Trump's foreign policy

[BlueOak]

21 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Of course it's my opinion, you took it from my comment. So what? But I'm speaking based on what's happening in the field.

But let me explain further, all this help to Ukraine has deepened it more and more into a hole. An agreement to avoid the war was reached in the beginning, but NATO said no, let's fight and win. It wasn't Russia who backed from it. There have been more chances to negotiate an end since then. The thing is, Russia has been winning slowly but steadily, and the price of the end of the war for his side has risen. The Kursk invasion, apart from being militarily stupid in the whole picture, it's going to cost a lot more to Ukraine. If you chose war instead of negotiations, then you gotta be ready to eat the consequences if you lose.

But go and win the war, if you still think you can, nobody is preventing that from happening, except the other side, I guess. With the miraculous 40-year-old F16s, you got it!

Again:

This was the 8th war for former USSR territory.
Ukraine offered neutrality, and it was refused.
Russia started the war. Russia has escalated the war. This is the SECOND invasion of Ukraine from Russia. Nobody believes or trusts this pattern will change while Russia can still continue on this path.

Yes, the Russian proxy government was overthrown because they were trying to govern Ukraine as if it were Russia, when it was not. Then Russia's militias and Ukraine fought. Then Russia invaded.

In the last thread, someone asked me to either cite the 8 wars or BRICS expansion. I can't remember who it was now, but if necessary, I can again. I meant to return to that thread, but I haven't had time.

As for winning the war, the primary goal is to break Russia enough it cannot continue to invade. During Putin or his old KGB Fossils lifetime, nobody else cares to invade or expand Russia except that aging generation. As for old tech? You are comparing these F-16's to Russia's T60's now, so yes, it's plenty. 

Invading Kursk is SMART, it means you are fighting in Russia not Ukraine, and using their size against them for maneuver warfare. Not playing to their strength but your own.

Edited September 19, 2024 by BlueOak

[Treewatcher]

On 9/18/2024 at 0:44 PM, Hatfort said:

Russia is going to win the war no matter if Trump or Kamala win. The only thing that could prevent it is an escalation to nuclear war, but then we are all dead. Trump's words, if you wanna know, he said he would call Putin and offer him Crimea, in exchange for withdrawing from the rest of the Eastern territories, which is unrealistic, not to say ridiculous. So I guess that is his official position. I'd say he is more likely to stop the financial and arms aid to Ukraine, which is the best for everyone.

In the Middle East, both candidates are supportive of Israel. I'd say Trump is more dangerous to ignite a war with Iran personally, but I think there are so many interests on both sides so this doesn't happen, so I don't think he could do it, even if he wanted it. Yes, there are powers moving the strings behind the presidents that we don't see, like corporations and lobbies. He can screw things badly though, and create a chain of events that leads to this.

Then there's China, a possible conflict with Taiwan, and the Philippines involved too. I think common sense will prevail on this and won't escalate more, no matter if Kamala or Trump is in the White House. Can you imagine China messing in the coastline of California? Then why do people think it's acceptable for the US to mess in the Sea of China?

@Hatfort It seems like you´ve consumed some propaganda. First off Trump's word is unreliable. He lies, flip flops and speaks nonsense all the time. There´s countless examples like election denial while he was demanding people to cheat for him. Some fact checkers count his lies at a 1000 a month. Imagine that! Russia was actually offered a deal with Ukraine where they wouldn't join NATO, but Russia didn't continue the talks further and invaded. 

Stopping financial aid to Ukraine would only be best for Russia, China and Russia sympathizers in Us. Ukraine wants to remain sovereign and thus needs the weapons to defend itself. A big majority of Ukrainians have strong support for the war. Europeans want weapons to Ukraine to keep their safety for Russia and to stop them in Ukraine before Russia escalates further. Russia wants to stop aid for obvious reason and China wants a strong or at least capable Russia as they have stated. As for US, their alliance in Europe to keep Europe safe, Russia out and the western world unified needs Russia stopped in Ukraine and thus aligns US foreign policy in Europe with western Europe.

