I don't buy your narrative because the preponderance of Trump's behavior toward Putin was craven.
Also his attempt to quid pro quo weapons for Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden was worthy of conviction at the end of impeachment.
Lastly, there's nothing in Putin's tragic miscalculation of his military's competence, and underestimation of Ukrainian resistance, that suggests he would be deterred by the timing of military assistance to Ukraine.
Do you think Trump would have been more generous, more timely, considering his palsy relationship with his genius buddy?
Continued tensions between Ukraine and Russia have led to the U.S. providing 90 tons of military aid that arrived in Ukraine, as roughly 100,000 Russian troops remain stationed along the border.
The shipment is part of the additional $200 million of "lethal aid" approved by President Biden in late December and includes ammunition for Ukraine's front-line defenders, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv tweeted. Overall, the U.S. has provided $650 million in defense equipment and services to Ukraine in the past year — the most it has ever given that country, according to the State Department.
conix, You've made some very arguable assertions there. To deal with one, your "But it was Trump who took out the Russian mercenaries in Syria. "
Fact-checking Donald Trump’s claims about Syria and US troop withdrawal
National
President Donald Trump, joined by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, speaks during a briefing with senior military leaders at the White House on Oct. 7, 2019. (AP/Kaster)
President Donald Trump shocked lawmakers from both parties recently when he announced the United States would be withdrawing troops from the Syrian border with Turkey.
Political leaders and military officials said the U.S. troop presence in northeast Syria helps keep Islamic State terrorists in check and prevents Iranian and Russian aggression. And they worried about the Turkish military retaliating against Kurdish U.S. allies in the region.
Facing a bipartisan backlash, Trump defended his thinking on Twitter and at an Oct. 7 press conference. He made a number of claims that needed a fact-check.
The Trump campaign referred our inquiries to the White House and Defense Department, neither of which responded to our questions by deadline.
"The United States was supposed to be in Syria for 30 days, that was many years ago. We stayed and got deeper and deeper into battle with no aim in sight."
Trump’s claim about an early timeline is wrong.
Multiple experts told us that they had never heard of a specific timeline for the U.S. involvement in Syria, which started in late 2015 under former President Barack Obama. And Brett McGurk, Trump’s former special envoy to the anti-ISIS coalition, responded to Trump on Twitter, saying "none of this is true."
"I’m not aware of a commitment to only have U.S. troops in Syria for 30 days that was made ‘many years ago,’" said Will Todman, associate fellow in the Middle East program and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Trump could have been referring back to when he first ordered the removal of U.S. troops from Syria in December 2018. He gave the Defense Department a 30-day timeline for withdrawal. Trump backtracked shortly after, saying the military could take a few months to get out of Syria.
"When I arrived in Washington, ISIS was running rampant in the area. We quickly defeated 100% of the ISIS Caliphate."
This claim is misleading. While ISIS’s land holdings have been depleted, the group still poses a legitimate threat.
According to data we have analyzed, ISIS controlled about 89% less territory at the start of 2018 as compared with the beginning of Trump’s presidency. This map from the Congressional Research Service shows the extent of lost ISIS territory through August 2018.
But it’s a far cry to say ISIS has been defeated — even if its physical land holdings have been largely dismantled. Experts told us ISIS is still capable of carrying out attacks across the globe. The New York Times reported that as many as 18,000 fighters remain in Iraq and Syria.
"....including capturing thousands of ISIS fighters, mostly from Europe."
Trump is wrong to claim that the majority of ISIS fighters captured in Syria came from Europe.
About 8,000 of the roughly 10,000 ISIS fighters behind bars in northeast Syria are Iraqi or Syrian nationals, according to a report from the inspectors general of the Defense Department, State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.
A minority of those fighters — about 2,000 — are from other countries, including 800 who are believed to be from European nations.
"But Europe did not want them back, they said you keep them USA! I said ‘NO, we did you a great favor and now you want us to hold them in U.S. prisons at tremendous cost. They are yours for trials.’"
It’s true that European nations have rejected ISIS prisoners. Contrary to what Trump said, however, that has not increased the burden faced by the United States.
Many European countries have refused to take back ISIS fighters who were captured in Syria after leaving their countries, experts told PolitiFact. And the United Kingdom, Todman said, has stripped some ISIS fighters of their citizenship.
"European countries have been very reluctant to repatriate their foreign fighters given the lack of evidence and attendant difficulties in prosecuting on criminal charges," said Bruce Hoffman, senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The countries, Hoffman added, have "no idea how to reintegrate them back into western societies in a way that ensures (they) will not pose a threat."
