I will first admit that, when I was in 7th grade, and Putin had recently been elected - or re-elected, I don't recall, but he was legitimately the democratically-elected leader of Russia at that time - that I thought he was "kind of cool." He rode horses barechested like Theodore Roosevelt! The pictures were funny.
I became rather disenchanted when he abandoned democracy: those more familiar with him may have seen that coming, but in my defense, I was 12.
After this embarrassment of a war, I don't know how anyone at all, even the less democratically-inclined, have any positive view of him.
I would not be concerned at all about a disadvantageous peace deal. Trump has no authority to give what is not his, and I have faith that Britain, alone if need be, will stand against tyranny, as she did so nobly twice in the previous century. (And I would say to her foes, that they should refresh their memory of the Third Punic War -- not that there is much to remember. It was short, decisive, and settled the Carthage issue permanently.)
Putin, moreover, after such a long war, and so many embarrassing setbacks, does not seem willing to leave with such paltry gains as a few provinces or cities. He would rather sit on as much as he can for as long as he can, whether or not these gains are "legitimated" in an international-law sense. I am not sure, personally, if this is a matter of his pride, or a matter of what the leadership of the Russian military expects in return for their efforts.
In short, it may well be the case that even Trump's offered deal would mean Putin's swift fall. If I may "psychologize," he doesn't look nearly as happy as he should if everything were really falling into place for him.
According to the reactionary right, the U.S. "provoked" Putin into war by allegedly engineering "regime change" in Ukraine, which somehow posed such a grave threat to Russia that Putin had to attack Ukraine to defend "Russian civilization."
In this general storyline, talking about NATO membership - which Ukrainians didn't do until Russia seized Crimea - was also an existential threat to Russia, and so Russia attacked in self-defense.
None of that comports with the "U.S. weakness caused it" theory. But both versions remove the blame from Putin and Russia.
MAGAs are also inconsistent when they say "Biden's weakness caused Russia to invade" but they're furious that Biden led a pushback against Russia - because "we should protect our own borders, not Ukraine's borders" etc. Evidently, Trump and many of his cult followers think that a "tough" posture - or Trump saying "Don't do it Vladimir, or else!" - would have prevented the whole thing, and there would be no need to follow up on the "or else," which MAGAs bash as "warmongering."
In reality, there is a big dose of favor for Russian-style autocracy in MAGA-world, and so Russia's undisguised imperial aggression is framed as a justifiable response to the "liberal imperium."
To be on the right you have to simultaneously believe Democrats are warmongers because Obama bombed Libya and escalated drone strikes but also weak because he didn't bomb Syria or arm Ukraine more after 2014.
And that Trump is strong because of his complete capitulation to Putin on everything from Ukraine to membership in the G8, and also strong because he negotiated a crap deal with the Taliban that didn't include the Afghan government.
Slava Ukraini!
Very well put. Thank you.
I will first admit that, when I was in 7th grade, and Putin had recently been elected - or re-elected, I don't recall, but he was legitimately the democratically-elected leader of Russia at that time - that I thought he was "kind of cool." He rode horses barechested like Theodore Roosevelt! The pictures were funny.
I became rather disenchanted when he abandoned democracy: those more familiar with him may have seen that coming, but in my defense, I was 12.
After this embarrassment of a war, I don't know how anyone at all, even the less democratically-inclined, have any positive view of him.
I would not be concerned at all about a disadvantageous peace deal. Trump has no authority to give what is not his, and I have faith that Britain, alone if need be, will stand against tyranny, as she did so nobly twice in the previous century. (And I would say to her foes, that they should refresh their memory of the Third Punic War -- not that there is much to remember. It was short, decisive, and settled the Carthage issue permanently.)
Putin, moreover, after such a long war, and so many embarrassing setbacks, does not seem willing to leave with such paltry gains as a few provinces or cities. He would rather sit on as much as he can for as long as he can, whether or not these gains are "legitimated" in an international-law sense. I am not sure, personally, if this is a matter of his pride, or a matter of what the leadership of the Russian military expects in return for their efforts.
In short, it may well be the case that even Trump's offered deal would mean Putin's swift fall. If I may "psychologize," he doesn't look nearly as happy as he should if everything were really falling into place for him.
By my estimation, it's Democrat weakness that historically - and consistently - leads to chronic warfare.
From Jimmy Carter's Iran debacle, to Crimea under Obama and the Donbass under Biden - the track record is catastrophic.
Weakness begets War.
I should make that into a T-shirt btw.
Democrats caused the Iraq War?
Or 9/11? Or Afghanistan?
Very fair point. I will admit I was an idiot for supporting the Iraq War. I believed the WMD B.S.
That said, American military _weakness_ under Democrats is endemic.
According to the reactionary right, the U.S. "provoked" Putin into war by allegedly engineering "regime change" in Ukraine, which somehow posed such a grave threat to Russia that Putin had to attack Ukraine to defend "Russian civilization."
In this general storyline, talking about NATO membership - which Ukrainians didn't do until Russia seized Crimea - was also an existential threat to Russia, and so Russia attacked in self-defense.
None of that comports with the "U.S. weakness caused it" theory. But both versions remove the blame from Putin and Russia.
MAGAs are also inconsistent when they say "Biden's weakness caused Russia to invade" but they're furious that Biden led a pushback against Russia - because "we should protect our own borders, not Ukraine's borders" etc. Evidently, Trump and many of his cult followers think that a "tough" posture - or Trump saying "Don't do it Vladimir, or else!" - would have prevented the whole thing, and there would be no need to follow up on the "or else," which MAGAs bash as "warmongering."
In reality, there is a big dose of favor for Russian-style autocracy in MAGA-world, and so Russia's undisguised imperial aggression is framed as a justifiable response to the "liberal imperium."
To be on the right you have to simultaneously believe Democrats are warmongers because Obama bombed Libya and escalated drone strikes but also weak because he didn't bomb Syria or arm Ukraine more after 2014.
And that Trump is strong because of his complete capitulation to Putin on everything from Ukraine to membership in the G8, and also strong because he negotiated a crap deal with the Taliban that didn't include the Afghan government.