Ron DeSantis on Ukraine

Support for Ukraine is support for democracy.

 

Right now, I think DeSantis is being a politician - he's talking a lot but he's not really saying anything.

I agree with him that we have bigger problems at home that should be our highest priority, but I disagree with his characterization of the war in Ukraine as a "territorial dispute". Furthermore, I haven't heard anyone talking about deploying U.S. troops to Ukraine and/or encouraging the Ukrainians to engage in offensive operations beyond their own borders. I get that he has to lay out his views on this matter, but he's not staking out any new territory there.

 

Yes, and . . . ?

 

And Americans born after the invasion can now vote.

 

The Viet Minh/Cong were rather popular with most Vietnamese for good reasons. IOW, the decision to install an unpopular incompetent dictator and prop up his horrific regime with hundreds of thousands of American troops was the worst strategic blunder made by our corrupt incompetent bipartisan ruling political class before they did a near repeat in Afghanistan where the Taliban has always enjoyed significant popular support.

OTOH, Ukrainians probably despise Russia as much as the Vietnamese despise China and France, and they may be the most effective fighting allies the US has had since William Eaton recruited an Arab mercenary force to defeat the Barbary pirates at the Battle of Derna and left them 'high and dry' after the victory -- its just what we do.

Most Americans want Ukraine to defeat the Russian invaders, and given all the $Trilions wasted on reluctant ineffective allies, I doubt that many will oppose more weapons and logistics support for the very effective Ukrainian fighters.

Of course, most Americans will almost certainly oppose committing US ground forces.

DeSantis and many other RP politicians seem to have concluded that the defeat of Ukraine will be blamed on Biden and the DP and benefit antiwar politicians.
IMO, they are wrong about that. A Russian victory will discredit both parties and the USG generally, but the RP and the antiwar faction will probably absorb most of the blame.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration should have given Ukraine weapons systems capable of capturing the Russian invasion force and ending the war long ago. Better late than never.

 

Not impossible. It all depends on how much money one wants to spend.
I've worked in manufacturing (automation field) for 35 years, and most of the time increased production is a cost item. Spend the money, increase production.
Not quite that simple, but it can be done.
I have a friend that works for Raetheon (Arizona), in a missile factory. The production basics are exactly the same as any other industry.
He wanted me to come work for them because the automation systems are the same.
Didn't want to move to Arizona, AND they require a 4 year degree for the job, and I don't have that..............
Additionally, the military needs to replace the munitions every so often. All those sorties they flew in the beginning of the Iraq war? Most of the munitions used were scheduled to be replaced anyway, and the Saudi's bought up all the used equipment when it was over.
We shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq in 2003, but we sure did get rid of a lot of aging military hardware and munitions. Companies like Raetheon were loving it, just like they are now.
I live next to Ft. Bragg. Guess what I hear them firing lately? MLRS's. Years ago it was Vulcans. Changing times require changing weapons.

 

What happened after Nazi Germany, USSR and the Slovak Republic, took Poland in 1939?

 

If Russia invades Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania, AND Trump is in the WH when that happens, for NATO as a whole to get involved, all members must agree per Article 5. But Trump won't do that, will he, which will mean NATO officially will not get involved. Members within NATO will get involved but the USA will stand by until Trump gets what he wants.

 

Ron DeSantis’s stance on Ukraine is a serious political blunder
Opinion by Henry Olsen

For those watching the steady erosion of support for Ukraine among Republicans, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s recent dismissal of the conflict there as a “territorial dispute” might seem to make political sense. In truth, it was a significant blunder.


DeSantis clearly decided he did not want to seem too internationally minded for MAGA Republicans. Thanks in large part to Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, these voters’ support for military aid to Ukraine has slumped in recent months. A recent Economist-YouGov poll shows that Republicans are about evenly split on providing most military equipment and financial aid to Ukraine. So it makes sense DeSantis chose to distance himself from full-throated support for the country.


But this overlooks the broader political dynamics within the GOP. DeSantis’s chances of winning the party’s nomination against former president Donald Trump do not rely on his wresting control of the MAGA movement away from Trump; it rests on his enticing a large portion of MAGA voters away from Trump and combining them with the large majority of non-MAGA Republicans. DeSantis’s statement pulls him away from that latter group, thereby opening space for a third contender to exploit. . . .

 

This is misinformation.

