How would Trump or Harris handle the war in Ukraine?

Trump wants to end the war, and Harris wants to continue as we are, believing something
will change, that 50 nations fighting against Russia will eventually prevail.

I take a step back and ask if we should support Western and Central Ukraine's
'right' to join NATO? Ukraine itself has a very bad corruption record and with
an ongoing civil war since the US deposed Yanukovych in 2014, isn't eligible
to join for that reason as well.

Are we spending a fortune on weapons, and Ukraine a lot of lives on something that
we have ourselves made almost unattainable?

 

And then the next question is whether we feel we just have to keep fighting to
avoid appearing to lose, as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Etc. Etc. . We have to
keep fighting until we give up.

The conditions for exiting the war in Ukraine have become problematic

The government and media have lied to the public so much and for so long
the public will not permit a withdrawal.

Like G W Bush's second term. At the end of the first term he claimed victory
in Iraq had already been achieved, so whoever took over the battle would
be blamed for losing what had already been won.

So he had poisoned the chalice and nobody wanted it.

It's the same in Ukraine. The public are programmed to demand every
square inch that has ever been considered part of Ukraine.

 

Basically Neocons and Democrats would demand the impossible.

It would have been a whole lot better if they hadn't started the war
in the first place,

or just pretend we never had anything to do with it and if Ukraine
loses lots of square inches to Russia it has nothing to do with us.

Come to that, I don't think Zelenskyy cares either if Catholics in
W Ukraine die or Orthodox in E Ukraine die, because he's
Jewish. And he didn't start the war either, he just co-operated
with the US and managed to stay alive with Neo Nazis next door.

 

Trump will “end” the war by cutting funding to Ukraine to enable Russia to take Ukraine. He will “end” the war by effectively handing Ukraine over to Russia.
Harris will continue to support Ukraine at the expense of putting the US in further debt.

 

It's always easier to see things looking back. I don't think Ukraine has
benefited much from the war, but the stock holders of our weapons
makers have done well, the stock value of Raytheon has doubled in
the four years since Biden became president.

 

Trump has no plan for how to deal with Ukraine or Israel. Remember, when asked what he would do, all he ever says is it wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Much like COVID, Trump is incapable of handling crises of any kind.

 

Trump had the right idea early on. Firstly he limited weapons we shipped to
Kyiv, knowing the Azov would use any they got to start a war.

After 5 weeks a peace plan was drawn up between Ukraine and Russia,
it looked hopeful enough for the US to send Boris Johnson over from
England to kill it.

Now there has been so much death and destruction and the US public
is so revved up with Russophobia, I don't think anything can be done.

Even cutting off the fuel supply to the fire would drive the public into a
rage.

I've talked to enough of the public to know that.

It might even cost the US this election and give us a rudderless government,
unburdened by everything.

War isn't the route to peace, it is the route to more war.

 

I think Trump has said that he would hold American support for Ukraine over both Putin and Zelensky to get them to the negotiating table.

Harris will simply continue the current US policy of supplying just enough support to Ukraine to bleed Russia.

 

Trump doesn't even have to; both Russia and what's left of Ukraine
had already reached an agreement on peace, and then Biden and
Britain rejected it and bribed Zelenskyy, and since then the war has
run another 2.5 years and killed 600,000 more people.

It isn't the job of the US to try to make peace in most cases, but
to stop making war.

 

I think some more people will die as well, and the end objective was to get NATO into Ukraine,
so failing to do that is equivalent to 'handing Ukraine over to Russia, except Russia didn't want
Ukraine, and most likely won't accept western or central Ukraine even given on a plate, just
wants no NATO missiles in Ukraine at all.

 

This opinion is fair enough. We are not mind readers.

I don't personally think there was any actual concern for getting Ukraine into NATO. I think all NATO expansion was designed to provoke a war of profit, it just happened to start over Ukraine. It could have just as easily been Georgia, or even Finland in alternate timeline.

That said there is a profit motive to expanding NATO as well, so yes, that could have been it, and starting the war just a blunder.

 

We know how Trump would handle it. He's already said it. Repeatedly. He'd give Russia what they want. He's not made this a secret.

 

And what are you claiming Russia wants? What it already has perhaps?

Oh, even I think Russia wants a bit more than that. And I don't even see a problem with that if it will stop the killing.

But at least there will be a chance that some lines get redrawn, because Russia should not get areas it does not hold militarily nor those belonging to majority ethnic Ukrainians.

 

Horse excrement

 

The goods news is now Trump will be able to end the Russia/Ukraine war by the end of December like he said he would.

 

Trump will end it. Commie harris continue it.

 

Basic logic says it cannot all be. What points are you taking issue with?

 

You mean like how Reagan went behind Carter's back to secure the release of the American hostages in Iran in 1980?

Otherwise, I don't see how he could do anything, not in an official capacity.

 

Trump has repeatedly said he will end the war as president elect. Therefore it is true.

 

It depends how many skyscrapers he is allowed to bulid in Moscow.

 

But, under that logic, if they invade further, Ukraine should just let them. We should just let them. Otherwise, there would be more killing. To stop the killing, we must capitulate. It's the Chamberlain approach. We've seen what it does. It only emboldens the aggressor.

 

You, like most people, seem to have a very faulty understanding of the Sudetenland crisis in general. Don't take that personally. You have lots of company.

But what you are really missing is the fact that Russia has been fighting for two and half years to get to this point. They don't require emboldening. They are already swinging and they won't stop without either significant reward, or the realization they are about to get curb stomped. Well the latter is not going to happen. The American and European people are sick of funding a slow motion war while their fuel and food prices skyrocket.

 

You have suggested that there be no more fighting, no more resistance. That was my point.

 

I don't follow. The only way this ends is with a negotiated settlement. Noam Chomsky and others have said this from the start.

 

Trump has already prevented wars; he kept the most incompetent presidential candidate in history from gaining power.
If Harris wasn't weak enough in international affairs, just imagine that something happened to her and Walz got the office. It's a horror story- nipped in the bud.