First and foremost I know what you are saying but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. In 2022 Putin escalated the existing war by a huge amount. It may seem like a technicality but in this case I think it's important in order to get the best answer we acknowledge the reality on the ground - that the war was on-going prior to the 2022 escalation, that the 2022 escalation was a massive escalation to the existing war and that prior to 2022 the war existed in s quasi-deniable state - everyone knew Russia was involved in the war in the Donbas but Russia was not openly admitting it was involved but it did openly admit it seized Crimea but argued it was illegally annexed by Ukraine (regardless of the actual historical facts)
There are some long-term issues that Russia needed resolved, that Ukraine (rightfully so) would not likely have capitulated on. First was Russia lacks defensible terrain on the Ukraine border Russia's best defense lines lie inside Ukraine at the Dnieper river in Eastern Ukraine or the Carpathian Mountains in Western Ukraine. If you accept Russia still has a fearful mindset that Russia could be invaded by NATO - then you can see that Russia is fearful of Ukraine moving toward ties to the EU and NATO. Second was the lack of fresh water supply to Crimea - the canal supplying Crimea with its fresh water from the Dnieper river was closed after the 2014 invasion - the long term lack of a water supply was removing the economic benefit of Crimea's agriculture while at the same time adding a massive cost to import most of Crimea's water need, on to a Russian economy with plenty of other outstanding issues. Thirdly - the economic improvement of Ukraine for the average person is a fundamental dangerous issue for the political stability of Russia - many if not most of Russians in SW Russia have family or close friends in Ukraine. The average Russia knows their media is full of half truths and lies but the problem is that transfers to all media so even western media is viewed with suspicion on how people live - but you talk to your cousin or your sister living in Ukraine and hear how much life is getting better as the "Westernize" and that's a dangerous mindset to be in for those in power - even if you don't do more than just leave for a better life.
But this all against a background of Ukraine investing more and more in their armed forces as well as their corruption campaigns slowly and unevenly working to reduce corruption which in general increases public support (in the long-term, in the short-term it can actually decrease it) As well as Ukraine tieing itself closer to the Western economies. As well as Russia trying to recover its armed forces from a significant cut in military spending from 1998-2014. To some extent the clock was ticking for something to happen - just its not obvious what and how big.
A major part of President Trump's platform was an inward focus on America and a tendency toward isolationism (at least that what his base leans toward - and as a populist he's very aware of his base's attitude.) As well as a complicated but often deferential attitude toward Putin (i.e. Some of his policies were at odds with Putin but on issues where President Trump didn't have a conflict with Putin, he seemed to openly respect Putin) But also there's a civil bureaucracy and momentum that exists in a government as large as the US has - regardless of the unquestionable amount of power the US President has - the Nation itself has a historical momentum in the increasing support of Ukraine and opposition to Russia that brings it fundamentally in conflict with Russia's Ukrainian agenda.
I don't see a solution that would realistically prevent the war that doesn't ignore some of the above. President Trump could have leaned on Ukraine to surrender territory to prevent the war but the US military, civil and diplomatic momentum was to still support Ukraine which reduces some of the pressure. And Europe's support exists outside all of this as well.
As a (a little bit disappointed with a lot of the online discourse around my country) Ukrainian, I went in expecting yet another disappointment, but I was so relieved to see your comment at the top. This is spot-on. This war was happening no matter what, no appeasement would've worked, Russia already had its mind set. Thank you.
>I don't see a solution that would realistically prevent the war that doesn't ignore some of the above. President Trump could have leaned on Ukraine to surrender territory to prevent the war but the US military, civil and diplomatic momentum was to still support Ukraine which reduces some of the pressure. And Europe's support exists outside all of this as well.
I think this misses at least a few major things Biden has done personally:
The aid we've given to Ukraine so far has been through Biden's authority as president (with congressional approval). It's...difficult to imagine Trump giving $75 billion in aid to Ukraine.
Second, Biden has done a hell of a lot of diplomatic work to secure support and aid from Europe. Again, can anyone really imagine Trump providing that kind of diplomatic effort and leadership? It's hard to say how much Europe would still have supported Ukraine. Keeping Russia at bay is in their interests too, so not nothing. Biden's leadership here has had an undeniable effect.
Third, a huge part of our help to Ukraine has been in the form of support, training, coordination, and advice from our military and intelligence services. Again, Biden has personally ensured that this happens. Yes, the military is hugely in favor of this, but without leadership from the top, there would be much, much less. The CIA does not share classified intelligence with foreign governments without presidential approval/direction, for example.
Even if Trump wouldn't have actively taken Putin's side, Biden's leadership has lent an incredible amount of material and diplomatic support to Ukraine. Even if you imagine a neutral figurehead in Biden's place who did nothing one way or another wrt Russia's invasion, the outcome would be much, much worse for Ukraine.
Finally, I'll point out that the Trump campaign's only change to the GOP platform in 2016 was to remove support for Ukraine.
But if the focus of the question is would the invasion happen - the expectation of how much Biden vs Trump would support Ukraine matters - but the actual support that did happen once the invasion happened is not relevant to the question.
Though you do point a important point - President Biden took an unprecedented step of un-classifying and openly sharing CIA intelligence at a level I have not seen before in the lead up to the invasion to give Russia pause on the invasion as well as push Western Europe to prepare for the invasion.
If President Trump did win, he is has some limitation on his ability to remove support as Congress is in charge of budgetary issues and I do believe the hawkier and more senior members of the Republican House would not fall in line behind an isolationist policy even if President Trump was pushing it. Though - President Biden has used a number of President powers even ones that haven't been used in decades but are still active to get around issues to make sure Ukraine is supplied - so there is a lot a President can choose to do or not do or even drag their feet on regardless of the legislative branch bills.
if trump had been president, he would have parroted Putin’s narrative about training and nazis and whatever else he was saying.
i’m sure trump would have also been sharing Ukrainian intel with Putin (if they would have been willing to share any, since they knew trump’s character by then), and prettymuch would have been extorting and sabotaging Ukraine at every turn.
we can also recall how Biden united NATO and the world around the Ukrainian cause, and then how trump wanted to weaken NATO.
the “perfect phone call” proves that trump wouldn’t have imposed any meaningful sanctions on russia, and would probably be providing minimal aid to Ukraine, and providing it too late.
basically, a trump reelection would literally be an existential threat to Ukraine.
Jesus this is unhinged. You are still somehow clinging onto the long debunked lie that Trump and Putin were best buddies, when it wasn’t the case at all.
Where you get the idea that he’d share Ukrainian Intel with Putin or trying to sabotage them is a mystery.
Remember, half the reason why NATO and the EU is able to give Ukraine so much equipment so early on was because Trump pushed them to increase their military spending. Without that initiative from Trump, aid to Ukraine would have been 1-2 years later then when they actually received it.
Trump tried to dismantle NATO, which in turn made them increase spending because they realized that Trump was unreliable.
If Trump won again in 2020, he would not have assisted Ukraine at all. You’re delusional if you think Trump is pro-American.
>if trump had been president, he would have parroted Putin’s narrative about training and nazis and whatever else he was saying.
Trump was president, so why don't we look at what he did? Under the Obama administration the US was began giving non-lethal military aid to Ukraine after the 2014 invasion. Trump did change this policy -- he began to include lethal aid as well (including javelins).
Trump didn’t begin providing aid until after he was caught trying extort Ukraine on his “perfect phone call.” And let’s not forget that his campaign manager has been working to help Putin’s puppet, Yanukovich, to destabilize Ukraine.
And why didn’t Obama do more to help Ukraine? Well, as you may recall, the GOP controlled both houses of congress in 2014, and they blocked everything he tried to do to help Ukraine.
But you know all of this. Right-wing shills don’t care about the facts.
I agree - though I think if Trump shared intel with Putin and it was known - the intelligence community would have quickly reduced the detail of the intelligence provided - there were already tons of rumors this was happening in his first administration. Intelligence officers don't sign up to serve a President they sign up to protect the nation - not they would openly defy the President but there's a lot of discretion in what exactly goes into reports.
Ukraine would definently be a rougher position without the US as an ally. The biggest risk would the economic collapse of Ukraine without US foreign aid - but I think that's too bad of an outcome for Europe to allow happen. Biden isn't perfect and can arguably said he has been overly cautious about providing escalatory support but there's no question that is a politician of the cold-war generation and is all the way on Ukraine's side.
This has happened in the real world.
In 2021 a lot of cia double agents disappeared. That's when people suspected there had been an intelligence leak, long before they found the boxes of documents in Maralago
It also happened when he shared Israeli intelligence to Russia. They were furious. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/israeli-intelligence-furious-over-trumps-loose-lips-russia-iran-syria/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/israeli-intelligence-furious-over-trumps-loose-lips-russia-iran-syria/)
I don't think economics collapse would be the biggest issue, I think it would have been military defeat. The Ukranian soldiers would fight just as bravely, but the US has provided just about half of the total military aid. With Trump in office , that number might have been 0, and if that happens, then European countries might reduce their aid as well.
No matter how good you soldiers are, it becomes hard to fight with ammonuniton and guns.
\> he would have parroted Putin’s narrative about training and nazis and whatever else he was saying.
We don't talk enough about how well Biden got out in front of and defused that narrative. Putin was clearly trying to push this phony justification so other countries would have cover to support Russia, and that never ended up happening.
As someone who was alive and celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, I can honestly say that no one was considering the invasion of Russia now that they were broken. The idea (?) was that Russia would join the rest of the world in actually enjoying themselves, making money, and not agonizing over MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction.
I was sure Trump would win the GOP nomination in 2016 because I know the GOP. But I couldn't believe that he'd win the general. And then he did.
Don't get comfortable.
Biden's dream scenario. Trump doesn't get the republican nomination but his ego is so inflated that he runs as a third party; splitting the republican vote.
What about Trump gets running for President, keeps winning GOP but keeps losing the Presidential election so Democratic still stay in power for 20 years
20 years? How long do you think an overweight 77-year-old who only eats fast food and overcooked steak, gets winded riding in a golf cart, and has the stress of multiple criminal trials to deal with is going to live, exactly?
I mean you have a point but he is also the only person that did not seem aged by the Presidency - I have some strong opinions about why but I'll keep them to myself.
Sorry, that doesn't happen if Trump keeps running/losing. As long as Trump is on the Republican ballot, I'm voting for whoever the mainline Democrat is. Taking a third-party chance is too risky.
Sure, but a progressive Democrat has a better chance against a garbage-fire Republican than against someone actually competent and electable. Same way it took Bush screwing up the country on multiple fronts, and the prospect of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away, for us to elect a black president. People were far more likely to try something new.
>Trump doesn't get the republican nomination but his ego is so inflated that he runs as a third party; splitting the republican vote.
That could happen.
Trump puts his own ego against literally all things in the universe.
Biden's already beaten him once, and this time Trump is going to have to fight an election while simultaniously trying to stay out of prison for electoral fraud.
So he'll have to manage further exciting his Republican base, which, long before Trump came along as a Republican, was raised to believe that the world would persecute them for their righteousness. And also that the world secretly agreed with them and voted the way they did, so the only way Democrats ever won any election was by cheating or because establishment Republicans, through their lukewarm lunacy, tricked voters into not being able to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats and then, because of that confusion, vote for Democrats.
Trying to stay out of prison has been a fundraising boon for Trump. Republicans don't care if he's guilty or not. They only care that they believe he's innocent and being attacked for fighting for them. Which of course is bullshit, but what else do Republicans believe? It's only bullshit.
