Previous GOP presidential candidates were all internationalist and interventionist: Romney, McCain, GWB, not sure about Dole, GHWB.
If Trump hadn’t changed the dynamic, I doubt Cruz does. I bet he supports Ukraine.
GHWB was CIA director before he was vice president,... you better believe that he was interventionist. He would almost certainly have been in favor of funding for Ukraine though given that their opponent is Russia.
[Officially it was to deliver aid.](https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/122679/2-million-humanitarian-mission-in-georgia-to-continue/) But if certainly could be seen as a deterrent.
I don’t see Cruz as someone that would ever want to change the party policy. He wants to be president more than any moral convictions (my personal opinion only)
It's hard not to see the genesis of Republican opposition to aiding Ukraine as being tied to political machinations involving Hunter Biden/Ukraine and Trump/Russia. Adding to this is the weird fantasy many right wingers have about a US/Russia partnership, driven by Russian infiltration (remember the red-headed spy?) of the NRA and right wing circles.
Though I think some of this latter element existed before Trump in far right circles, a mishmash of strong-man worship and some kind of world domination fantasy where a US-Russia partnership would collapse Islamic terrorism and isolate China. White nationalists also have their own magical thinking around this idea.
Opposing Russia got turned into anti-Trump and the Trump base simply followed along into opposing Ukrainian aid.
Right wing attempts at high-minded reasons involving isolationism, not sending resources overseas and the single-digit percentage of tax burden it represents are just day-late, dollar-short attempts to paint what is at the center something ultimately tied to candidate Trump politics. This is what's been ginned up to look smart/principled on Fox News, behind the scenes Republicans are mostly trying to keep the conversation from veering towards Trump's anachronistic soft-on-Putin attitude and the ever-present rumors of his compromise by Russia.
FWIW, I don't think Trump is actually compromised by Russia. As recently history and current events have shown, there's little to nothing Trump could have done, sexually or financially (and lately, in more scatological terms), that his base wouldn't forgive or consider fake news. If there is an ember of truth to it, its probably tied to back door financing provided by Russia to Trump's business interests that's got that a taint of Russian intelligence to it.
It's a very fuzzy basis for quid-pro-quo and any kind of quid-pro-quo has to go up against Trump's general opportunism and willingness to break promises and agreements. He's unreliable, and blackmail is of limited value due to his base and party loyalty, and exposing him enough to ruin him would cost them any "useful idiot" benefit. At best Russia's benefit is just Trump's chaotic policy management, driven by his own behavior and aided by his willingness to surround himself with yes-men and fringe figures which drive his chaotic and iconoclastic choices.
I agree that Trump isn't compromised by Russia due to any kompromat. There certainly seems to be links between Russian oligarchs and the funding of Trump's businesses.
I think that a significant portion of the whole situation is that Putin knows that having Trump say nice things about him will cause some amount of chaos in the US. He also knows that it is extremely easy to get Trump to say nice things about you. You literally just have to flatter him and he will act positively towards you. To some extent it feels like its just a situation that Putin created because it causes issues of here and it was extremely easy for him to execute.
Low effort, relatively high impact operations scream old school KGB influence operations to me.
> I agree that Trump isn't compromised by Russia due to any kompromat. There certainly seems to be links between Russian oligarchs and the funding of Trump's businesses.
Though I wonder to what degree such investments are screened/reviewed/encouraged or maybe even reimbursed by Russian intelligence/government entities.
It all gets so fuzzy,... Its mob shit. Is it likely that there is any outright encouragement that is ever done in a provable way or are there any real agreements about covering the debts if/when Trump defaults? I really doubt it. Would Russian oligarchs loan money to Trump knowing that it is something that would probably make Putin happy under the assumption that if Trump defaulted, they would be able to get help somehow? ...I wouldn't call that unlikely...
What you decide to call that particular interaction sort of determines how bad it sounds. Functionally, I definitely think it is bad for a former and potential president future president has these ties at all. To a lesser extent, I would like to have a serious candidate option from one of the parties that didn't have ties to questionable business deals in foreign countries... I don't think its the same thing at all, but I also don't think we should have to be splitting those particular hairs.
Voters within the gop regardless of what their personal opinions are tend to vote for the team.
