Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

That’s assuming Trump means anything he says. An assumption that has a pretty poor track record.

As with the last time he was elected Trump has vehemently criticised a policy of his predecessor, and then immediately adopted the same policy as his own on being elected.

He did it over bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons, and he’s doing it over Ukraine now, making it clear he intends to continue fully supporting them, while also pushing for a huge increase in military spending. Both policies he and his party were adamantly against and did everything they could to undermine while in opposition.

View on HN

Yes, he flipped on Ukraine, yes, it's a promising sign, no, it doesn't mean he can't flop on Ukraine.

The uncharitable scenario is that he's waiting for the RU bribe money to land before delivering -- and no one deserves charity less than this man. Remember when he stopped the Javelin shipments to Ukraine until such time as Zelensky could deliver dirt (real or manufactured) on Biden? This could be exactly like that, though at this time he presumably wants money not dirt.

The charitable scenarios is he’s realised that if he continues his commitment to drop support for Ukraine, he has zero bargaining power with Putin to negotiate a peace as promised.

How that wasn’t blindingly obvious from the start is a question, but not one he or his supporters actually care about because they couldn’t give a fig about Ukraine. It is entirely instrumental to his personal political advantage in the moment. Being utterly opposed to support for Ukraine was politically advantageous in opposition and supporting Ukraine to the hilt is now politically advantageous in power. That’s all that matters.

Chemical weapons in Syria are an informative parallel. Obama’s commitment to bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons was the worst policy ever from opposition, but actually bombing Syria for using Chemical weapons when they did so as soon as Trump gained power was an obvious necessity.

> How that wasn’t blindingly obvious from the start is a question

You’re vastly overestimating the strategic capacity or care of the American voter. Game theory doesn’t fit in a TikTok video.

Right, and I hope for the charitable scenario. I suppose we'll find out in a few months.

> Obama’s commitment to bombing Syria if they used chemical weapons was the worst policy ever from opposition

Mostly because Assad did use chemical weapons and Obama didn't bomb them. Arguably the fact that Obama backed down set the tone for the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas.

It took a while to confirm they’d used them and Obama made the mistake of asking Congress for authorisation to take out their chemical sites. Mitch McConnell blocked that, which is where Republican opposition to bombing Syria for having or using chemical weapons started.

Until they were in power of course, and Assad mistakenly assumed the Republican position on this was coherent and actually used chemical weapons again.

> Obama made the mistake of asking Congress for authorisation

Obama certainly didn't bother with as much when offing Al-Awlaki [1]. (An American who took up arms against the United States.)

This was Obama's fuck-up. He was the chief executive and commander in chief. If he couldn't hold the line, he shouldn't have drawn it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awla...

> ...but not one he or his supporters actually care about because they couldn’t give a fig about Ukraine.

His supporters absolutely would give a fig about Ukraine if Trump hadn't spent years sabotaging the GOP's historical positions on hostile authoritarians.

Oh absolutely, I say all this as a deeply dissolutions British conservative who wonders what the heck has happened to Republicanism. It’s not all down to Trump either, it started before him with McConnell and others as I pointed out in another comment.

You say that, and I recall a guy I know - a gun shop owner, die hard right winger, who in 2014 (i.e. a year before Trump even declared his candidacy) told me that he'd prefer to see Putin rather than Obama as US president, because he "knows how to run a proper Christian country".

That is intensely depressing. Amazing that electing a black man to the presidency triggered such a long-lasting, powerful backlash.

Trump's election might be pretty bad for Russia after all. With Democrats already being committed to Ukraine and Republicans committed to Trump, the whole congress is ready for a pretty much unlimited (material) help to Ukraine if Trump wants it. And the threat of exactly that is necessary for successful peace negotiations, which in turn is what would score Trump major political points.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com