Trump hamstrung at home as he seeks closer ties with Moscow

[webfact]

Trump hamstrung at home as he seeks closer ties with Moscow

By Roberta Rampton

 

FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a news conference at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, on January 17, 2017 and U.S. President Donald Trump seen at a reception ceremony in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 20, 2017, as seen in this combination photo. Sputnik/Alexei Druzhinin/Kremlin via REUTERS and Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout/File photos via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - During his presidential campaign, Republican Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "strong leader" with whom he’d like to reset tense U.S.-Russian relations.

 

But as Trump heads to his first face-to-face meeting as president with Putin on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Germany on July 7-8, he is under pressure at home to take a tough line with the Kremlin.

 

Allegations of Russian meddling in last year’s U.S. elections have alarmed both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who are pushing to extend tough sanctions placed on Russia following its 2014 annexation of Crimea, a peninsula belonging to Ukraine.

 

Lawmakers including Cory Gardner, a Republican senator from Colorado, are also concerned Russia has prolonged the civil war in Syria by backing its President Bashar al-Assad, a strongman whose forces have used chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians. The chaos has fueled instability in the region and a flood of migrants to Europe.

 

"President (Trump) needs to make it clear that the continued aggression by Russia around the globe ... is unacceptable, and that they will be held accountable," said Gardner, who was among six lawmakers invited by the White House last month to discuss foreign policy with Trump over dinner.

 

Meanwhile, the appointment of a special counsel who is investigating potential links between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign has weakened the president’s ability to maneuver with Russia, foreign policy experts say.

 

The U.S. intelligence community has concluded Russia sponsored hacking of Democratic Party groups last year to benefit Trump over his Democrat challenger Hillary Clinton. Russia has denied those allegations while Trump has repeatedly dismissed the idea of any coordination between his campaign and Russia as a "witch hunt."

 

Still, just the optics of Trump meeting with Putin, a former KGB agent, are fraught with risk, foreign policy experts say.

"If (Trump) smiles, if he wraps his arm around Putin, if he says 'I'm honored to meet you, we're going to find a way forward,' ... I think Congress is going to react extremely negatively to that," said Julie Smith, a former national security aide in the Obama administration.

 

EVOLVING U.S. POLICY

 

Trump has signaled an interest in cooperating with Russia to defeat Islamic State in Syria and to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

The White House has been mum on what Trump would be willing to give Russia in exchange for that help. But there has been speculation he could ratchet down sanctions, or even return two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and Long Island.

President Barack Obama seized those facilities and expelled 35 Russian diplomats just before he left office as punishment for the election hacks.

 

While some administration officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, also support engagement, others, such as Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, have taken a hawkish line on Russia.

 

The lack of a unified strategy has left U.S. allies anxious. And it has lowered expectations for American leadership to help resolve crises in Syria and Ukraine, where Russian cooperation would be critical.

 

"Trump is like a horse with his front legs tied," said a German diplomat, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity. "He can’t make any big leaps forward on Russia. If he tried people would immediately suspect it was all part of some big conspiracy."

 

Trump's administration is still reviewing its Russia policy, a process that may not be wrapped up for a couple of months, a U.S. official said.

 

Speaking with reporters last week about Trump's upcoming meeting with Putin, White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster said his boss would like "the United States and the entire West to develop a more constructive relationship with Russia. But he’s also made clear that we will do what is necessary to confront Russia’s destabilizing behavior."

 

THIRD TRY AT A RESET

 

Trump is just the latest president to grapple with the complicated U.S.-Russia dynamic.

 

George W. Bush and Obama sought to improve the U.S. relationship with Russia early in their administrations only to see relations deteriorate later.

 

Among the concerns for this president is Trump’s apparent lack of interest in policy details and his tendency to wing it with foreign leaders.

 

McMaster told reporters that Trump has "no specific agenda" for his meeting with Putin and that topics would consist of "whatever the president wants to talk about."

 

Michael McFaul, who was U.S. ambassador to Russia under Obama, said he feared Trump might be headed to the meeting without clear objectives.

 

“I hope that he would think about first: what is our objective in Ukraine? What is our objective in Syria? And secondarily, how do I go about achieving that in my meeting with Putin?" McFaul said.

 

Other Washington veterans say Trump won't be able to make meaningful progress with Russia on anything until he confronts Putin about the suspected election meddling.

