Biden's Staunch Support for Ukraine vs. Trump's Diplomatic Aspiration

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 2 months ago

   
   
   Since the war in Ukraine escalated in February 2022, I’ve been observing President Joe Biden’s firm stance against Russian aggression. He has made it clear that supporting Ukraine is a top priority, implementing extensive sanctions against the Kremlin and pushing for strong military and financial aid to the beleaguered nation. What stands out to me is that Biden has not engaged in direct peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This absence of dialogue reflects a strategic choice aimed at countering Russian influence and maintaining a cohesive front with NATO allies.
   
   Biden’s administration has focused on providing robust military assistance, financial aid, and humanitarian support to Ukraine. This includes everything from weapons deliveries to training Ukrainian forces, all while working to stabilize the war-torn country economically. I see the effort to rally international support as significant; it underscores a commitment to a united response against Russian aggression.
   
   However, Biden’s reluctance to engage in peace talks is rooted in several factors. Primarily, his administration believes that negotiating with Putin without a clear commitment to withdraw Russian forces or respect Ukraine’s sovereignty would undermine international norms and delegitimize Ukraine's struggle. The trust deficit stemming from Russia's annexation of Crimea and its failure to honor past agreements only adds to this skepticism.
   
   Moreover, domestic political pressures are palpable. I can imagine that Biden feels the heat from Congress and public opinion to maintain a tough stance against Russia. Engaging in peace talks at this juncture might be interpreted as a concession, risking the bipartisan support that Ukraine has garnered.
   
   Trump offers a different path...
   In contrast, I’ve noted former President Donald Trump’s belief that he would handle the Ukraine war differently. While he hasn't laid out a comprehensive plan, Trump has hinted at a more aggressive pursuit of negotiations with Putin, advocating for a diplomatic focus to resolve the conflict. His criticism of Biden's approach resonates with many who feel that a different style of leadership might expedite an end to the war.
   
   Trump appears to believe that engaging directly with Putin could lead to a better outcome for the U.S. and its allies. Reflecting on his past foreign policy, I see how Trump favored personal diplomacy, which he argues could foster effective negotiations. He has expressed skepticism about relying solely on sanctions, suggesting instead that finding common ground is crucial for de-escalating tensions.
   
   A Comparison of Approaches
   Biden’s strategy of isolation and military support starkly contrasts with Trump’s inclination toward diplomacy. While Biden aims to present a united front against Russia through sanctions and military aid, Trump leans into negotiation as the key to peace. This divergence in their foreign policy philosophies—Biden’s commitment to multilateralism versus Trump’s focus on personal diplomacy—paints a clear picture of their differing approaches.
   
   The implications of these strategies are profound. Biden’s approach seeks to fortify Ukraine and deter future Russian aggression, but it also risks prolonging the conflict and the suffering of the Ukrainian people. On the other hand, Trump’s emphasis on negotiation raises questions about potential concessions to Russia and their long-term impact on European security.
   
   As the Ukraine war drags on, I observe that Biden’s approach is firmly rooted in support for Ukraine and the isolation of Russia, with no immediate plans for direct peace talks. In contrast, Trump advocates for a more diplomatic strategy, reflecting his belief in the potential of negotiation to resolve the conflict. The effectiveness of these differing approaches will be critical to watch, as they will shape not only Ukraine’s future but also the broader geopolitical landscape.
   
   In my view, I was pleased to see Zelensky reach out to President Trump. Their recent meeting, coupled with Trump's optimistic outlook on negotiations, brings a fresh perspective to the conversation. It will be crucial to observe how these differing approaches play out, as they will significantly influence not only Ukraine's future but also the broader geopolitical landscape.
   
   Thoughts

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Well, yeah, that is kind of based off the 'official' and 'media' narrative.
      
      Following the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States moved to fill the vacuum left in the post–USSR world.
      
      It brought former Warsaw Pact states and Soviet republics into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
      
      American aid agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provided political and financial support to elements in Russia’s version of our Mexico and Canada, Ukraine and Georgia... America's Intelligence efforts, NGOs and power-brokers like George Soros worked to establish pro-Western governments in both nations since the early 2000s. 
      
      There have been revolutions, counter revolutions, and wars in both nations due to our efforts to set up pro-western anti-Russian governments.
      
      Similar to our interference in Syria, Libya, and Iraq as well.
      
      Let us consider America's efforts to be noble ones, not based on greed or hubris. 
      
      American officials feared that if they turned their backs on Eastern Europe, then Russia would reemerge from its state of post–Cold War disarray and reassert its military might over the satellite states left in disarray from the USSR's collapse.
      
      Today Russia has recovered from the post–Soviet economic depression that it endured and is looking to reestablish its position on the global stage as a world leader, able to rival any of the world's top nations.
      
      In addition, America's efforts to overthrow sympathetic pro-Russian governments in Ukraine and Georgia have coincided with the very real fears Russia has had of being encircled.
      
      Russia’s worries about “NATO encirclement” were heightened as the United States exited the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and promised the establishment of a ballistic-missile defense (BMD) system in Europe which would leave Russia vulnerable in the event of nuclear war.
      
      America's involvement (however well concealed) with Ukrainian Banderites, Polish nationalists, Balkan Islamists along with American-led regime change efforts against Middle Eastern governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria greatly concerned Russia's leadership.
      
      History has shown Russian leaders that foreign intentions are typically hidden or fluid.
      
      Each age brings a new existential threat; to their way of thinking, proven to them throughout the centuries, there will always be another Napoleon or Hitler... and America proved them right, as Russians today look upon Biden (who has given them plenty of soundbites) as nothing short of those two historically evil characters.
      
      Remember... it is Moscow that has drones and missiles exploding on its cities, not Washington DC.
      
      Russia has historically sought a buffer to protect itself from foreign invaders.  And that is no different than how America has been, and still is today... would you like to see how we handle it if Mexico becomes a subordinate state and militarily allied to China or Russia?
      
      I can tell you, we would have hit Mexico far harder than Russia has hit Ukraine, heck we are contemplating doing that now just to take down the cartels (and we should do just that, but that is another issue).
      
      In short, provocative American actions, NATO expansion, aiding so-called “color revolutions,” along with regime change wars in the Middle East have triggered historical Russian suspicions of foreign intervention.
      
      Our efforts in Ukraine literally have us a moment away from Nuclear war, this is not at all hyperbolic or hysterical, it is fact, this war has been on the verge of going nuclear TWICE in the last few months... one wrong decision by the US/UK efforts could easily start it off at any moment.
      
      As I often say, the people we have running our Nation today are insane... or worse... and are putting us all at risk, in a variety of ways, but this is by far the worst of their transgressions against the American people, and the world.
      
      Prior to Biden, Russia still held out hope that it could partner with NATO and the EU nations.  Nord stream pipelines 1 and 2 were evidence enough of that. Today Russia is severing all ties with the West.
      
      Today BRICS rises to challenge and counter America and its allies, and this has all been brought about by the absolutely horrible decisions made by the Biden Administration that has turned nations that wanted to be allies into enemies... and former allies now join with them.

      replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Eloquently written with a lot that impacts 'us' and 'them' with two approaches that, as I see it, is a conundrum while also for me has significant cognitive dissonance with my present day values.
      
      I don't see Russia giving in at all without the Ukraine [Edit Surrendering not surrounding as first written] territory and I don't see Trump having a compromise without that. That alone is cognitive dissonance for Ukraine with its leadership, its pride, and its history that goes back centuries as I see it. I am sure Mike would know much more than me on that topic or Ken.
      
      I don't know what natural resources are in question with that territory or how it affects access to the sea, though I hear those are of concern.
      
      I would like peace to be achieved and I wouldn't be opposed to surrendering territory through some means. Perhaps, let the people of that region have a say through an election process. I see that as fair. Could Trump arrange that or does he even have that in mind?
      
      And, then comes along what Harris said, paraphrased, that that type of solution wouldn't be peace it would be surrender.
      
      Kamala Harris says Ukraine handing over territory is form of surrender, not peace | VOA News YouTube 1:40 min
      
      [Edit: forgot the link
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78J2-i4E_w
      
      So, I want a fence built between my property and my neighbor's. He doesn't mind as long as it is built one foot inside of my property and I don't have access to it because of the fence. Do I surrender that property to my neighbor or is it really mine on 'paper' anyway.
      
      If my neighbor decides he wants vegetation such as a shrub planted to somewhat hide the fence does he need my permission or does it have to be solely on his property and not in that one foot area? Just playing around . . .

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

         "And, then comes along what Harris said, paraphrased, that that type of solution wouldn't be peace it would be surrender."
         
         I find her comments on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine vague, as they often don’t adequately address the significant loss of life and the potential for further casualties in a protracted war.  The Vietnam War is a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of prolonged military engagement, where extensive U.S. support ultimately led to widespread suffering and loss of life for the Vietnamese people when the country fell to communism anyway.
         
