‘Putin Would Be Sitting in Kyiv, Eyes on Poland’ – Ukraine at War Update for Sept. 11

In their first debate of the 2024 US presidential elections, Vice President Kamala Harris and her Republican opponent Donald Trump traded barbs on their views on the economy, abortion rights, immigration, and foreign policy.

Before Tuesday night, American voters had heard virtually nothing about policy positions from either camp, even with early voting in some US states starting next week. Pundits crowded the social media landscape in the lead-up to the debate with questions they would like to have answered.

Stanford political scientist Michael McFaul, who served as US Ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, noted on X, “In this election, there are crystal clear differences between Harris and Trump on foreign policy. I hope the moderators use their time wisely to help voters understand these differences.”

If that was the yardstick for ABC’s moderators, it took them about an hour to meet their mark.

Trump was allowed to spend the vast majority of his time angrily steering otherwise-themed questions toward alleged crimes committed by immigrants (including unfounded rumors about migrants eating neighbors’ pet dogs) and fiercely defending his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election that he lost.

His first mention of any foreign leader came as a non-sequitur remark, in a question unrelated to Europe or Russia, about the support he had received from right-wing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a Kremlin ally.

Other Topics of Interest

‘Who Will Join the Meat Grinder?’ – Russia Reassigns Drone Operators, Sparking Z-Blogger Criticism

A growing number of ad hoc units in the Russian army that have reduced available infantry personnel for assault operations could be why Moscow is throwing drone operators into the grinder.

And then, the questions finally turned specifically to Ukraine.

Trump has long boasted he would get the Russian invasion of Ukraine ended in 24 hours. When moderator David Muir asked him what exactly he meant by that claim, the former president responded by touting his relationships with both the Russian president and Ukrainian president, saying he wanted to bring an end to the war, and then ranted about how Europe was “ripping us off.”

“Do you want Ukraine to win this war?” he was asked.

“I want the war to stop. I want to save lives,” Trump responded, sidestepping the question.

“I just want it to end,” he added. “I’ll get it settled before I even become president. When I am president-elect, and what I’ll do, I’ll speak with one, and I’ll speak to the other, I’ll get them together.”

In the same answer, he asserted that European members of NATO were not paying their fair share of defense budgets.

“We’re in for 250 to 275 billion [dollars], they’re in for 100 or 150, they should be forced to equalize,” Trump said of European commitments. “We were being ripped off by NATO... Either you pay up or we’re not going to protect you anymore.”

Muir pressed Trump again: “Do you believe it is in the US’ best interests for Ukraine to win the war? Yes or no.”

Again, the former president replied only, “I think it’s in the US best interest to just get this finished, just get it done.”

Given her time to respond, Harris said, turning her gaze to the former president, “It is well known that you said that Putin can do whatever he wants. It is well known that, when Russia went into Ukraine, you said it was brilliant.”

In contrast to Trump’s policy to negotiate an end to the war immediately, Harris took the position that America was fully invested in Ukraine, and in successfully defending against Putin’s attack on democracy in Europe.

“When [Trump] says he will end the war in 24 hours, that’s because he would just give [Ukraine] up,” the Vice President said. “If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv now with his eyes on Poland... He adores strongmen instead of caring about democracy.”

Given the opportunity for the last word on the topic, Trump offered a somewhat disjointed and unclear rebuttal, saying that if he were president, “Putin would be sitting in Moscow, much happier than he is right now. But he does have nuclear weapons... Maybe he’ll use them... Nobody talks about that.”

During Blinken's visit, London announces a halt to inbound air traffic from Iran, more sanctions

At a joint news conference with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday in London, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced that the UK would be halting all in-bound flights from carrier Iran Air, joining the US, France, and Germany in stepping up those and other measures against Tehran.

Over the past few days, Western countries have been promising “consequences” for the confirmed Iranian shipments of ballistic missiles to Russia for use in their war of aggression against Ukraine. The new measures also call to freeze the assets of those Iranians accused of facilitating military support for the Kremlin.

Lammy told the London press gathering that, according to information shared by American intelligence, Russian forces had been trained in Iran to use the Fath-360 ballistic missile system, and that Blinken had stressed that Russia could be ready to deploy these weapons against Ukraine in a matter of weeks.

With a maximum range of about 75 miles, the Fath-360 missiles would likely be used on the already embattled Ukrainian targets near Russia’s southwestern border and along the eastern front.

The foreign minister described Tehran’s decision as “a significant and dangerous escalation”.

The BBC reported that among the individuals targeted by the new US and UK sanctions was the director general for Iran’s defense ministry, Seyed Hamzeh Ghalandari, who reportedly was “heavily involved” in the supply chain of ballistic missiles and drones exported to Russia.

Additionally, the new sanctions target Iranian manufacturers of products used in the Shahed drones that have wreaked havoc on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure for more than a year.

Blinken and Lammy announced that they will travel together to Kyiv this week to hear from Ukrainian leaders directly about their objectives and needs.

Ottawa says it’s “not right” for Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill for a Russian “film like this”

Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland expressed “grave concerns” about the film “Russians at War” that Ottawa helped fund, which opened at the Toronto International Film Festival on Tuesday, the CBC reported.

The documentary was met by international rancor after its Sept 5. screening at the Venice Film Festival, follows a group of ragtag Russian soldiers as they invade eastern Ukraine. Backed by government funding from Canada and the province of Ontario, the film’s producer Anastasia Trofimova has insisted that her offering is an “anti-war” film. Trofimova is a former director at Kremlin-controlled broadcaster RT and the CBC.

Many European leaders, however, expressed outrage that the film whitewashes Russian war crimes in Ukraine by not mentioning the atrocities at all.

Freeland, whose mother, Halyna Chomiak, was born in Ukraine, told journalists on Tuesday that the Canadian-Ukrainian community has “grave concerns” about the film and that she “shares those concerns.”

“It's not right for Canadian public money to be supporting the screening and production of a film like this,” she said.

“This is a war of Russian aggression, this is a war where Russia is breaking international law and committing war crimes,” she added. “There is very clearly good and evil in this war. Ukrainians are fighting for their sovereignty and for democracy around the world.”