• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Donald Trump Is Making It Harder to End the War in Ukraine

No but it would be nice if people would quit calling Trump a Russian asset when it was Obama who bent the knee to Putin's let's say territorial aggressiveness. While many Democrat politicians and their kids were getting rich over there in Ukraine.

Don't be ridiculous. On the day Obama announced sanctions against Russia for interfering with the election Trump had Flynn call the Russian ambassador and the sanctions got lost in the shuffle after the inauguration.
Trump just positively aches to be included with despots and dictators and shows it every time he moves on foreign policy.
 
Putin would agree with you.

What Obama should have done is have approved serious military aide to Ukraine upon the first rumblings over Crimea. Perhaps if he had done so the Donbass incursion by Russian forces might not have occurred.

Supplying Ukraine with blankets and first aid kits is a laughable response to Putin's Sudetenland styled annexations and invasions.

Which would have been a great way to have hundreds of pieces of military hardware end up in Russian/Separatist hands.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces collapsed in the face of the Russian invasion, with thousands of Ukrainian troops defecting to the other side or deserting their posts entirely. Within a few months of the invasion the Ukrainians could muster just 6,000 troops, barely a brigade worth of troops. It wasn't until the summer of 2014 that they had assembled a patch work fighting force of national guard units and volunteer battalions (many of whom were of dubious loyalty to the Kiev government and several had to disbanded afterwards), and this force was routed almost immediately after they came under Russian attack.

No amount of military hardware can overcome a lack of skill and willing personnel. The Iraqis fielded an incredibly well armed force in 1991 and they fell apart in a few hours. The Saudis today field Abrams and Challengers and fly advanced western aircraft and they get routed by piss poor Houthi rebels. Give the Ukrainians the same amount of hardware and they will still fail. You cannot just buy your way into military competence.
 
Crimea and eastern Ukraine were Obama's special gift to Putin. Somehow Trump is getting flak for his Ukraine policy but I don't see Putin making any more land grabs like that since Trump was elected. That's a positive right?

Russian troops are invading Ukraine as we speak, and you’re pretending you don’t “See”?????????

“Somehow” Trump is getting flak for sending his tv lawyer and two Russian bag men, all financed by Moscow, to undermine Ukranian leadership by running some idiotic sidebar scheme to force Kiev to announce and investigation into a potential rival in a US election.

Whistling past the graveyard is a Trumpster specialty these days.

To be fair, you’ve had three years to practice.

And Trump’s behavior (which is not a policy) is designed to weaken Ukraine and destroy confidence in its ability to survive.
 
Which would have been a great way to have hundreds of pieces of military hardware end up in Russian/Separatist hands.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces collapsed in the face of the Russian invasion, with thousands of Ukrainian troops defecting to the other side or deserting their posts entirely. Within a few months of the invasion the Ukrainians could muster just 6,000 troops, barely a brigade worth of troops. It wasn't until the summer of 2014 that they had assembled a patch work fighting force of national guard units and volunteer battalions (many of whom were of dubious loyalty to the Kiev government and several had to disbanded afterwards), and this force was routed almost immediately after they came under Russian attack.

No amount of military hardware can overcome a lack of skill and willing personnel. The Iraqis fielded an incredibly well armed force in 1991 and they fell apart in a few hours. The Saudis today field Abrams and Challengers and fly advanced western aircraft and they get routed by piss poor Houthi rebels. Give the Ukrainians the same amount of hardware and they will still fail. You cannot just buy your way into military competence.


A full blown Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a long and bloody affair.

After the Russians chased the Nazis out, Ukranian partisans kept the Red Army busy well into 1948.

This time won’t be any different.

We do have a vested interest in keeping the Russians confined inside their own borders. Particularly considering Putin’s behavior.
 
Russian troops are invading Ukraine as we speak, and you’re pretending you don’t “See”?????????

“Somehow” Trump is getting flak for sending his tv lawyer and two Russian bag men, all financed by Moscow, to undermine Ukranian leadership by running some idiotic sidebar scheme to force Kiev to announce and investigation into a potential rival in a US election.

Whistling past the graveyard is a Trumpster specialty these days.

To be fair, you’ve had three years to practice.

And Trump’s behavior (which is not a policy) is designed to weaken Ukraine and destroy confidence in its ability to survive.

Providing Jericho missiles and other direct military aid weakens Ukraine?

