Zim : "
I'd like to go on the record and say that if Ukrains's offensive is successful, it is NOT because biden did anything right.
Let U.S. not forget that it was Trump that sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine along with the trainers."
Point #1 is fair enough. But how, exactly, would you define “successful”? Obviously, if Russia implodes and/or gives Eastern Ukraine back to the domination of Ukraine, many are going to call that "success". But, in the larger picture, I question whether calling even THAT “success” is very wise, or even correct. No matter how this thing turns out, if it doesn't become net PROFITABLE for the US, the US will be much closer to an ugly collapse. The problem is a LOT deeper than win-lose in a strict kinetic metric, literally immeasurably deeper. Try thinking outside the box -— China certainly is.
Point #2? Do you see Trump's effort as a failure? I'm pretty sure Trump sent anti-tank missiles to Ukraine as ONE preemptive measure—sort of like buying a smoke detector for your house. It isn't the smoke detector's failure if children play with matches.
For the record, I'd like to go on record as saying that even if Ukraine's offensive is successful, it does not mean the US was either successful or wise in meddling in Ukraine governance or provoking and funding this war. Shooting oneself in the head, in order to convince the wife we meant it when we said "over my dead body", comes to mind.
| 