4 ms·

> pretend there are no patterns. The only pattern is this: Trump says something outrageous and gets the media focused on what he said. This continues until he

> pretend there are no patterns. The only pattern is this: Trump says something outrageous and gets the media focused on what he said. This continues until he says another outrageous thing, attracting attention at will. He's like a human teasing a cat with a bamboo pole with a piece of yarn attached. I don't assume any motive other than to control media attention. GWB used this technique when Rumsfeld said various outrageous things (such as about torture), and WJC used the technique effectively during his scandals. What is Trump's motive? Certainly his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot, not to (stupidly) telegraph some sort of quid-pro-quo with the Russian government. > Now you're walking back your claim by conflating it with cyberhacking? I am not making the claim as my own view, simply stating that one of the objectives of all this is to get Americans to take cyber warfare seriously. The likely scenario for cyber attacks are surprise attacks on infrastructure that will not be easy to attribute blame for, so the public must be ready to suspect the likely foes so that consent for military action can be granted in a timely fashion. > Many Americans love our country, in spite of its mistakes. We believe the solution is to push for it to be better in accordance with its ideals, not advocate that foreign adversaries undermine it or to appease those who do. This is a silly comment. Of course Americans want America to be successful. I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US has had toward Russia which, if it is in fact part of Russia's strategy, the election meddling fits into, as does the vilification of Russia. > Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy. Yet in this case the "attack" simply revealed one of our pols to be a bit more corrupt and dishonest than anyone realized. It's hard to say whether this actually harmed the US. FWIW the closure of the Clinton foundation after donations dried up following the scandal suggest that it was a gray market campaign finance scheme. > Any right-thinking American is indignant at any attack on our freedom and democracy. I figured you represented the right-wing view, and yes, the American right is very hawkish about Russia.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
>The only pattern is this...his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete and it's not just his public rhetoric, but backchannel nods that were not intended to be revealed for public shock or otherwise, and favorable RNC platform changes and beyond. And, all of this in the context of Russian election interference, designed to rig the election in his favor. He long-denied that rigging, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, even he was finally forced to admit the intelligence agencies had it right. Still, here you are. Sorry. Real things happened that can't be dismissed as pot-stirring rhetoric. >not to (stupidly) telegraph One would think it would be stupid, but then, here you are trying to shill for him in spite of it. >I am not making the claim as my own view... In one sense, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said. But, you seem to have thoroughly confused yourself here vis-a-vis your original asinine assertion, which was that Clinton likely would have responded militarily to Russia's election-meddling. Now, you're throwing in stuff about later cyber-attacks on infrastructure, etc. that would precipitate such a response. BTW, that "Clinton would have started WW3" rhetoric is exactly the fear-mongering coming out of Russia during the campaign. Funny how you are in complete lock-step with Russian propaganda. >I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US... I don't. I just look at what's happening now. Most Americans actually want an investigation. But, even those who don't aren't so starkly anti-American/pro-Russian as you. >This is a silly comment I would say more corny than silly, but I just wanted to help you understand how most Americans feel about our country, since you don't seem to be familiar with that. >I figured you represented the right-wing view By "right-thinking", I meant correct or clear, not politically right. It's a figure-of-speech. I'm hardly a hawk. But, the real question is what are you, exactly?
- grandalf 10y ago
  > LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete... Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down. Obama did not view Russia as a threat and took significant criticism from those who did. The factions cross party lines. Rubio is vehemently (absurdly) anti-Russia, as is McCain. McCain called for escalation, perhaps military action when Russia invaded the Caucuses and Crimea. HRC shares McCain's and Rubio's stance on Russia. Trump apparently shares Obama's and during the campaign indicated he would likely be even more open to normalized relations with Russia. Note that Trump has reversed course on many (if not the majority) of his campaign promises. He is very unlikely to consider any policy that would alter the balance of power between US, NATO and Russia. The issue is that because the US has not been able to keep Putin in check, the balance of power is shifting in Russia's advantage. Putin would happily drag the US into a proxy war in Syria and a proxy war in Iran. Trump is taking the bait on Iran, HRC took the bait on Syria. No matter which proxy war the US gets into, Putin gains strength. The US did not act to stop Putin's aggression in Crimea or the Caucuses and even hawks like McCain and HRC realize it is probably too late to prevent the inevitable rise of Russia relative to a struggling Europe. Trump may or may not realize this yet. I think his campaign rhetoric was mainly a PR strategy and has little bearing on the policy the US actually follows during his time in office. As Europe struggles, Russia will seek to re-align with former Soviet bloc nations and offer favorable trade options, etc. The US does not have the will or the resources to thwart this, and by not intervening over the past few years, the US has sent a message to those nations that it does not have their back. HRC and McCain realize that the longer the US waits, the harder it will be to threaten Russia militarily. Obama's sanctions were the last arrow in the quiver. Russia is in no hurry now that the momentum is in Russia's favor. HRC did everything possible to send the message to Putin that the US would engage fully in Syria and not put up with anything. But what will the US do besides spend 10x or 100x what Russia spends in a Syrian nation building disaster? Meanwhile, Russia makes inroads into Iran and works the other angle. It's important to keep in mind that the reason the US invaded Iraq was mainly to get there before Russia did. During the Soviet era, the Iran/Iraq war left the region vulnerable, and after the Soviet Union fell there was a period when the US didn't really worry too much about it. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait offered the US an excuse to project power there, but before long Russian firms had trillions of dollars worth of oil extraction contracts in Iran and Iraq, and Russia was on track to gain undue influence in the region, since there was no actual loyalty to the US. GWB invaded Iraq and took the first step, and he snubbed Russia by restricting the spoils only to firms from coalition countries. This was basically stealing from Russian firms and giving the loot to coalition countries, all in the name of the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Soon it became clear that the US was over-extended in the middle east. The American public was tired of the costly wars, and the idea that the US was able to successfully nation build and bring freedom was becoming more and more obviously hollow. So Russia focused on aligning with Assad and with Iran. Obama tried to prevent the situation in Iran using a carrot, HRC wanted to prevent the situation in Syria with a ground war. The key point is that Trump will be forced to take a stance on both of these and it is fairly unlikely that he'll act in a way that benefits Russia over the medium term. European nations have a lot of influence in the US, and most do not want a more powerful Russia. We don't know how far along the path of brinksmanship a US hawk would take us, but Trump is navigating to ward the brink with Iran. If there is a coherent policy taking shape, he might try to make a deal with Russia allowing Russia's influence in Syria to continue, but he's just as likely to renege on the arrangement as Putin is, so I don't think it really changes the strategic equilibrium or the inevitable transformation Russia into a power having clout that is a bit closer to the level it has known for most of European history.