That said, Europe’s resistance has not meant that much more work for the United States. "Europe has been reluctant to take them back, but has not foisted them on the U.S.," said John Mueller, professor of political science at the Ohio State University.
"When I took over, our Military was totally depleted. Now it is stronger than ever before."
This claim is heavy on hyperbole and short on truth. The military wasn’t depleted when Trump took office, and his efforts to grow the military have been within historic norms.
After taking office, Trump’s White House website said that "our Navy has shrunk from more than 500 ships in 1991 to 275 in 2016." The numbers checked out, but experts said the reason is that ships today are more expensive and powerful than in the past. As a matter of policy, the Navy has chosen to put more technology and money into a smaller number of bigger ships. The Navy remained powerful compared with other countries, experts said.
As of Oct. 8, the Navy has 290 deployable battle force ships.
Trump’s promise to build a Navy of 350 surface ships and submarines is In the Works.
"When I took over our military, we didn't have ammunition. I was told by a top general — maybe the top of them all — ‘Sir, I'm sorry. Sir, we don't have ammunition.’"
This exchange is unconfirmed. Trump made a similar claim in September, identifying former Defense Secretary James Mattis as the source of the ammunition comment.
According to Trump, Mattis told him early in Trump’s administration the military was "very low on ammunition" when they were at a position "with a certain country" and "may have had a conflict."
"And he said to me, ‘Sir, if you could, delay it, because we’re very low on ammunition’," Trump said in September.
We did not find public confirmation from Mattis that such a conversation took place. Trump could be talking about the Defense Department’s shortage and redistribution of weapons around the time he became president.
"The president appears to be exaggerating ordnance shortfalls for ISIS operations around the time he took office," tweeted Paul D. Shinkman, a national security correspondent who wrote a related February 2017 U.S. News & World Report article.
"Shortages of bombs and other munitions" forced the military to get weapons from its headquarters in other parts of the world in order to carry out its air campaign against the Islamic State, said U.S. News & World Report’s article.
In February 2016, then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter raised concern about the weapons shortages and asked Congress for $2 billion more to increase bomb production. By March, the article said, manufacturers began to significantly increase their output.
U.S. News & World Report quoted a spokesman for the Joint Staff, Air Force Col. Randall Ackerman, as saying that a shortage problem persisted in early 2017 and that they were determining if existing munitions within one combatant command could be redistributed to replenish shortfalls in munitions in another.
The story reported that officials for the campaign against ISIS said that the U.S.-led coalition had enough weapons to carry out its mission. It quoted an unnamed spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve as saying that their fight was "not affected because of a lack of munitions."
"The two most unhappy countries at this move are Russia & China."
Russia stands to benefit from the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, while China might be disadvantaged by instability in the region.
The United States and Russia are on opposite sides of the complex Syrian civil war, with Russia backing the Syrian government and the United States supporting opposition groups. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said American troops shouldn’t be in Syria, arguing that their presence is illegitimate because it was not approved by a United Nations Security Council resolution and because the Syrian government did not invite the United States into its country.
"Russia and the Syrian regime will both benefit," Todman wrote in a blog post .. https://www.csis.org/analysis/implications-turkish-intervention-northeastern-syria .. about Trump’s most recent announcement. "Russia will further enhance its ability to determine Syria’s future because the United States is giving up a key aspect of its leverage in Syria without gaining any concessions from the Syrian regime in return."
Broadly speaking, Todman told PolitiFact, China benefits from stability in the Middle East, which allows it to pursue its economic interests.
"However, China has not contributed seriously to security operations in the region — it relies on the United States and others to do that," Todman said. "Therefore, China opposes the potential withdrawal of U.S. forces from eastern Syria because it fears prolonged instability that could ensue in the resource-rich area, which could harm its economic interests."
When Trump in December 2018 announced U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Syria, he also claimed that "Russia, Iran, Syria & many others" were "not happy." We rated that False.
"The UK was very thrilled at this decision."
We’ve seen no public comments of excitement from Boris Johnson, the United Kingdom’s prime minister. (We checked his official social media accounts, latest statements, and media reports.)
Johnson’s spokesman on Oct. 8 said Britain was deeply concerned that Turkey planned to launch a military campaign in northern Syria, and that U.S. troops movements are a matter for the United States, Reuters reported.
Andrew Murrison, a junior Foreign Office minister said he had "no idea" where Trump’s remark came from, the Guardian reported Oct. 8. "It certainly isn’t based upon the conversation that my right honourable friend (Foreign secretary Dominic Raab) had with Secretary of State Pompeo last night," Murrison said.
