Reporting from Philadelphia
Evelyn Farkas*: If I lived in Poland, I’d be concerned, since he’s publicly stated he would "let Russia do whatever it wants". I’d be worried about whether he’d stand up to Vladimir Putin or maintain the U.S. commitment to NATO.
I know from friends who worked in his first administration that he was close to pulling America out of the Alliance. Fortunately, his advisors understood the implications and persuaded him to abandon the plan.
I hope we won’t reach a point where "whispering" is needed, but if it comes to that, those of us who understand why we need the Alliance will also try to sway Trump.
Perhaps, but so far Trump has been unpredictable mainly for America’s allies and China, not for Putin. Let’s not forget that if reelected, Trump will be nearing 80. We don’t know how that might affect his decision-making.
Oh, J.D. Vance is certainly not unpredictable. He simply wants to end American support for Ukraine.
Of course. It’s exactly what he wants. All his recent political and diplomatic moves indicate he’s waiting for Trump’s return to the White House. This isn’t just another election. We haven’t seen this level of isolationism, populism, and protectionism in the U.S. in decades – probably not since the interwar period. It’s really reminiscent of the 1930s.
Trump says he’d end the war in Ukraine in a day. Clearly unrealistic, unless the U.S. fully commits to one side or the other. I fear that, in practice, he’d give Putin a free hand.
To be blunt, I think Trump is corrupt. If it were up to me, I’d try to exploit that by offering something he’d perceive as beneficial to himself or his family. I know that sounds terrible.
Just to be clear, I wouldn’t want that. For years, we’ve worked to reduce corruption in Ukraine.
I stand by that.
Honestly, I don’t know. Maybe there are valid concerns about escalation, something our intelligence services picked up. There are also arguments about the limited supply of long-range missiles and the need to use them strategically. But I don’t find that convincing because there are targets in Russia that could be hit once to achieve a strategic outcome.
But the most likely reason seems to be that Biden’s team doesn’t want to do anything that might hurt Kamala Harris’s chances in the election. If Russia reacted unpredictably, people might look more critically at Biden’s foreign policy, including in Ukraine.
That’s my sense. Though, as I said, it could also be held back by a specific danger or threat from Russia.
Or something picked up by our intelligence.
In general, I think Putin’s nuclear threats are given too much weight. But there are concerns about potential sabotage of nuclear plants in Ukraine, for example. Or it could be something else entirely – we don’t know.
Hmm, interesting question. I would expect that if Kamala Harris wins, Biden will act only in coordination with her team, to make things easier for her. If both teams agree it would benefit the U.S., he might authorize strikes on targets deep within Russia using Western weapons.
However, if Trump wins, I think Biden will definitely look for ways to solidify his foreign policy legacy – perhaps by deploying long-range missiles or providing some form of game-changing aid, or even moving forward with steps to bring Ukraine into NATO.
I would have invited Poland to ensure it wasn’t just a Western European perspective being represented. Poland’s significance has grown, but there’s still work to be done. It’s hard to say what specifically led to the decision in this case.
I think Kamala Harris would re-evaluate the policy and consider ways to support Ukraine more effectively. I just don’t know how willing she would be to take risks. I’m very curious about that.
Domestically, she was a tough prosecutor. She says she understands the mindset of foreign "thugs" she’ll face, which, in many ways, mirrors the organized crime bosses she used to go after. So she might even be tougher than Biden. She’ll want to end the conflict and may consider options previously ruled out.
If that’s an exact quote, it oversimplifies things. Yes, Obama and many in his administration underestimated how dangerous Putin could be, even after the war began in 2014. They didn’t fully grasp the need to deter him. I agree we didn’t do enough – and still aren’t doing enough.
When I worked in the Pentagon, those of us focused on Russia understood the importance of prioritizing it as the greatest national security challenge, beyond the Middle East or China. Unfortunately, that mindset was lacking in broader government circles. I must say, however, that then-Vice President Biden understood it well.
*Evelyn Farkas – national security and international policy analyst, current executive director of the McCain Institute, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia (2012-15, under the Obama administration), and frequent commentator in U.S. media.
Translation: Patrycja Eiduka