unclebucknasty 10y ago

>The only pattern is this...his remarks during the campaign about wanting better relations with Russia were intended to stir the pot LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete and it's not just his public rhetoric, but backchannel nods that were not intended to be revealed for public shock or otherwise, and favorable RNC platform changes and beyond. And, all of this in the context of Russian election interference, designed to rig the election in his favor. He long-denied that rigging, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, even he was finally forced to admit the intelligence agencies had it right. Still, here you are. Sorry. Real things happened that can't be dismissed as pot-stirring rhetoric. >not to (stupidly) telegraph One would think it would be stupid, but then, here you are trying to shill for him in spite of it. >I am not making the claim as my own view... In one sense, that's probably the most accurate thing you've said. But, you seem to have thoroughly confused yourself here vis-a-vis your original asinine assertion, which was that Clinton likely would have responded militarily to Russia's election-meddling. Now, you're throwing in stuff about later cyber-attacks on infrastructure, etc. that would precipitate such a response. BTW, that "Clinton would have started WW3" rhetoric is exactly the fear-mongering coming out of Russia during the campaign. Funny how you are in complete lock-step with Russian propaganda. >I think you overlook the decades long strategy the US... I don't. I just look at what's happening now. Most Americans actually want an investigation. But, even those who don't aren't so starkly anti-American/pro-Russian as you. >This is a silly comment I would say more corny than silly, but I just wanted to help you understand how most Americans feel about our country, since you don't seem to be familiar with that. >I figured you represented the right-wing view By "right-thinking", I meant correct or clear, not politically right. It's a figure-of-speech. I'm hardly a hawk. But, the real question is what are you, exactly?

