Donald Trump Is the Only Choice to Keep Us From Sleepwalking to Armageddon | Opi
gammanu95
My casual drinking is your alcohol poisoning.
I am sharing this here because I found it to be an interesting and though-provoking piece. I am aware that it is a polarizing and hotly contested issue but, with a potential nuclear holocaust so very close, it provides an opportunity for scholaryly evaluation and debate. It provides an opportunity, but let's see what really happens:
Donald Trump Is the Only Choice to Keep Us From Sleepwalking to Armageddon | Opinion
Opinion by Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell
What is the most consequential issue facing the American electorate on Nov. 5? Is it inflation, immigration, abortion, or climate change? No, the most important question to be answered on Election Day is whether the United States will seek a negotiated settlement to its proxy war with Russia or pursue its current policy of serial escalation in Ukraine. That is the only choice that involves an immediate and potentially existential threat to the nation.
The calculus of this war has always been obvious to any honest observer. Without major American intervention, a nation of 38 million with a GDP of $160 billion cannot defeat a nation of 150 million with a GDG of $2 trillion, especially when only the larger nation has nuclear weapons and a robust defense industry. Two years ago, we wrote in these pages that Ukraine has as much chance of defeating Russia as Mexico does of defeating the United States. That remains true today. President Volodymyr Zelensky's only hope for victory is to induce increased American involvement in the conflict.
He has already been quite successful. The U.S. has provided Ukraine with an array of increasingly sophisticated weapons, including Patriot missiles, HIMARS missiles Abrams tanks and F-16 aircraft. After initial hesitation, the Biden administration has in each instance chosen escalation. Now Zelensky wants to launch ATACMS missiles at targets deep inside Russia. There are many in both Europe and the United States who support his dangerous request. The fact that Russia has not responded to previous American escalations does not guarantee that it will not respond to the next because when push comes to shove not losing the war is far more important to Russia than it is to the United States.
The fighting is taking place 300 miles from Moscow, but 5,000 miles from Washington. Russian cities have been targeted. Thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been heavily criticized at home for not responding to previous NATO escalations. After two years of sacrifice, he now faces a rising tide of nationalist anger demanding Russian victory. Losing the war would likely cost Putin his job.
Putin understands that ATACMS missiles cannot hit Russian cities, airfields, or energy infrastructure without American authorization and technical assistance. He also understands that public outrage over such attacks would demand a response. Putin has stated clearly that attacks deep inside Russia would substantially change the nature of the conflict. and require "corresponding decisions".
We do not know Putin's intentions and are not predicting the immediate outbreak of nuclear war if the U.S. continues to escalate. We expect that Russia would first expand the conflict horizontally and geographically rather than vertically. That could mean a wide variety of sabotage and cyber-attacks on defense industries, energy infrastructure, communication systems in the United States and Europe. The destruction of the Nordstream 2 pipelines and the Israeli pager attack on Hezbollah make the potential for such incidents all too obvious.
However, the first principle of international relations is to base policy not on estimates of your adversary's intentions, but on his known capabilities. We know that the European Union has a population three times as large as Russia's and a GDP 10 times as large as Russia's. Thus, Russia is not going to invade Europe. However, we also know that since the end of the Cold War Russia has continued to invest heavily in nuclear armaments. Today, Russia possesses roughly 10 percent more nuclear warheads than the U.S. Some can be mounted on hypersonic missiles against which there is no effective defense. Others come on unmanned submarines designed to swamp coastal cities with enormous radioactive tidal waves. The Russian Sarmat missiles carry a warhead equivalent to 600 Hiroshima bombs.
Weapons like this have never been used. Their effect on populations and climate are unknown. However, a modern nuclear exchange would certainly not resemble those of the Second World War. Comparing today's nuclear weapons to the bombs dropped on Japan is like comparing a Model T to a Tesla. Both are cars, but that is about as far as the resemblance goes. A single Sarmat could depopulate the entire Northeastern United States. Is there anything at stake for the United States in Ukraine to justify taking such an enormous risk?
Ukraine is not a democracy. In 2014, its elected president was overthrown in a coup. It is notoriously corrupt and increasingly authoritarian, having recently canceled both presidential and parliamentary elections. With severe restrictions on freedom of the press and religion it is no bastion of human rights. Ukraine is in fact an impoverished, half destroyed nation that relies on foreign aid to pay the salaries of its civil servants. It hard to see how admitting Ukraine to NATO and thus committing America's sons and daughters to die for every inch of Crimea would make America safer or be worth risking a nuclear confrontation.
