I generally agree with what you say here. For Ukraine, Harris is better than Trump but neither can be counted on to give Ukraine what it needs. I also think that it matters which part of congress the Republican party controls. (hopefully not both!) I think it will be better (for Ukraine) if the Democrats control the House and if Republicans do win one of the chambers, it is the Senate. This is because there is still a wing of the Republican party in the Senate that is strong on national defense and recognizes Russia as a threat so it may be at least possible to form a coalition in the Senate in favor of some aid to Ukraine. It will also be interesting to see how the Republican party responds to a Trump loss. Trump will be to old to run again in 2028 and so as his influence wanes there may be a reversion to at least some of the more traditional Republican orthodoxy.
I think it is past time to recognize that if Ukraine is to succeed it is going to be because Europe accepts that their collective security is going to depend on what they do to protect themselves, especially if Trump wins. But as you set out, a Harris win is not a guarentee of a continuation of the extensive security umbrella the US has provided since the 1940s. Hopefully, Europe and the US will continue to have a defense alignment, it would seem to be in the best interests of both, but Europe can no longer count on the US providing the great share of the European defense burden. That being said, the greatest current threat to European security is Russia and Russia is right now on the verge of a decisive defeat in Ukraine if Europe recognizes the oppurtunity and responds accordingly. This oppurtunity is fleeting and in fact could be starting to close. Is Europe up to the task? That is the question in my mind.
Trump is highly susceptible to many types of manipulation (flattery, threat of humiliation....), and hence also easily influenced not only by Putin, but also by Western leaders. He barks a LOT - but rarely bites. The NATO Summit '18 is a good example.
For Trump's credit, he did supply Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine before the war started - and he had US Army Special Forces in-country to train Ukrainian troops. The actual invasion occurred a little over a year after Biden was inaugurated, and the conventional wisdom in the Swamp was that Ukraine would lose, and lose quickly, since the Russian Army had overwhelming strength, so there was no point in sending weapons. And Putin's nuclear threats got the US to slow-walk aid to Ukraine, what was actually given - not "pledged" - was always to little and too late to allow Ukraine to win the war. In fact, it seems that the Swamp was hell-bent on creating another "forever war", like the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in long conflicts, with the end result being a return to the status quo ante in the case of Afghanistan, and religious conflict between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq - something that would not have happened if Saddam Hussein, a secular Arab, had been left in power. And in fact, that has been the result in US policy since World War II. We seem to have a sclerotic military establishment which consumes huge amounts of money and materiel without producing any tangible result other than failure. Generals need to be fired, we need to find people who can clearly define missions, execute them, and achieve positive results - or not get into these conflicts in the first place. In Ukraine, the US, UK, and a few other countries agreed, in the Budapest Memorandum, that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons (which would have deterred the Russian invasion - and the Russians have a long history of invading Ukraine), those countries would defend Ukraine's 1991 borders, including Crimea. Those countries have breached that agreement, beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present day - and the war in Ukraine is in fact winnable by Ukraine, if it gets suitable weapons and can deal with its internal corruption. Right now, the conflict seems to be a contest to see who can lose fastest and most effectively, in three areas: corruption and theft, incompetence, and stupidity - the failure to learn from past experiences. The leading position in this contest has gone from Ukraine to Russia and then back - right now, it's a stalemate. And the real winner might be China, after Russia decimates its forces and materiel in Ukraine, it might not be able to defend its territory in its Far East, where the oil and gas that China needs, are - and China has already redrawn its maps. If Putin has not thought about this, he needs to, otherwise the Chinese will eat his lunch.
In terms of a potential trump action, I believe he would ghost UA merely because Zelensky didn’t fall for his attempted extortion effort in ‘19 in which he told Z to provide dirt on Biden or not receive continued military support. He has also demonstrated his intent on withdrawing support from NATO. trump is irrational and more likely to act based on a grudge rather than the security of NATO member states.
I generally agree with what you say here. For Ukraine, Harris is better than Trump but neither can be counted on to give Ukraine what it needs. I also think that it matters which part of congress the Republican party controls. (hopefully not both!) I think it will be better (for Ukraine) if the Democrats control the House and if Republicans do win one of the chambers, it is the Senate. This is because there is still a wing of the Republican party in the Senate that is strong on national defense and recognizes Russia as a threat so it may be at least possible to form a coalition in the Senate in favor of some aid to Ukraine. It will also be interesting to see how the Republican party responds to a Trump loss. Trump will be to old to run again in 2028 and so as his influence wanes there may be a reversion to at least some of the more traditional Republican orthodoxy.
I think it is past time to recognize that if Ukraine is to succeed it is going to be because Europe accepts that their collective security is going to depend on what they do to protect themselves, especially if Trump wins. But as you set out, a Harris win is not a guarentee of a continuation of the extensive security umbrella the US has provided since the 1940s. Hopefully, Europe and the US will continue to have a defense alignment, it would seem to be in the best interests of both, but Europe can no longer count on the US providing the great share of the European defense burden. That being said, the greatest current threat to European security is Russia and Russia is right now on the verge of a decisive defeat in Ukraine if Europe recognizes the oppurtunity and responds accordingly. This oppurtunity is fleeting and in fact could be starting to close. Is Europe up to the task? That is the question in my mind.
I think if Harris does win
Trump is highly susceptible to many types of manipulation (flattery, threat of humiliation....), and hence also easily influenced not only by Putin, but also by Western leaders. He barks a LOT - but rarely bites. The NATO Summit '18 is a good example.
I’ll dig into Mr. Pertsev article in Medusa with special interest in seeing how Russian policy makers might think they can pay for “endless war”.
For Trump's credit, he did supply Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine before the war started - and he had US Army Special Forces in-country to train Ukrainian troops. The actual invasion occurred a little over a year after Biden was inaugurated, and the conventional wisdom in the Swamp was that Ukraine would lose, and lose quickly, since the Russian Army had overwhelming strength, so there was no point in sending weapons. And Putin's nuclear threats got the US to slow-walk aid to Ukraine, what was actually given - not "pledged" - was always to little and too late to allow Ukraine to win the war. In fact, it seems that the Swamp was hell-bent on creating another "forever war", like the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq, resulting in long conflicts, with the end result being a return to the status quo ante in the case of Afghanistan, and religious conflict between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq - something that would not have happened if Saddam Hussein, a secular Arab, had been left in power. And in fact, that has been the result in US policy since World War II. We seem to have a sclerotic military establishment which consumes huge amounts of money and materiel without producing any tangible result other than failure. Generals need to be fired, we need to find people who can clearly define missions, execute them, and achieve positive results - or not get into these conflicts in the first place. In Ukraine, the US, UK, and a few other countries agreed, in the Budapest Memorandum, that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons (which would have deterred the Russian invasion - and the Russians have a long history of invading Ukraine), those countries would defend Ukraine's 1991 borders, including Crimea. Those countries have breached that agreement, beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present day - and the war in Ukraine is in fact winnable by Ukraine, if it gets suitable weapons and can deal with its internal corruption. Right now, the conflict seems to be a contest to see who can lose fastest and most effectively, in three areas: corruption and theft, incompetence, and stupidity - the failure to learn from past experiences. The leading position in this contest has gone from Ukraine to Russia and then back - right now, it's a stalemate. And the real winner might be China, after Russia decimates its forces and materiel in Ukraine, it might not be able to defend its territory in its Far East, where the oil and gas that China needs, are - and China has already redrawn its maps. If Putin has not thought about this, he needs to, otherwise the Chinese will eat his lunch.
In terms of a potential trump action, I believe he would ghost UA merely because Zelensky didn’t fall for his attempted extortion effort in ‘19 in which he told Z to provide dirt on Biden or not receive continued military support. He has also demonstrated his intent on withdrawing support from NATO. trump is irrational and more likely to act based on a grudge rather than the security of NATO member states.