Trump: I would settle the war in 24 hours. I want everybody to stop dying

[Hindsight was 2020]

I still don't understand why anyone ever liked this clown.

He makes us feel good.

 If Trump makes you feel good you need to take a good long look in the mirror.

Peace feels good, yes.

And when Ukraine doesn’t want to end the war until they get everything back and Russia hands over its high command for war crimes what then?

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Yes we know Donald Trump wants Ukraine to surrender to Russia occupation.

[President Johnson]

Yes we know Donald Trump wants Ukraine to surrender to Russia occupation.

This is how wannabe strongmen think. They don't believe in a system of rules and laws, just in "might makes right".

[Holmes]

I'm sorry but I want a president who can end wars in 23 hours.

[DavidB.]

People are eating this up. Disgraceful how the pro-Putin side has successfully claimed the "pro-peace" label - while they stand for a world in which national sovereignty doesn't mean anything, opening the door to endless wars worldwide.

[Hermit For Peace]

Nothing Trump ever says is the truth. He's an entertainer. That's all.

[Yoda]

Yeh, I remember when he said he would erase the national debt in one term too. How'd that turn out?

[HillGoose]

he's bought and owned by the damn REDS im telling u

his administration did NOTHING about the russki bounties on our soldiers in Afghanistan

[Beet]

If the guy was president now, Russia would still be in Kherson and the rest of the Donbas would probably be on its way to being permanently Russian.

[Mr. Smith]

I still don't understand why anyone ever liked this clown.

He makes us feel good.

 If Trump makes you feel good you need to take a good long look in the mirror.

Peace feels good, yes.

As it did for Neville Chamberlain. For a while, anyway.

Russia is never going to attack NATO, and you know it.

Nah man, just use the nukes to end it all, 'cuz Vladdy Daddy has to protect precious bodily fluids...and keep Russia on the map.

[oldtimer]

Yes we know Donald Trump wants Ukraine to surrender to Russia occupation.

What I imagine that he has in his head is a Real Estate deal that goes like this:

Russia buys the disputed land from Ukraine for $1 trillion and America gets a Real Estate agent's cut in cash, say $100 billion.
Which he then gives to the American people in a rebate (after skimming it from the top a bit).

Sounds simplistic, but if he has ideas it usually involves some large and flashy monetary payments.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Shame Trump did not show this same empathy to the Yemenis while he was President.

The situations in Ukraine and Yemen are fundamentally different. In Yemen, the Houthis are a terrorist group attacking innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia while working with Hamas and Iran. They cannot be negotiated with because their goal is death and destruction -- compromise with Iran or with the Houthis is nothing more than a truce for them to attack yet again. By contrast, Putin's goal in Ukraine is territorial expansion for political and international power. That makes Putin dangerous because he could always attack again, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere -- but also means Putin can be negotiated with. While we can debate the merits of Trump's specific call here, this isn't a question of empathy, but of two differing situations.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I still don't understand why anyone ever liked this clown.

Fat people like to see themselves represented in politics and media. It's that simple.

"Fat people" is a weird way to spell the term "malignant narcissists".

[Inmate Trump]

24 hours?

Okay, how exactly?

He must have a plan as to how he’d accomplish such an extraordinary feat. Tell us the plan.

Or is it like how he made Mexico pay for the wall….just empty words…?

[T'Chenka]

24 hours?

Okay, how exactly?

He must have a plan as to how he’d accomplish such an extraordinary feat. Tell us the plan.

Or is it like how he made Mexico pay for the wall….just empty words…?

"Believe me"

[dead0man]

the only "chips" he has is to pull US support, but that wouldn't be enough for a few reasons:
1.Ukraine won't surrender even if they never get another 5.56 round, training in modern western military actions or satellite image of Russian troops from the US
2.other countries would keep supporting them
3.can't Congress go around the POTUS here anyway?
4.they already got some of our sh**t


Sorry Trump, but your buddy started the war and there is no going back now.  Even you, with all your magic and lies don't have access to a magic reset button.  Russia, as the world knew it, is done.  They were already a shadow of what they once was (and even at it's best, it was a lot of smoke and mirrors), and now they are just a shadow of a shadow.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

24 hours?

Okay, how exactly?

He must have a plan as to how he’d accomplish such an extraordinary feat. Tell us the plan.

Or is it like how he made Mexico pay for the wall….just empty words…?

"Believe me"

That's most of American politics right there.

[It’s so Joever]

Shame Trump did not show this same empathy to the Yemenis while he was President.

The situations in Ukraine and Yemen are fundamentally different. In Yemen, the Houthis are a terrorist group attacking innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia while working with Hamas and Iran. They cannot be negotiated with because their goal is death and destruction -- compromise with Iran or with the Houthis is nothing more than a truce for them to attack yet again. By contrast, Putin's goal in Ukraine is territorial expansion for political and international power. That makes Putin dangerous because he could always attack again, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere -- but also means Putin can be negotiated with. While we can debate the merits of Trump's specific call here, this isn't a question of empathy, but of two differing situations.

