Trump’s Gift to Putin The President’s Privatized Foreign Policy Is a Boon for Russia - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Pete F. · 10-23-2019, 01:26 PM

For decades, if not centuries, scholars have debated which matters more in international affairs: structural forces, such as the relative power between states, or the ideas and decisions of individual leaders. But at least as far as the United States is concerned, President Donald Trump may put the debate to rest.

After a slow start, Trump has affected almost every facet of U.S. foreign policy. And the story to date is not an inspiring one. Trump has personalized, privatized, and deinstitutionalized foreign policy to the detriment of the national interest. That trend has accelerated in recent months, culminating in two disastrous missteps vis-à-vis Ukraine and Syria. In the process, the American public has suffered, U.S. allies have lost, and U.S. adversaries have gained—none more so than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

THE DAMAGE DONE
Trump’s assault on conventional decision-making processes has allowed him to personalize and privatize U.S. foreign policy, often in ways that benefit the Kremlin more than the White House. That fact was most glaringly and disturbingly on display during the president’s call with Zelensky in July, during which Trump offered to lift the freeze on military assistance to Ukraine and meet the newly elected Zelensky in the Oval Office. In return, Trump asked that Zelensky open new investigations into unsubstantiated allegations of corruption by Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, and purported Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (That account, originally based on a reconstructed transcript of the call, has since been bolstered by further evidence in text messages between State Department diplomats and Ukrainian officials and testimony from U.S. officials involved in U.S.-Ukrainian relations.)

Trump has placed his private interests and ill-informed personal theories above all else.
By not even mentioning Russia’s military interventions in Crimea and the Donbas during his call with Zelensky, Trump made clear his indifference to Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic consolidation. That’s a win for Putin. Trump’s politicization of military assistance weakened the United States’ previously rock-solid commitment to Ukraine’s defense—another gift to Putin. By recording and publishing Zelensky’s obsequiousness and flattery of Trump in the call memo, he made the new Ukrainian leader look weak—yet another deliverable for Putin. Trump’s subsequent repeated references to Ukraine as corrupt have likewise damaged the country’s reputation precisely at the moment when a newly elected president and parliament have an opportunity to break with the corruption of the past. Score one more victory for Putin.

And this list doesn’t include the damage to the United States itself: Trump’s attempt to use taxpayer money in pursuit of private goals tarnishes the United States’ reputation as the leader of the free world. Impeachment proceedings set off by the call will distract his administration from engaging in critical foreign policy issues involving China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

Trump’s misguided unilateral decisions in Syria also have played into Putin’s hands: Moscow benefits from the tensions that the Turkish offensive against the Kurds has caused within NATO. The Kurds, for their part, are turning to Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad and Putin in their desperate search for a new protector. More generally, the U.S. retreat in Syria has strengthened other U.S. foes—Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Islamic State (or ISIS)—and unnerved the United States’ closest allies in the region. Washington now looks unreliable at a time when Moscow is positioning itself as an alternative power broker in the region—not only to the Kurds but to the Saudis, the Turks, and the Israelis.

A standard process for formulating and executing U.S. foreign policy would have foreseen these dangers and worked to counteract them. Such a process no longer exists, allowing one individual to let his personal interests and misguided intuitions radically reshape U.S. foreign policy. In the two biggest arenas of U.S.-Russian conflict over the last decade—Ukraine and Syria—Trump has just handed Putin and his allies major victories, without a fight and without receiving anything in return.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic..._share_buttons

Sea Dangles · 10-23-2019, 02:56 PM

Fake news again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. · 10-24-2019, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Fake news again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No just the useful idiot Trump at work
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers · 10-24-2019, 07:30 AM

Pete he needs you to sit down at a table with a map and some colored markers like they did for Trump, otherwise it’s just way too hard to fathom the depth of this mistake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sea Dangles · 10-24-2019, 08:12 AM

Clearly the liberal fools here have an agenda that has nothing to do with honesty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F. · 10-24-2019, 09:15 AM

Ask the former commanding officers, they must be liberals by your definition.
Mattis
McRaven
McChrystal
Allen
Votel
Stavridis
McCaffrey

detbuch · 10-24-2019, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

For decades, if not centuries, scholars have debated which matters more in international affairs: structural forces, such as the relative power between states, or the ideas and decisions of individual leaders. But at least as far as the United States is concerned, President Donald Trump may put the debate to rest.

Another admission that he must be a stable genius.

THE DAMAGE DONE
That fact was most glaringly and disturbingly on display during the president’s call with Zelensky in July, during which Trump offered to lift the freeze on military assistance to Ukraine and meet the newly elected Zelensky in the Oval Office.

The transcript doesn't show him mentioning the freeze.

In return, Trump asked that Zelensky open new investigations into unsubstantiated allegations of corruption by Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, and purported Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (That account, originally based on a reconstructed transcript of the call, has since been bolstered by further evidence in text messages between State Department diplomats and Ukrainian officials and testimony from U.S. officials involved in U.S.-Ukrainian relations.)

Investigations, such as was done to Trump, are about looking into unsubstantiated allegations.

Trump has placed his private interests and ill-informed personal theories above all else.

That has as not yet been substantiated. Isn't that what's being investigated?

By not even mentioning Russia’s military interventions in Crimea and the Donbas during his call with Zelensky, Trump made clear his indifference to Ukraine’s sovereignty and democratic consolidation. That’s a win for Putin.

That "indifference" by U.S. policy was already made clear when the Obama administration forced the previous Ukraine president against his own sovereign will to fire his prosecutor.

Trump’s politicization of military assistance weakened the United States’ previously rock-solid commitment to Ukraine’s defense—another gift to Putin.

The assistance was given. Was that a gift to Putin.

