The public sentiment on the Ukraine-Russia conflict is deeply polarized. A significant number of comments support Russia, viewing its actions as justified, and criticize Ukrainian leadership and Western involvement. Many express admiration for Russia's approach and hope for its success. Conversely, there are voices urging greater Western support for Ukraine, highlighting Ukraine's sovereignty and criticizing slow diplomatic efforts. Overall, sentiments are marked by skepticism towards media portrayals and diplomatic solutions, with entrenched negative views towards Ukraine's leadership and strategic decisions.

Ukraine

Russia

NATO

Western Powers

&gt; A day after exchanging some of the most intense air attacks of the war, Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul on Monday for peace talks, discussions that were complicated by their entrenched positions and the situation on the battlefield.
&gt; 
&gt; Russia and Ukraine were expected to formally exchange their respective conditions for a deal in the second round of negotiations since the two sides resumed direct dialogue two weeks ago.
&gt; 
&gt; Expectations were low for the talks, which kicked off midafternoon at a five-star hotel on the European shore of the Bosporus. The talks concluded after less than two hours. It was not immediately clear whether they had yielded any tangible results, although both sides were expected to brief the news media later in the afternoon.
&gt; 
&gt; Moscow and Kyiv are talking under pressure from President Trump, who has alternatively cajoled and chided both countries’ leaders. But Russia and Ukraine have been holding firm, with neither expected to present conditions in the discussion that are acceptable to the other side.
&gt; 
&gt; As negotiations sputter, attacks on the battlefield have intensified. The Russian army appears to have launched a new offensive, advancing at the fastest pace since last fall and opening a new front in the northern Sumy region of Ukraine. It has also bombarded Ukrainian cities with some of the biggest drone and missile attacks of the war, including a barrage of 500 drones and decoys on Sunday.
&gt; 
&gt; Ukraine, for its part, has adapted and evolved in the face of a much larger military with deeper resources. Ukrainian drones, in an ambitious, coordinated attack, struck air bases deep inside Russia this weekend.
&gt; Attacks Across Russia
&gt; 
&gt; Ukraine carried out attacks in five regions across Russia, according to a statement from Russia's Defense Ministry on Sunday. Several aircraft caught fire at air bases in Murmansk and Irkutsk.
&gt; 
&gt; That assault, which Moscow said damaged several aircraft, was described as “a black day for Russian long-range aviation” by a prominent, pro-Kremlin Russian military blogger. The full extent of the damage has yet to be assessed.
&gt; 
&gt; The talks, the first since the early months of the war in 2022, have been clouded by political theatrics. Ukraine and Russia have attempted to set the tempo and terms of the talks without angering the White House, which has threatened to withdraw from the negotiations to end the war.
&gt; 
&gt; President Trump has accused both sides of intransigence, trying to pressure them into negotiations. Last week, following a Russian attack on Kyiv, Mr. Trump lashed out at President Vladimir V. Putin, describing him on social media as having “gone absolutely CRAZY.” Mr. Trump said that he was considering imposing additional sanctions on Moscow, but has not acted so far.
&gt; 
&gt; During the first round of talks in Istanbul in mid-May, top U.S. officials met with the Ukrainians and Russians separately, but left it to Turkey to mediate direct talks, making for a complicated diplomatic dance.
&gt; 
&gt; Afterward, the Ukrainians accused the Russians of issuing threats and provocations by saying they were ready to fight for many years and invade more Ukrainian regions. The Russian delegation exuded confidence, saying that they were “satisfied with the results” of the talks, which they described as “organized at the initiative of Russia’s President.”
&gt; 
&gt; In recent days, President Volodymyr Zelensky dampened expectations for the new round of discussions, confirming only on Sunday afternoon that a Ukrainian delegation would travel to Istanbul.
&gt; 
&gt; He said on Monday that Kyiv’s delegation was “ready to take the necessary steps for peace” with Russia. In remarks from Lithuania ahead of a NATO meeting, Mr. Zelensky said that those steps should begin with “a cease-fire and humanitarian actions, the release of prisoners and the return of abducted children.”
&gt; 
&gt; But if the Istanbul talks yield nothing, Mr. Zelensky added, “strong, new sanctions are urgently, urgently needed” from the European Union and from the United States.
&gt; 
&gt; Kyiv’s goal remains to secure a cease-fire first, before moving to negotiations for a broader peace deal. A senior Ukrainian official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations, said its proposals included provisions for a cease-fire on land, at sea and in the air, with monitoring to be carried out by international partners.
&gt; 
&gt; Russia has signaled that it was not interested in a temporary cease-fire, but rather in solving the “root causes” of the war — Kremlin parlance for wide-ranging demands like a formal commitment to not expand NATO eastward, the recognition of its territorial gains and other conditions that have been flatly rejected by Kyiv.
&gt; 
&gt; Unlike Ukraine, Russia did not share its proposals beforehand, saying it would only do so directly at the Istanbul meeting. Ukrainian officials criticized such an arrangement, saying that it would prevent a meaningful dialogue.
&gt; 
&gt; As with the first Istanbul meeting, the composition of the delegations — mostly government officials with limited political leverage — suggested that Monday’s discussions would remain technical in nature. The previous meeting yielded a large prisoner exchange but little else.
&gt; 
&gt; Mr. Zelensky approved a 14-member delegation led by Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, including senior government officials and deputy heads of branches of Ukraine’s military and security services.
&gt; 
&gt; Russia’s delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to Mr. Putin. After the previous round of talks, Mr. Medinsky, a conservative historian, told Russian state television that “as a rule, as Napoleon said, war and negotiations take place at the same time.”
&gt; 
&gt; Keith Kellogg, Mr. Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, said last week that security advisers from the United States and various European countries would also attend the talks, but he did not specify who. On Monday, it was not immediately clear if any American representatives had arrived in Istanbul.