 

"(Trump) really has to raise the Russian election hacking last year, and has to say something like, 'Vladimir, don't do this again. There will be consequences,'" said Steve Pifer, a long-time State Department official focused on U.S.-Russia relations.

 

So far Trump has shown little inclination to do so, a situation that has heightened speculation about the potential impact from his coming encounter with the Russian leader.

 

“The shadow of all these investigations hangs over this,” said Angela Stent, a professor at Georgetown University and former National Intelligence Officer for Russia.

 

(Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Arshad Mohammed, Warren Strobel, Richard Cowan, Jonathan Landay, John Walcott in Washington; John Irish in Paris; Noah Barkin in Berlin; Christian Lowe in Moscow; Editing by Caren Bohan and Marla Dickerson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-04

[boomerangutang]

Trump makes Neville Chamberlain look like a wise insightful man.   Chamberlain is the Brit top official who went to meet with Hitler just before WW II broke out, and came back to England saying that Hitler was a fine fellow and had assured him personally that Germany had no aggressive plans in Europe.

 

Trump is Putin's bitch on several levels.  Kushner also.  Leeches like to lay with other leeches.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by boomerangutang

[Morch]

20 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Trump makes Neville Chamberlain look like a wise insightful man.   Chamberlain is the Brit top official who went to meet with Hitler just before WW II broke out, and came back to England saying that Hitler was a fine fellow and had assured him personally that Germany had no aggressive plans in Europe.

 

Trump is Putin's bitch on several levels.  Kushner also.  Leeches like to lay with other leeches.

 

 

 

Perspective ain't your strong point, is it?

Historical details and context too.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Perspective ain't your strong point, is it?

Historical details and context too.

 

First off, Boomerangutan wasn't penning a thesis to gain a doctorate. I think most of us are capable of seeing where the similarities lie and where they don't. But since you seem to be having a problem with seeing the similarities,, let me break that down for you. Like Hitler, Putin has invaded a neighboring country. Like Hitler he claims special rights to assist his ethnic brethren in other countries. Like Hitler he as acted on those claims. 

Like Chamberlain in the case of Hitler, Trump seems oblivious to Putin's aggressive attentions...But here I think Boomerangutan was a little unfair to...Chamberlain. Chamberlain actually did recognize that Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia. Given Trump's statements about Russia and the Ukraine we can't necessarily make the same claims for him.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, Boomerangutan wasn't penning a thesis to gain a doctorate. I think most of us are capable of seeing where the similarities lie and where they don't. But since you seem to be having a problem with seeing the similarities,, let me break that down for you. Like Hitler, Putin has invaded a neighboring country. Like Hitler he claims special rights to assist his ethnic brethren in other countries. Like Hitler he as acted on those claims. 

Like Chamberlain in the case of Hitler, Trump seems oblivious to Putin's aggressive attentions...But here I think Boomerangutan was a little unfair to...Chamberlain. Chamberlain actually did recognize that Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia. Given Trump's statements about Russia and the Ukraine we can't necessarily make the same claims for him.

 

Nothing said about penning a thesis. Just some fodder your added in for dramatics. There are, however,  such a things as basic grasp of history, a sense of balance and of perspective, which sorely lack from both the original post I was commenting on and from yours.

 

Now, I get it that the first poster obsession with denouncing Trump may lead to such nonsense, and that's pretty much what my comment was aimed at. Again, a continuation of past exchanges, if you will. But when it comes to your post, I think more the usual argumentative approach peppered with the butt-hurtz.

 

Superficial similarities aside, Putin is no Hitler. Russia is no Nazi Germany. There is no immanent  WW III or efforts to divert one. Trump is no Chamberlain. Considering he didn't even meet Putin yet, what their meeting will be like is an open question. Trump makes many statements, many of which do not stand up well to reality or to later actions. At the same time, cherry-pickers do go on, when it suits about how unreliable Trump's statements are.

 

Making such "historical" comparison is often off mark. People are different, ideas and ideals are different, geopolitical conditions are different. The almost only reason to indulge is to to push a current political propaganda of one sort or another. Accuracy, perspective and balance got little to do with it - but hyperbole and drama sure do.

[ilostmypassword]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Nothing said about penning a thesis. Just some fodder your added in for dramatics. There are, however,  such a things as basic grasp of history, a sense of balance and of perspective, which sorely lack from both the original post I was commenting on and from yours.