Dang, the radical left views reality through the most bizarre filters known to man.
 
Providing Jericho missiles and other direct military aid weakens Ukraine?

Dang, the radical left views reality through the most bizarre filters known to man.

What Trump and Fox neglected to tell you is that there is a sales caveat that comes with the Javelins.....

Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine | Foreign Policy

They have to be in storage as far from the Donbas front lines as is possible. Stored in Lviv oblast. Any farther west and they would be in Poland.
 
What Trump and Fox neglected to tell you is that there is a sales caveat that comes with the Javelins.....

Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine | Foreign Policy

They have to be in storage as far from the Donbas front lines as is possible. Stored in Lviv oblast. Any farther west and they would be in Poland.

So now the spin is the military aid that was withheld to the peril of Ukraine, and requires the removal of the President from Office, is useless?

Who do you work for?
 
How Donald Trump Is Making It Harder to End the War in Ukraine

23638459-u-zelenskogo-rasskazali-v-kakom-sluchae.jpg

President Volodmyr Zelenskyy.



One could easily argue that Donald Trump aided Vladimir Putin in a 'circuitous' fashion by temporarily withholding US Congressional defense funding for Ukraine, a nation at war with Putin's Russia.

Merely the impression of weak US presidential support strengthens Putin's position and weakens that of Zelenskyy. I believe Trump clearly understood this implication.

Remember he eventually sent the blankets.
 
So now the spin is the military aid that was withheld to the peril of Ukraine, and requires the removal of the President from Office, is useless?

I never mentioned withheld aid. That's your weird spin above. Try again ocean.

Who do you work for?

We know who you work for ... the Gushing Over Putin party.
 
I never mentioned withheld aid. That's your weird spin above. Try again ocean.



We know who you work for ... the Gushing Over Putin party.

No you didn't mention aid. But you claimed the missiles are worthless given where it's claimed the missiles are to be stock piled.

So the equipment the President should be impeached over, are actually useless.

We know who you work for comrade.
 
What Trump and Fox neglected to tell you is that there is a sales caveat that comes with the Javelins.....

Far From the Front Lines, Javelin Missiles Go Unused in Ukraine | Foreign Policy

They have to be in storage as far from the Donbas front lines as is possible. Stored in Lviv oblast. Any farther west and they would be in Poland.

Has Ukraine been taken over by Russia? Did I miss something? The link you provided, even though no one ever heard of that blogger, shoots down your arguments:

Gen. Tod Wolters, the head of U.S. European Command, said Thursday at the Pentagon that Ukrainian soldiers welcomed the arrival of the first tranche of missiles, as well as U.S. and NATO training on how to use them.

“You see a little bit of a bounce in the step of a Ukrainian soldier when he or she has had the opportunity to embrace this system that allows them to better defend their turf,” Wolters said, noting that U.S. and NATO military teams traveled to Ukraine this summer to teach the armed forces there how to better use the new weapon.

While the Obama administration slapped sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine and had provided Kyiv with substantial financial aid, the administration stopped short of providing lethal weapons to Ukraine—including the Javelins—due to fears that they could fall into Russia’s hands or prompt Moscow to escalate. Officials also worried that the untrained Ukrainian military would not be able to use sophisticated equipment such as the Javelins, said Jim Townsend, a former Defense Department official.

As the Ukrainian military gains experience, that is less of a concern, Wolters said.

U.S. and NATO training efforts over the last few years “allow us to have comfort that with an additional Javelin comes enough soldiers with the ability to embrace that capability, absorb it, and productively use it,” Wolters said, noting that his military advice would be to provide additional Javelins to Ukraine.
 
No you didn't mention aid. But you claimed the missiles are worthless given where it's claimed the missiles are to be stock piled.

So the equipment the President should be impeached over, are actually useless.

We know who you work for comrade.

Lol. You didn't even know where the Javelin's in Ukraine were mandated to be stored.

Neither Trumpov nor Fox told you that crucial part did they?
 
Lol. You didn't even know where the Javelin's in Ukraine were mandated to be stored.

Neither Trumpov nor Fox told you that crucial part did they?

Nope. Not aware. But you expect people to think you know what's best? Explain that comrade.
 
Has Ukraine been taken over by Russia? Did I miss something?

Well, you forgot to quote this part of the article champ.....

