War in Ukraine

How long do you think it takes to fund, design, construct, commission, and start up a munitions factory? The answer? Probably 4-5 years (in an extreme rush, assuming funding is available), if there are no environmental obstructions or objections about the safety of living near one. And a factory that handles explosives is the last place you want to be in a rush to slap together.

I am fairly certain that Europe's weapons factories are producing at maximum rates. Europe will not ever have the capacity to build weapons that the U.S. has. Until a fascist like Trump got in the White House, I would say that's generally been a good thing.

What lies exactly have you been told about this war? Biden told you it was going to happen (it did), he told you that Ukraine would need assistance (they did), and he told you that we would provide assistance (and we did, until republicans in Congress committed treason and withheld funding). Where are the lies? The only lies I see are the ones that dimwitted republicans in Congress fell for, and those came out of the Kremlin, which is known for . . . telling lies.

As far as carrying most of the load, Okey-dokie, the U.S. GDP last year was over $27 trillion, and the combined GDP of Germany, France, and the UK (the nations most able to build and contribute weapons and provide cash to Ukraine) was $11 trillion. Reasonably, we should expect these countries to be able to provide about 40% of the aid to Ukraine that we provide. (It is not reasonable to expect the smaller economies to contribute very much, so let's say 10% for the rest of Europe.) Thus far, the U.S. has provided $175 billion in aid to Ukraine, and the EU has provided $110 billion. GUESS WHAT, SON? YOU (and the U.S.) are behind on your donations to Ukraine by $45 billion! If you don't like living in the #1 economy in the world and having expectations that match that ranking, there are plenty of other countries that you could move to and take your money with you. Yes, there is a country that is not carrying enough of the load in Ukraine support, and if you want to see a citizen of that country, just look in a mirror and blame a republican (but not a Reagan-era republican like me--we are intelligent enough to know how important it is to defeat Russia).

EU Assistance to Ukraine (in U.S. Dollars).

How Much U.S. Aid Is Going to Ukraine?.

 

There really is nothing more hilarious than a Trump supporter taking umbrage at a political opponent stretching the truth to make Dear Leader look bad. Because Trump would never tell a lie, now would he? He's as pure as the driven snow . . . BWAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

 

Mysteriously, Putin was building his armies in preparation for an attack while Trump was in office. Trump was too busy trying to get us out of Afghanistan (but make sure it happened on Biden's watch) to pay any attention or do anything to discourage his pal Putin.

 

One candidate has arranged for aid to Ukraine multiple times and will continue to do so. The other wants to cut that aid off. Which one do you think Putin prefers? This is not that hard.

 

I hear you. No, I don’t believe Trump secretly told Putin he could have Ukraine. The evidence of deeds versus words is surprisingly more in Trump’s favor than it was Biden’s all the way up until the invasion started. I also don’t believe that Sullivan (the apparent decision maker in this Administration) believes that Trump actually told Putin that. I won’t speculate on what a sick, tired, old man truly believes in his heart of hearts or what he might just be exaggerating for political purposes. Frankly, that could go either way.

I also don’t believe Trump would have pulled us out of NATO (even if he wanted to, which he didn’t) or would have let Putin do “whatever the hell he wanted” to a NATO member state that refused to increase defense spending. So how do I explain Trump’s words? The same way I explain a parent shouting that they will “pull this car over and make you walk!” That is no defense of Trump by the way. While he was right as can be (as history has shown) about Europe needing to contribute more to its own defense and rely less on the U.S. to do it for them, he still should have been statesmanlike enough to have the hard conversations behind closed doors and not publicly air the family’s dirty laundry. But still Trump said what he said in public, and his political opponents have every right to use his words against him politically. So the criticism is fair.

 

Trump doesn't have to pull the US out of nato. All he has to do is choose not to respond if the call comes. It's not like the gop would impeach him for that. Hell, some would cheer him on.

 

Well, like I said, it’s election season, and Trump’s words are fair to use against him. If that’s an actual fear of yours, though, I would tell you the scenario you lay out is very unlikely due to some structural elements that are outside of any President’s control. But I’ll save that for after the election if it becomes necessary to walk people back from the cliff.

 

As Commander in Chief, it would be his call to make or not make. What are they going to do, impeach him? LOL

 

Agree with everything until the part about being statesmanlike. I think it was very statesmanlike by Trump to lift the veil on the NATO rip off to taxpayers and American servicemen/women. They were in essence being sold down the river and yes, I know, the Washington establishment hates Donald Trump for exposing this. Trump was not an elected official when he originally opined on NATO countries not contributing the shares they had already agreed to. Cut him some slack?

 

If you’re asking my opinion, then it is that it would never come to impeachment. I’ll point out that at the beginning of Putin’s invasion, the Biden Administration had only two plays in the book: shame and sanction. Jen Psaki openly scoffed at reporters who asked why we were not halting purchases of Russian oil, were not halting negotiations with Iran through Russia, were not reinforcing Eastern Europe with additional military forces, and were effectively encouraging Ukraine to surrender by offering to evacuate Zelensky’s government. Now, silly as all of those policies seem today, there were reasons (not good ones in my opinion) that they were the policies at the time. What caused such quick reversals on those policies were structural elements that forced President Biden to act in a way that he (or at least Sullivan, seemingly the real agent) was disinclined. Trump is no more immune from those elements than any other president. But I’ll leave it there. I seek only to reassure in the event Trump does return to the White House, not to persuade you that he should return to the White House.

 

I’m afraid I can’t cut said slack. I’ll put it this way: If you have a neighbor that repeatedly won’t tend to his lawn, and it’s making your home look bad, you’re in the right to talk to him about it. But if you’re such a [rectal opening] in the conversation that you not only fail to persuade him to change course but also convince him to double down on his lawn neglect just to show you contempt for trying to bully him, then you have not achieved the purpose of the conversation. Now I happen to know from people who were there that behind closed doors Trump acted much more persuasive and diplomatic than he did in his public remarks. And that’s great, but he needed to show more grace with our allies (with whom I have gotten just as frustrated as anyone) in the public setting. And that is why he largely failed in his purpose.

 

Yes, not conflating the two. I just don't share your optimism about structural elements getting Trump to honor article 5 if it comes to it. Not a damn thing anyone can do about it if he ignores it.

 

Can you post some video of that Trump doing exactly what you have suggested?

 

Wasn’t it Obama who suggested Russia wasn’t anything to be worried about? “Hey Mitt the cold war called and they want their foreign policy back” or something to that effect..

 

Seems like someone well versed in the details thinks otherwise.

 

So what?

 

Wise people know when to accept the opinions of more learned individuals on a topic.

 

It's a freaking message board, not a lecture hall. Perhaps you can explain how Trump can be prevented from deciding not to act if a nato member is attacked. I won't hold my breath for your words of widsom.

 

Since it’s not my area of expertise I won’t try.
uftaipan seems well versed in those details.

 

Yes he does, but no one is omniscient.
The potus is commander in chief of our armed forces. No one else can order them into combat, period. I just don't happen to share Taipan's optimism that systemic guardrails will somehow steer Trump towards honoring article five. Plus the question as to what consequences would Trump face for failing to act? Sure, he would get barked at by many, cheered on by others, but at the end of the day.... crickets.