"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)"
Trump’s claim that he has destroyed Turkey’s economy before is a reference to his pressure on Turkey for the 2018 release of Andrew Brunson .. https://www.uscirf.gov/pastor-andrew-brunson , an American citizen and pastor who lived in Turkey for more than 20 years. Turkey detained Brunson in October 2016 on charges of supporting a terrorist organization and political or military espionage. Brunson denied the charges.
The Trump administration called for Turkey’s release of Brunson, it doubled tariffs on steel and aluminum from Turkey, and in August 2018 placed economic sanctions on Turkish officials.
Brunson was convicted on Oct. 12, 2018, on charge of aiding terrorism but was released the same day and subsequently returned to the United States. A judge determined that Brunson’s two-year detainment and good conduct counted toward his sentence.
Over the weekend, former President Donald Trump criticized the Obama-Biden aid efforts to Ukraine by saying, "They sent blankets. I sent Javelins."
Facts First:Trump's complicated history with aid to Ukraine aside, it's a misleading oversimplification for him to suggest his predecessor did not provide any military aid to Ukraine. While the Trump administration was the first willing to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine, the Obama administration did provide defense and military equipment. By March 2015, the US had pledged $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, medical supplies and 230 armored Humvee vehicles, according to the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency .. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html .
As Biden contemplates what additional assistance to provide Ukraine in its latest fight with Russia, here's a look at the aid the US has previously provided Ukraine.
Since Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, the US has committed more than $3 billion in security assistance to Ukraine. These aid packages have included military equipment to "enhance Ukraine's defensive capabilities," according to a March 14 report from the Congressional Research Service.
Through the Presidential Drawdown Authority and the Department of Defense's Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, the US has provided sniper rifles, grenade launchers, Javelins and small arms in addition to essential nonlethal equipment. The Biden administration in particular sent Stinger anti-aircraft weapons as part of the first PDA package of 2022 and has committed to redirect Mi-17 helicopters originally intended for Afghanistan through the Excess Defense Articles program.
Over the past year, the US has given more than $1 billion in total security assistance to Ukraine, according to a February 26 statement from Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
In 2021, Blinken authorized $260 million in military assistance to Ukraine and after the invasion began, he authorized an additional aid package of $350 million for "immediate support" for Ukraine.
Biden administration officials have said they are continuing to send security assistance to Ukraine, even as the Russian invasion continues. Just last week, Congress approved a $13.6 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine and lawmakers have indicated bipartisan support for more aid.
On Wednesday, Biden announced $800 million in new security assistance to Ukraine, which comes from the emergency aid Congress approved last week. According to the White House, the $800 million will provide Ukraine with 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems, 100 drones, "over 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition and grenade launcher and mortar rounds," 25,000 sets of body armor, 25,000 helmets, 100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns and 400 shotguns, in addition to "2,000 Javelin, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, and 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems."
To a 3rd badly misleading, unsupported assertion of yours there, "Lobbied Europe to NOT approve the Nordstream pipeline to avoid giving Putin (his supposed buddy according to the Left) leverage of the EU."
That is a particularly bad one from you, since i just recently gave you
Kayleigh McEnany
stated on February 8, 2022 in a Facebook post:
“President Trump sanctioned Russia. President Biden gave them a pipeline.”
[...]
If Your Time is short
• McEnany sets up a dubious dichotomy between what Trump and Biden have done to oppose the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline. In reality, both presidents maneuvered with difficulty to oppose a project in which they had no official role and could only use indirect leverage.
• Trump did sanction Russia, although his friendliness to Putin sent contrary signals. Biden, for his part, continued and extended Trump’s sanctions, but he has also sought flexibility as part of diplomatic negotiations.
• It’s wrong to say that Biden “gave them a pipeline.” Only a tiny percentage of the pipeline remained to be finished by the time Biden took office; most of it was built on Trump’s watch.
[...]
Our ruling
McEnany said, "President Trump sanctioned Russia. President Biden gave them a pipeline."
This sets up a dubious dichotomy between what Trump and Biden have done to oppose the pipeline. Both presidents maneuvered with difficulty to oppose a project in which they had no official role and could only use indirect leverage.
Trump did sanction Russia, although his friendliness to Putin sent contrary signals. Biden continued and extended sanctions, but he has also sought flexibility with sanctions as part of diplomatic negotiations.
Only a tiny percentage of the pipeline remained to be finished by the time Biden took office; most of it was built on Trump’s watch.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
