Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war. Let’s assume that Trump wins the election. If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party. By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broke…
Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war. Let’s assume that Trump wins the election. If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party. By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal. If he’s elected I think a deal will be reached quickly. Trump is right on one very important foreign policy principle. It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one. Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
>>Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war.
He did?
>>If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party.
The United States absolutely should not be a disinterested third-party. It should be one that sides with our invaded, democratic allies. Do you think we should be a disinterested party in the case of Israel and its assailants in the Middle East?
>>By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal.
Remain neutral? Broker a deal? Trump would just as soon let Putin take Ukraine, and that's a "deal" Ukraine would never agree to. Putin sees Trump as little more than a fan-boy, not a man of strength or conviction. There's a reason Putin wants him back in office, and is spending big money on that initiative.
>>It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one.
The U.S. has been trying to have a "good relationship" for Putin for decades. It has gotten us nowhere. He's going to do what he wants to do, unless the cost of doing so is believed to be much steeper than the benefit. Handing him Ukraine would only validate his decision to invade.
>>Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
Putin and China were in bed together before Trump, during Trump, and after Trump. Abandoning Ukraine would only embolden both of those countries.
But it takes two parties to have good relations. Or more to the point, mutual interest breeds "good relations" in geopolitics. Do you actually think begin nice to Putin will somehow get him to change behavior? Countries don't enter into alliances or conflicts with one another because the leaders of those countries like or dislike each other - it's about the degree to which both countries' interests converge or diverge that sets the tone for their relationship.
Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war. Let’s assume that Trump wins the election. If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party. By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal. If he’s elected I think a deal will be reached quickly. Trump is right on one very important foreign policy principle. It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one. Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
>>Bernie criticized Trump for not agreeing that it would be good for Ukraine to win the war.
He did?
>>If he now publicly announced that he wanted Ukraine to win the war, he would not be perceived by Putin to be a disinterested third party.
The United States absolutely should not be a disinterested third-party. It should be one that sides with our invaded, democratic allies. Do you think we should be a disinterested party in the case of Israel and its assailants in the Middle East?
>>By remaining neutral, he will be in a much better position to broker a deal.
Remain neutral? Broker a deal? Trump would just as soon let Putin take Ukraine, and that's a "deal" Ukraine would never agree to. Putin sees Trump as little more than a fan-boy, not a man of strength or conviction. There's a reason Putin wants him back in office, and is spending big money on that initiative.
>>It is far better for U.S. interests to have a good relationship with Russia instead of an adversarial one.
The U.S. has been trying to have a "good relationship" for Putin for decades. It has gotten us nowhere. He's going to do what he wants to do, unless the cost of doing so is believed to be much steeper than the benefit. Handing him Ukraine would only validate his decision to invade.
>>Trump understands that pushing Putin into the arms of China is a colossal mistake.
Putin and China were in bed together before Trump, during Trump, and after Trump. Abandoning Ukraine would only embolden both of those countries.
But it takes two parties to have good relations. Or more to the point, mutual interest breeds "good relations" in geopolitics. Do you actually think begin nice to Putin will somehow get him to change behavior? Countries don't enter into alliances or conflicts with one another because the leaders of those countries like or dislike each other - it's about the degree to which both countries' interests converge or diverge that sets the tone for their relationship.