Under the conditions of the foreign military sale, the Trump administration stipulates that the Javelins must be stored in western Ukraine—hundreds of miles from the battlefield. “I see these more as symbolic weapons than anything else,” said Samuel Charap, a senior political scientist at Rand Corp. Experts say the conditions of the sale render them useless in the event of a sustained low-level assault—the kind of attack Ukraine is most likely to face from Russia.

The link you provided, even though no one ever heard of that blogger, shoots down your arguments:

You never heard of Foreign Policy?

I'm not surprised. Such a well regarded publication is not allowed in the bubble of where Trumpers get their information ... Fox, Breitbart, RT, etc.
 
Which would have been a great way to have hundreds of pieces of military hardware end up in Russian/Separatist hands.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces collapsed in the face of the Russian invasion, with thousands of Ukrainian troops defecting to the other side or deserting their posts entirely. Within a few months of the invasion the Ukrainians could muster just 6,000 troops, barely a brigade worth of troops. It wasn't until the summer of 2014 that they had assembled a patch work fighting force of national guard units and volunteer battalions (many of whom were of dubious loyalty to the Kiev government and several had to disbanded afterwards), and this force was routed almost immediately after they came under Russian attack.

No amount of military hardware can overcome a lack of skill and willing personnel. The Iraqis fielded an incredibly well armed force in 1991 and they fell apart in a few hours. The Saudis today field Abrams and Challengers and fly advanced western aircraft and they get routed by piss poor Houthi rebels. Give the Ukrainians the same amount of hardware and they will still fail. You cannot just buy your way into military competence.

First, you have provided overused non-interventionist rationalization for refusing to even try, the lame excuse being because if one tried one might fail and lose some material to the enemy in battle. And if a defeatist conjecture were certitude, then you've made the case as to why NO military force should receive any military supplies and equipment from anyone (including from their own domestic production) because its a given that the enemy will always recovers a portion of that material (as the friendlies do from the enemy).

Thankfully isolationists were not successful in claiming that military aid to British in 1940 was pointless (or to South Korea in 1950). Rest assured, military equipment did change hands but that is the nature of war - so unless you think war (including in defense against aggression) is always futile, your point is a weak excuse for doing nothing substantive.

Second, the commitment to supply serious military hardware to Ukraine would have been deterrent even before it arrived. Between the spring takeover of the Crimea and the late summer to fall incursion of Russian mercenaries the contemplation of rearming the Ukraine army may have deterred Putin's aggression - rather, Obama chose the route of tepid protest and mild sanctions.

Third, had serious anti-armor weapons and self-propelled artillery arrived before the Ukraine offensive that nearly extinguished the mercenaries, the arrival of Russian regulars and tanks would have been greeted with a nasty shock...and perhaps too late to effect the outcome (which re-established the lost ground and expanded into new territory).

We shall never know because, per your rationale, Obama was too cautious and spineless.
 
Thankfully isolationists were not successful in claiming that military aid to British in 1940 was pointless (or to South Korea in 1950).

Completely different situations; England had the geographic isolation to deter invading forces and South Korean aid was augmented by American military forces.

Rest assured, military equipment did change hands but that is the nature of war -

And would have done nothing to help Ukraine. Indeed, the presence of American weapons in Separatist or Russian hands, just a year or so after a huge debate erupted in America over the possibility of American aid to Syrian rebels ending up in terrorist hands, would have been a huge problem to the United States.

Second, the commitment to supply serious military hardware to Ukraine would have been deterrent even before it arrived. Between the spring takeover of the Crimea and the late summer to fall incursion of Russian mercenaries the contemplation of rearming the Ukraine army may have deterred Putin's aggression - rather, Obama chose the route of tepid protest and mild sanctions.

The idea that Putin and the Kremlin, which threatened nuclear retaliation against the West should they intervene directly, would have been deterred just by the sheer presence of American and western military hardware is laughable.

Third, had serious anti-armor weapons and self-propelled artillery arrived before the Ukraine offensive that nearly extinguished the mercenaries, the arrival of Russian regulars and tanks would have been greeted with a nasty shock...and perhaps too late to effect the outcome (which re-established the lost ground and expanded into new territory).

Again, you are trying to push the idea that had the Ukrainians just had enough firepower, they would have been able to succeed in the late summer of 2014. This is again, incorrect; what doomed Ukraine's offensive to failure was a lack of skill, not hardware.