HaLoGuY007


Comment guidelines:

Please do:

    * Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles, 
    * Leave a submission statement that justifies the legitimacy or importance of what you are submitting,
    * Be curious not judgmental,
    * Be polite and civil,
    * Use the original title of the work you are linking to,
    * Use capitalization,
    * Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
    * Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says,
    * Ask questions in the megathread, and not as a self post,
    * Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,
    * Write posts and comments with some decorum.

 Please do not:

    * Use memes, emojis or swearing excessively. This is not NCD,
    * Start fights with other commenters,
    * Make it personal, 
    * Try to out someone,
    * Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section,
    * Answer or respond directly to the title of an article,
    * Submit news updates, or procurement events/sales of defense equipment.

    Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules. 
    
 Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don't abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, 
 leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

The fact that the Quincy Institute was prominently wrong in predicting the Russian invasion ([condemning western arms shipments](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/01/24/symposium-what-would-us-intervention-over-ukraine-really-look-like/) to Ukraine, blaming NATO and the United States for stoking tensions, and [calling for negotiated settlements](https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/QUINCY-PAPER-NO.-6-LIEVEN-UPDATED.pdf) over the Donbas and Crimea in the weeks before Russian troops swarmed across the border in a full-scale nationwide invasion) should have clued everyone in on the fact that Quincy's analysis often falls quite short of "responsible statecraft."

I remember Quincy's questionable takes at the time in January-February 2022. A bunch of their staff were vocally trying to discredit some of the most credible OSINT folks warning about the buildup like RALee85 and Bellingcat. After the Russian invasion many of Quincy's analysts and fellows literally stopped writing or tweeting for weeks, presumably out of shock and embarrassment at having so obviously and publicly misread the geopolitical situation.

I'd hoped that nobody in Washington would ever take that think tank seriously again and that their funding would have collapsed by now, but it appears that they are quite resilient.

Quincy's takes on tensions over Taiwan are equally bad... always clumsily ignoring the perspective of Taiwan's government and people to vocally demand that the United States show more restraint and offer Beijing more reassurance, even when the entire reason we must worry about a cross-straits conflict in the first place is Beijing's ridiculous refusal to commit to a peaceful resolution of its dispute over Taiwan's freedom and autonomy.

I couldn't be more thankful that Quincy remains seen only as a fringe voice on the Hill, personally.

sBcNikita

How often does Russia have to invade, race to agree to a peace deal, break the peace deal by invading again, rinse and repeat ad nauseam before bumblefucks stop bullshiting about signing a peace deal with Putin? 

We have been at war with Putin since 2008 at least. Although, I'm sure someone could make the case that it was earlier. Russian aggression doesn't stop until we stop Putin. 

Give Ukraine everything they ask for, including long-range fires. Let Ukraine attack inside Russia as often as they want. Keep in mind that NATO could end this conflict in weeks if we put boots on the ground and committed to actually defending Ukraine and defeating Putin.

StrawHat83

Or if the west gets off its collective asses and gives Ukraine everything it needs to win this war then Ukraine can ideally completely drive Russia from its territory or at the very least allow them then to negotiate from a position of strength. Ukraine's losing indicators lately are 100% due to decisions of key political actors in the west. The US alone sits on unimaginably vast stockpiles of war materials stashed all around the world for in case of WW3. But instead the US has drip fed them throughout the conflict out of fear of provoking Russia but in reality only prolonging the war.

SgtSmackdaddy

My complaint with this is that it lacks any specifics.  Everyone sane thinks negotiated peace is better than more war if it’s peace on their terms.  Russia gets Crimea and Donbas, Russia would never agree.  Russia gets everything is has now, Ukraine would never agree unless things are worse than we think.  

Ideally, I agree the west relaxes sanctions on Russia in exchange for Russia giving something, but it seems unlikely so we probably have more war…. I hope I’m wrong, but I expect everything to look similar this time next year.

FI_notRE

So the whole things just look like lot of words that say very little, except this bit, which to me seem to boil down to "*Make Russia hurt enough to actually be willing to negotiate some half reasonable resolution and to discourage it from trying again.*", no?

&gt; By **combining defensive aid to Ukraine** with a vigorous diplomatic offensive, the United States could secure independence for the vast bulk of Ukraine, provide a viable path toward its prosperity, and mitigate the dangers of long-term confrontation with Russia in Europe

So, kind of what we've been doing already? Except we haven't gotten to the diplomacy part, presumably because Russia isn't hurting enough, yet?

rancor1223

Yes the US can surrender everything east of the Dnieper to Russia, however Ukraine is unwilling to make this happen. The war will continue until Ukraine is willing to do that, or the West gets their shit together and forces the Russian military back by increasing weapons production or intervening militarily.

Borne2Run

Today it is Ukraine, tomorrow it is Taiwan, the next day it is Korea. The way to deter aggression diplomatically is to ensure it leaves the aggressor worse off. That means firstly sanctioning the aggressor and secondly supporting the victim so that the result of aggression is a worse geopolitical situation not a better one. Any deal with Putin is going to be another Munich and legitimise revanchism and the carving out of spheres of influence in the free world by despots.

[deleted]

This is a very cogent and reasoned viewpoint, with the only flaw being that it is fundamentally wrong.  Beebe and Lieven conjure Russia as a rational actor out of thin air, with no explanation and even less precedent.  And they only address the point of Putin's Russia having an extremely poor track record in adherence to agreements in the vaguest, back-handed way.  Neither do they address timing.  Russia will be far more likely to negotiate once they have run through another year's worth of their Soviet military equipment stockpile.  

The only path forward to a reasonable conclusion, at this point, is further and increased Western aid to Ukraine in order to bleed Russia even more.

Texas_Sam2002

As the article states Russia will first come to the negotiating table when long term support for Ukraine is assured and that they credibly can be on the defensive for a longer time. However what evidence do we have for this to be the case? 

The possibility of a trump presidency will prevent any negotiations to start this year unless they can get all their war aims fulfilled. This is amplified by Russia expecting a growing military advantage.