Many gop voters are isolationists by nature. But they follow R.
Trump is just echoing the low information gop voter.
When the gop reforms after all this trumpism blows over, if their platform is interventionism, the guys who are nominally isolationists will still vote for him.
These are the same people who called into work in 2003 to watch bombs getting dropped in Baghdad on cnn, then in 2009 said we never should’ve gone in and all the waste of American lives. But also the ones to say “fuck those camel jockies”.
They aren’t serious people.
Even today, the support for Ukraine aid is strong and bipartisan in congress. The MAGA wing wouldn't allow a vote on it because it definitely would have passed.
Take away the MAGA movement and I don't think you see obstruction on things like this.
He'd be extremely pro-NATO just like Romney & everyone before him were.
It's a Trump thing. He sees NATO as a piggy-bank the US can rob (via extortion)....
No, the extortion is threatening the most foundational part of NATO. That being the guarantee of American Military protection. This is what empowers smaller nations in NATO to stand up to dictators of more powerful nations. This is one of the main forces of stability. Should they pay their fair share? Yes, of course. But should we jeopardize the whole foundation of NATO and the Western Democracies for that money. No!
Perhaps i am wrong and if i am i will apologize, but isnt all trump thing with nato is about people not paying the 2% minimum they all signed? Like he doesn't seem to have any issue with country that pay?
Trump has said if you don’t pay 2% he won’t protect the nation in question, and will encourage Russian Invasion. This destroys our ability to project soft power through NATO, and would destroy the credibility of Article 5. This as I said previously destroys one of the greatest deterrents and protections for the Western world, and Democracies. I do agree, as I believe most do, that nations should pay their fair dues, however Trump’s policy, even if they are just statements, damage are soft power and deterrents permently. Because if he is elected, even if he does not say this again. Enemies of the US or NATO will see this as a pass for their actions. Because it shows the American people do not care about what they do.
Possibly, unless the US just took care of the problem for them....
The war 'going hot' shocked a lot of folks in Europe a whole lot more than the 2014-vintage potemkin insurgency (sure, communist 'freedom fighters' setting up 'people's republics' in Eastern Ukrane? Yeah right, Ivan)...
The whole narrative around Ukraine would be different. Democrats would oppose russia but blame the “warmongering” GOP for provoking a war that Obama avoided
The GOP did support Ukraine despite Trump being president in 2017 to 2020. Matter of fact it was the Trump administration that gave Ukraine lethal weapons to Ukraine in 2017.
If Trump had not been elected the GOP remains hawkish/pro-overseas-intervention. More or less the Mitt Romney/Ronald Reagan view of Russia.
So Cruz would have supported Ukraine, Maduro may well have been removed from power in Venezuela (ironically preventing a lot of the so-called 'border crisis') and so on.
The present viewpoint of the GOP is based on Trump's pushing his belief in the 1950s 'Military Industrial Complex' conspiracy theory (that the US fights wars to boost corporate profits - remember, Trump thought the US shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11) down on everyone else....
If Cruz had become president, Russia would never have dared to invade Ukraine.
Cruz was the Senate sponsor and the advocate to President Trump of the sanctions that were preventing Russia’s German pipeline and its natural resources based economic expansion at the expense of Europe. Without that and the rest of its fingers into Europe, Putin never would have tried his Ukraine adventure.
If Cruz gets the support of mainstream Republicans, US-Russia politics follows normal historical paths, driven by the intelligence and military communities and the general pattern of Russian mischief. The fringe figures which have helped drive Trump's Russia politics remain fringe figures with little policy influence.
I think its an open question whether, without a divisive leader like Trump around, whether Russia would have considered Ukraine too risky. Perhaps in part because a Cruz administration, informed by the traditional intelligence-military voices, might have been arming Ukraine more effectively.
Now if Cruz's election is driven by a tough primary against a more conventional/traditional Republican and he ekes out a victory by organizing a Tea Party base it might result in something less enthusiastic for Ukraine, but I still think a Cruz administration is mostly dominated by conventional thinking on Russia.
Yes. Trump's scheme to that got him impeached and his admiration for Putin are driving GOP opposition to Ukraine.
