Abandoning allies

[Flatlandcoug]

I was thinking about the ludicrous negotiations that Trump's people are having with Russia that don't involve either Ukraine or Europe and I find it ironic that a President (and his fanbase) that were so critical of us leaving Afghanistan have no problem with selling out an ally now in the hopes of making a few bucks on Ukraine's Natural Resources and currying favor with an autocratic dictator. Our word and treaties apparently only count when the other team is the bad guy in the situation.

 

[ttowncoug]

I was thinking about the ludicrous negotiations that Trump's people are having with Russia that don't involve either Ukraine or Europe and I find it ironic that a President (and his fanbase) that were so critical of us leaving Afghanistan have no problem with selling out an ally now in the hopes of making a few bucks on Ukraine's Natural Resources and currying favor with an autocratic dictator. Our word and treaties apparently only count when the other team is the bad guy in the situation.

If this leads to de-escalation of the potential conflict and to global peace, I'm open minded.

In macro economics, it was "guns or butter." As a society, we need to spend less on war, more at home taking care of US citizens (better healthcare, safer streets, more housing, more police, etc.).

We can't afford to do it all unfortunately.

 

[CougEd]

If this leads to de-escalation of the potential conflict and to global peace, I'm open minded.

In macro economics, it was "guns or butter." As a society, we need to spend less on war, more at home taking care of US citizens (better healthcare, safer streets, more housing, more police, etc.).

We can't afford to do it all unfortunately.

Well there are always "costs", just when those costs come down the pike is the question.

I think if I go over the last 50 years, manufacturing was offshored. Why? Unions, price and profits? Which party wanted unions busted? What party came up with the social safety nets? Who has not come up with "health care" alternatives. And war will come around, just depends where and when. I like your optimism however.

It is interesting what is happening on my father's home state. They are trying to make bible study (reading) in elementary school. Hardening of the abortion laws. If the women does anything to put her baby at risk, like working out, lifting something to happen and something happens to the baby she can be subject to criminal charges. Are these several rogue lawmakers, or are they bills that have a legit chance to become laws?

 

[CougEd]

I was thinking about the ludicrous negotiations that Trump's people are having with Russia that don't involve either Ukraine or Europe and I find it ironic that a President (and his fanbase) that were so critical of us leaving Afghanistan have no problem with selling out an ally now in the hopes of making a few bucks on Ukraine's Natural Resources and currying favor with an autocratic dictator. Our word and treaties apparently only count when the other team is the bad guy in the situation.

We aren't abandoning our allies, we are just changing them. Russia in, Europe out. Yep, makes sense to me.

 

[dgibbons]

We aren't abandoning our allies, we are just changing them. Russia in, Europe out. Yep, makes sense to me.

Did our European allies abandon us? We've run into significant difficulties with "allies" that were, I guess the appropriate terms would be less invested and less serious about their own defense than the USA. Vietnam and Afghanistan being obvious examples. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, and Europe basically did nothing. Russia annex Crimea in 2014, and again basically nothing. The holy shit moment comes in 2022 when Russia invades the rest of Ukraine, and there is still plenty of pushback on Europe being prepared to defend itself and countries falling well short of the 2 percent defense spending threshold, actually spending the money instead of just allocating it, etc.

Despite what you hear from talking heads, the US is not required by the treaty to send troops. We are required to assist by taking such action as we deem necessary, which may include boots on the ground.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says:

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.


Just for shits and giggles, Article 6 doesn't get the attention it should. Hawaii and Guam are south of the Tropic of Cancer. Hawaii is NOT geographically part of North America, but became a US state 10 years after the NATO treaty was signed. The point is our "allies" know perfectly well that China firing hypersonic missiles at our carriers in the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, or at Guam, Diego Garcia and arguably Hawaii is outside of the NATO treaty.

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Did our European allies abandon us? We've run into significant difficulties with "allies" that were, I guess the appropriate terms would be less invested and less serious about their own defense than the USA. Vietnam and Afghanistan being obvious examples. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, and Europe basically did nothing. Russia annex Crimea in 2014, and again basically nothing. The holy shit moment comes in 2022 when Russia invades the rest of Ukraine, and there is still plenty of pushback on Europe being prepared to defend itself and countries falling well short of the 2 percent defense spending threshold, actually spending the money instead of just allocating it, etc.

Despite what you hear from talking heads, the US is not required by the treaty to send troops. We are required to assist by taking such action as we deem necessary, which may include boots on the ground.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says:

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.


Just for shits and giggles, Article 6 doesn't get the attention it should. Hawaii and Guam are south of the Tropic of Cancer. Hawaii is NOT geographically part of North America, but became a US state 10 years after the NATO treaty was signed. The point is our "allies" know perfectly well that China firing hypersonic missiles at our carriers in the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, or at Guam, Diego Garcia and arguably Hawaii is outside of the NATO treaty.

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

FWIW, even if I don't like the way that Trump operates, he was 100% right in forcing Europe to re-evaluate their obligations. Most NATO countries were failing to do that. They needed a kick in the ass, but I don't feel that cozying up to Putin is the best way to accomplish that.

On the comment about Article 6, it says "on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America" and " or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer." I'm not a lawyer but the inclusion of the word "on" in each segment of the bullet implies that "north of the Tropic of Cancer" applies only to the last segment related to the Islands in the North Atlantic Area. Because it says "in Europe or North America", you may be correct that it leaves Hawaii and Guam out....but it would also include all territories in the Pacific regardless of latitude at that point.

 

[CougEd]

Did our European allies abandon us? We've run into significant difficulties with "allies" that were, I guess the appropriate terms would be less invested and less serious about their own defense than the USA. Vietnam and Afghanistan being obvious examples. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, and Europe basically did nothing. Russia annex Crimea in 2014, and again basically nothing. The holy shit moment comes in 2022 when Russia invades the rest of Ukraine, and there is still plenty of pushback on Europe being prepared to defend itself and countries falling well short of the 2 percent defense spending threshold, actually spending the money instead of just allocating it, etc.

Despite what you hear from talking heads, the US is not required by the treaty to send troops. We are required to assist by taking such action as we deem necessary, which may include boots on the ground.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says:

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.


Just for shits and giggles, Article 6 doesn't get the attention it should. Hawaii and Guam are south of the Tropic of Cancer. Hawaii is NOT geographically part of North America, but became a US state 10 years after the NATO treaty was signed. The point is our "allies" know perfectly well that China firing hypersonic missiles at our carriers in the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, or at Guam, Diego Garcia and arguably Hawaii is outside of the NATO treaty.

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Thanks for providing...not sure why you are attaching tho...

 

[dgibbons]

FWIW, even if I don't like the way that Trump operates, he was 100% right in forcing Europe to re-evaluate their obligations. Most NATO countries were failing to do that. They needed a kick in the ass, but I don't feel that cozying up to Putin is the best way to accomplish that.

On the comment about Article 6, it says "on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America" and " or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer." I'm not a lawyer but the inclusion of the word "on" in each segment of the bullet implies that "north of the Tropic of Cancer" applies only to the last segment related to the Islands in the North Atlantic Area. Because it says "in Europe or North America", you may be correct that it leaves Hawaii and Guam out....but it would also include all territories in the Pacific regardless of latitude at that point.

Hawaii and Guam are not in the North Atlantic.

For that reason the Falklands was not a NATO conflict.

 

[95coug]

Did our European allies abandon us? We've run into significant difficulties with "allies" that were, I guess the appropriate terms would be less invested and less serious about their own defense than the USA. Vietnam and Afghanistan being obvious examples. Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, and Europe basically did nothing. Russia annex Crimea in 2014, and again basically nothing. The holy shit moment comes in 2022 when Russia invades the rest of Ukraine, and there is still plenty of pushback on Europe being prepared to defend itself and countries falling well short of the 2 percent defense spending threshold, actually spending the money instead of just allocating it, etc.

Despite what you hear from talking heads, the US is not required by the treaty to send troops. We are required to assist by taking such action as we deem necessary, which may include boots on the ground.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says:

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.


Just for shits and giggles, Article 6 doesn't get the attention it should. Hawaii and Guam are south of the Tropic of Cancer. Hawaii is NOT geographically part of North America, but became a US state 10 years after the NATO treaty was signed. The point is our "allies" know perfectly well that China firing hypersonic missiles at our carriers in the South China Sea, the Sea of Japan, or at Guam, Diego Garcia and arguably Hawaii is outside of the NATO treaty.

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Well....since this treaty covers the North Atlantic, I would argue that it automatically excludes Hawaii and Guam.

