Posted on 01/15/2025 11:12:53 AM PST by marcusmaximus
The nominee argued that if Ukraine is not in a strong position to negotiate it will be imposed "neutrality" only for Russia to rearm and attack the country again.
Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio highlighted the need to support Ukraine in its war with Russia in order for Kyiv to be in the best position possible to negotiate a ceasefire. Otherwise, he said, Russian President Vladimir Putin will seek to impose "neutrality" on the country to buy time and attempt another large-scale invasion.
Rubio made the assessment while claiming the war needs to end and criticizing the Biden administration for "not delineating an end goal." The "however much for however long" approach is not "realistic," Rubio said during his confirmation hearing.
In that context, he said the "war of attrition" is taking a heavy toll on both countries, but it is unlikely any will achieve total victory.
-snip-
Consequently, he said the key will be to avoid an outcome where Putin has "maximum leverage so he can impose neutrality on Ukraine, rearm and do this again in four, five years." "It is important for Ukrainians to have leverage but they will have to make concessions too," Rubio said, echoing President-elect Donald Trump's call for an end to the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at latintimes.com ...
Sending Carriers to Black Sea would only end it their destruction. Too many points they can be attacked. The supply lines for a large US force would be hard to set up—and can US forces take the WW I style shelling. Is our military men up to facing Russian Veteran Troops? North Koreans? No, this is not the answer. Besides, we would have to defend not just Ukraine but all of NATO. Think Russia wouldn’t move on Estonia? Poland? Kosovo? We are talking WW III and a horror show beyond all understanding. We wouldn’t be fighting Russia alone and many of NATO would not fight. Trump would not waste American lives for Kiev—or Mr. Zelensky.
Ah. I actually wasn’t focused on Ukraine with that, though it’s possible as a factor.
Rubio was never spoken of as a nominee. It came out of nowhere. I think he’s being neutered for 2028 more than anything about specific foreign policies.
He very clearly made his objections known; some of them were even very well founded. But if you’re arguing that these objections amounted to a warning that he would invade Ukraine, you’re simply fantastically wrong. And if you’re arguing that his objections somehow justified his war, you’re insane.
Yes, the Orange Revolution was a sham, and yes, Poroshenko’s actions were unjustifiable, but all this ignores that Ukraine had ousted Poroshenko, a wartime feat which itself testifies to a functioning democracy.
He very clearly made his objections known; some of them were even very well founded. But if you’re arguing that these objections amounted to a warning that he would invade Ukraine, you’re simply fantastically wrong. And if you’re arguing that his objections somehow justified his war, you’re insane.
Yes, the Orange Revolution was a sham, and yes, Poroshenko’s actions were unjustifiable, but all this ignores that Ukraine had ousted Poroshenko, a wartime feat which itself testifies to a functioning democracy.
I agree Senator Rubio is a backstabbing snake.
I hope you are right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.