While explaining how the Biden-Harris administration helped bring together international support for Ukraine, the Vice President's criticism of Trump relies on logical fallacies like slippery slopes about Putin's ambitions, appeals to fear over unsubstantiated consequences, and uncharitable interpretations of Trump's statements instead of directly addressing his arguments.

1. weak man • Harris undermines Trump's position by taking the weakest possible interpretation that he would simply surrender to Russia.

I believe the reason that Donald Trump says that this war would be over within 24 hours is because he would just give it up.

This argues against an unreasonably weak version of Trump's argument, which is that he believes he is well-equipped to bring the two sides together and work out a joint agreement to end the conflict.

2. slippery slope with appeal to fear • Harris argues that if Trump was president, Putin would have taken Kyiv in Ukraine. She then claims this would inevitably lead to Putin setting his sights on the rest of Europe after that.

If Donald Trump were president, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv right now. And understand what that would mean. Because Putin's agenda is not just about Ukraine... Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe. Starting with Poland.

This is a slippery slope fallacy, as she assumes that Putin taking Kyiv would inescapably lead to him invading other European countries next, when that may not necessarily follow.

By saying "understand what that would mean" after the claim about Putin taking Kyiv, Harris is evoking a sense of fear and dread about the consequences, without explicitly stating what those consequences are. This qualifies as an appeal to fear fallacy, using an argument that preys on fears rather than being based on concrete evidence.

Putting the rest of Europe aside, even the premise of Putin taking Kyiv in Ukraine if Trump was president is itself a slippery slope argument that is unlikely to happen. Factors that would likely prevent that scenario from occurring include:

1. Ukrainian military resistance - The Ukrainian military has put up fierce resistance against Russian forces so far, bogging them down and preventing an easy takeover of Kyiv. ​
2. Continued Western military aid - With Western nations providing weapons, intelligence and training to Ukraine, their ability to fend off Russia in Kyiv would remain relatively strong. ​
3. High costs for Russia - Capturing Kyiv would require committing massive military resources that Russia may be unwilling to spend given the economic toll of the invasion so far. ​
4. Risk of regime change - An outright takeover of Kyiv could potentially inspire a resistance movement aimed at ousting Putin himself back in Moscow. ​
5. Diplomatic pressures - Such an overt conquest could unite more global opposition through sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, etc. ​
6. Uncertainty over Trump policies - It's speculative to assume Trump's policies would automatically enable Russia to capture Ukraine's capital. Trump's very unpredictability could be a disincentive to invade.