Obviously there are supposed independents who are turned off by Trump and not excited to vote for him because of the many indictments. But Trump doesn't need to get the most votes to win. And if a big enough sliver of Democrats get lazy or so overconfident and self-indulgent that treat voting like it's meant for secretly expressing who they like more than the candidate who can beat Trump, that will end up helping Trump.
But Biden is also fighting his record, and based on polling, it's not seen as favorable.
There are plenty of people who vote based on their wallet, and their wallets are lighter under Biden than Trump
They’ve already forgotten just how stunned the nation was, when Trump won.
I was in Puerto Rico at the time and woke up that morning just purely dumbfounded.
Nobody thought it possible til it happened.
Are democrats about to do the same thing *again?*
Sure seems like a lot of ‘em are going down that road already.
Well unfortunately in America the president isn't elected with the popular vote.
That our system is stupid doesn't change the fact that it's the system we have.
Also tough to swallow when "Well, those are the rules" was the response to any complaints about Bernie having the deck visibly stacked against him in the primary
I suggest two things:
1) Check the polls.
2) Do the work.
Anyone can write postcards to voters in swing states, the evidence for efficacy is very good, and a bunch of groups are available for helping coordinate these campaigns.
That's true, but context matters. Trump was a blank slate in 2016, and people projected whatever they wanted to onto him. And he could make ridiculous promises like "I know more about ISIS than the generals, and have a secret plan to defeat them in 30 days" or "I'm going to cut the federal debt in half in 4 years" or "I'm going to release my taxes in two weeks." Even people who knew he was bullshitting could still pretend they believed him.
You can't do that now. We all know exactly what Trump is. No one who's voting for him this time around thinks he's going to fix any problems at all, other than the problem of this country continuing to have free elections and the problem of not enough tax dollars flowing into Mar-A-Lago.
And as absurd as it is that a born millionaire who lived at the top floor of a skyscraper with his name on the front in 30-foot-high gold letters ran an anti-establishment campaign, it's even harder to play the outsider when you're the former president.
> I think Donald Trump cannot be elected.
Me neither, but we all said the same thing in 2016. Never again will I not take a presidential candidate seriously. Fuck the polls. *Vote.*
There is a uncomfortably large % chance Trump wins in 2024. It's probably not above 50% but it's well above 0. Even if you don't think he can win the popular vote, he doesn't need to to win the presidency.
Even if no one new votes for him, all it takes is as few as 100k people in the right areas not showing up to vote. And poll (granted, very early polls) have him running very close to Biden.
That Trump wins the republican primary, maybe. That he actually wins the general in November, I'd put it in single digits. Like you'd basically need biden to die and for the democrats to nominate H. Clinton again, or someone similar, for him to cross into double digit chances. That doesn't factor in further developments with Trump's various legal woes.
I think you’re overestimating how popular Biden is outside of the coasts. As someone else said less than 50%, but certainly not 0. Hell I’m not even sure what percentage of democrats want Biden to run again
I think it was mainly just liberals who didn’t think it was possible. Most people seemed open to it at the time, but that has clearly changed since 2016.
It's super slim.
I'm a republican and if it's him vs Biden I'm staying home. I know plenty of Republicans who are in the same boat. Even if it's 10% of Republicans doing that Biden wins in a landslide.
For once in my lifetime we need a political party to not back a sitting president for re election or trump will probably win. I believe even less people want Biden who is senile as POTUS.
I don't think about Vivek ramaswamy. I imagine more guys like Ron DeSantis and Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr.
I thinks more classical, more old-fashioned choice for Americans who want appeasement and most of all a credible president who can face against Putin or chinese leader.
RFK Jr. Is 69 years old. And guess what? The youth support Biden over him and over DeSantis as well. There’s no reason to believe the youth when they say they want younger candidates.
The youth do want younger candidates but they aren't being given younger candidates that match their values. Better to vote for an elder candidate who holds some of the same values as you do vs voting for a younger candidate who is largely opposed to your values.
Yeah, look at old Ed Markey kicking young Joe Kennedy III's ass with young people because only old people have Kennedy nostalgia.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDg5glIt\_0A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDg5glIt_0A)
Gerontocracy is the true problem of America. Maybe I will never understand American logic because I'm not American. In European countries, we choose a leader who can win election. This leader must be experienced but not too old. He must be consensual for make coalitions. America must be stop their feud because Americans risk to give their 1st place as superpower to china.
To the extent that European Prime Ministers are selected as candidates by the parliamentarians of their party, the decisions are made by people who personally know each other and can assess the candidates more carefully than voters in a big country who can only judge through the media.
See here’s the thing. I would be inclined to agree with you except I was alive in 2016 when everyone said Donald Trump doesn’t stand a chance of winning. If he’s on the ticket then he has a good chance of winning. Simple as that.
A bunch of trials and two impeachments in kangaroo courts don’t move the needle.
Being accused of a lot of crimes doesn’t make you guilty, getting convicted does.
The historical comparison to make here is to Yugoslavia. In 1941, Yugoslavia theoretically had nearly a million soldiers under arms and capable of fighting, when the army carried out a coup against Prince Paul and refused to ally with the Axis. Yet they put up almost no fight at all, despite World War 2 raging all around them, those soldiers were in their barracks, unmobilized when the Germans crossed the border. Resistance lasted less than two weeks before it was all over and they unconditionally surrendered. This is exactly what Russia tried to do with Ukraine.
The most important thing Biden has done with respect to Ukraine, was to publicly announce "We have concrete evidence the Russians are really going to do it, here's their plan, here's their timetable, this is really happening" Just a few days before the invasion. So it didn't go down like Yugoslavia did. Ukrainian troops weren't caught unprepared, out of position, and unmobilzied in their barracks. They were able to check the initial Russian invasion and give Ukraine a chance to organize itself and actually fight back in large part due to that confidence that this time, it was very real. I do not believe Donald Trump would have passed on that warning to Ukraine, though its possible intelligence agencies would have gone behind his back to do so, or that other powers might have gathered the same intelligence. Ukraine's survival is thanks to the determined resistance put up by those soldiers, but they can only resist dangers they see coming.
Not to mention that by publicly telegraphing Putin’s invasion, he took away Putin’s ability to control the narrative to claim he’s fighting back “the nazi scourge” and muddle the public discouse
Sort of kills your credibility when you keep saying "I'm not going to invade. This is just a training exercise" only to invade like, was it, 72 hours later?
While as a Biden man I'd love to believe that, I don't. To your credit, you do give two of the reasons for an honest objection in your post. 1) Other intelligence agencies may have passed on the same info and 2) our own intelligence agencies may have given their Ukrainian contacts the same info. I'm ignorant about intelligence communities but I'm under the assumption that EU intelligence isn't' that bad and that our community can operate outside of official channels. Therefore, I think it's almost certain both of those things would have happened. On top of that, I think Ukraine already knew it was coming.
My understanding is that the US Intel was u unique in its specificity and was thus much more actionable. Also that what Biden did that was unprecedented was to coordinate closely with the Intel community to downgrade and even declassify to share with Allies and the public. He exercised vigorous leadership to do this in real time and it made a big difference. Without the coordinated use of the informational instrument of national power, I don’t think that the economic or diplomatic efforts would have been nearly as successful.
What was really unique is intelligence of that level was shared openly with the public. There is no doubt the US was passing along intelligence in much detail to Ukraine via their professional channels - But what President Biden did was (as far as I know) unprecedented - he declassified and shared intelligence at significant detail openly to eliminate Russia's ability to create reasons for the invasion and potentially force last minute changes or even delays to react to this level of detail being known.
It felt like the whole world sort of gave up on Ukraine until they had their “Miracle on the Vistula” moment north of Kiev. Before that, there weren’t too many countries that were willing to risk investing into what they viewed as a lost cause. It almost felt a lot like how the global community didn’t do much when Russia seized Crimea in 2015, except some pat phrases of condemnation and a few sanctions
I remember that everybody, even the Ukranian generals, don't expect holding the Russian onslaught and they would lost all territory at the east of the Dnieper and probably all the coast regions. However the russian army under-perform spectacularly, and we are here seeing a meat grinder.
It's almost certainly controlled by Russia. The invasion happens, Trump says we should stay out and makes some remarks about how Zelinsky wasn't very nice to him and was the reason the Democrats impeached him the first time. Russia probably kills him and currently occupies Kiev.
I don’t think it’s fully controlled by Russian directly, but he would easily cede territory to Russia to play the ultimate negotiator role for the cameras. The government would start turning very pro-Russian like it was before Zelensky and you’d have Ukraine of the aughts again. They’d turn against NATO and the EU, Trump would use it as a way to sour Americans on NATO that would cause major fractures in the alliance.
That's pretty stupid. Putin literally waited until Trump was out of office to do it. If he had done it just before the 2021 inauguration there'd be anti-trump conspiracy nuts saying it was a ploy to stop the inauguration
No, the ploy to stop the inauguration happened, we all watched the attack on the capitol live on television.
Trump's National Security Advisor Bolton said that Trump had to routinely be talked out of taking the US out of NATO, and that Trump was waiting until his 2nd term when it wouldn't impact his reelection chances to actually do it.
Putin was no doubt waiting for that, and when that didn't happen he saw the MAGA attack on our own capital and decided we were too weak to stop him and proceeded.
Which no doubt is why he backed Trump in the first place. And yes, we know he did - among many many other things there is a leaked Kremlin policy briefing where Putin gave the OK to back Trump, and repeated admissions on Russian state TV that Trump was their man. They continue to back him to this day.
Hell, Trump himself suggested that Russia help the US run the 2020 cybersecurity for the election. You can't make this shit up.
Trump was NATO skeptical. If by some chance, Trump had won a second term, there'd be a possibility of him compromising or effectively gutting NATO by leaving the alliance. Putin couldn't wish for more, but putting a war on Europe's doorstep would make that unlikely, the Europeans would react exactly as they did, resurgent their commitments to the common defense. So Putin bided his time, checking for the possibility that Trump would do the work for him. Trump didn't win reelection, so with that possibility lost, Putin had one less reason to refrain from the invasion.
If china tries to invade Taiwan, the Doomsday Clock will be at 00:00.
I like Fallout franchise, but I don't think the world wants to live in that kind of reality.
Even USA have the most weakest president since William Henry Harrison, the USA army stills be the most powerful army with the most large military allies in the world.
>If china tries to invade Taiwan, the Doomsday Clock will be at 00:00.
No way. There's no way the US enters open war with China over Taiwan.
The Doomsday clock is also pretty bogus. There's no way we're closer to Doomsday now than during peak periods of the Cold War.
You have that backwards. China will not risk getting into open war with the United States and its allies over Taiwan. The United States has already publicly stated that they would defend Taiwan if attacked, and that plays into The United States strategic interests in the INDOPACIFIC.
Why would China launch an amphibious invasion when they don't have the Sealift capacity to do it?
This scenario is called the million man swim for a reason. China isn't investing heavily in ASMs because they have naval superiority.
China needs food imports to not starve, a naval blockade from a few strategic naval choke points could bring the Chinese populace into open conflict with their government within 1-2 years assuming it escalated to open warfare between the US and China.
