Prediction Thread: When Will Ukraine Conquer Russia

[Aeson]

It's not far from the truth. Trump didn't give anything to Ukraine. He just showed up to the scene and demanded $500 billion from the victim to negotiate peace, with no security guarantee.

[Geronimo]

It's not far from the truth. Trump didn't give anything to Ukraine. He just showed up to the scene and demanded $500 billion from the victim to negotiate peace, with no security guarantee.

no because Bereta calls Trump's attitude as the US attitude. Trump may not have given Ukraine anything new as president since the end of his first term but the US as a state certainly did. Trump also isn't grabbing the wealth for himself but for the state. The allegory is grossly wrong either way but especially for the US as a state.

if we want an allegory for Trump alone separate from the state we might remember that Trump sent 1.5 billion in military grants to Ukraine. The allegory would probably involve the Trump boss contacting a mugging victim and offering 1.5 billion in weapons in exchange for victim assistance in trying to embarrass the rival Biden family but giving the weapons with no strings attached when the request became public. Then the Rival Biden family took over the organization. Then the mugger came back and mugged the Ukraine victim again and the Biden family granted over 100 million more in weapons and grants to the stabbed mugging victim who picked himself up with the assistance of the Biden family and his neighbors and the victim eventually used the help to make the mugger look as bloodied as the victim. The Trump family usurped the Biden family gaining control once more of the organization and soon halted all Biden grants to the victim unless the victim would offer something in return for his organizations assistance to the Victim while receiving earlier grants under the Biden family and also for future assistance from the organization to be paid under the Trump family.

That's basically the allegory. It does not make sense to say that either Trump is just pilfering dead ukraine for free loot or especially not to say that the US is doing that. Trump's crime regarding respect for Canadian sovereignty (for starters) however may indicate something that bad may be coming but this Ukrainian stupidity isn't it. not yet. hopefully never.

[Aeson]

I think he's saying Trump's foreign policy is now US foreign policy. Which it is.

[Aeson]

In any case, what Trump did is worse than just showing up and looting a corpse. A corpse isn't going to care, and the deed was already done. Trump is actively bullying sentient victims while they are in dire straights, demanding thanks for things he didn't do, lying about what was done, trying to leverage their desperation to get them to pay an absurd amount, and not even guarantee they get anything in return.

[Dauphin]

Yes. Mafia state is more apt for his presidency than fascist state.

[Geronimo]

In any case, what Trump did is worse than just showing up and looting a corpse. A corpse isn't going to care, and the deed was already done. Trump is actively bullying sentient victims while they are in dire straights, demanding thanks for things he didn't do, lying about what was done, trying to leverage their desperation to get them to pay an absurd amount, and not even guarantee they get anything in return.

Trump is the most appalling president of my lifetime at least and his overt campaign against Canadian sovereignty is inexcusable but I don't understand why we can say US policy=Trump policy but not say that Ukraine owes any thanks (because he didn't do anything). Are you saying all debts are cancelled to the US each time a new president takes office?

There are many reasons Trump should *not* be shaking Ukraine down for payment for services rendered but you can't try to say that because a previous president presided over giving those services that no services were given by the organization Trump represents as president (god help us) in diplomacy.

B_E was clearly claiming that what the US is doing under Trump is the same as looting a dead body and I protested that it's nothing like that. We can make all kinds of allegories but that one doesn't fly.

Sure, what the US is doing is like a mob that offers complimentary (gift) requested assistance to the victim of a rival's unprovoked assault and theft in concert with some allies against that rival which in turn offer below market rates for additional assistance all conspiring against the rival, until finally it looks like the squeeze might be enough to eject the rival from victim's property. Then when a new boss takes over (Trump) he suddenly announces that the fighting must end and that the victim must pay a rate the new boss accepts for any future assistance and that the boss expects compensation for the complimentary services offered by his predecessor in addition to any new assistance going forward.

On the other hand, you're describing a scenario where a victim of a horrible unprovoked assault is suddenly accosted by another stranger out of nowhere demanding payment for non existent services or he will continue to attack the victim with the original assailant.

Trump should not be portrayed as a stranger in this scenario. He took over an organization that was gifting enormous help to one side of a conflict along with allies of that organization that offered relatively generous loans or limited access to the aggressors seized property. If he stops further assistance and demands the victim both pay a negotiated fee in exchange for any future assistance along with thanks for all prior assistance by his organization and further that the victim must accept an ill-advised ceasefire or he may renew business with the aggressor this is reprehensible, but it is not any kind of attack or theft against the victim,

Why can't presidents cite previous presidents' actions in their diplomacy in this way? If Biden had suffered a psychotic break and did this to Ukraine at the end of his term how would that be completely different vs now that Trump did it? Is that the way presidents are intended to perform statecraft with a clean break at each transition? I'm sorry but that's nuts. Does it apply to other leaders? If a NATO member had to invoke article 5 and Trump said "yeah? well, you've never answered article 5 for us!" simply because the leader invoking article 5 now was not leading that country when it answered article 5 in Afghanistan your reasoning, Aeson, would seem to suggest that Trump would be right to dismiss that NATO member's claim to have responded to the US invoking article 5 simply because there had since been a change in leadership in the country that previously answered the US's article 5 call. I can't believe that you really believe that. You just feel good trying to spin everything in the evilest non-reality you can describe for our hated enemy president so you go with it. I don't really think that helps. at all.