The Ukrainian forces that engaged the Russians in East Ukraine were overwhelmingly composed of reservists and volunteers, not professionally trained regulars, and no where was that more aptly demonstrated by the fact that over the course of just a few days the Russians were able to isolate and route Ukrainian forces piecemeal all while effectively hiding from NATO satellite reconnaissance that we were feeding to the Ukrainians.

The notion that the Ukrainians would have been successful had they just been well armed enough falls flat, especially considering that the same situation happened six years earlier; the Georgian troops who invaded South Ossetia were better armed than the bulk of the Russian forces they encountered, but almost immediately on contact fell apart at the seams. The Ukrainian forces that faced the Russians in East Ukraine were victims of 20 years of degradation, corruption, and a general lack of preparedness for armed conflict. You could have given them the most advanced and powerful technology in the world, and it would still not be enough, as we have seen countless times throughout history.

We shall never know because, per your rationale, Obama was too cautious and spineless.

No, you are just demonstrating how little you understood of the situation.
 
I wonder how intimidated Putin was by all those blankets being lobbed at his tanks?

The The Obama & European Clown Show is what emboldened Putin from the start.

"The Donald" isn't my choice for making things much better either

Trump is only echoing a John McCain quote aimed to criticize the Obama administration "The Ukrainians are being slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," In 2015, the late John McCain said "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." Trump is being hyperbolic here.

The Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, nevertheless it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment. Many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military. By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.

Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar. The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.

It's important to put the war in Ukraine into prospective. The Russian military operation in Crimea began in Feb, 2014. U.S. officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia. Key allies, including Germany, were against sending weapons into the conflict zone. In July of the same year 2014, a Russian missile shot down a Malaysian Air civilian jetliner with a surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed.

Conspiracy theories were rampant with Russia putting out all kinds of disinformation which deflected the blame away from themselves. Putin blamed Ukraine for the disaster. To this day, Russia has denied being responsible for the shooting down of Malaysian Air Flight 17. It's been a horrible time in Ukraine since they were invaded and they have paid a heavy price for their struggle to be an independent democracy, separate and apart from Russia.
 
Completely different situations; England had the geographic isolation to deter invading forces and South Korean aid was augmented by American military forces.
Irrelevant to my point. No one said their situations were identical, what pointed out that the excuse to not provide military supplies to a country in need MERELY because it may not be effective or lost in combat is a dumb excuse - one that you seem unable to grasp.

War is always a calculus of cost-benefit and risk. To have rejected aid to the embattled, defeated, and isolated England (or the nearly defeated SK) because of a high risk of failure or of squandering material required either an arrogant decision maker who assumed he/she knew the futile results of such aide, or someone whose real sympathies were with those nations enemies.

In short, there was nothing wrong with risking some material to help the Ukrainians check Russia's return to empire, especially for an investment that would have cost far less in the short run than it may well cost (as it did with Hitler) in the long run.

Again, I note, you seem determined to see Ukraine swing on Russian noose. And if so be aware that your buddy Putin is also opposed to aid because unlike you, he see's such "useless" aide as a threat to his expansionist impulses.

And would have done nothing to help Ukraine. Indeed, the presence of American weapons in Separatist or Russian hands, just a year or so after a huge debate erupted in America over the possibility of American aid to Syrian rebels ending up in terrorist hands, would have been a huge problem to the United States.

The idea that Putin and the Kremlin, which threatened nuclear retaliation against the West should they intervene directly, would have been deterred just by the sheer presence of American and western military hardware is laughable.

Again, you are trying to push the idea that had the Ukrainians just had enough firepower, they would have been able to succeed in the late summer of 2014. This is again, incorrect; what doomed Ukraine's offensive to failure was a lack of skill, not hardware.

What is far more laughable are your bloated claims of certitude of defeat, which is always a matter of conjecture and probability. As in 1939 and 1940 WWII, there were always defeatist and highly plausible "no aid" narratives provided by the isolationists (and their then allied communists) to justify turning their back on England and others. There were always narratives assuring 100 percent defeat and of the impossibility of opposing Hitler and NAZI aggression because "their victims just can't win". But as any student of the game of nations knows, a policy based on assuming with 100 percent certainty of the future is a policy inviting failure.

The fact remains that there was (and still is) an opportunity to take stronger action against Russian aggression that began in the early phases of the war. The Ukraine forces by August were clearly beating the well equipped (airliner shooting) Russian proxies. So much so the Russian military had to rush to their defense and roll back the major gains of Ukraine's forces with Russian tanks.