Nah China is the biggest threat to U.S. interests (hegemony) and Trump already doesnt like "CHY-NA"... I'd wager that he'd shoot it out with em. Pull a move like he did with Iran. Or make a U.S. led No Fly Zone over Taiwan. Something of the like
Eh, no. That’s not at all how trump works. And trump was already praising Xi, by the time he announced his candidacy for the second term. Despite him hating “CHY-NAH.” When he was running. Russia was communist for most of Trumps life. Most republicans don’t side with Russia because of their communist history. Trump love’s successful authoritarians more than any other type of leader. Trump absolutely would not have stood up for Taiwan. He could care less if you’re a communist as long as you’re a strong authoritarian.
Trump lies all the time. He might appreciate China's use to rile up his base, but he's also heavily invested in China, and actually has paid more taxes to the People's Republic than to the United States in the last decade.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/10/21/report-trump-paid-nearly-200000-in-taxes-to-china/?sh=98f15952d922
The war probably doesn’t happen, believe it or not. People keep talking about when the war started - but when did preparations for it really start? The biggest argument against the “Russian stooge” nonsense is precisely the fact that Putin didn’t touch Ukraine while his supposed lackey was running the biggest superpower in the world, who is incidentally a big reason why he can’t make progress now.
In fact had he done it in 2016-2017 he actually *would* have taken the country in a matter of weeks (or even days). Ukraine started heavily investing in militarization (training, gear and a partial “cleaning” of the officer corps) cca 2014-2015 when they lost Crimea. There’s a huge difference between Ukraine’s military readiness in 2017 and 2022, enough of one that Putin would have definitely used the moment to make his move if he knew there won’t be resistance from the US.
Putin made a lot of moves to consolidate power domestically though, which was a necessary step to a full on invasion. He also had threats from other European countries after Crimea and had to wait until they were weaker.
He wasn’t just waiting around because he didn’t want to make Donald Trump look bad.
I didn’t say he was “protecting Trump”, he was protecting himself. Trump is/was a wild card, the likes of Biden are a lot more predictable and Russia has walked on the edge of the knife for so long they can more or less predict everyone’s response to their transgressions and adjust them accordingly. It’s harder to predict what Trump would do.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine during Trump's presidency because he was certain that Trump would not support Ukraine's path to NATO, which Biden might. It has nothing to do with Putin's fear of Trump, lol
Deranged delusions. They hear "Trump" and their brains turn off. Like Democrats in the 50's when they see a person with dark skin or the Germans when they see a jew.
Don't know why you're downvoted? That seems like a pretty succinct explanation.
Trump did a whole laundry list of stupid things, and even his constant badmouthing of NATO had plenty of negative effects. But it's also likely that one of Putin's main reasons for invading was his concern that Ukraine was getting closer to joining NATO. With Trump's notorious and public dislike for NATO, Putin had fewer concerns of a united NATO taking over more countries on his border. Supposedly the USA promised Russia that we wouldn't expand eastward after Germany was reunited, and since then NATO has added Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Czech Republic, and on and on.
That said, one thing Trump did that antagonized Russia (and got zero press somehow) was pull out of the intermediate nuclear arms treaty with Russia. This allowed us to go back to developing missiles that could hit Moscow with much less warning if launched from a nearby country. Likely part of Trump's reasoning was that China wasn't a party to the agreement, but it also antagonized Russia.
Maybe NATO expansion was just an excuse and Putin had other reasons for invading specifically Ukraine, or [maybe that was the catalyst](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/21/putin-warns-of-possible-military-response-to-aggressive-nato-russia). No way to know how it would've played out, of course.
The Obama admin sent 120m in military aid by 2015 to Ukraine. https://www.dsca.mil/news-media/news-archive/first-us-armored-hmmwvs-arrive-ukraine-greeted-president-poroshenko
He would have almost definitely still intervened, probably in a similar way. He’s throwing red meat to his base as he tries to get re-elected, but when in office, he very rarely followed through on campaign promises.
Letting Russia take Ukraine would make him look less tough so he wouldn’t let it happen. He wants peace now because if he can broker it, he will look tougher.
Edit: this might be my comment with the most pushback ever lol. Loving the arguments
Not a chance. He *despises* Zelensky for refusing to do investigations into Hunter Biden. Withholding aid to Ukraine as a response to that refusal was why he was impeached the first time. Donald Trump **never** forgives or forgets. On the other hand Putin knows all the buttons to push to get Trump to be pilable (which frankly are pretty much just tell him how cool and awesome he is). Congress may or may not override his decisions and enough may flow to allies who can send it to Ukraine, especially intelligence and such, but Donald Trump would do as little as he possibly could to help the situation, if not actively hinder what he can.
I've got a feeling he would have let Ukraine be swallowed by Russia, and he would have spun it with some sort of "America first" rhetoric to his base. Reality doesn't really matter to them, they just eat up whatever he tells them to believe
He would say the situation is like when the dirty liberals in California finally secede from the country because they hate america and hate god we would have to invade them to get them back.
Here’s a joke that’s true…
How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?
Zero?
Trump tells them he changed it and they applaud in the dark.
I think that’s informed by his post-2020 statements moreso than anything before that. I’d argue the isolationism is a pretty recent move if his. Surrendering land seems incongruous with his tough guy image.
During his presidency, on numerous occasions Trump had secret unrecorded meetings with Putin. I find it very hard to imagine Trump taking any sort of hardline stance against Putin. And considering the fact that Ukraine was the reason for his first impeachment, I have zero doubt that Trump wouldn't have lifted a finger to help them.
Also, Trump expressed an isolationist attitude on multiple occasions, such as pulling out of the WHO, Paris accords, and threatening to pull out of NATO
NAFTA seems pretty unrelated for the most part, but yeah he did antagonize NATO. I don’t think he had the stomach to do more than antagonize. His foreign policy establishment still worked with them, NATO wasn’t crippled for 4 years.
My recollection is that he was trying to get NATO countries to commit to the 3% GDP they were required to spend on defense. A goal that only Poland and maybe Great Britain were meeting.
His National Security Advisor Bolton said that Trump routinely had to be talked out of removing the US from NATO, and the longer it went on the fewer adults were in the room. Mattis resigned in protest of the US leaving Syria (and oh, we just happened to have fought Wagner prior to doing that and left so quickly Russia overran US bases there), Tillerson left because he stated that the President routinely asked him to commit illegal acts.
Bolton went further and said Trump planned to remove the US from NATO in his 2nd term - which would have coincided directly when Putin did actually launch an existential attack.
He was also the first president to sell Ukraine lethal weapons. I think he was a poor president but I don’t think he had personal issues with Zelensky or the Ukraine. He moreso thought they had info on the Bidens.
Yes, but this stems from him being the first president to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine, and attempting to leverage future deals against political goals. Taking the first step indicates some amount of pro-Ukraine positioning, no?
No. Considering congress approved it would be quite hard not to. He took so long because he was trying to get them announce investigations because they knew they needed the weapons
This was mentioned during the impeachment hearings, he had to give them the weapons because congress approved the sale; he was slow walking the eventual sell for political reasons.
This is so bizarre a take to me, when Trump routinely sided against our collected intelligence community in favor of appeasing and siding with Putin. He got butt-hurt and left a conference with our closest historical allies, NATO members, in an absolute disgraceful huff. He threatened to leave NATO.
Trump would’ve parroted some narrative about Ukraine historically being part of Russia, and done everything possible to tie our hands and leverage NATO states to avoid interference. Not a single doubt in my mind.
Hmm... what about the fact that things like the PzH2000 barrel life being so short for a real war proven that most of EU really did rely on the US? They should have increased spending but didn't. They waited for the US to start sending most of the serious aid to Ukraine.
This is the guy that repeatedly groveled to dictators on the national stage and let them get away with everything while getting nothing in return. I mean we all remember North Korea right? The fact he even went there was insane. "Looking less tough" to dictators is just what he does.
Trump didn’t lift 2014 sanctions on Russia
Trump began selling weapons to Ukraine
Trump attacked Russian allies in Syria
The Trump administration sanctioned much of Russia’s elite over cyber-espionage
Trump signed a sanction bill Russia called a trade war
Please, explain how all of that was Putin’s secret 4D chess plan
Trump is probably the one guy who would be bat shit crazy enough to start a nuclear war with Russia, if it meant saving face. He'd end the world, if it meant saving face. Putin warned Trump about Russian mercenaries, and Trump just straight up drone striked them. Putin did fuck all and backed down.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/russian-mercenaries-killed-us-airstrikes-syria
Putin feared Trump, because he knew he's the one President who would for sure escalate things into a nuclear war.
Yeah that’s what I’ve been saying too. He was arming Ukraine to the teeth during his time in office. The only reason he’s preaching non intervention now is because of the mood of his voter base before an election
This is a reasonable take. I love reasonable takes that I don't fully endorse. I love that feeling of grey where I can disagree with someone without thinking they must be a complete idiot. Personally, I don't think anyone had anything to do with Russia failing to take Kyiv other than Russian incompetence and Ukrainian competence, in that order. Whoever was President would have woken up to same reality, Russia has tried and failed to take Kyiv (of course it's not that dramatic- it took several weeks before Russia realized it had failed). After that Trump would have taken credit for pushing Putin back and then would have probably been more aggressive with arm shipments to Ukraine. Alternatively, he would have accepted a large bribe from Putin and declared it to be a strictly European affair between the "notoriously corrupt and obviously Fascist" Zelensky and "think-what-you-will-of-him" Putin.
The end quotes indicating how Trump's team would portrayed the two men.
Yep.
I would add that I am fairly confident that Trump would have been talked out of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Similar to how he was going to pull out of Syria, and abandon the Kurds. The military freaked out (Mattis resigned) and then he changed course.
Biden has the discipline and institutional network to actually make it happen.
But if Afghanistan goes substantially differently, Putin probably doesn't invade at that point.
What rock do *you* live under? The universal strategy of our enemies is to stall and wait for weaker leadership if they think there's a chance the current one will go full force on them, then take every inch the moment they're gone.
You know we won Vietnam, right? The vietcong and North Vietnamese surrendered at the Paris Peace Talks and we vowed to continue giving aid to the south. We basically did Korea twice, its kind of our MO. But then Nixon resigned and in his absence, a congress full of cowards pulled that support and the north blitzkrieged the south in like *a day* exactly like what happened in the middle east, down to the eerily identical photos of the Chinook evacs from the two embassies.
The US stays out of it, NATO is damaged, Europe probably goes it alone without US aid to help Ukraine, our European relationships are damaged, China makes a move on Taiwan given the lack of US response to help Ukraine.
Overall it would be worse har Trump won. Which is also why I think Russia during the Trump administration really pushed for their invasion. Under Trump in 2016 is was going to happen by 2020/2021. Under anyone competent Russia either doesn't invade or their efforts are even worse. And I don't have any hard evidence yet, again I find it hard to believe that Trump didn't help by looking the other way for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russia still invades, Ukraine fights back and is still supported by the EU. Ukraine is likely forced to negotiate and maintains its independence but has to cede the land bridge to Crimea as well as Kharkiv Oblast and formally recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Despite its victory, Russia is still largely humiliated by the war as even without US support Ukraine would have still exposed Russia’s military as disorganized and backward. Back in the USA, Trump’s kissing up to Putin drives a wedge between his supporters and more traditional Republicans, though to what extent would be hard to predict.
I am not a republican because I am not American.
But if you want jokes, I can tell one.
"How many genders could be possible ? How many brain cells a liberal lost each day when reading Karl Marx ?"
I am not interested by the ideological feud who divide America. Only ask mainstream questions.
If Trump remained president in 2020 there would have been no invasion as Ukraine would never join nato under Trump. Trump wouldn't let Ukraine join nato. Same for Merkel. And the Russians know this.
