US-Ukraine policy under Trump would be similar to Biden's | Stephen Walt | GZERO World

There’s not as much daylight between Biden and Trump as people might think when it comes to US policy towards Ukraine, says Harvard Kennedy School’s Stephen Walt while discussing whether America's foreign policy on Kyiv and NATO would change depending on who emerges president come November.
Subscribe to GZERO on KZbin and turn on notifications (🔔): / @gzeromedia
Sign up for GZERO Daily (free newsletter on global politics): rebrand.ly/gzeronewsletter
Harvard Kennedy School’s Stephen Walt suggests that there’s not as much daylight between Biden and Trump as people might think when it comes to US policy towards Ukraine.
As with Trump, Walt argues, “Biden would also be trying to end this war sooner rather than later.” But where Biden would be looking to support Ukraine in securing the best possible deal in a peace arrangement, Trump might abandon Ukraine, forcing them to rely more on European support for security.
"Trump is fundamentally a nationalist and unilateralist” Walt tells Bremmer in a wide-ranging interview, “…whereas Biden is very much a globalist or internationalist."
Watch full episode here: • How the US election wi...
Dig deeper: Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election? • Will foreign policy de...
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on KZbin: • GZERO World with Ian B...
Also available at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television. Check local listings.
Want to know more about global news and why it matters? Follow us on:
Instagram: / gzeromedia
Twitter: / gzeromedia
TikTok: / gzeromedia
Facebook: / gzeromedia
LinkedIn: / gzeromedia
Threads: threads.net/@gzeromedia
Subscribe to our KZbin channel and turn on notifications (🔔): / @gzeromedia
Sign up for GZERO Daily (free newsletter on global politics): rebrand.ly/gzeronewsletter
Subscribe to the GZERO podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
GZERO Media is a multimedia publisher providing news, insights and commentary on the events shaping our world. Our properties include GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, our newsletter GZERO Daily, Puppet Regime, the GZERO World Podcast, In 60 Seconds and GZEROMedia.com
#GZEROWorld #USForeignPolicy #USUkraine

[@ZiggyBoon]

This guy being interviewed is John Mearsheimer-lite.

[@aleaiactaest8354]

Well said.

[@kshen7485]

No matter how, Russia has been pushed to the East. Kissinger’s strategy, together with Russia against China, has failed badly. Brzezinski’s nightmare became true.

[@ranndino]

Some good points but a couple of things are great examples of continuing American hubris that's absolutely infuriating. The Ukrainians aren't performing as well now as 5-6 months ago? Maybe because the absolutely idiotic counteroffensive the US forced them into resulted in a slaughter of a lot of their soldiers and loss of tons of equipment? That was followed by the US stopping to provide military support because of that $60B stuck in Congress so the Ukrainians are down to bare bones in terms of both men and weapons. Second, this guy said the US should have been more forceful in telling the Ukrainians not to attempt the counteroffensive which had zero chance of success. It's the US that forced them into it! The Ukrainians didn't want to do it and delayed it as long as possible, for months. It's all the US talking heads and the media that promoted it as something that was going to push the Russian army off occupied land and be a great success without any regard for reality. It was obvious to anyone who followed the war closely that it was a suicide mission that would put Ukraine into a much weaker position they're in now.

[@kshen7485]

Although USA completely dominated the air during the Korean War, right after WWII the supreme USA army still couldn’t beat the poor Chinese “dictatorship” army. Same did in the Vietnam War.

[@karmadave]

Sorry Ian. This guy is completely full of it. Quick to blame everyone but Putin...Trump would be a disaster for the US and Ukraine.

[@aleaiactaest8354]

Ukraine is already a disaster. US is...shining beacon on a hill?

[@Brian-bw3uu]

Whether Ukraine is able to retake its territory, or is fully conquered by Russia, is entirely dependent on how much military aid they get. So let's give them what they need And dude says Russia is not an existential threat to NATO. Huh. if you're Estonian you might disagree. Or if you truly believed in NATO you might disagree. Or if you listened to Russians, on the daily, explain what they're about you would disagree Why would you bring this guy on and let him run his mouth unopposed?

[@ranndino]

As much as I'd love for it to happen, there's absolutely no way for Ukraine to take back the land they lost and win this war. That's just totally unrealistic. It can happen only with NATO's direct involvement.

[@Brian-bw3uu]

@@ranndino you are profoundly wrong. NATO could open its armories and give Ukraine everything it needed to drive the Russian army away.

