Donald Trump continues to suck up to the Russian president.
If Ukraine were to suddenly surrender to Russia, everything would be “much better,” at least according to Donald Trump.
During an afternoon press conference Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee urged the Eastern European nation to submit to the foreign power, claiming that any deal, no matter how dismal for Ukraine’s freedom, would have been better than the current state of affairs.
“Ukraine is gone. It’s not Ukraine anymore. You can never replace those cities and towns, and you can never replace the dead people, so many dead people,” Trump said. “Any deal, even the worst deal, would have been better than what we have right now.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Trumps plan to “solve russias war against ukraine” is to “give up”.
Is this the man you want leading your country?
Imagine FDR “solving ww2” by surrendering to japan and the nazis
If Chamberlain can give up Czeckoslovakia for “peace for our time”, and be remembered as a great man (or at least as a garage door opener) surely Trump can be remembered for all time by giving up Eastern Europe for profit for his time
This was his strategy in Afghanistan too!
Arguably that was always going to end with a Taliban takeover, but we could’ve done that without giving them a leg up.
If only we’d continued our brutal occupation of Afghanistan another 20 years, maybe the regime would’ve lasted another two weeks after we left.
Y’all are completely hopeless, enjoy your forever wars.
Are people like this just incapable of grasping nuance? I can only definitively speak for myself, but I’m pretty sure nobody here wants forever wars (maybe there are some dumb tankies that think they want it)
We all wanted out of Afghanistan, we just would prefer to have, you know, an actual plan.
But you know that already, don’t you? Or are you actually that ignorant?
And what would that plan have looked like, exactly? How do you pull out of the country, watch the inevitable collapse of the regime you spent 20 years building, and hand the county over to your enemies without it being messy and getting egg on your face?
It was inevitable that things would play out the way they did, and it needed to happen. Biden made the call and accepted the fallout for a completely necessary and good decision that everyone had been calling for for years. And yet, rather than taking credit for it, y’all want to try to shift it over to Trump! That’s insane to me.
You should take a moment to read up on the topic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020–2021_U.S._troop_withdrawal_from_Afghanistan
Trump signed the original agreement with the Taliban. Biden delayed the deal from May until September. Trump had a year to handle sorting the agreement he made.
Most of us understand both presidents failed in it’s execution. It’s important you know that Trump lit a short fuse and walked away.
Did I ever claim to be a fucking expert on military operations? I don’t fucking know what that plan would look like. That doesn’t mean I’m ok with how it went down.
It was absolutely not inevitable that it went down that way… Do you already forget how bad that shit was?
That’s a completely ridiculous stance. You have no alternative whatsoever to what happened, and as I pointed out, it was always going to be messy because it represented 20 years of total failure, but you’re criticizing it… why? Because the news told you to? The same news that lied us into the wars in the first place?
I didn’t forget how bad the pullout was, I just also didn’t forget how bad the occupation was. Ending the war deserves enough props to outweigh any mistakes made in the pullout.
I, someone who has no experience with military tactics whatsoever, personally, have no alternative and that means there must be no alternative.
I appreciate how much credit you’re giving me here… but no. Don’t be obtuse.
I know you’re smarter than that.
What I said is that you have no alternative, which you just agreed with.
So that returns to my question - if you’re not aware of any alternative, you have zero solutions to what could’ve been done differently, even with the benefit of hindsight, then what, exactly, has led you to make this criticism? Because the news told you to, the same news that told all sorts of lies to justify the wars?
Either go full imperialist and take over the country, making it a US territory, or never bother in the first place.
That’s…not a plan for exit.
I mean, I generally agree but this is a flippant, bad answer.
I know, but the whole situation was fuk
How about just “never bother in the first place?”
No, we should’ve left shortly after killing Bin Laden.
If we had pulled out then, the regime we were propping up would instantly collapse and the withdrawal would’ve been messy and y’all would be criticizing Obama for pulling out the exact same way you’re criticizing the pullout the way it actually played out, because it was always going to play out the same way.
Criticism >>>> More American soldiers dying in a pointless war
Mike Gravel said it best:
That quote directly contradicts you criticizing the stance of giving up on Afghanistan. I should be the one quoting it at you. I cannot make any sense of your position whatsoever.
Not giving up, tipping the scales to favor a terrorist organization. His “deal” gave the Taliban greater legitimacy, bolstered their numbers, and probably gave them all a good laugh as we held up our end and they almost immediately violated the agreement.
So what? We got out, so it was a success. The Taliban were always going to take over, they didn’t get “legitimized” by making a deal with the US, they got legitimized by winning the war. And so what if they did? Afghanistan is officially Not Our Problem.
“Don’t worry, men—I have a plan.”
…
“TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANT!”
Well, concepts of a plan
The Shart of the Deal.
🤌
That’s not even a “concept of a plan”
No need to imagine when we have history to reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
To his credit, Chamberlain wasn’t as bad as he’s made out. When he implemented his policy of appeasement, Britain was not actually capable of meaningfully resisting nazi Germany. He basically brought time to bring Britain back to a war footing. When it became obvious to the public that war was coming, he fell on his sword. This cleared the way for Churchill to take charge, without significant infighting. He also inherited Britain on a far better war footing, and even then it was a close thing.
Basically, Chamberlain knew his plan wouldn’t work long term. He took one “for king and country”, likely knowing how it would be perceived. I can at least respect him for that.
I’m not arguing it was or wasn’t right for Britain position at the time. Just making the point we know, from direct history, a policy of appeasement does nothing to stop further advancement.
It did though. Hitler could have gone after Britain and france earlier. However, he thought Britain was staying out of things, and so played more safe and slow. This brought Britain the time it needed. Hitler honestly didn’t expect Britain to declare war on him, and that slowed his assault on that front. If WW2 had gone serious even 6 months earlier, Britain would have been in serious trouble. The RAF would have collapsed under the luftwaffa, and WW2 would have been very different. Appeasement traded lives for time.
Don’t get me wrong, it was a dick move, and threw others under the tanks tracks to save Britain. It’s also worth noting that this is not what Trump is trying to do. He’s just being a boot licker to the most powerful person who will talk to him. Appeasement at least had a positive goal.
Hitler didn’t have a strong military in 1930’s either. It gave Hitler time to build.
“The Rhineland coup is often seen as the moment when Hitler could have been stopped with very little effort; the German forces involved in the move were small, compared to the much larger, and at the time more powerful, French military.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland#:~:text=On 7 March 1936%2C using,decided against enforcing the treaties.
No they didn’t, people tend to think it was all tanks zipping all over the place, but a good proportion of their army was still horse driven. I was stationed in (British Army) barrack in Germany in the 1980’s. Barracks that had been built during the German build up prior to WW2. There was more space for horses than troops.
I think the person’s point is that the situations are not entirely analogous. For one, the US at the moment is certainly not “not on war footing,” nor do we need to buy time to build up forces.
The only reason it “worked” for Britain in WW2 was due to the specific situation that you described; that they needed to buy time.
I would not call that a useful strategy in any other circumstance.
“how do you remove your hand from a lion’s mouth?”
“very carefully.”
Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.