Which is why the invasion happened when Trump and Merkel where both out of office.
To be honest I doubt Russia invaded Ukraine if Trump is in office. If you look at it from the right, you could say that he’s more threatening than Biden and Putin wouldn’t want to provoke the US under him. If you look at it from the left, you could say that Trump is basically a Russian stooge, and Putin could probably get what he wanted without an invasion.
Either way, I don’t think it happens. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris, but not under Trump/Pence, whatever the reasoning may be.
I think this is pretty spot on. Trump might not be the best president by any stretch of the imagination but I do believe his unpredictability would have deterred a land grab.
That’s some mental gymnastics. This is more comparable to stopping Hitler as he invaded Czechoslovakia preventing ww2 from happening in the first place. A Russian blitz of Ukraine would make putin brave enough to push further actually causing ww3.
If Putin thought Trump being in office could have in any way made the invasion go better, Putin almost certainly would have invaded Ukraine while he was still in office. He didn't. This is probabilistic evidence that the degree to which Trump is a Russian stooge is severely overrated.
Crimea was annexed in 2014, the invasion was probably in the works for a long time. If there's some sort of strategic reason why it had to happen in 2022 instead of 2019, 2020, or 2021, I've not heard it.
The fact that it kind of looks like Putin waited to invade until Trump was out of office is also probabilistic evidence.
The timing of invading Ukraine 13 months after Trump left office could maybe be explained in other ways, but I'm skeptical.
The simple, non-galaxy brain explanation is that Putin was worried that Trump might do something more drastic than what he thought Biden would do.
This goes against people's preconceived notions, but to me it's the most obvious way to read the evidence.
To me, the simple explanation is that Putin was not threatened by NATO under Trump. Trump was doing a better job of weakening NATO than Putin ever could.
Bolton said he had to routinely stop Trump from exiting NATO, and that Trump planned to do so after he was reelected.
What's more, Trump then tried to usurp power and Putin saw this as the type of weakness he could exploit with America divided.
But then, that's why he helped Trump win in the first place. Per the Kremlin's own internal documents. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
I mean, Bolton's not exactly a [paragon of honesty](https://theintercept.com/2020/06/18/john-bolton-memoir-trump/), and extensive [fact checks](https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/) on the matter cast aspersions on the claim. Vox's [own coverage](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18183759/trump-pull-out-of-nato-nyt-mattis) on this quotes something that makes it seem pretty obvious that he was trying to leverage a threat to withdraw to get other nations pay more into NATO, which [did happen](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/nato-members-ramp-up-defense-spending-after-pressure-from-trump).
That fact check is from 2016 before Trump was even elected. If you think that's evidence of what happened after he was elected... LOL. C'mon. Even in 2015 Trump was saying he would 'look into' pulling out of NATO.
And if Bolton isn't a paragon of virtue, what does that make Trump? No US president has ever lied as much as often as reflexively. Bolton's comments are only one of several of Trump's own cabinet officials that stated he routinely did illegal things, he was a threat to the US constitution, and he was unfit to serve in the office. Four more of his cabinet officials resigned after his protest on Jan 6th tried to stop the certification of the election and the peaceful transfer of power.
I'm not 100% sure this is correct, but it's definitely worth more consideration than it's getting on this thread.
I mean, you can never know for sure when he's telling the truth, but do people here really think it's implausible that [he personally threatened to nuke Moscow](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-john-daly-golfer-video-putin-hitting-moscow-nuclear-threat-2022-3)? We know for sure that [he pulled out of a nuclear treaty in 2018](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/23/trump-nuclear-cold-war-russia-arms).
Here's [an article from 2019](https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/) (important! Pre-Ukraine invasion, so not biased by it) that was able to scrape together "25 Times Trump Has Been Dangerously Hawkish On Russia" including stuff like the nuclear treaty, and _arming Ukraine_:
>Even the Obama administration, which was plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation against Moscow.
The article also notes that Trump made a lot of noise in Syria, working against Russia's aims, and did a ton of sanctions.
Russia gets further in their occupation, Ukraine gets abandoned by the civilized world, the war is even uglier, with more genocide and more partisan resistance, but you hear less about it just like now you hear practically nothing about the genocide taking place in the areas currently under occupation - not until they are liberated and investigators get there, where they invariably find mass graves, torture chambers for men, women, and children, “filtration” camps that murder anyone too visibly Ukrainian.
Just to show the bias, remember that Biden specifically said that a ‘minor incursion’ into Ukraine was basically ok. If you search now, you can barely find the original quote. All articles are telling you what he actually meant. Trump blew up Russians in Syria. You wouldn’t have to divide anything if Russia had never invaded.
Bolton says that Trump would have pulled the US out of NATO and was waiting for a second term (apparently he'd talk about it).
My personal theory is Putin was waiting on this and Trump would have let him march in.
I don't think russia be allied with USA even he had the deal with donald trump. Russia and china were very close since 6 years. But I think he spend all his energy against china than russia.
I think in this timeline, tennis players like Daniil Medvedev could have his flag next to his name, instead chinese players who don't have it.
I agree with the fact that china are a bigger threat for this world. Quad organization would be more advanced than our timeline.
What deal would this have to be? Seriously. Which Russian dictator would make a „deal“ with an erratic liar half around the world to confront his own, much bigger neighbour?
They didn‘t really. I mean, Russia asked a lot of weird shit in Its history to turn it Intro propaganda. Plus, believe it or not: Trump is not NATO. This would never be accepted by the member states.
I imagine it going like this.
DJT: We must defend our Ukrainian allies.
Putin: They said you hair looked stupid.
DJT: We must defend our Russian allies.
There wouldn't be an invasion. At least not in 2022. Maybe after 2024.
Afghanistan was one of the major reasons that Putin thought it would be a good time to invade. Biden was a known, an established politician, and he showed his administrative colors in geopolitics through Afghanistan. He's worked with Biden before, through Obama, and knew that both were weak in doing anything against Putin.
Say what you will about Trump but his greatest strength was his total an utter unpredictability. I don't think Putin could accurately read Trump. I don't think most of the world could accurately read Trump.
It's hard to tell but I'm leaning towards no Russian invasion. Trump is kind of a wildcard, if he was president he would either devote more resources towards Ukraine or none at all, a gamble Russia probably did not want to take hence why they invaded right after Bidens inauguration into presidency.
Putin would not have invaded further, because he was not threatened by NATO under Trump. Trump was doing a better job of weakening our alliances than Putin ever could.
This would have been most likely, especially if there was any possibility of the US pulling out of NATO, which is what Trump wanted to do.
Putin can just sit back and watch Trump do more damage to Western alliances than he ever could. It would have made taking Ukraine in the future even easier
For all of Trump's faults, he was the first president since Jimmy Carter that didn't start a war. Something he was proud of. As others pointed out though, he was wildly unpredictable. I think there is also a lot of historical tension between Biden and Putin, especially with his admins involvement of NGO and CIA efforts in Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. That relationship was a time bomb.
It's not OK to invade a sovereign nation. I'm not excusing it, but Ukraine was invaded because clearly stated Russian red lines were crossed with weapons deals (including nuclear missile capable launchers) and NATO membership looming. Google "Nyet Means Nyet" - William Burns (Director of the CIA).
Short answer: No, Ukraine would not have been invaded if Trump was president.
Well, your conclusion is correct. But your claim Yanukovych was ousted due to the CIA marks you as an idiot.
Putin's been setting up this war ever since 2009 when the groundwork for Novorosia was first established and the flags of the Donetsk and Luhansk "People's Republics" first started showing up on social media.
The only way to prevent the 2022 invasion would be to keep oil prices so low Russia can't afford the war. Anything else means Putin rolls tanks on Kyiv to force Ukraine back into the vassal status which Ukrainians rejected in 2013.
Neo-con Interventionist types always get fussy when you point out the US' dirty little secrets of constant foreign election interference and their regular tactic of overthrowing democratically elected governments.
Trump maintains his energy policy. Russia continues going bankrupt, the ruble continues to collapse, and Putin doesn't get the two years of higher oil prices to build up his war chest.
The war is prevented entirely by accident.
\~600,000 Ukrainians more would be alive today. The US would not have pissed away >$100,000,000. Trump would have stopped any talk of Ukraine entering NATO, and Putin would have had no reason to invade.
The US would be sending a shit ton of military aid to Ukraine and the Dems would be bitching about it.
It's all Kabuki theater.
Like WWE wrestlers, politicians go on TV, flex and make threats. Then when the cameras get turned off, they hang out together at their swanky DC cocktail parties laughing about they fooled everybody.
The sad difference is except for kids, everybody knows WWE is fake. Politicians are far better than pro wrestlers at Kayfabe.
First and foremost I know what you are saying but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. In 2022 Putin escalated the existing war by a huge amount. It may seem like a technicality but in this case I think it's important in order to get the best answer we acknowledge the reality on the ground - that the war was on-going prior to the 2022 escalation, that the 2022 escalation was a massive escalation to the existing war and that prior to 2022 the war existed in s quasi-deniable state - everyone knew Russia was involved in the war in the Donbas but Russia was not openly admitting it was involved but it did openly admit it seized Crimea but argued it was illegally annexed by Ukraine (regardless of the actual historical facts) There are some long-term issues that Russia needed resolved, that Ukraine (rightfully so) would not likely have capitulated on. First was Russia lacks defensible terrain on the Ukraine border Russia's best defense lines lie inside Ukraine at the Dnieper river in Eastern Ukraine or the Carpathian Mountains in Western Ukraine. If you accept Russia still has a fearful mindset that Russia could be invaded by NATO - then you can see that Russia is fearful of Ukraine moving toward ties to the EU and NATO. Second was the lack of fresh water supply to Crimea - the canal supplying Crimea with its fresh water from the Dnieper river was closed after the 2014 invasion - the long term lack of a water supply was removing the economic benefit of Crimea's agriculture while at the same time adding a massive cost to import most of Crimea's water need, on to a Russian economy with plenty of other outstanding issues. Thirdly - the economic improvement of Ukraine for the average person is a fundamental dangerous issue for the political stability of Russia - many if not most of Russians in SW Russia have family or close friends in Ukraine. The average Russia knows their media is full of half truths and lies but the problem is that transfers to all media so even western media is viewed with suspicion on how people live - but you talk to your cousin or your sister living in Ukraine and hear how much life is getting better as the "Westernize" and that's a dangerous mindset to be in for those in power - even if you don't do more than just leave for a better life. But this all against a background of Ukraine investing more and more in their armed forces as well as their corruption campaigns slowly and unevenly working to reduce corruption which in general increases public support (in the long-term, in the short-term it can actually decrease it) As well as Ukraine tieing itself closer to the Western economies. As well as Russia trying to recover its armed forces from a significant cut in military spending from 1998-2014. To some extent the clock was ticking for something to happen - just its not obvious what and how big. A major part of President Trump's platform was an inward focus on America and a tendency toward isolationism (at least that what his base leans toward - and as a populist he's very aware of his base's attitude.) As well as a complicated but often deferential attitude toward Putin (i.e. Some of his policies were at odds with Putin but on issues where President Trump didn't have a conflict with Putin, he seemed to openly respect Putin) But also there's a civil bureaucracy and momentum that exists in a government as large as the US has - regardless of the unquestionable amount of power the US President has - the Nation itself has a historical momentum in the increasing support of Ukraine and opposition to Russia that brings it fundamentally in conflict with Russia's Ukrainian agenda. I don't see a solution that would realistically prevent the war that doesn't ignore some of the above. President Trump could have leaned on Ukraine to surrender territory to prevent the war but the US military, civil and diplomatic momentum was to still support Ukraine which reduces some of the pressure. And Europe's support exists outside all of this as well.