 

Self-determination may be the better term. Obviously most of Ukraine does not want to join Russia. I guess by suggesting they're not democratic you're referring to them banning pro-Russian parties. I guess now we can see why that was a good call. Whatever. Even in the worst case, still more democratic than Russia, but really the core issue is Russia trying to retake territory that doesn't want to be a part of Russia. Maybe more nebulous regarding eastern Ukraine and Crimea, but I don't trust what Russia says the numbers are. They constantly lie, even about obviously proveable things like the recent jet incident.

 

Who's asking all of Ukraine become a part of Russia? Not Putin. I see where Putin haters are peddling this type of propaganda, though.

 

Oh, good. Then Poooootin will pull his troops out tomorrow, pay for all the damage and never violate Ukraine's territory again, right ?

 

Just not anything specifically for US democracy. There are better ways to waste US dollars.

 

Americans have been voting for hundreds of years.

 

Putin has literally said he doesn't consider Ukraine to be a real country and that he believes they remain part of Russia. Funny how you are okay with him just taking "parts" of Ukraine for now. Surely he will stop . . . just like he stopped after invading the last time . . . right?

 

Not true at all, unless you have worked on F-16 or Apache assembly line you have no idea.
You can't even SPELL... RAYTHEON. Shows how familiar you are with what they do. You can't even spell it.
Automation systems are simlar but the sophisticated systems in defense are much more complex than anything you'll find in the civilian sector... unless you have built 747's of similar. What exactly have you built that even comes close to the sophistication of an F-16?
The military isn't at war. Before Ukraine they expended VERY LITTLE ammunition... except for training. The planning that is used to determine exacly how much ammunition to keep in stock is EXTREMELY COMPLEX since wars are typically not held by any published schedule.
"All those sorties they flew in the beginning of the Iraq war? Most of the munitions used were scheduled to be replaced anyway,"
BS... TOTAL BS... where do yet such BS?
We have POMCUS in Europe that has been in storage for many years. We do not just throw it out. You think the armor on a tank spoils and has to be thrown out? It rots or something?
What you posted is awful silly.

 

OK...that's a version of what happened, but the key point here is your idea of "first Ukraine, tomorrow the world (or at least Europe)." That just seems wacky, but it is, I've discovered almost the single reason I've been given as to how Ukraine is in the US's vital national interest. But I just think it's silly, and I'm astonished that US foreign policy is being guided by such silliness.

 

Wouldn't it be great if the world were this simplistic bubble that the right wing media has created for right-wingers?

Giving Ukraine to Russia does not mean DeSantis loves Putin any more than Neville Chamberlain giving Czechoslovakia to Germany meant he loved Hitler. It's WORSE than that. They are (both of them) weak-minded individuals completely incapable of thinking beyond a short-term political gain in the polls. Especially DeSantis. I have to give Neville the benefit of the doubt because he might not have known what fascist expansionist dictators are capable of. But DeSantis has Chamberlain.

I would bet that if DeSantis became the nominee, he would give a 180 degree turn. Like the one he gave after shutting down Florida for Covid, and then turning around and acting as if he hadn't. He is the ultimate demagogue. And he'll change to whatever he believes will get him elected. No actual principles are necessary anymore in the Republican Party. All you need is an R next to your name, and the right will believe anything. He knows it. And he's willing to change his speech (though not his mind) to anything that will get him elected.

 

Yes Russia would have lost tens of thousands, but what about Ukraine? Is there a point in which we've contributed to the slaughter of too many Ukrainians to make it worth while?

 

And you are saying Vietnam worked out great? All of those American casualties were the ones who "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty" which...didn't happen.

An Ukraine has nothing to do with liberty.

 

Your "Yes, and . . . ?" says volumes.

I for one have no interest in spawning any new Vietnams, but I do see that's a minority opinion in this thread.

 

The problem with that, and I think a problem with the whole neo-con "To War!" gang, is that Ukraine can't win unless Russia up and quits and I've seen no sign that Russia is likely to do that. We can supply all the beans and bullets the Ukrainians will ever need but the problem is that at some point, Ukraine is going to start running out of Ukrainians, well before Russia runs out of Russians.

So we either get into the fight, win the war for Ukraine and then promptly lose the war for the world by instigating WWIII, or keep supplying Ukraine for 2 or 3 years until an entire generation is devastated and they have to sue for terms anyway.

I don't know how that could be in anyone's interest, except maybe Raytheon's.

 

I'm sorry you were educated from only one page in the history books.

Sorry, that's just a stupid response.

 

I'm sorry that's ridiculous.


On several levels.