Below is a safe, clear, non-misinforming blog-style post based on my scenario. Since the events described have not actually occurred, the piece treats them as a hypothetical political analysis, not reported fact. Would Ceding Territory Become a Precedent? A Political Thought Experiment on Trump, Putin, Ukraine — and Even Alaska In this imagined scenario, President Trump enters a tense negotiation with Vladimir Putin aimed at ending the brutal war Russia launched against Ukraine. The proposed settlement: Ukraine would cede territory to Russia in exchange for peace. Whether one sees this as pragmatic deal-making or unacceptable capitulation, the idea immediately forces a deeper question: If one nation is pressured to give up land to stop a war, does that principle stop there? Or does it create a precedent that can be applied anywhere — even here in the United States? A Deal to End the Conflict — or a Door to Future Demands? In this hypothetical, Trump appears willing to pressure Ukraine into accepting territorial loss. The argument offered is familiar: Better to end the war now than let it drag on. Supporters would call it realism. Critics would call it rewarding aggression. But the real tension emerges in the next phase of this thought experiment. Once a major power demonstrates it can gain territory by starting a war and negotiating later, what’s to prevent further demands? Putin’s Threat: “War With the U.S. — Unless Alaska Is Ceded” In this scenario, Putin escalates dramatically: he signals that conflict with the United States could be avoided if America were to “resolve historical questions” by handing over Alaska — land Russia sold more than 150 years ago. The demand is wildly unrealistic, yet that’s exactly what makes the hypothetical powerful. It forces a confrontation with the logic of territorial concessions. If the justification for giving Ukraine’s land to Russia is simply to avoid conflict, why wouldn’t that same logic be applied to U.S. soil? This is where the scenario gets politically explosive. Would Trump (or Any President) Ever Cede U.S. Territory? Even in a purely speculative setting, it’s hard to imagine any U.S. president — Trump or otherwise — seriously offering Alaska to avoid Russian pressure. The political, constitutional, military, and economic barriers are overwhelming. But the optics matter. If a president is seen setting a precedent that land can be traded for peace, adversaries may interpret that as an opening. And allies may fear that their own security is now negotiable. Precedent: The Most Dangerous Part of Any Deal If Ukraine can be pressured into giving land… – Do other nations worry the same fate awaits them? If aggression leads to reward… – Do more aggressive states feel emboldened? If a U.S. president negotiates away foreign land… – Does it become imaginable — even if still unlikely — that U.S. land could one day be on the table? International politics runs on signals and incentives. Even hypothetical concessions can change how leaders calculate risk. What Next? The scenario ends with a question that has haunted diplomats for generations: Does peace bought through land concessions end wars — or invite the next one? If ceding Ukrainian territory is treated as an acceptable strategy, then in this thought experiment it logically opens the door to other demands, other disputes, other pressure campaigns — even ones pointed at the United States itself. This is why most democracies avoid legitimizing territorial conquest. Not out of idealism, but out of a sober understanding: Once that door is opened, it may not close again. Views: 0
Tag: Trump
THE WALL, GUN CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS
I must apologize. With TAX season upon us; I got busy and didn’t realize my hosting fee was due. SORRY about that. But we are up and running again. Let me begin by re-affirming. I AM NEITHER A REPUBLICAN NOR DEMOCRAT. I FEEL THERE IS NO ROOM FOR POLITICS IN GOVERNMENT. Recent events have shown WHY I have this belief. Was Donald Trump my first choice for President of United States. NO! However given the choice between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton ( a proven anti American candidate), there was little choice. I figure women voted for her because of their desire to have a WOMAN President. Then you have those people (of both parties) Who will vote for a candidate because he/she is of a certain party. If Hitler were alive and nominated for a political office there is NO doubt he would get the vote of those hard line PARTY MEMBERS. I do