By recording and publishing Zelensky’s obsequiousness and flattery of Trump in the call memo, he made the new Ukrainian leader look weak—yet another deliverable for Putin.

When the Obama administration made the previous Ukraine president look weak, was that a gift for Putin?

Trump’s subsequent repeated references to Ukraine as corrupt have likewise damaged the country’s reputation precisely at the moment when a newly elected president and parliament have an opportunity to break with the corruption of the past. Score one more victory for Putin.

By this reasoning, Obama and Biden damaged Ukraine's reputation with repeated references to Ukraine corruption. Trump claims that he was requesting an investigation that would, in effect, show that the Ukraine was no longer corrupt by exposing and clearing up the corruption that the previous U.S. administration kept repeating.

And this list doesn’t include the damage to the United States itself: Trump’s attempt to use taxpayer money in pursuit of private goals tarnishes the United States’ reputation as the leader of the free world.

Trump was pursuing the interests of the United States.

Impeachment proceedings set off by the call will distract his administration from engaging in critical foreign policy issues involving China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela.

No doubt, that is one of the reasons the proceedings are intended to do, as well as distracting our government from attending to internal matters, i.e. drug price reform, immigration problems, military funding, etc.

Trump’s misguided unilateral decisions in Syria also have played into Putin’s hands: Moscow benefits from the tensions that the Turkish offensive against the Kurds has caused within NATO.

Yeah, US pullouts of troops should be about US interests ("unilateral") not "guided" by opposing concerns of others. The "tensions" in NATO are being caused by Turkey, not the US. Turkey did not have to attack the Kurds. And if NATO was concerned about one of its members needing to be obstructed from such an attack, it should have posted NATO forces, imposed NATO pressure against Turkey's desires, and imposed NATO sanctions against Turkey or kicked Turkey out of NATO. NATO using U.S. force as the tip of its weak spear is getting old.

The Kurds, for their part, are turning to Syrian autocrat Bashar al-Assad and Putin in their desperate search for a new protector. More generally, the U.S. retreat in Syria has strengthened other U.S. foes—Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Islamic State (or ISIS)—and unnerved the United States’ closest allies in the region. Washington now looks unreliable at a time when Moscow is positioning itself as an alternative power broker in the region—not only to the Kurds but to the Saudis, the Turks, and the Israelis.

Wow, Russia will be the power broker in the region. So Russia will be able to do what the U.S. couldn't. It will be able to maintain peace and stability and cooperation there with Russian power. Good luck to it being able to stretch its meager resources into such an endeavor. And if it were successful, would that be a bad thing? Would Russia have to give foreign aid to all those countries? Stretch its military and non-existent financial resources to pay for the mission? Would it have to become a more cooperative power in the world community rather than an opposing one?

A standard process for formulating and executing U.S. foreign policy would have foreseen these dangers and worked to counteract them. Such a process no longer exists, allowing one individual to let his personal interests and misguided intuitions radically reshape U.S. foreign policy. In the two biggest arenas of U.S.-Russian conflict over the last decade—Ukraine and Syria—Trump has just handed Putin and his allies major victories, without a fight and without receiving anything in return.

Yeah, the "standard process" was really working to our benefit and not stopping China and Russia from becoming the dominant communistic powers they have become--with our standardized help.

Pete F. · 10-24-2019, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, the "standard process" was really working to our benefit and not stopping China and Russia from becoming the dominant communistic powers they have become--with our standardized help.

Keep believing in the Stable Genius

Will you tattoo his image on your back?

detbuch · 10-24-2019, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Keep believing in the Stable Genius

Unlike leftists I don't treat politics as if it were a religion which must be believed. Do you believe in politicians?

Will you tattoo his image on your back?

I'm not an advocate of tats. It wouldn't occur to me to ask, out of the clear blue, if someone would put a tattoo on his back. And nice video of a flushing toilet. Two and a half minutes, along with your tats Q, that are a waste of time, and that are typical of your inability to coherently or rationally respond.

Or maybe you believe in tattoos and toilets. Interesting religion.

Pete F. · 10-24-2019, 06:52 PM

You obviously believe that trump is a hero
I believe he’s going down the toilet through his own machinations
Keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 10-24-2019, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You obviously believe that trump is a hero
I believe he’s going down the toilet through his own machinations
Keep believing

He has done some things that are necessary. Some things that are good. Some not so much. Way better than what Hillary would have been. Hero? You tend to be an extremist.

detbuch · 11-12-2019, 07:26 PM

Apparently Trump does rely and listen to advisers. And not all of them think he is stupid and is going to destroy America.

Pete F. · 11-12-2019, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently Trump does rely and listen to advisers. And not all of them think he is stupid and is going to destroy America.

“Ambassador Haley was rarely a participant in my many meetings and is not in a position to know what I may or may not have said to the President,” Tillerson said,

And you ought to ask yourself, if Nikki Haley loved working for Trump so much and he was such a great, honest boss, then why did she resign.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch · 11-12-2019, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“Ambassador Haley was rarely a participant in my many meetings and is not in a position to know what I may or may not have said to the President,” Tillerson said,

She was in the position to know what he said to her. And he didn't deny that what she said was true.

And you ought to ask yourself, if Nikki Haley loved working for Trump so much and he was such a great, honest boss, then why did she resign.

No, I don't have to ask myself that. I might ask myself why you think that I should. I ought to ask myself why you deflected from what was said in the video and switched to why she resigned. I might ask myself if this is just another example of you framing something positive about Trump into a negative.

I've heard plenty from you and Striper that Trump doesn't ever listen to advisers, that he is a misogynist, that he was stupid to get rid of Kelly and Tillerson (appears that he had a very good reason to do so).