Trump says he will not protect our allies if they are attacked by Russia

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

That’s what people say about the Nazis then as well : “You can’t compare Hitler to The Kaiser , or other conquerors” . Hell Isolationists like Robert Taft never learnt and opposed actions to counter the Soviet Union and we are lucky someone like Taft never became president because if he did : both South Korea and West Germany would have fallen at the very least .
 
Hell Putin is the perfect example why isolationism doesn’t work because after he invaded Georgia , Obama did exactly what you’d want a president to do and did the disastrous “Russian Reset” and did that stop Putin from trying to spread his ambitions. The answer is no so the fact is appeasement doenst work and you can’t appease people like Putin or Xi . Yes neither of them are as bad as Hitler or Tojo but we should not want to get to that point to begin with

Jimmy Carter is another example of a failed non interventionist policy. After Vietnam we went into the belief that American interventionism was the problem and thanks to that Iran fell , the Soviets got emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, communists launched revolution after revolution in the world . We should learn from his failed foreign policy that non interventionism doesn’t work

You keep bringing up these foreign conflicts between third party nations as being something that I should care about. I don’t give two damns about Ossetia, or Crimea, or any of these other Russian related peripheral conflicts.

I’m more invested in conflicts that do threaten American interests. Such as the ongoing Taiwan crisis. But I don’t think the Donbass is worth the nuclear brinkmanship that would follow any direct American involvement in the Ukraine.

Except we aren’t directly involved

Where are the Ukrainians getting all their weapons from then?

That’s not direct involvement lol . Direct involvement would mean sending our troops . I’m sorry but your policy of appeasing Putin was tried by Obama and failed miserably and we should not repeat his presidency

Involvement is involvement. We didn't send troops into Libya either and look what happened to the Colonel and his country...

[OSR stands with Israel]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

That’s what people say about the Nazis then as well : “You can’t compare Hitler to The Kaiser , or other conquerors” . Hell Isolationists like Robert Taft never learnt and opposed actions to counter the Soviet Union and we are lucky someone like Taft never became president because if he did : both South Korea and West Germany would have fallen at the very least .
 
Hell Putin is the perfect example why isolationism doesn’t work because after he invaded Georgia , Obama did exactly what you’d want a president to do and did the disastrous “Russian Reset” and did that stop Putin from trying to spread his ambitions. The answer is no so the fact is appeasement doenst work and you can’t appease people like Putin or Xi . Yes neither of them are as bad as Hitler or Tojo but we should not want to get to that point to begin with

Jimmy Carter is another example of a failed non interventionist policy. After Vietnam we went into the belief that American interventionism was the problem and thanks to that Iran fell , the Soviets got emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, communists launched revolution after revolution in the world . We should learn from his failed foreign policy that non interventionism doesn’t work

You keep bringing up these foreign conflicts between third party nations as being something that I should care about. I don’t give two damns about Ossetia, or Crimea, or any of these other Russian related peripheral conflicts.

I’m more invested in conflicts that do threaten American interests. Such as the ongoing Taiwan crisis. But I don’t think the Donbass is worth the nuclear brinkmanship that would follow any direct American involvement in the Ukraine.

Except we aren’t directly involved

Where are the Ukrainians getting all their weapons from then?

That’s not direct involvement lol . Direct involvement would mean sending our troops . I’m sorry but your policy of appeasing Putin was tried by Obama and failed miserably and we should not repeat his presidency

Involvement is involvement. We didn't send troops into Libya either and look what happened to the Colonel and his country...

We sent our air force to Libya so that’s not true . Also this is a horrible comparison again as defending Ukraine isn’t the same thing as regime changing Russia

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

That’s what people say about the Nazis then as well : “You can’t compare Hitler to The Kaiser , or other conquerors” . Hell Isolationists like Robert Taft never learnt and opposed actions to counter the Soviet Union and we are lucky someone like Taft never became president because if he did : both South Korea and West Germany would have fallen at the very least .
 
Hell Putin is the perfect example why isolationism doesn’t work because after he invaded Georgia , Obama did exactly what you’d want a president to do and did the disastrous “Russian Reset” and did that stop Putin from trying to spread his ambitions. The answer is no so the fact is appeasement doenst work and you can’t appease people like Putin or Xi . Yes neither of them are as bad as Hitler or Tojo but we should not want to get to that point to begin with

Jimmy Carter is another example of a failed non interventionist policy. After Vietnam we went into the belief that American interventionism was the problem and thanks to that Iran fell , the Soviets got emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, communists launched revolution after revolution in the world . We should learn from his failed foreign policy that non interventionism doesn’t work

You keep bringing up these foreign conflicts between third party nations as being something that I should care about. I don’t give two damns about Ossetia, or Crimea, or any of these other Russian related peripheral conflicts.