I don’t think the west can offer anything for Russia that would make it unattractive to continue the war, except maybe sanctions relief. This leverage has however also decreased as Russia has found ways to avoid them.

At this point the west best effort is convincing the Ukrainian leadership and the population of the military realities to allow concessions or motivate for further mobilisation.

hdk1988

The nations that are currently sanctioning Russia have a very strong incentive to maintain those sanctions as long as Russia occupies territory that is internationally recognized as belonging to the state of Ukraine. Failing to do, or worse legitimizing the Russian land-grab, would risk opening up Pandora’s Box as every nation around the world with designs on their neighbors might start getting ideas about “renegotiating” their borders through force. After all, if it worked for Russia, why not for them as well?

There is a fundamental failure among many analysts to recognize that the nations that are supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia are not necessarily doing this just because they really like Ukraine and dislike Russia, but also because they want to send a signal to other nations around the world that wars of territorial conquest with the aim of changing the internationally recognized borders between two sovereign nations will receive a lot of push-back and be very costly for the aggressor. That nations that start such wars are likely to come under sanctions while their opponents receive economic and military aid, and after all is said and done such ventures will likely not be worth the cost for the aggressor. The pressure to send such a signal also means that the more successful Russia appears to be, the more pressure there will be to increase sanctions, to increase the cost for Russia to offset any perceived gains they get from the war. 

I think that unless Russia is willing to undo their annexation of territory, they might just be stuck with sanctions permanently. Even if Ukraine wanted sanctions to end as part of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia, it is not clear to me that other nations would necessarily listen since they have their own reasons to pursue sanctions independent of what Ukraine might want.

Incuggarch

&gt;Given deep Russian doubts about U.S. intentions, our outreach will have to include signals that we are prepared to discuss Moscow’s concerns about NATO expansion in the context of a Ukraine settlement. 

If any settlement does not include rump Ukrainian membership in NATO, then what are the anticipated security guarantees for Ukraine?  Any talk of a settlement seems like a complete nonstarter to me, unless it provides true security to Ukraine, rather than a mere pause for Russia to gather strength for the next push.

Shackleton214

This is pretty hilarious. does anyone think Russia can escalate to anything? Their military is already stretched to the breaking point. Putin knows this. We know this. He's not going to 'escalate' shit.

He rattles his saber and he expects dipshits in the US and Europe to scramble to appease him hoping they don't realize that the illusion is wearing thin.

WeimSean

Russia attacks Ukraine. The Ukrainians fight back. This risks "escalation"....???

No thanks.

Vessarionovich

Let's be perfectly clear here.  Russia *cannot* do anything to the West.  Absolutely nothing.  It's been over three years now and they can't even conquer Ukraine, a small country 1/10 their size that sits directly on their own border.   And this is a war that was *started* by Russia because they confidently believed they could take control of the entire country of Ukraine in just three days.   

Russia has already lost the majority of its modern tanks, modern APC's, modern artillery, etc.  They've been reduced to pulling WWII scrap equipment out of rusting USSR storage lots and fast refurbishing them just to be able to have something to continue fighting with.  Hell, [Russia just lost a significant portion of their strategic bomber force to Ukrainian drones](https://www.twz.com/air/latest-on-russian-aircraft-loss-assessments-from-ukrainian-drone-strikes).  Why anybody would believe that Russia, which cannot even defeat Ukraine and is currently under worldwide sanctions, could or *would* mount any sort of attack on NATO is beyond me.   Putin knows that all it would take would be one stray Russian missile falling on a NATO member's city or taking out a NATO aircraft and the West would be well within their rights to take the gloves off.  

Russia is already in more trouble than they ever dreamed possible when they invaded Ukraine over three years ago.    There is zero chance that they will start a direct military confrontation with NATO.  None whatsoever.

MildlyBemused

classicman1008

Suggests Russia is carefully calculating their throttle lever at any given moment, without doing much to convince anyone this is actually the case.

Russia's diplomatic platform is *SUBMIT NOW, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO YOU* then when Ukraine can do whatever they want to them it's *'dangerous escalation.'*

Russian for "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!"

D_Ethan_Bones

We should have never gotten involved in this. Putin can escalate further using chemical or nuclear weapons, the Ukrainians cannot. Make no mistake, Russia has no qualms about chemical weapons (see Syria) and neutron bombs are an easy next step after that...very troubling times we are living in.

1991TalonTSI

How has the war escalated? I haven’t had time to keep up lately. 

I don’t see why NATO would get involved unless Russia or Ukraine starts attacking member states

benkenobi5

Well, Putin keeps pretending he wants peace while bombing civillians. Ukraine rightfully retaliated, without any civilians killed. This can only escalate if Russia become more and more deluded

Tough-Economist-1169

It's important to understand NATO benefits more the longer the war goes on. It doesn't actually matter to NATO who controls Ukraine, but the more Russian equipment and personnel destroyed and killed does. This has been going well as Russian is unlikely able to fight another war for over a decade regardless of how this war ends.

The only danger is that certain politicians have staked their political legitimacy on Ukraine. If those politicians are fine losing political office, then there is very little chance NATO will join in the war.

PhaetonsFolly

Pray that God will fill President Putin with an abundance of grace and lead him to accept the unconditional and full ceasefire proposals that Ukraine has endorsed since being badgered to the negotiating table.

Apes-Together_Strong

It's telling that the pro-Russian gang is calling it a "Pearl Harbor" type attack. This is a lie. They are not the same at all.

Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack. Japan and America were not already at war. And Japan was the aggressor who started the war.

In contract, the Ukrainian drone strike was provoked by Russia, done in the context of an ongoing war, and RUSSIA is the aggressor in that war.

The two events are exactly opposite of each other.

TheDuckFarm

everytime theres an operation from either side WW3 trends, its been like this since the war started.

AvailableDoor178

The Imperial Japanese military undertook its strategy of massive, rapid, violent expansion in all directions in December 1941 specifically because its leadership doubted its ability to win the coming war and wanted to sharpen the conflict as much as possible while their position was good relative to what it would likely be later. 

If this strike isn't followed up by some other military, diplomatic, or economic haymaker that ends the Russian war effort in a matter of weeks, then to all this does is back Russia further into a corner, and to that extent it has likely made the world less safe. After all, whether the Ukraine shills want to admit it or not, backing Russia into a corner was how this war got started to begin with.  

And yes, this has likely increased the odds of NATO involvement, which is what the psychopaths running the war from the Ukraine side have wanted from day one. Let's all pray they don't get what they're after.

SuperSaiyanJRSmith

I’m neutral on this conflict but I agree to a type of negotiation, that could improve relations between the two countries. And Ukraine should be part of NATO and the EU. I can’t think of anything else, normally I think 24/7, sometimes we don’t have the answers.

BenTricJim

First and foremost I know what you are saying but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. In 2022 Putin escalated the existing war by a huge amount. It may seem like a technicality but in this case I think it's important in order to get the best answer we acknowledge the reality on the ground - that the war was on-going prior to the 2022 escalation, that the 2022 escalation was a massive escalation to the existing war and that prior to 2022 the war existed in s quasi-deniable state - everyone knew Russia was involved in the war in the Donbas but Russia was not openly  admitting it was involved but it did openly admit it seized Crimea but argued it was illegally annexed by Ukraine (regardless of the actual historical facts)

There are some long-term issues that  Russia needed resolved, that Ukraine (rightfully so) would not likely have capitulated on. First was Russia lacks defensible terrain on the Ukraine border Russia's best defense lines lie inside Ukraine at the Dnieper river in Eastern Ukraine or the Carpathian Mountains in Western Ukraine. If you accept Russia still has a fearful mindset that Russia could be invaded by NATO - then you can see that Russia is fearful of Ukraine moving toward ties to the EU and NATO. Second was the lack of fresh water supply to Crimea - the canal supplying Crimea with its fresh water from the Dnieper river was closed after the 2014 invasion - the long term lack of a water supply was removing the economic benefit of Crimea's agriculture while at the same time adding a massive cost to import most of Crimea's water need, on to a Russian economy with plenty of other outstanding issues. Thirdly - the economic improvement of Ukraine for the average person is a fundamental dangerous issue for the political stability of Russia - many if not most of Russians in SW Russia have family or close friends in Ukraine. The average Russia knows their media is full of half truths and lies but the problem is that transfers to all media so even western media is viewed with suspicion on how people live - but you talk to your cousin or your sister living in Ukraine and hear how much life is getting better as the "Westernize" and that's a dangerous mindset to be in for those in power - even if you don't do more than just leave for a better life.

But this all against a background of Ukraine investing more and more in their armed forces as well as their corruption campaigns slowly and unevenly working to reduce corruption which in general increases public support (in the long-term, in the short-term it can actually decrease it) As well as Ukraine tieing itself closer to the Western economies. As well as Russia trying to recover its armed forces from a significant cut in military spending from 1998-2014. To some extent the clock was ticking for something to happen - just its not obvious what and how big.

A major part of President Trump's platform was an inward focus on America and a tendency toward isolationism (at least that what his base leans toward - and as a populist he's very aware of his base's attitude.) As well as a complicated but often deferential attitude toward Putin (i.e. Some of his policies were at odds with Putin but on issues where President Trump didn't have a conflict with Putin, he seemed to openly respect Putin) But also there's a civil bureaucracy and momentum that exists in a government as large as the US has - regardless of the unquestionable amount of power the US President has - the Nation itself has a historical momentum in the increasing support of Ukraine and opposition to Russia that brings it fundamentally in conflict with Russia's Ukrainian agenda.

I don't see a solution that would realistically prevent the war that doesn't ignore some of the above. President Trump could have leaned on Ukraine to surrender territory to prevent the war but the US military, civil and diplomatic momentum was to still support Ukraine which reduces some of the pressure. And Europe's support exists outside all of this as well.

pezboy74

So this is basically what happens if Donald Trump gets reelected in 2024

TwistedPepperCan

The historical comparison to make here is to Yugoslavia. In 1941, Yugoslavia theoretically had nearly a million soldiers under arms and capable of fighting, when the army carried out a coup against Prince Paul and refused to ally with the Axis. Yet they put up almost no fight at all, despite World War 2 raging all around them, those soldiers were in their barracks, unmobilized when the Germans crossed the border. Resistance lasted less than two weeks before it was all over and they unconditionally surrendered. This is exactly what Russia tried to do with Ukraine.

&amp;#x200B;

The most important thing Biden has done with respect to Ukraine, was to publicly announce "We have concrete evidence the Russians are really going to do it, here's their plan, here's their timetable, this is really happening" Just a few days before the invasion. So it didn't go down like Yugoslavia did. Ukrainian troops weren't caught unprepared, out of position, and unmobilzied in their barracks. They were able to check the initial Russian invasion and give Ukraine a chance to organize itself and actually fight back in large part due to that confidence that this time, it was very real. I do not believe Donald Trump would have passed on that warning to Ukraine, though its possible intelligence agencies would have gone behind his back to do so, or that other powers might have gathered the same intelligence. Ukraine's survival is thanks to the determined resistance put up by those soldiers, but they can only resist dangers they see coming.

Nyther53

It's almost certainly controlled by Russia. The invasion happens, Trump says we should stay out and makes some remarks about how Zelinsky wasn't very nice to him and was the reason the Democrats impeached him the first time. Russia probably kills him and currently occupies Kiev.

115MRD

China moves on Taiwan emboldened by the world's inability/unwillingness to help Ukraine.

QuixotesGhost96

The war probably doesn’t happen, believe it or not. People keep talking about when the war started - but when did preparations for it really start? The biggest argument against the “Russian stooge” nonsense is precisely the fact that Putin didn’t touch Ukraine while his supposed lackey was running the biggest superpower in the world, who is incidentally a big reason why he can’t make progress now. 

