I don’t think I’ve ever said anything quite this outrageous but… uh… fair enough?
What do you find so outrageous.
If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering. Instead of just saying you find what I’m saying outrageous.
I wasn’t trying to add something of value to the discussion; Bucket did that already. I was just remarking on an interesting… phenomenon??? in the wild; don’t mind me. However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.
However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.
Harris was most likely going to continue what Biden was doing. If you think what Biden was doing was a positive I can’t understand why? I don’t think giving just enough help to keep things at a standstill is particularly positive. If she offered to do much more than Biden was doing I could follow your logic.
Keeping things at a standstill is nowhere near good, but it is still infinitely better than rewarding the aggressor by just handing them everything they would have ever wanted, especially when they are in no position to actually take it themselves in the foreseeable future if things continue like they have been.
I don’t think giving just enough help to keep things at a standstill is particularly positive.
That’s your problem right there; the stalemate situation is well… it’s not ideal, but make no mistake it’s advantageous for Ukraine. Russia’s military is much bigger and better equipped (when it comes to the big stuff anyway), and unlike Ukraine they don’t have dumb conditions attached to their weapons. However, Ukraine has one advantage compared to Russia: the purse. As long as Western support lasts, Ukraine has nearly infinite logistical and financial aid to help prop it up while it fights the Russian invasion. This gives them a massive advantage in a long battle of attrition, which the current stalemate is, while Russia’s economy declines and its ability to sustain the war effort decreases. The result of all this is that Ukraine’s position will improve as time goes on, so even if we assume that they’ll eventually be forced to take a Russian peace offer it makes sense to delay that as long as possible so they can increase their leverage when they go to the negotiating table. This, of course, does come with the price of Ukrainian soldiers dying to sustain the war effort, but so far it seems like Ukrainians are willing to pay that price.
What do you find so outrageous.
If you want to add something of value to this discussion inform me on what Harris would have actually done to help Ukraine or give them anything substantively different than what Trump is offering. Instead of just saying you find what I’m saying outrageous.
I wasn’t trying to add something of value to the discussion; Bucket did that already. I was just remarking on an interesting… phenomenon??? in the wild; don’t mind me. However, to actually respond to your point: Trump is going behind Ukraine’s back to draft a peace deal that will result in them losing territory if they accept it. Harris was not going to do that. Rather than Harris being a positive Trump is being a negative here.
Harris was most likely going to continue what Biden was doing. If you think what Biden was doing was a positive I can’t understand why? I don’t think giving just enough help to keep things at a standstill is particularly positive. If she offered to do much more than Biden was doing I could follow your logic.
Keeping things at a standstill is nowhere near good, but it is still infinitely better than rewarding the aggressor by just handing them everything they would have ever wanted, especially when they are in no position to actually take it themselves in the foreseeable future if things continue like they have been.
That’s your problem right there; the stalemate situation is well… it’s not ideal, but make no mistake it’s advantageous for Ukraine. Russia’s military is much bigger and better equipped (when it comes to the big stuff anyway), and unlike Ukraine they don’t have dumb conditions attached to their weapons. However, Ukraine has one advantage compared to Russia: the purse. As long as Western support lasts, Ukraine has nearly infinite logistical and financial aid to help prop it up while it fights the Russian invasion. This gives them a massive advantage in a long battle of attrition, which the current stalemate is, while Russia’s economy declines and its ability to sustain the war effort decreases. The result of all this is that Ukraine’s position will improve as time goes on, so even if we assume that they’ll eventually be forced to take a Russian peace offer it makes sense to delay that as long as possible so they can increase their leverage when they go to the negotiating table. This, of course, does come with the price of Ukrainian soldiers dying to sustain the war effort, but so far it seems like Ukrainians are willing to pay that price.