Most notable positions in Trump's cabinets seem to not stay in their jobs for the entire four years. At least that's how it was last time. This time, he seems to be prioritizing people he genuinely wants in all the key roles, which has led pundits to speculate his cabinet may have more staying power.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Most notable positions in Trump's cabinets seem to not stay in their jobs for the entire four years. At least that's how it was last time. This time, he seems to be prioritizing people he genuinely wants in all the key roles, which has led pundits to speculate his cabinet may have more staying power.
I've worked with Marco Rubio's office personally. He's incredibly Pro-Ukraine.
I posted in the Trump thread why I like his as secretary of State. Of all the politicians on various sub-commitee's across all NATO states, Rubio was one of the most pleasant, competent and genuinely useful person to work with.
That or his aides are incredible. Which is basically the same thing.
I posted in the Trump thread why I like his as secretary of State. Of all the politicians on various sub-commitee's across all NATO states, Rubio was one of the most pleasant, competent and genuinely useful person to work with.
That or his aides are incredible. Which is basically the same thing.
Yes, indeed
Good point. The easiest way to look at Rubio is he is Cuban, and South Florida Cubans whose family lineages have had to deal with Castro, come from a staunchly Reaganite anti-communist school of thought - which usually means the Soviet Union = Totalitarianism, the West = Democracy and Freedom. In this case, Putin's Russia being a metastasized residue of the Soviet Union. If you look at the early part of this thread, he was live tweeting the war from his own Twitter, which led people to ask if he was revealing proprietary information from within the building in order to favor the Ukrainians. He is definitely pro-Ukraine.
Won't make a difference when the overwhelming consensus is a peace treaty of some form being signed in the next year. He's just one person and now his view will go where the state apparatus moves. Might help Ukraine in negotiations or whatever but I don't see how it has any other effect than that. It's a presidential decision to end this war. The state apparatus acts accordingly and can imo already be seen to act that way in terms of presentation and media announcements. Preparing expectations.
I'm still stuggling with the logic here. "Pundits" are saying his cabinet is going to last longer this time because he's appointed people who align with his views, and yet the day after inauguration they're all going to rip off their masks and say "ha, fooled you! Slava Ukraini!"
But whatever, we're not going to change each other's views here, and besides which this is a rare occasion on which we'll find out in a few months or so who's right.
If you've followed Trump's career, he is well known for putting into place people who disagree with one another on various topics, then use the ensuing arguments among those below him to make his own decisions. So if you want to think this guy is pro-Russia to feel good about the future then go right ahead.
Raoul, these are blow-with-the-wind politicians. Lindsey Graham has been pro-US proxy war in Ukraine since the coup (and probably before? - i.e., if you recall, half the republicans were very anti-Russia and the other half very anti-China) to be fair to him. He went there with McCain. He has some consistency even though he's a complete mentalist.
They will follow the money. Even Graham's, not at all hidden, point is that Ukraine has an awful lot of mineral resources which the US can use (and will feel entitled to after pouring 300bn dollars into the Ukrainian sate). The money is to be had in a peace deal at this point. There is no, or exceedingly little, political appetite to continue the war. There is an awful lot of appetite for a peace deal which will enrich the very people which more or less own the United States (and other nations, too).
Trump hated Rubio a few years ago. He appoints him now, I suppose, because Rubio comes more into line with what Trump requires. This is what politicians do. They blow with the wind and that wind is usually money. Not all of them, it has to be said, but the vast majority.
I don't disagree with this. The difference between Graham and Rubio is the latter was auditioning for a job with Trump, which meant he had to speak in a way that would appeal to Trump (who famously likes to hire people who interview well on TV). Graham is in a different position in that he can more or less say anything he wants, and is clearly baiting Trump by proposing the US could benefit financially by continuing to support Ukraine (a win), instead of allowing Putin to gain the upper hand (a loss). Ultimately, Trump sees the world in terms of wins and losses, so one could understand those around him framing their narratives accoridngly.
I have nowhere indicated he is "pro-Russia", these are utterly meaningless terms ("Pro-Russia", "pro-Ukraine" etc) within the context we're speaking. You're pro-Manchester United, does that mean you'd put your house and life savings on them to beat Real Madrid right now? It's just not how it works. Rubio is not a moron and he understands the reality of the situation Ukraine is now in, which is to say, they cannot win the war and to prolong it in the manner Biden has been doing is futile.