[@jmhorange]

If Estonians disagree that Russia is not an existential threat to NATO, then NATO is dead. The whole reason Ukraine wants to join is because they believe it will protect them against Russia. The fear Eastern Europeans and Baltic countries have undermines the whole point of NATO and it risks them making a miscalculation that leads to a war with Russia. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. Russia has never attacked NATO so I have no idea what Estonians are talking about. The war that's in its 3rd year, it's not in a NATO country. The annexation that took place in Europe in 2014, it did not happen in a NATO country. Russia has never attacked a NATO country and we need to keep it that way. One day, Russia's the second most powerful military in Ukraine, next minute people are like, Russia's going to overrun Europe! We need to consider sending Western troops to Ukraine (As if Putin is just going to go, "Well they aren't NATO troops, only Western troops, I guess they got me on a technicality, I guess I can't attack NATO, such is my fate, I will just lose the war.") Europeans need to stop talking about how they will prepare for war with Russia and use all that money they'd spend on that and send it to Ukraine. This war is not about the EU, it's not about the West, it's not a struggle of democracy and autocracy. It's about Ukraine, the Ukrainians that are fighting and dying to defend their country. Somewhere we lost sight of that and made it about us.

[@aleaiactaest8354]

Time for diplomacy? Or should Ukraine get even weaker and then diplomacy?

[@nikchemnyk]

The man is a pig. He will say anything at all, so it seems, to sell the "give Russia what it wants in Ukraine already and get on with your lives" line of thinking.

[@user-sz1ey4qs9e]

It is imperative to acknowledge that the current state of affairs necessitates a thorough examination. Regrettably, it appears that the Ukrainian forces are unable to overcome the Russian occupation due to the insufficient supply of long-range weaponry from the NATO alliance. This shortfall hampers their ability to disrupt the infrastructure within Russia that sustains the ongoing conflict. It is incumbent upon us to recognize that the absence of a formal treaty implies that any resolution achieved will merely result in a reshuffling of forces, paving the way for further aggression. It is paramount that we grant Ukraine the capacity to wage a war, for that is the nature of the situation at hand. Presently, we are limiting their actions to self-defense, which, I contend, is an erroneous approach. Russia, as history has shown, has consistently failed to honor their treaty obligations. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge that the likelihood of a genuine treaty is remote, and instead anticipate a mere rearrangement of forces in preparation for future attacks.

[@richarddean3154]

"Regrettably, it appears that the Ukrainian forces are unable to overcome the Russian occupation due to the insufficient supply of long-range weaponry from the NATO alliance." What you meant to say was that Ukraine DIDN'T MANUFACTURE ITS OWN LONG-RANGE WEAPONRY after the 2014 invasion. Ukraine had nearly a decade to prepare for further Russian incursions or to strengthen their own military to oust Russia from their territory. They did neither.

[@kshen7485]

@@richarddean3154Without sufficient support from China and Soviet Union the advanced USA army couldn’t signed the ceasefire agreement in Korea War, same thing happened when USA lost Vietnam War.

[@richarddean3154]

@@kshen7485The primary difference between American experiences in Korea and Vietnam vs. Ukraine is that the US DEPLOYED to those countries (each of them over 6000 miles away), while Ukraine was INVADED. Ukraine hasn't even mobilized ten percent of its populace and over 600000 military-aged Ukrainians have fled the country, rather than serve. Additionally, the US military was very capable of winning both those wars - politicians lost the wars for the US, not the military. Why didn't Ukraine mobilize in 2014 or begin to manufacture their own military hardware? Apathy? Inability? Immaturity? Incompetent leadership? Every one of those terms fit the situation better than "its the West's fault".

[@kshen7485]

@@richarddean3154 I mean that USA is not really willing to beat Russia’s invasion in Ukraine. USA just uses Ukraine to weaken the EU/Russia and push the investment in EU back to USA.

[@kshen7485]

@@richarddean3154 USA just uses Ukraine to break the increasing tie between EU and Russia. Everything is related to capital. Money, money, money, nothing else.

[@discerningacumen]

Without air dominance it is impossible for Ukraine to win Russia.

[@kshen7485]

Although USA completely dominated the air during the Korean War, right after WWII the supreme USA army still couldn’t beat the poor Chinese “dictatorship” army. Same did in the Vietnam War.

[@ranndino]

Yes, which is why the counteroffensive that the US built up as a future great success was a suicide mission. Either the US generals are completely incompetent or it was on purpose.

[@mrright4014]

Ukraine didn't have air superiority

[@kshen7485]

Although USA completely dominated the air during the Korean War, right after WWII the supreme USA army still couldn’t beat the poor Chinese “dictatorship” army. Same did in the Vietnam War.

[@ranndino]

Forget superiority. Not even close to peer. The US would never attempt a counteroffensive without that but they pushed Ukraine into it which got their soldiers slaughtered. The question is why? Total incompetence and hubris or on purpose?