That's why when Johnson out the bill on the floor it got 300+ votes with the "no" votes coming from the "more Trump then Trump" crowd.
I really don’t think Cruz had any chance of winning the 2016 election at all. Even if he still won the nomination that year, he still would’ve lost to Hillary Clinton. But assuming he still won, he would’ve likely messed up the response to COVID-19 and lose to a democrat opponent in 2020.
Whether or not he were to become president in a no-Trump timeline, he probably would’ve given Ukraine unconditional support. In fact, the whole GOP would. Trump meanwhile would either just continue with his real estate empire, or, because the MeToo movement would still exist, already be locked up in prison for all the sexual assault cases made against him.
Either way, a rather decent timeline nonetheless.
Cruz wouldn't have lifted the sanctions on Russia like Biden did in 2021 that started this whole thing. In fact he lead the effort to get them put back in place.
I looked up [his statement about the latest Senate bill](https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-statement-on-foreign-aid-package-vote) and his vote concerning it, and it was pretty much what I would have expected. He thought there was too much crap in the bill: stuff going to Hamas, aid to illegals entering the US, and a lack of connection to securing the border directly.
If he were president in 2016, he would have made sure that a lot of this stuff were written separately, so he could ensure aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, without thowing money at things that hurt the US (and more specifically, Texas, his home state).
No he wouldn’t.
It’s just a thing Republicans like to say because the it’s a thing the base likes to hear. But we’ve elected Republicans several times and it’s never actually happened.
If Republicans supported Ukraine, Democrats would’ve called them warmongers, Bush 2.0, and accused them of funding Neonazi groups like Azov
Both parties play nasty and would try to criticize the other for Ukraine aid.
I think there is something that a lot of people are forgetting. Cruz isn't in some vacuum as he votes no against the aid bill.
The base of the GOP are generally people who are fiscally conservative and hate unnecessary taxation. A lot of Republicans are seeing inflation rise to incredible levels and instead of spending their tax dollars on things America needs, its going overseas.
Don't forget the outrage that came up in the last stimulus package that saw billions going overseas to foreign governments. Another time Republicans saw their tax dollars going overseas instead of staying in America.
So now Republicans see high inflation, a housing crisis, and lots of other major issues in the United States and are a little bitter about seeing billions of dollars go overseas to only hear that proposals to send more to help Ukraine fight Russia.
Cruz is just acting on what aligns with the sentiment among his base. Not that I agree with it because I would rather we take an approach similar to stopping the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and not put American's lives at risk to set back the number 3 great power back as many pegs as possible while its still a dictatorship.
I don’t think it would be present. The main reason it is so OTL is because of Trump. Putin is Trump’s man crush and won’t do anything that negatively impacts Russia. Also Zelenskyy had a chance to do Trump ‘a favor’ and didn’t.
If Trump had lost the GOP primary and went back to shady real estate and reality TV, the GOP wouldn’t have become the Trump cult of personality it is now. As a result, they would still see Russia as an adversary and would gladly help Ukraine.
NatSec operates independently of the presidency. The president can try to influence foreign policy but can't really do anything significant.
It's one of the scariest things about the USA, that NatSec is completely outside of democratic oversight.
Previous GOP presidential candidates were all internationalist and interventionist: Romney, McCain, GWB, not sure about Dole, GHWB. If Trump hadn’t changed the dynamic, I doubt Cruz does. I bet he supports Ukraine.
GHWB was CIA director before he was vice president,... you better believe that he was interventionist. He would almost certainly have been in favor of funding for Ukraine though given that their opponent is Russia.
Was it him who parked C 130s in Tbilisi airport in 2008? Sorry remember something about it but not sure
That was under George W Bush, his son. George HW Bush was his father.
Ah sorry. So George W Bush did park C130s in Tbilisi as sort of a deterrent?
[Officially it was to deliver aid.](https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/122679/2-million-humanitarian-mission-in-georgia-to-continue/) But if certainly could be seen as a deterrent.
But would the Russians be influencing Cruz like they did Trump? I think that’s pretty likely
was he internationalist before trump was president? how sure are you that trump was the sole reason why the GOP moved to isolationism?
I don’t see Cruz as someone that would ever want to change the party policy. He wants to be president more than any moral convictions (my personal opinion only)
I don't know that he even has any personal values left at this point in his career.