But as it turned out the west acted as he expected and hoped for, weak...hesitant...tepid. Would Putin have plunged ahead if confronted with an escalating arms race or robust US involvement, who knows? Could the prospective or actual loss of Russian tanks to, for example, Ukrainian Javelins have modified Putin's plans, who knows? But Putin is not a nuclear war threatening Khrushchev and even he realized that nuclear war (or starting a full scale conventional war) was never an option.

The bottom line is I am NOT basing my points on certitude. I'm not saying that a robust response would have certainly stopped Putin, or that Obama would have necessarily changed todays current outcome by strapping on his porta-spine and going to Congress for funds. I'm merely making the observation that it MIGHT have made a difference, that Ukraine deserved the chance, and for that reason ALONE, lethal aide should have been, and should be, promised and delivered long before now. THAT Obama strongly resisted doing so is undisputed.

in order to justify your policy you have to PROVE with 100 percent certainty that any aide would have been useless. If you can't (and no one can know that) then you're turning your back is a cold, calculated, and clearly pro-Russian aggression policy. Your cloaked point, sadly, is that Ukraine should not be even given the opportunity to check or turn the tables on the Russians (while you hypocritically beat on them for not being better when confronted by better equipped Russian regulars).

Given that you keep pushing a policy of self fulfilling defeat, why not fess up? Are you an alt-right Russophile or an old style anti-American leftist?
 
Last edited:
...The Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, nevertheless it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment. Many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military. By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.

Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar. The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.

It's important to put the war in Ukraine into prospective. The Russian military operation in Crimea began in Feb, 2014. U.S. officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia. Key allies, including Germany, were against sending weapons into the conflict zone. In July of the same year 2014, a Russian missile shot down a Malaysian Air civilian jetliner with a surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed.

Conspiracy theories were rampant with Russia putting out all kinds of disinformation which deflected the blame away from themselves. Putin blamed Ukraine for the disaster. ...

Your response, while informative, is also wishy-washy. The only perspective worthy of note is that the crippling mindset of Obama and his advisors was to avoid pro-active and robust military actions. Obama was determined to leave Iraq prematurely, long avoided dealing with ISIS murderous genocide and the takeover of Iraq, was uncertain in Libya, foolishly solicitous of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and utterly hands off in Syria in the critical stages after the fall of Assad. And it was completely within the Obama-liberal mindset to deal with aggression through nasty letters, useless resolutions, and problematical economic "sanctions" rather than contribute to a real defense of a country.

So it should have been no surprise that Obama's 'weapon' against Putin was rhetorical, minimal, and very problematic. If these were intended to check Putin after Crimea it clearly failed in the eastern Ukraine, and was predicted to continue to fail by most observers.

The 'fear' of escalating any conflict is natural, and as Obama demonstrated, it's also highly disabling. Once an individual or nation becomes so weak as to avoid conflict at all costs, then that person or nation will live only by the tolerance granted by spiritually stronger others. So it was with Obama and Putin over Ukraine.

Had Obama an unemotional and principled view of justice and just action, such fears would have been secondary. Ukraine was worth saving as a proto-democratic nation hoping to join the west. The deserved to live in peace. However the Russians, as they have for 500 years, couldn't resist the call to conquest and imperial rule over their tributary border peoples. If the west wished to help Ukraine and its battle for self-determination its been a no-brainer.

First, Obama's wimpy "no lethal aid" restriction was childish. As a nation threatened, the provision of training and the full range of military equipment to the Ukraine would have been announced and started ASAP. There is NO effective action Putin could take (within reason) to stop those shipments.

Second, the ONLY increased conflict that might result is NOT on the US or Nato, but on the Ukraine. None the less, it is not the duty of the US to decide the future of Ukraine over Ukraine's wishes. If Ukraine was willing to take the chance by accepting aid, who were/are we to tell them to suffer because of our fears for them?

Three, there is nothing Russia could do EXCEPT launch a full scale invasion of Ukraine - a nightmare for Russia who would have to fight an insurgent war of resistance for many years against a population far larger than Chechnya. Loathed by Ukrainians, insurgents covertly supplied by western powers (as in Afghanistan), what would the much reduced Russian state do...invade the entirety of western Europe? Of course not.