         I believe the U.S. should adopt a more assertive stance advocating for negotiations, especially given the horrific conditions and destruction we’re witnessing in Ukraine. I question the feasibility of Ukraine winning the war outright from day one, which makes me lean toward a path that prioritizes diplomacy over continued conflict.
         
         I also recognize Zelensky's efforts to call, and engage with Trump, understanding the importance of exploring all possible avenues for resolution. His willingness to reach out for support reflects a pragmatic approach, particularly as he witnesses the profound toll the war has taken on his country. I truly hope for solutions that can alleviate the suffering and destruction affecting the Ukrainian people. I think it has become easy for many to not even think of the hardships that this war is causing the people of Ukraine. Many are too busy choosing to protest over the loss of life in a Middle East war while glossing over the loss of life in Ukraine.  What does that ultimately say about our society?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the reply! I can follow the trail of your sentiments regarding the death, injury, and destruction that Ukraine has endured while seeking their purpose, which may be idealistic. I, too, prefer it come to an end soon.
            
            "Many are too busy choosing to protest over the loss of life in a Middle East war while glossing over the loss of life in Ukraine.  What does that ultimately say about our society?"
            
            That triggered an off topic thought I'll share. It may even be close to home for you as it has to do with Michigan. It is as much a political article as it is a human interest one. It was in my The Free Press newsletter. You may find it interesting. I did.
            
            Battleground Michigan: A Tale of Two Communities Divided by War by The Free Press (Sept 25, 2024)
            West Bloomfield and Dearborn are separated by less than 25 miles. But Jewish and Arab residents’ views on who should win the presidential race feel worlds apart.
            https://www.thefp.com/p/michigan-jews-m … jill-stein
            
            It's not a short article by any means, however as said I found it interesting.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

               From the article:
               "Goutkovich, on the other hand, told me that since October 7, there is just one thing on his mind: security for Israel and America against Iran, their common enemy. That, he told me, is why he’ll be casting his vote for Trump."
               
               Seeing the myriad of different reference points that make up individual points of view is interesting.

               replyreport
         2. 69

            Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            It is easy to understand why Harris comes across as she does...
            
            She went to college, she went to Law school...
            
            She began her law career in the office of the district attorney of Alameda County, CA.
            
            She was recruited to the San Francisco District Attorney's Office and later to the office of the city attorney of San Francisco.
            
            She was elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 and attorney general of California in 2010, and reelected as attorney general in 2014.
            
            She got married at age 50 I believe... right around this time.
            
            As the San Francisco district attorney and the attorney general of California, Harris was the first woman, the first African American, and the first Asian American to hold each office.
            
            The nice thing about being the first this, and the first that, in the 2000s and beyond, is that no-one is going to hold your feet to the fire when you mess up... heck in CA they promote the people who mess up the most, so long as they check the right boxes (IE - Democrat).
            
            I'll let Tim correct me if that last paragraph is wrong, as he lives there.
            
            So where in all that is her experience in Foreign Relations, International Affairs, Global Economics, Budgets, etc. etc.?
            
            That was not her focus...
            
            One could argue what makes Trump any better, where is his experience prior to becoming President?
            
            International Business efforts lent him a decent enough foundation I'd imagine, traveling to foreign countries and dealing with foreign politicians and laws was something he had to get good at to be successful in his endeavors.
            
            But that has little to do with how the political machine works in DC.
            
            That is why he had his arse handed to him in a lot of ways when he was President, he didn't know how DC worked, he didn't have many allies, and those that he did have the establishment targeted and destroyed... like Mike Flynn and Jeff Sessions.
            
            Anyone that stood firm in their support of Trump suffered.... if they were of significance.
            
            That is political persecution, very similar to what goes on in Russia and China... two nations it appears some people in DC aspire for us to be like.
            
            Trump was an outsider, Trump represented the "deplorables"... Americans that were fed up with a Political Establishment that crapped all over them and didn't even hide it anymore... the disdain for the American people that emanated from the likes of Clinton weren't hidden very well.
            
            Our political class today, those within the DC belt, prove even to this day, 8 years after Trump first got elected that they are COMPLETELY out of touch with the American citizens they supposedly represent.
            