And your presidential debate video of Rubio is 8 and a half years old and has precisely zero relevance to the discussion.
What do you suggest the West should do? Let Russia eat Ukraine?
I just don't understand how anyone is "okay" with annexation in the modern day and age, we're not playing video games.
If this keeps going, and the world just accepts it, one day NATO is going to take its kiddy gloves off and then things get really fecked. Annexation of Ukraine is not a roadmap for peace, for anyone.
Rubio has been consistent on his positions about Russia throughout his entire political career, as have Haley, Graham, Cotton, and a large swath of US Senators. So if you want to hang your hat on the one interview Rubio gave where he was auditioning for a job (which he was subsequently offered days later), then that's on you.
True enough.
Tom Cotton will make a run for presidency in 2028 or 2032 I reckon.
And unfortunately, he's got the credentials and competency to win.
I'm firmly anti-war, but I don't think Trump will end this anytime soon
Again, I'm not hanging any hats on any interviews, I'm making a distinction between an emotional position ("Pro-Ukraine") and rational decision-making, something that has been lacking over the last 34 months from the Biden Admin. Rubio had one set of views when Ukraine was not in the position it is currently in. He has a different set of views now (and despite what you just wrote it is not "one interview", he has been calling for a peace agreement for over half a year now). As a person who is not a total moron, Rubio bases his opinions on the reality that exists at a particular time, which is something Sullivan, Biden and Blinken are resolutely commited to never doing.
I think he has to. I mean, he doesn't, but I think his own support base is overwhelmingly in favor of the war ending. Add to that the legacy of being the one to make the deal which is something I'm sure will appeal to him. He has been entirely "end the war" for two years straight. I just don't see him turning on a dime and losing his support base (not that he's running again, mind, but he does like to be liked) entirely.
It is what Rubio said it is. Whether he said it to audition for a role in office, which he got, or not doesn't make a difference in one sense: it is a very valid reading of the situation. I think the vast majority of people who matter in intel circles (and I could be wrong but as that other poster said we will find out soon one way or another) are of the same opinion.
He's too much of a hawk, which may not resonate in Trump's MAGA world. He will probably still try though. DeSantis and Vance will probably lead the way in 28, with Trump throwing his support behind whoever he thinks will have his back in case future legal cases arise after he leaves office.
I am against almost everything he stands for domestically, on most social issues - but his understanding of geopolitics is very astute and will actually reverse the two decades of decay of the Military institutions of the USA.
-One of the very few who is openly calling for huge defense spending increasing and highlighted how problematic the current spending is and how low it is.
- Recognises that the US foreign policy has just been slow decay and that the West in general just isn't willing to fight for its interests anymore.
I don't think he's a war hawk. I think he's asking the USA to not walk around strong words and niceties when its geopolitical adversaries are arming themselves to the teeth and invading other nations and constantly encroaching key western interests.
I agree generally. He's not a war hawk as much as he is a strong proponent of taking hawkish positions against America's traditional adversaries. Very similar to Rubio in this regard although with actual military service.
I just don’t think it’s as simple as it seems.
- Russian and Ukrainian positions are still worlds apart. We don’t know exactly what Putin wants, and Ukraine is highly unlikely to concede on issues like territorial sovereignty or NATO aspirations.
- Theoretically, Trump could cut off aid to Ukraine, but practically, it’s not that straightforward. Cutting aid would face significant resistance, and a Ukrainian collapse could have major repercussions—not least the optics of "losing to Putin."
- Institutional inertia is a powerful force. Once U.S. national security policies are set, they’re extremely hard to reverse. Concepts like "U.S. credibility" and resistance from the so-called “deep state” ensure that these policies have a long shelf life.
- Trump won’t have a free hand. He’ll face pushback from anti-Russia hawks within his own cabinet and other government officials. Many will try to manipulate or delay his decisions, and agencies tend to align with established policies, making sweeping changes difficult even for a president.
On top of that, I have to say Trump is assembling one of the most impressive collections of foreign policy imbeciles ever seen in the age of American empire.
I think this drags on.
In terms of what? Vision or execution?
