The single biggest reason I’m having trouble voting for Trump is the entire Ukraine/Russia/NATO situation. I don’t trust Harris or Trump on national security. If it was Haley or DeSantis or a similar election choice, I would be voting Republican. I’m a registered Democrat, but I’m a swing voter here in Arizona. I’m voting for my Republican Congressman, Schweikert, in my tossup district. He voted in favor of aid to Ukraine. I’m voting for Democrat Gallego because Kari Lake is a nut job and Gallego served in the Marines in combat in Iraq. I’m still undecided on President. The fact that Iran is laughing missiles on Israel and the entire Mideast situation is one that leans me to Trump. But I don’t want to abandon Ukraine to Russia, especially since Russia agreed in writing with the US to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. I have never been this uncertain in how to vote for President and I started voting in 1976. I don’t like Vance or Waltz either, which makes it worse. So I’m going to see what happens in the next 40 days. More than anything, I wish Ronald Reagan was President and age 60 and running national security with George Schultz, George H W Bush, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Casey and James Baker.
Between Trump and Ukraine, I choose Trump 100%, because that means choosing America. The choice is not Ukraine vs Trump. It's Ukraine vs America.
You are a brilliant man, Thomas, but I'm sorry: spending a single dollar more there is demented. We are sinking here. It's time to focus on our own US problems and challenges.
I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter (except Israel) while our country is being literally dismantled in front of our eyes, and people are still talking about nonsensical foreign issues.
As for the money angle, $175 billion since the war began—not $300 billion as Trump falsely alleged—is chump change in the context of the federal government budget, which last year was north of $6 trillion. And the US isn’t bearing the burden alone, as Trump also falsely alleged. In the aggregate, our NATO allies have contributed around $138 billion. He’s lying to you and you’re swallowing it. Why is that?
Because to me, working hard and living paycheck to paycheck, and seeing the many shortcomings in our country, wasting money abroad like this is a sin. Plus 50% of what you call European money is also coming from us through multitude of credits, funds, etc. to further enrich the industrial military complex… if you really believe Europeans have spent there nearly as much as we have, we live in different planets.
What I’m hoping to hear from you (or anyone else) Thomas, is a plausible strategy for a Ukrainian victory. For well over a year now, we’ve been told that if only the United States would send armaments with additional capabilities and allow Ukraine to utilize those armaments as it sees fit, the tide would turn. We heard it about battle tanks, we heard it about ATACMS and we’ve heard it about fighter jets. I guess we can call it the silver bullet strategy. Sadly, even when the silver bullets arrive in Ukraine, it doesn’t seem to help much.
Eventually they were all provided and Ukraine is still losing. How long ago was it that the United States and its NATO allies devised a brilliant plan for a Ukrainian offensive? Following NATO’s advice led to an embarrassing quagmire for Ukraine. Did that offensive fail because the strategy devised by NATO was a poor one or because while the strategy was good, Ukraine was simply too weak to carry it out? Could both reasons account for the failure?
I believe it may be true that had the United States provided this offensive equipment at the beginning of the conflict, it might have made a difference; or maybe it wouldn’t have. We will never know.
But, we are where we are. The Ukraine imbroglio has hurt the German economy more than it’s hurt the Russian economy. It hasn’t helped the economies of the rest of Europe either. It’s contributed to the rise of populist parties throughout Western Europe and it’s provided unimpeachable evidence of the weakness of Biden, Macron, Starmer (and his predecessors in power) and Sholz.
While we will never know how popular or unpopular Putin really is in Russia, it’s a good bet that he’s more popular with Russians than Biden, Starmer, Macron or Schloz are with the citizens of the countries they lead.
Zelensky left the United States after asking permission to use offensive weapons provided primarily by the United States and Germany deep inside Russia. These weapons rely on targeting information provided by NATO which comes from American satellites. By any stretch of the imagination, this makes the United States and its NATO allies combatants.
It is doubtful that these weapons will change the trajectory of the war. While they can harm Russian civilians as well as Russian weapons depots and other military activities, what these weapons can’t make up for is the lack of Ukrainian fighting men and women.
Americans who are souring on the war and the resources our country is devoting to it, might feel differently if a convincing strategy was articulated about how to achieve a Ukrainian victory. Has that strategy not been presented because it never occurred to the American Administration that it’s important to make its case or has the strategy not been articulated because there is none?
It’s time to ask the question about whether a President Trump or a President Harris is more likely to help Ukraine achieve the best results possible under the circumstances.
Those who think a President Harris is more likely to achieve an acceptable outcome for Ukraine need to ask why the Ukraine strategy of the Biden/Harris Administration has failed so far.
It’s apparent that Vice President Harris is inexperienced in foreign affairs and military matters. It is a certainty that her advisors in this area will be the same cast of characters who advised first Obama and then Biden.
They’ve failed Ukraine so far. What might make anyone think that they will do a better job for Ukraine in the next four years than they’ve done heretofore?
