By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Former President Biden criticized Donald Trump’s proposed concessions to Russia in Ukraine as “modern-day appeasement,” fearing it would embolden Russia and other European nations. Biden contrasted this with his own administration’s approach, which he argued provided Ukraine with the necessary support to resist invasion while carefully avoiding a broader conflict, including the risk of nuclear escalation. He maintained that Putin views Ukraine as historically Russian territory and that concessions would only encourage further aggression. Biden asserted his administration successfully prevented World War III through calculated responses to Putin’s threats.
Read the original article here
Biden’s assertion that anyone believing Putin will halt his aggression after Ukraine is foolish rings true when considering Trump’s past approach to Russia. The long-standing reliance of Europe on Russian gas, a situation tragically slow to rectify, has effectively funded Putin’s ambitions. A swift end to this dependence is crucial; continuing to funnel money into Putin’s coffers prolongs the conflict and emboldens him.
Trump’s potential response to any Russian gains in Ukraine is particularly worrying. Such success could be misinterpreted as a win, fueling further aggression instead of prompting a retreat. The nature of conflict dictates that momentum, even near the finish line, can drive escalated action rather than deceleration. Trump’s actions, rather than decisively opposing Russian aggression, have arguably enabled Putin’s campaign by providing insufficient support to Ukraine.
The idea of appeasement clearly hasn’t worked in the context of Russia’s actions. History, including the disastrous policies of appeasement in the 1930s, warns against this approach. It becomes even more problematic given Putin’s track record of ambition and disregard for international norms.
Trump’s inconsistent behaviour adds further complexity. He might publicly advocate for a halt to Russian aggression, catering to his base’s desires. However, his actions might indicate a contrasting reality – actively aiding Russia, even if publicly he denies this. Such actions are possibly motivated by self-preservation; openly supporting Russia would be politically devastating.
This inconsistency makes it difficult to gauge Trump’s true intentions. His words and deeds diverge significantly, highlighting a lack of integrity. His supporters’ acceptance of this discrepancy demonstrates a troubling tolerance for double-dealing.
The failure to decisively counter Putin earlier presents a critical point of contention. There were instances where proactive steps could have limited the conflict’s extent, particularly by providing Ukraine with necessary support sooner. The current situation reflects a failure of decisive action, leading to prolonged suffering and increased instability.
The prolonged nature of the conflict exposes the shortcomings of both European and American leadership. Europe’s excessive dependence on Russian energy is a major factor contributing to the conflict’s continuation. The slow pace of diversification demonstrates a lack of foresight and strategic planning.
America’s response has also been criticized for being too cautious, overly concerned with potential consequences of strong action, rather than focusing on assertive steps necessary to deter aggression. This reactive approach has allowed the conflict to escalate to its current devastating level.
The potential for further escalation, with the involvement of additional nations, represents a grave threat to global stability. The unpredictable nature of the conflict’s trajectory underscores the urgency of finding a solution. The current situation highlights the necessity for concerted international action, to prevent a broader conflict.
A hypothetical scenario where Putin stops after Ukraine doesn’t negate Biden’s assessment of Putin’s long-term ambitions. Putin’s goals might have extended beyond Ukraine. If this were to happen, it wouldn’t invalidate the concerns regarding future actions of a potentially emboldened Russia. It simply means that a strategic pause, not an end to aggression, has occurred.
The notion that Putin will stop simply isn’t realistic. He possesses expansive ambitions for reconstituting the Russian sphere of influence. Ignoring this reality is perilous. Proceeding with caution, but with decisiveness, remains the optimal approach to manage the current crisis.