What Biden’s Done Right with Ukraine

[TexasTiger 12,947]

The oversimplified critique is that Putin invaded Ukraine on Biden’s watch so he must be to blame or it wouldn’t have happened had Trump been if office. Of course, there’s no evidence it wouldn’t happen if Trump had been in office. There’s ample evidence that had Trump been in office the coordinated NATO response on arms support and financial sanctions would have been far less. Trump thumped NATO at every turn— he wanted out off NATO. Told Esper that would happen in his second term.

It’s too soon to know how this all plays out. But critics aside, the degree of unity amongst NATO at this stage is stronger than we’ve had much reason to anticipate for years. This is not a USA v Russia matter. It’s Putin v the Free World and that’s what makes it so costly for him whether he topples Kyiv in the short term or not. Biden gets this and has worked it about as well as we could expect any President to do.

[homersapien 11,385]

Hopefully, this is will encourage NATO to step up - particularly Germany - who are under funding military spending.  We shouldn't need to be sending as many aircraft as we are sending now to reinforce NATO.

Considering how Putin keeps justifying this aggression based on the NATO "threat", it's one of the ironic outcomes that will hopefully come from this.

Edited February 27, 2022 by homersapien

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 345]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

The oversimplified critique is that Putin invaded Ukraine on Biden’s watch so he must be to blame or it wouldn’t have happened had Trump been if office. Of course, there’s no evidence it wouldn’t happen if Trump had been in office. There’s ample evidence that had Trump been in office the coordinated NATO response on arms support and financial sanctions would have been far less. Trump thumped NATO at every turn— he wanted out off NATO. Told Esper that would happen in his second term.

It’s too soon to know how this all plays out. But critics aside, the degree of unity amongst NATO at this stage is stronger than we’ve had much reason to anticipate for years. This is not a USA v Russia matter. It’s Putin v the Free World and that’s what makes it so costly for him whether he topples Kyiv in the short term or not. Biden gets this and has worked it about as well as we could expect any President to do.

How exactly has Biden been responsible for that degree of unity?  It seems to me that NATO simply remembers history and understands the strategic implications of this move by Putin (see the NYT article in another thread).  I don't see that Biden has had anything to do with it.

It's kind of telling that the title of the post is What Biden Has Done Right and 65% of it was about Trump (and not even about what Trump has actually done, but a complete hypothetical "Aren't We So Much Better Off Because This Is What Would Have Happened If Trump had Been In Office" projection), 25% was about NATO, and one sentence (10%) was about Biden.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Shoney'sPonyBoy

[TexasTiger 12,947]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

How exactly has Biden been responsible for that degree of unity?  It seems to me that NATO simply remembers history and understands the strategic implications of this move by Putin (see the NYT article in another thread).  I don't see that Biden has had anything to do with it.

It's kind of telling that the title of the post is What Biden Has Done Right and 65% of it was about Trump (and not even about what Trump has actually done, but a complete hypothetical "Aren't We So Much Better Off Because This Is What Would Have Happened If Trump had Been In Office" projection), 25% was about NATO, and one sentence (10%) was about Biden.

The chance of a rational conversation with anyone who finds my statement controversial is slim and none. Relationships matter, personally and between countries. Trump greatly damaged the relationship and trust with our allies. That’s the context Biden walked into and has been working to repair. I’m not saying he’s single-handedly brought our allies to support Ukraine. But there are extensive deliberations going on around the clock on this issue and having a President that treats our allies with respect matters when unity is needed. The contrast between the way Trump & Biden see NATO couldn’t be greater. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html?amp

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-14/biden-heads-to-nato-for-bridge-building-after-trump-mocked-alliance?_amp=true

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/joe-biden-to-use-nato-summit-to-atone-for-damage-of-trump-years

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/biden-underscores-us-commitment-to-nato-in-sharp-contrast-to-trump

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/biden-underscores-us-commitment-to-nato-in-sharp-contrast-to-trump

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 345]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The chance of a rational conversation with anyone who finds my statement controversial is slim and none. Relationships matter, personally and between countries. Trump greatly damaged the relationship and trust with our allies. That’s the context Biden walked into and has been working to repair. I’m not saying he’s single-handedly brought our allies to support Ukraine. But there are extensive deliberations going on around the clock on this issue and having a President that treats our allies with respect matters when unity is needed. The contrast between the way Trump & Biden see NATO couldn’t be greater. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html?amp

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-06-14/biden-heads-to-nato-for-bridge-building-after-trump-mocked-alliance?_amp=true

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/joe-biden-to-use-nato-summit-to-atone-for-damage-of-trump-years

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/biden-underscores-us-commitment-to-nato-in-sharp-contrast-to-trump

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/biden-underscores-us-commitment-to-nato-in-sharp-contrast-to-trump

 

"Anyone who disagrees with me is incapable of a rationale conversation."  O.k., you know who would say something narcissistic like that?  Trump.