Biden/Harris botched their Ukraine policy. They provided enough aid to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to give the Ukrainians enough of a qualitative edge to inflict a decisive defeat on the subpar Russian Army. You mentioned jet fighters and tanks. These were provided tardily, after much dithering on the part of the Biden Administration. Other weapons were provided with the proviso that their use was to be limited in various ways.
The resources being devoted to Ukrainian aid are trivial in the context of a federal government budget that's north of $6 trillion. The claim that Americans are "tired" of a war that America's not actually fighting is frivolous. Trump’s lies and bombast regarding Ukraine are ridiculous. The pro-Putin propaganda that we hear from the likes of Tucker Carlson and J.D. Vance is beneath contempt.
Properly supported, Ukraine can still win this war. On thing that can be done immediately is to remove all restrictions on the weapons being supplied to Ukraine by the US and NATO. Do you imagine that the Iranians and the Chinese are imposing restrictions on the use of the drones and missiles they’re supplying to Russia?
The first battle of the war, north of Kyiv, revealed the weaknesses of the Russian armed forces. Their only real advantage over Ukraine is quantitative, and that can be offset. To bring this war to a satisfactory end, it’s necessary for Ukraine to score a large-scale battlefield success, sufficient to bring Russia to the negotiating table. That would require continued assistance to Ukraine from the US and NATO. But it seems that neither Biden/Harris nor Trump is interested in victory. They prefer to give V. Putin the win so they can brag that they “ended a war.” The Biden/Harris Administration tried to run the same play in the Middle East, but the Israelis got fed up with that. So too bad, so sad, no Nobel Peace Prize for Bugout Joe.
My prediction, Thomas is that if he's elected, Trump will dramatically increase American aid to Ukraine; perhaps he will double or triple it. His purpose will be to gain an advantage over Putin in advance of negotiations. Whatever else he is, Trump is a capable negotiator and he understands the importance of leverage.
If Harris wins, it will be more of the same and Ukraine will lose the war in the short to mid term.
If Trump wins, we will find out if I'm right. I hope I am.
By the way, Biden/Harris continue to eschew Israel’s attempts to weaken Iran by attacking its proxies. Funny don't you think in light of the fact that no nation with the exception of China has done more to assist Russia in its aggression against Ukraine?
Putin was hardly unprovoked.
By which you mean…?
The single biggest reason I’m having trouble voting for Trump is the entire Ukraine/Russia/NATO situation. I don’t trust Harris or Trump on national security. If it was Haley or DeSantis or a similar election choice, I would be voting Republican. I’m a registered Democrat, but I’m a swing voter here in Arizona. I’m voting for my Republican Congressman, Schweikert, in my tossup district. He voted in favor of aid to Ukraine. I’m voting for Democrat Gallego because Kari Lake is a nut job and Gallego served in the Marines in combat in Iraq. I’m still undecided on President. The fact that Iran is laughing missiles on Israel and the entire Mideast situation is one that leans me to Trump. But I don’t want to abandon Ukraine to Russia, especially since Russia agreed in writing with the US to respect Ukraine’s borders in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. I have never been this uncertain in how to vote for President and I started voting in 1976. I don’t like Vance or Waltz either, which makes it worse. So I’m going to see what happens in the next 40 days. More than anything, I wish Ronald Reagan was President and age 60 and running national security with George Schultz, George H W Bush, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Casey and James Baker.
That’s launching missiles not laughing missiles. Typo, spell check or Freudian slip.
Between Trump and Ukraine, I choose Trump 100%, because that means choosing America. The choice is not Ukraine vs Trump. It's Ukraine vs America.
You are a brilliant man, Thomas, but I'm sorry: spending a single dollar more there is demented. We are sinking here. It's time to focus on our own US problems and challenges.
I don't give a f*ck about Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter (except Israel) while our country is being literally dismantled in front of our eyes, and people are still talking about nonsensical foreign issues.
As for the money angle, $175 billion since the war began—not $300 billion as Trump falsely alleged—is chump change in the context of the federal government budget, which last year was north of $6 trillion. And the US isn’t bearing the burden alone, as Trump also falsely alleged. In the aggregate, our NATO allies have contributed around $138 billion. He’s lying to you and you’re swallowing it. Why is that?
Because to me, working hard and living paycheck to paycheck, and seeing the many shortcomings in our country, wasting money abroad like this is a sin. Plus 50% of what you call European money is also coming from us through multitude of credits, funds, etc. to further enrich the industrial military complex… if you really believe Europeans have spent there nearly as much as we have, we live in different planets.
That’s where we obviously see things very differently.
Ukraine versus America? That’s just ridiculous.
In a sense both are trying to win over the swing Pacifist vote.
What I’m hoping to hear from you (or anyone else) Thomas, is a plausible strategy for a Ukrainian victory. For well over a year now, we’ve been told that if only the United States would send armaments with additional capabilities and allow Ukraine to utilize those armaments as it sees fit, the tide would turn. We heard it about battle tanks, we heard it about ATACMS and we’ve heard it about fighter jets. I guess we can call it the silver bullet strategy. Sadly, even when the silver bullets arrive in Ukraine, it doesn’t seem to help much.
