Trump: Ukraine “Never Should Have Started War” with Russia

[Oompa Loompa]

Let’s just wait two weeks and all find out together, eh?

I would be looking forward to it. So the next time Europe finds themselves in another war, the can say, "We are no longer obligated to bail you out. So what is in it for us?"

 

[stevil]

I'm curious how they propose all Ukrainian citizens have a chance to vote?

Well, if everyone is talking about how Ukraine haven't had a vote, then no one is talking about how Trump is siding with Russia and attacking Ukraine.

 

[wing2000]

I guess that sounds like an Ukranian problem to me. So let Ukraine worry about Ukraine. Frankly, I really don't care what Russia does with Ukraine. Not our circus, not our monkeys. No Europe may be more concerned because it is happening in their backyard.

Yea, that was obvious.

In your transactional world, if a powerful nation wants territory or resources, it can just take it.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I do agree that Putin is also a dictator.

Between President Putin and President Zelensky, only Putin is a dictator. Zelensky is a democratically elected leader.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

At this point, nobody in europe believes the USA will come and help us when Russia attacks. We're on our own, and you can't be trusted, even if it happens during the reign of a democratic party president, because they'll just use this precedent as an excuse.

I'm sure the USA will be in Europe when Russia makes it's move. It just might not be on the side you think.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'm sure the USA will be in Europe when Russia makes it's move. It just might not be on the side you think.

Hopefully, it will be on America's side. So Europe, better start getting used to taking care of Europe by yourself while we look after our interests in the Pacific.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

A business person normally dosen't think of risk and loosing money, they think of profit, growth, and gain. We loose money and gain nothing from going to war with Russia. A merger with the competition happens all the time in the business world with the hardest part deciding what to call the new entity, keep the name of the stronger partner or come up with a new one. It looks like someone is proposing a merger with the second largest world partner. I kept hearing about how being a business man was good for the job of President.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

What is the alternative? Another endless war where we burn billions of dollars and gain nothing in return? Trump gave Zelensky an offer, "give us half of your stuff and will will send you whatever you want." Zelensky rejected it. Now, ask yourself why the negotiations are only between Trump and Putin? Why not with Zelensky? Why not with any NATO member? The answer is simple, because Ukrain and NATO is so weak and ineffective that they only deserve to be at the kiddy table while the grown ups talk. Putin is only threatened by NATO because the United States is its dominant member...period. Putin is willing to negotiate with Trump because Putin respects and fears Trump, not because they are buddies.

The respect or fear that President Trump may command from Vladimir Putin is not relevant to the discussion. Our focus should be on global politics and United States national security. Respecting or fearing President Trump does not play a role in this relationship.

For the past eighty years, Europe and NATO have sat at the same table with the USA and fought side by side. When the United States was attacked on 9/11, it was the only time Article 5 of NATO was invoked. Sons and daughters of NATO member countries sacrificed their lives in the caves of Afghanistan for America.

America faces a clear choice: maintain its alliances that have sustained USA’ global supremacy, or abandon them to appease long-time adversary Russia.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Have you ever thought about the possibility that Trump supporters defend Trump because they agree with him and not because we are "powerless, agency deprived automation?" Because your statement came across as a little insulting. Remember those NPC memes that were going around that liberals were so offended about? Yeah, your statement was right up there.

I believe that supporters of President Trump align with his policies, which is why they hold him in high regard and are willing to vote for him repeatedly.

However, that is what puzzles me about President Trump’s supporters.

The majority of President Trump's supporters are conservative Republicans who have consistently voted for the Republican Party over the past 50 years, since the era of Ronald Reagan.

Apart from a few policies like tax cuts and pro-life choices, President Trump disagrees with most of what his Republican predecessors supported. For instance, in this thread, President Trump expresses a preference for making peace with Russia over supporting European countries. In contrast, past leaders such as Reagan, Bush, Romney, and McCain would likely have preferred to risk nuclear conflict with Russia rather than cede any European territory. Additionally, President Trump has imposed tariffs globally, whereas his Republican predecessors have generally promoted free trade and advocated globalization.

My question is, for those who agree with President Trump's policies, have they consistently voted Republican in the past 50 years even if they did not agree with their policies?

If that is the case, it appears that these voters prioritize who occupies the White House over the policies they implement.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So ask yourself why European leaders are not stepping up to fill the void in Ukrain that Trump left? What is stopping them from setting up a meeting. I already know the answer, but I am curious if you know.

Actually European countries are sending more aid to Ukraine then USA. this is the case from day one of the conflict.

The decision for the USA is clear: should they support an alliance that has been maintained for the past 80 years, or should they abandon this long-standing alliance and align with Russia, which has been an adversary since World War II?

 

[SimplyMe]

How much is it worth to deplete our weapons stock piles and leaving the Pacific vulnerable to China? I think 400% is fair.

Yes, we are.