 

[95coug]

I was thinking about the ludicrous negotiations that Trump's people are having with Russia that don't involve either Ukraine or Europe and I find it ironic that a President (and his fanbase) that were so critical of us leaving Afghanistan have no problem with selling out an ally now in the hopes of making a few bucks on Ukraine's Natural Resources and currying favor with an autocratic dictator. Our word and treaties apparently only count when the other team is the bad guy in the situation.

Kind of reminds you of when Stalin & Hitler divided up Poland without inviting the Poles, doesn't it?

If this leads to de-escalation of the potential conflict and to global peace, I'm open minded.

In macro economics, it was "guns or butter." As a society, we need to spend less on war, more at home taking care of US citizens (better healthcare, safer streets, more housing, more police, etc.).

We can't afford to do it all unfortunately.

Thank you for that highly appeasing stance, Mr. Chamberlain.

 

[Cougsocal]

Neville Trump believes he can secure peace in our time if he can broker a deal with Ukraine simply giving up Russian speaking parts of its country. Herr Putin need only pledge "in writing" that his territorial demands are limited to Russian speaking areas of Ukraine. Why would Ukraine need involved in this type of negotiation? It would only complicate matters, much like Czech President Edvard Benes, who would have balked at the ground breaking Munich Agreement of 1938 if given a say. He was just too emotionally involve.

Strange isn't it that the Republicans were the overt pro appeasement party, running on a blatantly pro appeasement platform in 1940, claiming that Roosevelt was "trying to get us into the war." And now they are trying to appease again.

I have to believe that if the US and Russia reach an agreement ceding Ukrainian territory without true Ukrainian consent, Poland will get directly involved and start kicking Russian arse, and that will make Putin panic, since he can't even handle Ukraine conventionally.

We Americans forget that Russia also invade Poland in September 1939, massacring 22,000 POW officers in the Polish military at Katyn. Russians have only invaded Poland 5 times since 1812. Then there is the 45 year post war occupation that the Poles are still miffed about. Poland is a country very sensitive to Russian acts of territorial aggression, and is and has been spending more on its military than the US in terms of GDP because of Herr Putin's repeated reconstitution of the Russian Empire aspirations which includes both Ukraine and Poland.

I hope our ethnocentric tendencies don't make things much worse.

 

[dgibbons]

Kind of reminds you of when Stalin & Hitler divided up Poland without inviting the Poles, doesn't it?



Thank you for that highly appeasing stance, Mr. Chamberlain.

Seems quite possible for Europe to fund 100 percent of Ukraine's war effort and economy if our allies choose to do so. I don't see anything stopping that.

 

[dgibbons]

Neville Trump believes he can secure peace in our time if he can broker a deal with Ukraine simply giving up Russian speaking parts of its country. Herr Putin need only pledge "in writing" that his territorial demands are limited to Russian speaking areas of Ukraine. Why would Ukraine need involved in this type of negotiation? It would only complicate matters, much like Czech President Edvard Benes, who would have balked at the ground breaking Munich Agreement of 1938 if given a say. He was just too emotionally involve.

Strange isn't it that the Republicans were the overt pro appeasement party, running on a blatantly pro appeasement platform in 1940, claiming that Roosevelt was "trying to get us into the war." And now they are trying to appease again.

I have to believe that if the US and Russia reach an agreement ceding Ukrainian territory without true Ukrainian consent, Poland will get directly involved and start kicking Russian arse, and that will make Putin panic, since he can't even handle Ukraine conventionally.

We Americans forget that Russia also invade Poland in September 1939, massacring 22,000 POW officers in the Polish military at Katyn. Russians have only invaded Poland 5 times since 1812. Then there is the 45 year post war occupation that the Poles are still miffed about. Poland is a country very sensitive to Russian acts of territorial aggression, and is and has been spending more on its military than the US in terms of GDP because of Herr Putin's repeated reconstitution of the Russian Empire aspirations which includes both Ukraine and Poland.

I hope our ethnocentric tendencies don't make things much worse.

Some Americans might not know or care about the Soviet the invasion of Poland. Some Americans may not know or care that the Soviet Union [edit] also invaded neutral Finland in 1939, known as the Winter War. Finland then fought with Germany against the Soviet Union. There was a combined Anglo-Soviet invasion of neutral Iran during WWII also. Oil was kind of important. The Royal Navy attacked the French Navy at Oran two weeks after France surrendered. Couldn't risk those ships falling into Hitler's hands. With friends like that, who needs enemies, right? All kinds of things started happening once the bullets were flying.

I do find it humorous that literal Hitler Trump so quickly morphed into Neville Trump.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

I was thinking about the ludicrous negotiations that Trump's people are having with Russia that don't involve either Ukraine or Europe and I find it ironic that a President (and his fanbase) that were so critical of us leaving Afghanistan have no problem with selling out an ally now in the hopes of making a few bucks on Ukraine's Natural Resources and currying favor with an autocratic dictator. Our word and treaties apparently only count when the other team is the bad guy in the situation.

Why even comment?

Just say the topic and we'll know your view on it vis a vis the current administration.

Could it be that any negotiations with people on either side seems radical since the previous administration's (and the several before that) solution to every world problem was to throw money or troops at it?

Like ttown, I'm in a wait and see mindset right now, though I am skeptical simply because Trump seems to be unhinged at times. But throwing billions of dollars at the Ukraine year after year while Zelensky is content to send his citizens to the slaughter doesn't seem like its a) the best option or b) sustainable.

The other side of the coin of course is that Trump continues the previous administrations policy of isolationism via fiscal policy and then he's criticized for ignoring the pain and suffering of the Ukrainian people and doing nothing to stop the war.

Whatever you think or believe, you can know one thing for sure: Trump and Gabbard will not put American lives on the line to play peacekeeper or intermediary in every world conflict that come up simply for the sake of "good will." I'm frankly shocked that so many people are opposed to diplomatic resolution simply because of who the person it. Sure as fck didn't see Biden bringing anyone to the table, or hell... even trying.

 

[95coug]

Why even comment?

Just say the topic and we'll know your view on it vis a vis the current administration.

Could it be that any negotiations with people on either side seems radical since the previous administration's (and the several before that) solution to every world problem was to throw money or troops at it?

Like ttown, I'm in a wait and see mindset right now, though I am skeptical simply because Trump seems to be unhinged at times. But throwing billions of dollars at the Ukraine year after year while Zelensky is content to send his citizens to the slaughter doesn't seem like its a) the best option or b) sustainable.

The other side of the coin of course is that Trump continues the previous administrations policy of isolationism via fiscal policy and then he's criticized for ignoring the pain and suffering of the Ukrainian people and doing nothing to stop the war.

Whatever you think or believe, you can know one thing for sure: Trump and Gabbard will not put American lives on the line to play peacekeeper or intermediary in every world conflict that come up simply for the sake of "good will." I'm frankly shocked that so many people are opposed to diplomatic resolution simply because of who the person it. Sure as fck didn't see Biden bringing anyone to the table, or hell... even trying.

Trump wasn’t even back in office yet before he was talking about sending troops to Gaza, so I’m not sure where any confidence that we won’t “put American lives on the line” comes from.
As for Ukraine, this is a strange negotiation. You don’t usually see one that doesn’t include both sides. You don’t usually see one that involves an intermediary that openly supports or opposes one side.

It’s tragically amusing that Trump- just today - made a comment about not being able to stop wars without talking to both sides…while he’s not talking to Ukraine.

There may end up being a treaty. But it’s going to involve telling Ukraine what we’ve decided they’re giving up, and may require US/UN/NATO forces going over there to force Ukraine to accept it. And Russia is going to continually claim Ukrainian violations and try to justify re-invading and finishing the job.

Trump also said that we’re not far from WWIII, but it won’t happen while he’s in office. He may be right on the last part, but it seems to me he’s putting us on the same roads that led to WWII.

 

[dgibbons]

Trump wasn’t even back in office yet before he was talking about sending troops to Gaza, so I’m not sure where any confidence that we won’t “put American lives on the line” comes from.
As for Ukraine, this is a strange negotiation. You don’t usually see one that doesn’t include both sides. You don’t usually see one that involves an intermediary that openly supports or opposes one side.

It’s tragically amusing that Trump- just today - made a comment about not being able to stop wars without talking to both sides…while he’s not talking to Ukraine.

There may end up being a treaty. But it’s going to involve telling Ukraine what we’ve decided they’re giving up, and may require US/UN/NATO forces going over there to force Ukraine to accept it. And Russia is going to continually claim Ukrainian violations and try to justify re-invading and finishing the job.

Trump also said that we’re not far from WWIII, but it won’t happen while he’s in office. He may be right on the last part, but it seems to me he’s putting us on the same roads that led to WWII.

