Foreign Policy Anyone? On the eve of World Peace again….

[-lowcountrydawg]

To start, I can say that what the administration has done that I've listed above will only hurt our national interest. We are ceding moral and strategic authority to an expansionist Russian dictator for no reason. We are far stronger than Russia by every possible measure and we should be driving a fair solution to the war that Russia started.

Is this how we won the Cold War?

So here is a possible approach.

Commit to continuing to support Ukraine.

Use that commitment to pressure Europe into stepping up more than they have. Reminder, they have contributed significantly more in total aid than we have already, but it's their back yard. Do even more.

Uncuff Ukraine's use of long-range missiles, with the understanding that the targets inside Russia must meet certain criteria for strategic and military value.

Get more aggressive with the economic sanctions, particularly on illegal oil exports. We know they have a one hundred ship fleet they use to get oil to black-market buyers. Shut it down. Russia's economy, which is already severely limited beyond oil and gas, would collapse.

I think you push a deal where Putin keeps some or all of his 2014 Crimea holdings, but he has to return everything won since 2022. Perhaps as a fall back, you provide him a narrow land bridge to Crimea.

In exchange for the lost territory, Ukraine gets iron clad security agreements from the west that verge on NATO-level protection, even if we don't call it that for appearances sake.

Russia is not strong. Their military is weakened, there economy is entirely dependent on oil, their international status is greatly diminished and there is no reason the west should roll over and sacrifice Ukraine, at least not as long as Ukraine is willing to continue fighting. That would guarantee further expansion from Russia, China would see the weakness and move on Taiwan, and the new global rules would be, push the west and they will fold. This would be a disaster for the US and have dire long-term consequences.

You know I'm a history guy. So, I ask you. Think of the great leaders throughout history and how they would handle this. Churchill was isolated and branded a warmonger right up until Poland was invaded. Reagan was considered a warmonger, even by some on the right, but he ended the Cold War. Roosevelt tried and failed to keep us out of WW2, but if nothing else, we had a chance to rearm before we got engaged.

So, tell me when accommodating authoritarian, expansionist dictators has worked out in the long term, or even the medium term?

Edit: Are we getting the message here yet? How much more than what has already happened will it take?

View embedded media

Totally unrealistic given the fact that Putin is willing to continue to sacrifice millions of his own people to save face.

We make peace with our enemies. Not our friends. Time to save lives.

 

[Booneville Dawg]

The United States leadership, both Republican and Democratic, has a history of conveniently forgetting some of our agreements to other nations in years past. Is this what happened after the January 1994 U.S-Russia-Ukraine summit?
Either way IMHO Russia can never be trusted.

"The U.S.-Russia-Ukraine accord—which one of Clinton’s top aides called “the crowning achievement of the summit”—can be looked back at as a betrayal of Kyiv in one sense. Clinton and Yeltsin did promise Ukraine “full guarantees of security, as a sign of friendship and good neighborliness.” The two leaders also reaffirmed “the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” including Ukraine.


Later that year, at a conference in Budapest, the U.S., Russia, and Britain formalized those security assurances to Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan (the latter two former Soviet republics had also given up the nuclear weapons on their territory), in exchange for their signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

The Truth About Ukraine’s Decision to Give Up Its Nukes in the ’90s

 

[willdup]

Totally unrealistic given the fact that Putin is willing to continue to sacrifice millions of his own people to save face.

We make peace with our enemies. Not our friends. Time to save lives.

So you know what Putin is willing or unwilling to sacrifice? How exactly? And what Putin is willing or unwilling to sacrifice is determined by what price he feels he will have to pay to get what he wants.

Trump is making it exceedingly clear that the US is not going to offer much resistance or any at all to Putin achieving what he wants.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

So you know what Putin is willing or unwilling to sacrifice? How exactly? And what Putin is willing or unwilling to sacrifice is determined by what price he feels he will have to pay to get what he wants.

Trump is making it exceedingly clear that the US is not going to offer much resistance or any at all to Putin achieving what he wants.

Yeah let’s find out. Let’s spend another 100 bricks and see if it is 1 million. 2 million? Doesn’t matter that Ukraine cannot win without NATO military intervention. Let’s see….that’d be cool. Also - let’s test the limits of his nuclear restraint. Interesting experiment. Follow the science.

 

[Georgia Knight]

So you know what Putin is willing or unwilling to sacrifice? How exactly? And what Putin is willing or unwilling to sacrifice is determined by what price he feels he will have to pay to get what he wants.

Trump is making it exceedingly clear that the US is not going to offer much resistance or any at all to Putin achieving what he wants.

The night before yesterday, Trump was literally talking about restoring Ukrainian land on the Black Sea.

Now we can discuss the realistic potential for that, but he has been expanding the window of opportunities for several weeks now.