Ukraine War Upd. EXTRA: Trump Jr & RFK Jr Opinion Piece in The Hill - Reaction
Table of Contents 📖
Where is Russia's culpability here? Where is the moral calculus concerning Russia's actions? This entire piece is absent of any critical evaluation of what Russia has done. Of the war crimes, of the invasion. This is sickening.
Hello Team
🎦 00:00-00:41⏩
Jonathan welcomes everyone to ATP Geopolitics for a live reaction to an opinion piece written by Donald Trump Junior and Robert F Kennedy Junior, published in The Hill. The piece argues against the US lifting restrictions on Western weapons being used in Ukraine. Jonathan is nursing a sore leg after tripping over his son's shoe and falling over (due to his MS)!
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Negotiating with Moscow
🎦 00:41-03:21⏩
Jonathan kicks off his analysis by highlighting Trump Jr and RFK Jr's appeasement strategy, suggesting that the potential lifting of restrictions on long-range weapons for use in Ukraine will be interpreted by Russia as an act of war. Jonathan's view is that this sets the tone for how a future Trump administration might handle the situation in Ukraine, predicting appeasement would be the likely outcome. He goes on to argue that Russia has repeatedly threatened to escalate but hasn't acted on these threats when the West has provided military aid, citing howitzers, HIMARS, tanks, F-16s and ATACMS.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: A War that Should Never Have Been Allowed
🎦 03:21-06:12⏩
Jonathan takes aim at the suggestion from the authors that the war should "never have been allowed to take place" and challenges the narrative that the West could have prevented it. He outlines the two options facing the West when Russia invaded:
- Allow Russia to continue its invasion of Ukraine, attempting to reach a diplomatic solution despite Russia's objective to take control of the entire country, or
- Refuse to allow Russia to take control of Ukraine.
He refutes the authors' suggestion that the West could have entered negotiations instead of resisting Russia's invasion. Jonathan argues that political pressure and sanctions were already in place and had no impact on Russia's actions, highlighting Russia's determination to follow through on its plans. He concludes that the authors' argument advocates for Russia's success in achieving its initial objectives and views this as a form of "supplication to Russia," describing it as "disgusting."
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Brinkmanship and Appeasing the Bully
🎦 06:12-11:16⏩
Jonathan analyses Trump Jr and RFK Jr's stance on brinkmanship, characterising their argument as "give the bully with a nuke what they want". The authors suggest that by gradually increasing military aid, the West risks provoking a nuclear response. However, Jonathan contends that their argument could have been applied at every stage of military aid, arguing that their logic implies appeasing Russia from the outset. He argues that the authors' perspective prioritises Russia's desires and advocates for immediate concessions to avoid potential escalation. Jonathan points out the inconsistency in the authors' argument, highlighting that Russia already permits the use of Western-supplied weapons within Ukrainian territories it claims as its own, including Crimea. He questions the distinction between these areas and other Russian territories, arguing that the range of these weapons is arbitrary and their argument is not convincing.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Russia as a Nuclear Power
🎦 11:16-14:05⏩
Jonathan delves into Trump Jr and RFK Jr's assertion that the Biden administration ignores Russia's nuclear capabilities. He argues that the administration is cautious and not hawkish as they claim. Jonathan interprets the authors' stance as advocating for giving nuclear-armed countries free rein due to fear of retaliation. He argues that the authors conflate nuclear possession with justification for any action.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: The US Would Never Tolerate it
🎦 14:05-16:03⏩
Jonathan challenges the authors' comparison of US support for Ukraine to a hypothetical scenario where Russia backs attacks on US soil. He argues that the analogy is flawed because it ignores the context of Russia's initial aggression and Ukraine's right to self-defence. He brands the comparison a "straw man" argument, asserting that it's a false equivalence.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: No Vital American Interests at Stake
🎦 16:03-19:17⏩
Jonathan addresses the authors' claim that "no vital American interest is at stake" in the Ukraine war, vehemently disagreeing with this viewpoint. He emphasises that US support for Ukraine stems from its geopolitical and strategic interests. He reminds viewers that "there is no such thing as a free lunch", arguing that aiding Ukraine aligns with moral principles but ultimately serves the strategic goals of the US and its allies. Jonathan highlights the challenge posed by BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to US global dominance, particularly regarding the US dollar's status as the international reserve currency. He posits that allowing Russia to dominate Ukraine would embolden BRICS and weaken the US's global standing. Jonathan concludes that the authors' argument contradicts their claims of supporting a strong US.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Neoconservative Fantasy and War Fever
🎦 19:17-21:19⏩
Jonathan analyses the authors' suggestion that US support for Ukraine is driven by a "neoconservative fantasy of global full-spectrum dominance," attributing this view to RFK Jr. He challenges the notion of the Biden administration having a "war fever," finding it contradictory given that many critics, including Jonathan, view them as overly cautious and not supportive enough.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Kamala Harris and Russian Forces in Europe
🎦 21:19-23:20⏩
Jonathan analyses the authors' criticism of Kamala Harris's warning about the potential for Russian aggression in Europe, dismissing their view as absurd and pointing out that Russia already invaded Europe in February 2022. He questions their interpretation, highlighting Russia's history of military actions in Georgia, Chechnya and Ukraine. Jonathan expresses frustration with the authors' apparent disregard for the agency of Ukrainians, arguing that their stance implies accepting Russian control over Ukraine.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Russia's "Clear" War Aims
🎦 23:20-25:01⏩
Jonathan expresses his anger and dismay at the authors' acceptance of Russia's stated war aims, particularly "Ukrainian neutrality" and halting NATO expansion, labeling them as tired propaganda. He questions why Ukrainians are not being consulted about their own future, criticising the authors for prioritising Russia's narrative over Ukrainian self-determination. He sarcastically asks Trump Jr and RFK Jr if they are aware of the Budapest Memorandum where the US, UK and France made security assurances to Ukraine.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Nobody Better Off
🎦 25:01-27:23⏩
Jonathan expresses outrage at the authors' statement that "nobody is better off" after the war, including Ukraine. He places blame squarely on Russia for the immense loss of life and suffering. Jonathan questions the authors' lack of moral accountability regarding Russia's invasion and war crimes, deeming the piece "sickening" for implicitly condoning Russia's actions. He disputes the notion that the West is worse off for supporting Ukraine, asserting that the situation results from Russia's decision to invade.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Time to De-escalate
🎦 27:23-29:34⏩
Jonathan challenges the authors' call for de-escalation, characterising it as a demand for appeasement of Russia and Ukrainian surrender. He firmly believes that the priority is for Russia to be defeated or withdraw. Jonathan expresses concern that the authors view de-escalation, or "Russian appeasement", as more crucial than other political issues. He criticises JD Vance's stance on Ukraine, arguing that allowing Russia to dominate Ukraine would harm the interests of the US, Europe and the UK.
Return to top⤴️
Trump Jr & RFK Jr: Donald Trump, the GOP and a Future Administration
🎦 29:34-31:33⏩
Jonathan expresses concern that the views expressed in the article reflect the stance of Donald Trump and his potential administration, including figures such as Mike Pence, the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, MAGA lawmakers (citing Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan), Donald Trump Jr, RFK Jr, Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. He sees the authors' perspective as aligning with a pro-Russian appeasement narrative that he believes would materialise under a Trump administration, urging viewers to provide evidence if they disagree with his interpretation.
Return to top⤴️
Wrap up
🎦 31:33-32:25⏩
Jonathan ends by concluding that the arguments put forward by RFK Jr and Donald Trump Jr are "really bad", and "suck". Jonathan needs to go to sleep!
Return to top⤴️