not think Donald Trump believed he had a chance to become President. And was really taken off guard when he got the nomination and then actually WON. Had the democratic party chosen an able candidate I may have voted for that one. However given the record of Barack Obama, IT would have been difficult to justify any DEMOCRATIC candidate.. I could write volumes about how Obama wasted eight years of being a very powerful person. (I did like that he appeared to to LOVE basketball). I could also fill volumes of why I feel Ms. Clinton is anti-American. Let me say that I was no fan of Republican Ronald Reagan, or H.W. Bush. Now on to my POST. As I see it TOO MANY OF YOU HAVE BECOME FOLLOWERS. You will sit there and watch a speech or a video account of something and RATHER, Than believe what YOU hear or see. YOU believe the editorialized version you receive from the MEDIA. We have so few NEWS “REPORTERS”. What we have are…” NEWS EDITORIALIZERS” They do not “REPORT NEWS” . THEY merely give you their version. (Or their boss”s version). I have seen many LIVE speeches given by Mr. Trump. Only to see the news version which has been edited. Omitting even a word or two can change the entire meaning. This is one trick they use to convince you to believe their way. I find it hard to believe the majority of DEMOCRATS are being truly represented by the people they elected. (Some Republicans are the same). It just seems that the DEMOCRATS now in office have no LOGICAL THINKING ABILITY. (I am one who relies on LOGIC more than not. Let us look upon Nancy Pelosi. A person totally void of LOGIC. I know for a fact that Mr. Trump tried in earnest to negotiate with her on the wall deal. But Pelosi (being one minded), refused to try to negotiate. (NEGOTIATE: TO DEAL OR BARGAIN WITH ANOTHER OR OTHERS IN THE PREPARATION OF A TREATY OR CONTRACTIN PRELIMINARIES TO A BUSINESS DEAL). Example: If you are wanting a raise in wages. Say you are really wanting a dollar an hour raise, or if on salary you want a $5000 a year raise. Do you go to your boss and say I want a dollar an hour more. He will com back and say I will give you a quarter and hour and somehow you reach an agreement between his offer of a quarter and your asking one dollar. No you go in and ask for say $2 an hour raise through negotiation you agree to the dollar raise ( or near it), you get your raise the boss feels he has saved $1 an hour. You both are pleased. BUT If you go to the boss and say I want to negotiate a raise. The boss says NO I won’t discuss a raise. Thus you have no negotiations. That is exactly what Ms Pelosi told Mr. Trump. So he did what you and I would do and walked out. Ms. Pelosi has her own agenda and thinks she is the sole charge of USA. An ego trip if you will. She is not interested in representing the majority of democrats, She is merely trying to make a name for herself. The name she is making I personally would hate to have. I know MANY Democrats whho have tuned her out and are ashamed to admit they are Democrats. People who have been Democrats for SIXTY to SEVENTY years. Now let’s move to this wall thing. Jim Acosta a CNN reporter was walking along a portion of wall and telling everyone the wall was not needed. After all the businesses behind that wall were all doing well and no trouble with people illegally crossing ACCROSS the border. FROM BEHIND THE WALL.. Did you see the interview of the tthree ranchers whose ranches are along the border? One rancher tells of 2 million illegal crossings on his property and tearing down his fences. (I think that number could have been stretched a little), BUT they are entering our country illegally.. Another tells of 38 trucks coming across with illegal guns to be sold in our USA. Another tells of truckloads of drugs crossing onto his ranch. The third tells of even more truckloads of drugs, crossing over his ranch. Ms. Pelosi and her comrade Schumer seem to go blind to these things. She claims we need “MORE GUN CONTROLS”; BUT ! Pretends there are illegal guns coming ILLEGALLY, into the USA.. Not to mention, in this day of “IDENTITY THEFT, HOW many of these illegal trespassers are using good citizens identities to obtain “ LEGAL GUNS”. As to PRESIDENT TRUMP stating he could have not used his power to accelerate the building of the WALL, (I personally don’t like the idea of a wall ….BUT). To delay the inevitable is like shutting the barn door after the horse is out. Lets curb these illegal activities as quickly as… Continue reading THE WALL, GUN CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS
