@QV
“ What is negotiated to end a war is anyone's guess. I happen to believe Trump will orchestrate a position of advantage for NATO rather than one of disadvantage.”
That still does not explain why you said I was not entirely correct in asserting our shared agreement on two key points. That Russia is threat. And that we both are against Russia keeping any territory it has taken from Ukraine. Seems to me that we are on the same page.
Though we both agree Russia keeping any territory gained is a bad thing, that just might be part of a peace deal. I don't know if that is a non-negotiable - nobody can know that. End to the war while NATO in an advantageous position is where I think we want to be - that might mean Ukraine loses some land. China is probably the larger long term strategic threat to the West, but we are expending a lot on Ukraine while China has been preparing and stockpiling resources... this should be more alarming for the West, where Russia is more of an EU problem. The EU should have the lead on dealing with Russia while the US prepares to counter China and mutually supporting one another (EU/US). Everyone is happy for the other guy to pay the tab - but I think the other guy is getting tired of it.
“The grey are the terms of peace. Ending the war and ensuring NATO remains in a position to counter Russia is the ultimate goal.”
Same as above. It’s still doesn’t really negate what we seem to be agreeing on. We can certainly expand and discuss what terms of peace ought to be and I suspect we might find, again that we would be in agreement based on what you have recently posted here.
I don't think that is ad hominem. If I were to say "stop whining" is that also ad hominem?
Except it is. That expression is generally used as a pejorative. I am working on the assumption we are trying to discuss or debate in good faith. Stop whining would be more of an incorrect understanding on your part of what I am trying to achieve in our discussion or an over exaggerated take on what I am doing.
Fair.
“To counter Russia, NATO must be stronger than it is while not backing Russia into a corner. Forcing other NATO members to have a legitimate defence budget is a good start, burden sharing. So far, I only see Trump's tactics generating any kind of result on that. Pressuring EU countries to rely less on Russian energy so they are not under a thumb is another... a strong and energy rich economy will help all of this along. So curtailing resource development in favor of a CCP backed "green energy" initiative is the opposite. Border integrity, a weak border with mass immigration problems stresses a country taking time and money to solve (it's never solved), all energy that could be focused on real strategic threats.”
All good points. I would however take issue with the fact that isolationist foreign policies being put forward by Trump and Vance won’t really further the first half of your para. The treat of it might but it doesn’t look like threats really and it looks like actual policy. That sort of thing actually does lead to increased influence from the west’s adversaries.
Using the term isolationist is not accurate, it's politics. America First, would be more accurate and is not necessarily isolationist. Note though Trump didn't enter into any "wars" and there were none that started. Yet he had no problem dropping a hammer now and again. Syria or Solemeni... for example. Successful applications of power projected abroad. Rather then setting conditions for protracted conflicts, like Obama's faux redline and Biden's suggestion he would let Putin take a little bit of Ukraine.
As to the border issue. Are you saying the US can’t do both? That it has to be one or the other? I find that difficult to believe. Should they tackle both? They should. But one should not be dependent on the other to make one or the other happen.
I'm saying a weak and porous border is sucking up resources/energy/personnel/commanding a narrative while letting serious threats in unhindered - which will be a large problem requiring massive resources to address later. One side seems to want to keep it compromised, while the other wants to lock it down. Whenever the US enters it's next conflict, I estimate there will be significant internal security threats stemming from this border situation. This could have been avoided/reduced.
“I base my position from observations of past and current action. Nothing to do with feelings. In fact, most of the opposition to 45 is based on people "feeling" things like hate or anger from bullshit media and political opposition narratives.”
Which is what a lot of people do. My point was that you stated that you don’t know why or how just that he will be more effective. That is feeling. What from the past and current action leads you to believe a trump will be more effective?
Trump's foreign and domestic policies were superior to Obama and Biden. No wars, peace deals, energy independence, unleash business/remove regulations etc etc. It could have been much better but the establishment sabotaged his term. Much the same way senior career public servants here tend to derail/delay/dither CPC government initiatives.
Based on his past actions, Congress actually passed a law that pre ent Trump (or any future president) form pulling out of NATO without congressional approval. Was bi partisan. That was based on pas action and observation and a fear that that would be what he would do when he got back into office.
@dimsum posted a whole list that you dismissed that highlighted his administration thinking the same thing.
Politics and theatre. Trump's criticisms about NATO contributions are legit and in fact shared by a large bi-partisian body (even Obama commented on this). In light of the China and Russia problem, the time for polite requests are over. This doesn't mean abandoning NATO, it means maximum pressure to get freeloaders pulling their weight. His rivals would state it means he'll abandon NATO... which doesn't even mesh with his character/personality - His ego demands he'd rather be seen as a Churchill then a Chamberlain. The assassination attempt is a good window into his personality - he'd rather walk off with dignity (shoes and a fist pump) then scurry off ducking and weaving for safety.