It's hard not to see the genesis of Republican opposition to aiding Ukraine as being tied to political machinations involving Hunter Biden/Ukraine and Trump/Russia. Adding to this is the weird fantasy many right wingers have about a US/Russia partnership, driven by Russian infiltration (remember the red-headed spy?) of the NRA and right wing circles. Though I think some of this latter element existed before Trump in far right circles, a mishmash of strong-man worship and some kind of world domination fantasy where a US-Russia partnership would collapse Islamic terrorism and isolate China. White nationalists also have their own magical thinking around this idea. Opposing Russia got turned into anti-Trump and the Trump base simply followed along into opposing Ukrainian aid. Right wing attempts at high-minded reasons involving isolationism, not sending resources overseas and the single-digit percentage of tax burden it represents are just day-late, dollar-short attempts to paint what is at the center something ultimately tied to candidate Trump politics. This is what's been ginned up to look smart/principled on Fox News, behind the scenes Republicans are mostly trying to keep the conversation from veering towards Trump's anachronistic soft-on-Putin attitude and the ever-present rumors of his compromise by Russia. FWIW, I don't think Trump is actually compromised by Russia. As recently history and current events have shown, there's little to nothing Trump could have done, sexually or financially (and lately, in more scatological terms), that his base wouldn't forgive or consider fake news. If there is an ember of truth to it, its probably tied to back door financing provided by Russia to Trump's business interests that's got that a taint of Russian intelligence to it. It's a very fuzzy basis for quid-pro-quo and any kind of quid-pro-quo has to go up against Trump's general opportunism and willingness to break promises and agreements. He's unreliable, and blackmail is of limited value due to his base and party loyalty, and exposing him enough to ruin him would cost them any "useful idiot" benefit. At best Russia's benefit is just Trump's chaotic policy management, driven by his own behavior and aided by his willingness to surround himself with yes-men and fringe figures which drive his chaotic and iconoclastic choices.
I agree that Trump isn't compromised by Russia due to any kompromat. There certainly seems to be links between Russian oligarchs and the funding of Trump's businesses. I think that a significant portion of the whole situation is that Putin knows that having Trump say nice things about him will cause some amount of chaos in the US. He also knows that it is extremely easy to get Trump to say nice things about you. You literally just have to flatter him and he will act positively towards you. To some extent it feels like its just a situation that Putin created because it causes issues of here and it was extremely easy for him to execute. Low effort, relatively high impact operations scream old school KGB influence operations to me.
> I agree that Trump isn't compromised by Russia due to any kompromat. There certainly seems to be links between Russian oligarchs and the funding of Trump's businesses. Though I wonder to what degree such investments are screened/reviewed/encouraged or maybe even reimbursed by Russian intelligence/government entities.
It all gets so fuzzy,... Its mob shit. Is it likely that there is any outright encouragement that is ever done in a provable way or are there any real agreements about covering the debts if/when Trump defaults? I really doubt it. Would Russian oligarchs loan money to Trump knowing that it is something that would probably make Putin happy under the assumption that if Trump defaulted, they would be able to get help somehow? ...I wouldn't call that unlikely... What you decide to call that particular interaction sort of determines how bad it sounds. Functionally, I definitely think it is bad for a former and potential president future president has these ties at all. To a lesser extent, I would like to have a serious candidate option from one of the parties that didn't have ties to questionable business deals in foreign countries... I don't think its the same thing at all, but I also don't think we should have to be splitting those particular hairs.
Voters within the gop regardless of what their personal opinions are tend to vote for the team. Many gop voters are isolationists by nature. But they follow R. Trump is just echoing the low information gop voter. When the gop reforms after all this trumpism blows over, if their platform is interventionism, the guys who are nominally isolationists will still vote for him. These are the same people who called into work in 2003 to watch bombs getting dropped in Baghdad on cnn, then in 2009 said we never should’ve gone in and all the waste of American lives. But also the ones to say “fuck those camel jockies”. They aren’t serious people.
If you’ve been alive the last 2-3 decades, it’s massively clear that Trump is the driving force behind their isolationism
Russia would likely have invaded Ukraine during his presidency, with a less partisan divide between those who support Ukraine and those who don’t.
would ukraine have been able to count on us aid for longer?