There is so much wrong with this statement but it’s late and am too tired to call out your s**t. Someone @ me tomorrow

[Inmate Trump]

24 hours?

Okay, how exactly?

He must have a plan as to how he’d accomplish such an extraordinary feat. Tell us the plan.

Or is it like how he made Mexico pay for the wall….just empty words…?

"Believe me"

That's most of American politics right there.

I mean….maybe to a degree, but not in the same way.

For example, Mitt Romney might say something similar but he’d give an example as to how he’d attempt it. The bravado is not something that is all that frequent in politics when there is no substance. They at least attempt to say how they’d do it. This is no different than saying Mexico will pay for the wall but not clarifying exactly how he'll get them to do that; it's something said to attract idiots who don't require further explanation.

[Crumpets]

Just to try to give a bit more thorough answer about why I think this is insane for anyone who is only casually paying attention to Ukraine: Wars can be settled through negotiation, but it almost always takes two prerequisites. 1) The war needs to be in a stalemate and, more importantly, 2) Both parties need to recognize that the war is in a stalemate, and there is no additional leverage to be gained by continuing to fight. There are some exceptions to this, but it takes things on the level of "oh, the US just got a bomb that can level a whole city, let's make peace before they just totally annihilate us."

In Ukraine, there may be a stalemate for now, but both Russia and Ukraine think there is more leverage to be gained for negotiations if they continue to fight. In other words, both Russia and Ukraine believe the stalemate will eventually break in their favor and will continue to fight to achieve that end. In lines-on-map terms, Russia probably thinks it can capture all of western Donetsk Oblast, the areas of Kherson it lost, and maybe even northern Zaporizhzhia, if it were to fight this to a stalemate. Ukraine meanwhile thinks it might be able to get something close to the pre-2022 lines of control back with maybe some changes.

The single biggest determining factor in who is right in this situation is the extent to which the West as a whole (not just the US) continues to supply Ukraine with weapons and other aid. And the fact that that level of support is constantly in flux is part of the reason why neither country will recognize a couple months of little movement as a stalemate. Ukraine knows it's getting more equipment soon and wants to see what it can do with it. Meanwhile, Russia things the plug will eventually get pulled and they can just attrit Ukraine until they get their victory. Neither of these scenarios will be settled in 2023.

So, the implication of Trump saying he will "settle" the war is pretty clear - he's going to try to cut off aid to Ukraine to the point where Ukraine's assessment of where the war will likely end up is the same as Russia's, thereby meeting both requirements for the countries to make a settlement. However, there are still two big flaws with this plan even from a cynical Trump perspective. One is that while the US is the biggest supplier of support to Ukraine, we are not the only supplier, and it's hard to say exactly what the other countries helping Ukraine might do in reaction to the US cutting off aid. Unless things are going really bad for Ukraine generally, I imagine they'd all increase aid, but not to the level it is with US buy-in. If Ukraine thinks it can continue to make gains even with that decreased level of aid, it would not be enough to bring them to the negotiating table.

The other issue is that lasting peace needs buy-in from every group that could theoretically break the peace, which in the case of this war, is more than just Zelenskyy and Putin. If Zelenskyy personally thinks that the war is a stalemate or will turn against Ukraine, he may sue for peace. But that is not the same as the country of Ukraine recognizing that situation and deciding to give up the fight. Even if everything goes Trump's way, he cuts off aid, so do our allies, and Zelenskyy and Putin reach some sort of settled agreement, there's no way it's not still a huge sticking point in Ukraine for decades to come (see Georgia and Moldova for good comparisons) and will almost inevitably lead to a further conflict down the road, either with Russia coming back for more once they can rebuild their military or Ukraine taking advantage of a weakened Russia next time their economy collapses, there's a coup, or anything else Russia might face down the line.

The Russia-Ukraine war will not end this year, and barring a decisive Ukrainian victory that can only come about through further support from the West, it may not end this decade.

[Torie]

In case anyone is wondering if DeSantis is any better on Ukraine than Trump, he's not. He's a mess.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3971719-desantis-urges-ceasefire-in-ukraine/

Is there a potential Pub candidate out there in the wings who is sound on Ukraine, who will take it to Trump on the issue?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation. 

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

[MasterJedi]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation. 

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

This was already proven to be a lie when you claimed it last time. This statement is actually hilarious that you believe it.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation. 

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

This was already proven to be a lie when you claimed it last time. This statement is actually hilarious that you believe it.

Our efforts in Afghanistan in the 1980s stopped well short of the kind of proxy war we are fighting today.

[Torie]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation.  

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

How would a President Fuzzy have gone about trying to effect such a settlement, and what would be the terms of such a settlement that President Fuzzy would try to get the parties to accept, and what forms of pressure would Fuzzy employ to try to cause such an acceptance on the otherwise recalcitrant parties?

Generalized statements that sound nice to the ears of some is no substitute for the particulars.