Do you have a link on Trump saying he’d send troops to Gaza? Before or after the inauguration. Honest question.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Why even comment?

Just say the topic and we'll know your view on it vis a vis the current administration.

Could it be that any negotiations with people on either side seems radical since the previous administration's (and the several before that) solution to every world problem was to throw money or troops at it?

Like ttown, I'm in a wait and see mindset right now, though I am skeptical simply because Trump seems to be unhinged at times. But throwing billions of dollars at the Ukraine year after year while Zelensky is content to send his citizens to the slaughter doesn't seem like its a) the best option or b) sustainable.

The other side of the coin of course is that Trump continues the previous administrations policy of isolationism via fiscal policy and then he's criticized for ignoring the pain and suffering of the Ukrainian people and doing nothing to stop the war.

Whatever you think or believe, you can know one thing for sure: Trump and Gabbard will not put American lives on the line to play peacekeeper or intermediary in every world conflict that come up simply for the sake of "good will." I'm frankly shocked that so many people are opposed to diplomatic resolution simply because of who the person it. Sure as fck didn't see Biden bringing anyone to the table, or hell... even trying.

Reasonable people aren't opposed to a diplomatic solution. Reasonable people also think that the people impacted by said diplomatic solution should be involved in the negotiations for that solution.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Do you have a link on Trump saying he’d send troops to Gaza? Before or after the inauguration. Honest question.

Watch from 19:20 to 19:45. He's asked if we would send troops to Gaza and he mumbles for a bit before saying "As far as Gaza goes, we will do what is necessary. If it's necessary, we will do that".

 

[UberCougars]

Why are we* supporting a dictatorship in Ukraine?

 

[UberCougars]

JD Vance


This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.

https://x.com/jdvance/status/1892250370702704982?s=46

 

[dgibbons]

Reasonable people aren't opposed to a diplomatic solution. Reasonable people also think that the people impacted by said diplomatic solution should be involved in the negotiations for that solution.

What do reasonable people think when Ukraine demands territory annexed in 2014 that Ukraine has no ability to retake by force and whose 2023 summer offensive was a complete disaster?

 

[dgibbons]

View embedded media

Watch from 19:20 to 19:45. He's asked if we would send troops to Gaza and he mumbles for a bit before saying "As far as Gaza goes, we will do what is necessary. If it's necessary, we will do that".

 

[95coug]

JD Vance


This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.

For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.

And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?

Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.

President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:

Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.

Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.

Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.

Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.

Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.

Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.

That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.

And thank God for that.

View embedded media

Well, first let’s address the idea that Trump & Vance have any idea about the sensibilities of “most Americans.” They didn’t get a voter mandate. They didn’t even manage a majority of the votes that were cast. Just under 50%, in fact. Then factor in that there were around 15 million registered voters who didn’t vote, and another 75 million voting-eligible citizens who didn’t….and your golden calf’s support shrinks to somewhere between 31-44%. That doesn’t represent “most Americans.”

Second, so…because Russia has more people and we think they’re stronger, they should just get to take Ukraine? I don’t think that’s ever been the US position. Using that logic, we never should have gotten out from under British rule, we should have let Germany have Great Britain and Japan have Australia. Afghanistan should be Soviet territory, and Vietnam should be ours.

For the second consecutive day, your prophets say that the conflict needs to be resolved by talking to the people involved…while they exclude Ukraine. Openly not doing what they say should be done, and their 31-44% keeps lapping it up.

This IS appeasement. Russia manufactured a reason to “annex” Ukrainian territory, and when Ukraine resisted they used that as justification for going to war. It’s exactly what Hitler did - repeatedly. And now, because he already did it and doesn’t want to leave, we’re just going to give him what he wanted - or most of it, anyway. All without considering the people who the territory rightfully belongs to. That’s very Chamberlain-esque. And, given his history and the fact that we’re at least letting him get away with it, possibly even rewarding him for it, we should expect Putin to find a reason to cross whatever line in the sand we draw….and blame it on someone else.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Why are we* supporting a dictatorship in Ukraine?

Why do "you" think that Zelensky is a Dictator? Have you seen evidence of widespread protests to his presidency?

FWIW, the Russians have shown that they have no problem murdering civilians. Can you imagine the potential for bloodshed if you have large numbers of Ukrainians clustered in voting lines? Below is a link to an article that discusses why elections have been postponed. I know that you struggle to read anything that isn't on Fox News, OAN, Epoch Times or whatever other far right rags that you prefer to follow...but it gives the reasons in very clear fashion.

