Why Are Oxbridge Students Now Terrorist...
News4 mins ago
Trump
Donald Trump says if he was in the whitehouse , Putin would not have invaded the Ukraine .
Would that be because they are mates and Putin would have listened to him OR is it because ( as some think ) that Trump is a bit of a wild one and Putin would have feared what Trump's response would have been?
Would the world be a safer place if Trump was in the Whitehouse ? - (He also said that Putins going into the Ukraine was an act of genius )
He also says that he won two elections and will run again in 2024.
Would that be because they are mates and Putin would have listened to him OR is it because ( as some think ) that Trump is a bit of a wild one and Putin would have feared what Trump's response would have been?
Would the world be a safer place if Trump was in the Whitehouse ? - (He also said that Putins going into the Ukraine was an act of genius )
He also says that he won two elections and will run again in 2024.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Trump weakened NATO and appeared to want to withdraw America from a role in the world.//
No he didnt, he wanted other countries to pay their way. He also didnt like one sided trade agreements such as with China. Rather than just gassing about it like most Western leaders do he did something about it. He wanted to make America great again, and economically he was doing that what ever you say.
I fail to see why anyone could disagree with someone who wanted to play an even playing field
But then I suppose mean tweets and orange man bad trumps all.
No he didnt, he wanted other countries to pay their way. He also didnt like one sided trade agreements such as with China. Rather than just gassing about it like most Western leaders do he did something about it. He wanted to make America great again, and economically he was doing that what ever you say.
I fail to see why anyone could disagree with someone who wanted to play an even playing field
But then I suppose mean tweets and orange man bad trumps all.
The assessment that Putin is "smart" by exploiting an internal dispute in Ukraine in order to invade it is weird on its own merits. Firstly, because it's pretty obvious that "smart" Putin expected this to be over already; secondly, because it's not even remotely an original tactic; and thirdly, because more or less everybody who was paying even the slightest attention could see this invasion coming a mile off.
So the main problem with what Turmp said about Putin is that it's just wrong. This isn't smart at all. It's page one from the "make up a fake casus belli" rulebook.
As to the assertion that Trump's presence in the White House would have seen this never happen -- well, I can only point people to, for example, the Turkish attack on the Kurds, which Erdogan started after calling Trump and persuading him in approximately a single phone call that, despite historic alliances between Kurds and Western countries, it wasn't his fight. It would have taken one phone call from Putin, and just a small amount of flattery, to get de facto permission for this.
It also doesn't do to blame Western Leaders' "weakness" for encouraging this. NATO was never going to intervene militarily directly, since to do so would be tantamount to a state of War between Russia and NATO countries; and, despite the huge show of support, continues to refuse to intervene directly. I do not condemn this position, by the way, but the point is that this position would have been true regardless of who was in office in the US.
So the main problem with what Turmp said about Putin is that it's just wrong. This isn't smart at all. It's page one from the "make up a fake casus belli" rulebook.
As to the assertion that Trump's presence in the White House would have seen this never happen -- well, I can only point people to, for example, the Turkish attack on the Kurds, which Erdogan started after calling Trump and persuading him in approximately a single phone call that, despite historic alliances between Kurds and Western countries, it wasn't his fight. It would have taken one phone call from Putin, and just a small amount of flattery, to get de facto permission for this.
It also doesn't do to blame Western Leaders' "weakness" for encouraging this. NATO was never going to intervene militarily directly, since to do so would be tantamount to a state of War between Russia and NATO countries; and, despite the huge show of support, continues to refuse to intervene directly. I do not condemn this position, by the way, but the point is that this position would have been true regardless of who was in office in the US.
Which bit about what happened in Northern Syria in 2019 is rooted in "what I think"? That's a literal account of how things went down: US Troops were stationed, assisting Kurds, in Northern Syria. Erdogan wanted to attack the Kurds there. Erdogan asked Trump if he'd mind awfully abandoning his allies. Trump did exactly that, against all the advice of his military. Erdogan then attacked the Kurds within a couple of days, if that.
// No he didnt, [Trump] wanted other countries to pay their way [in NATO]. //
Indeed, but not because that would strengthen NATO, so much as because it would maybe save the US money. The manner in which he was advocating this was highly antagonistic. It's telling that on Germany's contribution to NATO in particular, Trump's approach proved wholly ineffective; Germany's position reversing only as a response to the Ukraine Invasion.
The sad pattern, repeated time and again throughout Trump's Presidency, where he would strongly and rudely criticise his allies and tend to flatter leaders who were, to put it mildly, unsavoury characters. It has proven a wholly ineffective approach. But then, of course it would have: antagonising your friends, and cooperating with your rivals, is rarely a successful strategy. I should say that it's the combination of the two that is the problem, rather than the second in isolation: of course one should try to work with rivals, in order to end the rivalry as far as possible. But it's alienating the friends at the same time that makes you question his judgment on foreign policy.
Indeed, but not because that would strengthen NATO, so much as because it would maybe save the US money. The manner in which he was advocating this was highly antagonistic. It's telling that on Germany's contribution to NATO in particular, Trump's approach proved wholly ineffective; Germany's position reversing only as a response to the Ukraine Invasion.
The sad pattern, repeated time and again throughout Trump's Presidency, where he would strongly and rudely criticise his allies and tend to flatter leaders who were, to put it mildly, unsavoury characters. It has proven a wholly ineffective approach. But then, of course it would have: antagonising your friends, and cooperating with your rivals, is rarely a successful strategy. I should say that it's the combination of the two that is the problem, rather than the second in isolation: of course one should try to work with rivals, in order to end the rivalry as far as possible. But it's alienating the friends at the same time that makes you question his judgment on foreign policy.
“ No he didnt, he wanted other countries to pay their way”
Yes and quite right too.
However, it was his language and tone He (more than) gave the impression that the US wasn’t particularly interested in the alliance any more, they impression being strengthened by his policy of general retreat I also mentioned
Yes and quite right too.
However, it was his language and tone He (more than) gave the impression that the US wasn’t particularly interested in the alliance any more, they impression being strengthened by his policy of general retreat I also mentioned
Baz // (He also said that Putins going into the Ukraine was an act of genius )//
I don't think he said, that he said he was a genius (& he was wrong) before he invaded; & it was in relationship to his deployment of troops along the border before the invasion began.
Be fair, I don't think Trump wants Ukraine invaded any more that you or I do.
I don't think he said, that he said he was a genius (& he was wrong) before he invaded; & it was in relationship to his deployment of troops along the border before the invasion began.
Be fair, I don't think Trump wants Ukraine invaded any more that you or I do.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Home & Garden29 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank44 mins ago
Crosswords58 mins ago