I didn't say it was controversial, I said you posted a thread supposedly about what decisions Biden has made regarding Ukraine that are the correct ones and then your post was all about Trump.

It makes sense, since really Biden's entire campaign was, "I'm not Trump," but the campaign is over.  Biden is president.

So what decisions has he made regarding the Russia-Ukraine situation that have unified NATO?

Did you read the NYT article?  I don't think American leadership of any stripe is motivating NATO to unify and take action.  I think Putin is who is doing that.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

22 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

"Anyone who disagrees with me is incapable of a rationale conversation."  O.k., you know who would say something narcissistic like that?  Trump.

I didn't say it was controversial, I said you posted a thread supposedly about what decisions Biden has made regarding Ukraine that are the correct ones and then your post was all about Trump.

It makes sense, since really Biden's entire campaign was, "I'm not Trump," but the campaign is over.  Biden is president.

So what decisions has he made regarding the Russia-Ukraine situation that have unified NATO?

Did you read the NYT article?  I don't think American leadership of any stripe is motivating NATO to unify and take action.  I think Putin is who is doing that.

It’s hard to have a rational conversation with you because you take what I said, create your own straw man, put it in quotes and ascribe it to me. Then, after claiming I said that, you recognize that what I actually said — that it wasn’t controversial— was true.

Putin is obviously the great unifying force here. I never said Biden was wrangling a recalcitrant NATO to bend to his will. It’s telling how you are so insistent on refusing to see that a President who vigorously supports NATO and treats our allies with respect is the right thing to do here— which was my simple non-controversial point.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

I’ll add, this was a very clear sustained course of action by the Biden administration that was likely critical in Ukraine getting world-wide support:

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

There are two unifying forces in action in the Ukraine/Russia war.  One is Putin and the other is Salenskyy.  That’s it.  NATO is busy worrying about Putin’s next step to realize they should have been doing something for years instead of resting on their laurels.  The U.S. is trying to placate the world with sanctions that won’t *hurt* the economy of our allies while our allies carve out their own niches such as Gucci Leather and diamonds.

Weak, Weak, Weak.  This is a President that will appease rather than strive for a unified front.  He is not attacking Putin hoping the alligator only takes a small chuck out of Ukraine and avoid have to make hard decisions.  That’s called *decision by indecision* in my book.  

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are two unifying forces in action in the Ukraine/Russia war.  One is Putin and the other is Salenskyy.  That’s it.  NATO is busy worrying about Putin’s next step to realize they should have been doing something for years instead of resting on their laurels.  The U.S. is trying to placate the world with sanctions that won’t *hurt* the economy of our allies while our allies carve out their own niches such as Gucci Leather and diamonds.

Weak, Weak, Weak.  This is a President that will appease rather than strive for a unified front.  He is not attacking Putin hoping the alligator only takes a small chuck out of Ukraine and avoid have to make hard decisions.  That’s called *decision by indecision* in my book.  

Selensky has been brilliant. Trump says Putin was brilliant in declaring two regions independent, but Putin has come off as unhinged from reality as Trump. Those are the two most unifying forces without question. But Putin had plans on how he was going to spin his actions, and Biden’s release of intel about what Putin was planning blew that up, clearly painting Putin as the cynical aggressor who was going to lie about his rationale before Russian forces entered the country. That set the stage for Zelensky’s response and he’s been extraordinary as has the Ukrainian resolve. The Ukrainian people have earned the world’s admiration and sympathy. But the strategic release of intel was a very good move and was done in a way that was unusual. I know the most tribal amongst us can’t see that, but even rational Biden critics should easily see it.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Selensky has been brilliant. Trump says Putin was brilliant in declaring two regions independent, but Putin has come off as unhinged from reality as Trump. Those are the two most unifying forces without question. But Putin had plans on how he was going to spin his actions, and Biden’s release of intel about what Putin was planning blew that up, clearly painting Putin as the cynical aggressor who was going to lie about his rationale before Russian forces entered the country. That set the stage for Zelensky’s response and he’s been extraordinary as has the Ukrainian resolve. The Ukrainian people have earned the world’s admiration and sympathy. But the strategic release of intel was a very good move and was done in a way that was unusual. I know the most tribal amongst us can’t see that, but even rational Biden critics should easily see it.