During the Cold War, two generations of Western leaders avoided a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union by respecting Moscow's sphere of influence. Today, Putin will not accept Ukraine joining NATO any more than President Biden would welcome a Chinese naval base in Nova Scotia. However, Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican nominee former President Donald Trump advocate very different responses to Putin's objections. Harris has repeatedly praised Biden's Ukraine policy of serial escalation and has repeatedly pledged to provide more support for Kiev. Trump has repeatedly called for an immediate negotiated settlement.
History provides many examples of nations sleepwalking into wars that proved far more destructive than they had anticipated. Shiloh was the painful wakeup call for Americans that their Civil War would be far bloodier than either the public or the press had expected. In two days, more Americans died there than George Washington had in his entire army. Confederate President Jefferson Davis later said, "The South went to war without fully counting the costs." We do not need another Shiloh. We need to elect a candidate committed to ending, not prolonging, the war in Ukraine. There is only one, Donald Trump.
David H. Rundell is a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia and the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor to the U.S. Central Command and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Donald Trump Is the Only Choice to Keep Us From Sleepwalking to Armageddon | Opinion
Opinion by Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell
What is the most consequential issue facing the American electorate on Nov. 5? Is it inflation, immigration, abortion, or climate change? No, the most important question to be answered on Election Day is whether the United States will seek a negotiated settlement to its proxy war with Russia or pursue its current policy of serial escalation in Ukraine. That is the only choice that involves an immediate and potentially existential threat to the nation.
The calculus of this war has always been obvious to any honest observer. Without major American intervention, a nation of 38 million with a GDP of $160 billion cannot defeat a nation of 150 million with a GDG of $2 trillion, especially when only the larger nation has nuclear weapons and a robust defense industry. Two years ago, we wrote in these pages that Ukraine has as much chance of defeating Russia as Mexico does of defeating the United States. That remains true today. President Volodymyr Zelensky's only hope for victory is to induce increased American involvement in the conflict.
He has already been quite successful. The U.S. has provided Ukraine with an array of increasingly sophisticated weapons, including Patriot missiles, HIMARS missiles Abrams tanks and F-16 aircraft. After initial hesitation, the Biden administration has in each instance chosen escalation. Now Zelensky wants to launch ATACMS missiles at targets deep inside Russia. There are many in both Europe and the United States who support his dangerous request. The fact that Russia has not responded to previous American escalations does not guarantee that it will not respond to the next because when push comes to shove not losing the war is far more important to Russia than it is to the United States.
The fighting is taking place 300 miles from Moscow, but 5,000 miles from Washington. Russian cities have been targeted. Thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been heavily criticized at home for not responding to previous NATO escalations. After two years of sacrifice, he now faces a rising tide of nationalist anger demanding Russian victory. Losing the war would likely cost Putin his job.
Putin understands that ATACMS missiles cannot hit Russian cities, airfields, or energy infrastructure without American authorization and technical assistance. He also understands that public outrage over such attacks would demand a response. Putin has stated clearly that attacks deep inside Russia would substantially change the nature of the conflict. and require "corresponding decisions".
We do not know Putin's intentions and are not predicting the immediate outbreak of nuclear war if the U.S. continues to escalate. We expect that Russia would first expand the conflict horizontally and geographically rather than vertically. That could mean a wide variety of sabotage and cyber-attacks on defense industries, energy infrastructure, communication systems in the United States and Europe. The destruction of the Nordstream 2 pipelines and the Israeli pager attack on Hezbollah make the potential for such incidents all too obvious.
However, the first principle of international relations is to base policy not on estimates of your adversary's intentions, but on his known capabilities. We know that the European Union has a population three times as large as Russia's and a GDP 10 times as large as Russia's. Thus, Russia is not going to invade Europe. However, we also know that since the end of the Cold War Russia has continued to invest heavily in nuclear armaments. Today, Russia possesses roughly 10 percent more nuclear warheads than the U.S. Some can be mounted on hypersonic missiles against which there is no effective defense. Others come on unmanned submarines designed to swamp coastal cities with enormous radioactive tidal waves. The Russian Sarmat missiles carry a warhead equivalent to 600 Hiroshima bombs.
Weapons like this have never been used. Their effect on populations and climate are unknown. However, a modern nuclear exchange would certainly not resemble those of the Second World War. Comparing today's nuclear weapons to the bombs dropped on Japan is like comparing a Model T to a Tesla. Both are cars, but that is about as far as the resemblance goes. A single Sarmat could depopulate the entire Northeastern United States. Is there anything at stake for the United States in Ukraine to justify taking such an enormous risk?