Rubio is practically excellent at both. All his other picks are, well...unknown on their execution. Hegseth's foreign policy views are pretty good, where he'll falter on is the execution because he precisely has 0 experience.
I hope not. It shouldn't. It ought not to continue. We will have to wait and see.
Of course, Russia and Ukraine are miles apart in terms of what they each will expect. I do not see Russia conceding anything to the east of Crimea. Or very little of it, maintaining that corridor. Other than that, I suspect there is some room for negotiation. The fact is, Ukraine will do what the US dictates. It doesn't really have any other option. We have to wait and see what those dictates are.
Good points. The concept of cutting off Ukraine would meet with significant resistance by the GOP Senate, which would then put Trump in a difficult position of whether he would want blow his broader political capital by being perceived as conspicuously fighting to achieve a position that favors Putin's desired outcome, or whether he could use a different approach.
This is also doesn't factor in the fact that a vast majority of frozen Russian assets are controlled by the EU, not the US. So they could conceivably those funds to continue supporting Ukraine.
Rubio is an empty suit—a career politician whose résumé is as thin as his grasp of complex issues. His "accomplishments" are indistinguishable from the talking points he parrots, and real-world experience seems like a foreign concept to him.
I provide this clip for some levity
Trust me, nothing would make me happier than seeing the Ukraine war come to an end sooner rather than later. However, I’m a realist, and I believe Trump’s promise to 'end the conflict within 24 hours' is little more than an empty slogan.
Unfortunately.
Of course its an empty slogan - just like "build a wall and Mexico will pay for it", "I alone can fix it", or "I want that war over before I get into office", are.
Yeah, well that is clearly rhetorical nonsense.
But in realist terms you have to ask what is the most beneficial outcome for all involved. Ukraine at peace gives the US what it wants which is access to its entire state, basically, in terms of financial control over resources without the uncertainty of enterprises being bombed by Russia. That, to me, which is worth more than even the 300bn given in weapons is what the US looks at when it tries to understand how to go about a peace-deal. I'm not living in fantasy land either. It's not an easy peace-deal to make. It's very difficult and only more so because of how long it has gone on. But there is this understanding that the Ukrainian incursion into Russia was entirely about putting pressure on Moscow for a peace-deal in 2025. We'll see.
If it seems like I'm skipping Ukraine, I'm not. It just won't have any choice other than what the US dictates to it if the US is happy with a prospective peace-deal. Again, nothing easy about it. But that's how I see it unfolding.
I've personally worked with Rubio and his team on NATO intelligence matters:
He is more competent than anyone from the political side of things outside of Florence Parly. He understood the briefings, gave suggestions that actually wasn't hot air (which is very rare for a politician to do on Intelligence matters) and also asked very good questions that were relevant, interesting and made us question our own conclusions.
Either he has the best team of aides anyone can imagine and every other European/American politician has a team, or he is far more clued in than the rest. Florence Parly gets the top billing because she was actually open to sharing French Intelligence briefings with NATO that most European nations/US are particularly anal about. She just gave us everything we needed for us to do our job to the fullest capacity and then ignored us. Which is actually perfect.
Putin doesn't want to annex Ukraine. He never has and he never will. Occupation of Ukraine is not now, never was, and never will be one of the goals of what he calls the Special Military Operation. His fundamental demands are the same as those he laid out at the beginning of the war. They haven't changed and they never will.
For the rest of your post, we've discussed it before. I am not "okay" with what Russia has done. I simply have a spooky kind of talent that sets me apart from 95% of Westerners when it comes to this war, it's called "the ability to face reality". I think it's because I'm old enough to remember the last time a war was this propagandised and ideologised, it was the invasion of Iraq, and I vividly remember the political technology used back then to weaponise emotion and strip populations of any semblance of critical thinking ability. "Saddam can nuke us in 45 minutes!" was this war's "Putin will roll across all of Europe if he wins in Ukraine!" "Saddam's sons feed the children of his enemies to dogs as he laughs" was this war's "Russian orcs anally rape toddlers to death" (which was the bulk of the tweets from Twitter non-entities that GlastonSpur spammed this forum with in the first month of this war, and woe betide anyone who dared question their validity because you were "SYMPATHISING WITH CHILD RAPE!"). Everything had to be kept at the level of a cartoonish depiction of ultimate good vs absolute evil and if you so much as dared to bring a modicum of nuance to the discussion, you were dismissed as a terrorist-sympathiser, which was this war's "Kremlin bot" (which I still get called by a few of the rabid hyenas on here). Case in point, the guy who set up this forum's 'geopolitics' thread was one of the smartest people on this site, in particular in the early pages of this thread, but he eventually got chased off by the #slavaukraini brigade, as in fact I almost did when literal death wishes started getting PMed to me by the "freedom and democracy" crowd for the crime of peacefully expressing an opinion different to theirs.
