It seems like there's no way that Biden can make any negotiation with Russia seem like a win to his base so if he wins it's almost an automatic 4 more years of war. But if Trump wins he could make most of the concessions that Russia wants and still sell it as "the best deal" to his fans. Is a trump win the best hope for shortening war?
Disclaimer: I would never vote for trump, I also won't vote for Biden, I'm also in a state that always goes one way so it doesn't matter at all.
Maybe because it would be the second term for Trump, I guess. But I just don't see Trump doing anything except whatever the Pentagon tells him to do. IMO it will be the same as Biden.
Remember that the generals kept sabotaging Trump's efforts to leave Afghanistan, and how hard the media has attempted to attribute Biden's low approval on his exit from Afghanistan.
Until Ukraine...... now the media loves him again
Almost makes you wonder.
Yeah, I can't see him doing anything different than Biden here
The only difference between them is that Trump will probably invite Zelensky to the White House less often
First, let me start by saying that, similar to you, I would never vote for Trump, didn't and won't vote for Biden, and am also in a state that always goes one way.
Having said all that, some things about Trump's prior actions and statements make me believe that, if the war hasn't ended by the time of the election, he would be much more likely to end the war much sooner than Biden.
Why do I say this? First, like @HarryLime said, Biden is completely bound to this war, so he's likely to drag it out as long as possible and try to maintain the illusion that Russia is losing. I suppose that there's some chance that he cuts his losses after the election.
Second, I think Trump has demonstrated multiple times that he's not into war. As far as I know, he did not start any new wars or invasions while he was in office, and in fact ended a couple of them. He withdrew from Syria and initiated the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan. On Syria, he said that there was nothing there for the US aside from "sand and death".
On Ukraine, he has specifically stated that he would end the war within 24 hours. Regardless of how ridiculous that sounds, he elaborated on what he would say to both Zelensky and Putin, and you can just tell that he doesn't like this war either.
Most of his statements about most wars that we've been involved in seem to indicate that he instinctively dislikes war and all its negative impacts. Whether he would actually be able to end it or not is another question, considering what @footfaults mentioned about the generals sabotaging his efforts to leave Afghanistan.
Finally, here's an analysis from the BBC on how a Trump presidency might change the Ukraine war.
Edit: another factor is that remember that Biden pretty much loaded his entire national security and foreign policy apparatus with neocons. In contrast, Trump had maybe a couple, with a prominent example being John Bolton, who was like a cartoon neocon. He seemed to be used more for barking than for biting. Here's what seems like a good article about this. I only skimmed it, but this caught my eye:
Far from the textbook ideal of National Security Advisor as an honest broker, Bolton acted as a policy advocate. His strong convictions and history as an arch-neoconservative who believes in America’s role to police the world and engage in military action to effect regime change in states perceived as a threat has been well-documented. A proponent of the “axis of evil” view of the world, he advocated for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, as well forceful regime change in Iran and North Korea.
However, such war-happiness has run antithetical to Trump’s apparent view of the scope and purpose of US foreign policy. Trump’s proclivity to transactionalism and dismissal of the notion that the US is a force for good involved in a Manichean struggle against evil. Trump has been unequivocal in the view that acting as a global policeman has been detrimental for the state coffers and has given allies and partners a free ride. While Trump has done nothing to reduce US military spending – he has actually increased it – his threshold for the use of force has been much higher than Bolton’s (albeit less consistent, as seen in the case of Syria in 2017 and 2018, in response to Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians). It should be little wonder, then, that Trump remained resistant to Bolton’s sabre-rattling.
Interesting points you bring up. Trump working towards a prosocial environment is an interesting thesis and yeah, from the evidence you provided and from anecdotal accounts that does seem to be the case.
If I were to think why, I want to say that he takes war to be distasteful on its face. Whereas war hawks and pundits have goals of utter domination, I wonder if Trump sees that as antithetical to business.
Certainly some productivity and money is to be made and perhaps increases in a conflict, the US seems to have a novel method owing to its place in geopolitics. The net, murder of how many, displacement of more, tendency for sexual violence against women, these can't be thought to increase production in aggregate.
Another idea is maybe conflict is too oriented towards the government. Then, their interests are represented rather than business interests. The market becomes lopsided and entrepreneurial activities are tied at the hip at some level with producing for conflict. I think of Microsoft and HoloLens, as well as their software for ICE.
From the prior points, maybe the best explanation is differing groups interests within the same class conflicting and conspiring with one another. Such a simple explanation does not feel satisfactory.
If anyone else could help me understand I would really appreciate it, I think it shows, but I'm not really well read on theory (not ML at least).
As for Trump, my view is that he relies heavily on instinct in most areas of his life, and his anti-war position seems to be based on a few instinctive positions he holds: he seems to dislike death and blood (ex: his Syria comments), he seems to dislike the destruction of buildings (perhaps because of his real estate background?), and he probably sees no personal profit (even though he has a business background, I don't believe he's involved in the military industrial complex) or national economic gain to be made from most wars the US has been involved in (he seems much more oriented toward national economic interest rather than geopolitical power games - see again his Syria comments).