Putin would have been painted the villain whether Biden released intel or not.  Who was going to believe his revisionist history?  What ever makes you feel better about Biden is OK with me.  Biden even discussed his plans with China as if they were going to help.  They ended up making a gas and oil deal with Russia and forming an alliance against the West.  Sounds familiar does’t it?  Biden did trust the Taliban when getting out of Afghanistan and that isn’t tribalism, it is what happened.

Why do you insist on bringing Trump into the conversation?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Putin would have been painted the villain whether Biden released intel or not.  Who was going to believe his revisionist history?  What ever makes you feel better about Biden is OK with me.  Biden even discussed his plans with China as if they were going to help.  They ended up making a gas and oil deal with Russia and forming an alliance against the West.  Sounds familiar does’t it?  Biden did trust the Taliban when getting out of Afghanistan and that isn’t tribalism, it is what happened.

Why do you insist on bringing Trump into the conversation?

Trump thrust himself into most conversations, and did it this weekend at CPAC.

I quoted and agreed with Republican Luntz on Biden’s release of intel. He’s a Republican, but not a tribalistic nut job ideologue who refuses to recognize any reality in which Biden may be seen as doing something positive.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump thrust himself into most conversations, and did it this weekend at CPAC.

I quoted and agreed with Republican Luntz on Biden’s release of intel. He’s a Republican, but not a tribalistic nut job ideologue who refuses to recognize any reality in which Biden may be seen as doing something positive.

Both sides play this game.   Right now Tulsi Gabbert, Manchin and Sinema are heroes to the Republicans and those people are not held in high esteem by most Democrats.

Trump is an abrasive human being that doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut.  That is the biggest reason he is no longer President.

[DKW 86 7,426]

I dont like trump but even he got things correct some time. As Homey stated above, NATO has been shafting the US for decades. The other nations have not contributed the $$$, the Boots, the Tanks, the Planes etc. It was truly scandalous. The US taxpayer paid for the safety of Europe while they stabbed us in the back time and again. Germany signed the pipeline deal with us objecting. So, for just that part of all this, homey is dead-on-accurate. trump was 100% correct on this. He wasnt trying to humiliate or undercut NATO. He was being boorish as he always is in his attempt to wake NATO up and get them to the table as committed equal partners.

Edited February 27, 2022 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 12,947]

10 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I dont like trump but even he got things correct some time. As Homey stated above, NATO has been shafting the US for decades. The other nations have not contributed the $$$, the Boots, the Tanks, the Planes etc. It was truly scandalous. The US taxpayer paid for the safety of Europe while they stabbed us in the back time and again. Germany signed the pipeline deal with us objecting. So, for just that part of all this, homey is dead-on-accurate. trump was 100% correct on this. He wasnt trying to humiliate or undercut NATO. He was being boorish as he always is in his attempt to wake NATO up and get them to the table as committed equal partners.

He was trying to undercut NATO. There were valid points he made about them taking more responsibility, but they were just pre-text. If his goal wasn’t to undercut NATO, but shore it up, he was incredibly incompetent at it. I think the man usually knows exactly what’s he’s doing and gets the results he seeks. Esper has said Trump planned to pull out of NATO.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I’ll add, this was a very clear sustained course of action by the Biden administration that was likely critical in Ukraine getting world-wide support:

Replies to Luntz:

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 345]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s hard to have a rational conversation with you because you take what I said, create your own straw man, put it in quotes and ascribe it to me. Then, after claiming I said that, you recognize that what I actually said — that it wasn’t controversial— was true.

Putin is obviously the great unifying force here. I never said Biden was wrangling a recalcitrant NATO to bend to his will. It’s telling how you are so insistent on refusing to see that a President who vigorously supports NATO and treats our allies with respect is the right thing to do here— which was my simple non-controversial point.

I would take your first sentence and ascribe it to you with equal enthusiasm, as I never once "refused to see that a President who vigorously supports NATO and treats our allies with respect is the right thing to do here."  You want to talk about a straw man, that is a regular scarecrow.

I just pointed out that in your continual search to make everything bad about Trump and look for any crumbs of something positive you can ascribe to Biden, you started a thread that was supposedly about Biden and over half of it was about Trump and another significant portion of it was about something else.  Your last sentence was the only one specifically about Biden.