In fact had he done it in 2016-2017 he actually *would* have taken the country in a matter of weeks (or even days). Ukraine started heavily investing in militarization (training, gear and a partial “cleaning” of the officer corps) cca 2014-2015 when they lost Crimea. There’s a huge difference between Ukraine’s military readiness in 2017 and 2022, enough of one that Putin would have definitely used the moment to make his move if he knew there won’t be resistance from the US.

cynical_gramps

He would have almost definitely still intervened, probably in a similar way. He’s throwing red meat to his base as he tries to get re-elected, but when in office, he very rarely followed through on campaign promises. 

Letting Russia take Ukraine would make him look less tough so he wouldn’t let it happen. He wants peace now because if he can broker it, he will look tougher.

Edit: this might be my comment with the most pushback ever lol. Loving the arguments

Waterguys-son

Putin would have waited another 4 years until Trump was gone then same outcome.

Immolation89

The US stays out of it, NATO is damaged, Europe probably goes it alone without US aid to help Ukraine, our European relationships are damaged, China makes a move on Taiwan given the lack of US response to help Ukraine. 

Overall it would be worse har Trump won. Which is also why I think Russia during the Trump administration really pushed for their invasion. Under Trump in 2016 is was going to happen by 2020/2021. Under anyone competent Russia either doesn't invade or their efforts are even worse. And I don't have any hard evidence yet, again I find it hard to believe that Trump didn't help by looking the other way for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Russia still invades, Ukraine fights back and is still supported by the EU. Ukraine is likely forced to negotiate and maintains its independence but has to cede the land bridge to Crimea as well as Kharkiv Oblast and formally recognize Crimea as Russian territory. Despite its victory, Russia is still largely humiliated by the war as even without US support Ukraine would have still exposed Russia’s military as disorganized and backward. Back in the USA, Trump’s kissing up to Putin drives a wedge between his supporters and more traditional Republicans, though to what extent would be hard to predict.

OmegaVizion

I don't believe Russian would invade Ukraine if Trump had been reelected; no division-deal, either.

Grouchy57

If Trump remained president in 2020 there would have been no invasion as Ukraine would never join nato under Trump. Trump wouldn't let Ukraine join nato. Same for Merkel. And the Russians know this. 
Which is why the invasion happened when Trump and Merkel where both out of office.

beaverpilot

To be honest I doubt Russia invaded Ukraine if Trump is in office. If you look at it from the right, you could say that he’s more threatening than Biden and Putin wouldn’t want to provoke the US under him. If you look at it from the left, you could say that Trump is basically a Russian stooge, and Putin could probably get what he wanted without an invasion. 

Either way, I don’t think it happens. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama/Biden and Biden/Harris, but not under Trump/Pence, whatever the reasoning may be.

Remember when everyone said trump is a warmonger who will definitely start WW3 against Russia? Now nobody thinks he’s warmongering enough!

If Putin thought Trump being in office could have in any way made the invasion go better, Putin almost certainly would have invaded Ukraine while he was still in office. He didn't. This is probabilistic evidence that the degree to which Trump is a Russian stooge is severely overrated.

Crimea was annexed in 2014, the invasion was probably in the works for a long time. If there's some sort of strategic reason why it had to happen in 2022 instead of 2019, 2020, or 2021, I've not heard it.

The fact that it kind of looks like Putin waited to invade until Trump was out of office is also probabilistic evidence.  
The timing of invading Ukraine 13 months after Trump left office could maybe be explained in other ways, but I'm skeptical.

The simple, non-galaxy brain explanation is that Putin was worried that Trump might do something more drastic than what he thought Biden would do.

This goes against people's preconceived notions, but to me it's the most obvious way to read the evidence.