Ukraine is not a democracy. In 2014, its elected president was overthrown in a coup. It is notoriously corrupt and increasingly authoritarian, having recently canceled both presidential and parliamentary elections. With severe restrictions on freedom of the press and religion it is no bastion of human rights. Ukraine is in fact an impoverished, half destroyed nation that relies on foreign aid to pay the salaries of its civil servants. It hard to see how admitting Ukraine to NATO and thus committing America's sons and daughters to die for every inch of Crimea would make America safer or be worth risking a nuclear confrontation.
During the Cold War, two generations of Western leaders avoided a direct confrontation with the Soviet Union by respecting Moscow's sphere of influence. Today, Putin will not accept Ukraine joining NATO any more than President Biden would welcome a Chinese naval base in Nova Scotia. However, Democratic presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican nominee former President Donald Trump advocate very different responses to Putin's objections. Harris has repeatedly praised Biden's Ukraine policy of serial escalation and has repeatedly pledged to provide more support for Kiev. Trump has repeatedly called for an immediate negotiated settlement.
History provides many examples of nations sleepwalking into wars that proved far more destructive than they had anticipated. Shiloh was the painful wakeup call for Americans that their Civil War would be far bloodier than either the public or the press had expected. In two days, more Americans died there than George Washington had in his entire army. Confederate President Jefferson Davis later said, "The South went to war without fully counting the costs." We do not need another Shiloh. We need to elect a candidate committed to ending, not prolonging, the war in Ukraine. There is only one, Donald Trump.
David H. Rundell is a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia and the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor to the U.S. Central Command and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
37 comments
Bacon!!
Not!!!!!!
I used to be a diehard "whatever it takes" person but now we're at the point where we can negotiate from a better position or a worse position.
He wasn't able to retain his cabinet, because he's a shitty manager. They're on record stating he's a shitty manager. You think he's going to manage a deal on Ukraine with the European stakeholders giving him little to no respect? At best, he tells Putin he can have up to the river and relax....that's his idea of a "winning strategy." (Yes, Obama fucked up on Crimea....I'll beat you to that)
Finally, you can spout off on VP Harris not being able to handle the job any better, but I'm commenting on the asinine headline. I'm not asserting that VP Harris is the "only one to blah blah blah".
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION TRUTHFULLY.
Is Donald Trump is a RA_IST?
a) P
b) C
c) GING NARCISS
d) BID MISOGYN
e) All of the above
“I wasn’t just a Trump supporter, I was a true believer, I was one of his closest advisers. The Trump family became my family.
I saw him when the cameras were off
Behind closed doors, Trump mocks his supporters, he calls them basement dwellers.
He has no empathy, no morals, and no fidelity to the truth.”
He used to tell me: ‘It doesn’t matter what you say, Stephanie, say it enough and people will believe you.
~ Stephanie Grisham, aka “I love my country more than my party”
~ September 20, 1024
~ Former Trump White House press secretary.
~ She was the first senior staffer to resign on January 6 2021 because 6 United States Capitol attack directed/led/orchestrated by Trump.
You should work for a testing organization
We’re bleeding our most belligerent enemy, with such a low cost to us, why wouldn’t we continue to fund Ukraine?
As far a nuclear war is concerned Putin has proven through the sheer incompetence of his army that if they were to attack NATO the response would be overwhelming and the result would be no more Russia.
Folks that want to surrender Ukraine to the Russians need to go back to the history books and learn how Neville Chamberlain made WWII happen and last as long as it did,
Those that don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it.
Let’s see how the bigoted weirdo and his sycophants attack me personally because they don’t like or understand my facts b
Further evidence is we have been aiding the Israelis completely because of this conflict and we have committed our power to advance their defense against Iran, whatever does happen in the Middle East, the consequences are likely to involve the regime of Iran being overthrown, which likely will result in a Russian retreat from Ukraine. That’s really what this fight is about, BTW we did fuck up with Obama, but Biden has been steadfast about supporting Israel and Ukraine, and for the sake of democracy and capitalism we need to continue to push forward against the Russians.
The Chinese are content to let this play out and then we’ll need to turn our attention there, but the Chinese really want prosperity, and will do the things that best serve their own interests.
No one (here or elsewhere) seems to be able to answer my question on Ukraine literally running out of soldiers. At some point soon, "bleeding our most belligerent enemy" is going to take boots on the ground. That would be folly itself.
Russia is an oil field with even worse demographics than Europe. China is 10x their size, building airports and roads and rails in the developing world while we're flying pride flags and literally saying LGBTQ rights are a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Harris would double down on this nonsense.