grandalf 10y ago
> LOL. That's absurd on its face. His deference to Russia and Putin is complete... Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down. Obama did not view Russia as a threat and took significant criticism from those who did. The factions cross party lines. Rubio is vehemently (absurdly) anti-Russia, as is McCain. McCain called for escalation, perhaps military action when Russia invaded the Caucuses and Crimea. HRC shares McCain's and Rubio's stance on Russia. Trump apparently shares Obama's and during the campaign indicated he would likely be even more open to normalized relations with Russia. Note that Trump has reversed course on many (if not the majority) of his campaign promises. He is very unlikely to consider any policy that would alter the balance of power between US, NATO and Russia. The issue is that because the US has not been able to keep Putin in check, the balance of power is shifting in Russia's advantage. Putin would happily drag the US into a proxy war in Syria and a proxy war in Iran. Trump is taking the bait on Iran, HRC took the bait on Syria. No matter which proxy war the US gets into, Putin gains strength. The US did not act to stop Putin's aggression in Crimea or the Caucuses and even hawks like McCain and HRC realize it is probably too late to prevent the inevitable rise of Russia relative to a struggling Europe. Trump may or may not realize this yet. I think his campaign rhetoric was mainly a PR strategy and has little bearing on the policy the US actually follows during his time in office. As Europe struggles, Russia will seek to re-align with former Soviet bloc nations and offer favorable trade options, etc. The US does not have the will or the resources to thwart this, and by not intervening over the past few years, the US has sent a message to those nations that it does not have their back. HRC and McCain realize that the longer the US waits, the harder it will be to threaten Russia militarily. Obama's sanctions were the last arrow in the quiver. Russia is in no hurry now that the momentum is in Russia's favor. HRC did everything possible to send the message to Putin that the US would engage fully in Syria and not put up with anything. But what will the US do besides spend 10x or 100x what Russia spends in a Syrian nation building disaster? Meanwhile, Russia makes inroads into Iran and works the other angle. It's important to keep in mind that the reason the US invaded Iraq was mainly to get there before Russia did. During the Soviet era, the Iran/Iraq war left the region vulnerable, and after the Soviet Union fell there was a period when the US didn't really worry too much about it. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait offered the US an excuse to project power there, but before long Russian firms had trillions of dollars worth of oil extraction contracts in Iran and Iraq, and Russia was on track to gain undue influence in the region, since there was no actual loyalty to the US. GWB invaded Iraq and took the first step, and he snubbed Russia by restricting the spoils only to firms from coalition countries. This was basically stealing from Russian firms and giving the loot to coalition countries, all in the name of the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Soon it became clear that the US was over-extended in the middle east. The American public was tired of the costly wars, and the idea that the US was able to successfully nation build and bring freedom was becoming more and more obviously hollow. So Russia focused on aligning with Assad and with Iran. Obama tried to prevent the situation in Iran using a carrot, HRC wanted to prevent the situation in Syria with a ground war. The key point is that Trump will be forced to take a stance on both of these and it is fairly unlikely that he'll act in a way that benefits Russia over the medium term. European nations have a lot of influence in the US, and most do not want a more powerful Russia. We don't know how far along the path of brinksmanship a US hawk would take us, but Trump is navigating to ward the brink with Iran. If there is a coherent policy taking shape, he might try to make a deal with Russia allowing Russia's influence in Syria to continue, but he's just as likely to renege on the arrangement as Putin is, so I don't think it really changes the strategic equilibrium or the inevitable transformation Russia into a power having clout that is a bit closer to the level it has known for most of European history.