Russia was proposed a deal even before the war, where Ukraine would stay neutral and not join NATO. Which Putin rejected. You can find proof here https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/09/14/putin-rejected-early-ukraine-peace-deal-to-pursue-expanded-annexation-goals-reuters-a78787. After this point both sides have negotiated for peace, but Russia hasn't given any serious offer that is acceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine for obvious reason doesn't want to give up it's territory, or put itself in a position, where Russia can consolidate and just invade again later stronger.

It's obvious that the only stop to the war is either a white peace or Ukraine's defeat. This is because Ukraine can't capitulate Russia. It's also obvious that Ukraine wants one of these over the other. This is the reason why Ukraine made the Kursk invasion. To give more even ground in negotiations and for Russia to give a fair peace offer where Ukraine can keep it's territory intact and prevent a new war from happening later. However Ukraine hasn't gotten any peace deal, where it doesn't have to give up even more territory than currently controlled by Russian military forces. After such peace deal, Russia can just build up, re-invade and take over the rest easily.

You also said that "Russia has been winning slowly but steadily". Is it slow and steady when part of your territory gets invaded suddenly and quickly? while you make meager gains elsewhere. It shows that western aid is working, and it's really working. Keeping this up can stop the authoritarian Russia war machine. you say "Since the failed counteroffensive, continuing this war is a mix of delusion and stupidity, with a high price to pay in lives and territory", but since Russia currently isn't open to any serious peace deals, this is the only way to make Russia agree to one. You say you are pro peace deal, but you seem to be pro Russian annexation of Ukraine's land.

Also, Russia may very well conquer other nations, as long as it's able to. Russia's foreign policy and rhetoric points to it especially around it's northern neighbors. Also, there is no real proof for violence against Russian speaking population. Only Russian funded separationists, who've filled mass grave of people under their control of Ukrainian cities.

I hope I've convinced you of some of the wrong claims you made. Your claims seem to align with Russian propaganda, so I would question my sources if I were you. Especially as popular US podcasters have been found to receive funding from the Russian federation. I hope you respond, since I would like to hear your point of view and for us to refine our understanding of the complex and deceitful topic.

Also, I have an English finals test tomorrow, so any notes on my writing would be appreciated

[PurpleTree]

i do find it interesting though when right wingers or people like candace say that the u.s. shouldn’t be involved in these conflicts overseas

and the us shouldn’t be in nato and such

because to me it seems the reasons are very egoistic and not noble or whatever at all for the u.s. to be involved in these conflicts

it’s to keep hegemony, to keep rivals smaller, to keep the dollar as world currency, to keep the petro dollar etc

what the u.s does "better" than many of it’s rivals is to have alliances etc

and i thought right wingers want the u.s. to be stronk

[Hatfort]

On 19/9/2024 at 10:06 AM, BlueOak said:

Again:

This was the 8th war for former USSR territory.
Ukraine offered neutrality, and it was refused.
Russia started the war. Russia has escalated the war. This is the SECOND invasion of Ukraine from Russia. Nobody believes or trusts this pattern will change while Russia can still continue on this path.

Yes, the Russian proxy government was overthrown because they were trying to govern Ukraine as if it were Russia, when it was not. Then Russia's militias and Ukraine fought. Then Russia invaded.

In the last thread, someone asked me to either cite the 8 wars or BRICS expansion. I can't remember who it was now, but if necessary, I can again. I meant to return to that thread, but I haven't had time.

As for winning the war, the primary goal is to break Russia enough it cannot continue to invade. During Putin or his old KGB Fossils lifetime, nobody else cares to invade or expand Russia except that aging generation. As for old tech? You are comparing these F-16's to Russia's T60's now, so yes, it's plenty. 

Invading Kursk is SMART, it means you are fighting in Russia not Ukraine, and using their size against them for maneuver warfare. Not playing to their strength but your own.