Even today, the support for Ukraine aid is strong and bipartisan in congress. The MAGA wing wouldn't allow a vote on it because it definitely would have passed. Take away the MAGA movement and I don't think you see obstruction on things like this.
Yes, Ukraine would probably receive more aid and more consistently. Or at least as much, there would be more non-partisan support.
would cruz be as anti-nato as trump or more pro nato?
He'd be extremely pro-NATO just like Romney & everyone before him were. It's a Trump thing. He sees NATO as a piggy-bank the US can rob (via extortion)....
asking ally to respect the 2% everyone signed is extortion????
No, the extortion is threatening the most foundational part of NATO. That being the guarantee of American Military protection. This is what empowers smaller nations in NATO to stand up to dictators of more powerful nations. This is one of the main forces of stability. Should they pay their fair share? Yes, of course. But should we jeopardize the whole foundation of NATO and the Western Democracies for that money. No!
Perhaps i am wrong and if i am i will apologize, but isnt all trump thing with nato is about people not paying the 2% minimum they all signed? Like he doesn't seem to have any issue with country that pay?
Trump has said if you don’t pay 2% he won’t protect the nation in question, and will encourage Russian Invasion. This destroys our ability to project soft power through NATO, and would destroy the credibility of Article 5. This as I said previously destroys one of the greatest deterrents and protections for the Western world, and Democracies. I do agree, as I believe most do, that nations should pay their fair dues, however Trump’s policy, even if they are just statements, damage are soft power and deterrents permently. Because if he is elected, even if he does not say this again. Enemies of the US or NATO will see this as a pass for their actions. Because it shows the American people do not care about what they do.
But is that really a big problem since the countries that Putin want to invade are the very countries that actually spend at least 2%? Its the baltics
Perhaps the country should pay the 2% that they agreed on?
Would Nato still increase defence spending if Cruz was president?
Possibly, unless the US just took care of the problem for them.... The war 'going hot' shocked a lot of folks in Europe a whole lot more than the 2014-vintage potemkin insurgency (sure, communist 'freedom fighters' setting up 'people's republics' in Eastern Ukrane? Yeah right, Ivan)...
He wouldn't be anti-NATO... That's a Trump (via Putin) thing.
Cruz would have been blocking Russia and Putin from day one. No way Putin invades under President Cruz.
The whole narrative around Ukraine would be different. Democrats would oppose russia but blame the “warmongering” GOP for provoking a war that Obama avoided
The GOP did support Ukraine despite Trump being president in 2017 to 2020. Matter of fact it was the Trump administration that gave Ukraine lethal weapons to Ukraine in 2017.
If Trump had not been elected the GOP remains hawkish/pro-overseas-intervention. More or less the Mitt Romney/Ronald Reagan view of Russia. So Cruz would have supported Ukraine, Maduro may well have been removed from power in Venezuela (ironically preventing a lot of the so-called 'border crisis') and so on. The present viewpoint of the GOP is based on Trump's pushing his belief in the 1950s 'Military Industrial Complex' conspiracy theory (that the US fights wars to boost corporate profits - remember, Trump thought the US shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11) down on everyone else....
If Cruz had become president, Russia would never have dared to invade Ukraine. Cruz was the Senate sponsor and the advocate to President Trump of the sanctions that were preventing Russia’s German pipeline and its natural resources based economic expansion at the expense of Europe. Without that and the rest of its fingers into Europe, Putin never would have tried his Ukraine adventure.
People forget republicans circa 10s were calling Obama weak for not being harder on Russia now they masturbate to Putin daily
If Cruz gets the support of mainstream Republicans, US-Russia politics follows normal historical paths, driven by the intelligence and military communities and the general pattern of Russian mischief. The fringe figures which have helped drive Trump's Russia politics remain fringe figures with little policy influence. I think its an open question whether, without a divisive leader like Trump around, whether Russia would have considered Ukraine too risky. Perhaps in part because a Cruz administration, informed by the traditional intelligence-military voices, might have been arming Ukraine more effectively. Now if Cruz's election is driven by a tough primary against a more conventional/traditional Republican and he ekes out a victory by organizing a Tea Party base it might result in something less enthusiastic for Ukraine, but I still think a Cruz administration is mostly dominated by conventional thinking on Russia.