US, NATO weapons stockpile 'dangerously low': USAF General - Breaking Defense

“So we don’t have nearly what we had at the heart of the Cold War. Now you add that we’re giving a lot of munitions away to the Ukrainians — which I think is exactly what we need to do — but now we’re getting dangerously low and sometimes, in some cases even too low that we don’t have enough,”...

breakingdefense.com

That article doesn't support your assertion the way you think it does. For example, the first thing he mentions is, "we’re [at] roughly half the number of fighter squadrons that we were when we did Desert Storm.” The problem for your argument, we haven't given any fighter aircraft to Ukraine, other than a handful of old Soviet aircraft that were largely used for fighter pilot training in the US (so they could fight against actual Russian aircraft). The F-16s that have been given are from Denmark and The Netherlands.

Now, I'll agree that we are low on artillery shells -- though that isn't seen as a huge issue, since the US military has traditionally not depended on artillery in combat. But, again, most of that article is complaining about how we've shrunk our military since the Cold War ended, not about issues with sending equipment to Ukraine.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

No. Let Europe earn it's place at the table and deal with European issues to free up the United States to focus on Asia. I feel like I am getting mixed signals from the left. Wasn't it the left that vilified Bush for dragging the United States into these forever wars? So why now all of a sudden, it is the left who are shrilling because Trump doesn't want to drag the country into another proxi forever war?

What are you talking about?

Europe has been allied with the USA for the past 80 years and earned seat at the table long time ago. Europeans have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan for America. What more could be expected from them?

Given the current discourse from some Americans and the President regarding Europe, it raises questions about why any country would want to be an ally of the United States. Europeans sacrificed their sons and daughters for America in the caves of Afghanistan and Iraq, yet some Americans think Europeans do not deserve a seat at the table. If that is the case, why would any country in the world want to be an ally with the U.S.? It seems that when the U.S. does not need an ally or domestic politics change, America might disregard its alliances for economic reasons.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The respect or fear that President Trump may command from Vladimir Putin is not relevant to the discussion. Our focus should be on global politics and United States national security. Respecting or fearing President Trump does not play a role in this relationship.

For the past eighty years, Europe and NATO have sat at the same table with the USA and fought side by side. When the United States was attacked on 9/11, it was the only time Article 5 of NATO was invoked. Sons and daughters of NATO member countries sacrificed their lives in the caves of Afghanistan for America.

America faces a clear choice: maintain its alliances that have sustained USA’ global supremacy, or abandon them to appease long-time adversary Russia.

Sounds like a quote from Justin Trudeau when he announced how he was going attempting to play hardball with Trump. Of course, that lasted a couple days.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Sounds like a quote from Justin Trudeau when he announced how he was going attempting to play hardball with Trump. Of course, that lasted a couple days.

It seems you're avoiding the question and changing the subject.

 

[wing2000]

Hopefully, it will be on America's side. So Europe, better start getting used to taking care of Europe by yourself while we look after our interests in the Pacific.

What are our interest in the Pacific?

 

[wing2000]

However, that is what puzzles me about President Trump’s supporters.

The majority of President Trump's supporters are conservative Republicans who have consistently voted for the Republican Party over the past 50 years, since the era of Ronald Reagan

...I'm doubt they are the majority. Many simply were not around or old enough to accurately recall Reagan's era and they have either forgotten or never learned the lessons of two World Wars.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Actually European countries are sending more aid to Ukraine then USA. this is the case from day one of the conflict.

View attachment 361308

The decision for the USA is clear: should they support an alliance that has been maintained for the past 80 years, or should they abandon this long-standing alliance and align with Russia, which has been an adversary since World War II?

Yes. One country, the United States, is spending almost as much as all of NATO combined to a country that isn't even a part of NATO. You don't see the problem?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What are our interest in the Pacific?

Keeping China in check so the US can maintain its status as the sole global superpower.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

...I'm doubt they are the majority. Many simply were not around or old enough to accurately recall Reagan's era and they have either forgotten or never learned the lessons of two World Wars.

The idea that China is the US's biggest adversary is driven by politics.

China is undoubtedly an adversary. Any country that threatens the U.S.'s status as the world's only superpower in economy, influence, or military is an adversary, and China fits this description.

While Europe, our closest ally, is under attack and their lands are occupied by a country that has been in conflict with the US for 80 years, China poses a comparatively lesser threat.

Some conservatives prefer to see China as an enemy because it allows them to criticize it without taking real action. To counter China, military intervention is unnecessary; one can focus on economic measures and make promises to stand up to China without genuine commitment. Republican politicians favor depicting China as an enemy to appeal to their base without taking real action against China. It's all rhetoric with no substance.

China is a potential threat, not as an aggressor, but as a country that might surpass the US in global influence. While China heavily invests in foreign aid, the US is reducing its contributions. China funds infrastructure projects in countries like Bangladesh and India, while the US cuts food aid. In another word , republican doing everything to make China Great!

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Yes. One country, the United States, is spending almost as much as all of NATO combined to a country that isn't even a part of NATO. You don't see the problem?

That is because the GDP of the United States exceeds the combined GDP of other NATO countries.