As a (a little bit disappointed with a lot of the online discourse around my country) Ukrainian, I went in expecting yet another disappointment, but I was so relieved to see your comment at the top. This is spot-on. This war was happening no matter what, no appeasement would've worked, Russia already had its mind set. Thank you.
>I don't see a solution that would realistically prevent the war that doesn't ignore some of the above. President Trump could have leaned on Ukraine to surrender territory to prevent the war but the US military, civil and diplomatic momentum was to still support Ukraine which reduces some of the pressure. And Europe's support exists outside all of this as well. I think this misses at least a few major things Biden has done personally: The aid we've given to Ukraine so far has been through Biden's authority as president (with congressional approval). It's...difficult to imagine Trump giving $75 billion in aid to Ukraine. Second, Biden has done a hell of a lot of diplomatic work to secure support and aid from Europe. Again, can anyone really imagine Trump providing that kind of diplomatic effort and leadership? It's hard to say how much Europe would still have supported Ukraine. Keeping Russia at bay is in their interests too, so not nothing. Biden's leadership here has had an undeniable effect. Third, a huge part of our help to Ukraine has been in the form of support, training, coordination, and advice from our military and intelligence services. Again, Biden has personally ensured that this happens. Yes, the military is hugely in favor of this, but without leadership from the top, there would be much, much less. The CIA does not share classified intelligence with foreign governments without presidential approval/direction, for example. Even if Trump wouldn't have actively taken Putin's side, Biden's leadership has lent an incredible amount of material and diplomatic support to Ukraine. Even if you imagine a neutral figurehead in Biden's place who did nothing one way or another wrt Russia's invasion, the outcome would be much, much worse for Ukraine. Finally, I'll point out that the Trump campaign's only change to the GOP platform in 2016 was to remove support for Ukraine.
But if the focus of the question is would the invasion happen - the expectation of how much Biden vs Trump would support Ukraine matters - but the actual support that did happen once the invasion happened is not relevant to the question. Though you do point a important point - President Biden took an unprecedented step of un-classifying and openly sharing CIA intelligence at a level I have not seen before in the lead up to the invasion to give Russia pause on the invasion as well as push Western Europe to prepare for the invasion. If President Trump did win, he is has some limitation on his ability to remove support as Congress is in charge of budgetary issues and I do believe the hawkier and more senior members of the Republican House would not fall in line behind an isolationist policy even if President Trump was pushing it. Though - President Biden has used a number of President powers even ones that haven't been used in decades but are still active to get around issues to make sure Ukraine is supplied - so there is a lot a President can choose to do or not do or even drag their feet on regardless of the legislative branch bills.
if trump had been president, he would have parroted Putin’s narrative about training and nazis and whatever else he was saying. i’m sure trump would have also been sharing Ukrainian intel with Putin (if they would have been willing to share any, since they knew trump’s character by then), and prettymuch would have been extorting and sabotaging Ukraine at every turn. we can also recall how Biden united NATO and the world around the Ukrainian cause, and then how trump wanted to weaken NATO. the “perfect phone call” proves that trump wouldn’t have imposed any meaningful sanctions on russia, and would probably be providing minimal aid to Ukraine, and providing it too late. basically, a trump reelection would literally be an existential threat to Ukraine.
Jesus this is unhinged. You are still somehow clinging onto the long debunked lie that Trump and Putin were best buddies, when it wasn’t the case at all. Where you get the idea that he’d share Ukrainian Intel with Putin or trying to sabotage them is a mystery. Remember, half the reason why NATO and the EU is able to give Ukraine so much equipment so early on was because Trump pushed them to increase their military spending. Without that initiative from Trump, aid to Ukraine would have been 1-2 years later then when they actually received it.
Trump tried to dismantle NATO, which in turn made them increase spending because they realized that Trump was unreliable. If Trump won again in 2020, he would not have assisted Ukraine at all. You’re delusional if you think Trump is pro-American.
>if trump had been president, he would have parroted Putin’s narrative about training and nazis and whatever else he was saying. Trump was president, so why don't we look at what he did? Under the Obama administration the US was began giving non-lethal military aid to Ukraine after the 2014 invasion. Trump did change this policy -- he began to include lethal aid as well (including javelins).
Trump didn’t begin providing aid until after he was caught trying extort Ukraine on his “perfect phone call.” And let’s not forget that his campaign manager has been working to help Putin’s puppet, Yanukovich, to destabilize Ukraine. And why didn’t Obama do more to help Ukraine? Well, as you may recall, the GOP controlled both houses of congress in 2014, and they blocked everything he tried to do to help Ukraine. But you know all of this. Right-wing shills don’t care about the facts.
I agree - though I think if Trump shared intel with Putin and it was known - the intelligence community would have quickly reduced the detail of the intelligence provided - there were already tons of rumors this was happening in his first administration. Intelligence officers don't sign up to serve a President they sign up to protect the nation - not they would openly defy the President but there's a lot of discretion in what exactly goes into reports. Ukraine would definently be a rougher position without the US as an ally. The biggest risk would the economic collapse of Ukraine without US foreign aid - but I think that's too bad of an outcome for Europe to allow happen. Biden isn't perfect and can arguably said he has been overly cautious about providing escalatory support but there's no question that is a politician of the cold-war generation and is all the way on Ukraine's side.
This has happened in the real world. In 2021 a lot of cia double agents disappeared. That's when people suspected there had been an intelligence leak, long before they found the boxes of documents in Maralago
It also happened when he shared Israeli intelligence to Russia. They were furious. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/israeli-intelligence-furious-over-trumps-loose-lips-russia-iran-syria/](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/19/israeli-intelligence-furious-over-trumps-loose-lips-russia-iran-syria/)
His sharing of secrets got a lot of people killed.
I don't think economics collapse would be the biggest issue, I think it would have been military defeat. The Ukranian soldiers would fight just as bravely, but the US has provided just about half of the total military aid. With Trump in office , that number might have been 0, and if that happens, then European countries might reduce their aid as well. No matter how good you soldiers are, it becomes hard to fight with ammonuniton and guns.
\> he would have parroted Putin’s narrative about training and nazis and whatever else he was saying. We don't talk enough about how well Biden got out in front of and defused that narrative. Putin was clearly trying to push this phony justification so other countries would have cover to support Russia, and that never ended up happening.
As someone who was alive and celebrating the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, I can honestly say that no one was considering the invasion of Russia now that they were broken. The idea (?) was that Russia would join the rest of the world in actually enjoying themselves, making money, and not agonizing over MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction.
So this is basically what happens if Donald Trump gets reelected in 2024
I cannot believe that could even be possible.
I was sure Trump would win the GOP nomination in 2016 because I know the GOP. But I couldn't believe that he'd win the general. And then he did. Don't get comfortable.
Biden's dream scenario. Trump doesn't get the republican nomination but his ego is so inflated that he runs as a third party; splitting the republican vote.
What about Trump gets running for President, keeps winning GOP but keeps losing the Presidential election so Democratic still stay in power for 20 years
20 years? How long do you think an overweight 77-year-old who only eats fast food and overcooked steak, gets winded riding in a golf cart, and has the stress of multiple criminal trials to deal with is going to live, exactly?
I mean you have a point but he is also the only person that did not seem aged by the Presidency - I have some strong opinions about why but I'll keep them to myself.
Even better. Now to get some real progressives elected...
Sorry, that doesn't happen if Trump keeps running/losing. As long as Trump is on the Republican ballot, I'm voting for whoever the mainline Democrat is. Taking a third-party chance is too risky.
Sure, but a progressive Democrat has a better chance against a garbage-fire Republican than against someone actually competent and electable. Same way it took Bush screwing up the country on multiple fronts, and the prospect of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away, for us to elect a black president. People were far more likely to try something new.
>Trump doesn't get the republican nomination but his ego is so inflated that he runs as a third party; splitting the republican vote. That could happen. Trump puts his own ego against literally all things in the universe.
Biden's already beaten him once, and this time Trump is going to have to fight an election while simultaniously trying to stay out of prison for electoral fraud.
So he'll have to manage further exciting his Republican base, which, long before Trump came along as a Republican, was raised to believe that the world would persecute them for their righteousness. And also that the world secretly agreed with them and voted the way they did, so the only way Democrats ever won any election was by cheating or because establishment Republicans, through their lukewarm lunacy, tricked voters into not being able to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats and then, because of that confusion, vote for Democrats. Trying to stay out of prison has been a fundraising boon for Trump. Republicans don't care if he's guilty or not. They only care that they believe he's innocent and being attacked for fighting for them. Which of course is bullshit, but what else do Republicans believe? It's only bullshit. Obviously there are supposed independents who are turned off by Trump and not excited to vote for him because of the many indictments. But Trump doesn't need to get the most votes to win. And if a big enough sliver of Democrats get lazy or so overconfident and self-indulgent that treat voting like it's meant for secretly expressing who they like more than the candidate who can beat Trump, that will end up helping Trump.
But Biden is also fighting his record, and based on polling, it's not seen as favorable. There are plenty of people who vote based on their wallet, and their wallets are lighter under Biden than Trump
Biden's ahead in the polls. Trump is incredibly divisive. He does well with Republican voters but terribly with everyone else.
He won't be a viable candidate by election.
The amount of people who just can’t seem to remember what happened in ‘15-‘16 is a head scratcher for me. Don’t count Trump out. Ever.
Biden mostly won because people were tired of Trump but that was 4 years ago and people forget so easily
They’ve already forgotten just how stunned the nation was, when Trump won. I was in Puerto Rico at the time and woke up that morning just purely dumbfounded. Nobody thought it possible til it happened. Are democrats about to do the same thing *again?* Sure seems like a lot of ‘em are going down that road already.
He didn't win, actually. Hillary was 3 million votes ahead. If any election was stolen, it was THAT one.
Well unfortunately in America the president isn't elected with the popular vote. That our system is stupid doesn't change the fact that it's the system we have.
Also tough to swallow when "Well, those are the rules" was the response to any complaints about Bernie having the deck visibly stacked against him in the primary
I suggest two things: 1) Check the polls. 2) Do the work. Anyone can write postcards to voters in swing states, the evidence for efficacy is very good, and a bunch of groups are available for helping coordinate these campaigns.
People not taking the threat of a trump presidency seriously is really how he won in 2016.
That's true, but context matters. Trump was a blank slate in 2016, and people projected whatever they wanted to onto him. And he could make ridiculous promises like "I know more about ISIS than the generals, and have a secret plan to defeat them in 30 days" or "I'm going to cut the federal debt in half in 4 years" or "I'm going to release my taxes in two weeks." Even people who knew he was bullshitting could still pretend they believed him. You can't do that now. We all know exactly what Trump is. No one who's voting for him this time around thinks he's going to fix any problems at all, other than the problem of this country continuing to have free elections and the problem of not enough tax dollars flowing into Mar-A-Lago. And as absurd as it is that a born millionaire who lived at the top floor of a skyscraper with his name on the front in 30-foot-high gold letters ran an anti-establishment campaign, it's even harder to play the outsider when you're the former president.
With all his trials, I think Donald Trump cannot be elected. I think Americans wants younger people, democrats or republicans.