The rest of your statement is pure politics and it’s useless to waste bandwidth on it as we’re just not going to agree.
We also cannot afford the price tag of supporting a proxy war against Russia. You know who biggest proponents of Ukrainian and other proxies wars are? The military-industrial complex. They need to keep the revenue coming and reasons for the federal government to keep ordering weapons instead of stockpiling for ourselves. They, not Ukrainians or everyday Americans, are the true beneficiaries of this costly foreign military subsidization. Reducing the national debt and deficit spending are reason enough to draw back on all foreign aid spending.
Finally, who reading this feels that as long as Iran is funding, training, advising, and supplying Hamas and Hezbollah to bomb and attack Israel, then Israel is justified in attacking the source of the violence in Iran? Why then wouldn't Russia be justified to attack the source of their enemies' weapons? China and Iran are supplying Russia with arms and armaments for their war in Ukraine. Why shouldn't Ukraine use our planes and missiles to attack Beijing? This is how America was brought into the other world wars. The only remote justification for supporting Ukraine is that Russia attacked to prevent a new NATO nation on their doorstep. However, as noted before, Ukraine is going to lose and we should stop throwing good money after bad at the expense of our own national security. A negotiated settlement is Ukraine's only hope for an end to the blood-letting and continued sovereignty. However, if Russia is pushed to a position where they no longer have military weapons or personnel to prosecute a conventional war, and if Ukraine is allowed to use our weapons to attack Russia instead of defending Ukrainian territory, then Russia will use nuclear weapons to complete their falsely crafted goal to de-Nazify Ukraine. There is no guarantee that it nuclear war would end only in Ukraine. It simply isn't worth it.
And like all cons, his house of cards will eventually fall.
Con artists weave their lies with a smirk and a wink and coax their marks (you people) with a pied piper's tune.
They lead their quarry astray with smooth talk but are essentially vulgar and abusive, concocting sinister plans and secretly mocking those (you people) who fall for their scams.
Let’s be careful out there.
Being dead is a pretty sure way to be forced to quit.
"my own opinion is we shouldn’t be placing restrictions on their ability to fight and attack the Russians with whatever we give them"
I don't disagree. The way we've given aid in drips and drabs prolongs it without a solution.
"I don’t see the Russians as being able to attack us with this war going on, and they will not win easily as long as we keep supporting the Ukrainian army."
My point is there won't be a Ukrainian army before very long. Then we'll be negotiating while Russia has the west by its balls.
"The rest of your statement is pure politics and it’s useless to waste bandwidth on it as we’re just not going to agree."
You mean the part where John Fucking Kirby himself said LGBTQ rights is a cornerstone of our foreign policy? Don't call it "pure politics" when I can cite chapter and verse.
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/lgbtq…
"Trump didn’t do a fucking thing, he set the stage for the invasion, if you think Trump was such a great leader tell me how he made the Russians return Crimea,"
LOL it happened under Biden, but it's Trump's fault. Come to think of it, Trump didn't solve cold fusion or cure cancer, ergo he was the worstestest president of my lifetime.
Democratic foreign policy is wokeness and weakness.
I can dunk on the left here just by pointing out under which presidents Putin made major invasions. Hint: "Reset," "More latitude after the election," "Minor incursions."
John Kirby was speaking about Afghanistan, and yes it's pure politics, I don't care to spend all day composing a policy paper regarding the failures of the Republican Party, so like I said there is nothing we will agree on, so lets quit wasting my valuable time.
Again, under whom did Putin make major moves? Dunked on again.
Afghanistan, speaking of Democratic failures. Weakness and wokeness.
>> LOL your "valuable time" seems to be spent arguing and bumping threads here.
Self awareness doesn’t seem to be one of your superpowers puddy
Anyway, the commando walz video mentioned above, even the aussies are laughing at him!
The 'never fits quite right' comment regarding feeding a magazine tube machined to perfectly fit that shotgun shell shows his ineptness and the 'patented thing at kickoff' comment was a doozy. Maybe walz can get harris to explain to him that the patented thing is a recoil reduction system and kick off is how you start a football game, lol
I'm not for gun control for lawful experienced people but an idiot like walz is obviously the poster boy for gun control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohk6onBE…
There are many, MANY other factors that come together to create situations that are WELL beyond the control of America.
When the soviets fell in 91, we became the world's only superpower.. with the full support of NATO... but that has changed since then... we have near peer powers in China and increasgingly India... the middle east plays an outsized role because of their money...
also, when we think of America as some global police force that controls other country's worst instincts, let's remember that it has not always been that way.... our isolationist leanings kept us out of WWII for 2.5 years.... so while everyone is citing Chamberlin's gift of "peace in our time", it was done without the backing of the US... why? because of the neutrality act...
