Razumkov Centre’s Post

Many in the EU think like Poles, and certainly with good reasons. If Mr. Trump is elected, Art 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty will most probably be weakened and emptied of part of its substance. The Treaty itself will not be left or amended but its implementation could be questionned. #nato #europe #eu #us

Great article highlighting the major challenges #Europe could face if #Trump is re-elected via POLITICO: deterrence & security, economy, unity & cohesion. #NATO #USA https://lnkd.in/d-fYDGBZ

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump focused on ending U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war. He has repeatedly said that the war is a European affair and that the responsibility for defending Ukraine is thus a European one, not an American one. He has, however, left open the possibility of extending U.S. support if it’s in the U.S. interest. The conventional wisdom is that Ukraine is of vital interest to the United States. Trump doesn’t agree with this. Ukraine is of moderate interest but does not affect the future of the United States. For the Europeans, the appearance of Russia in Ukraine is a vital issue since Ukraine is in Europe. The conventional wisdom is not altogether false but does not weigh the necessities effectively. But Trump considers Ukraine a European war because a Russian victory directly threatens Europe, not the U.S. heartland. Europe has a gross domestic product of over $27 trillion, while the U.S. GDP is just slightly higher at $29 trillion, so why can’t Europe pay for the conflict itself? Read my full analysis at Geopolitical Futures and share with your network:

The question of Europe taking primary responsibility for regional security has been on the table since the collapse of the Soviet Union, yet remains unanswered. Trump’s stance on the Ukraine conflict emphasizes this dilemma for Europe: should it be the main force addressing the crisis? Given its geographic proximity and economic power, Europe has substantial interests in Ukraine’s stability. The geopolitical risks are clear, especially given Europe’s reliance on Russian energy. Increasing Europe’s role could reduce the U.S. burden while fostering a more self-sufficient European defense posture that is less reliant on American intervention. Ultimately, a political solution is needed to end the conflict and build a re-envisioned, pan-European security framework.

Accurate but falls short of a public declaration recognizing the fact that the CCP, the whole of their government and their PLA is and has been actively engaged in unrestricted warfare just short of kinetic war vs the U.S. and our allies for many, many years. Implementation of a strong, resolute strategy of deterrence, deterrence via unwavering denial in order to maintain peace through credible strength, still requires our continued, untiring development and fielding of focused, credible strength for credible denial and deterrence. But in order to re-focus our nations' attention back on our pacing, existential threat, do we and our allies first need to make a joint official and unambiguous declaration of our recognition of the PRC's clear state of undeclared, unrestricted war which is now bubbling into clear public view in the gray zone--before they're further emboldened to take it to the next tragic level? https://lnkd.in/gHjTWXcj

This is interesting: Vote and Majority Required Article 27 of the UN Charter states that: Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. The Right to Veto The creators of the United Nations Charter conceived that five countries — China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) [which was succeeded in 1990 by the Russian Federation], the United Kingdom and the United States —, because of their key roles in the establishment of the United Nations, would continue to play important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security. They were granted the special status of Permanent Member States at the Security Council, along with a special voting power known as the "right to veto". It was agreed by the drafters that if any one of the five permanent members cast a negative vote in the 15-member Security Council, the resolution or decision would not be approved. All five permanent members have exercised the right of veto at one time or another. If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favourable votes. Link: https://lnkd.in/gbJyFyWr

“For #Harris, calling for the end to the wars in #Gaza and #Ukraine wouldn’t be just smart policy — it would be smart politics,” argues IGA Senior Fellow Mark Hannah in an opinion piece for MSNBC. Trump casts himself as a 🕊️ peacemaker which, according to IGA polling, is the thing Swing State Americans are looking for. Some key insights: 🇮🇱 A plurality of swing state independents think US aid to #Israel should be conditioned on first reaching a ceasefire. 🇺🇦 Two-thirds of Americans want the US to push for a negotiated settlement to end Ukraine’s war. In six swing states, independent voters are the most inclined to think so 📈 Across the United States, Americans think US support for Ukraine should prioritize avoiding escalation than goals like the pursuit of total victory or deterrence. Read Mark’s article: https://lnkd.in/eRZN6WCB Read the Report: https://lnkd.in/ecDa2U8n

The thing that the US State Department is missing is that Biden's national security strategy does not have uniform support in the US public and so it is built on a house of cards. During the Cold War, both parties were pretty much committed to a containment policy against the Soviet Union and world Communism, and so it was kind of a minor issue who won the election, since each election in the Cold War, the Republicans and Democrats would follow more or less the same policies. This is absolutely *NOT* true in the current political situation. Trump is pro-Putin and not only is he pro-Putin, he is pretty *loudly* pro-Russia. If Trump gets elected or if they do well in Congress, he is going to cut off Ukraine, and a lot of the discussions between the EU and China are discussions about what happens if the US gets tired and goes home. I am also pretty sure that China and Japan are having similar discussions.

Exploring the implications of Trump's victory as European leaders gather in Hungary to address new challenges. Dive into the details here: https://lnkd.in/eCimHQAT

Does the administration’s decision to withhold support from Israel needed to fight the war against Hamas in Gaza reflect a heightened sensitivity to civilian casualties and the belief that Israeli war fighting tactics run counter to USA moral principles on fighting wars? Or does it reflect policy uncertainty sbout supporting our allies in war—the same withdrawal of support seems to be happening in Ukraine? Or possibly a political caving to the Democratic parties far left to shore up the president’s base for the upcoming election?