Does anyone have any remarks about Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s visit to the U. S.? IMO the complaints about his stumping for Harris are not entirely off the mark but overblown.
Presumably, his visit is to make another pitch for striking targets in the Russian interior which if we are prudent we will reject. My understanding is that
- the Ukrainians cannot do that targeting without the direct participation of U. S. personnel
- Putin has made it quite clear that he will consider that an act of war by the United States
and to his credit President Biden has resisted that to date.
Lets wait until Jan 20, 2025.
In this war, Biden hasn’t said “no” to anything, its “not yet”, then “yes”.
My understanding is Blinken is for it. The British want to do it (with no irony they are pretty public it can only be done with “US approval”, even for UK weapons because they contain US technology).
Here’s the take from the Times of London (https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/go-it-alone-and-let-ukraine-fire-missiles-keir-starmer-told-9mc0q5w2w). My takeaway is Biden is leaning towards giving approval, and the key question is whether the approval is secretly given while Zelensky is here, or whether they wait until Nov 5 if Trump wins, or at the latest Jan 19th if Harris wins.
On Zelensky campaigning for Harris. Maybe it works in the short term if Harris is elected. But its going to alienate Republicans and going from ambivalent / softly oppose to hard opposition could collapse military support in the medium / long term.
Of course, given how the war is playing out; long term thinking may not be a luxury Ukraine can indulge in.
One theory circulating on the internet is that the US military revolted and forced Biden to back down, and that is why Biden was so visibly angry at the meeting a week ago.
If Trump is elected support for Ukraine ends anyway. He will short circuit and attempts by Congress to continue support. Cant blame Zelensky for pushing for this. Putin orders the invasion and then wants to set the terms of the conflict declaring that the war must be fought only in Ukraine.
Steve
It’s more complex than that, steve. The long-distance weaponry we’ve given Ukraine requires the direct involvement of U. S. military personnel for targets farther inside Russia. That is due to the military GPS and encryption. Even the British long-distance weaponry uses American technology which requires the direct involvement of U. S. military personnel.
What Putin has said is that U. S. military personnel enabling targets farther inside Russia would be an act of war on the part of the U. S. against Russia.
Steve, when I say its going to alienate Republicans, I mean Congressional Republicans and Republican voters, not Trump.
For example, Speaker Johnson is pretty livid (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4899357-speaker-johnson-ukraine-zelensky/); and Johnson went over a substantial portion of his caucus to pass Ukraine aid in May. And Zelensky needs Congressional Republicans; they are favored to win the House and Senate regardless of who wins the Presidency.
On Ukraine’s request; I listened to a podcast, Rob Lee and Mike Kaufman. The targets Ukraine wants to attack with these weapons requires more than the US lifting “restrictions” on use; they require sensitive surveillance and intelligence to correctly program the missiles to evade air defense. Its not capabilities Ukraine natively has or can be obtained via “open-source” — unlike their attacks using drones.
Dave, where did you get Putin saying “U.S military personnel enabling targets further inside Russia would be an act of war”. I saw the interview with RT where Putin stated use of these weapons constituted “participation of a different nature” and that there would be “consequences” — some ambiguity and short of saying its “war”; through clearly laying out its a red line.
As for Kursk, beyond “humiliating” Putin for a few days, I think the Russians are actually quite okay with it. For Ukraine, there’s eerie similarities to the Gettysburg campaign, a big army getting attrited and at risk of getting cut off without achieving strategically relevant goals. Meanwhile those forces can’t be used to reinforce a separate critical front which may determine the overall course of the war.
CO- When has a Republican in Congress or the Senate stood up to Trump, beyond McCain? The Congress will fall in line. Senate might be close but if they have more than 52 senate seats Ukraine is gone.
Steve
Steve, what if the result is Harris wins the Presidency and Republicans control the Senate, the House or both?
Johnson by himself could kill any future aid to Ukraine despite whatever Harris wants to do as President.
Pretty much clear what Zelensky wants, what do “we” want?
And who decides that? Not Biden, Not Harris, is it still John Bolton?
I’m suspicious that the ultimate goal is to break up the Russian federation and exploit resources in Siberia.
I’m never surprised by their bold, reckless goals and foolish assumptions.
What will they do to make the American public sign onto their next war?
There are no restraints.
CO- Without Trump as POTUS then I think Johnson doesnt really push the issue. A sizable number of Republicans support funding Ukraine with 22 senators supporting the last funding bill. I suspect that without the specter of Trump returning to office a few more will support it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4464791-here-are-the-senate-republicans-who-voted-for-the-ukraine-package/
Steve