They are withdrawing because Gates has hired a pleabargainer to replace them.
Can somebody explain to me what Trump would get out of repealing, or at least lessening, the Magnitsky Act? I assume it’s because it would let more corrupt Russian oligarchs launder money through his failing real estate empire, but I can’t find anything to that effect.
The notion is that Trump is beholden to the Russians, either via debts that he owes them or via “kompromat”, or something similar. He would be doing it for this reason, not because he personally gains anything directly from it.
I believe the theory is that this is the quo in return for the Russian government’s quid in helping him get elected and possibly the funding they’ve provided Trump’s and Kushner’s various troubled businesses by laundering money into loans through Deutsche Bank.
The Magnitsky Act has been a prime motivator for Russians since it was first conceived.
After it was passed and signed into law, Putin ‘retaliated’ by halting adoptions of Russian babies to Americans.
Every time you hear someone talk about “discussing the adoption issue” or “trying to solve the adoption issue”, it’s code for “get rid of the Magnitsky Act”. After all, if there were no Magnitsky Act, Putin wouldn’t have had to halt those adoptions, right? :dubious:
Huh?
Having Russians or anyone allow him to escape his debts is the way he does business. He would certainly gain personally and directly from that. Knowing what Russian debt collects may be like, he may gain very, very much.
A “kompromat” would be the same. trump surely has no shame, but he has a very, very fragile ego. He probably doesn’t care about a ‘pee’ tape (if it exists), but would hate anything that came out that showed what a poor businessman he is. Or showing he was manipulated. He certainly gains directly from that too.
It’s about sanctions that are screwing up some very big deals.
This explains it rather well. (Moscow Project)
Lots to choose from in that piece.
I’ve also read in several places that information has begun to mount that VEB Bank (Russian owned) has bought a significant amount of Trump’s debt from Deutsche Bank (NPR). That would give them a lot of leverage over him, too.
Not to mention he owes the Russians for what their hackers did to the DNC.
Exxon. Arctic oil. Billions. Raining down on the Kremlin Kronies. Billions. Magnitsky Act,* poof! *gone!
The Russians made a bad investment. You can’t blackmail someone with no capacity for shame.
The Russians made a bad investment. You can’t bribe someone with no capacity for gratitude.
What a coincidence that Rex Tillerson, former chairman and CEO of Exxon/Mobil was appointed as Secretary of State by trump.
Yep, nothing to see here, it’s all about adopting Russian children. These people don’t even TRY to hide the corruption.
Repealing the Magnitsky Act alone is probably small change for the Russians. The pattern during the campaign seemed bigger - Trump considering officially recognizing Russian sovereignty over the Crimea, the Trump campaign’s watering down of the GOP platform position of providing offensive weaponry to Ukraine in its fight against Russia (while also signalling a potential much larger shift away from supporting Ukraine whatsoever), and overall his much desired reset of U.S.-Russian relations and even the hints of recognizing and accepting a Russian sphere of influence over eastern Europe and central Asia.
Thanks. I wasn’t sure if the ultimate question was what would Trump do to get more Russian money, or what he’d do because the Russians gave him money (or possibly blackmailed him). Or a combination of all 3.
You sure as hell can blackmail someone with no capacity for wanting to go to prison.
Not for an instant do I understand this sentence. If I pay a guy for something, I’m not expecting gratitude, I’m expecting a product or service in return.
Of course you can bribe Donald Trump. I would guess a man as obsessed with money as he is is likely more easily bribed than most people.
The Russians made a great investment, but it’s not just - or even largely - because Donald Trump can be bribed or blackmailed (which of course he can.) The Russians wanted a weak President, and they got one.
Hard to be sure what the Russians are up to (or even what they’ve done, to a large degree) but it’s hard to see the net outcome as anything positive for them. What’s been accomplished is that large portions of the US public is much more hostile to Russia than they were or would otherwise have been, and even to the extent that they have a sympathetic president in Trump, this is (IMO) more than counterbalanced by other political forces.
I would think if you add up everything they gained with everything they lost, it turned out to be a losing gambit, and they would have been better off had they just mixed out. But again, it’s hard to be sure of what their ultimate strategy really is.
Bingo!
Putin wants the United States out of the traditional Russian sphere of influence in Europe and Asia, and better yet, to drop sanctions that threaten the stability of his regime and its ability to dominate the Russian people.
I should add that it’s also hard to be sure they even have an ultimate strategy.
It’s possible that Putin (& his people) are just doing things the way they’re accustomed to doing things, without a clear picture of exactly how they think things will play out.
But one way or the other - meaning, whether they had a clear plan which backfired when their actions were exposed, or whether they had no clear plan to begin with - it’s hard to see the net as being anything positive for them, as above.
Nope.
First of all, understand that this is not strictly about “the Russians” and traditionally Russian interests; it’s about Vladimir Putin, his regime, and his circle of corrupt oligarchs and their ability to maintain control over the Russian people. The US is perceived as a threat to his regime because of our ever-present influence. Putin and his cronies are afraid of America’s ability to influence the spread of pro-democracy movements. They’re afraid of our ability to use our economic and political power to choke Russia financially and to isolate them politically, which in turn puts pressures on Putin’s regime. If Russians are suffering economically, they could blame Putin for that and demand his ouster. Putin is not going to just sit by and watch this happen.
Putin has had enough of American power and influence and is fighting back against it aggressively. At the ground level, Putin is using information warfare to stoke nationalism, not only in the United States but also in European countries. The rise of nationalism makes it more difficult for policymakers to focus on external policy making. It turns countries like ours inward and it turns our attention and focus away from what’s happening in Russia, and it distracts us from what Russia is doing to reassert itself in Ukraine and potentially in neighboring countries. It weakens the NATO alliance, too. If NATO collapses, if faith in the American global order collapses, then America is much less influential in European and, hence, Russian affairs. That benefits Putin immensely.
At the higher echelons of our socioeconomic and political pyramid, Putin is clearly working with some of the more influential members in our own system. And this is perhaps something he didn’t see possible a few years ago. But as America’s political system has become toxically fractious, it has opened up opportunities for Putin to work directly with those people here who have their own vested interest in destroying public institutions of power and democratic power altogether. And if he succeeds in doing this, then this could open up entirely new frontiers for Putin. And there’s a very good chance of this happening now.
What you’re saying might make a bit of sense as regards to stirring up nationalism, but certainly not with election-interfering. That type of thing makes it far likelier that the US would try to use “economic and political power to choke Russia financially and to isolate them politically”.
[FWIW, Putin is by all accounts a genuinely popular guy in Russia. But it’s more about his image as a strong leader in defending Russian interests, as opposed to stirring up trouble in other countries.]