 

Now, I get it that the first poster obsession with denouncing Trump may lead to such nonsense, and that's pretty much what my comment was aimed at. Again, a continuation of past exchanges, if you will. But when it comes to your post, I think more the usual argumentative approach peppered with the butt-hurtz.

 

Superficial similarities aside, Putin is no Hitler. Russia is no Nazi Germany. There is no immanent  WW III or efforts to divert one. Trump is no Chamberlain. Considering he didn't even meet Putin yet, what their meeting will be like is an open question. Trump makes many statements, many of which do not stand up well to reality or to later actions. At the same time, cherry-pickers do go on, when it suits about how unreliable Trump's statements are.

 

Making such "historical" comparison is often off mark. People are different, ideas and ideals are different, geopolitical conditions are different. The almost only reason to indulge is to to push a current political propaganda of one sort or another. Accuracy, perspective and balance got little to do with it - but hyperbole and drama sure do.

"At the same time, cherry-pickers do go on, when it suits about how unreliable Trump's statements are."

Tendentious much?

T r u m p ’ s   L i e s

Many Americans have become accustomed to President Trump’s lies. But as regular as they have become, the country should not allow itself to become numb to them. So we have catalogued nearly every outright lie he has told publicly since taking the oath of office.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

 

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"At the same time, cherry-pickers do go on, when it suits about how unreliable Trump's statements are."

Tendentious much?

T r u m p ’ s   L i e s

Many Americans have become accustomed to President Trump’s lies. But as regular as they have become, the country should not allow itself to become numb to them. So we have catalogued nearly every outright lie he has told publicly since taking the oath of office.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

 

 

Hard to decide between cataloging the above post as disingenuous or daft.

My comment was about Trump's statements being both presented as false (such as detailed in the post above), while the same posters display little issue using Trump's statements as indication to his real aims, thoughts, policies and whatnot (as in the previous post). Thanks kindly for making the point.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Hard to decide between cataloging the above post as disingenuous or daft.

My comment was about Trump's statements being both presented as false (such as detailed in the post above), while the same posters display little issue using Trump's statements as indication to his real aims, thoughts, policies and whatnot (as in the previous post). Thanks kindly for making the point.

What's truly bizarre, is that out of all the subjects you could have chosen to zero in on, you selected Trump and his relation to Putin.  Maybe somewhere in all of his campaigning, his post campaigning, or post inauguration, you will find Trump making some negative statement about Putin.  But as it has been repeatedly remarked by observers all over the political map, he seems curiously reluctant to say an unkind word about the man. In fact you would have to search the orchard of Trump's comments about Putin hard and long to find a fruit in it that wasn't a cherry. It's not Trump's inconsistency on the subject of Putin that's the problem. It's quite the opposite.

[soalbundy]

We all know what Trump will say after the meeting.''We had a great talk.we have a fantastic relationship, all the negative news is fake and blah blah blah.

[boomerangutang]

There are some similarities. 

 

                         Chamberlain was charmed by Hitler - to the extent that he didn't gauge the immense harm that Hitler was preparing to inflict on Europe.  I'm not saying Putin is Hitler, but I do say that Putin is not shy about using Russia's awesome military might to increase Russia's territory.

 

                        Trump is impressed by Putin, to the extent where T can say nothing non-praising about his buddy.  Trump has said publicly that he thinks Putin is a better leader than Obama.  T said that while Obama was still in office.  

 

                       Perhaps Hitler had no leverage over Chamberlain, but Putin quite likely has leverage over Trump - possible pee tapes + Trump (and Kushner and who knows who else in that cabal) owing big money to Russian interests.

 

                         Trump didn't know Russia had invaded Ukraine, weeks after the fact.  I don't doubt Chamberlain was better apprised of world affairs than focus-of-a-canary Trump.  And Chamberlain screwed up.  That's why I submit that Trump is out-Chamberlaining Chamberlain - by way of Trump being easily duped coupled with his ignorance of the world.  Trump also coddles dictators.  He's put out the red carpet for Turkey's Erdowan, and is gearing up to do the same for Fil's Duterte.  

