Fully agreed. They won’t react until Russia invaded them. They somehow expect NATO to hold. While Trump and his Russian leaning politics, has said he might leave NATO.
Even if they don't have American nukes behind them?
Given what we've seen in Ukraine, I agree that Eastern European countries can likely take on Russia in conventional warfare. But that's not the only thing on the table.
Somehow I don't think that either UK or France would be willing to get into a nuclear exchange with Russia over Poland or Finland, especially considering the relative sizes of the nuclear arsenals involved, and then also how much less concentrated the Russian population is.
NATO without the US still has two member countries with nukes. That doesn't guarantee "NATO wins" but it does assure "Russia loses" if that particular cat comes out of the bag.
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.
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.
> 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.
> ...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".
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.
