Should Joe Biden Travel To Ukraine and Meet Zelensky?

[PoS]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

 

[Cardinal]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

I don’t know how Ukraine was able to guarantee their security to begin with. Before I could answer this question, I’d want to know how that kind of guarantee was possible.

If the Biden Admin thinks it’s necessary and safe then they’ll do it. I for one have no expectation that a US President go to a war zone purely for symbolic reasons, especially when it’s a war zone in which the host country doesn’t control the skies.

I also think it’s an unnecessary gesture. We’re giving Ukraine extraordinary amounts of assistance (along with many other NATO members).

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

No. US presidents and VPs shouldn't go to war zones.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I don’t know how Ukraine was able to guarantee their security to begin with. Before I could answer this question, I’d want to know how that kind of guarantee was possible.

If the Biden Admin thinks it’s necessary and safe then they’ll do it. I for one have no expectation that a US President go to a war zone purely for symbolic reasons, especially when it’s a war zone in which the host country doesn’t control the skies.

I also think it’s an unnecessary gesture. We’re giving Ukraine extraordinary amounts of assistance (along with many other NATO members).

Precisely, cruise missiles and bombs are still flying all over the place.

For the President of the United States, it is not a tenable security situation purely because unlike situations like Iraq or Afghanistan where a US security blanket could be established and those covert trips were done, simply not possible in this case.

But watch, Traitor Trumpists will turn this into a matter of machismo as they always do.

While they actually have the mentally weakest President of all time who would piss his pants in an actual fight with someone.

 

[Cardinal]

Also, let’s examine what we’ve done for Ukraine already. First, this list is over three weeks old and we’ve done much more since then. Secondly, Ukraine has full access to all of our real time intelligence. The hub of NATO tactical and real time intelligence is the United States.

The new $800 million assistance package includes:

• 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems;
• 2,000 Javelin, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, and 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems;
• 100 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;
• 100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns, and 400 shotguns;
• Over 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition and grenade launcher and mortar rounds;
• 25,000 sets of body armor; and
• 25,000 helmets.

Fact Sheet on U.S. Security Assistance for Ukraine | The White House

President Biden today announced an additional $800 million in security assistance to Ukraine, bringing the total U.S. security assistance committed to

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Cardinal]

Update: we’ve now given up to $1.7 billion in assistance to the country.

US to give another $100 million in military aid to Ukraine - La Prensa Latina Media

www.laprensalatina.com

 

[Cardinal]

About the intelligence we’re providing Ukraine:

CNN —
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said publicly for the first time Thursday that the US is providing intelligence to Ukrainian forces to conduct operations in the Donbas region.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Austin was asked whether the US was providing intelligence to help Ukraine carry out attacks against Russian forces in the separatist-controlled Donbas region or Crimea.

“We are providing them intelligence to conduct operations in the Donbas, that’s correct,” Austin said in response to the question from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

US giving intel to Ukraine for operations in Donbas, Defense Secretary says | CNN Politics

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said publicly for the first time Thursday that the US is providing intelligence to Ukrainian forces to conduct operations in the Donbas region.

www.cnn.com

So, no, I don’t expect Biden to go to Ukraine.

 

[Overitall]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

Does he remember where it is?

 

[TheParser]

No, President Biden and Vice President Harris should not visit Ukraine at this time, especially since the Butcher has appointed a new commander-in-chief who was really brutal in Syria.

1. President Biden is too old and frail to visit President Z. It would be cruel to make him walk the streets, as the British prime minister did yesterday.

2. Vice President Harris might say something inappropriate or laugh at the wrong time.

3. If anything untoward should happen to them because of Russian aggression, there would be an outcry here for revenge and thus the much-feared World War III.

4. And -- the most horrible prospect -- Nancy would become the President!

 

[ttwtt78640]

No. Having the POTUS (personally) visit war or other disaster zones simply wastes resources which could be put to better use.

 

[noonereal]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

No.

This is a ridiculous question even.
My God, enough with this Zelensky crap. Get his propaganda machine off my TV 24/7. This is insanity.

 

[SMTA]

I don’t know how Ukraine was able to guarantee their security to begin with. Before I could answer this question, I’d want to know how that kind of guarantee was possible.

If the Biden Admin thinks it’s necessary and safe then they’ll do it. I for one have no expectation that a US President go to a war zone purely for symbolic reasons, especially when it’s a war zone in which the host country doesn’t control the skies.

I also think it’s an unnecessary gesture. We’re giving Ukraine extraordinary amounts of assistance (along with many other NATO members).

Nope.
But he should send Trump and his minions ASAP

 

[Rexedgar]

No.

