Other stuff

[Mjmd]

Just a note on Ukraine aid best I could find. There are basically two types; amounts authorized by Congress and presidential drawdowns. Also, discovered that Biden was in Kyiv in 2014 to announce some of the different types of aid being provided.

US Security Assistance - note doesn't include loan guarantees; for instance $1B in 2014
FY14: $320M
FY15: $314M
FY16: $312M
FY17: $248M
FY18: $290M
FY19: $330M
FY20: $372M
FY21: $391M

FY22: $7,847M

Note these didn't start until Aug 2021. I couldn't find what pretext Biden used to start this; will keep digging, but if I had to guess there was some intelligence buzz about this time.
Edit: whitehouse press briefing which lacks details.... https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room...t-of-1961/



Edit: Couldn't find anything. Not even in "news of the day" compilations.

[superdeath]

Again your saying it was preventable by US bluffing that we are willing to send forces? Would we do so solo? Unlikely. So bluff bad. Would NATO have jumped in. I haven't heard strong support from NATO for said action, so also bluff bad. If an autocrat believes they can get away with something they will try. WWI the Kaiser was told by his advisors that Britain wouldn't jump in. He was FURIOUS after they declared, but the threat of Britain didn't stop him.

Also, assigning blame to anyone other than Putin is folly of the highest magnitude. You can say preventable by x,y, and z, but blame is not a word that can be ascribed anywhere but Putin.

There's a pretty clear line drawn on where they will jump in: Attack on a NATO member. To think that the USA would risk nuclear war to defend a country that isn't even in their alliance is silly. The real "calling the bluff" move would be to attack NATO. Would the USA enter nuclear war to save some country like Estonia? I have my doubts, but at least NATO is credible enough that I believe it will work to deter an attack.

Even if the USA didnt join in, the utter of the Russian army means that almost any combo of NATO allies would be enough to roll thru Moscow.

When you have nukes, any attack will end in nuclear annihilation. That is why I think even NATO is more or less a bluff. If you have to choose between essentially killing everyone on Earth or letting Estonia fall to Russia, you let Estonia fall.

I find that not entirely true. I expect that most nations when attacked will not resort to immediate world ending nukes. Letting Estonia fall to Russia because of a perceived nuclear threat, is just appeasement. Only this time its Russian instead of German.

[superdeath]

As I said, we have very different perceptions of how politics operates. From my perspective, almost everything you listed is senseless American media drama that has no real-world relevance but I understand how you would think otherwise if you live inside this narrative. With respect to some other things you said I am uncertain you fully comprehend what you are saying. For example, to refrain from betraying Kurds would mean to betray Turks; I hope I do not need to explain how incredibly important this country is in the current conflict and, more generally, how key Turkey is for NATO if NATO seriously wants to contain Russia. How you can in the same breath criticize Trump for sucking up to Turkey, being soft on Russia and weakening NATO I do not understand.

Betraying Turkey is a bad idea, but every country/person should condemn the way Turkey is handling the kurds.

[Gavagai]

Yep that is Trump. Never needlessly insulted anybody; certainly not countries we were allied with. Again weapons started in 2014 (and again Trump threatened to withhold for political gain). And again, last statement has not been proven and is based at best on a possibility.

On arms supplies to Ukraine: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk...-a-primer/

"On December 22, 2017, the Trump administration approved supplying Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine, capping a nearly three-year debate in Washington over whether the United States should provide lethal defensive weapons to counter further Russian aggression in Europe."

"In a rare show of bipartisanship in 2014, the US Congress passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which appropriated $350 million in security assistance, including anti-tank and anti-armor weapons, to the government of Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity. Despite strong congressional backing, President Barack Obama decided not to authorize the US government sale or financing of lethal weapons to Ukraine. However, this policy did not prevent the private export of US-made lethal weapons to Ukraine"

From 2014 commercial sales to Ukraine were authorized but only since 2017 direct security assistance with lethal weapons started. Most particularly only since 2017 US started supplying Javelins that proved so instrumental in the current war, particularly in the early stages.

[Gavagai]

On Trump and Russia one needs to understand the historical context. All three previous US Presidents started their terms with an attempt to create a good relationship with Russia. I think this is because an alliance between Russia and the US makes lots of sense (almost no material conflict of interests and China as a common threat) and every President was an extremely low opinion of their predecessor and believed the alliance failed solely because of the predecessor's stupidity. None of them initially understood that Putin asks an unreasonable price for the alliance (CIS as Russia's exclusive sphere of interest). None of them understood that Putin does not respect any agreements.
Both Bush and Obama got bitterly disappointed by the end of their second terms and I think Trump was way ahead of their respective trajectories. During the press conference after the very first meeting between Putin and Trump there was a lot of awkwardness between them and I suspect the conversation behind closed doors was an unpleasant surprise for both leaders.

[Mjmd]

Yes Trump admin started lethal weapons, but not military aid; credit where credit is due. That doesn't mean he would have stopped the Ukraine invasion. You'll also note aid went down in his first two years, until 2019. Hm what happened in 2019? Trump trying to leverage said aid for his own political gain. A topic you still haven't touched.

In general you have the harder argument here. You are trying to prove Trump would have stopped an autocrat from doing what he wanted. Despite Trump passing up chances to tell Russia to stop and in fact saying that Crimea and Donbas were part of Russia (something practically no one else in the west hast done). While you have explained Russia interfering in our elections you haven't stated why on Trumps side instead of either Hilary or Biden. Putin is smart as you've said. He would choose whichever side he thinks is best for him.

[Jowy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...reelected/

[darrelljs]

I can’t connect the dots, but I’m pretty sure this is all Hunter’s fault.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...reelected/

Yeah, I mean this.

I hate Trump but one thing I’ll give him, he says exactly what he’s thinking all the time.  He’s not playing some genius Machiavellian game to control world affairs. He genuinely likes dictators, hates the constraints democracy imposes on him, and wants the US to abandon anything that isn’t “America First”.  And that’s executed on a first level analysis, e.g. “I pay for most of NATO, it’s mostly to protect continental Europe, ergo we should leave NATO”.  A total lack of sophistication, with no attempt to look around the corner with what may go wrong.

I’m 50/50 those Bradleys would be heading to an address in Moscow if Trump was President.  He hates Ukraine.

Darrell

[Gavagai]

Trump trying to leverage said aid for his own political gain. A topic you still haven't touched.

And will not. As I said, most of the things that concern you I see as media-fabricated non-events. Sometimes they are amusing, like so-called Russian interference in elections, but in most cases - boring.