How has the US/Commie Bastards relationship been more beneficial to the Commie Bastards under Trump?



For the most part I think it has not been.

BHO did not take Russia seriously until 2014 [Crimea].  But after DJT was elected, at least in 2017-18, his Admin continued to take Russia seriously and I can list stuff it did:

Authorized lethal military aid to Ukraine.

Shuttered two Russian consulates, multiple diplomatic annexes, and expelled 60 diplomats – Seattle and SF.

Sanctioned Russian oligarchs and officials. 40 or so of them.

Expanded the Magnitsky sanctions list. This I had forgotten.  Had to look it up because I thought he did the opposite.

Made RT and Sputnik register as foreign agents.

I think there were additional sanctions of Russki businesses who aided NK and Iran.

Publicly blamed Russia for a cyberattack on the Ukraine, not a biggie, but I am being fair.

On the other hand, he publicly treats Putin with deference [I don’t need examples here, do I?] and has denied the findings of our own national security establishment regarding Russian meddling in our election process.  Personally, I think the Admin responses have become more erratic since his first group of professional advisors chosen from the military have been replaced by political appointees.

I get that he wants out of AFG.  I get that he wants out of the ME.  These are not stupid goals.  I don’t get screwing around insulting NATO and pulling troops out of Germany.  I do think that invites more bullying in eastern Europe from Russia.

19 Responses

  1. New Open Thread on Foreign Policy inspired by George.


  2. Latest NYT piece is more detailed than the previous one. This should be the subject of a Senate oversight committee hearing behind closed doors.


  3. “and has denied the findings of our own national security establishment regarding Russian meddling in our election process.”

    Those findings haven’t held up to scrutiny.

    It’s worth noting that the Trump administration has aggressively gone after Assange though who was alleged to be the cutout between the Russians and the US press vis-a-vis the DNC E-mails.

    So that’s not consistent with being “soft” on Russia. Obama refused to do it because it effectively criminalizes most journalism that involved the leaking of classified material. Say like these latest NYT pieces.

    This is still one of the best reads I’ve seen on Trump foreign policy:

    “In sum, Trump believes that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy with America’s military alliances and feels the United States is overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing America from its international commitments. ”


    • Those findings haven’t held up to scrutiny.

      I think they have, as to both propaganda and media infiltration and probes into state voter lists. No intel official ever said there was evidence of actual ballot manipulation.

      What have not held up well to scrutiny are the allegations of DJT having been more than just a willing recipient of help wherever he could get it.


      • Those findings haven’t held up to scrutiny.

        I think they have, as to both propaganda and media infiltration and probes into state voter lists. No intel official ever said there was evidence of actual ballot manipulation.

        I don’t think they’ve held up to scrutiny (or originally held up to logic), at least as presented in the media and given the context. Media infiltration was irrelevant and looked more like click farming than any attempt at influence. Probes into state voter lists are both not worth much in terms of election influence and happens universally (the latter being more common from China than Russia and Ukraine) but again was not likely related to election influencing, and likely would have happened with any set of candidates.

        On the whole, the general media narrative about Russia collusion was crazy from the get-go and even the things “substantiated” still assume a motivation or intent I don’t think there’s any evidence of, and Occam’s razor suggests more mundane and human motivations. Other things pointed to–like port scans–is like accusing Russia of trying to influence elections by being on the Internet. There are parties in every country, everywhere, running portscans and looking for vulnerabilities all the time.

        I’m not saying they aren’t engaged in various nefarious activities but the narrative, as told by the media and even how it was being characterized within the investigation, seemed broadly delusional or hysterical to me. I’m not saying that most if not all of the people involved don’t believe it, I just think it’s not factual.

        Which I blame on the social media/media nexus. Most of what’s going on seems to follow the vitality of certain delusions that resonate with a sufficient number of people and then get retweeted and reshaped, so a Tweet becomes a news story that is then retweeted and used as a reference in another news story and various parties step in–most of them independent actors or “conspiracies of convenience”, organizing in private chats or newsgroups–to try and weaponize these things. Frankly, there were a lot more indications of the weaponization of click-bait media buys and hacking likely unrelated to election-manipulation than there is of the original collusion narrative.

        This does not make Russia an innocent actor (any more than it makes Trump an innocent actor–like I’ve said before, that the left goes where they go instead of potential mob connections has always mystified me) just that *these things* just don’t hold up to scrutiny as having been state operations designed to influence elections.


  4. The Dems are truly beyond parody.


    • They’ve got their finger on the pulse of the young people, though. I’ll be interested to learn if the youngest generation coming up now–generation T (from Trump, apparently) or whatever you want to call to truly is repulsed by Gen Z and Millenial progressive lunacy. Would be nice but to keep them from being educated, something will have to happen to academia or parents will have to stop sending their kids to college.


      • I don’t know. The same thing could be said of my generation. I remember horrifying my hippie professors and TAs at the People’s Republic of Madison with my Reagan / Bush ’84 button on my backpack..


        • I had this guy for a course called History of American Thought in 1963.

          He was a smart guy. He was a Marxist. He lectured from the Charles and Mary Beard bible.

          I was an economics major with a math minor doing my senior research [Taxation and Urban Land Use] under a disciple of and former grad student under Milton Friedman. I have always been a capitalist.

          On my first term paper I received a “B” with the notation that I had completely missed the spirit of his lectures, although I had mastered the mere facts. I scheduled an appointment with him and politely suggested that I rejected his viewpoint. He was man enough to cut a deal with me: if I outlined what I considered his analytical errors and rebutted them while still showing mastery of the details he would accept that I had at least listened to him. I did end up with an “A”. But I had another Marxist who was not so understanding.

          No single theory of history ever fits, IMHO, and economic determinism is especially blind to the entire world of everything else. Guns, Germs and Steel is a better shot at simplifying history and it still misses great swaths of human conduct.


Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: