Trump gets slammed for Helsinki

A Spirited, Substantive Debate on the Trump-Putin Summit, Russia, and U.S. Politics
Trump n Putin:https://theintercept.com/2018/07/16/a-spirited-substantive-debate-on-the-trumpputin-summit-russia-and-us-politics/

I also have no doubt that he insisted on a private meeting with Putin, without any witnesses, in order to craft clandestine responses to the Mueller probe. I think he tipped his hand when he brought up the far-right, tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory regarding the email servers and the Pakistani. This has already been thoroughly debunked.

But, IMO, it wasn’t just the usual attempt to deflect, distract and gaslight — though it was all of those things. I think it’s a sign of things to come from the Russia/Trump/GOP coordination/collusion efforts. Two hours is more than enough time to discuss plenty of “false flag” operations, and the planting of evidence to go after Dems or never-Trumpers.

He’s not above this. He’s a sociopath. He’s not above anything, when it comes to his own survival.

PS. I think dozens of Republicans are also guilty of seeking help from the Russians to win their elections, and that this is ongoing. They’re not just trying to protect Trump from Mueller. They’re trying to protect themselves.

PPS. If Dems engaged in anything similar, they need to be held accountable too.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

My own take is that Trump’s rationale for making nice with Russia is essential to consider. It makes the attempt beyond empty for me.

It’s also vital, IMO, to consider what he’s done around the world. It’s not as if he’s tried to reduce tensions anywhere else. In fact, he’s raised them, threatening Iran with regime change, Venezuela with military invasion, even Mexico with the same.

He drove us to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea, prior to kinda sorta defusing the crises he created. And he’s attacked our allies without mercy, throwing much of the world into chaos.

If he were an actual peacenik, I’d feel much differently about his overtures to Russia. But he’s anything but that. Who hasn’t he attacked or threatened, other than Russia?

===============

I dont really care about his ‘rationale’ (I assume it is always just a reflection of his narcissism, etc). All that matters to me is Russia’s nukes. I want the threat of nuclear war to be reduced.

And i think he’s done that. I think he met with putin and he said “hey, whats with this election interference?” And putin goes, “Seriously? You people have been interfering all over the world for decades, LoL”. And trumpy goes, “I know, I know, now lets tell the press weve discussed it and the world is safe from nuclear war.”

So far, I’d say Trumps foreign policy is better than Bush’s.

w
v

But does Trump’s personal overture to Putin do that? I really don’t see how. I can’t see how his personal connection changes the nuclear dynamic at all, given the fact that so much exists outside Trump’s actual control — as in, any president’s. The massive amount of weapons are there. The Pentagon is still there. Our thousand bases around the world are still there. Our history of conflict is still there.

How does Trump’s acceptance of Putin’s help/cyberattack alter any of that? If Putin is crazy enough to launch nukes in the first place, I honestly don’t think Trump and Putin playing nicey nice will stop him.

Also worth considering: No American president since Kennedy has come remotely close to “going there.” At least that we know about. HRC wouldn’t have struck first either. It would mean the end of the world. MAD, etc. So, really, how is Trump better on this issue, if nukes are the key factor?

Whether the Kremlin meddled in the U.S. election or not, the hyper-focus on Russiagate overlooks bigger threats: Russian elites to the Russian people, and U.S. elites to the American people, says Paul Jay

Fox News on Trump-Putin

PA Ram wrote:

Trump is moving the goalposts for what is acceptable by Russia. Putin will test that.

And then? Who knows? It won’t be good.

===================

Well, I look at it like, yeah he’s moving the goalposts.. towards peace with russia.

And yeah, i think Dem warhawks and coldwarriors like Hillary will move the goalposts the other way when they get the chance. But i dont blame trump for that.

Listen to Noam on Russia. What do you think of his recounting of how the US/Nato has moved first-strike missiles country by country right up to Russia’s border. Despite the fact the US said it wouldnt do that.

w
v

PA Ram wrote:

I think this is very disturbing for many reasons.

But the worst thing about this is that I think it pushes us CLOSER to military conflict with Russia. There is already a huge backlash coming and if it isn’t this congress, it will be the next president who will feel the need to be VERY tough on Russia to make up for this. This may even be an extreme reaction which will cause a bad reaction. And who knows where it goes from there.

Trump is moving the goalposts for what is acceptable by Russia. Putin will test that.

And then? Who knows? It won’t be good.

Me? I think the sole purpose for that meeting, in private, without witnesses, was because Trump needed more help from Putin. I have no doubt they spent most of that time cooking up ways to keep Trump out of jail, to shift the blame to other parties, especially the Dems, and that this will involve the creation of new waves of “fake news” and a “false flag” or too.

