why does trump need augurs (like scop) to divine a cogent narrative. trump obviously can't and none in his administration can.
the simple explanation; trump is spiteful (e.g. all the references to obama, biden), vance a toadie (unreal, the petulance) , and they can only talk in terms of "deals", TV soap opera trash dialogue. zelensky argues that deals need guarantees. all that is in that 10 minute video, for all to see. clear as day. and we've have observed, with the the same clarity, similar displays (maybe of lesser intensity) the last 10 years or so.
the 4d chess explanation; scop needs to come along (sorry scop to pull you in!, I like your optimism), and we need to trust there's a deep bench actually acting with any sort of cohesive purpose on that vision. unlike the simple explanation, there's very little evidence. usa foreign policy is untethered now, only thing left to do is reading the flight of the birds.
i want to believe, but there is a ton of posthoc rationalizing going on the trump side. it was like this after 2016, a different stable time, after 8 years of blissfully dreadfully boring obama stability. it is not such a time now.
But the main problem isn't that he needs "augors", it's that you have an entire media complex that is constantly misrepresenting what he says in the most negative possible light. People listen to what he says and then immediately apply a filter of the most negative interpretation possible. Or they outright lie.
Did Trump call white supremecists very fine people? Did he tell people to drink bleach? The list goes on...
Meanwhile, what was the main "instability" of trump's first 24 months? Ah, yes, the Russiagate hoax where any day now a smoking gun was coming. Hoax after hoax after hoax.
Re Obama's blissful years:
- Occupy wall st fades away, no real reform
- Stagnating economy
- Arab spring waffles
- Chinese aggression in Taiwan sea
- Putin annexes Crimea
- ISIS is born and terrorist attacks become a regular part of the news cycle
- Unprecedented union of DOJ w/ president (Eric Holder says "I'm Obama's wingman")
- IRS targeting conservatives
- Tan suit (lol)
Compare all that to Trump going into 2020 whereforeign policy wasn't even part of the debates.
Good economy, low simmer.
Ows faded, but how was that Obamas fault. He didn't run on left platform.
There was international strife, but it was localized and didn't seem to spend neoliberal order (we'll miss it when it's gone)
Anyway, I hope you're right, and this is just theatrics.
If that was the goal, why is Trump asking for Ukraine's natural resources? Maybe his goals are different than yours.
---
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, which is why Ukraine was seeking protection.
From Ukraine's point of view, if they make peace now, and give up territory... Russia will do the same thing again in a couple of years. Many more people will die.
Russia doesn't care about killing off its population, they have lots of poor and non-ethnic-Russian citizens, and they think nothing of having them die to get some more land.
If the US is not willing to militarily defend it, it doesn't mean anything. Russia can just take the land, and cut a deal with the US to let them extract there for some time.
A security guarantee or NATO membership would be an effective deterrent to further conflict, but Trump doesn't want it.
Note the date on that video
But, if after several years a generation of my peers have been killed and I don't see a logic end to this war any time soon, well then I might start to re-evaluate.
But you know what's really dirty?
The pro-war people in the US are doing the opposite of what you say: gladly cheering on the slaughter of Ukrainians so long as it defeats the "boogeyman". Which side is more pro-Ukrainian? The side that results in more dead Ukrainians or less?
Indeed, this reads like a convincing argument to me.
> you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?
Honestly, the best pro-Trump explanation I've read. Well done! I'm sure that wasn't easy ;)
The second is only as trustworthy as Trump (i.e. not at all). What would prevent Trump from striking a deal with the russians after he "legally owns it anyway".
Third: Much is said about the Budapest Memorandum and what it isn't. But I think it very clearly says that US (and others) should not use Ukraines weakness as leverage to exploit it. Which is exactly what US is trying to do now, thereby becoming the second country to clearly violate it.
"- There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down."
There was no such thing. The "peace deal" in question was a Russian capitulation offer, which was never signed.
"- Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION."
There was zero chance of Ukraine joining NATO simply due to the existing territorial disputes with Russia. Russian ultimatum to US in December 2021 was clear — get NATO to pre-1997 — Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic etc should all leave NATO. That would mean dissolution of NATO effectively.
"a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?"
It can work the same with Russia occupying the same territory. There is nothing there about "Ukraine" per se.
- We want peace. Full stop. No more dead men, women, and children. THAT IS THE GOAL.
CONTEXT:
- Trump armed Ukraine to the teeth in first term, providing lethal aid which previous presidents did not do. He wanted to deter Putin while not also escalating. - Adding Ukraine to NATO is a line in the sand for Putin. How would we feel the US feel if China and Mexico entered a defense agreement and placed Chinese missiles on the US border? Adding Ukraine to Nato is an ESCALATION. - Biden admin sent Kamala over to Europe in '21 saying it was time to add Ukraine to NATO. Good job guys. - Biden then said his response to a potential Putin invasion would "depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion" (I'm generalizing). - Biden then flopped Afghanistan. US weak. - There were rumblings of a peace deal in early 2022, but Boris Johnson and European delegation shot it down.
Europe and Ukraine are relying on the US to bankroll/supply a war with one of the world's greatest nuclear threat. THIS ISN'T A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. The lines have been more or less drawn. If we continue this war, we either:
(a) at a minimum, drive Russia into closer alliance with China while killing many more Russians and Ukrainians (b) provoke a hot war amongst many nations, leading to the death of millions
OR
We get a peace deal done with the general boundaries that have been consistent for nearly two years: Russia provinces going to Russia, a DMZ established, and Ukraine sadly smaller.
This isn't simply "we must support the Good Guys and defeat the Bad Guys". Right now Trump wants PEACE and feels as if Zelensky demands to call the shots. He can't call the shots. He is not the US.
Addendum:
Re mineral rights and the accusation "Trump just wants the $$$", you do realize that placing a large US business interest in Ukraine (as opposed to backdoor dealings) is actually a way of strengthening the US's commitment and investment in Ukraine, right?