Ukraine

[Hades]

Oh, there are arguments to be made against that. Sure, the USSR made a non-aggression pact, but then one reason the Nazis were popular is that they were expected to destroy the communists (and not without reason for that expectation). If things had gone differently, we could be saying that the West was complicit in the Germans declaring war on the Soviets to start WW3.

I'm not sure that really works as a defense. The Russian making a pact with Germany despite its fanatic anti communism being common knowledge makes them even more foolish. Working hard to empower a dangerous enemy just for a short sighted land grab in Poland. Russians often try to skirt around it by saying Stalin was merely trying to buy time but him wasting resources in trying to invade Finland and then massacring the Russian officer corpse always made that claim dubius.

and isn't arrogant like many democratic party diplomat

What the heck are you talking about?

and I don't think peace in Europe is a goal of the US

Given how fanatically anti Europe Trump and Vance both are peace in Europe definitely isn't their goal. Those pieces of filth likely seek to directly empower Russia at our expense. And at the expense of the US too.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not sure that really works as a defense. The Russian making a pact with Germany despite its fanatic anti communism being common knowledge makes them even more foolish. Working hard to empower a dangerous enemy just for a short sighted land grab in Poland. Russians often try to skirt around it by saying Stalin was merely trying to buy time but him wasting resources in trying to invade Finland and then massacring the Russian officer corpse always made that claim dubius.

I don't see buying time as being mutually exclusive with purging the military of any potential threats (which included competent officers). Er, not to defend the latter, that's terrible for obvious reasons, but I think unrelated with dealing with Germany or trying for a land grab.

 

[Gergar12]

I'm not sure that really works as a defense. The Russian making a pact with Germany despite its fanatic anti communism being common knowledge makes them even more foolish. Working hard to empower a dangerous enemy just for a short sighted land grab in Poland. Russians often try to skirt around it by saying Stalin was merely trying to buy time but him wasting resources in trying to invade Finland and then massacring the Russian officer corpse always made that claim dubius.



What the heck are you talking about?


Given how fanatically anti Europe Trump and Vance both are peace in Europe definitely isn't their goal. Those pieces of filth likely seek to directly empower Russia at our expense. And at the expense of the US too.

I distinctly remember during the first Iran deal, when I was a teenager, there was a German diplomat who told the Iranian foreign minister Zarif that 'everyone heard you' and John Kerry yelling at each other, and implied that it was his fault. Granted, he is German, but John Kerry and the US team should have reined him in. I also remember Obama giving Putin the cold shoulder after he seized Crimea.

That's generally poor form; people yell at people all the time, and if the Iranian foreign minister doesn't advocate for his country's self-interest, he gets sacked. Also, you sanction countries and apply strict penalties, but you don't act like you're better than them for having more power than them. And I am not an Iran or Russia fan by any means. If I were the US president after Ukraine got invaded, and had a means to swat down Russian MIRV missiles, I would have told the Japanese PM if you want you could get the Kuril Islands and we will help you, in exchange, you have to sign a secret pact that you would have to intervene in Taiwan if need be and deploy ground troops.

 

[Hades]

. I also remember Obama giving Putin the cold shoulder after he seized Crimea.

As he should have because it was illegitimate and war mongering behavior. Not giving Putin the cold shoulder risk normalizing such behavior and thus promoting wars. That's why Trump's effort to legitimize and legalize Russia's wars in Europe are so dangerous. As for Iran. Remember that Iran and the US did get a deal under Obama and then Trump said ''I hate my predecessor because he was black so I'm killing this deal!''. That's quite a lot more arrogant than a heated discussion during the negotiations.

 

[Satinavian]

He got Iran to the table on the Middle East

Iran was always willing to come to the table. But the Us didn't really wan because Iran was such a good scapegoat and because Israel always fueled tensions and tried to get a Iran-US war started.

 

[Trunkage]

Iran was always willing to come to the table. But the Us didn't really wan because Iran was such a good scapegoat and because Israel always fueled tensions and tried to get a Iran-US war started.

