Trump full blown unamerican war monger
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
During his long, rambling Jan. 19 press conference, President Joe Biden made yet another major policy misstep. Russia, he suggested would face but minor consequences if it restrained itself to but a “minor incursion” into Ukraine.
So what was Biden doing when he said Russia was ok to make a “minor incursion” into Ukraine? |
Anonymous
? |
Anonymous
Republicans want to sit on their hands while Russia invades Ukraine just like they are sitting on their hands when given the opportunity to strengthen our immigration system. Your mumbling about something you're paraphrasing from a press conference that happened a month ago makes no sense with that as context. |
Anonymous
WASHINGTON, Feb 21,2022 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin's decision to send troops he called peacemakers into breakaway regions of Ukraine did not constitute a further invasion that would trigger a broader sanctions package, a Biden administration official told Reuters on Monday, but the White House believes a full invasion could come at any time. The first administration official told Reuters sending Russian troops into the separatist regions was not a departure from what Russia had done already, which was why it did not trigger the broader sanctions. "This isn't a further invasion since it's territory that they've already occupied," that official said. Russian troops moving into Donbas would not itself be a new step. Russia has had forces in the Donbas region for the past eight years... They are currently now making decisions to do this in a more overt and ... open way," he said. Biden sought in January to clarify what the United States would consider an invasion. "If any, any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion," he said. https://www.reuters.com/world/us-casts-doubt-biden-summit-with-putin-eyes-new-sanctions-tuesday-official-2022-02-21/ “Speaking with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, Obama emphasized the limits of his commitment to Ukraine. As Goldberg wrote: “Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.” Goldberg then cited Obama as saying, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do.” In other words, a U.S. president all but acknowledged Ukraine as a Russian client state, telegraphing to the leader of an aggressive, revisionist power that the United States would stand down if Russia were to widen its war. Moreover, the doctrine of Russian escalation dominance—that the Kremlin would always be willing to exercise superior power to get its way in Ukraine, whereas the United States would not—became the governing principle of U.S. policy. This principle echoes to this day, holding back U.S. support for Ukraine.“ https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/11/obama-russia-ukraine-war-putin-2014-crimea-georgia-biden/ But Obama would not arm the Ukrainians. It was not until Donald Trump became president that they were provided with serious defensive weaponry, though it would obviously never be enough if Putin decided to mass Russia’s far superior forces and invade — which he waited to do until Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, was in the Oval Office. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/when-obama-left-ukraine-defenseless/amp/ Obama allowed Russians to annex Crimea and enter Donbas. Trump provided serious weapons to Ukraine. Obama didn’t. Obama defends 2014 Crimea response: ‘We challenged Putin with the tools we had at the time’ Former President Obama on Thursday defended his response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, saying that circumstances were different then compared to Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine last year. “Ukraine of that time was not the Ukraine that we’re talking about today,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “There’s a reason there was not an armed invasion of Crimea, because Crimea was full of a lot of Russian speakers, and there was some sympathy to the views that Russia was representing.” https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4063939-obama-defends-2014-crimea-response-in-cnn-interview/amp/ Obama was MIA. Ukrainian Foreign Affairs Minister Dmytro Kuleba has praised former President Donald Trump for selling Ukraine "the first American weapons." Trump did approve the sale of Javelin missiles to Ukraine in late 2017, while the country's military continued to fight pro-Russia separatists years after the outbreak of war in February 2014. Some considered the move risky at the time due to fears of provoking Moscow. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-praised-first-us-weapons-sale-ukraine-1857509 |
Anonymous
|
Ukraine to Russia is like Cuba to the USA. Kennedy threatened to nuke Cuba and everybody understood it. The USA has meddled on Russia’s borders after promising not to when Russia took down the wall.