Had chamberlain had the US behind him, he might have been negotiating from a position of strength, not looking at Hitler and trying to appease him. We were literally bound by policy to NOT put ourselves into the equation.
But to think of our neutrality act without the context is also a mistake... it was a response to the depression. We were broken inside and had to fix ourselves before we could go around doing it to others....
Lots of you like to throw out Obama was president when the russians invaded Ukraine... remember that we were just coming out of an economic crisis (thanks GWB) that had us more worried about our internal economy than working on the global stage. Combine that with the fact that there was a VERY different government in the Ukraine in 2014 than there was in 2022... Kyiv was closely aligned with Moscow and not really the partner that we see today... had we tried to flex ourselves, it would have had far reaching results both in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe...
Let's not forget Georgia (the country) and the successful defense against Russian aggression that had absolutely nothing to do with America...
Who started the whole "America is the world's police force" doctrine? Truman.
Who envisioned NATO? Eisenhower
America works best when we work together...
All of this is to say... this is SO much more complicated than the simplistic arguments we are making in this thread.
That said, Trump is a buffoon on the world stage. the reason he didn't have any major wars start on his watch? He gave everything away that anyone wanted... Hey, the bully down the street didn't punch me last week! why? because I gave him all my money. Misreading a negative is not proof of a point... He fully felated Putin on the world stage with his little "summit".... it was disgusting to watch... as an American. Literally I have not sucked some guy's cock that well... so he is good at something...
He made what Chamberlain did with Hitler in Munich look like a polite handshake. He greenlighted everything you've seen since. Russian military action is not an immediate response... it took Putin a couple of years to get the pieces in place... and he totally misread the new government in Kyviv... and our new government as well.
Harris is unproven in her policy stance... but I will take a bet on her vs Trump on his knees wiping Putin's jizz off any day of the week.
Further, while many in Roosevelt's cabinet loved the Russians, many in government saw him as similar to Hitler and were not so gung ho about backing someone they saw as a much more powerfule enemy in the future.
GWB was handed an actual recession by Clinton and Obama despite the the reasons Democrats have to pretend he was wicked smart, was in over his head and not only fucked up the economy, but totally fucked up the Middle East and China.
His apology tour to Muslims nations as President was a fucking disgrace. His personal deal with Iran (it was never a treaty because America was against it, so it wasn't submitted to Congress) was an embarrassment to anyone with a GED and above and is 100% the cause of what is happening in the Middle East. He was an empty suit on the world stage and harmed us. Trump, being insane, scares people. Thats why Russia did nothing; North Korea did nothing; Iran was cowed; illegal aliens prevented somewhat from coming in and China did nothing. Under Biden were on the verge of a Middle East world war, North Korea just blew up all the roads leading South, China is on the verge of attacking Taiwan and soon this country will suffer from terrorists who are flooding in over open borders. I would like to see one progressive be honest and list all of Trump's fuck ups. I listed just a few of the reasons I hate the democrats. They are real, not my opinion of what people I don't know think of Trump.
Since its a nice day I will not comment on comparing Trump to Chamberlin because it is so nonsensical. By the way Putin read our new impotent government very well and at the request of the Chinese is bleeding us dry militarily, while they create Brics to bleed us financially. I love the fact young people are democrats because they will have earned their future third world status.
This is so false. Did Putin stop wanting to resurrect the USSR during Trump’s term, and only during Trump's term? No. Trump stopped the Democrats' analingus of Iran. He marginalized the Palestinians. He reoriented our China policy.
All of this was obviously Trump, because Biden groveled to Iran and restarted aid to Hamas as soon as he took office.
Biden has humiliated America across the board.
Well that is certainly a possible outcome that should be considered, and has been. It's precisely why the West has pursued the strategy of incremental escalation mentioned in the article. The NATO strategy while not perfect is deliberate and methodical. And Ukraine has done a remarkable job defending itself against a superpower many times larger.
Speculation that Ukraine's army is not up to the job have been proven wrong time and again. We heard these comments earlier this year, and what happened since? Ukraine took control of 300 square miles of Russia in the Kursk region, the first time Russia has been invaded by a foreign army since WW II.
The option of giving Putin a win in Ukraine, a man who is responsible for countless war crimes and atrocities in Russia's attacks on the Ukrainian people, is absurd and untenable to many people. Backing off in fear of WWIII just gives more incentive to Putin and other dictators to continue with their military quests.