[Morch]

53 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What's truly bizarre, is that out of all the subjects you could have chosen to zero in on, you selected Trump and his relation to Putin.  Maybe somewhere in all of his campaigning, his post campaigning, or post inauguration, you will find Trump making some negative statement about Putin.  But as it has been repeatedly remarked by observers all over the political map, he seems curiously reluctant to say an unkind word about the man. In fact you would have to search the orchard of Trump's comments about Putin hard and long to find a fruit in it that wasn't a cherry. It's not Trump's inconsistency on the subject of Putin that's the problem. It's quite the opposite.

 

What it truly bizarre is your penchant for derailing topics and misrepresenting other posters' words. I did not "zero in" but made a general comment. I did no "select" "Trump and his relation to Putin" - but commented on topics which raised such issues. The whole point about Trump's statements' reliability and veracity was not even the main one raised.

 

Trump was consistent on other issues too. Some were dropped, some got a media spin, some were put on hold. You assume Putin is in a different class. That doesn't make it so.

 

[dunroaming]

To think for one second that Trump is capable of having a meaningful conversation with Putin is ridiculous.  Putin will swivel him on his middle finger and Trump will think (wrongly) he is being treated like a grown-up.

[Morch]

47 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

There are some similarities. 

 

                         Chamberlain was charmed by Hitler - to the extent that he didn't gauge the immense harm that Hitler was preparing to inflict on Europe.  I'm not saying Putin is Hitler, but I do say that Putin is not shy about using Russia's awesome military might to increase Russia's territory.

 

                        Trump is impressed by Putin, to the extent where T can say nothing non-praising about his buddy.  Trump has said publicly that he thinks Putin is a better leader than Obama.  T said that while Obama was still in office.  

 

                       Perhaps Hitler had no leverage over Chamberlain, but Putin quite likely has leverage over Trump - possible pee tapes + Trump (and Kushner and who knows who else in that cabal) owing big money to Russian interests.

 

                         Trump didn't know Russia had invaded Ukraine, weeks after the fact.  I don't doubt Chamberlain was better apprised of world affairs than focus-of-a-canary Trump.  And Chamberlain screwed up.  That's why I submit that Trump is out-Chamberlaining Chamberlain - by way of Trump being easily duped coupled with his ignorance of the world.  Trump also coddles dictators.  He's put out the red carpet for Turkey's Erdowan, and is gearing up to do the same for Fil's Duterte.  

 

Most of what you post on this is your opinion, and no one on this forum suspects it to be non-biased. Many of the things your present or sneak in as facts, are not.

 

Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler was at the eve of an mega-crisis, which eventually led to WWII. Trump's meeting with Putin is thankfully not accompanied by similar conditions. Neither is the scope similar - not a summit meant to address a specific issue, but a more or less routine meeting following an international gathering.

 

Bringing up Chamberlain and Hitler imagery is nothing but sensational propaganda.

 

 

[Scott]

I strongly suggest that the petty bickering stop.   People may express their opinion.   Arrogant retorts are not appreciated and will earn suspensions.  

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Most of what you post on this is your opinion, and no one on this forum suspects it to be non-biased. Many of the things your present or sneak in as facts, are not.

 

Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler was at the eve of an mega-crisis, which eventually led to WWII. Trump's meeting with Putin is thankfully not accompanied by similar conditions. Neither is the scope similar - not a summit meant to address a specific issue, but a more or less routine meeting following an international gathering.

 

Bringing up Chamberlain and Hitler imagery is nothing but sensational propaganda.

 

 

Not at all. I think Boomerangutang's point is that like Chamberlain, Trump doesn't have a clue as to the true nature of the person he's dealing with.   Like Hitler, Putin is prepared to commit aggression to get what he wants. As Russia's neighbors well know. This is someone about whom, as far as I can tell, Trump hasn't said an unkind word.  Which puts Putin in a different category from say, Charles Schumer.  I think there is legitimate cause for worry about the outcome of Trump's meeting with Putin. Especially since he insisted on a private meeting with Putin despite strong advice to the contrary. No, the consequences won't be as grave as they turned out to be after the Hitler-Chamberlain rendezvous.  But that doesn't mean they will be negligible, either.

[boomerangutang]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

Most of what you post on this is your opinion, and no one on this forum suspects it to be non-biased. Many of the things your present or sneak in as facts, are not.  Chamberlain's meeting with Hitler was at the eve of an mega-crisis, which eventually led to WWII. Trump's meeting with Putin is thankfully not accompanied by similar conditions. Neither is the scope similar - not a summit meant to address a specific issue, but a more or less routine meeting following an international gathering.   Bringing up Chamberlain and Hitler imagery is nothing but sensational propaganda.

