Biden argues that Putin's invasion of Ukraine threatens the stability of Europe and that the U.S. must support its allies in the region, while also criticizing Trump's handling of foreign policy issues such as his approach to Russia. However, some of Biden's arguments, such as suggesting that Putin would inevitably invade other countries if he took Ukraine and mischaracterizing Trump's stance on Russia, rely on questionable premises and rhetorical tactics that undermine the overall strength of his position.

1. quotation out of context • Biden suggests Trump gave carte blanche to Putin on invading Ukraine, by taking a quote from Trump out of context:

This guy told Ukraine - told Trump, do whatever you want and do whatever you want. And that's exactly what Trump did to Putin, encouraged him, do whatever you want.

This distorts the meaning of Trump's utterance. In the original quote, Trump is discussing a hypothetical situation in which a NATO member country is delinquent on its financial obligations to the alliance and is then attacked by Russia.

One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you."

Trump then added: "In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want."

Trump suggests that if the country has not paid its dues, he would not protect them and would even encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want." However, it's important to note that this statement is made in the specific context of a country failing to meet its financial commitments to NATO. Trump's point seems to be that countries should not expect the benefits of NATO protection if they do not fulfill their obligations to the alliance.

Biden's statement, "This guy told Ukraine - told Trump, do whatever you want and do whatever you want. And that's exactly what Trump did to Putin, encouraged him, do whatever you want," removes the quote from its original context and applies it more broadly to Trump's overall stance on Russia and Ukraine.

By omitting the context of the hypothetical NATO scenario, Biden makes it seem as though Trump gave Putin blanket permission to take aggressive actions, which is not an accurate representation of Trump's statement. This is an example of quoting out of context, also known as contextomy or quote mining, which occurs when a passage is removed from its surrounding context in a way that distorts its original meaning.

2. slippery slope • Biden lays out a hypothetical scenario that is far from certain and presents a series of events that are unlikely to unfold in the way suggested. Regarding Putin, he says:

Do you think he'll stop when he - if he takes Ukraine? What do you think happens to Poland? What do you think of Belarus? What do you think happens to those NATO countries?

This statement assumes that Putin will completely take over Ukraine, which is not the current situation. While Russia has annexed Crimea and supports separatist regions in eastern Ukraine, it has not taken control of the entire country. Presenting this as a foregone conclusion is problematic and misleading.

Furthermore, the statement suggests that if Putin were to take Ukraine, he would then proceed to invade and take over Poland and Belarus. This is a significant leap in logic and ignores several important factors:

1. Poland is a member of NATO, which means that an attack on Poland would trigger Article 5 of the NATO treaty, requiring all member states to come to Poland's defense. This collective defense principle is a strong deterrent against Russian aggression towards NATO members.
2. Belarus, while closely aligned with Russia, is still a sovereign nation. It is not a given that Russia would or could simply take over Belarus, even if it had control of Ukraine.
3. The international community would likely respond strongly to any Russian attempts to expand its territory beyond Ukraine, with severe economic sanctions and diplomatic consequences that could deter further aggression.

By presenting this series of events as a likely or inevitable outcome of Russia taking over Ukraine, the statement engages in a slippery slope fallacy. It assumes that one event will necessarily lead to a chain of increasingly severe consequences without providing evidence to support the likelihood of those outcomes.

Moreover, by suggesting that NATO countries are at risk of being "taken" by Russia, the statement ignores the fundamental purpose and strength of the NATO alliance. It is highly unlikely that Russia would directly attack a NATO member state, given the severe consequences it would face.

Finally, it is unlikely that that US support for NATO could be withdrawn any time soon, even if Trump wanted to, given that US law now states that the President “shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty” without an act passed by the full Congress or a Senate supermajority.