ANALYSIS – With recent remarks by some GOP lawmakers and leaders, the war in Ukraine, and America's role in it, is a big topic of debate in the U.S. and in Europe.
I've written about both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' foolish characterization of Russia's brutal war of conquest as a ‘border dispute.' I've also chided Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) for foolishly saying Russia isn't a threat because she hasn't seen Putin's detailed plans to invade Europe.
I believe both were wrong.
Former president Donald Trump was also wrong when he suggested Ukraine simply give up its territories to a conquering Russia.
These stupid comments don't help any cause but those on the left.
But I also understand the frustration of many conservatives over Joe Biden's blank check approach to helping Ukraine.
I've also argued that while we should support Ukraine in this fight, Europe should be taking the lead in defending Ukraine, not the U.S.
Enter into this debate Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a right-of-center European politician who was also the former secretary-general of NATO.
Rasmussen, who was Denmark's prime minister for most of this century's first decade, says he believes Trump will lose the presidential election, but maybe not the GOP primary.
“I think President Trump will be a loser,” he told Politico, making the point many Republicans have also been quietly thinking: “His baggage is too heavy, too controversial.”
But he explained that regardless of whether he wins, Trump's nomination would crater Republican support for Ukraine.
Politico reports:
Just by winning the Republican nomination Trump could shatter the bipartisan front in favor of Ukraine, Rasmussen fears. Trump has been forthright about his views of Russia's invasion, praising Putin as a clever strategist in the early days of the war and recently suggesting that Ukraine should have ceded “Russian-speaking areas” in a deal with the invader.
Rasmussen argues that Trump's apparent Ukraine policy would amount to “surrender.” And this would be a defeat for not only Ukraine but all of Europe and U.S. global leadership.
Politico adds:
“I call it a geopolitical catastrophe if Trump were to be nominated, because in the campaign his influence would be destructive,” Rasmussen says. It would move Trump's terrible ideas closer to the mainstream and make it harder to secure congressional support for the war.
Already, he notes, opinion polls show “a weakening of the support for Ukraine” in the United States. Trump's nomination could accelerate that, Rasmussen argues: “The mere fact that his thinking appeals to a certain element, a certain segment of the American public, will push American politics in the wrong direction.”
Politico then took a swing at semi-Putin apologist Tucker Carlson:
These are consequences of letting people like Trump and Tucker Carlson, the Fox News personality who is the Ukrainian government's most caustic American antagonist, become the loudest right-wing voices on the most urgent security issue of the day.
And Politico may be correct. But at the moment, according to a Gallup poll published in February, almost half of Republicans believe American support for Ukraine has gone too far.
The other half of Republicans appears to still be willing to go the extra mile in defending Ukraine against Mad Vlad Putin.
While I agree with some of what Rasmussen is saying, my question to him and the other European leaders is – when is Europe (the European Union) – with a population 1/3 bigger than the U.S. and a GDP similar to the U.S. – going to start taking more of the lead on defending Ukraine and themselves from Russia?
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Democrats Turn To Michelle Obama For Deliverance. Their Prayers Won't Be Answered
that eurojerk is definitely in a “Fogh”.Trump scares the liars, and weaklings in NATO.
I just hit unsubscribe
Better yet put in spam folder.
The only losers are the nato cowards and cheap azzez!
U people across the pond,need to start standing up for yourselves, become more engaged in this fight, for your freedom.America can’t fight all wars for u,that u won’t even get involved in,it’s your territory, and help defend your own terf.We need to get ready for a war with china,and u need to put in your 2% for defense,of your land.We can’t do it all for u.
the only reason why there is still a europe, is because of AMERICA!!!
Exactly what happened in WWI and WWII, Snert!
We had No wars under Trump IE sending forces during his first term
don’t forget the rocket attacks on russian bases in syria, paul forgot to mention!!!
please give a list of territories that ukraine gave up under the trump administration. you know and we know, that putin spent those 4 years quivering in the corner, and as soon as china first joe came in, all the garbage started up again!!!
I agree that Europe should provide more aid to Ukraine. However, Putin will be cheaper to weaken now, than he would be if he won in Ukraine. It is fiscally responsible for the US to make sure this happens, even while pushing Europe to do more.
Sounds to me like Anders “In a Fog” Raspberries stands arm-in-arm with Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Lisa Murkowski, Adam Schiff, and the rest of the Anti-Trump crowd.
A good, fitting crowd of total losers at that, I might add.
I have news for the ” ex-NATO” chiefy ; Nutz to You AND NATO – The World Has suffered enough at your ” Benevolent Hands ” – WE , The People can handle ourselves – WE -Are Americans – It’s what WE do ! So step off !!
I wonder if entertaining Ukraine entry into NATO at some time in the future may have had a part in Putin’s decision. With Ukraine non-aligned with either side, perhaps Russia felt safer. Kind of like we might feel if China or Russia were suggesting they would like to set up bases in Mexico and Canada. Just food for thought.
If we really want to stop Russia, we should stop Russia. This bit-by-bit crap sounds like Nam. To achieve what some seem to want, Ukraine should have been armed to the teeth starting the first day, with fighters, long-range bombers, long-range rockets, whatever it would take to hit Moscow. This crap could be another “30 Years War” and cost trillions.
Start negotiations. Totally rebuilding Ukraine probably won’t be worth the price if it totally destroyed.
Like most euro-pines this anti Trump ass-o-e is telling American tax payers to foot the bill and be quite while he and others do nothing but spend their money and ask for more to support their American paid for defense of their welfare dependent fake lifestyles. Someone should tell these idiots on capitol hill and in Europe that the Marshall plan and it money should have been ended a long time ago.
Europe should do more to fight Russia in this war. I don’t think the United States should be the biggest supporter of this conflict!!!