Why hasn’t Ukraine held elections since the war began?

Donald Trump has increased his attacks on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling the Ukrainian president ‘a dictator’ – but why have elections been postponed?

www.theguardian.com

FWIW, Zelensky's approval rating in Ukraine has dropped significantly since it's peak right after the invasion. It has dropped from 90% down to 57%. For comparison, our wannabe dictator is currently sitting at 44% approval. Anyone with a shred of objectivity and intellectual integrity knows that Trump is talking out of his a$$ about Zelensky and that is fuggin' flabbergasting for him to be giving Putin a reach around as he trashes Zelensky but hey, you fuggers will continue to lap up the propaganda gruel that he pushes out because you have decided to abandon any sense of a moral compass in pursuit of #winning and #triggerlibtards.

 

[UberCougars]

Trump + RFK jr = 51%. End of discussion.

Trump and Vance are idiots but you got it allll figured out from Kansas. Got it!

I lost interest in your hysterics and didn’t read the rest of your dribble, sorry. Did you have a salient point?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Trump + RFK jr = 51%. End of discussion.

Trump and Vance are idiots but you got it allll figured out from Kansas. Got it!

I lost interest in your hysterics and didn’t read the rest of your dribble, sorry. Did you have a salient point?

We do understand that you lack the ability to read. It's okay. It's embarrassing for WSU that you have a WSU degree....but it's okay.

 

[UberCougars]

Insecure people often claim they speak for “everyone”

 

[UberCougars]

Why do "you" think that Zelensky is a Dictator? Have you seen evidence of widespread protests to his presidency?

FWIW, the Russians have shown that they have no problem murdering civilians. Can you imagine the potential for bloodshed if you have large numbers of Ukrainians clustered in voting lines? Below is a link to an article that discusses why elections have been postponed. I know that you struggle to read anything that isn't on Fox News, OAN, Epoch Times or whatever other far right rags that you prefer to follow...but it gives the reasons in very clear fashion.

Why hasn’t Ukraine held elections since the war began?

Donald Trump has increased his attacks on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling the Ukrainian president ‘a dictator’ – but why have elections been postponed?

www.theguardian.com

FWIW, Zelensky's approval rating in Ukraine has dropped significantly since it's peak right after the invasion. It has dropped from 90% down to 57%. For comparison, our wannabe dictator is currently sitting at 44% approval. Anyone with a shred of objectivity and intellectual integrity knows that Trump is talking out of his a$$ about Zelensky and that is fuggin' flabbergasting for him to be giving Putin a reach around as he trashes Zelensky but hey, you fuggers will continue to lap up the propaganda gruel that he pushes out because you have decided to abandon any sense of a moral compass in pursuit of #winning and #triggerlibtards.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

View embedded media

Oh....weird...you find an article on a far right propaganda site and post it as fact. Shocking.

I know that because your dear leader and Papa Musk are bashing on USAID, you now think it's a corrupt organization, but the truth is that the vast majority of that organization's work was for actual good causes....not enriching billionaires.

EDIT: what makes it funny is that you find 57% hard to believe but are quick to believe Trump's idiotic 4% comment.

 

[CougEd]

We do understand that you lack the ability to read. It's okay. It's embarrassing for WSU that you have a WSU degree....but it's okay.

Uber didn't go to WSU...so don't blame the university.

 

[Coug90]

Uber didn't go to WSU...so don't blame the university.

I’m guessing Harvard, Stanford, or MIT…

 

[95coug]

Insecure people often claim they speak for “everyone”

Or they claim a voter mandate based on less than 45%

 

[UberCougars]

Oh....weird...you find an article on a far right propaganda site and post it as fact. Shocking.

I know that because your dear leader and Papa Musk are bashing on USAID, you now think it's a corrupt organization, but the truth is that the vast majority of that organization's work was for actual good causes....not enriching billionaires.

EDIT: what makes it funny is that you find 57% hard to believe but are quick to believe Trump's idiotic 4% comment.

You found a Ukrainian poll commissioned by its dictator and swallow it whole. Shocking.

Need a sip of water?

 

[UberCougars]

Uber didn't go to WSU...so don't blame the university.

Sad.

Other than defending trillions in theft, it’s all you’ve got left.