It's a strange comment becuase Obama and Biden both got Iran to the table. You can be unhappy with what happened at the table, but claiming they didn't is ridiculous. (I'm pretty sure I won't be happy with what Trump does at the table)

Trump was erratic during his last administration and it was Iran who followed through with measured, proportional and mature that lead to 'peace' in the area (as much peace as can be had with Iran.) Like China, they played Trump like a fiddle and the US lost

 

[Gergar12]

It's a strange comment becuase Obama and Biden both got Iran to the table. You can be unhappy with what happened at the table, but claiming they didn't is ridiculous. (I'm pretty sure I won't be happy with what Trump does at the table)

Trump was erratic during his last administration and it was Iran who followed through with measured, proportional and mature that lead to 'peace' in the area (as much peace as can be had with Iran.) Like China, they played Trump like a fiddle and the US lost

I disagree Biden was more hawkish on Iran than Obama. Especially his Secretary of State.

 

[Satinavian]

It's a strange comment becuase Obama and Biden both got Iran to the table.

Yes. Obama even got a deal. Because Iran was willing to come to the table even then. But it was the US that then cancelled the deal and sabotaged everyone else trying to make agreements with Iran with sanctions. Iran stuck to the agreements.

And Biden never tried to repair stuff. He hardly did anything with Iran aside from trying to blame them for Hamas.



Getting Iran to the table never had been difficult or an achievement.

 

[Silvanus]

70 missiles (11 ballistic missiles), + 145 drones were fired at Ukraine last night, including residential areas, city centres etc.

Trump is encouraging a settlement that involves Ukraine ceding Crimea and much of the 4 other occupied territories to Russia, but providing Ukraine with no security guarantees. This would set a new post-WW2 precedent, that seizure of territory by force is acceptable to the international order.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Trump is encouraging a settlement that involves Ukraine ceding Crimea and much of the 4 other occupied territories to Russia, but providing Ukraine with no security guarantees. This would set a new post-WW2 precedent, that seizure of territory by force is acceptable to the international order.

Trump believes that strongmen are entitled to everything they can manage to steal.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

When I'm right, I'm right.

Trump reveals Russia's "pretty big concession" in peace talks with Ukraine

Earlier in the day, Trump issued an unusually direct message to Russian President Putin, urging him to "STOP!" attacks on Ukraine.

www.newsweek.com

Yep. Trump says that Putin's "big concession" was "not taking the whole country" (Ukraine). Because he believes that anything you can take by force is rightfully yours.

 

[Agema]

Trump believes that strongmen are entitled to everything they can manage to steal.

Sure, but in Trump's fantasy, he's the strongman.

Trump has an extremely narrow view of the world: it's winners and losers, and a crude balance sheet. For Ukraine he sees the numbers for the USA in red. Stuff like values, democracy, allies, wider geopolitics, international order, sanctity of sovereignty and borders etc. none of that matters. He sees the USA spending money to help a vulnerable country when the USA could mug it for profit instead, and that makes no sense to him.

So extort Ukraine and turn the numbers in the accounts black. I think Trump's admiration for Putin is a factor, as is that Trump is cruel and bullying and likes kicking sand in the face of weaker people, and that he would narcissistically like to posture as dealmaker and peacemaker. But mostly he just wants to extract and extort wealth, and Ukraine is the only country he can extort here, so he will. If he gets a "peace" and then Putin continues invading it's okay. Sure, he'll not get all those minerals he wanted, but the USA is no longer spending money either so it's no biggie. He'll send a ragey few messages Vlad's way for form's sake and do nothing at all.

More to the point, I think this is all sort of happening anyway. I think the peace deal will fail and Trump will likely walk away completely, achieving the aim of removing the cost from the USA. This is a de facto win for Putin, but Trump won't care. I think Putin knows this, which is why he's fucking around with Ukraine and Trump: he knows the USA is out and gone and he's just waiting, playing along until that happens.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I'm not sure that really works as a defense. The Russian making a pact with Germany despite its fanatic anti communism being common knowledge makes them even more foolish.