If you want to know what's telling, it's your false insistence that I claimed your one Biden statement was controversial or not true.  But it being non-controversial doesn't mean it's any significant point.

It's like saying, "I'm going to list all of the things that make Tom Brady a great NFL QB," then you list six items about the faults of Drew Bledsoe, two items about Bill Belichick, and on your way out the door say, "and Tom rarely fumbled." 

Me pointing out the wide gap between your headline and your actual post doesn't mean I am claiming that it's untrue that Brady rarely fumbled.  And of course you know this.  You're the one building straw men and that is the one you've decided to hide behind.  

Of course it doesn't hurt that Biden is willing to cooperate with NATO.  Never said otherwise.  But what remains to be seen is whether that makes any significant difference or not in this situation.

Finally, you aren't obligated to have a conversation with me.  Don't do it if you don't want to.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

13 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I dont like trump but even he got things correct some time. As Homey stated above, NATO has been shafting the US for decades. The other nations have not contributed the $$$, the Boots, the Tanks, the Planes etc. It was truly scandalous. The US taxpayer paid for the safety of Europe while they stabbed us in the back time and again. Germany signed the pipeline deal with us objecting. So, for just that part of all this, homey is dead-on-accurate. trump was 100% correct on this. He wasnt trying to humiliate or undercut NATO. He was being boorish as he always is in his attempt to wake NATO up and get them to the table as committed equal partners.

If NATO were as much an economic alliance as a military alliance, would this duality exist?  Perhaps the "scandal" is more about global economic policy driven primarily by greed?

[homersapien 11,385]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

There are two unifying forces in action in the Ukraine/Russia war.  One is Putin and the other is Salenskyy.  That’s it.  NATO is busy worrying about Putin’s next step to realize they should have been doing something for years instead of resting on their laurels.  The U.S. is trying to placate the world with sanctions that won’t *hurt* the economy of our allies while our allies carve out their own niches such as Gucci Leather and diamonds.

Weak, Weak, Weak.  This is a President that will appease rather than strive for a unified front.  He is not attacking Putin hoping the alligator only takes a small chuck out of Ukraine and avoid have to make hard decisions.  That’s called *decision by indecision* in my book.  

How about getting a little more specific about what Biden should be doing that he isn't. 

All you are doing is repeating "Biden bad".  That's pretty "weak".

[homersapien 11,385]

As over 100,000 rally for Ukraine, Germany announces vast defense spending increase that may upend European security policy

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Sunday announced a major increase in the country’s defense spending, marking one of the most significant changes in decades to the country’s post-World War II approach to security and possibly upending European defense policy.

German lawmakers were still debating the plans as over 100,000 protesters assembled just a few meters away in front of the Brandenburg Gate to rally for peace. The scale of the protest — one of the largest in years — took authorities by surprise, and provided a visible display of just how deeply Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken Germans this week.

Germany, Europe’s biggest economy and the most populous nation in the E.U., had long frustrated the United States and allies across the continent with its hesitation to invest more in its military. Its stance obstructed numerous attempts to formulate a more ambitious European security strategy, including repeated efforts from French President Emmanuel Macron to form a European army.

The dramatic escalation in Europe’s response has been cheered by European foreign policy hawks who had long advocated that the continent get serious in its response to the Russian threat. But reactions have been tinged by deep regret that the toughened stance didn’t come sooner.

“What has happened in the last few days has been a serious wake up call for Europe, a serious wake up call for the NATO alliance and, tragically and very sadly for Ukraine, a wake up call too late in the day,” said Richard Dannatt, a retired general and former British army chief. “We should have seen what Vladimir Putin has been up to.”

Speaking in the German parliament on Sunday, Scholz called Russia’s attack on Ukraine “a turning point in the history of our continent” and announced a set of new measures. The German military will receive a one-off additional payment of over $110 billion, he said — about twice the amount of Germany’s defense budget last year.

“Better and more modern equipment, more staff, that costs a lot of money,” Scholz told lawmakers in a special session.

Scholz’s plans are unlikely to have an immediate impact on the current crisis in Ukraine. Germany won’t be sending troops to the country, and neither will any other members of the NATO alliance, which have been wary of being drawn into a direct confrontation with nuclear weapons-armed Russia. But the German plans could have profound ripple effects within the European Union and NATO, which Ukraine is not a member of.

NATO’s stance on Ukraine has long, in essence, been that membership has its privileges: While the alliance may be willing to offer support — both lethal and nonlethal — it won’t get directly involved in sending troops to defend Ukraine from outside attack, as it would with any NATO member.

