3 ms·

>Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. Problem is the USA doesn't.

>Good. The only thing that can create a lasting peace with authoritarian regimes abound is facing them from a position of strength. Problem is the USA doesn't. You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. Unfortunately the USA has no one who can project strength and decisiveness. Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. We're screwed until someone comes along that is right for the job ahead and unfortunately there are no good candidates currently.

Ancapistani 2y ago
> You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. This is my favorite post in this thread so far, because I don't know which party you're assigning to which side! I by no means intend that as a slight, by the way. It's striking to me how easily statements with clear meaning to one person can be viewed in with completely opposite meaning by the "other" faction. > Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. I'll be a bit more specific about my own views for this part. It seems to me that the Democratic Party vocally and fairly consistently supports Ukraine, but that their measured approach and desire not to escalate is only extending the conflict. Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems split on the issue, and their Presidential candidate rather milquetoast when it comes to setting a clear policy proposal in this specific case. So, yeah - I'm about 70% sure you and I are on opposite sides politically for most issues, but if we constrain the topic to the Russo-Ukrainian war, there really isn't a clear preference for either party. The choices seem to be "incur significant additional debt to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to end the war" and "hope Trump chooses to fully support Ukraine if elected, but not be sure if he will or not". US politics have been depressing my entire life, but this election seems to be particularly unsatisfactory for everyone involved, regardless of faction.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  If we constrain the topic to the Russo-Ukrainian war, there really isn't a clear preference for either party. I disagree with this analysis. All indicates are that a restored Trump administration (particularly with Vance on board) would steer Ukraine to a very severe compromise with Putin (i.e. recognized sovereignty for the Donbas + Crimea + likely then some). They won't do so "in 24 hours" per Trump's bluster on the subject (like nearly everything else he says, that's just a stunt). And of course the deep state will remind them that it's actually important, and if they insist on disengaging, they should get as much out of Putin in return as they can. But both ideologically and from their various statements (especially Vance's "I really don't care about Ukraine one way or another"), that's definitely the way they'll be leaning. Putin knows this of course, that's why it seems he had been hoping (up until Biden's exit from the race) that if he would just keep his a foot to pedal, and keep throwing his people into the wood chopper, then come 2025 there'd be a good chance he'll get to sit face to face with Trump again (whom he normally wouldn't so fond of, but for this issue), as a kind of a Hail Mary pass. You are right that the Democrats do appear to be dilly-dallying, basically -- and one could dissect this further as to whether it's simply a lack of resolve, or that they simply lack a clear vision of how to bring this thing to an acceptable resolution without incurring too high of a risk of a nuclear escalation (likely it's a bit of both). But that's very different from the Trump-Vance position (and that of a majority of alt-right types it seems) of simply not giving a fuck about the basic principles of the situation either way, and openly saying so. (Or of perhaps caring sort-of about the basic principles, but being too caught up in their bubble world to understand the basic history of the region, let alone to figure out how to read the tea leaves of the current situation). I am actually hopeful, as are the Ukrainians I talk to (though they will generally be ready to acknowledge that there multiple paths available to the long-term strategic victory that they ultimately seek). Especially now that Trump and Vance seem to be heading for the ropes.

Ancapistani 2y ago

> You have one party that wants to abandon its partners and has no interest in supporting Freedom and Democracy and you have another party that is so hesitant and non committal that it only encourages authoritarian regimes. It is playing out around the entire world with North Korea, Iran, terrorists, Russia, China, etc. This is my favorite post in this thread so far, because I don't know which party you're assigning to which side! I by no means intend that as a slight, by the way. It's striking to me how easily statements with clear meaning to one person can be viewed in with completely opposite meaning by the "other" faction. > Just look at what is happening with Ukraine, a good lesson that the West has no resolve or willingness to let Ukraine win and end the war. I'll be a bit more specific about my own views for this part. It seems to me that the Democratic Party vocally and fairly consistently supports Ukraine, but that their measured approach and desire not to escalate is only extending the conflict. Meanwhile, the Republican Party seems split on the issue, and their Presidential candidate rather milquetoast when it comes to setting a clear policy proposal in this specific case. So, yeah - I'm about 70% sure you and I are on opposite sides politically for most issues, but if we constrain the topic to the Russo-Ukrainian war, there really isn't a clear preference for either party. The choices seem to be "incur significant additional debt to keep Ukraine in the fight, but not enough to end the war" and "hope Trump chooses to fully support Ukraine if elected, but not be sure if he will or not". US politics have been depressing my entire life, but this election seems to be particularly unsatisfactory for everyone involved, regardless of faction.

aguaviva 2y ago
If we constrain the topic to the Russo-Ukrainian war, there really isn't a clear preference for either party. I disagree with this analysis. All indicates are that a restored Trump administration (particularly with Vance on board) would steer Ukraine to a very severe compromise with Putin (i.e. recognized sovereignty for the Donbas + Crimea + likely then some). They won't do so "in 24 hours" per Trump's bluster on the subject (like nearly everything else he says, that's just a stunt). And of course the deep state will remind them that it's actually important, and if they insist on disengaging, they should get as much out of Putin in return as they can. But both ideologically and from their various statements (especially Vance's "I really don't care about Ukraine one way or another"), that's definitely the way they'll be leaning. Putin knows this of course, that's why it seems he had been hoping (up until Biden's exit from the race) that if he would just keep his a foot to pedal, and keep throwing his people into the wood chopper, then come 2025 there'd be a good chance he'll get to sit face to face with Trump again (whom he normally wouldn't so fond of, but for this issue), as a kind of a Hail Mary pass. You are right that the Democrats do appear to be dilly-dallying, basically -- and one could dissect this further as to whether it's simply a lack of resolve, or that they simply lack a clear vision of how to bring this thing to an acceptable resolution without incurring too high of a risk of a nuclear escalation (likely it's a bit of both). But that's very different from the Trump-Vance position (and that of a majority of alt-right types it seems) of simply not giving a fuck about the basic principles of the situation either way, and openly saying so. (Or of perhaps caring sort-of about the basic principles, but being too caught up in their bubble world to understand the basic history of the region, let alone to figure out how to read the tea leaves of the current situation). I am actually hopeful, as are the Ukrainians I talk to (though they will generally be ready to acknowledge that there multiple paths available to the long-term strategic victory that they ultimately seek). Especially now that Trump and Vance seem to be heading for the ropes.