Ukraine didn't need to offer neutrality, they had to demonstrate it, that their signature on the Minsk Accords was more than words, but genuine intention. Which it wasn't, as they were bragging about the huge number of soldiers per year that were being trained by NATO and the number of weapons carried there, at least in the Trump era, and continued in the Biden one. Ukraine was becoming a defacto NATO nation in front of the nose of Putin and Russia, and filling the Donbass with the most Nazi-Banderas fanatics they had in Ukraine, for the suffering of the more Russian-friendly people that were living there, that only lament about why Russia didn't intervene sooner. Now we cry, of course.

Invading Kursk has been stupid, it has divided Ukraine's limited forces, Russia didn't deduct from the other fronts, but took from its reserves in the vicinities of Moscow and from Belarus. The advance in Donetsk has continued steadily these weeks. If the gain for Ukraine has been to boost the morale and reactivate all the propagandists, okay then. But at what price? Putin has definitively stood up from the negotiation table, the war will finish when he and his war cabinet decide it's finished. They are regaining Kursk already, and it's possible that they will use the momentum and the forces that they have brought there to start another front, and deepen in the attrition war. Ukraine has turned the region of Sumy a target, and what Russia takes, is going to keep.

Ukraine is not defeated yet, and can cause harm to Russia, as it has exploding a reserve of weapons days ago, and the Kurks invasion itself. But the trend is clear, Russia is winning, of course it can continue to invade, more way more than Ukraine can defend itself. They will not rush, it's not a race, it will take the time that it takes. You guys gotta wake up, it's not a matter of propaganda, it's a matter of reading what's happening on the battlefield.

On 19/9/2024 at 4:55 PM, Treewatcher said:

@Hatfort It seems like you´ve consumed some propaganda. First off Trump's word is unreliable. He lies, flip flops and speaks nonsense all the time. There´s countless examples like election denial while he was demanding people to cheat for him. Some fact checkers count his lies at a 1000 a month. Imagine that! Russia was actually offered a deal with Ukraine where they wouldn't join NATO, but Russia didn't continue the talks further and invaded. 

Stopping financial aid to Ukraine would only be best for Russia, China and Russia sympathizers in Us. Ukraine wants to remain sovereign and thus needs the weapons to defend itself. A big majority of Ukrainians have strong support for the war. Europeans want weapons to Ukraine to keep their safety for Russia and to stop them in Ukraine before Russia escalates further. Russia wants to stop aid for obvious reason and China wants a strong or at least capable Russia as they have stated. As for US, their alliance in Europe to keep Europe safe, Russia out and the western world unified needs Russia stopped in Ukraine and thus aligns US foreign policy in Europe with western Europe.

Russia was proposed a deal even before the war, where Ukraine would stay neutral and not join NATO. Which Putin rejected. You can find proof here https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/09/14/putin-rejected-early-ukraine-peace-deal-to-pursue-expanded-annexation-goals-reuters-a78787. After this point both sides have negotiated for peace, but Russia hasn't given any serious offer that is acceptable to Ukraine. Ukraine for obvious reason doesn't want to give up it's territory, or put itself in a position, where Russia can consolidate and just invade again later stronger.

It's obvious that the only stop to the war is either a white peace or Ukraine's defeat. This is because Ukraine can't capitulate Russia. It's also obvious that Ukraine wants one of these over the other. This is the reason why Ukraine made the Kursk invasion. To give more even ground in negotiations and for Russia to give a fair peace offer where Ukraine can keep it's territory intact and prevent a new war from happening later. However Ukraine hasn't gotten any peace deal, where it doesn't have to give up even more territory than currently controlled by Russian military forces. After such peace deal, Russia can just build up, re-invade and take over the rest easily.

You also said that "Russia has been winning slowly but steadily". Is it slow and steady when part of your territory gets invaded suddenly and quickly? while you make meager gains elsewhere. It shows that western aid is working, and it's really working. Keeping this up can stop the authoritarian Russia war machine. you say "Since the failed counteroffensive, continuing this war is a mix of delusion and stupidity, with a high price to pay in lives and territory", but since Russia currently isn't open to any serious peace deals, this is the only way to make Russia agree to one. You say you are pro peace deal, but you seem to be pro Russian annexation of Ukraine's land.

Also, Russia may very well conquer other nations, as long as it's able to. Russia's foreign policy and rhetoric points to it especially around it's northern neighbors. Also, there is no real proof for violence against Russian speaking population. Only Russian funded separationists, who've filled mass grave of people under their control of Ukrainian cities.

I hope I've convinced you of some of the wrong claims you made. Your claims seem to align with Russian propaganda, so I would question my sources if I were you. Especially as popular US podcasters have been found to receive funding from the Russian federation. I hope you respond, since I would like to hear your point of view and for us to refine our understanding of the complex and deceitful topic.

Also, I have an English finals test tomorrow, so any notes on my writing would be appreciated

Trump is a lunatic, he could screw things even more, so yeah, I don't want him in office, I don't want to give another impression. Biden has been horrible in the Ukraine and Palestine conflicts, but Trump has the potential to be even worse. I don't expect much from Kamala either, if she wins.

The thing is, Russia is going to win no matter who is in office. The only thing that could prevent this is a nuclear war, but then we all die. A long-range weapon escalation, then Russia would attack with the same coin to NATO nations for making it possible, which would possibly lead to a nuclear apocalypse too. At least Biden and NATO have been wise enough to understand this and not sign for it, it seems. It's very cool to use long-range and nuclear weapons on others, and not be responded with the same coin, but Russia has clearly said that that won't be the case, that's the point of deterrence.

[BlueOak]

@Hatfort

Ukraine took more ground in Kursk in a few days than Russia did in months. It doesn't matter if they go back forward or sideways inside of Russia, that's the point you seem to miss. Russia's push has stopped, and they are risking encirclement inside of Kursk now.

You can't demonstrate neutrality while under attack. You can do it when the guns stop.

As for manpower: Ukraine is also using new manpower, and Russia has not had a mobilization again, though we both know they pick up anyone they can from anywhere. They used conscripts from Russia, FSB units, security forces, pilots, foreign fighters, and whoever they could find which is why they are doing so poorly in some areas of Kursk. They did however, pull units off the front, which is why they stopped advancing at the front. Russia is apparently planning a new mobilization of 180,000 soldiers, but they are not yet here, and won't be without some instability.

Ukraine playing Russia's game is dumb in static gun vs gun, and that's why they were losing because Russia had more. They are faster than Russia, they can move faster, think faster, and attack faster with better weaponry. Hitting strategic targets means they can't be fired at Ukraine, or used to defend Russia. The Iranian missiles are gone, which is great because Russia only usually fires them at civilians.

Can Ukraine win. Yes, it can. It can blunt Russia to the point that it cannot continue. You look at land like the Russians do. Russia took a few fields and lost a thousand men. Ukraine took out 10% of the Russian ammo supply with a drone or two. This is not about one battle, nor a city; it's about a long bloody conflict over the future of a country, and the countries surrounding it. I said once this will last decades and it will in some form. (Unless something major shifts).

Now onto these bizarre Nazi claims, which you keep repeating. Which quite honestly are lies used to give justification for a war. It's like me calling Putin a stupid man who had no reason to invade but did so out of spite—a sadistic love for war, or madness, for example. It's just as inane.

The Azovs were a few hundred strong, they were reformed before the war into a larger regular National Guard unit. The leader left the unit and got 2% of the vote. So ' the most Nazi-Banderas fanatics' is nonsense, plain and simple. Let me make this crystal clear again, war and aggression create nationalists and far-right individuals in wartime, and those are the first people to volunteer to fight. The Russians in the proxy militia fighting the Azov would have been a direct mirror. 

Because of their hatred of each other, right now, both countries have far more far-right individuals than at any time in recent history. Putin cultivates them to stay in power, throwing their lives away in low-consciousness border expansion, and Ukraine will need patriots to stay fighting. If only they all knew they were everything they hated (and loved), they would laugh at themselves.

Oh, and Ukraine was becoming a de facto western nation because of its development and prosperity, as well as Russia's refusal to adapt in its governance of Ukraine to suit that mold, which a less bloated and more dynamic country could have done. Shooting protestors was just the last straw in a long line of them.

Edited September 21, 2024 by BlueOak