I’m more invested in conflicts that do threaten American interests. Such as the ongoing Taiwan crisis. But I don’t think the Donbass is worth the nuclear brinkmanship that would follow any direct American involvement in the Ukraine.

Except we aren’t directly involved

Where are the Ukrainians getting all their weapons from then?

That’s not direct involvement lol . Direct involvement would mean sending our troops . I’m sorry but your policy of appeasing Putin was tried by Obama and failed miserably and we should not repeat his presidency

Involvement is involvement. We didn't send troops into Libya either and look what happened to the Colonel and his country...

We sent our air force to Libya so that’s not true . Also this is a horrible comparison again as defending Ukraine isn’t the same thing as regime changing Russia

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

That’s what people say about the Nazis then as well : “You can’t compare Hitler to The Kaiser , or other conquerors” . Hell Isolationists like Robert Taft never learnt and opposed actions to counter the Soviet Union and we are lucky someone like Taft never became president because if he did : both South Korea and West Germany would have fallen at the very least .
 
Hell Putin is the perfect example why isolationism doesn’t work because after he invaded Georgia , Obama did exactly what you’d want a president to do and did the disastrous “Russian Reset” and did that stop Putin from trying to spread his ambitions. The answer is no so the fact is appeasement doenst work and you can’t appease people like Putin or Xi . Yes neither of them are as bad as Hitler or Tojo but we should not want to get to that point to begin with

Jimmy Carter is another example of a failed non interventionist policy. After Vietnam we went into the belief that American interventionism was the problem and thanks to that Iran fell , the Soviets got emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, communists launched revolution after revolution in the world . We should learn from his failed foreign policy that non interventionism doesn’t work

You keep bringing up these foreign conflicts between third party nations as being something that I should care about. I don’t give two damns about Ossetia, or Crimea, or any of these other Russian related peripheral conflicts.

I’m more invested in conflicts that do threaten American interests. Such as the ongoing Taiwan crisis. But I don’t think the Donbass is worth the nuclear brinkmanship that would follow any direct American involvement in the Ukraine.

Except we aren’t directly involved

Where are the Ukrainians getting all their weapons from then?

That’s not direct involvement lol . Direct involvement would mean sending our troops . I’m sorry but your policy of appeasing Putin was tried by Obama and failed miserably and we should not repeat his presidency

Involvement is involvement. We didn't send troops into Libya either and look what happened to the Colonel and his country...

We sent our air force to Libya so that’s not true . Also this is a horrible comparison again as defending Ukraine isn’t the same thing as regime changing Russia

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Sending aid to Ukraine won’t lead to regime change and it’s completely lol worthy to say it is . Not every interventionism equals regime change

[MasterJedi]

When OSR is the voice of reason, that should tell you something.

[Ferguson97]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

I’m more afraid of Joe Biden and Netanyahu having nukes than Putin or the Ayatollah.

[MasterJedi]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

I’m more afraid of Joe Biden and Netanyahu having nukes than Putin or the Ayatollah.

Bibi is a man like you so yes but lol if you think Biden is less likely to nuke someone then Dementia Don.

[Vosem]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

I’m more afraid of Joe Biden and Netanyahu having nukes than Putin or the Ayatollah.

Biden, Netanyahu, and Putin have all had nukes for the past few years -- and Netanyahu and Putin for the last few decades -- and I notice that the world has not ended. (In fact, I notice that Russia and Israel both prosecute border wars pretty frequently, and the US sends an expeditionary force to random parts of the Middle East pretty frequently, and none of this has led to a Third World War.)

"Regime change" in Russia, which is a nuclear state, can probably only be accomplished by individuals hostile to the present system coming to power in the natural course of its politics (as happened in the Soviet Union and also apartheid South Africa), and can't really be imposed from the outside. In fact, I notice neither Gorbachev nor De Klerk were deliberately put in place by foreign leaders; instead Western culture was dominant enough that it was natural for both countries to come to be more influenced by it. I'm not certain whether that's the case today -- it seems like Western narratives have become ever more present, but perhaps not Western politics.

[HillGoose]

Good. NATO is a force for evil at this point.

Russia literally supports Hamas and China .

I never said Russia wasn't a force for evil either.

It’s weird that you think it be good to let Russia attack countries if you do consider them a force of evil

It's weird that you want to sacrifice the world itself over a trivial matter of a territorial war. Territorial wars have been happening since the beginning of time. It's not worth blowing up the whole world over.

