Should an American leader visit Ukraine?

[Stinky The Clown]

Thoughts?

I would love to think Biden would go. Were he to do so, It would be a huge worry for his safety. While I would love for him to go, I really think it would be unwise. But if he did, it be one more way to give the finger to Putin.

Could VP Harris go?

Blinken?

Nancy Pelosi?

If it isn't Biden, is there really any particular reason from someone else to go? Would they seem like the B team? Would sending a Biden proxy in this particular case cast him as weak?

[Funtatlaguy]

1. Yes. I would like to see Mitch McConnell travel to Mariupol

and slowly turtle 🐢 walk through the streets waving a Ukrainian flag.

[2naSalit]

8. +1

[Brainfodder]

19. We love you that much Mitch! MITCH FOR UKRAINE!! MITCH FOR UKRAINE!!

..and don't return!

[Calista241]

34. So i know this is in jest, but come on.

If McConnell did go to Mariupol, or even Kiev, and was killed, he'd die a hero. And there's no shortage of GOP hard liners waiting to fill his spot. Is McConnell so much worse than them? Are they a better option for us or the country? He won't be replaced with a Dem, I think that's clear to even casual observers.

The dude is going to drop dead of old age any day now. Why give him a better send off than he deserves?

[haele]

2. Blinken is most appropriate if one needs a high level US gov. Type.

BoJo needed to rehabilitate his reputation, and going to Ukraine was a good way to do so. What he did could have been done by any diplomat or high level department type.
Visiting Ukraine at this point is either an optics stunt or a political evaluation trip.

The presidents of countries near Ukraine actually have a vested interest in seeing first hand what is going on, as they need to make their policy based on what might happen to them if Ukraine falls and "they're next", as it were. Especially those who spent decades under Soviet rule.
Countries that are further away from the front don't have an urgency to show their citizens that they are weighing risks and strategizing based on what is happening on the ground.

Haele

[2naSalit]

9. +1

[mopinko]

3. i dont think they need the disruption.

if someone does go, they best arrive w a huey full of rockets.

[Takket]

4. they need our weapons, not our photo ops.

[Boomerproud]

11. Correct.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. No. Did FDR meet Stalin in Berlin or Rome while rhe war was still on?

[thucythucy]

14. Truman met with Stalin and Churchill

at Potsdam--suburb of Berlin--while we were still at war with Japan.

And Churchill flew to Moscow in 1942.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. That's true, but the war in Europe was over. And by 1942, the...

Soviets were no longer allied with Germany.

[thucythucy]

31. I'm not sure I understand the analogy

Last edited Mon Apr 11, 2022, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

you're trying to make with the question about FDR going to Berlin.

The question is whether President Biden should go to Kiev. FDR going to Berlin during the war would be more analogous to Zalensky going to Moscow.

A better analogy would be that of Churchill going to beleaguered Moscow. The trip was fraught with danger. Churchill's plane had to make a huge detour to keep from flying over German occupied territory. Or perhaps FDR going to London during the Blitz. In either case it's the head of state visiting an ally, not an enemy.

I personally would worry about President Biden going to Moscow. Given Putin's predilection for poisoning his opponents, I think Biden would be in far more danger in Moscow than in Kiev.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. I was simply saying that the President avoids actual war zones....

Other unsafe places, like present day Moscow, are also avoided.

[thucythucy]

38. I understand now.

Though it rather depends. Casablanca was still enough of a war zone during the summit there to be ringed by anti-aircraft batteries and protected by an armored division under Patton.

Teheran, site of the first "Big Three" conference, was pretty much an occupied city (and in fact a plot to assassinate one or all of the leaders was supposedly uncovered, causing a shift in plans).

Eisenhower visited Korea after he was elected president--in fact it was one of his campaign promises.

Going back even further Abraham Lincoln went to Fort Stevens, north of DC, during the attack there in the summer of 1864. There's a famous story in which Lincoln was standing at the parapet to get a better view. A union officer, seeing this tall civilian exposing himself to enemy fire, yelled "Get down, you damned fool!" then realized he'd just called the president of the United States a damned fool. Lincoln took it in stride--chuckled and spent the rest of his time there under cover.

[tirebiter]

25. They met in Yalta, Ukraine

[TreasonousBastard]

26. And don't forget Iran. Big 3 met in Teheran in 1943.

[tirebiter]

29. Seems like Ukraine would be more possible

And significant, as well, given the more recent occurrence.

[qazplm135]

6. Biden should go

it would show him as fearless, a leader, going into a dangerous area we all know Trump would never go.

If Boris can go, Biden can go.

I think his polling would go up five points easy.

