3 ms·
The charitable scenarios is he’s realised that if he continues his commitment to drop support for Ukraine, he has zero bargaining power with Putin to negotiate
by simonh 2y ago
The charitable scenarios is he’s realised that if he continues his commitment to drop support for Ukraine, he has zero bargaining power with Putin to negotiate a peace as promised.
How that wasn’t blindingly obvious from the start is a question, but not one he or his supporters actually care about because they couldn’t give a fig about Ukraine. It is entirely instrumental to his personal political advantage in the moment. Being utterly opposed to support for Ukraine was politically advantageous in opposition and supporting Ukraine to the hilt is now politically advantageous in power. That’s all that matters.
Chemical weapons in Syria are an informative parallel. Obama’s commitment to bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons was the worst policy ever from opposition, but actually bombing Syria for using Chemical weapons when they did so as soon as Trump gained power was an obvious necessity.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> How that wasn’t blindingly obvious from the start is a question You’re vastly overestimating the strategic capacity or care of the American voter. Game theory doesn’t fit in a TikTok video.
- smallmancontrov 2y agoRight, and I hope for the charitable scenario. I suppose we'll find out in a few months.
- dralley 2y ago> Obama’s commitment to bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons was the worst policy ever from opposition Mostly because Assad did use chemical weapons and Obama didn't bomb them. Arguably the fact that Obama backed down set the tone for the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas.
- simonh 2y agoIt took a while to confirm they’d used them and Obama made the mistake of asking Congress for authorisation to take out their chemical sites. Mitch McConnell blocked that, which is where Republican opposition to bombing Syria for having or using chemical weapons started. Until they were in power of course, and Assad mistakenly assumed the Republican position on this was coherent and actually used chemical weapons again.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Obama made the mistake of asking Congress for authorisation Obama certainly didn't bother with as much when offing Al-Awlaki [1]. (An American who took up arms against the United States.) This was Obama's fuck-up. He was the chief executive and commander in chief. If he couldn't hold the line, he shouldn't have drawn it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- macintux 2y ago> ...but not one he or his supporters actually care about because they couldn’t give a fig about Ukraine. His supporters absolutely would give a fig about Ukraine if Trump hadn't spent years sabotaging the GOP's historical positions on hostile authoritarians.
- simonh 2y agoOh absolutely, I say all this as a deeply dissolutions British conservative who wonders what the heck has happened to Republicanism. It’s not all down to Trump either, it started before him with McConnell and others as I pointed out in another comment.
- int_19h 2y agoYou say that, and I recall a guy I know - a gun shop owner, die hard right winger, who in 2014 (i.e. a year before Trump even declared his candidacy) told me that he'd prefer to see Putin rather than Obama as US president, because he "knows how to run a proper Christian country".
- macintux 2y agoThat is intensely depressing. Amazing that electing a black man to the presidency triggered such a long-lasting, powerful backlash.
- The_Colonel 2y agoTrump's election might be pretty bad for Russia after all. With Democrats already being committed to Ukraine and Republicans committed to Trump, the whole congress is ready for a pretty much unlimited (material) help to Ukraine if Trump wants it. And the threat of exactly that is necessary for successful peace negotiations, which in turn is what would score Trump major political points.