Yes it is, because the enemy should never be allowed to occupy the American SPIRIT. Our united resolve must echo throughout history.

[7,052,770]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

I’m more afraid of Joe Biden and Netanyahu having nukes than Putin or the Ayatollah.

No offense, but that's a really dumb statement.

[HillGoose]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

I’m more afraid of Joe Biden and Netanyahu having nukes than Putin or the Ayatollah.

No way bro, Putin and the Ayatollah r the leaders of the AXIS OF EVIL along with RED CHINA

[Red Velvet]

"Regime change" in Russia, which is a nuclear state, can probably only be accomplished by individuals hostile to the present system coming to power in the natural course of its politics (as happened in the Soviet Union and also apartheid South Africa), and can't really be imposed from the outside. In fact, I notice neither Gorbachev nor De Klerk were deliberately put in place by foreign leaders; instead Western culture was dominant enough that it was natural for both countries to come to be more influenced by it. I'm not certain whether that's the case today -- it seems like Western narratives have become ever more present, but perhaps not Western politics.

The problem here is that you’re implying that “western politics” = “liberalism”. Liberalism isn’t by definition ~western~ like you seem to believe, it just happened that it was more convenient for the self-interests of a specific time and place in history to have these politics. But everything is always changing.

A more open and liberal Russia in the 90s was a reflect of that specific time in the world where everywhere else got more liberal, including inside the West itself.

And that liberalism was only possible/accepted because the main competitor to the US / The West had fallen, which economically means there’s a stimulus to break old protectionist and nationalist measures since there’s nothing to be “worried” about.

Similarly, the increasingly more populist times we are currently living are a direct consequence of the economic rise of China being seen as a threat, which stimulates the adoption of more nationalist understandings in order for The West to protect its standing.

You will notice that it’s not just Russia; Israel and other places in the “Non-Western” world that have become more nationalist of lately. In many places, populist electoral options have been on the rise while more liberal options have become “too boring / uninspiring” to newer generations that feel older generations stole their future.

The populist narratives you hear aren’t “non-western” only because it doesn’t align with your politics or what you believe it would be better for “The West”. Many of the people who started this global trend in the 1st place are very much westerners!

I’m not even talking about Trumpsters as trailblazers on the matter btw. In the USA you started to see the shift from the liberal consensus to a more nationalist one, even if still in early stages, in the 2nd term of the Obama administration. As a direct reaction to the absurd growth of China.

Problem is, when the West becomes more nationalist, it doesn’t necessarily sees it as threat to themselves. But when other places outside their little white club follow that trend they started, then it’s seen as “Anti-Western” even if in practice they’re doing the exact same thing.

I suppose most people in here are still stuck with XX Century order mentality because that’s what we all grew up with hearing about and we don’t fully understand the present until it becomes the past.

Which is why outdated Cold War concepts like “Western politics = more liberalism” are completely useless in explaining the current global dynamics. The West is included in the  current trend of increasing nationalism and populism ALONGSIDE all these non-western places.

Things is, they were already in a more liberal upstart, so even if populism has grown a lot, you will not be able to look at the example the West is setting to the world by adopting a more nationalist position compared to their past one from the 90s/00s liberal consensus. Because from your perspective, even if everywhere is becoming more illiberal, you will still be more liberal since you’ve all moved together simultaneously.

Inertia concepts; Newton’s 1st Law; etc. When you’re in a bus with tons of other people, it will look to you they’re on the same position when you look at them and they will still be behind you. But everyone is moving away from the origin reference for any outside observer.

[OSR stands with Israel]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

That’s what people say about the Nazis then as well : “You can’t compare Hitler to The Kaiser , or other conquerors” . Hell Isolationists like Robert Taft never learnt and opposed actions to counter the Soviet Union and we are lucky someone like Taft never became president because if he did : both South Korea and West Germany would have fallen at the very least .
 
Hell Putin is the perfect example why isolationism doesn’t work because after he invaded Georgia , Obama did exactly what you’d want a president to do and did the disastrous “Russian Reset” and did that stop Putin from trying to spread his ambitions. The answer is no so the fact is appeasement doenst work and you can’t appease people like Putin or Xi . Yes neither of them are as bad as Hitler or Tojo but we should not want to get to that point to begin with

Jimmy Carter is another example of a failed non interventionist policy. After Vietnam we went into the belief that American interventionism was the problem and thanks to that Iran fell , the Soviets got emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, communists launched revolution after revolution in the world . We should learn from his failed foreign policy that non interventionism doesn’t work

You keep bringing up these foreign conflicts between third party nations as being something that I should care about. I don’t give two damns about Ossetia, or Crimea, or any of these other Russian related peripheral conflicts.