Russia’s invasion hasn’t changed that calculus — much to the frustration of Ukrainians who have been seeking NATO membership for years, including Zelensky.

“We were left by ourselves. Who is ready to go to war for us? Honestly, I don’t see anybody. Who is ready to give Ukraine guarantees of NATO membership?” asked Zelensky in a speech after Russia invaded.

Scholz committed to exceeding the NATO defense spending target of 2 percent of GDP “from now on, every year.” Last year Germany spent an estimated 1.53 percent of its annual economic output on defense, well below the 2 percent NATO target.

“We are not only striving for this goal because we have promised our friends and allies that we will increase our defense spending to 2 percent of our economic output by 2024, but we do this for ourselves, too, for our own safety,” Scholz said.

The plans will still need to be approved by lawmakers, but there appeared to be widespread support for them on Sunday.

“There has been an awakening, not just by the political class, but also by ordinary voters,” said Marcel Dirsus, a German political scientist and fellow at the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University.

During prior crises, including after the 2014 annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia, Germany had hesitated to swing more directly into confrontation with a country that helped defeat the Nazis. Germany’s deep economic relationship with Russia is decades old and, many critics say, has led to a foreign policy orthodoxy that long held back Europe from sharper criticism of the Kremlin.

The German army’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Alfons Mais, said last week that “the army that I am allowed to lead, is more or less powerless” against Russia amid the current crisis. Defense associations have warned the German military is underfunded and lacks crucial equipment.

Germany’s lagging defense spending had long been defended across the German political spectrum, even as its international allies voiced discontent. Scholz’s Social Democratic Party was among core opponents of a major increase in spending.

The first signs of a substantial break in tradition came on Saturday, when Germany announced that it would deliver extensive weaponry to Ukraine and embraced broad restrictions on Russian banks that it had previously rebuffed. Scholz said he would rush 1,000 antitank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles to Ukraine.

“This is the last door being closed on the Kremlin,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who served as commander of the U.S. Army Europe during the Obama and Trump administrations.

“It is going to be a sea change because all of Europe is looking at this in a different way,” he said. “The E.U. has discovered its heart and spine.”

Hodges suggested that Europe’s attitude changed because of Putin’s “flat-out lying” about the invasion. Senior officials who “really wanted to believe that you could negotiate with them” have been “humiliated,” he said, “and they are very angry about it.”

The move also opened up Europe’s weapons-packed armories to Ukraine, since Berlin retained a veto power over how German-manufactured armaments were used even after they were sold elsewhere.

Berlin greenlighted a shipment of 400 Dutch-owned (but German made) rocket-propelled grenade launchers and several Estonian-owned howitzers to Ukraine, three European officials said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss nonpublic arms transfer agreements that were still receiving their final approvals.

It came just days after Scholz froze the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project bringing Russian gas to Western Europe — another decision that weeks ago seemed inconceivable.

By Rick Noack, Emily Rauhala and Griff Witte

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/27/europe-germany-defense-russia-ukraine/

 

 

And to borrow a tactic directly from IM4AU:  "That didn't happen under Trump, it happened under Biden". 

Edited February 27, 2022 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,426]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He was trying to undercut NATO. There were valid points he made about them taking more responsibility, but they were just pre-text. If his goal wasn’t to undercut NATO, but shore it up, he was incredibly incompetent at it. I think the man usually knows exactly what’s he’s doing and gets the results he seeks. Esper has said Trump planned to pull out of NATO.

We simply disagree here.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

We simply disagree here.

But why?

[homersapien 11,385]

18 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

If NATO were as much an economic alliance as a military alliance, would this duality exist?  Perhaps the "scandal" is more about global economic policy driven primarily by greed?

Good point. 

Europe has been funding Russia's military with gas/oil purchases while the U.S. had been funding China with off-sourcing manufacturing and trade.

[DKW 86 7,426]

19 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

If NATO were as much an economic alliance as a military alliance, would this duality exist?  Perhaps the "scandal" is more about global economic policy driven primarily by greed?

Maybe. I am not denying you are correct on this. 

[DKW 86 7,426]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

But why?

I simply cant say I read trump's mind as hostile to NATO.
I hope he wanted NATO to cease being so obviously one sided, not ended.

Corrected after I thought about it

Edited February 27, 2022 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 12,947]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

We simply disagree here.

“Yeah, the second term,” Trump had said. “We’ll do it in the second term.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html?amp