It might be because for them, what business does America have over Russia and Ukraine?
That's a good question.
In exchange for Ukraine giving up it's Soviet Nuclear Weapons in 1994, America, Russia and the UK signed an agreement to respect Ukraine borders and as a sovereign country, and also to guarantee security to Ukraine as a non nuclear state, should they come under attack or threat by a Nuclear power.
America should be the peace keeping diplomats, I reckon. They should not support war being the stronger superpower but their military should answer in force if no one wants peace.
What you're really saying is that after convincing Ukraine to give up it's nukes, and promise to keep them safe, America should refuse to help Ukraine while being attacked by Russia.
The whole peacekeeping, anti-war stance is really just "I support Russian Imperialism".
It's really not just about Ukraine. The reason for NATO existing today is because they were worried that Russia would do what Putin has been trying to do for the last couple decades.
You: "But US invaded smaller countries too"
Imagine George W Bush never left office and was still looking for any excuse to invade today. Now look at Putin.
However, this treaty is nothing because Russia attacked Ukraine and Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine joins NATO. He has also mentioned that their actions on nuclear launch will be very fast. It will not be formula 1 fast, it will be hypersonic. What will the next administration's roadmap for this war?
Also, it appears that you did not understand the argument. America as the peace keeper but by backed by a full military occupation by the USA in Ukraine if Putin creates an attempt to invade might give him second thoughts.
You mention George W Bush hehehe. If he was president, Putin might not invade Ukraine. I speculate that one of the reasons that encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine is because the president of America is presently very weak. I wish the next American leader will be a peace maker but threaten full military control of Ukraine to discourage Putin.
So you think America should consider the agreement to protect Ukraine in exchange for giving up their nukes void because Russia, who signed the same agreement, attacked Ukraine.
And you also think Biden should have stacked up US troops on the Russia/Ukraine border while they were trading rocket attacks and Putin was stacking up Russian forces on his side of the same border.
It seems like your primary goal is to argue that any decision Biden made was the wrong decision, and any decision Trump has made, or has said he will make, is the correct decision, and the only way to get there is if you ignore the downsides of what Trump says he will do and the downsides of what you say Biden should have done but didn't.
The downside to Biden stacking up US troops in Ukraine while Putin is preparing to invade is nuclear war. The upside is Putin backs down, and yes, that would be the absolute best outcome, but with two nuclear powers staring each other down on the border of Russia while rockets are flying, part of the risk is a new war starts by accident due to a stray rocket or a miscommunication. So if you're in Bidens shoes in Feb 2022 how sure would you need to be to take that risk? Would you do it if there was a 90% chance of not starting a nuclear war with Russia? 95%?
Do you understand what the downside to cutting off support for Ukraine next year is? What do you think the worst case scenario with a 10-20% possibility would be?
Also, if the rumors that Russia can manipulate the election to favor a candidate, who would Russia want to become the president and what type of administration would be easier for Russia? Continue with something similar with the Biden administration or a unpredictable administration that might put the world in danger of nuclear war?
Not rumors, he did it in 2016 to help Trump and he's doing it again right now to help Trump.
We know exactly how he did it in 2016 and
we know at least part of what he's doing now.
In fact many of the Trump supporters in this thread, including you, are falling for the disinformation that Russia is working to spread.
The argument is that Putin will not be afraid of a full American military occupation of Ukraine if he begins an invasion? You might be correct on your speculation, however, I disagree. America has the strongest military in the world and their military industrial complex produces the best weapons. The pressure will be on Putin if America has a stronger hand. It will be Putin's decision to talk on the negotiation table or see the Americans on the war zone.
It also appears that American leadership has presently become very weak if Russia has manipulated or if China can manipulate the election. My only question for this is who does Russia and China want to become America's next president? Kamala or Trump?
@everyone. On Polymarket, is the pump on Trump's ratings beginning?