As for inter-class conflict, I don't think that is too simple of an explanation. US foreign policy since World War II has been an ongoing battle of ideas, with push and pull between interventionists and non-interventionists. Neoconservatism is an ideology that sees the role of the US as the principal promoter of "freedom" and "democracy" around the world, making domestic economic conditions secondary to that goal. That ideology is opposed by many people across the political spectrum, so the influence of neocons on US foreign policy grows and shrinks with different administrations. If you read the wikipedia article on neoconservatism it says that many neoconservatives opposed Trump in 2016 "due to his criticism of interventionist foreign policies".
You're welcome! I should caveat that I'm not well-read on theory either. :)
I'm sorry, I've already quoted you several time now. We're in this together. You best keep up an act for both our sakes.
Yep. Saw an interview with the president of Mexico where he said he didn't care who got elected in 2020 because the rest of the world was well aware that the american people and the politicians they elect had very little to do with american foreign policy
I kinda think Trump is the rare exception to our consensus on foreign policy. He doesn't care about any of the "inside baseball" perspectives in Washington. For him, politics is 100% spectacle -- he doesn't have hard beliefs about foreign policy in the way that our typical politicians do. I could see him trying to end the war just so he could say "I succeeded where Joe couldn't!"
Aside from the part where he said he’d end it and that he doesn’t really like NATO, there’s another big reason I think Trump will end the war: Zelenskyy didn’t give him the dirt on Biden he asked for, and it got him impeached.
Plus of course this is Biden’s war. He started it in 2014 as VP and it’s no coincidence that it blew back up after he became president.
i.e. aside from the politics of it, ending the war would also just be petty revenge for Trump.
Maybe that’s hopium (for the war to end) on my part, but I do think it tracks with Trump’s personality.
How did Biden start the annexation of Crimea? I'm assuming that's what you are referring to when you mention 2014.
Probably referencing US support for the Euromaidan coup which is what led to crimea breaking away from Ukraine in the first place. Idk how involved Biden was in that personally.
Biden was vice president at the time, played a role in Euromaidan shenanigans alongside Victoria Nuland, and his son Hunter sat on the board of directors of Ukrainian Gas Company Burisma
Show
The president has the power to not send more money to Ukraine. Trump will call Zelenskyy and say “we won’t be supporting you anymore, go negotiate”. The US has by far been the biggest donor to Ukraine so Ukraine would be in a tough position without that support. Worst case Ukraine tries to hold out but without US support Russia will mop them up, which is what Russia has been waiting for.
The president has the power to not send more money to Ukraine
He can only do that if there is anyone else in the government that wants to do that. Otherwise he can probably be convinced not to.
Rooting for Trump 2024 just because I want to hear what nickname he'll come up with for Zelensky
It's too bad that "Vaudevillian Voldomyr" is too much of a mouthful for his feral hog supporters.
idk, He called Ron DeSantis "Ron DeSanctimonious" when frankly something crude like DePantpiss would have gotten him a lot more mileage
i could see him pushing for a peace deal because it would make him look good, and it would end "Bidens war." The GOP does seem kinda split on the war though thats a wild card.
No. Any cuts will seem weak, but they'll do more focus on making Taiwan the next multi decade burn pit. I think we will see a "stalemate" West / East Ukraine and Europe follows the USA in becoming a perma war / austerity state once they deplete ye olde cold war stuff. A 20 year slow burn like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and wherever the fuck we are that isn't more publicized.
They will then build up with modern weapons and do WW3 frfr around 2040 when will the boomers die off to prevent any speak of a peace dividend.
To add - Trump is for Sale. He's a bought bitch. He isn't good for peace.
-
His major bribers
(Renaissance Technologies, $16 million) ordered him to hire John Bolton, (whom they also paid $4 million). His bribers also happened to invest in weapons delivery systems and inserted themselves via fuck you money.....I mean 'philanthropy' into senior board positions at our nuclear research labs aka bombs. -
Bolton then went to Putin's face to say "I didn't bring any more olives" aka peace is off the table.
-
While Trump tore up nearly every treaty of peace and disarmament we made grounds on after the mass nuclear testing dick measurement contest polluting the world and deflating nuclear armegeddon.
-
Trump then advocated and funded revamping our nuclear arsenal and promoted so-called tactical nukes.
-
Of which the Democrats loved 😍 . :reddit-logo:
Yes Trump eventually fired John Bolton, but only after all the safeguards were removed and set the ground wide open for Biden to hit the start button.
-
Yes, if the war is still going on. There’s only one way this war will end and that’s negotiation. The Biden administration understands that, they already feel stupid for not listening to Mark Milley about ending the war in late 2022 (that was who it was right? It’s like 3am I can’t remember) so even Biden is ready to come to the negotiating table, he’s just in a pickle because he’s whipped his base into a frenzy and now he needs to back down a bit without looking weak. Trump doesn’t have the same concerns and in fact his base wants him to negotiate an end to the war.
In the past the pentagon has been able to convince trump to go along with their aims, but in this case most in the military are ready to end the war so trump wouldn’t even really be opposing the “deep state.” They’re just trying to figure out how to end it without it being considered a loss. I read one commentator who said the summer Counter-offensive was mostly just an attempt to regain as much territory as possible before pushing for negotiation in winter (when fighting would be more difficult). We’ll see if that plays out and negotiations do in fact begin this winter.
This whole thing actually reminds me of listening to another commentator in 2016, right after trump won, who said well really the one positive is we won’t go to war with Russia, and he made the case that if Hillary had won we’d no doubt be ratcheting up tensions with Russia. Looks like whoever that was was right, since as soon as we get Biden we get pulled into what is pretty much a proxy war with Russia.
Yes, if the war is still going on. There’s only one way this war will end and that’s negotiation. The Biden administration understands that, they already feel stupid for not listening to Mark Milley about ending the war in late 2022 (that was who it was right? It’s like 3am I can’t remember) so even Biden is ready to come to the negotiating table, he’s just in a pickle because he’s whipped his base into a frenzy and now he needs to back down a bit without looking weak. Trump doesn’t have the same concerns and in fact his base wants him to negotiate an end to the war.
Not sure about this, all I've seen on the news is the exact opposite. The Biden hardliners are made of the Nulan and Blinken group and they are the idiots in the room that fully believe the whole NATO superiority shit.
It is true they weren't as vicious at the beginning of the war, the US always had strict limits to what weapons they were willing to give away for example, it is also true the UK/Boris group were the ones most hawkish and pushing to escalate. But it was never clear just how much Boris was acting in self interest versus how much it was direct orders from the US, a bit of both realy.
But anyway maybe in hindsight eventually the Biden hawks will regret the war, but so far they haven't and they're not. At worst they are getting anxious that Zelensky isn't delivering the results he promised and they believed, but they fully bought into this narrative.
So yeah I agree the war is not likely to end this year. But I don’t think the Biden administration is at this point hoping for total defeat of Russia. Both Zelensky and Biden have indicated that the war will end at the negotiating table, and some officials are indicating that “Milley had a point” when he floated the possibility of peace talks winter 2022.
But what Biden says in that op-ed is I think what’s stopping them - “we have moved quickly to send Ukraine a significant amount of weaponry…so it can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” They don’t want to enter into negotiations looking weak, as they might not be able to force concessions from Russia in that situation. They missed their chance in 2022 when NATO felt emboldened by recent gains to prolong the war further. I think there was a hope that this summers counteroffensive would give Ukraine momentum to enter into negotiations with Russia on its back foot, but that has clearly failed and so the war continues. I don’t see how it will end if Ukraine does not start making some substantial territorial gains, however I don’t think the administration is so united behind the maximalist rhetoric being publicly espoused, and there is a desire to end the war without losing credibility. Any Russian successes will likely prolong the war, while any Ukrainian successes will make the moderates position more palatable.
Biden has basically staked his administration on this war. Even if he gets reelected, I don't see how he can be viewed as a credible leader internationally.
Biden has no international credibility. He's regarded as a half-senile figurehead that other world leaders need to begrudgingly tolerate.
I'm going to go against everyone else and say that neither Biden nor Trump can end the war. Trump can cut the US support, but that's all he can do, and even if that led to Russia regaining the momentum, it won't win, in the same way that Bush's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner wasn't the end of the War in Iraq.
At most, what can happen is that the Ukranian side of the war turns into an insurgency, and we love saving lives through counterinsurgency don't we folks?
I thought Russia was doing well. Is it suffering setbacks again?
I think it's too optimistic. If Trump was able to stop the war (for whatever dumb reason he might want to), he'd have ended the war in Afghanistan during his original term. Turns out the MIC has an unusual level of protection in its pet projects compared to other endeavors, and Trump does not have the will to fight that.
I think if trump wins he is gonna pull the support, which leads to ukraine losing the war
That would be terrible for ukraine and europe, which in turn would be terrible for US in the long term.
Ukraine is going to lose the war anyway, sooner means fewer people dying at least.
I mean, the intention of the USA isn't for Ukraine to win, just to fuck Russia up with as much NATO supplied weaponry as possible. This is to enrich the the MIC, encircle Russia so it can never challenge the USA again, and so they can refocus their forces in Asia and Africa to combat China.
If Ukraine wins (idk how likely it is if they don't have support for the whole war) it can just be another propaganda point for the State Department, but ultimately they'd even use a defeat as a win, because it battered Russia's military. And even if Ukraine loses or wins, it achieved the goal of Europe spending more on military so the USA doesn't need as many troops in Europe.
We’ll see how events develop, but there’s no guarantee that this ends in strategic victory for the US at this point. It’s at least somewhat evident that the sanctions regime on Russia didn’t have the effect those implementing it hoped. Even some seasoned managers of empire like Kissinger have come out saying this whole thing was a big error strategically for the US.
I agree, I'm not going to make definitive predictions, we'll have to wait and see.
So you think that throwing infinite money into a meat grinder on the other side of the world while Americans are becoming homeless and hungry and sick in record numbers is good for America actually? That's quite an interesting take. I wonder how you think that letting Americans die is actually good for Americans.
