays are the third costliest item in the budget behind Social Security and Medicare benefits.

 

[fourfive8]

In turn, that growing Eurasian threat can only serve to divert our focus from the Pacific at a time when Chinese power is growing ever stronger. Hence, Xi's eagerness to demonstrate his support for Russia's initial invasion February 22.

OK. Switch the narrative around…. So, how does consuming and diverting such a large portion of our resources to the “Eurasia threat” (your term not mine) help ensure our ability to stop China on a possible SE Asia front where the Ukraine front would pale in comparison? Current estimates I’ve seen seem to show we may not have the resources to handle an all-out, single front war let alone a two front war. Please explain the options if the “beyond the conventional” rubicon is breached vs Russia where Russia looses a tactical nuke or two in the battlefield ? I have yet to see a logical or realistic vision for our end game in Ukraine if Russia simply says, “no, not going backwards, your move”.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

The problem with your response, and frankly that of Vance who seems to be incredibly ignorant about Europe, is it ignores the reality of Ukrainian and Russian history, and the reality on the battlefield.

After being beaten back from Kyiv and driven from the Kharkiv province, in an act of political desperation, Russia announced the annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces. Even Donetsk, which had the largest Russian speaking population, is not fully under Russian control. The other provinces are truly Ukrainian. They voted in the mid 90th percentile to be part of Ukraine in the 1991 independence referendum. By the way, even Donetsk was in the high 80th percentile. Russia doesn't even hold the capitals of Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. As @WAB notes, the Ukrainians have defeated the Russian Navy and Air Force in and above the Black Sea, putting Crimea at great risk (which voted in the 70th percentile to be part of Ukraine).

So, why on earth should the United States help Russia achieve its brutal strategic objectives which it is to date incapable of achieving on its own? Moreover, achieving those objectives would leave Russia stronger, and far more capable of putting pressure on Western Europe than at any point since the collapse of the Soviet Union. How is that in any way remotely in the interests of this country?

In turn, that growing Eurasian threat can only serve to divert our focus from the Pacific at a time when Chinese power is growing ever stronger. Hence, Xi's eagerness to demonstrate his support for Russia's initial invasion in February of 22.

When Vance ignorantly or naively (I am not sure which is worse) suggests Russia be allowed to simply achieve its war aims, we are allying ourselves with Vladimir Putin. It is simply incomprehensible to me any informed person would support such an outcome to this conflict or such behaviour by our leadership.

Ukraine was not going to drive Russia out without the support from the international community. I agree with supporting them.

Do you see this ending in a full Russian withdrawal? Are they going to enter negotiations and walk out having completely given up the territory they have gained? What I’m saying is, is Putin going to make a deal and go back to the Russian people with nothing to show for the last 2+ years? It’s going to have to end in negotiations somehow (I would imagine) and that likely won’t come without concessions.

Maybe Ukraine takes Crimea, gains more territory in Kursk and becomes more of a threat to Moscow and that’s enough for Russia to sue for peace and withdraw completely? I assume that’s the case.

On the topic of those provinces, what changed? I know there’s been fighting there since around a decade ago. Maybe longer

 

[Red Leg]

OK. Switch the narrative around…. So, how does consuming and diverting such a large portion of our resources to the “Eurasia threat” (your term not mine) help ensure our ability to stop China on a possible SE Asia front where the Ukraine front would pale in comparison? Current estimates I’ve seen seem to show we may not have the resources to handle an all-out, single front war let alone a two front war. Please explain the options if the “beyond the conventional” rubicon is breached vs Russia where Russia looses a tactical nuke or two in the battlefield ? I have yet to see a logical or realistic vision for our end game in Ukraine if Russia simply says, “no, not going backwards, your move”.

Though I wish I could take credit, describing growing Russian belligerence as a "Eurasian threat" is a rather common term in the literature on this subject.

The Russians have gone backwards. Ukraine has driven them back from their original gains, recaptured the Kharkiv provence, defeated the Russian Navy at sea, fought the whole Russian army to a standstill on land, denied air superiority to the Russian air force, and taken nearly 1500 square kilometers of the Russian Kursk province.

Cost to the US is a political red herring. Supporting Ukraine is costing us a miniscule amount of resources to keep this threat from re-emerging from the dustbin of history. The little we have provided Ukraine truly is a rounding number for a government that spends 6 Trillion + dollars annually. The vast majority of the military equipment we have provided has been through Presidential drawdown authority. That means it is equipment in storage which is no longer needed by the active force.

With respect to new production, Ukraine actually has been a major boon to our capability to expand our production base and lower costs on key munitions. For the first time since the eighties we have multiple lines at full production of 155mm, GMLRS, small arms, and guided ground and air delivered ordinance. That actually enhances our military capabilities against China and in support of Taiwan and is a Godsend especially to the US Army and Marine Corps.

We can either commit to stopping the Kremlin's ambitions now or acquiesce to a growing threat in Europe that will divide our focus and those resources for a generation or more. As the West failed to do in 1938-39, we can step up to that challenge now or address it later. We would be fools to do the latter.

With respect to tactical nuclear weapons, what is Putin going to fire them at? If he launches them at a NATO country it will mean all out war and whatever damage the Kremlin's aging and questionable stockpile might inflict, Russia and Russians as a nation, culture and people would be exterminated from the planet.