|
Anonymous
Da, Ivan. OMG, the stupidity of this post. The most inept comparison possible. |
Anonymous
“Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Your top foreign policy advisors have warned that Russia is now ready to attack Ukraine. But there’s still little unity among European allies about what a package of sanctions against Moscow would look like. If the U.S. and NATO aren’t willing to put troops on the line to defend Ukraine and American allies can’t agree on a sanctions package, hasn’t the U.S. and the West lost nearly all of its leverage over Vladimir Putin? And given how ineffective sanctions have been in deterring Putin in the past, why should the threat of new sanctions give him pause? THE PRESIDENT: Well, because he’s never seen sanctions like the ones I promised will be imposed if he moves, number one. Number two, we’re in a situation where Vladimir Putin is about to — we’ve had very frank discussions, Vladimir Putin and I. And the idea that NATO is not going to be united, I don’t buy. I’ve spoken to every major NATO leader. We’ve had the NATO-Russian summit. We’ve had other — the OSCE has met, et cetera. And so, I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera. “ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/19/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-6/ Biden said those words in 2022- not a few months ago. |
Anonymous
The US isn't putting nukes into Russia aimed at Moscow. To the contrary, the US supported removing the nukes in Ukraine as a condition of Ukrainian soverignty after the collapse of the USSR. So no, not the same. |
Anonymous
Obama was fine with actual Russian aggression. He did nothing to stop them. Biden was fine with Russian aggression. Trump gives green light to selling lethal arms to Ukraine The Trump administration on Wednesday approved the sale of lethal arms to Ukraine’s government as the country battles pro-Russian separatists in its eastern provinces. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the administration approved the sale of Model M107A1 sniper systems and associated equipment to the country at a value of $41.5 million. The administration has not yet moved to approve sales of heavier arms requested by Ukraine’s government, including Javelin anti-tank missiles. {mosads} The move from the White House is a departure from the Obama administration, which frequently condemned Russian aggression in the Ukraine but refused to approve the sale of arms to the country’s Western-aligned government. Earlier this year, Defense Secretary James Mattis dismissed criticism that arming Ukraine could be seen as provocative when asked about the Trump administration reviewing the decision. “Defensive weapons are not provocative unless you’re an aggressor, and clearly, Ukraine is not an aggressor, since it’s their own territory where the fighting is happening,” he said in August. https://thehill.com/policy/international/365906-trump-administration-approves-lethal-arms-sales-to-ukraine/amp/ Trump was CRITICIZED for arming Ukraine. |
Anonymous
|
Trump to seek $250M in new lethal aid to Ukraine
By Joe Gould Dec 4, 2019 WASHINGTON ― U.S. President Donald Trump will seek at least another $250 million in security aid for Ukraine in his 2020 budget request to Congress, including lethal Javelin anti-tank weapons, according to a senior Pentagon official. “Assuming of course the Congress authorizes and appropriates it, we will continue that. We do envision continuing lethal aid assistance to Ukraine," Under Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood said Wednesday at a roundtable with reporters. A $39 million sale of 150 anti-tank missiles and two additional missile launchers is pending, on top of the 200 missiles and 37 launchers the U.S. sold Kyiv in 2018, Bloomberg and others reported last month. As Obama sat on his hands, refusing to sell needed weapons and arms to Ukraine, to help them fight Russian invaders. |
Anonymous
You’re so far in the back that you’re not hearing anything. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna806246 |
Anonymous
OMG he said that on January 19, 2022 BEFORE Russia invaded Ukraine. And he goes on to explain that if it’s a minor incursion that the response would be minor, but that if they invade the response would be huge. Which is has been. This is a backbreaking reach toward whatever point you’re trying to make. And so, I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do, et cetera. But if they actually do what they’re capable of doing with the forces amassed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further ingra- — invade Ukraine, and that our allies and partners are ready to impose severe costs and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy. |
Anonymous
|
So Biden was fine with russian aggression. He publicly said it would be ok for russians to make a minor incursion into Ukraine.
Was he encouraging russian aggression? Absolutely. “We want to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions and small nations," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Twitter hours before Biden's new comments. "Just as there are no minor casualties and little grief from the loss of loved ones.” Yeah, no crap. There are no MINOR INCURSIONS. “Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba warned that Biden’s comments could invite Putin to act. “We should not give Putin the slightest chance to play with quasi-aggression or small incursion operations,” he told The Wall Street Journal. |
Anonymous
There were restrictions on where those Javelin's could be stationed and how they could be used. https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-leaving-out-key-detail-trump-javelin-sale-to-ukraine-2019-11 the Ukrainians cannot actually use the anti-tank missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale |
Anonymous
|
Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has approved two important arms sales to Kiev’s ground forces in just the past nine months. The first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million), it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti‐tank missiles—the kind of weapons that Barack Obama’s administration had declined to give Kiev. Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama’s administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the initial small‐weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev. https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-quietly-increases-lethal-weapons-ukraine Although it has seen its share of combat since its introduction to service, it has been in Ukraine that the Javelin has attained legendary status. Although it has seen its share of combat since its introduction to service, it has been in Ukraine that the Javelin has attained legendary status. The country had already purchased 210 missiles and 37 launchers in March 2018, for $47 million, followed by another order in June 2020 for $150 million more. These came swiftly into play when Putin sent in the tanks, making the Russian advance a costly one on all fronts. The Ukrainians have claimed more than 230 tanks and armored vehicles destroyed thus far. https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/gearscout/2022/05/12/javelin-missile-made-by-the-us-wielded-by-ukraine-feared-by-russia/ |