Everyone disagreeing is talking about disagreements as to what is in the national interest. If Al Gore had not invaded Iraq in 2003, as I am sure he would not have, that is because he and is advisors would not have seen a national interest in doing so - not because he was “friends” with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Being “friends” gets you nothing. The U.S. is as friendly with Canada, and vice versa, and any two countries, but when they disagree on matters of national interest, they don’t cooperate. Otherwise, why isn’t Keystone XL being built already?
Oh, he’ll do plenty… to look and sound “Presidential” and noisily rattle a saber or two. Then he’ll go for a relaxing week of golf at Mar Yer Legos, at the end of which he’ll hold a rally to talk about how well Putin is running his new country.
Or he’ll nuke Moscow, could go either way. I’m sure Breitbart will let us know.
And I’ve said this elsewhere: Putin may be underestimating Trump like most of us have every step of the way. At this point I’m not convinced which one is the ‘useful idiot’.
ETA: So Trump owes Putin a favor. Good luck on collecting, Vladdy!
We do. U.S. embassies around the world traditionally have 4th of July parties and invite host nation officials, groups, and select individuals to come. But I know you were being facetious.
Being “friends” can get you something - particularly when that friendship also involves the leaders of two countries - like when President Reagan provided some intelligence and reconnaissance assistance to the UK (and prepared to even loan them a short deck carrier if they lost one or both of their own) in a fight between two military allies during the 1982 Falklands war. On the flipside, the friendship between Tony Blair and George W. Bush along with the “friendship” between the U.S. and UK seemed a prime factor in not only the 2003 Iraq invasion happen at all, but also making it seem like a multilateral effort since the UK provided by far the largest non-U.S. contingent to the coalition forces.
I just don’t understand why the United States is supposed to apologize to Russia for Russia invading Ukraine.
As I understand the Russian apologist position, it was right for Russia to invade Ukraine because they were protecting the Russian speakers there. But we (the United States and/or NATO) tricked Russia into invading Ukraine. So it’s all our fault that Russia did something which Russia says was the right thing to do. So … shouldn’t they be thanking us?
The Kremlin set its spies and hackers loose to increase Trump’s chance of winning the election. Do you think they did this because
A. The ease with which they marched into Ukraine was a disappointment. Putin wanted a more determined foe so he could enjoy the added challenge. Or
B. Putin has underestimated what a big strong he-man the Greatest President Ever will be.
?
Really? I see no element of great statesmanship in anything that Trump has done historically, prior and post election.
The underestimation has been of the appeal of his flakey and ever-changing message, a misreading of the voters not of the man himself. With every utterance he confirms the general impression of him.
Putin will lap him up, he is Putin’s bitch already and you can guarantee that he has a mountain of dirt ready should the need arise.
US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland admitted that the US spent a total of $5 billion over the years on detaching Ukraine from Russia. Imagine what Americans would say if Russia started financing dissident groups in the US?
A democratic government (whatever its faults) was overthrown in the Ukraine, and some extreme right-wingers and neo-Nazi’s - from organizations financed by the US - are now members of the new ruling junta.
How’s that for interfering in another country’s affairs?
Putin was never going to stand by quietly and lose control of Crimea, the base of Russia’s Black Sea fleet since 1783, while Ukraine joined NATO, whatever the pipe-dreams of neocons the US may have been.
In this case, Russia was simply safeguarding its own legitimate interests from aggressive US expansionism.
I’m not sure if you are misrepresenting something that she said, or if she said something stupid, but the idea that the US pulled the levers of the dissolution of the Soviet Union into the Commonwealth of Independent States after the Cold War and then picked and chose how the new borders were drawn is craaaaaaaazy conspiracy theory nonsense. And that we did it for the bargain price of $5 billion after spending trillions in Cold War military spending - what a bargain!
What’s your take on a bogus referendum on Crimea - you call that democracy?
So he invaded. Right. You need to be consistent: either Russia invaded a sovereign nation - which is what happened - or you ought to stick to the RT propaganda talking points in which one denies that Russia did anything. Your point right now seems to be that Russia is allowed to invade its neighbors if there’s some imperialistic historical claim for that.
Would you be cool if the US invaded Cuba? Because history?
And there was, nor is, any serious consideration of Ukraine joining NATO. No more than Cuba joining OPEC or something.