I’m more invested in conflicts that do threaten American interests. Such as the ongoing Taiwan crisis. But I don’t think the Donbass is worth the nuclear brinkmanship that would follow any direct American involvement in the Ukraine.

Except we aren’t directly involved

Where are the Ukrainians getting all their weapons from then?

That’s not direct involvement lol . Direct involvement would mean sending our troops . I’m sorry but your policy of appeasing Putin was tried by Obama and failed miserably and we should not repeat his presidency

Involvement is involvement. We didn't send troops into Libya either and look what happened to the Colonel and his country...

We sent our air force to Libya so that’s not true . Also this is a horrible comparison again as defending Ukraine isn’t the same thing as regime changing Russia

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

This is false , and George HW Bush proves this . After driving Iraq out of Kuwait he made an active decision to oppose regime change as keep in mind Saddam’s Republican guard was just a couple days away from being completely encircled and destroyed so Bush actively chose not to let regime change happen. Further evidence is he refused to enforce our no fly zones in Iraq when it looked like Saddam may be regime changed so HW Bush not only opposed regime change but he actively took actions to prevent it .

The reason is simple and that is you can believe regime change can lead to a worse outcome but that’s very different than stopping that nation from committing an act of aggression

[GoTfan]

The prospect of nuclear weapons should never be taken lightly
 I can do without seeing Threads in real life. That said, it should never be used as an excuse for avoiding conflict.

I'm a pretty firm opponent of nuclear weapons full stop. As Colin Powell said,they are pretty much useless because they can never be used in a limited way, so let's dispel the notion that any exchange of nuclear weapons would be limited to one or two strikes.

However, while nuclear war should always be treated either dead seriousness, you cannot allow Putin or Kim Jong Un use their nukes as a bluff either, because that will simply increase nuclear proliferation. Nukes will be seen as the only way a nation can guarantee their independence; hell,  that is the current mindset in Iran.

Treat nukes with the appropriate sobriety they demand, but never allow them to be used as tools of intimidation.

[Yoda]

Good. NATO is a force for evil at this point.

Russia literally supports Hamas and China .

I never said Russia wasn't a force for evil either.

It’s weird that you think it be good to let Russia attack countries if you do consider them a force of evil

It's weird that you want to sacrifice the world itself over a trivial matter of a territorial war. Territorial wars have been happening since the beginning of time. It's not worth blowing up the whole world over.

First off these issues aren’t trivial as Russia has shown by the war crimes they commit on local populations and second, the fear mongering of “let Russia do what it wants or they’ll nuke the world” might of had a basis if Russia hadn’t made several nuclear red line threats that Ukraine crossed without consequence showing it for the bluff it is

Do you really think Russian war crimes are worth blowing up the world over? You don't call a bluff when the stakes are life or death. The fact of the matter is that the crimes Russia has committed in the Ukraine are no different from the crimes we committed against Iraq, against Libya, against Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos, or what Syria is doing, or what's happening in the Congo, and so on and so on.

War is a ugly affair. Shocker.

So is it worth blowing up the world over? If Putin is as evil and irrational an actor as you claim him to be, if he is as dangerous as you say he is, than why do you think he is bluffing over the nuclear threats?

I'd really love to play you in poker for every dime you're worth.

[Yoda]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

This is an insanely stupid, straw-man argument given that no one is advocating sending US troops to Ukraine. But you know that. Or.....you don't, and you're even dumber than you come off.

[Yoda]

Oh please, we all know the end result of this is eventual regime change in Russia. If Putin is this big bad menace that must be stopped at all costs because he'll roll all the way across Eastern Europe to Berlin, than surely the end option must be regime change? Otherwise, you all would be rather disingenuous.

Lol, you're the one saying we have to let Putin do whatever he wants because he has nukes.

I’m more afraid of Joe Biden and Netanyahu having nukes than Putin or the Ayatollah.

No offense, but that's a really dumb statement.

I'm offended you said "no offense" lol. Someone saying they're more afraid of Joe Biden having nukes than Putin - who is actively threatening nuclear war unless he is allowed to invade a country and slaughter it's civilians for sport without interference from the US and Europe - is an objectively very dumb thing to say.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Good. NATO is a force for evil at this point.

Russia literally supports Hamas and China .

I never said Russia wasn't a force for evil either.