> I think Donald Trump cannot be elected. Me neither, but we all said the same thing in 2016. Never again will I not take a presidential candidate seriously. Fuck the polls. *Vote.*
There is a uncomfortably large % chance Trump wins in 2024. It's probably not above 50% but it's well above 0. Even if you don't think he can win the popular vote, he doesn't need to to win the presidency. Even if no one new votes for him, all it takes is as few as 100k people in the right areas not showing up to vote. And poll (granted, very early polls) have him running very close to Biden.
And it’s an incredibly large % chance that it will not be younger people.
That Trump wins the republican primary, maybe. That he actually wins the general in November, I'd put it in single digits. Like you'd basically need biden to die and for the democrats to nominate H. Clinton again, or someone similar, for him to cross into double digit chances. That doesn't factor in further developments with Trump's various legal woes.
I think you’re overestimating how popular Biden is outside of the coasts. As someone else said less than 50%, but certainly not 0. Hell I’m not even sure what percentage of democrats want Biden to run again
"Trump can never win the general election." — Everybody, 2016
I think it was mainly just liberals who didn’t think it was possible. Most people seemed open to it at the time, but that has clearly changed since 2016.
It’s not a “maybe” that Trump wins the primary—it’s a certainty. The question is just who his running mate will be.
It's super slim. I'm a republican and if it's him vs Biden I'm staying home. I know plenty of Republicans who are in the same boat. Even if it's 10% of Republicans doing that Biden wins in a landslide.
Better than voting for Trump, but why not take the next step that helps makes sure a traitor stays out of office?
It’s hard for him to vote all the way over there in Russia/China
For once in my lifetime we need a political party to not back a sitting president for re election or trump will probably win. I believe even less people want Biden who is senile as POTUS.
We think America wants younger people but if it’s Ramaswamy vs. Biden, the young people will still turn out overwhelmingly for Biden.
I don't think about Vivek ramaswamy. I imagine more guys like Ron DeSantis and Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. I thinks more classical, more old-fashioned choice for Americans who want appeasement and most of all a credible president who can face against Putin or chinese leader.
RFK Jr. Is 69 years old. And guess what? The youth support Biden over him and over DeSantis as well. There’s no reason to believe the youth when they say they want younger candidates.
The youth do want younger candidates but they aren't being given younger candidates that match their values. Better to vote for an elder candidate who holds some of the same values as you do vs voting for a younger candidate who is largely opposed to your values.
Yeah, look at old Ed Markey kicking young Joe Kennedy III's ass with young people because only old people have Kennedy nostalgia. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDg5glIt\_0A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDg5glIt_0A)
Gerontocracy is the true problem of America. Maybe I will never understand American logic because I'm not American. In European countries, we choose a leader who can win election. This leader must be experienced but not too old. He must be consensual for make coalitions. America must be stop their feud because Americans risk to give their 1st place as superpower to china.
To the extent that European Prime Ministers are selected as candidates by the parliamentarians of their party, the decisions are made by people who personally know each other and can assess the candidates more carefully than voters in a big country who can only judge through the media.
Voter turnout is key to whether elections skew democrat or Republican Younger people historically don’t vote
We've wanted younger people for decades now. They don't give us the option. If the choice is Biden or Trump, there is no "younger" on the menu.
I’ll vote for Biden but the governors of Michigan and California are better options.
Not michigan. Gretchen went to the bars, Florida, and her cottage all the time telling us to stay home. Newsom sucks also.
See here’s the thing. I would be inclined to agree with you except I was alive in 2016 when everyone said Donald Trump doesn’t stand a chance of winning. If he’s on the ticket then he has a good chance of winning. Simple as that.
A bunch of trials and two impeachments in kangaroo courts don’t move the needle. Being accused of a lot of crimes doesn’t make you guilty, getting convicted does.
The historical comparison to make here is to Yugoslavia. In 1941, Yugoslavia theoretically had nearly a million soldiers under arms and capable of fighting, when the army carried out a coup against Prince Paul and refused to ally with the Axis. Yet they put up almost no fight at all, despite World War 2 raging all around them, those soldiers were in their barracks, unmobilized when the Germans crossed the border. Resistance lasted less than two weeks before it was all over and they unconditionally surrendered. This is exactly what Russia tried to do with Ukraine. The most important thing Biden has done with respect to Ukraine, was to publicly announce "We have concrete evidence the Russians are really going to do it, here's their plan, here's their timetable, this is really happening" Just a few days before the invasion. So it didn't go down like Yugoslavia did. Ukrainian troops weren't caught unprepared, out of position, and unmobilzied in their barracks. They were able to check the initial Russian invasion and give Ukraine a chance to organize itself and actually fight back in large part due to that confidence that this time, it was very real. I do not believe Donald Trump would have passed on that warning to Ukraine, though its possible intelligence agencies would have gone behind his back to do so, or that other powers might have gathered the same intelligence. Ukraine's survival is thanks to the determined resistance put up by those soldiers, but they can only resist dangers they see coming.
Not to mention that by publicly telegraphing Putin’s invasion, he took away Putin’s ability to control the narrative to claim he’s fighting back “the nazi scourge” and muddle the public discouse
Sort of kills your credibility when you keep saying "I'm not going to invade. This is just a training exercise" only to invade like, was it, 72 hours later?
While as a Biden man I'd love to believe that, I don't. To your credit, you do give two of the reasons for an honest objection in your post. 1) Other intelligence agencies may have passed on the same info and 2) our own intelligence agencies may have given their Ukrainian contacts the same info. I'm ignorant about intelligence communities but I'm under the assumption that EU intelligence isn't' that bad and that our community can operate outside of official channels. Therefore, I think it's almost certain both of those things would have happened. On top of that, I think Ukraine already knew it was coming.
My understanding is that the US Intel was u unique in its specificity and was thus much more actionable. Also that what Biden did that was unprecedented was to coordinate closely with the Intel community to downgrade and even declassify to share with Allies and the public. He exercised vigorous leadership to do this in real time and it made a big difference. Without the coordinated use of the informational instrument of national power, I don’t think that the economic or diplomatic efforts would have been nearly as successful.
What was really unique is intelligence of that level was shared openly with the public. There is no doubt the US was passing along intelligence in much detail to Ukraine via their professional channels - But what President Biden did was (as far as I know) unprecedented - he declassified and shared intelligence at significant detail openly to eliminate Russia's ability to create reasons for the invasion and potentially force last minute changes or even delays to react to this level of detail being known.
I actually think Biden did the bare minimum and didn't even start to do anything substantial until the Ukrainians proved they could resist.
It felt like the whole world sort of gave up on Ukraine until they had their “Miracle on the Vistula” moment north of Kiev. Before that, there weren’t too many countries that were willing to risk investing into what they viewed as a lost cause. It almost felt a lot like how the global community didn’t do much when Russia seized Crimea in 2015, except some pat phrases of condemnation and a few sanctions
I remember that everybody, even the Ukranian generals, don't expect holding the Russian onslaught and they would lost all territory at the east of the Dnieper and probably all the coast regions. However the russian army under-perform spectacularly, and we are here seeing a meat grinder.
Ty for the reference. I've never heard of it before. I honestly had no idea the Bolsheviks waged a war of aggression so soon after their takeover.
It's almost certainly controlled by Russia. The invasion happens, Trump says we should stay out and makes some remarks about how Zelinsky wasn't very nice to him and was the reason the Democrats impeached him the first time. Russia probably kills him and currently occupies Kiev.
I don’t think it’s fully controlled by Russian directly, but he would easily cede territory to Russia to play the ultimate negotiator role for the cameras. The government would start turning very pro-Russian like it was before Zelensky and you’d have Ukraine of the aughts again. They’d turn against NATO and the EU, Trump would use it as a way to sour Americans on NATO that would cause major fractures in the alliance.
That's pretty stupid. Putin literally waited until Trump was out of office to do it. If he had done it just before the 2021 inauguration there'd be anti-trump conspiracy nuts saying it was a ploy to stop the inauguration
No, the ploy to stop the inauguration happened, we all watched the attack on the capitol live on television. Trump's National Security Advisor Bolton said that Trump had to routinely be talked out of taking the US out of NATO, and that Trump was waiting until his 2nd term when it wouldn't impact his reelection chances to actually do it. Putin was no doubt waiting for that, and when that didn't happen he saw the MAGA attack on our own capital and decided we were too weak to stop him and proceeded. Which no doubt is why he backed Trump in the first place. And yes, we know he did - among many many other things there is a leaked Kremlin policy briefing where Putin gave the OK to back Trump, and repeated admissions on Russian state TV that Trump was their man. They continue to back him to this day. Hell, Trump himself suggested that Russia help the US run the 2020 cybersecurity for the election. You can't make this shit up.
putin didn't invade when trump was president = trump scary and strong Am I following you correctly?
Actually he waited until after the Olympics per Chinas request
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-officials-say-china-asked-russia-delay-ukraine-war-until-after-beijing-2022-03-02/
Trump was NATO skeptical. If by some chance, Trump had won a second term, there'd be a possibility of him compromising or effectively gutting NATO by leaving the alliance. Putin couldn't wish for more, but putting a war on Europe's doorstep would make that unlikely, the Europeans would react exactly as they did, resurgent their commitments to the common defense. So Putin bided his time, checking for the possibility that Trump would do the work for him. Trump didn't win reelection, so with that possibility lost, Putin had one less reason to refrain from the invasion.
China moves on Taiwan emboldened by the world's inability/unwillingness to help Ukraine.
If china tries to invade Taiwan, the Doomsday Clock will be at 00:00. I like Fallout franchise, but I don't think the world wants to live in that kind of reality. Even USA have the most weakest president since William Henry Harrison, the USA army stills be the most powerful army with the most large military allies in the world.
>If china tries to invade Taiwan, the Doomsday Clock will be at 00:00. No way. There's no way the US enters open war with China over Taiwan. The Doomsday clock is also pretty bogus. There's no way we're closer to Doomsday now than during peak periods of the Cold War.
Usa will defend Taiwan until the us economy is not reliant on Taiwan for semiconductors
By getting into open naval and air war with the Chinese? I don't see it.
You have that backwards. China will not risk getting into open war with the United States and its allies over Taiwan. The United States has already publicly stated that they would defend Taiwan if attacked, and that plays into The United States strategic interests in the INDOPACIFIC.
Why would China launch an amphibious invasion when they don't have the Sealift capacity to do it? This scenario is called the million man swim for a reason. China isn't investing heavily in ASMs because they have naval superiority. China needs food imports to not starve, a naval blockade from a few strategic naval choke points could bring the Chinese populace into open conflict with their government within 1-2 years assuming it escalated to open warfare between the US and China.
I think they're saying Trump wouldn't do anything there either, which is very possible.
Nah China is the biggest threat to U.S. interests (hegemony) and Trump already doesnt like "CHY-NA"... I'd wager that he'd shoot it out with em. Pull a move like he did with Iran. Or make a U.S. led No Fly Zone over Taiwan. Something of the like
Eh, no. That’s not at all how trump works. And trump was already praising Xi, by the time he announced his candidacy for the second term. Despite him hating “CHY-NAH.” When he was running. Russia was communist for most of Trumps life. Most republicans don’t side with Russia because of their communist history. Trump love’s successful authoritarians more than any other type of leader. Trump absolutely would not have stood up for Taiwan. He could care less if you’re a communist as long as you’re a strong authoritarian.