I do not know our plan for a tactical weapon employed within Ukraine, but I would suspect we have communicated that NATO will assume air defense and NATO force self-protection responsibility over Ukraine. Due to the depleted state of Russia's conventional armed forces now, that would guarantee the unsuccessful conclusion to this fiasco from the Russian perspective.

Ukraine was not going to drive Russia out without the support from the international community. I agree with supporting them.

Do you see this ending in a full Russian withdrawal? Are they going to enter negotiations and walk out having completely given up the territory they have gained? What I’m saying is, is Putin going to make a deal and go back to the Russian people with nothing to show for the last 2+ years? It’s going to have to end in negotiations somehow (I would imagine) and that likely won’t come without concessions.

Maybe Ukraine takes Crimea, gains more territory in Kursk and becomes more of a threat to Moscow and that’s enough for Russia to sue for peace and withdraw completely? I assume that’s the case.

On the topic of those provinces, what changed? I know there’s been fighting there since around a decade ago. Maybe longer

This war will indeed end in negotiations. If for no other reason, neither power is strong enough to dictates peace on the steps of the other's capital. But the nature of the conclusion of those negotiations will either embolden Putin and his successors or restrain them. Were we to do what Vance naively suggests (and I must assume he is parroting his future boss), we will have handed Russia nearly a total victory in this conflict.

The current estimates are that Russia is spending approximately 7-9% of its GDP on the war in Ukraine. In contrast, the US is spending roughly 3% of its GDP on its total defense budget and .35% on Ukraine. Like the Cold War, this is unsustainable for Russia and in spite of all the handringing from the far right, we could keep it up for decades and simply grow a stronger military infrastructure in the process.

I have personally stated here several times that the most likely outcome (assuming the Vance/Trump "art" of a negotiated deal is not forced upon NATO), is that Russia retains what it holds in Luhansk and Donetsk and withdraws from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Crimea will be the geographic sticking point. I also suspect the West will insist upon Ukrainian self-determination with respect to EU and NATO membership. After all, Putin's angst over an extended direct border with NATO went out the window with Finland joining the alliance. Again, a strategic surrender by a Trump administration would spell the end of such a positive outcome.

Following the seizure of Crimea, the only fighting prior to '22 was occuring in portions of Luhansk and Donetsk - an effort through which Russia was attempting to destabilize the Ukrainian government. The lack of success of that strategy can be measured by Russian actions in February of 2022.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Though I wish I could take credit, describing growing Russian belligerence as a "Eurasian threat" is a rather common term in the literature on this subject.

But they have gone backwards. Moreover, supporting Ukraine is costing us a miniscule amount of resources to keep this threat from re-emerging from the dustbin of history. The little we have provided Ukraine truly is a rounding number for a government that spends 6 Trillion + dollars annually. The vast majority of the military equipment we have provided has been through Presidential drawdown authority. That means it is equipment in storage which is no longer needed by the active force.

With respect to new production, Ukraine actually has been a major boon to our capability to expand our production base an lower costs on key munitions. For the first time since the eighties we have multiple lines at full production of 155mm, GMLRS, small arms, and guided ground and air delivered ordinance. That actually enhances our military capabilities against China and in support of Taiwan.

We can either commit to stopping the Kremlin's ambitions now or acquiesce to a growing threat in Europe that will divide our focus and those resources for a generation or more. As the West failed to do in 1938-39, we can step up to that challenge now or address it later. We would be fools to do the latter.

With respect to tactical nuclear weapons, what is going to fire them at? If he launches them at a NATO country it will mean all out war and whatever damage the Kremlin's aging and questionable stockpile might inflict, Russia and Russians as a nation, culture and people would be exterminated from the planet.

I do not know our plan for a tactical weapon employed within Ukraine, but I would suspect we have communicated that NATO will assume air defense and NATO force self-protection responsibility over Ukraine. Due to the depleted state of Russia's conventional armed forces now, that would guarantee the unsuccessful conclusion to this fiasco from the Russian perspective.



This war will indeed end in negotiations. If for no other reason, neither power is strong enough to dictates peace on the steps of the other's capital. But the nature of the conclusion of those negotiations will either embolden Putin and his successors or restrain them. Were we to do what Vance naively suggests (and I must assume he is parroting his future boss), we will have handed Russia nearly a total victory in this conflict.

The current estimates are that Russia is spending approximately 7-9% of its GDP on the war in Ukraine. In contrast, the US is spending roughly 3% of its GDP on its total defense budget and .35% on Ukraine. This is unsustainable for Russia and in spite of all the handringing from the far right, we could keep it up for decades and simply grow a stronger military infrastructure in the process.

I have personally stated here several times that the most likely outcome (assuming a Vance/Trump art of a negotiated deal is not forced upon NATO), is that Russia retains what it holds in Luhansk and Donetsk and withdraws from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Crimea will be the geographic sticking point. I also suspect the West will insist upon Ukrainian self-determination with respect to EU and NATO membership. After all, Putin's angst over an extended direct border with NATO went out the window with Finland joining the alliance. Again, a strategic surrender by a Trump administration would spell the end of such a positive outcome.

Following the seizure of Crimea, the only fighting prior to '22 was occuring in portions of Luhansk and Donetsk - an effort through which Russia was attempting to destabilize the Ukrainian government. The lack of success of that strategy can be measured by Russian actions in February of 2022.

Thank you for your insight.

 

[WAB]

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?