This is a ridiculous question even.
My God, enough with this Zelensky crap. Get his propaganda machine off my TV 24/7. This is insanity.

 

[tshade]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

of course. You can't lead from behind.

 

[Mika-El]

Since many Western leaders have already gone to Kyiv, including the UK's Boris Johnson, shouldn't Joe do it too? What do you think?

No of course not. Its a symbolic gesture. There is nothing achieved in person that can't be done by electronic transmission. If politicians do so its for their audiences at home. In the case of Johnson he has a domestic scandal of holding parties without masks during Covid 19. He is trying to deal with that disasterous p.r. faisco rehabilitating himself using the posturing he has engaged in with Ukraine. Do not get me wrong that his posturing is not welcome, but he does not have to travel as far and he does it to pander his audience back home as well as support Ukraine. Other leaders must choose whether they think their physical presence is necessary. Its not. Weapons, support are necessary not politicians posing for pictures. Photo ops like the Yalta Conference in WW2 have become outmoded. Leaders no longer need in person meetings. They have Zoom.

 

[Risky Thicket]

No. Having the POTUS (personally) visit war or other disaster zones simply wastes resources which could be put to better use.

Exactly. I know the troops do not like it. I imagine command doesn't like it. Many people have to be pulled from normal duties, routines are disrupted, attention and focus is diverted in some cases.

What is the upside for a President to visit a war zone? I can't think of any upside that justifies extra duty and disruptions. I damn sure can't think of anything that would justify the risk.

Biden doesn't appear to **** with the troops using them for photo ops as the former guy was wont to do, constantly.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I don’t know how Ukraine was able to guarantee their security to begin with. Before I could answer this question, I’d want to know how that kind of guarantee was possible.

If the Biden Admin thinks it’s necessary and safe then they’ll do it. I for one have no expectation that a US President go to a war zone purely for symbolic reasons, especially when it’s a war zone in which the host country doesn’t control the skies.

I also think it’s an unnecessary gesture. We’re giving Ukraine extraordinary amounts of assistance (along with many other NATO members).

Completely agree. It's one thing to go visit US troops in a conflict zone that's been secured, and another where it's just symbolic support for another nation's leader. If it were a secured area, then I'd have less concerns.

 

[Loulit01]

Let Kamala go. With the hell she's taking here she may want to go. It would be like a vacation for her.

 

[Jkca1]

Yes, he should have been there weeks ago. That's what I expect from a leader. Instead, he hides in the WH and issues proclamation after proclamation while the Ukraine gets destroyed. Lip service and $4 gets you a cup of coffee but not much else. I am to the point where I think we should not allow anyone over 65 to be President. It's obvious the job is too hard for seniors.

 

[bubbabgone]

No.

 

[Peter]

Yes, he should have been there weeks ago. That's what I expect from a leader. Instead, he hides in the WH and issues proclamation after proclamation while the Ukraine gets destroyed. Lip service and $4 gets you a cup of coffee but not much else. I am to the point where I think we should not allow anyone over 65 to be President. It's obvious the job is too hard for seniors.

I actually kind of agree with you about banning over 65's from being President.

Both sides must have candidates in their 30s or 40s who could do the job?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yes, he should have been there weeks ago. That's what I expect from a leader. Instead, he hides in the WH and issues proclamation after proclamation while the Ukraine gets destroyed. Lip service and $4 gets you a cup of coffee but not much else. I am to the point where I think we should not allow anyone over 65 to be President. It's obvious the job is too hard for seniors.

What is the cost/benefit from that trip that you think a symbolic gesture is worth risking the life of the president? From a benefit comparison the weapons shipments are far more useful to the Ukrainians than a presidential visit for some photo ops. I have no problem with symbolic visits, but ensuring the safety of a nation's president should be primary. I don't think this has anything to do with age, but with risk.

 

[watsup]

Let’s send Trump to Moscow instead.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I actually kind of agree with you about banning over 65's from being President.

Both sides must have candidates in their 30s or 40s who could do the job?

You get into some sticky territory here though, because the assumption is everyone 65 and over is incapable of doing the job, and I think that's way too broad of a criterion. What I do agree with is we need a broader candidate pool for the role of president that features younger candidates.

 

[Peter]

You get into some sticky territory here though, because the assumption is everyone 65 and over is incapable of doing the job, and I think that's way too broad of a criterion. What I do agree with is we need a broader candidate pool for the role of president that features younger candidates.

Fair point.
I just feel US politics could use some fresh perspective and that the top at the moment is filled with the over 60s and that both sides could use fresh views.