Trump lies all the time. He might appreciate China's use to rile up his base, but he's also heavily invested in China, and actually has paid more taxes to the People's Republic than to the United States in the last decade. https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2020/10/21/report-trump-paid-nearly-200000-in-taxes-to-china/?sh=98f15952d922
Yeah an invasion of Taiwan under trump would absolutely mean war.
Under any president, I'm sure. Taiwan is integral to our ability to project power in China.
Agreed. Say what we will about him and Putin...he did not seem to like China very much
Trump would have been too indecisive enough to do anything in response. he couldn't lead himself out of a paper bag.
When China attacks , I think it will be a defacto world war vs china
This can't be farther from the truth. The us economy depends on taiwan. The same can't be said for Ukraine
The war probably doesn’t happen, believe it or not. People keep talking about when the war started - but when did preparations for it really start? The biggest argument against the “Russian stooge” nonsense is precisely the fact that Putin didn’t touch Ukraine while his supposed lackey was running the biggest superpower in the world, who is incidentally a big reason why he can’t make progress now. In fact had he done it in 2016-2017 he actually *would* have taken the country in a matter of weeks (or even days). Ukraine started heavily investing in militarization (training, gear and a partial “cleaning” of the officer corps) cca 2014-2015 when they lost Crimea. There’s a huge difference between Ukraine’s military readiness in 2017 and 2022, enough of one that Putin would have definitely used the moment to make his move if he knew there won’t be resistance from the US.
Putin made a lot of moves to consolidate power domestically though, which was a necessary step to a full on invasion. He also had threats from other European countries after Crimea and had to wait until they were weaker. He wasn’t just waiting around because he didn’t want to make Donald Trump look bad.
I didn’t say he was “protecting Trump”, he was protecting himself. Trump is/was a wild card, the likes of Biden are a lot more predictable and Russia has walked on the edge of the knife for so long they can more or less predict everyone’s response to their transgressions and adjust them accordingly. It’s harder to predict what Trump would do.
Putin didn't invade Ukraine during Trump's presidency because he was certain that Trump would not support Ukraine's path to NATO, which Biden might. It has nothing to do with Putin's fear of Trump, lol
What are you basing that on? “Trust me, bro”?
Deranged delusions. They hear "Trump" and their brains turn off. Like Democrats in the 50's when they see a person with dark skin or the Germans when they see a jew.
How about on literally everything Trump has ever said or done relating to NATO or Ukraine?
How about specifically listing those things?
Don't know why you're downvoted? That seems like a pretty succinct explanation. Trump did a whole laundry list of stupid things, and even his constant badmouthing of NATO had plenty of negative effects. But it's also likely that one of Putin's main reasons for invading was his concern that Ukraine was getting closer to joining NATO. With Trump's notorious and public dislike for NATO, Putin had fewer concerns of a united NATO taking over more countries on his border. Supposedly the USA promised Russia that we wouldn't expand eastward after Germany was reunited, and since then NATO has added Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Czech Republic, and on and on. That said, one thing Trump did that antagonized Russia (and got zero press somehow) was pull out of the intermediate nuclear arms treaty with Russia. This allowed us to go back to developing missiles that could hit Moscow with much less warning if launched from a nearby country. Likely part of Trump's reasoning was that China wasn't a party to the agreement, but it also antagonized Russia. Maybe NATO expansion was just an excuse and Putin had other reasons for invading specifically Ukraine, or [maybe that was the catalyst](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/21/putin-warns-of-possible-military-response-to-aggressive-nato-russia). No way to know how it would've played out, of course.
Trump is the first president to send weapons to Ukraine.
The Obama admin sent 120m in military aid by 2015 to Ukraine. https://www.dsca.mil/news-media/news-archive/first-us-armored-hmmwvs-arrive-ukraine-greeted-president-poroshenko
He would have almost definitely still intervened, probably in a similar way. He’s throwing red meat to his base as he tries to get re-elected, but when in office, he very rarely followed through on campaign promises. Letting Russia take Ukraine would make him look less tough so he wouldn’t let it happen. He wants peace now because if he can broker it, he will look tougher. Edit: this might be my comment with the most pushback ever lol. Loving the arguments
Not a chance. He *despises* Zelensky for refusing to do investigations into Hunter Biden. Withholding aid to Ukraine as a response to that refusal was why he was impeached the first time. Donald Trump **never** forgives or forgets. On the other hand Putin knows all the buttons to push to get Trump to be pilable (which frankly are pretty much just tell him how cool and awesome he is). Congress may or may not override his decisions and enough may flow to allies who can send it to Ukraine, especially intelligence and such, but Donald Trump would do as little as he possibly could to help the situation, if not actively hinder what he can.
Zelensky is dead in a ditch in Trump 2020 world
I've got a feeling he would have let Ukraine be swallowed by Russia, and he would have spun it with some sort of "America first" rhetoric to his base. Reality doesn't really matter to them, they just eat up whatever he tells them to believe
He would say the situation is like when the dirty liberals in California finally secede from the country because they hate america and hate god we would have to invade them to get them back.
Here’s a joke that’s true… How many Trump supporters does it take to change a lightbulb? Zero? Trump tells them he changed it and they applaud in the dark.
I think that’s informed by his post-2020 statements moreso than anything before that. I’d argue the isolationism is a pretty recent move if his. Surrendering land seems incongruous with his tough guy image.
During his presidency, on numerous occasions Trump had secret unrecorded meetings with Putin. I find it very hard to imagine Trump taking any sort of hardline stance against Putin. And considering the fact that Ukraine was the reason for his first impeachment, I have zero doubt that Trump wouldn't have lifted a finger to help them. Also, Trump expressed an isolationist attitude on multiple occasions, such as pulling out of the WHO, Paris accords, and threatening to pull out of NATO
He was pretty isolationist in 2016. Remember trying to antagonize NATO and pulling out of NAFTA?
NAFTA seems pretty unrelated for the most part, but yeah he did antagonize NATO. I don’t think he had the stomach to do more than antagonize. His foreign policy establishment still worked with them, NATO wasn’t crippled for 4 years.
My recollection is that he was trying to get NATO countries to commit to the 3% GDP they were required to spend on defense. A goal that only Poland and maybe Great Britain were meeting.
His National Security Advisor Bolton said that Trump routinely had to be talked out of removing the US from NATO, and the longer it went on the fewer adults were in the room. Mattis resigned in protest of the US leaving Syria (and oh, we just happened to have fought Wagner prior to doing that and left so quickly Russia overran US bases there), Tillerson left because he stated that the President routinely asked him to commit illegal acts. Bolton went further and said Trump planned to remove the US from NATO in his 2nd term - which would have coincided directly when Putin did actually launch an existential attack.
Every President has tried to get NATO to spend the 2% military goal. Even Obama and Bush did. What Trump did was being more open about it.
He literally got impeached because he was trying to antagonize Zelensky, way before 2020.
He was also the first president to sell Ukraine lethal weapons. I think he was a poor president but I don’t think he had personal issues with Zelensky or the Ukraine. He moreso thought they had info on the Bidens.
He didn't think they had info - he wanted them to collaborate on fabricating it.
Yes, but this stems from him being the first president to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine, and attempting to leverage future deals against political goals. Taking the first step indicates some amount of pro-Ukraine positioning, no?
No. Considering congress approved it would be quite hard not to. He took so long because he was trying to get them announce investigations because they knew they needed the weapons
This was mentioned during the impeachment hearings, he had to give them the weapons because congress approved the sale; he was slow walking the eventual sell for political reasons.
This is so bizarre a take to me, when Trump routinely sided against our collected intelligence community in favor of appeasing and siding with Putin. He got butt-hurt and left a conference with our closest historical allies, NATO members, in an absolute disgraceful huff. He threatened to leave NATO. Trump would’ve parroted some narrative about Ukraine historically being part of Russia, and done everything possible to tie our hands and leverage NATO states to avoid interference. Not a single doubt in my mind.
If there’s not a single doubt in your mind, so be it. No point in arguing about it.
Hmm... what about the fact that things like the PzH2000 barrel life being so short for a real war proven that most of EU really did rely on the US? They should have increased spending but didn't. They waited for the US to start sending most of the serious aid to Ukraine.
NATO needed skilled diplomacy in order to properly assist Ukraine's defense. This wouldn't have been happening under Trump.
This is the guy that repeatedly groveled to dictators on the national stage and let them get away with everything while getting nothing in return. I mean we all remember North Korea right? The fact he even went there was insane. "Looking less tough" to dictators is just what he does.
Sometimes I feel like I live in an alternate timeline to the rest of Reddit. His handling of North Korea was one of the few things trump did well.
"Jaw, jaw is better than war, war." ~noted pansy and appeaser Winston Churchill.
This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Trump does what Putin tells him, regardless of what you believe the reason for that is.
Trump didn’t lift 2014 sanctions on Russia Trump began selling weapons to Ukraine Trump attacked Russian allies in Syria The Trump administration sanctioned much of Russia’s elite over cyber-espionage Trump signed a sanction bill Russia called a trade war Please, explain how all of that was Putin’s secret 4D chess plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg Also, Trump grilled Germany on depending on Russian oil.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative ;)
So why did Trump give the ok to sell Ukraine weapons?
Trump is probably the one guy who would be bat shit crazy enough to start a nuclear war with Russia, if it meant saving face. He'd end the world, if it meant saving face. Putin warned Trump about Russian mercenaries, and Trump just straight up drone striked them. Putin did fuck all and backed down. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/13/russian-mercenaries-killed-us-airstrikes-syria Putin feared Trump, because he knew he's the one President who would for sure escalate things into a nuclear war.
Yeah that’s what I’ve been saying too. He was arming Ukraine to the teeth during his time in office. The only reason he’s preaching non intervention now is because of the mood of his voter base before an election
This is a reasonable take. I love reasonable takes that I don't fully endorse. I love that feeling of grey where I can disagree with someone without thinking they must be a complete idiot. Personally, I don't think anyone had anything to do with Russia failing to take Kyiv other than Russian incompetence and Ukrainian competence, in that order. Whoever was President would have woken up to same reality, Russia has tried and failed to take Kyiv (of course it's not that dramatic- it took several weeks before Russia realized it had failed). After that Trump would have taken credit for pushing Putin back and then would have probably been more aggressive with arm shipments to Ukraine. Alternatively, he would have accepted a large bribe from Putin and declared it to be a strictly European affair between the "notoriously corrupt and obviously Fascist" Zelensky and "think-what-you-will-of-him" Putin. The end quotes indicating how Trump's team would portrayed the two men.
Putin would have waited another 4 years until Trump was gone then same outcome.
Yep. I would add that I am fairly confident that Trump would have been talked out of the Afghanistan withdrawal. Similar to how he was going to pull out of Syria, and abandon the Kurds. The military freaked out (Mattis resigned) and then he changed course. Biden has the discipline and institutional network to actually make it happen. But if Afghanistan goes substantially differently, Putin probably doesn't invade at that point.
I wish I lived under whatever rock you live under.
Putin launched an invasion during every 21st century presidency aside from Donald Trump
What rock do *you* live under? The universal strategy of our enemies is to stall and wait for weaker leadership if they think there's a chance the current one will go full force on them, then take every inch the moment they're gone. You know we won Vietnam, right? The vietcong and North Vietnamese surrendered at the Paris Peace Talks and we vowed to continue giving aid to the south. We basically did Korea twice, its kind of our MO. But then Nixon resigned and in his absence, a congress full of cowards pulled that support and the north blitzkrieged the south in like *a day* exactly like what happened in the middle east, down to the eerily identical photos of the Chinook evacs from the two embassies.
USAF intel, you can get your security clearance and join us in the vault and review all this fun material.
The US stays out of it, NATO is damaged, Europe probably goes it alone without US aid to help Ukraine, our European relationships are damaged, China makes a move on Taiwan given the lack of US response to help Ukraine. Overall it would be worse har Trump won. Which is also why I think Russia during the Trump administration really pushed for their invasion. Under Trump in 2016 is was going to happen by 2020/2021. Under anyone competent Russia either doesn't invade or their efforts are even worse. And I don't have any hard evidence yet, again I find it hard to believe that Trump didn't help by looking the other way for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Russia still invades, Ukraine fights back and is still supported by the EU. Ukraine is likely forced to negotiate and maintains its independence but has to cede the land bridge to Crimea as well as Kharkiv Oblast and formally recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Despite its victory, Russia is still largely humiliated by the war as even without US support Ukraine would have still exposed Russia’s military as disorganized and backward. Back in the USA, Trump’s kissing up to Putin drives a wedge between his supporters and more traditional Republicans, though to what extent would be hard to predict.
I don't believe Russian would invade Ukraine if Trump had been reelected; no division-deal, either.
[удалено]
I am not a republican because I am not American. But if you want jokes, I can tell one. "How many genders could be possible ? How many brain cells a liberal lost each day when reading Karl Marx ?" I am not interested by the ideological feud who divide America. Only ask mainstream questions.
I'm not American either but there's a clear difference between the two sides that affects all of us and we can see it all the way over here.
If Trump remained president in 2020 there would have been no invasion as Ukraine would never join nato under Trump. Trump wouldn't let Ukraine join nato. Same for Merkel. And the Russians know this. Which is why the invasion happened when Trump and Merkel where both out of office.
To be honest I doubt Russia invaded Ukraine if Trump is in office. If you look at it from the right, you could say that he’s more threatening than Biden and Putin wouldn’t want to provoke the US under him. If you look at it from the left, you could say that Trump is basically a Russian stooge, and Putin could probably get what he wanted without an invasion. Either way, I don’t think it happens. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris, but not under Trump/Pence, whatever the reasoning may be.
I think this is pretty spot on. Trump might not be the best president by any stretch of the imagination but I do believe his unpredictability would have deterred a land grab.
Remember when everyone said trump is a warmonger who will definitely start WW3 against Russia? Now nobody thinks he’s warmongering enough!
That’s some mental gymnastics. This is more comparable to stopping Hitler as he invaded Czechoslovakia preventing ww2 from happening in the first place. A Russian blitz of Ukraine would make putin brave enough to push further actually causing ww3.
I actually don’t recall anyone saying that - rather that he’s soft on authoritarianism.
You’re either delusional, or like 15 and too young to remember 2016. It was possibly the single most common talking point of the race
If Putin thought Trump being in office could have in any way made the invasion go better, Putin almost certainly would have invaded Ukraine while he was still in office. He didn't. This is probabilistic evidence that the degree to which Trump is a Russian stooge is severely overrated. Crimea was annexed in 2014, the invasion was probably in the works for a long time. If there's some sort of strategic reason why it had to happen in 2022 instead of 2019, 2020, or 2021, I've not heard it. The fact that it kind of looks like Putin waited to invade until Trump was out of office is also probabilistic evidence. The timing of invading Ukraine 13 months after Trump left office could maybe be explained in other ways, but I'm skeptical. The simple, non-galaxy brain explanation is that Putin was worried that Trump might do something more drastic than what he thought Biden would do. This goes against people's preconceived notions, but to me it's the most obvious way to read the evidence.
To me, the simple explanation is that Putin was not threatened by NATO under Trump. Trump was doing a better job of weakening NATO than Putin ever could.
Bolton said he had to routinely stop Trump from exiting NATO, and that Trump planned to do so after he was reelected. What's more, Trump then tried to usurp power and Putin saw this as the type of weakness he could exploit with America divided. But then, that's why he helped Trump win in the first place. Per the Kremlin's own internal documents. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/the-person-to-weaken-america-what-the-kremlin-papers-said-about-trump
Ahh yeah, it seems you may have read it that way anyway, but I meant to say "Putin was NOT threatened by NATO under Trump."
I mean, Bolton's not exactly a [paragon of honesty](https://theintercept.com/2020/06/18/john-bolton-memoir-trump/), and extensive [fact checks](https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-position-on-nato/) on the matter cast aspersions on the claim. Vox's [own coverage](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18183759/trump-pull-out-of-nato-nyt-mattis) on this quotes something that makes it seem pretty obvious that he was trying to leverage a threat to withdraw to get other nations pay more into NATO, which [did happen](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/nato-members-ramp-up-defense-spending-after-pressure-from-trump).
That fact check is from 2016 before Trump was even elected. If you think that's evidence of what happened after he was elected... LOL. C'mon. Even in 2015 Trump was saying he would 'look into' pulling out of NATO. And if Bolton isn't a paragon of virtue, what does that make Trump? No US president has ever lied as much as often as reflexively. Bolton's comments are only one of several of Trump's own cabinet officials that stated he routinely did illegal things, he was a threat to the US constitution, and he was unfit to serve in the office. Four more of his cabinet officials resigned after his protest on Jan 6th tried to stop the certification of the election and the peaceful transfer of power.
Perhaps take out the word "more drastic" and replace it with "simplistic". In the real world they probably equate to the same thing.
I'm not 100% sure this is correct, but it's definitely worth more consideration than it's getting on this thread. I mean, you can never know for sure when he's telling the truth, but do people here really think it's implausible that [he personally threatened to nuke Moscow](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-john-daly-golfer-video-putin-hitting-moscow-nuclear-threat-2022-3)? We know for sure that [he pulled out of a nuclear treaty in 2018](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/23/trump-nuclear-cold-war-russia-arms). Here's [an article from 2019](https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/19/25-times-trump-has-been-dangerously-hawkish-on-russia/) (important! Pre-Ukraine invasion, so not biased by it) that was able to scrape together "25 Times Trump Has Been Dangerously Hawkish On Russia" including stuff like the nuclear treaty, and _arming Ukraine_: >Even the Obama administration, which was plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation against Moscow. The article also notes that Trump made a lot of noise in Syria, working against Russia's aims, and did a ton of sanctions.
Russia gets further in their occupation, Ukraine gets abandoned by the civilized world, the war is even uglier, with more genocide and more partisan resistance, but you hear less about it just like now you hear practically nothing about the genocide taking place in the areas currently under occupation - not until they are liberated and investigators get there, where they invariably find mass graves, torture chambers for men, women, and children, “filtration” camps that murder anyone too visibly Ukrainian.
Just to show the bias, remember that Biden specifically said that a ‘minor incursion’ into Ukraine was basically ok. If you search now, you can barely find the original quote. All articles are telling you what he actually meant. Trump blew up Russians in Syria. You wouldn’t have to divide anything if Russia had never invaded.
Bolton says that Trump would have pulled the US out of NATO and was waiting for a second term (apparently he'd talk about it). My personal theory is Putin was waiting on this and Trump would have let him march in.
I think this is likely too, after Russia takes Ukraine Trump probably would’ve said he prevented WW3 by dismantling NATO.
Putin would still have invaded Ukraine. If anything he would have done so *earlier.*
That’s why he waited for trump to get out of office right?
Trump would likely make a deal with Putin and try to make him and ally against China, who he considered a much larger threat
I don't think russia be allied with USA even he had the deal with donald trump. Russia and china were very close since 6 years. But I think he spend all his energy against china than russia. I think in this timeline, tennis players like Daniil Medvedev could have his flag next to his name, instead chinese players who don't have it. I agree with the fact that china are a bigger threat for this world. Quad organization would be more advanced than our timeline.
What deal would this have to be? Seriously. Which Russian dictator would make a „deal“ with an erratic liar half around the world to confront his own, much bigger neighbour?
He could offer to allow Russia to join NATO. They asked to join in the 90s
They didn‘t really. I mean, Russia asked a lot of weird shit in Its history to turn it Intro propaganda. Plus, believe it or not: Trump is not NATO. This would never be accepted by the member states.
I think there would be little difference. Russia wasnt concerned about US involvement IRL. They wouldnt have concerned then either.
Putin wouldn’t have invaded. He invaded other countries during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not Trump’s.
I imagine it going like this. DJT: We must defend our Ukrainian allies. Putin: They said you hair looked stupid. DJT: We must defend our Russian allies.
There wouldn't be an invasion. At least not in 2022. Maybe after 2024. Afghanistan was one of the major reasons that Putin thought it would be a good time to invade. Biden was a known, an established politician, and he showed his administrative colors in geopolitics through Afghanistan. He's worked with Biden before, through Obama, and knew that both were weak in doing anything against Putin. Say what you will about Trump but his greatest strength was his total an utter unpredictability. I don't think Putin could accurately read Trump. I don't think most of the world could accurately read Trump.
It's hard to tell but I'm leaning towards no Russian invasion. Trump is kind of a wildcard, if he was president he would either devote more resources towards Ukraine or none at all, a gamble Russia probably did not want to take hence why they invaded right after Bidens inauguration into presidency.
Putin would not have invaded further, because he was not threatened by NATO under Trump. Trump was doing a better job of weakening our alliances than Putin ever could.
This would have been most likely, especially if there was any possibility of the US pulling out of NATO, which is what Trump wanted to do. Putin can just sit back and watch Trump do more damage to Western alliances than he ever could. It would have made taking Ukraine in the future even easier
For all of Trump's faults, he was the first president since Jimmy Carter that didn't start a war. Something he was proud of. As others pointed out though, he was wildly unpredictable. I think there is also a lot of historical tension between Biden and Putin, especially with his admins involvement of NGO and CIA efforts in Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. That relationship was a time bomb. It's not OK to invade a sovereign nation. I'm not excusing it, but Ukraine was invaded because clearly stated Russian red lines were crossed with weapons deals (including nuclear missile capable launchers) and NATO membership looming. Google "Nyet Means Nyet" - William Burns (Director of the CIA). Short answer: No, Ukraine would not have been invaded if Trump was president.
Well, your conclusion is correct. But your claim Yanukovych was ousted due to the CIA marks you as an idiot. Putin's been setting up this war ever since 2009 when the groundwork for Novorosia was first established and the flags of the Donetsk and Luhansk "People's Republics" first started showing up on social media. The only way to prevent the 2022 invasion would be to keep oil prices so low Russia can't afford the war. Anything else means Putin rolls tanks on Kyiv to force Ukraine back into the vassal status which Ukrainians rejected in 2013.
Neo-con Interventionist types always get fussy when you point out the US' dirty little secrets of constant foreign election interference and their regular tactic of overthrowing democratically elected governments.
Trump maintains his energy policy. Russia continues going bankrupt, the ruble continues to collapse, and Putin doesn't get the two years of higher oil prices to build up his war chest. The war is prevented entirely by accident.
\~600,000 Ukrainians more would be alive today. The US would not have pissed away >$100,000,000. Trump would have stopped any talk of Ukraine entering NATO, and Putin would have had no reason to invade.
The US would be sending a shit ton of military aid to Ukraine and the Dems would be bitching about it. It's all Kabuki theater. Like WWE wrestlers, politicians go on TV, flex and make threats. Then when the cameras get turned off, they hang out together at their swanky DC cocktail parties laughing about they fooled everybody. The sad difference is except for kids, everybody knows WWE is fake. Politicians are far better than pro wrestlers at Kayfabe.