Trump will want Ukraine and Russia to be quickly done and dusted so he can move onto other election promises. But I think he's wading into a conflict he has little understanding of.
I mean what will Trump do if Ukraine and Russia both reject the "peace" deal?
Ukraine won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want back what was stolen.
Russia won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want all of Ukraine and the current government removed.
What will Trump do then do you think? I really don't know.
I guess stopping the war is kinda easy sort of.
But keeping it stopped is a totally different beast altogether; that's the hard part.
I mean what will Trump do if Ukraine and Russia both reject the "peace" deal?
Ukraine won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want back what was stolen.
Russia won't be happy with battle lines frozen because they want all of Ukraine and the current government removed.
What will Trump do then do you think? I really don't know.
I guess stopping the war is kinda easy sort of.
But keeping it stopped is a totally different beast altogether; that's the hard part.
Trump sees China as its biggest risk. As such his priority would be to drive Russia as far away from China as possible.
You're still thinking of this as if Ukraine has any choice in any of this. Wars are expensive, and stopping one is easy. No money = no war. Look up what happened last time Ukrainian aid package made it through US congress. They're trying to rush the remainder of that aid out to Ukraine now, but there's only enough for Ukraine to last few more months after that...? Now consider that republicans got both chambers, and the position of speaker of the house, VP's and president on Ukraine. And now ask yourself if the next aid package will be approved, if so how long will Ukraine have to wait this time without aid, and will it be less same or more than the last one (we all see how much progress Ukraine was able to achieve with the current rate of aid).
This didn't address my question.
What you suggest is a way to get Ukraine to the negotiating table. That makes sense.
Trump could threaten to increase aid to Ukraine to get Russia to the table. That makes sense too.
But what happens if they can't agree? That's my question.
If Trump reduces aid to Ukraine, it emboldens China (and others), increasing the risk to US from China. The very thing you said his priority was to avoid.
If Trump increases aid to Ukraine, according to this forum thread, that will drag out the war. Trumps breaks an election promise of a quick resolve.
If Trump does nothing it's an election promise broken and China emboldened.
You see it easy to come up with simple answers to complicated problems when you're a presidential candidate with no responsibility. But Trump won, and when he takes office it will be his responsibility; simple answers to complicated problems are then not useful.
In wars no one cares about what you want it's what you can get.
Support for sending money to Ukraine is eroding, it's uneven and much lower with republicans than democrats. Discussing what if Trump decides to ignore his party, break his promise and send even more money to the person he blames for starting war and called the greatest salesman on Earth" for having solicited and received billions of dollars of U.S. military aid, is like discussing what if Martians show up and start helping Ukraine. Let's keep the discussion to what is plausible.
Money is running out for Ukraine and everyone at the negotiation table knows it, and all outcomes must be based on this. In politics there's not always a good option available. Most of the time you have to compromise between bad and worse, and on top of that the bad/worse positions often flip between short and long terms.
Also, Ukraine has issues with manpower, North Koreans is sending some troops to Russia, even if Trump could send more money to Ukraine what do you think it would achieve?
So no, Trump will not increase aid to Ukraine and EU cannot compensate that. Zelenskiy would step down, get a cozy spot in US, and let his team negotiate the terms. In a hypothetical where he just goes mad and refuses to accept reality, his generals would find a way to force him one way or the other (as history shows).
You picked the "If Trump reduces aid to Ukraine, it emboldens China (and others), increasing the risk to US from China. The very thing you said his priority was to avoid." option (I think). That's okay, just asking peoples opinion that's all.
Myself, I don't know the answer.
It's odd discussing unlikely hypotheticals, but i'll entertain it:
-"If Trump increases aid to Ukraine" he'll go against the core of his support, and a growing majority of republicans wanting to reduce the aid and prioritize America. This would undercut his political support within his own party, republicans would get a new populists playing on the growing demands of it's base to reduce the aid to UA. This would be considered an escalation and Russia would respond with its own escalation, like getting Iranian, Belarusian and more North Korean to send their troops to help RU. China would also need to respond, and match it by increasing "unofficial" support for Russia. All this and it would do little for the main issue in Ukraine which is shortage of manpower. Sure UA can start throwing money at soldiers, but that would just further exacerbate the shortage of workers in already barely existing UA economy, and put a further dent in UA's demographics, birth rate etc, which already might be beyond the point of no return. So ton of downside and a little chance on upside.
-"If Trump does nothing" continuing the current rate of aid would lead to continuation of the current dynamics at the front. Bleed out Russia a bit more, for an inevitable total military loss of Ukraine. Achieves little, with huge financial loss, political loss, and still a total Ukrainian loss. Again no up side only downside.
That's why UA is asking for permission to use long ranges US missiles on Moscow. Not that it could change anything in the militarily sense for UA, but that's the only way for UA leadership to drag US/NATO directly into the conflict. What better way to achieve this than to give some Russian general responsible for nuclear deterrence few minutes to somehow make a decision if the US ballistic missile heading for Moscow has nuclear payload or not
, and if he should respond accordingly. Luckily US doesn't seem to want to start a nuclear war, despite how much Z is asking for it.Ukraine is not asking for long range missiles to strike Moscow, they can and already have hit Moscow recently, even forcing a closure of the airport. There are also a few reports of military helicopters burning mysteriously in the area.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/ukraine-launches-drone-attack-moscow-shutting-airports-rcna179485
Quote
Ukraine launches 'massive attack' on Moscow, shutting down airports
But no, there are much more juicy targets that are worth billions and are better hit with ballistic missiles than drones (e.g. protected ammo depots and oil facilities).
There is not such a thing as a "point of no return" in population (other than having less than 100 couples of an species), you are making things up. Populations recover well and the Ukrainian army is made of relatively old soldiers in average.
But to the point: Trump has "promised" to end the war in 24 hours, let's take it as "in a short period of time". That is not possible unless both sides agree to stop the fight. While Ukraine would suffer if the US withdraws the aid, but the war would not be over.
For both sides to agree Putin will ask to keep what he got and take a chunk of additional free land. Zelensky may or may not settle with loosing what Ukraine already lost but he is unlikely to give away land.
But regardless of territorial concession from either side, the key for peace is a guarantee of an independent Ukraine. Any deal that means Ruzzia will recover and have all the incentives to attack again, with any of the usual excuses, a defenceless Ukraine is not going to be accepted by Ukraine - there is no benefit in allowing Ruzzia to re-arm and prepare better. Putin may have a similar view from the opposite side - any deal that means Ukraine is not held hostage to a Ruzzian invasion is not valid.
If it comes to brute forcing a solution it means that Ruzzia will have to keep pressing, with or without success for at least another year. That is doable, but it will also cut deep into the economy, the population and the future of Ruzzia. Even the regime may get scared.
As usual, Ukraine needs to make sure there are plenty of expensive and irreplaceable assets destroyed in Ruzzia daily, so that eventually the scale starts weighting more towards a peace in reasonable terms for Ukraine. One billion here in oil, half billion there in ammo, 100 million destroying planes,... etc. There is a lot to choose from and drones are not expensive.