I didn't say it was the same.  I was inferring similarities.  Plus, no one knows at this time whether a major war will break out soon.  From my experiences, part of which was growing up in a diplomatic family which traveled often (3 continents, 7 countries, 9 schools before the age of 20) - .....I'd say the chances of a major war within 3 years is better than 50-50.  The chance that the US will be involved is 95%.

 

Note, during the 20th century, there were major wars, on average, every generation = roughly at 25 year intervals, with several armed conflicts going on at any given time.   Things appear to be getting better in recent years, though there are still several military conflicts going on.  

 

The US State Dept is woefully understaffed.   Trump is not a student of history, and has many deep character faults, not least is his infantile quick-to-anger and retribution - particularly if he feels offended.  Putin is a cool cucumber in comparison.  Plus Putin is smarter and better versed on history and world affairs than Trump can ever hope to be.   Putin is playing chess, while Trump dropped his dominos on the floor and blaming everyone else for rocking his crib can causing him to have daily tantrums.  

[dunroaming]

9 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 Trump is not a student of history, and has many deep character faults, not least is his infantile quick-to-anger and retribution - particularly if he feels offended.  Putin is a cool cucumber in comparison.  Plus Putin is smarter and better versed on history and world affairs than Trump can ever hope to be.   Putin is playing chess, while Trump dropped his dominos on the floor and blaming everyone else for rocking his crib can causing him to have daily tantrums.  

Can't argue with that!

[smotherb]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Perspective ain't your strong point, is it?

Historical details and context too.

 

Would you care to elaborate or are you just going to cast aspersions with nothing to back it up?

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And I'm suggesting that the "similarities" offered are superficial, at best.

 

That no one knows whether a major war will break out soon is nonsense. Especially in comparison with the historical reference used. Not overly impressed by your predictions or the relevance of cited "credentials". Saying that there may be war in a few years is one thing, citing the example employed is another. And, of course, things being what they are, no guarantee that such a war would involve Russia (unless mistaken you even made such a prediction on another topic).

 

I am not defending Trump's incompetence, denying the current sorry state of the US State Dept, or arguing Putin is not a superior player. I'm just rejecting your historical comparison as inaccurate and irrelevant.

‘Russia Is a Threat … to All of Europe’

Dalia Grybauskaitė, the president of Lithuania, is on the front line of a “non-conventional war” against an expansionist Moscow. In an interview in Vilnius this week, she spells out the reasons that U.S. troops should be stationed on Lithuanian soil to prevent a Russian attack. 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/24/russia-lithuania-nato-grybauskaite-putin-trump-interview/

 

The Plot Against Europe
The West’s nightmare scenario starts with Donald Trump’s election — and ends with Russian tanks rolling into Estonia while NATO looks the other way.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/06/the-plot-against-europe/

 

Thank Putin, Not Trump, For NATO’s New Defense Spending Boost

ne president is pushing NATO to get its act together on defense spending. But that president sits in Moscow, not Washington.

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced non-U.S. NATO members will boost their defense spending by 4.3 percent this year as it seeks to counter Russian aggression and confront terrorist threats from the Middle East.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/thank-putin-not-trump-for-natos-new-defense-spending-boost-transatlantic-relations-military-europe/

 

 

[boomerangutang]

                            Much of our discussions are projecting into near future - what may happen.  However, some things are as sure as the Rock of Gibraltar, such as: Trump has major character flaws.  Due to his position as the most powerful position of anyone on the planet - that could manifest in major calamity - for the US and beyond.

 

                                 He proves, every day, what a dangerous dufus he is.  For that reason, it's good he's distracted by so many things, like having to defend/deflect the stories about him showcasing fake magazine covers on his resort walls.   The more he's distracted, the less chance there is he'll do harmful things - which he is wont to do if given half a chance.

 

                                 I don't worry as much about Putin.  Putin wants to re-cobble the USSR (but not use that old name).  So the worse Putin will do is attack countries that border Russia, like he did in parts of Ukraine.  Trump is worse than a bull in a china shop.  He's a drunk musk-crazed elephant in a china factory.   He must be kept distracted constantly, so he doesn't cause too much damage - until such time as he's out of office.  

