War in Ukraine

Can you expand on this a bit? Particularly in regards to President Trump's agency to restrict aid? Does he not have veto powers and wouldn't be awfully difficult to find 20 GOP senators to buck the first GOP president in 20 years to win the popular vote? Perhaps I misunderstood you. I happen to think there is very little standing in the way of President Trump restricting aid to Ukraine via his agency.

 

I just need to see actual evidence that their weapons systems are more advanced than ours in application before I concede the point.

 

So you are listening to a man that has never played in the big leagues of Geo-Politics? And no, the UN doesn't count as no one really takes them seriously when it comes to actual global competition.

 

Israel did not need any help with the air strikes.

Ask yourself this: How many Patriot Batteries have been destroyed in Ukraine with Russian surface to surface fires versus how many S-400's and S-300's have destroyed by US provided surface to surface fires?

This stuff is no longer theoretical, we've had over two year of play time in the field and the scoreboard is showing a blow out in the US 1990's technology's favor over the Russian's "state of the art" tech. There is a reason the Russians are rattling the nuclear saber again with the US lifting the restrictions on long range fires into Russia proper.

 

He cannot withhold aid that Congress has already passed. He can decide that the last aid package is the last one he wants to support.

 

Does sitting across the table from Boris Yeltsin when the Soviet Union issued its last gasp count ?

Why would anyone listen to Anthony Blinken ?

 

Of course, but it is not anything I have not already mentioned. In the legislative sense, I’m referring to the Congressional support the President needs for some of his other larger goals. Going along with at least some of the aid the Congress supports gets them to go along with some of the support he will certainly need later if not right away. There’s no bulldozing through this Congress. There’s a slim Republican majority in the Senate, at least 10 of those Republicans can’t stand Trump and won’t do him favors unless they see a greater good in his agenda, and the Democrats will go full lockstep against his agenda the instant they smell blood. The House is even worse. If he compromises on Ukraine, then he will more likely split the Democrats than split his own party. But then again maybe sticking to the plan (based on incomplete information) for Ukraine is worth losing the Congress in two years. No idea if any lessons were learned from 2018 or not.

Then there’s the allies. They are not going to just go along with selling out Ukraine. Be contemptuous of them if you like. Even if they can’t stop the intended effect of cutting off Ukraine, they can collectively slow it. And that also messes with President Trump’s plan for the quickest possible end to the war. Further, Trump might not think he needs our allies for Europe, but he is not blind (go ahead and mash that optimistic button) that he needs them for his strategy to prevent China from gaining hegemony over Asia, which is a larger goal. Even appearing to meet the allies half way, reluctantly, would go a long way toward placating them. Otherwise, when and if the time comes, that we need to build a coalition against China, the European countries in general (the UK and France specifically), will just say, “Remember when you said Europe was not your problem?”

 

As far as I know all Patriots in Ukraine have been destroyed. Also, our Arleigh Burke destroyers expended a year’s worth of prized SM-3’s, trying to thwart Iran’s initial attack, and Iran still hit all its designated targets.

 

Also true. Was not even referring to existing statutory aid. He probably could delay it just as Biden did in the months leading up to the Russian invasion, but he (Trump) would have to cough it up eventually. And any delay would aggravate the moderate Republicans in Congress even before he has a chance to put his asks in front of them.

 

Talking economics? No. By that time the Cold War was already over.

Because Blinken, whether you like him or not, still has the DIME power as SecState of the United States backing his position up. Do you really think the Russian's want the Ukrainians to be able to buy F-15's next? No, then you might want to listen to what Blinken or Rubio has to say.

 

We did expend some SM-3's but that is the only part of your post that is accurate. Your are completely clueless on the rest proving there is no point continuing to engage with you.

 

What are you talking about? He ruined the Russian economy (Clinton's guy) in the 90s and pretty much tilled the ground for Putin's rise.

 

I know your type. Your objective is to conform all considerations to fit your narrative or retreat to safety bubble.

Well, bye.

 

Trump’s chief negotiator says most of Ukraine’s army is already dead. Presumably this should make negotiations smoother …

 

I think you’re vastly overstating the political capital your position has currently and vastly understating the mandate Donald Trump has, especially relating to his position on Ukraine. It’s not as if he was clandestine about this on the campaign trail. Not to mention his VP is well known in his deep skepticism about the involvement. I would actually go as far as to say you are living in a dream world with respect to the idea of Donald Trump somehow being forced to reneg on one of his largest promises heading into the election. And no, this is not another Gitmo/Obama situation. This is the largest war in Europe since 1945. It’s not something he can sweep under the rug, so he’s going to put his political muscle behind it, if that’s even necessary at this juncture.

 

and what have they accomplished

 

Yahtzee!

 

If you know the score S-400 VS Patriot let me know. I remember hearing several months ago (around February or March, perhaps, that 7 Patriots had been taken out this year already. How would the Patriots do against the Russian Oreshnik hypersonic missile that can reach Mach 10+ and deliver 36 "warheads"? My guess is not so good.

The S-400 is not as good as the S-500, although these 2 systems work well together to provide "layered" protection. The S-500 can take out SATELLITES AND HYPERSONIC MISSILES as well as F-35's and F-22's and it operates at very long distances (up to 365 miles), capable of engaging with 80 to 100 targets simultaneously. This is state of the art in air defense:

S-500 VS S-400
How is Russia’s S-500 missile defence system superior to S-400?

S-500 Vs. S-400: In an ever-evolving landscape of global security and military technology, nations are continuously seeking to enhance their defensive capabilities to counter emerging threats. Among these nations, Russia has garnered significant attention for its prowess in developing advanced missile defense systems. While the S-400 Triumf system has already demonstrated its potency, a new player has entered the arena, promising even greater superiority – the S-500 missile defense system.




The S-500, touted as a next-generation air and missile defense system, represents a quantum leap in Russia’s military capabilities. Building upon the foundation laid by its predecessor, the S-400, this new system showcases a host of improvements and innovations that are poised to redefine the dynamics of modern warfare. From its extended operational range to its unparalleled interception capabilities, the S-500 sets a new benchmark for missile defense systems worldwide.

In this blog post, we will delve into the key advancements that position the S-500 as a superior counterpart to the S-400. By exploring its enhanced features, technological innovations, and potential strategic implications, we aim to shed light on the remarkable progression of Russia’s missile defense capabilities.
S-500 Vs. S-400 : How is Russia's S-500 missile defence system superior to S-400? - Defence Street

 

Well, we’ve established that’s what you think. Now we see what the President does. Then we see what Congress and the allies do in response. Then we see what the President does after that. And so on. Time will tell.

 

I don’t think this is even a question. Congress cannot coerce the POTUS to involve the country in a war he/she does not wish to be involved with. Can you think of any examples off hand whereby Congress have forced former presidents to become embroiled in foreign conflicts against their wishes? Some might argue the reverse of that has been true before, but I cannot recall an instance where Congress have forced an American president into funding a war he did not want to. The notion seems pretty far-fetched.