            A billionaire understands the American people and what they want and need better than our Political elites.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

               I so agree, and thank you for taking the time to share this... I mean, in my view, you hit the nail on the head. I was really pleased to see Zelensky reach out to Trump, and listen to what he offers.

               replyreport
   3. 69

      abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      But this is what Democrats do Shar! They throw money at problems, while only giving lip service to getting to the root causes. Illegal migration, poverty and homelessness, for examples.
      I think the gig is finally up. The people are starting to understand how they operate.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

         Agree, I just researched the amount of money this administration spent at HLS   Hope you're sitting down --- yet some feel they need more... As they asked for in the horrendous Biden immigration bill.  Our tax money is being so poorly abused.
         
         Yes, money was given for the Border czars project to stop the flow ----In 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris announced a commitment of $310 million in aid to Central America, specifically targeting issues in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. This funding aimed to address the root causes of migration from these countries, including poverty, violence, and corruption. The goal was to improve economic opportunities and security in the region to reduce the flow of migrants heading to the United States.
         And how much and where  she spent in our Taxes
         Guatemala: Approximately $144 million
         Honduras: Approximately $60 million
         El Salvador: Approximately $45 million
         
         NOW the really ugly part ------
         
         The combined budget for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and the proposed budget for 2024 is as follows:
         
         Fiscal Year 2021: Approximately $52.8 billion
         Fiscal Year 2022: Approximately $54.6 billion
         Fiscal Year 2023: Approximately $60.2 billion
         Fiscal Year 2024 (proposed): Approximately $61.5 billion
         Combined Total for FY 2021-2024
         Total: Approximately $229.1 billion   
         
         Maybe they should not have hired so many IRS agents and directed more easted fund to DHS.

         replyreport
2. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

   Interesting.
   
   What about the Vice President if turned President?
   
   Will she 'support Ukraine as a top priority, implement extensive sanctions against the Kremlin and push for strong military and financial aid?"
   
   Will she avoid "negotiating with Putin and maintain a cohesive front with NATO allies."
   
   The effect of this tactic is to keep printing money to fund the war.
   Trump will stop the nonsense and instead start working on reducing our debt.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      "Will she 'support Ukraine as a top priority, implement extensive sanctions against the Kremlin and push for strong military and financial aid?"
      
      She verbally stated yesterday During the press briefing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized the United States' unwavering support for Ukraine against Russian aggression. She reiterated that the U.S. commitment to Ukraine's security is not just charitable but also in America's strategic interest. Harris highlighted the importance of defending democratic values, international norms, and territorial integrity. She also pointed out that if Russia is allowed to act with impunity, it could embolden other aggressors worldwide. Furthermore, she stressed that the U.S. will continue providing security assistance to ensure Ukraine can succeed in defending itself.  Thus far there have been no peace talks with Putin initiated by NATO or the US.
      
      This morning, Donald Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in New York. During their meeting, Trump emphasized his willingness to negotiate a deal between Ukraine and Russia if re-elected, aiming for a solution "good for both sides." He mentioned having good relationships with both Zelensky and Putin, expressing confidence that he could resolve the conflict quickly. Zelensky responded by emphasizing the importance of maintaining good relations with the U.S. and reiterated Ukraine's need for American support to counter Russia's aggression

      replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

   Q. The survival of which countries will benefit the United States?
   
   A. Israel and Russia. We need to help protect our only Middle East Allie, Israel
   and stay on Russia's good side.
   
   In My Opinion, we need to consider our own safety/peace first.

   replyreport
4. 69

   Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago

   Look at our situation right now, North Carolina, Virginia, and other parts of the country have been devastated...
   
   We spend hundreds of billions on wars that they aren't even willing to negotiate out of...
   
   We spend hundreds of billions to bring in, house, support foreigners (migrants)...
   
   How much will they be willing to spend to help American's recover this time from a disaster... it will be interesting to see how well the recovery effort goes, the urgency the Biden Administration has in responding, how quickly they get the funds out to Americans in need.
   
   https://x.com/rawsalerts/status/1840544468921090326
   
   https://x.com/janninereid1/status/1840517818359644666
   
   https://x.com/CL4WS_OUT/status/1840530625121620179

   replyreport
5. 96

   Readmikenowposted 2 months ago

   I will start by admitting my bias in the russia Ukraine conflict.
   
   The Ukrainians I speak with about President Donald Trump and what he says often get a common reaction.  They say the war has only grown under biden.  It is time to try something different.  If President Donald Trump can negotiate a peace Ukraine feels comfortable with he will be viewed as a hero.
   
   They don't believe he will be able to do such a thing.  Many applaud his approach and will hope for the best.
   
   I can tell you Ukraine will not give up land for peace unless russia does also.
   
   Many Ukrainians hope President Donald Trump can do what he says, if not, they will continue fighting the war.  It's just that simple.

   replyreport