[2naSalit]

10. Not really quite that simple.

A serious forward operation is required before POTUS goes anywhere. Ukraine is a war zone not under US control, Biden is unlikely to go there.

Bojo needed a photo op so he went and got one. He has more reason to be there as others have mentioned on this thread as proximity matters.

It's isn't reasonable to expect Biden to go there.

[PJMcK]

13. Agreed

President Biden won't go. The logistics would be nearly impossible to orchestrate in a war zone. It could also seem like grandstanding for a photo-op.

[2naSalit]

18. Yeah, that too.

President Biden is handling this in the best way possible, IMO. He doesn't have any need for grand standing or photo ops, he knows how to find a way through the hard shit and I'll trust him to keep on keepin on.

[qazplm135]

28. Didn't Presidents

Go into Baghdad and Kabul?

Were they impossible? More risk there than in Kyiv right now.

[qazplm135]

27. British prime minister

Has every bit the same security concerns.

Biden's polling would seem to suggest he needs a photo of as much as anyone does.

We've had multiple Presidents fly into Baghdad and Kabul during active conflicts not sure why Kyiv which isn't currently experiencing anything like those cities were is less safe.

[2naSalit]

30. Please note...

Ukraine is a war zone not under US control, Biden is unlikely to go there.

A visit solely for a photo op is unwise beyond unwise. Seriously, think about the logistics and all that goes into the POTUS going anywhere outside the WH.

Makes no sense for him to go there.

[qazplm135]

32. Kyiv

Is safer now than Baghdad or Kabul were.

No insurgents, no active troops and Russia isn't attacking a US President.

Again if the prime minister of the UK can go so can the US President.

We aren't talking about two weeks ago when Russian troops were miles away.

This is the kind of thing that would break the perceptions of Biden among non Democrats and even some Democrats. Being overly cautious is the incorrect approach here.

[2naSalit]

33. It would...

Diminish the perception of the severity of the situation, it's why I think it was not a good idea for bojo to go there.

A war zone is a war zone. If missiles can reach Lviv, they can reach Kyiv. This isn't a teevee show. There is more than frivolous intent to any appearance. Armchair politics aren't helpful right now.

Your rationale is simplistic and leaves too many important factors out of the equation, I don't have any desire to try and educate you at this point.

Have a nice day.

[qazplm135]

37. Oh please

Keep the condescending nonsense to yourself if you can't debate an issue otherwise.

Johnson going didn't diminish the seriousness of the situation, what are you even talking about?

The Russians aren't sending a missile to blow up the US President. There's nothing frivolous about doing what over half a dozen prime ministers have done already.

[qazplm135]

39. so guess who just said

he's willing to go to Ukraine if they decide to send someone...rhymes with Biden.

[2naSalit]

40. I saw that.

I don't think it's wise for him to go. I suspect he won't and will have Blinken or Harris go.

I have been wrong before, probably will again at some point, I'm not competing with anyone over this. My opinion is that it isn't wise and I think it would be unsafe. I'm sure others will disagree.

[qazplm135]

41. my issue wasn't

with the disagreement, it was with the mocking derision.

[2naSalit]

43. Really?

Noted.

[qazplm135]

44. lol

well at least you aren't trying to "educate" my "simplistic" idea that's, ya know, currently being seriously considered in the White House.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. I think the joy with which Boris Johnson embraced Ukraine and Zelensky

recognizes Britain's proximity and long term unease with USSR and now Russia. I think we'd best stay out of it and support and allow NATO to do the heavy lifting for the time being.

[Tomconroy]

12. Yes. And bring a fleet of bombers with him.

[keithbvadu2]

15. Send Tucker and the Qanon's President Trump.

Send Tucker and the Qanon's President Trump.

Of course they would have to go in by way of Moscow.

[Xolodno]

16. I didn't like it when Bush did it...

...for a photo op.

[RainCaster]

17. I'm thinking differently

I think Moscow Mitch should go and experience war for at least a month. Ideally, he will take the conservative wing of SCOTUS with him. It would be a great experience for them to feel high velocity rounds as they tear through your body. They might rethink how they feel about the NRA.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Not Biden, but maybe Harris or Blinken.

[TheRealNorth]

21. I don't trust that there wouldn't be someone on the inside ...

like in the Secret Service that wouldn't leak that information to someone who would deliver it to the Russians.

You can bet that Bannon has spies on the inside.

[Jack the Greater]

23. Bannon has spies on the inside?

On the inside of what?

[Raine]

24. I would chose Blinken but sending weapons and planes

would be better.

[Emile]

35. Send Ted Cruz!

[Mr.Bill]

42. He prefers the weather in Cancun. n/t