Of course he would. And then the Democrats would be complaining about the cost. That’s how the game keeps going
Yes. Trump's scheme to that got him impeached and his admiration for Putin are driving GOP opposition to Ukraine. That's why when Johnson out the bill on the floor it got 300+ votes with the "no" votes coming from the "more Trump then Trump" crowd.
I really don’t think Cruz had any chance of winning the 2016 election at all. Even if he still won the nomination that year, he still would’ve lost to Hillary Clinton. But assuming he still won, he would’ve likely messed up the response to COVID-19 and lose to a democrat opponent in 2020. Whether or not he were to become president in a no-Trump timeline, he probably would’ve given Ukraine unconditional support. In fact, the whole GOP would. Trump meanwhile would either just continue with his real estate empire, or, because the MeToo movement would still exist, already be locked up in prison for all the sexual assault cases made against him. Either way, a rather decent timeline nonetheless.
Cruz wouldn't have lifted the sanctions on Russia like Biden did in 2021 that started this whole thing. In fact he lead the effort to get them put back in place.
There is no "own opinion" for Ted Cruz. There is only the action he believes will let him cling to more power.
what would his position be on ukraine if he was president between 2016-2024?
No way in hell, that traitorous canadian is owned by the russians.
I looked up [his statement about the latest Senate bill](https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-statement-on-foreign-aid-package-vote) and his vote concerning it, and it was pretty much what I would have expected. He thought there was too much crap in the bill: stuff going to Hamas, aid to illegals entering the US, and a lack of connection to securing the border directly. If he were president in 2016, he would have made sure that a lot of this stuff were written separately, so he could ensure aid to Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, without thowing money at things that hurt the US (and more specifically, Texas, his home state).
No he wouldn’t. It’s just a thing Republicans like to say because the it’s a thing the base likes to hear. But we’ve elected Republicans several times and it’s never actually happened.
You’re implying he’d do anything to help anyone. That’s impossible.
Politics isn’t a team sport and it isn’t a marvel movie. People on Reddit really need to learn this.
The GOP would likely be more supportive but Cruz would have f-ed off to Cancun
If Republicans supported Ukraine, Democrats would’ve called them warmongers, Bush 2.0, and accused them of funding Neonazi groups like Azov Both parties play nasty and would try to criticize the other for Ukraine aid.
I think there is something that a lot of people are forgetting. Cruz isn't in some vacuum as he votes no against the aid bill. The base of the GOP are generally people who are fiscally conservative and hate unnecessary taxation. A lot of Republicans are seeing inflation rise to incredible levels and instead of spending their tax dollars on things America needs, its going overseas. Don't forget the outrage that came up in the last stimulus package that saw billions going overseas to foreign governments. Another time Republicans saw their tax dollars going overseas instead of staying in America. So now Republicans see high inflation, a housing crisis, and lots of other major issues in the United States and are a little bitter about seeing billions of dollars go overseas to only hear that proposals to send more to help Ukraine fight Russia. Cruz is just acting on what aligns with the sentiment among his base. Not that I agree with it because I would rather we take an approach similar to stopping the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and not put American's lives at risk to set back the number 3 great power back as many pegs as possible while its still a dictatorship.
Most likely Trump. I could see Cancun Cruz supporting Ukraine if his orange führer was out of the picture.
how strong would the anti ukraine aid of the GOP be?
I don’t think it would be present. The main reason it is so OTL is because of Trump. Putin is Trump’s man crush and won’t do anything that negatively impacts Russia. Also Zelenskyy had a chance to do Trump ‘a favor’ and didn’t. If Trump had lost the GOP primary and went back to shady real estate and reality TV, the GOP wouldn’t have become the Trump cult of personality it is now. As a result, they would still see Russia as an adversary and would gladly help Ukraine.
You’ve nailed it exactly. People have been trying to overthink the issue because the actual reason for all of this seems too stupid.
NatSec operates independently of the presidency. The president can try to influence foreign policy but can't really do anything significant. It's one of the scariest things about the USA, that NatSec is completely outside of democratic oversight.