And I don’t see the above as hyperbole or paranoia. I see it as just being realistic about our sociopath in chief.

It’s not that Trump has chosen Russia over America. It’s that he, as always, chooses himself and his business interests over any country. His time with Putin is purely transactional, from his point of view. He desperately needs outside help and Putin is more than willing to give it to him — in exchange for things like the end of sanctions, the erosion of NATO, the erosion of the EU, which Trump likely wants regardless of Putin anyway. He actually called the EU a foe of America in recent days.

We live in mad times.

Billy_T wrote:

But Noam’s interview was prior to the latest indictments from Mueller. There’s more information now to deal with. I don’t think he would be as dismissive of Russian interference after reading them.

==============

Well the vid says it was published on July 4. When were the indictments? (the vid is in the other thread i started — did you watch it?)

And in the vid he doesnt dismiss the russia story. He says it probably happened — he just doesnt think its a major story. He does the ‘context’ thing. In the context of what the US does regularly, the russia thing is just not a major story.

w
v

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

But Noam’s interview was prior to the latest indictments from Mueller. There’s more information now to deal with. I don’t think he would be as dismissive of Russian interference after reading them.

==============

Well the vid says it was published on July 4. When were the indictments? (the vid is in the other thread i started — did you watch it?)

And in the vid he doesnt dismiss the russia story. He says it probably happened — he just doesnt think its a major story. He does the ‘context’ thing. In the context of what the US does regularly, the russia thing is just not a major story.

w
v

The indictments came out this past Friday. So after that video. I watched most of it. I think I had to go after he talked about the environmental damage being done by Trump and the GOP, which I thought was well said.

To me, how can it not be a major story? An election system hacked, voter information stolen, voter registration systems hacked, DNC information stolen and leaked to Wikileaks, which, like Russia, wanted to tilt the election toward Trump. Not to mention tens of millions of Facebook users and their data stolen in order to swing elections and divide the nation.

That’s not a major event? And to make it even bigger, it’s ongoing. Trump’s own appointee, Dan Coats, a life-long Republican, says we’re at pre-9-11 threat levels, as far as cyber attacks go. It may be hyperbole. Who knows? But at the very least, it’s worth serious hardening of our election system.

I want to say more about this, in general, but will refrain for now. Rough day, and time for me to get some rest.

Hope all is well.

wv wrote:

At any rate, what about the NATO thing. You seem to think russia is an aggressor — what about the NATO thing. Seems to me its the West thats the aggressor.

I remember reading about the missile defense systems awhile ago and I thought the same thing: Is this a good idea? Was it necessary? It does seem to be a poke at them. And it clearly pisses them off. I’m open to questioning that. But even IF that happened, I don’t expect Putin would suddenly shake our hand. Putin’s #1 interest is the same as Trump’s: himself.

He has accumulated massive wealth–perhaps more than anyone. Having a boogeyman(however, justified) like the United States is good for him personally. And he seems to have ambitions of rebuilding the Soviet Union and clearly he will look for opportunities to invade other countries. He basically took part of the Ukraine, I mean–who knows?

But Putin is what Trump wants to be–an authoritarian ruler who answers to no one.

I can see Trump giving up intelligence assets in private.

Trump’s director of national intelligence said the digital infrastructure is under attack from Russia.

Russia is a threat to us on many levels. I’m not saying not to be more cordial with Russia, or to rattle sabres.

I want a better relationship but it has to be based on trust and Putin–a man who has people poisoned on foreign soil has shown no reason to trust him. None. Why should we trust him? What about Putin has ever suggested he is anything but a gangster?

But still–I DO want there to be a stable peaceful relationship with Russia. I don’t want WWIII.

Trump’s actions do nothing solid to further that peace beyond happy talk and handshakes. And Putin is laughing at him.

And when the backlash comes–and it will, because the next guy or gal will now have to prove they are tough on Russia. They may go out of their way to do that. And that will be a very scary time. And for that matter–Trump is an oddball. Maybe he goes nuts to PROVE he’s not soft on Russia and does something crazy(one reason I think we have to ride out his term without pushing too hard on him).

So, my opinion is first and foremost that Trump is not getting us closer to peace. It’s all talk and photo ops.

And he may in fact be a Russian asset.

I don’t know. But I don’t think Trump’s motivation is peace. It’s always about himself.

wv wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

wv wrote:

At any rate, what about the NATO thing. You seem to think russia is an aggressor — what about the NATO thing. Seems to me its the West thats the aggressor.

I remember reading about the missile defense systems awhile ago and I thought the same thing: Is this a good idea? Was it necessary? It does seem to be a poke at them. And it clearly pisses them off. I’m open to questioning that. But even IF that happened, I don’t expect Putin would suddenly shake our hand. Putin’s #1 interest is the same as Trump’s: himself..

