Find a (usually) white Brit and there is likely to be Irish in them. Something Irish diaspora (not just in the US) fail to understand. It hurts their remote, simplistic, binary viewpoint.

In fact there is a great deal Irish Americans simply can't comprehend about the realities of Irish history. They should try reading a book on it, preferably written by an Irishman. Thus, Americans cannot accept any other position other than their "fact" that "the Troubles" began when Britain "invaded" Ireland - yup, they actually believe that.

Had they not been so ignorant, perhaps they would not have funded republican terrorists for decades with the cash flow only stopping after 9/11 when they got to understand the consequences of terrorism in their own backyard.

It’s curious that Biden was older at his inauguration than Reagan was when he left office but Reagan was frequently said to be too old for the job.
Subsequent revelations about Reagan’s mental capacity seem to confirm the point.

Despite what I said up the thread about Putin timing this, I am not sure about this statement. Putin intervened in the US elections (or else tried to) to get Trump in precisely because he was considered pro Putin and because of his non-interventionist approach to world affairs.

Thus, what would Trump have done to make the invasion less likely and / or successful? One likely scenario is that he would have said that he is not going to risk any American lives or resources in intervening to save that "sh1thole". Zero US dollars would have been spent in supplying weapons and intelligence to protect Ukraine.

If that was followed, the war would likely be over by now and Ukraine may well be part of the Russian Federation with a list of Ukrainians facing show trials for "corruption", "embezzlement" and other fictitious offences. Tensions would rise and the military presence would step up in the former eastern Bloc countries.

It would be very bad.

Meanwhile, the West would stand by wringing its hands in frustrated despair, with Trump continuing to direct US resources to stemming the un-stemmable tide of Chinese advance.

Of course, I can see the flaw in this argument. If that were so, Putin would have sent the boys in while Trump was in power. Like Israel rushes in land grabs, bombings and other Palestinian oppressive acts quickly before the Democrats get in.

Then again, perhaps the possible intervention of the US didn't feature that highly? Maybe he chose his time based on military preparation, the intelligence his own people supplied, the fact that he needed to ensure his power was absolute and untouchable at home, reassurances of neutrality from the Chinese and so on. However, maybe he just got it all horribly wrong precisely because he trusted those who said "yes" and got rid of those who said "no".

That's just BS. The USA isn't Biden. He is merely the current POTUS. He has had the good sense to assemble an experienced team around him who listen to the advice of the professionals who support them. Biden is a figurehead. Sure, he stumbles and sometimes appears to make gaffs, but you can now feel confident that there aren't going to be any stupid decisions made by a man who only listens to his own self-righteousness.

Of course, the invasion would have happened had Trump remained as POTUS. The difference would have been that the response would have been much weaker. Trump was trying to emasculate Nato and would not have sent weapons to Ukraine or troops to bordering countries. Trump envies Putin's power over his people and owes him for the support he was given in 2016. This would have been much worse if Trump was still there. Not maybe in the short-term, as Ukraine would have folded quickly, and the energy and food crisis ameliorated, but the threats to the rest of Europe would have got markedly worse. Short-termism is the greatest weakness we face.

No, we need to deal with this, and the time to do it is now. The USA has shown leadership and resolve under the Biden administration. Which ought to be welcomed by us all.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I am glad to see someone else making what seems to me to be completely obvious points.

Appeasement has a history of failure.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The difference is that Biden gaffs at what he has written for him (and so those behind him can say what he meant to say) whereas Trump said the first thing that came into his head where it was less easy for those he hasn't yet fired to fire fight his gaffs.

Also, you make out unpredictable as if it were a good thing. It is not. Commerce and the military alike cannot plan with unpredictable.