Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
H/T TO GEORGE.
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Admin responses have become more erratic since his first group of professional advisors chosen from the military have been replaced by political appointees.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.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Open Thread |
All Things in Moderation 
New Open Thread on Foreign Policy inspired by George.
LikeLike
Bolton’s doubt of the Commie Bastard story is hilarious! Tapper looks like he’s going to shit a brick.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/06/28/sotu-bolton-russia.cnn
Great sourcing all around team. Again, why are we still there?
LikeLike
Did I answer the question you asked me in the Morning Report thread?
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
What did I miss?
LikeLike
You didn’t answer either of my questions.
What do you think the Russians have received from Trump since his election? In other words, how has the US/Commie Bastards relationship been more beneficial to the Commie Bastards under Trump versus under Obama?
LikeLike
I thought I answered both – it hasn’t been generally more beneficial to Russia than BHO but the exception is his screwing around with NATO which emboldens Russia toward east central Europe.
That was the whole point of the post in your honor, my friend!
LikeLike
But his doubt of the wisdom of the President’s response is palpable.
“Herky Jerky…”
LikeLike
Is his doubt a bad thing?
LikeLike
With Bolton I think it’s an ego thing.
LikeLike
I think Bolton is in opposition to Trump right now. An interesting assertion was made on No Agenda that Steve Bannon wrote Bolton’s book, so there’s that as well.
And when is Trump’s response not herky jerky? He’s not remotely the rhetorician his own press secretary is. I feel about Trump the way Churchill did about Democracy. He’s the worst president possible, except for all the other options.
LikeLike
Latest NYT piece is more detailed than the previous one. This should be the subject of a Senate oversight committee hearing behind closed doors.
LikeLike
“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:
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
The Dems are truly beyond parody.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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..
LikeLike
I had this guy for a course called History of American Thought in 1963.
https://historypsychiatry.com/2015/04/29/obituary-norman-dain-1926-2015/
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.
LikeLike