Clearly Obama and Trump are not Charlie Wilson - much to the Ukraine's determent. But then Charlie didn't fret over the "increased conflict" for the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Memo to everyone: The title of this thread is: How Donald Trump Is Making It Harder to End the War in Ukraine

Either remain on this topic or start your own thread in the appropriate forum.
 
Irrelevant to my point. No one said their situations were identical, what pointed out that the excuse to not provide military supplies to a country in need MERELY because it may not be effective or lost in combat is a dumb excuse - one that you seem unable to grasp.

And by failing to realize the world of differences between your attempts at equation is why you fail.

Ukraine was not England in 1940 or Korea in 1950. Ukraine was a country that had just undergone a revolution, with a shaky unstable government and with significant tracts of the country in open rebellion. There were no US forces on the ground to counter hostile forces, and even as late as May there was still uncertainty if the Ukrainian government would even last. Deploying large quantities of US military hardware wouldn't have just been questionable, it was flat out foolish. You're ignoring the very real and negative consequence of that course of action in favor of "But what if we did that about Hitler"

But as it turned out the west acted as he expected and hoped for, weak...hesitant...tepid. Would Putin have plunged ahead if confronted with an escalating arms race or robust US involvement, who knows? Could the prospective or actual loss of Russian tanks to, for example, Ukrainian Javelins have modified Putin's plans, who knows? But Putin is not a nuclear war threatening Khrushchev and even he realized that nuclear war (or starting a full scale conventional war) was never an option.

No it wouldn't have, and trying to push this train of thought is just showing how little you understand of the strategic situation. Ukraine will always be of greater strategic importance to Russia than the US. That's the reality of one country bordering Ukraine and the other not.

The fact that Russia in the first place openly threatened nuclear retaliation against the US should we intervene in Ukraine establishes clearly where Russian interests lie. Your suggestion that just maybe Putin might have backed down had American military equipment been present is nothing but wishful thinking. Moscow abundantly made it clear how seriously they viewed the situation in Ukraine and what they were willing to do over it, and you're suggesting Obama was a coward because he chose not to match Putin's nuclear threats.

The bottom line is I am NOT basing my points on certitude.

No, you're just insisting on completely subjective opinions that ignore what the situation on the ground was and trying to act as if you wouldn't have reemed the Obama Administration had American weapons ended up captured by the Russians and paraded in Red Square.

in order to justify your policy you have to PROVE with 100 percent certainty that any aide would have been useless. If you can't (and no one can know that) then you're turning your back is a cold, calculated, and clearly pro-Russian aggression policy. Your cloaked point, sadly, is that Ukraine should not be even given the opportunity to check or turn the tables on the Russians (while you hypocritically beat on them for not being better when confronted by better equipped Russian regulars).

Given that you keep pushing a policy of self fulfilling defeat, why not fess up? Are you an alt-right Russophile or an old style anti-American leftist?

Lol. Another Libertarian who can't grasp the complexity of international politics. Color me surprise.
 
Trump is only echoing a John McCain quote aimed to criticize the Obama administration "The Ukrainians are being slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," In 2015, the late John McCain said "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." Trump is being hyperbolic here.

The Obama administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, nevertheless it did provide more than $100 million in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment. Many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military. By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles.

Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar. The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank missiles, something long sought by Kiev.

It's important to put the war in Ukraine into prospective. The Russian military operation in Crimea began in Feb, 2014. U.S. officials were concerned that providing the Javelins to Ukraine would escalate their conflict with Russia. Key allies, including Germany, were against sending weapons into the conflict zone. In July of the same year 2014, a Russian missile shot down a Malaysian Air civilian jetliner with a surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed.

Conspiracy theories were rampant with Russia putting out all kinds of disinformation which deflected the blame away from themselves. Putin blamed Ukraine for the disaster. To this day, Russia has denied being responsible for the shooting down of Malaysian Air Flight 17. It's been a horrible time in Ukraine since they were invaded and they have paid a heavy price for their struggle to be an independent democracy, separate and apart from Russia.

I know what the Ukraine and Crimea is all about.

Absolutely nothing......................except for liberal Europeans allowing Putin to take what ever he likes. (one little piece at a time)
 
I know what the Ukraine and Crimea is all about.

Absolutely nothing......................except for liberal Europeans allowing Putin to take what ever he likes. (one little piece at a time)

Should they have gone to war with a nuclear armed Putin?
 
Back
Top Bottom