It’s weird that you think it be good to let Russia attack countries if you do consider them a force of evil

It's weird that you want to sacrifice the world itself over a trivial matter of a territorial war. Territorial wars have been happening since the beginning of time. It's not worth blowing up the whole world over.

First off these issues aren’t trivial as Russia has shown by the war crimes they commit on local populations and second, the fear mongering of “let Russia do what it wants or they’ll nuke the world” might of had a basis if Russia hadn’t made several nuclear red line threats that Ukraine crossed without consequence showing it for the bluff it is

Do you really think Russian war crimes are worth blowing up the world over? You don't call a bluff when the stakes are life or death. The fact of the matter is that the crimes Russia has committed in the Ukraine are no different from the crimes we committed against Iraq, against Libya, against Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos, or what Syria is doing, or what's happening in the Congo, and so on and so on.

War is a ugly affair. Shocker.

So is it worth blowing up the world over? If Putin is as evil and irrational an actor as you claim him to be, if he is as dangerous as you say he is, than why do you think he is bluffing over the nuclear threats?

I'd really love to play you in poker for every dime you're worth.

All 248 dollars?

[Badger]

Tens and tens of millions of Americans are drooling at the prospect of putting this guy back in the White House. America is a failed state, intellectually.

[SnowLabrador]

Tens and tens of millions of Americans are drooling at the prospect of putting this guy back in the White House. America is a failed state, intellectually.

This. So much this. That's the main reason I want to move to Canada.

[SnowLabrador]

If we elect this man in 2024, America will get what it deserves: decline, moral rot, and finally collapse.

Also this.

[All Along The Watchtower]

We saw what the conservative choice of appeasement did in the 30s in Europe, it will be the same now. Weakness by the West will be rewarded with continued aggression from Russia and China and we all will be in a weaker position.

Tired of the people claiming to be the only ones who love America being the first to bend the knee and wag the tail.

I'm tired of people like you larping like it's still the 1930s. You want to be a hero? Join the military. The Nazis are comparable to the Nazis. Putin is a whole different animal.

That’s what people say about the Nazis then as well : “You can’t compare Hitler to The Kaiser , or other conquerors” . Hell Isolationists like Robert Taft never learnt and opposed actions to counter the Soviet Union and we are lucky someone like Taft never became president because if he did : both South Korea and West Germany would have fallen at the very least .
 
Hell Putin is the perfect example why isolationism doesn’t work because after he invaded Georgia , Obama did exactly what you’d want a president to do and did the disastrous “Russian Reset” and did that stop Putin from trying to spread his ambitions. The answer is no so the fact is appeasement doenst work and you can’t appease people like Putin or Xi . Yes neither of them are as bad as Hitler or Tojo but we should not want to get to that point to begin with

Jimmy Carter is another example of a failed non interventionist policy. After Vietnam we went into the belief that American interventionism was the problem and thanks to that Iran fell , the Soviets got emboldened enough to invade Afghanistan, communists launched revolution after revolution in the world . We should learn from his failed foreign policy that non interventionism doesn’t work

You keep bringing up these foreign conflicts between third party nations as being something that I should care about. I don’t give two damns about Ossetia, or Crimea, or any of these other Russian related peripheral conflicts.

I’m more invested in conflicts that do threaten American interests. Such as the ongoing Taiwan crisis. But I don’t think the Donbass is worth the nuclear brinkmanship that would follow any direct American involvement in the Ukraine.

Except we aren’t directly involved

Where are the Ukrainians getting all their weapons from then?

NATO member states mainly. A lot of their weapons have been from old Soviet stocks in former Warsaw Pact countries, which have been indispensable in rapidly arming the Ukrainian military and keeping them in the fight for obvious reasons.  And it turns out that most countries don’t like being under Moscow’s boot, so countries that used to be understand what Ukraine is trying to do and sympathize.

The American military contribution to Ukraine’s defense has been substantial but less significant than our diplomatic leadership, especially in regard to keeping NATO united.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Tens and tens of millions of Americans are drooling at the prospect of putting this guy back in the White House. America is a failed state, intellectually.

This. So much this. That's the main reason I want to move to Canada.

You won't be happy there either when Poilevre takes over.

[SnowLabrador]

Tens and tens of millions of Americans are drooling at the prospect of putting this guy back in the White House. America is a failed state, intellectually.

This. So much this. That's the main reason I want to move to Canada.

You won't be happy there either when Poilevre takes over.

He isn't going to. I have a lot more faith in Canadian voters than American voters. They might not be crazy about Trudeau, but they don't want their own version of Trump.