OK. Putting all the “we saved your bacon in WWI and WWII stuff aside, think about which European countries in NATO are standing tallest against the Russians: Poland and the Baltic countries. Why? Because they have been on the receiving end of Russian largesse and it wasn’t pretty. Of course the Europeans need to stand up on this. We have been beating that drum since before Reagan, Thatcher, and the Pope got ‘er done. The Europeans countries have problems similar to us – a bunch of people who think that somehow this can get done painlessly.
Trump is full of baloney (and ego) on the subject:
Here is Trump’s response to Carlson’s questions – with my comments. “Like inflation and numerous other self inflicted wounds and mistakes made over the past two years, Russia would definitely not have raided and attacked Ukraine if I was your President. (Why? Because you would have threatened to support Ukraine? Because you would have threatened nuclear war? Because you would have imposed sanctions? Bull shit! In fact, for four years they didn’t attack, nor did they have any intention of doing so as long as I was in charge. However, they did during the Obama administration, and Trump was talking about his buddy, Putin. But the sad fact is that, due to a new lack of respect for the U.S. – caused at least partially by our incompetently handled pullout from Afghanistan, and a very poor choice of words by Biden in explaining U.S. requests and intentions (Biden’s first statement was that Russia could have some of Ukraine, no problem!), (these are both correct) the bloody and expensive assault began, and continues to this day. There is no doubt that Biden’s policies in the rest of the world contributed to Russia’s miscalculation, but Trump was going to withdraw from Afghanistan – he largely did (rightly so) from Syria. Whether his doing so in Afghanistan would have left a different impression is speculative – it could hardly have been worse. That is all history, but how does it end, and it must end, NOW! Start by telling Europe that they must pay at least equal to what the U.S. is paying to help Ukraine. Agree. But what if they don’t? They have their own internal politics, too. They must also pay us, retroactively, the difference. Like the Mexicans have paid for the wall. C’mon. That is virtue signaling to his base and is BS. At a staggering 125 Billion Dollars, we are paying 4 to 5 times more, and this fight is far more important for Europe than it is for the U.S. Agree. So was NATO. Next, tell Ukraine that there will be little more money coming from us, UNLESS RUSSIA CONTINUES TO PROSECUTE THE WAR. Russia IS CONTINUING TO PROSECUTE THE WAR. The President must meet with each side, then both sides together, and quickly work out a deal. Neither side is willing to give up – the Russians because they are intent on empire building and the Ukrainians because history (remember 2914) says the Russians won’t be content with anything but capitulation. This can be easily done if conducted by the right President. Both sides are weary and ready to make a deal. This is an ahistorical reading of the Russians – remember, they are conducting a war of attrition. They will not deal unless one of two conditions are in place: 1) They are losing – big time or 2) The Ukrainians give up. The meetings should start immediately, there is no time to spare. The death and destruction MUST END NOW! Properly executed, this terrible and tragic War, a War that never should have started in the first place, (and wouldn’t have if the Russians had not invaded a sovereign nation after already having had their way with their 2014 adventure) will come to a speedy end. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!” Is opposing Russia in Ukraine a vital American national strategic interest? “No, but it is for Europe. But not for the United States. (Actually, given that China is watching it may be more for the United States than for Europe. That is why Europe should be paying far more than we are, or equal.” What specifically is our objective in Ukraine, and how will we know when we’ve achieved it? “Our objective in Ukraine is to help and secure Europe, (at least partly true – Ukraine is in Europe and Russia bridges Europe and Asia) but Europe isn’t helping itself. Depends on which European countries you are talking about. Poland is in Europe. They are relying on the United States to largely do it for them. That is very unfair to us. Every time someone uses the term “unfair” when talking about international relations they expose themselves as naïve – perhaps terminally so. Especially since Europe takes advantage of us on trade and other things.” Whose fault is that? What is the limit of funding and materiel you would be willing to send to the government of Ukraine? The rest of this is largely ego driven BS. “That would strongly depend on my meeting with President Putin and Russia. Russia would have never attacked Ukraine if I were President, not even a small chance. Would have never happened if I were President, but it has. I would have to see what the direction in which Russia is headed. Where have you been for the past eight years? I want them to stop, and they will, depending on the one that delivers that message. But with everything said, Europe must pay. The United States has spent much more than Europe, and that is not fair, (there is that word again) just, or equitable. If I were President, that horrible war would end in 24 hours, or less. It can be done, and it must be done– now!” Should the United States support regime change in Russia? “No. We should support regime change in the United States, that’s far more important. (I agree that the Dems must go, but given the emanations from Trump about the Constitution and his genuinely flaky actions after the last election he had better be a lot more specific before I will buy this) The Biden administration are the ones who got us into this mess.” Given that Russia’s economy and currency are stronger than before the war, do you believe that U.S. sanctions have been effective? “No, they have not been effective. Just the opposite. They drove Russia, China and Iran into an unthinkable situation.” China, Russia, and Iran were already in cahoots. China and Iran are just taking further advantage of Russia’s adventure. Do you believe the United States faces the risk of nuclear war with Russia? (Yes. And that is a risk every time Russia goes on another of its invasions. The risk would be hugely greater is they are successful in Ukraine and/or extend their ambitions to the Baltic countries (as Putin once suggested he might. The Baltic countries really are NATO countries and we are obligated to come to their defense with our own armed forces. That would really increase the risk. “It depends on who the President of the United States is. At the moment, with Biden as president, absolutely yes. He says and does all the wrong things at the wrong time.” Mostly true; however, he is not 100% wrong on Ukraine and has played much of it fairly well although I believe (in retrospect) too cautiously.
By the way, DeSantis didn’t do any better. He just didn’t promise the moon.
This euro trash is a Richard. Go take care of your own turf idiot.