I know we have an Ukraine thread, but there’s no way to isolate a question like this within it.
It appeared for a while that the GOP was mixed on Ukraine, with some Republicans supportive, some more sympathetic to Russia, and some claiming indifference. I don’t see much variety here: most seem to line up with Trump, Vance, and others who want to end support. I think Zelensky has acknowledged as much. I’m not even sure more than two posters meet the request in the thread title.
Okay, if you are a Trump voter in favor of continuing our supplies to Ukraine along with our NATO allies, what gives? How are you weighing this issue among others? Can you pitch Trump as the best choice for this position?
I’m not interested in: hearing about why Ukraine and NATO suck, arguing about reality, or fielding friction-free magical solutions (e.g., “Trump will simply negotiate with Putin and Zelensky: problem solved!”).
Your assumptions seem to be too narrow, when the range of views, and motivations for those views, is broader. You also seem to have predetermined where you think members stand when there hasn’t been a true discussion of where members actually stand on the topic and why.
They are plenty of people that has zero cares for Russia that just sees the writing on the wall on this one, Ukraine cannot expel Russia from it’s territory, people keep dying for and endless war, and our tax money is going to fund a death circle while we are financially broke.
And regardless this war will be decided by a peace treaty whether now or 15 years from not some blitzkrieg storming of the capital complete capitulation.
You’re free to elaborate, widen the scope, etc. You can explain how you think about it. It’s an open-ended question, but I think the conflict I’m referring to exists.
I’m doing this out of curiosity because I don’t know the answer(s).
That’s true. But Ukraine still has the capability and the time to influence what that peace treaty will look like from a better negotiating position if they keeping fighting just long enough for the Russian government to realize it’s not worth it and take a half win and get out.
They won’t give up Crimea and Zelensky is kind of dumb for making that a war aim.
The rest of it? Could probably be negotiated if Ukraine is in a very strong position and Russian casualties (which are kind of mid right now) go back into overdrive again.
In answer to your OP. I support Ukraine only in so much that I realize allowing Russia to win a war of conquest in Europe is dangerous and invites more conflict which will eventually lead to WW3. The best way to ensure against it is to stop Russia now.
I know everyone likes to believe they know what Trump will do. Everyone on the left thinks he’ll cut off Ukraine aid and let Russia win. MAGA believes he’ll cut off Ukraine aid and doesn’t care who “wins” as they are the “oceans protect us” wrong headed, isolationist equivalents of the past.
Then there’s me.
Trump will threaten to cut off aid if Ukraine does not agree to talks. We have seen that with Europe’s aid Ukraine can hold out for several months. Trump has said he will flood Ukraine with weapons if Putin does not agree to a just peace. This is, in fact, Ukraine’s only chance to win. There are two possibilities.
Zelensky agrees to talks to satisfy Trump’s demand and by doing so keeps the already planned for aid flowing.
Putin smelling victory refuses talks and demands capitulation before any cease fire talks can start (this is his current demand) Putin continues the war triggering Trump’s threat to flood Ukraine with weapons.
Everyone is right, Trump cuts aid to pressure Ukraine concessions. Europe continues its support and Russia refuses to stop the war smelling victory. Since trump did his part to pressure Ukraine and Putin still refuses to stop, Trump does what he said he would, and floods Ukraine with weapons. (basically, the same as the first scenario, only Ukraine has to suffer the lack of aid for a while.)
The bottom line is this is the only chance Ukraine has. Continuing the Biden/Harris policy of giving Ukraine just enough to not lose but never enough to win guarantees Ukraine will lose, just really slowly and really painfully.
and I’m not buying the stupid assertion that he’s “campaigning” for Harris. He came to talk with the current administration and has said he will meet both Harris and Trump to show them his plan as whoever wins the election will matter to Ukraine. He has also said he was happy with the phone call he had with Trump in July and is looking forward to meeting with him.
I tend to view things in a 3d spectrum fashion, rather than a linear universe with everything/one falling in line between 2 extremes. The views and motivations of all sides, Dem, Rep and Independent come in this fashion.
Black people will vote for Trump. Someone who got an abortion will vote for Trump. Immigrants will vote for Trump. People in favor of Ukraine will vote for Trump.
It’s really not a subject requiring any kind of deep thoughts.
I’m not sure they are improving their positions on the battlefield when I look at the ISW war map it looks like besides the salient in Kursk, Russia is advancing in 3-4 different places, one being a key city in the Donetsk region. Not to mention right now Zelinsky is wanting to strike deep into Russia, against the current administrations rules.
In short even from the beginning military analysts all said in unison the only way for Ukraine to win was for it to be fast and if it gets drawn out in to a war of attrition they lose.