Eventually they were all provided and Ukraine is still losing. How long ago was it that the United States and its NATO allies devised a brilliant plan for a Ukrainian offensive? Following NATO’s advice led to an embarrassing quagmire for Ukraine. Did that offensive fail because the strategy devised by NATO was a poor one or because while the strategy was good, Ukraine was simply too weak to carry it out? Could both reasons account for the failure?
I believe it may be true that had the United States provided this offensive equipment at the beginning of the conflict, it might have made a difference; or maybe it wouldn’t have. We will never know.
But, we are where we are. The Ukraine imbroglio has hurt the German economy more than it’s hurt the Russian economy. It hasn’t helped the economies of the rest of Europe either. It’s contributed to the rise of populist parties throughout Western Europe and it’s provided unimpeachable evidence of the weakness of Biden, Macron, Starmer (and his predecessors in power) and Sholz.
While we will never know how popular or unpopular Putin really is in Russia, it’s a good bet that he’s more popular with Russians than Biden, Starmer, Macron or Schloz are with the citizens of the countries they lead.
Zelensky left the United States after asking permission to use offensive weapons provided primarily by the United States and Germany deep inside Russia. These weapons rely on targeting information provided by NATO which comes from American satellites. By any stretch of the imagination, this makes the United States and its NATO allies combatants.
It is doubtful that these weapons will change the trajectory of the war. While they can harm Russian civilians as well as Russian weapons depots and other military activities, what these weapons can’t make up for is the lack of Ukrainian fighting men and women.
Americans who are souring on the war and the resources our country is devoting to it, might feel differently if a convincing strategy was articulated about how to achieve a Ukrainian victory. Has that strategy not been presented because it never occurred to the American Administration that it’s important to make its case or has the strategy not been articulated because there is none?
It’s time to ask the question about whether a President Trump or a President Harris is more likely to help Ukraine achieve the best results possible under the circumstances.
Those who think a President Harris is more likely to achieve an acceptable outcome for Ukraine need to ask why the Ukraine strategy of the Biden/Harris Administration has failed so far.
It’s apparent that Vice President Harris is inexperienced in foreign affairs and military matters. It is a certainty that her advisors in this area will be the same cast of characters who advised first Obama and then Biden.
They’ve failed Ukraine so far. What might make anyone think that they will do a better job for Ukraine in the next four years than they’ve done heretofore?
Biden/Harris botched their Ukraine policy. They provided enough aid to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to give the Ukrainians enough of a qualitative edge to inflict a decisive defeat on the subpar Russian Army. You mentioned jet fighters and tanks. These were provided tardily, after much dithering on the part of the Biden Administration. Other weapons were provided with the proviso that their use was to be limited in various ways.
The resources being devoted to Ukrainian aid are trivial in the context of a federal government budget that's north of $6 trillion. The claim that Americans are "tired" of a war that America's not actually fighting is frivolous. Trump’s lies and bombast regarding Ukraine are ridiculous. The pro-Putin propaganda that we hear from the likes of Tucker Carlson and J.D. Vance is beneath contempt.
Properly supported, Ukraine can still win this war. On thing that can be done immediately is to remove all restrictions on the weapons being supplied to Ukraine by the US and NATO. Do you imagine that the Iranians and the Chinese are imposing restrictions on the use of the drones and missiles they’re supplying to Russia?
The first battle of the war, north of Kyiv, revealed the weaknesses of the Russian armed forces. Their only real advantage over Ukraine is quantitative, and that can be offset. To bring this war to a satisfactory end, it’s necessary for Ukraine to score a large-scale battlefield success, sufficient to bring Russia to the negotiating table. That would require continued assistance to Ukraine from the US and NATO. But it seems that neither Biden/Harris nor Trump is interested in victory. They prefer to give V. Putin the win so they can brag that they “ended a war.” The Biden/Harris Administration tried to run the same play in the Middle East, but the Israelis got fed up with that. So too bad, so sad, no Nobel Peace Prize for Bugout Joe.
My prediction, Thomas is that if he's elected, Trump will dramatically increase American aid to Ukraine; perhaps he will double or triple it. His purpose will be to gain an advantage over Putin in advance of negotiations. Whatever else he is, Trump is a capable negotiator and he understands the importance of leverage.
If Harris wins, it will be more of the same and Ukraine will lose the war in the short to mid term.
If Trump wins, we will find out if I'm right. I hope I am.
By the way, Biden/Harris continue to eschew Israel’s attempts to weaken Iran by attacking its proxies. Funny don't you think in light of the fact that no nation with the exception of China has done more to assist Russia in its aggression against Ukraine?
Well, I hope you’re right too. But Trump hasn’t said anything that leaves me to think that you are right.
Once again, we vote for the lesser of two evils.
Given Trump's age (and suggested decline), Vance factors into the decision.
We should have a Milei, a Bukele, or a Meloni.
I wonder if Trump or Harris ever heard of Neville Chamberlain. Or, what was his name... Churchill.