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

‘Russia Is a Threat … to All of Europe’

Dalia Grybauskaitė, the president of Lithuania, is on the front line of a “non-conventional war” against an expansionist Moscow. In an interview in Vilnius this week, she spells out the reasons that U.S. troops should be stationed on Lithuanian soil to prevent a Russian attack. 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/24/russia-lithuania-nato-grybauskaite-putin-trump-interview/

 

The Plot Against Europe
The West’s nightmare scenario starts with Donald Trump’s election — and ends with Russian tanks rolling into Estonia while NATO looks the other way.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/06/the-plot-against-europe/

 

Thank Putin, Not Trump, For NATO’s New Defense Spending Boost

ne president is pushing NATO to get its act together on defense spending. But that president sits in Moscow, not Washington.

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced non-U.S. NATO members will boost their defense spending by 4.3 percent this year as it seeks to counter Russian aggression and confront terrorist threats from the Middle East.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/thank-putin-not-trump-for-natos-new-defense-spending-boost-transatlantic-relations-military-europe/

 

 

 

Lithuania's president being more alarmed than others is well understood, but still - her position is not necessarily the most objective out there.

 

NATO members upgrading their defense spending is not indicative of an upcoming war, but of an awareness that a certain level of preparedness ought to be maintained. There was not advocating of complacency in my posts.

 

And as for the nightmare bit - here's an extract:

 

Quote

What you have just read is a work of speculative fiction. The likelihood that any one of the aforementioned events will transpire differs to varying degrees; that all would occur in the nightmarish concatenation I’ve foretold is unlikely.

 

Sounds like you almost wish there was a war, just so that you could be right. Beat that drum.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                            Much of our discussions are projecting into near future - what may happen.  However, some things are as sure as the Rock of Gibraltar, such as: Trump has major character flaws.  Due to his position as the most powerful position of anyone on the planet - that could manifest in major calamity - for the US and beyond.

 

                                 He proves, every day, what a dangerous dufus he is.  For that reason, it's good he's distracted by so many things, like having to defend/deflect the stories about him showcasing fake magazine covers on his resort walls.   The more he's distracted, the less chance there is he'll do harmful things - which he is wont to do if given half a chance.

 

                                 I don't worry as much about Putin.  Putin wants to re-cobble the USSR (but not use that old name).  So the worse Putin will do is attack countries that border Russia, like he did in parts of Ukraine.  Trump is worse than a bull in a china shop.  He's a drunk musk-crazed elephant in a china factory.   He must be kept distracted constantly, so he doesn't cause too much damage - until such time as he's out of office.  

 

That's more like the familiar run-of-the-mill anti-Trump rants - which other than not being keen on the style, I've nothing much against.

 

But here's this...If Putin is indeed both a (1) master (or superior, at least) player and (2) a rational player with limited goals, then he ought to be able to manage Trump (with or without supposed leverage). If Trump is managed, no existential problems. Going back to the historical comparison used, if Putin is the one less dangerous to World peace and Trump is the menace that needs to be managed, it becomes less clearer "who's who".

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Lithuania's president being more alarmed than others is well understood, but still - her position is not necessarily the most objective out there.

 

NATO members upgrading their defense spending is not indicative of an upcoming war, but of an awareness that a certain level of preparedness ought to be maintained. There was not advocating of complacency in my posts.

 

And as for the nightmare bit - here's an extract:

 

 

Sounds like you almost wish there was a war, just so that you could be right. Beat that drum.

"Lithuania's president being more alarmed than others is well understood, but still - her position is not necessarily the most objective out there."

Nor is it necessarily the least objective out there. We do know that she is on the front lines. And she must know that asking for American troops also means creating risk.  Yet she wants it anyway. I'd go with her opinion and sadly detailed knowledge of the Russians over yours.

 

"NATO members upgrading their defense spending is not indicative of an upcoming war, but of an awareness that a certain level of preparedness ought to be maintained."

Preparedness for what? Competitive marching?  Capture the flag? Or just is it vaguely possible, preparing for the distinct possibility of Russian aggression?

 

"Sounds like you almost wish there was a war, just so that you could be right. Beat that drum."

Gee, it sounds like you're almost reading my mind.  But in case you don't know it, almost may count in horseshoes, but in mindreading not so much. Got any more cheap and baiting shots in store?