Like Poland's eventual participation in hostilities against Czechoslovakia on the side of Hitler, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was largely a result of English and French timidity and intransigence. Until then, the Soviet Union was enthusiastically in favor of an anti-Hitler alliance with the United Kingdom and France. It was not reciprocated. And so the Soviet Union correctly prioritized itself (putting aside arguments about how effective their decisions were in that pursuit).

 

[Seanchaidh]

This would set a new post-WW2 precedent, that seizure of territory by force is acceptable to the international order.

That precedent had already been set in 1948.

 

[Gergar12]

As he should have because it was illegitimate and war mongering behavior. Not giving Putin the cold shoulder risk normalizing such behavior and thus promoting wars. That's why Trump's effort to legitimize and legalize Russia's wars in Europe are so dangerous. As for Iran. Remember that Iran and the US did get a deal under Obama and then Trump said ''I hate my predecessor because he was black so I'm killing this deal!''. That's quite a lot more arrogant than a heated discussion during the negotiations.

He should have sanctioned them harder instead.

View attachment 13133

View attachment 13134

View attachment 13135

70 missiles (11 ballistic missiles), + 145 drones were fired at Ukraine last night, including residential areas, city centres etc.

Trump is encouraging a settlement that involves Ukraine ceding Crimea and much of the 4 other occupied territories to Russia, but providing Ukraine with no security guarantees. This would set a new post-WW2 precedent, that seizure of territory by force is acceptable to the international order.

2008 with Georgia and 2012 were when that happened. Bush Jr and Obama had poor foreign policy actions.

 

[Silvanus]

Until then, the Soviet Union was enthusiastically in favor of an anti-Hitler alliance with the United Kingdom and France. It was not reciprocated. And so the Soviet Union correctly prioritized itself (putting aside arguments about how effective their decisions were in that pursuit).

You're going to need to flesh this snippet of revisionism out.

Britain and France didn't do enough to oppose Nazism (agreed), so therefore this vindicates the decision to ally with Nazis, and invade/annex other countries?

That precedent had already been set in 1948.

I suppose I should have said, "a precedent unseen in Europe since the demise of the European empires".

 

[Silvanus]

2008 with Georgia and 2012 were when that happened. Bush Jr and Obama had poor foreign policy actions.

Those seizures were not accepted or legalised by the international order. Trump seeks to change that.

 

[Gergar12]

Those seizures were not accepted or legalised by the international order. Trump seeks to change that.

And those two had underwhelming responses to it alongside Trump. If I steal your house and land, but the police fine me 5 dollars, the police still have not done their job. But people on both sides, republican anti-MAGA people, and most democrats, will rightfully attack Trump, and on Bush nowadays, it's only a few progressives and Arab-Americans who attack Bush Jr., and liberal talk show hosts will shower him with praise.

Yet the only people who talk about Obama's poor response to Crimea, no sanctions, little to no weapons aid, are MAGA, and a few non-MAGA outsiders like Peter Zeihan. Seems like liberals have a blind spot for Bush Jr, and Obama, and this is coming from someone who loved the ACA, and thinks it's the best policy action in the US of the 21st century.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Wait, what? Support of Bush Jr.? I mean, maybe nowdays as Trump has eclipsed him and makes people nostalgic for more normal levels of evil, but the Iraq war was roundly and constantly condemned. Also to a lesser extent, Afghanistan and his general foolishness.

 

[Gergar12]

Wait, what? Support of Bush Jr.? I mean, maybe nowdays as Trump has eclipsed him and makes people nostalgic for more normal levels of evil, but the Iraq war was roundly and constantly condemned. Also to a lesser extent, Afghanistan and his general foolishness.

Edit:

Why Do Democrats Keep Embracing George W. Bush?

Holding Bush up as a paragon of civic virtue underscores the party’s failures to present a real alternative.

newrepublic.com

Edit2:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/george-w-bush-is-too-liberal-for-the-republican-party.html

Edit3:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/20/george-w-bush-hamas-analysis-00122516