AndrewPontle

Russia gets further in their occupation, Ukraine gets abandoned by the civilized world, the war is even uglier, with more genocide and more partisan resistance, but you hear less about it just like now you hear practically nothing about the genocide taking place in the areas currently under occupation - not until they are liberated and investigators get there, where they invariably find mass graves, torture chambers for men, women, and children, “filtration” camps that murder anyone too visibly Ukrainian.

Fabian_B_CH

Just to show the bias, remember that Biden specifically said that a ‘minor incursion’ into Ukraine was basically ok. If you search now, you can barely find the original quote. All articles are telling you what he actually meant. Trump blew up Russians in Syria. You wouldn’t have to divide anything if Russia had never invaded.

Bolton says that Trump would have pulled the US out of NATO and was waiting for a second term (apparently he'd talk about it).

My personal theory is Putin was waiting on this and Trump would have let him march in.

tyleratx

Putin would still have invaded Ukraine. If anything he would have done so *earlier.*

PennyForPig

Trump would likely make a deal with Putin and try to make him and ally against China, who he considered a much larger threat

Rutibex

I think there would be little difference.

Russia wasnt concerned about US involvement IRL. They wouldnt have concerned then either.

Putin wouldn’t have invaded. He invaded other countries during the Obama and Biden administrations, but not Trump’s.

misery_index

I imagine it going like this.

DJT: We must defend our Ukrainian allies.

Putin: They said you hair looked stupid.

DJT: We must defend our Russian allies.

TheRealDukeAurum

There wouldn't be an invasion. At least not in 2022. Maybe after 2024.

Afghanistan was one of the major reasons that Putin thought it would be a good time to invade. Biden was a known, an established politician, and he showed his administrative colors in geopolitics through Afghanistan. He's worked with Biden before, through Obama, and knew that both were weak in doing anything against Putin.

Say what you will about Trump but his greatest strength was his total an utter unpredictability. I don't think Putin could accurately read Trump. I don't think most of the world could accurately read Trump.

Chewybunny

It's hard to tell but I'm leaning towards no Russian invasion. Trump is kind of a wildcard, if he was president he would either devote more resources towards Ukraine or none at all, a gamble Russia probably did not want to take hence why they invaded right after Bidens inauguration into presidency.

Shamrockshnake77

Putin would not have invaded further, because he was not threatened by NATO under Trump. Trump was doing a better job of weakening our alliances than Putin ever could.

Semanticss

For all of Trump's faults, he was the first president since Jimmy Carter that didn't start a war. Something he was proud of. As others pointed out though, he was wildly unpredictable. I think there is also a lot of historical tension between Biden and Putin, especially with his admins involvement of NGO and CIA efforts in Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. That relationship was a time bomb.

It's not OK to invade a sovereign nation. I'm not excusing it, but Ukraine was invaded because clearly stated Russian red lines were crossed with weapons deals (including nuclear missile capable launchers) and NATO membership looming. Google "Nyet Means Nyet" - William Burns (Director of the CIA).

Short answer: No, Ukraine would not have been invaded if Trump was president.

JayKaze

Trump maintains his energy policy.  Russia continues going bankrupt, the ruble continues to collapse, and Putin doesn't get the two years of higher oil prices to build up his war chest.

The war is prevented entirely by accident.

LordWoodstone

\~600,000 Ukrainians more would be alive today.  The US would not have pissed away &gt;$100,000,000.  Trump would have stopped any talk of Ukraine entering NATO, and Putin would have had no reason to invade.

Beer-_-Belly

The US would be sending a shit ton of military aid to Ukraine and the Dems would be bitching about it.

It's all Kabuki theater.  

Like WWE wrestlers, politicians go on TV, flex and make threats.  Then when the cameras get turned off, they hang out together at their swanky DC cocktail parties laughing about they fooled everybody.

The sad difference is except for kids, everybody knows WWE is fake.  Politicians are far better than pro wrestlers at Kayfabe.

Quick_Interview_1279

The Ukraine-Russia conflict has reached a critical juncture, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky urging global leaders to intervene and stop Russian aggression.

Ukraine-Russia War Escalation and Diplomatic Efforts

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want