It's tiring repeating it all but I'll do it once more. The moment NATO and Biden categorically ruled out the possibility of ever directly fighting alongside the Ukrainians (despite their idiotic claim that it was an "existential war for our own freedom") was the moment Ukraine lost this war, and it happened around 45 minutes after the first Russian tanks rolled across the border. Ukraine cannot win this war with the resources the West has been giving it. They can only just about survive until there are no more Ukrainian men to bleed out. They also can't win so long as all those countries who "don't matter" according to Raoul refuse to vassalise themselves to US interests, as Europe, Japan and South Korea have done. Ukraine can't win. So what should the West do now? Apologise to Ukraine for what you've done to them. Putin is why Ukraine was invaded. The West is why Ukraine has lost. You* should have either given them what they needed to win the war or else stopped stringing them along.
(*'You' here doesn't mean literally you, AA, I'm 'addressing' the West since you asked me what they should do).
Last edited:
I think there has to be a chance that Europe might attempt to run this thing ourselves. It is in Europe's interest to do so, a number of ex Soviet European states might well conclude this is an existential issue for them, the money is a big asset, and Europe, on paper, does have some ability to provide a level of military support. Trump may not have the control over the situation that he thinks.
Good to know NATO had the kiddy gloves on when it bombed Serbia in 1999.
When Kosovo subsequently declared independence in 2008 Putin was quoted saying this would open Pandora's box and he responded in kind by recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August of that year, later Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
The "roadmap for peace" is a NATO blueprint in this case.
100%. The idea that Trump can simply order Zelenskyy to stop fighting is farcically naive.
Except for the part he annexed in 2014, of course. And then the parts he annexed in 2022. For all your professed clarity you seem awfully blind to that fact. But go on, write a five paragraph essay about how that was different, because... reasons, I imagine.
You say that Russia doesn't want to annex Ukraine...if we ignore Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Kherson Oblast...
Were you aware that Ukraine signed into law in 2010 that it would not join NATO? Was that not enough of a guarantee?
It was a self-fulfilled prophecy. If you think 2014 was about security and NATO, do you think Russia's view of the 2010 law that was passed unanimously was not enough of a guarantee?
Oh boy, if you think the Serbian bombing of 1999 was taking the gloves off, wait until the penny drops.
Which will happen with the line of thinking you're going down, if you keep pushing and keep pushing and keep squeezing and causing more and more issues, one day NATO will be left with no choice but to actually do something about it, in mass-force.
Then you'll be left wondering how we ever got to that stage.
"You should have either given them what they needed to win the war or else stopped stringing them along".
If you were the West, what would you have done? String them along or give them what they needed?
Correct. Crimea, Donesk and Luhansk were stated in his 4 demands at the start of the war. The other 2 oblasts got added in September 2022 for obvious reasons. But Putin has absolutely no interest or desire to "annex Ukraine", and I know that you know this. On what planet is Russia occupying cities like Lutsk or Kyiv or Lviv? Leaving aside the near-literal impossibility of doing such a thing in the 21st century, what geopolitical sense would it make? It's from the same dumb hymn book as "Putin's gonna take a shot at the Baltics next!" Why? Someone with an IQ above room temperature give a sensible explanation of what possible use Russia would have for the likes of Estonia or Latvia? A use deemed existentially vital enough to Russia's interests to trigger a war with NATO. To say nothing of that cretin Baerbock's repeated claim that he's going to try and occupy Poland too. Again, in what reality is this even remotely feasible, let along geopolitically rational?
And just to cut you off at the pass, no, I am not saying it's "okay" that he wants to annex the Donbas and Crimea. I am again dealing with the basic reality of the situation. If the West has a problem with Russia stealing the Donbas then you should have given them what they needed to stop it from happening, as they repeatedly had to jump through hoops to beg you to do.