 

 

[hugocnx]

I find the report to be very old fashioned opinion wise. Not to say it is all  non constructive left/democratic whining.  Oh oh, Trump should say to Putin ' don't do that again bad boy, I might spank you.

And give Putin a lesson about him creating instability as if the US have done nothing like that for decades?  Give me a break. Trump will do what Trump does and nothing the deep state wants.  When your backyard is full of so called peace loving high educated refugees, where will you go? Yes, Russia.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.   I think we have beaten the Hitler comparison to death and it is not on topic.  

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, hugocnx said:

I find the report to be very old fashioned opinion wise. Not to say it is all  non constructive left/democratic whining.

Oh oh, Trump should say to Putin ' don't do that again bad boy, I might spank you.

And give Putin a lesson about him creating instability as if the US have done nothing like that for decades? 

Give me a break. Trump will do what Trump does and nothing the deep state wants.

When your backyard is full of so called peace loving high educated refugees, where will you go? Yes, Russia.

I'd like to point out to you that the US Senate overwhelmingly approved of legislation to limit Trump's ability to give Russia what it might want. It's stalled in the house thanks to a powerful representative whose districts interests would be hurt by impaired trade with Russia, but House Republicans, like Senate Republicans also mostly support the measure. So please no more nonsense about left/democratic whining.

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Lithuania's president being more alarmed than others is well understood, but still - her position is not necessarily the most objective out there."

Nor is it necessarily the least objective out there. We do know that she is on the front lines. And she must know that asking for American troops also means creating risk.  Yet she wants it anyway. I'd go with her opinion and sadly detailed knowledge of the Russians over yours.

 

"NATO members upgrading their defense spending is not indicative of an upcoming war, but of an awareness that a certain level of preparedness ought to be maintained."

Preparedness for what? Competitive marching?  Capture the flag? Or just is it vaguely possible, preparing for the distinct possibility of Russian aggression?

 

"Sounds like you almost wish there was a war, just so that you could be right. Beat that drum."

Gee, it sounds like you're almost reading my mind.  But in case you don't know it, almost may count in horseshoes, but in mindreading not so much. Got any more cheap and baiting shots in store?

 

 

 

And you could have quoted other neighbors of Russia which are not as alarmed. Pointing out the source is not quite the same as rejecting the view, just putting it in context. If you wish to take it as gospel, that's cool. Making it "her opinion" over "mine" is, of course, your addition.

 

NATO is a military entity. It is supposed to be prepared for war (or at any rate, military operations). Measuring the levels of preparedness is done according to various standards. There were numerous reports lamenting NATO's lack of preparedness for some years now. I think a past topic mentioning Netherlands troops were issued brooms in lieu of rifles on a NATO drill. Bringing levels of preparedness to acceptable norm is not quite the same as asserting war is imminent.

 

I'm not the one pushing forward an absurd historical comparison, and as a result getting entangled in predictions about an upcoming war. As I recall, a similar point of view was taken on a recent topic, different region. Hence beating the drum. Even the author of the nightmare article linked acknowledged it is unlikely.

[ilostmypassword]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And you could have quoted other neighbors of Russia which are not as alarmed. Pointing out the source is not quite the same as rejecting the view, just putting it in context. If you wish to take it as gospel, that's cool. Making it "her opinion" over "mine" is, of course, your addition.

 

NATO is a military entity. It is supposed to be prepared for war (or at any rate, military operations). Measuring the levels of preparedness is done according to various standards. There were numerous reports lamenting NATO's lack of preparedness for some years now. I think a past topic mentioning Netherlands troops were issued brooms in lieu of rifles on a NATO drill. Bringing levels of preparedness to acceptable norm is not quite the same as asserting war is imminent.

 

I'm not the one pushing forward an absurd historical comparison, and as a result getting entangled in predictions about an upcoming war. As I recall, a similar point of view was taken on a recent topic, different region. Hence beating the drum. Even the author of the nightmare article linked acknowledged it is unlikely.