===================

Well, I like the way Paul Jay of real news network put it in a vid. He said American oligarchs are the enemies of Americans. And russian oligarchs are the enemies of Russians. Basically just a simple class argument. Thats how I look at it. I dont think of ‘russia’ as ‘our enemy’.
Putin’s a gangster. Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush are bigger gangsters.

w
v

If Russian oligarchs run complex operations to disrupt our election system, and pit American against American via social media — which they did — then they’re our “enemies” too.

These things can all be the case at the same time:

1. American oligarchs are our enemies
2. Russian oligarchs are the enemies of the Russian people
3. American oligarchs can be the enemies of people all over the world
4. Russian oligarchs can be the enemies of people all over the world.

IMO, there is no reason to limit it to an impact on just their own countries, and I have a feeling that Paul Jay doesn’t do that for American power. Nor should he. So why the limit for Russia power?

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

PA Ram wrote:

wv wrote:

At any rate, what about the NATO thing. You seem to think russia is an aggressor — what about the NATO thing. Seems to me its the West thats the aggressor.

I remember reading about the missile defense systems awhile ago and I thought the same thing: Is this a good idea? Was it necessary? It does seem to be a poke at them. And it clearly pisses them off. I’m open to questioning that. But even IF that happened, I don’t expect Putin would suddenly shake our hand. Putin’s #1 interest is the same as Trump’s: himself..

===================

Well, I like the way Paul Jay of real news network put it in a vid. He said American oligarchs are the enemies of Americans. And russian oligarchs are the enemies of Russians. Basically just a simple class argument. Thats how I look at it. I dont think of ‘russia’ as ‘our enemy’.
Putin’s a gangster. Trump/Clinton/Obama/Bush are bigger gangsters.

w
v

If Russian oligarchs run complex operations to disrupt our election system, and pit American against American via social media — which they did — then they’re our “enemies” too.

These things can all be the case at the same time:

1. American oligarchs are our enemies
2. Russian oligarchs are the enemies of the Russian people
3. American oligarchs can be the enemies of people all over the world
4. Russian oligarchs can be the enemies of people all over the world.

IMO, there is no reason to limit it to an impact on just their own countries, and I have a feeling that Paul Jay doesn’t do that for American power. Nor should he. So why the limit for Russia power?

=======================

Well, sure, Oligarchs are the enemy. I think Paul Jay was just reacting to the way the american MSM suppresses the ‘context’. The MSM just goes on and on about the russians and buries the…..well, youve heard all this from me a million times now. I dont wanna keep repeating the same mantra.

We just summarize each OTHER’s views — see if we have it right — and then um…i dunno….agree to shoot zn, er somethin.

w
v

I’m late to all this. Been out of town for a couple of weeks, and just sort of catching up.

I have a couple thoughts to add. First of all, there is talk of “peace” in this thread – a thing we all value and prefer – but I don’t think our picture of peace matches Trump and Putin’s picture of peace. I believe it is pretty clear that their picture of peace is actually something more like “absolute control.” No dissent. Trump’s world is made up of Winners and Losers. The Winners call the shots, and the Losers shut the hell up. Losers don’t matter. I seriously think that is what those two men mean when they speak of Peace. Rigid control without any messy dissent. And I think THAT is the kind of “peace” they talk about when they have conversations about policy.

Secondly, I think we have overlooked something here. The perspective expressed here has looked at the private meeting at the summit from Trump’s point of view, and there has been a bit of conversation about what Trump “wanted.” Well, he probably did want something, and it was undoubtedly something about himself, and the Mueller investigation is probably a very likely topic for him. But Putin is ex-KGB, and is vastly more intelligent and forward-thinking than Trump is, and I’m going to guess that Putin did the driving in that conversation.

And Putin isn’t very worried about Mueller. He wants to continue to disrupt American civilization, and weaken our world standing, and he’s going to keep doing that. A big shitstorm, constitutional crisis works just fine for him. He’s a winner either way. Trump keeps fucking shit up as he has been doing, or he cripples the government’s ability to keep their eye on the ball at all because it is undergoing a governmental crisis.

I will guess that Putin put forward some proposal with some of the following ingredients:

1. Give up the Ukraine to Putin
2. Give up Syria to Assad (Putin)
3. Drop the Russia sanctions, especially Magnitsky

in exchange for some of the following ingredients:

1. Russia won’t defend Iran
2. Tacit acceptance of Kushner’s Israel-Palestine deal with Palestinians given the option of a land swap or more misery, and the acceptance of Mohammed bin Salman as sole power in Saudi Arabia after his father’s abdication.

Everyone consolidates regional power and – voila! – “peace.”

• This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by Zooey.