Hillary Clinton said she would nominate Trump for a Noble if he could broker peace with Russia & Ukraine. This isn’t a cheer for failure and war. It’s seeing a weak leader elevating an adversary and getting nothing for it. Trump had some tough talk before the meeting and then ended up with putting it on Zelenskyy to make a deal afterwards. Appeasement lead us into WW2 and it’s a lesson I hope we haven’t forgotten already.
Afer meeting with Putin in Alaska, 8 other NATO country leaders flew to Washington DC and met with Trump in the White House exactly
one day later.
That doesn't sound like a "weak leader" to me.
And certainly for 8 prominent world leaders to fly to Washington on that short of notice, they don't think so either.
What do they know that you don't, M E M?
Probably quite a bit more than either of us.
And "weak leader" Trump also (1) got all the NATO countries a few months ago to increase their military spending to 5% of each's GNP. That will empower NATO nations to further aid Ukraine, and make all the NATO countries in Europe far safer as well against further Russian aggression.
And all these NATO nations less than a month ago (2) also signed a trade agreement with Trump to buy U.S. oil and natural gas, and to stop buying Russian oil and natural gas.
That further weakens Russia's abiliy to wage war in Ukraine.
So much for he "weak leader" narrative.
Add to that (3) the sanctions Trump put on India and China, if they continue purchasing Russian oil. Further crippling Russia's war economy and ability to stay in Ukraine.
And (4) Trump 6 weeks ago me with the Saudi leader, to have Saudi Araabia ramp up oil producion, to lower he global price per barrel of oil. As generals have been saying for a year, if the global price of il goes to $50 per barrel or lower, Russia loses the ability to continue the war in Ukraine.
Hillary conditioned her Nobel Prize endorsement of Trump on his being able to negotiate so Ukraine gets back ALL its Russian-occupied land, which doesn't seem likely.
At least unless Trump's current rhetoric is a head-fake by Trump, to cover up what his actual final offer will be to Russia. Which is entirely possible, and characteristic of the calculated way Trump negotiates, that on the surface appears erratic, but is done to disorient those he is negotiating with.
I frankly would like to see a pause in negotiations until the sanctions on Russia fully take effect, and financially cripple Russia's ability to continue the war in Ukraine as their war-funding dries up, over the next 30, 60 or 90 days. I think that's the only way to get Russia to leave Ukraine territory, without either the U.S. itself or NATO forces militarily pushing them out. Which isn't going to ever happen.
But then again, that would cost an average 5,000 casualties a week to wait it out, until that forces Russian withdrawal. And that would be another 20,000, or 40,000 or 60,000 dead.
The alternative is to let Russia keep its occupied territory, let Russia spend a few years rebuilding their military, and then when someone other than Trump is president, Russia would attempt another invasion when they were confident a U.S. president would not intervene on behalf of Ukraine, as Obama and Biden did not.
And at that later date, Russia would take Ukraine, and maybe also Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. And Putin along with other Russian leaders have also threatened to invade and seize Poland.
So in the short term, it would cost lives to prolong the Ukraine war until Russia's war machine is crippled by sanctions and forced to withdraw entirely from Ukraine.
Which as terrible as that further cost in lives would be, would still be better than all 30 million remaining Ukrainians being conquered, raped, tortured and liquidated by Russia, if Russia is permitted to keep its conquests, and use them as a staging ground to finish the job later, by a 1938-like "peace is at hand"-type agreement.
Trump seems to be focused on a long-term solution, not an ineffective 1938 type agreement, that in 1938 led to a larger war just a year later.