"And you could have quoted other neighbors of Russia which are not as alarmed"

Unlike you, I don't have an alarmometer handy but it does seem that the nations of Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden also feel threatened by Russia. But what do they know? They only share borders with that nation.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-is-a-threat-estonia-frets-about-its-neighbor/2017/03/24/011ad320-0f2b-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.14b817937634

 

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_russia_now_a_greater_threat_to_finland/9130673

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-latvia-russia-next-20150502-story.html

 

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/fear-of-russia-drives-sweden-closer-to-nato/

 

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-splits-norway-norwegians-fear-russia-threat-486354

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/727201/Cold-War-Russia-threatens-Norway-nuclear-war-host-US-marines

 

"NATO is a military entity. It is supposed to be prepared for war"

Thank Putin, Not Trump, For NATO’s New Defense Spending Boost

"NATO is a military entity. It is supposed to be prepared for war

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced non-U.S. NATO members will boost their defense spending by 4.3 percent this year as it seeks to counter Russian aggression and confront terrorist threats from the Middle East...

Trump has also taken credit for NATO’s defense spending boost, but top NATO and European officials insist the wake-up call came from Russian President Vladimir Putin, and not the man in the Oval Office."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/thank-putin-not-trump-for-natos-new-defense-spending-boost-transatlantic-relations-military-europe/

 

You're really digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. It could be a good thing if you surface in Lithuania. You might learn something. 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"And you could have quoted other neighbors of Russia which are not as alarmed"

Unlike you, I don't have an alarmometer handy but it does seem that the nations of Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden also feel threatened by Russia. But what do they know? They only share borders with that nation.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-is-a-threat-estonia-frets-about-its-neighbor/2017/03/24/011ad320-0f2b-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.14b817937634

 

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/report_russia_now_a_greater_threat_to_finland/9130673

 

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-latvia-russia-next-20150502-story.html

 

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/fear-of-russia-drives-sweden-closer-to-nato/

 

http://www.newsweek.com/putin-splits-norway-norwegians-fear-russia-threat-486354

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/727201/Cold-War-Russia-threatens-Norway-nuclear-war-host-US-marines

 

Thank Putin, Not Trump, For NATO’s New Defense Spending Boost

"NATO is a military entity. It is supposed to be prepared for war

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced non-U.S. NATO members will boost their defense spending by 4.3 percent this year as it seeks to counter Russian aggression and confront terrorist threats from the Middle East...

Trump has also taken credit for NATO’s defense spending boost, but top NATO and European officials insist the wake-up call came from Russian President Vladimir Putin, and not the man in the Oval Office."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/28/thank-putin-not-trump-for-natos-new-defense-spending-boost-transatlantic-relations-military-europe/

 

You're really digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. It could be a good thing if you surface in Lithuania. You might learn something. 

 

 

 

 

Yes, some of Russia's neighbors are worried, some aren't. You cite those who are. Thanks for making the point.

 

Seems to have botched up the quote effort there. But again - there was no denial that NATO's role is to serve as a counter weight to Russia. The thing is that for some time now, and for various reasons, the balance was allowed to shift. What is being done now is a correction back to an accepted norm. If there was, indeed, a war on the horizon, defense spending would rocket to a much higher level than detailed.

 

And no, I don't think I'm digging myself a hole at all. All I'm saying is that the sky isn't falling.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, some of Russia's neighbors are worried, some aren't. You cite those who are. Thanks for making the point.

 

Seems to have botched up the quote effort there. But again - there was no denial that NATO's role is to serve as a counter weight to Russia. The thing is that for some time now, and for various reasons, the balance was allowed to shift. What is being done now is a correction back to an accepted norm. If there was, indeed, a war on the horizon, defense spending would rocket to a much higher level than detailed.

 

And no, I don't think I'm digging myself a hole at all. All I'm saying is that the sky isn't falling.

"Yes, some of Russia's neighbors are worried, some aren't. You cite those who are. Thanks for making the point."

Nice try. You originally raised that point to make the President of Lithuania seem something of an outlier. Clearly, she's not. In fact,  all the European countries to the west of Russia fear Russian military intervention.  

Here's the rest

Poland

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/poland-wants-trumps-vow-of-protection-from-russian-activity

 

Romania

https://news.vice.com/article/romania-is-starting-to-freak-out-about-russian-designs-on-transnistria

 

Belarus

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-belarus-russia-relations-20170308-story.html

 

"Seems to have botched up the quote effort there. But again - there was no denial that NATO's role is to serve as a counter weight to Russia. The thing is that for some time now, and for various reasons, the balance was allowed to shift. What is being done now is a correction back to an accepted norm. If there was, indeed, a war on the horizon, defense spending would rocket to a much higher level than detailed."

Not what that article says. It isn't just a pendulum swing. Fear is motivating this.