Fun fact: the first impact Trump had on the Republican policy platform, before he was even President, was to remove from platform language the promise to arm Ukraine with offensive weapons. Back before the convention in the 2016 campaign.
That was secured by Paul Manafort, a man who —- only months earlier -- worked as an advisor to and lobbyist for a pro-Russian Ukrainian PM (Viktor Yanukovych, essentially a Putin stooge).
Paul Manafort worked for Trump for free (this is not in doubt), but appears to have had massive debts at the time, which appear to have ultimately been settled.
Ukraine is the thread that runs through the entire story of Trump's political career. It is and has always been so utterly, abundantly obvious that Trump's position on Ukraine consistently has favoured and will favour Putin's, that media and journalists failing to observe it is nothing short of malpractice.
You could also say that about Biden - the strange case of his son and his job, Biden boasting about meddling in Ukraine internal affairs around corruption investigations and the infamous Nuland-Pyatt phone call etc etc.
Question I have about Ukraine - for those hawks that have consistently said Russia's army is about to collapse, and it's just one more push, or one more escalation in western involvement - is where is there red line?
At what point do you stop escalating? Western nuclear capable missiles into Russia? Western boots on the ground? Western conscription to enable that? Tactical nukes?
Russia appears to be winning on the ground right now. We have stopped talking of victory and now just want to freeze the front line - and Russia isn't interested.
I'm sure the hawks will say we didn't commit enough - but you can't say that without being clear about where that red line is. Not in a democracy.
You could argue in this case Trump was simply being clear eyed about what was actually achievable, rather than either hopelessly optimistic or having a secret agenda to escalate to an all out war with Russia that nobody would have signed up for at the start.
> You could argue in this case Trump was simply being clear eyed about what was actually achievable
You could. But you could more credibly argue that the US position on Ukraine has been slowly and comprehensively fucked over in a way that very precisely mirrors Putin's goals, by people who have notably public pro-Putin alignments, from Manafort to Trump himself (a man who literally laundered oligarch money).
It is truly obvious what is going on and it's a shame people can't see it.
So from 2022 ( full scale invasion ) to 2025 when Biden was president it was going swimmingly?
If you look at the situation on the front line when Trump got in to power in Jan Russian already had the momentum ( if slow and grinding ).
So blaming Trump specifically seems like a bit like scapegoating. Sure he is against it and thus hasn't helped ( this started with me pointing to an incident where he appeared to be actively helping Russia ) - but surely it was already was going south before he became president.
> So blaming Trump specifically seems like a bit like scapegoating.
I'm not blaming Trump for the invasion -— it's clearly Putin's invasion! (Indeed in the last couple of days you can even see the slight hint that Trump now gets it. That he's tired of his "friendship" with "Vladimir". You can see a hint of him expressing narcissistic injury from Putin, which he hasn't ever really done before.)
But Putin has been manipulating Trump, Trump lets him, and that is as clear as day. He has absolutely done things Putin wants him to do and on Putin's timescales — the whole 60-then-50 days thing was clearly Putin's plan, for example.
It's not just at odds with former US policy: it's basically sort of revoltingly unbecoming, emasculating, creepy and odd, and it always has been. (e.g. Helsinki). No other politician except a couple of leaders from Russian client states talks about Putin in the frankly admiring, subordinate way Trump does. It's like he's a horse who has been broken. He does not look like who he is —- the leader of the free world, the head of a proper democratic state. He looks like a cheerleader.
Ultimately what I am saying, very clearly, is that people underestimate the extent to which Trump's presidential ambitions and presidencies have always been interwoven with issues about Ukraine. Like, from before he was even President. There is Ukraine at every turn. His people. His corrupt outreach to try to get Biden. Russia's involvement in his campaign. "Russia, if you're listening". Alaska. It goes on and on and on.
This is quite different to Obama or Biden, for whom Ukraine was just one of the things. Trump is just plain weird about Russia and Ukraine; he was after all impeached the first time over it. And he has a long, long history of being enamoured with Russia, relying on Russian emigres to invest in Trump project apartments, trying to do things in Moscow, and laundering Russian money (which is the point at which the Russia/Ukraine thing may intersect with the Epstein thing)
He is much tougher with Netanyahu, even. And that is saying something.
I wasn't suggesting that! I was suggesting you were blaming him for the failure of the US supported Ukrainian counter offensive - sure he hasn't helped - but in my view it was already failing.
On the wider point I agree Trump has an affinity to 'strong' leaders ( particularly for stop-at-nothing ethno-nationalists ). I'd argue that's because that's what he is, rather than some weird mind control. He shares views with them in the sense that saying Canada should be part of the US is quite similar to saying Ukraine should be Russian, or Netanyahu blatant disregard for the lives of Palestians because they are 'other' is reflected in Trumps views on ( non-white ) immigrants in the US ( legal or not ).
ie they are very similar people with similar views. One of the odd things about nationalists ( defining us versus them ) is they are quite happy to work with the 'them' if they are also nationalists....
That was secured by Paul Manafort, a man who —- only months earlier -- worked as an advisor to and lobbyist for a pro-Russian Ukrainian PM (Viktor Yanukovych, essentially a Putin stooge).
Paul Manafort worked for Trump for free (this is not in doubt), but appears to have had massive debts at the time, which appear to have ultimately been settled.
Ukraine is the thread that runs through the entire story of Trump's political career. It is and has always been so utterly, abundantly obvious that Trump's position on Ukraine consistently has favoured and will favour Putin's, that media and journalists failing to observe it is nothing short of malpractice.