Ukraine and Russia with Trump Still at the Helm

Politics & Elections
141

It’s virtually impossible to know what would have happened had the Russian invasion unfolded while Trump was in office. Policy during the Trump era was a bizarre and erratic interplay between Trump’s personal inclinations, with Trump himself a clueless idiot focused entirely on his own perceived self-interest, and his political and policy apparatus, which sometimes had ideas very much at variance with Trump’s. In the case of Russia in particular, this was especially so, as his admin had a lot of foreign policy hawks.

What happened in any particular instance would be a matter of the extent to which Trump decided to impose his ultimate authority on the matter, and the extent to which his people managed to confuse or otherwise outflank him. Anyone’s guess.

Here’s John Bolton’s take on it: Bolton Spars With Fox Host Over Trump’s ‘Lack of Knowledge’ on Russia (newsweek.com)

142

There are rumors floating today that Putin wants to install Viktor Yanukovych as the president of a puppet government in Ukraine.

Interestingly there’s a lot of similarity to what is happening now and the “Ukraine peace plan” Konstantin Kilimnik pitched to Manafort in 2016. This plan involved Russia recognizing the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk and with Russian military help installing Yanukovych as the president of the new Donbas autonomous region containing Luhansk and Donetsk.

This was the same meeting where Manfort shared campaign strategy and internal polling data with Kilimnik, and Kilimnik dangled financial incentives for Manafort somewhere in the neighborhood nineteen million dollars.

You can read about it in the section of the Mueller Report where he details all the collusion.

143

That’s not a puppet government, it’s a plan for civil war in Ukraine.

I mean, they literally already had a fight over just this issue. Anyone who thinks the Ukrainian people, who have come together in the defense of their nation in a way we’ve never seen before, would roll over for this guy being imposed on them again is entirely delusional.

144

Well, this sounds sort of familiar. “Those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” sort of way.

145

I’m not even sure why anybody rational, aside from personal fear of what Putin might do, would even agree to take on the role of puppet leader of the Ukraine right now. Whoever it is must realize he’d have the life expectancy of a funfair goldfish and need round the clock Russian security for the rest of his life.

146

you can’t make up shit like that, can you? …

147

I’d say the current situation is better described as “even those that do learn from history are still doomed to repeat it”.

148

New Yorker cartoon:

149

Better yet, read the bipartisan Senate report . It’s twice as long and more than twice as damning.

ProPublica just published an article about Guiliani and Manafort and their work for Russian aligned interests in Ukraine.

It jogged my memory regarding something I’d read about Manafort’s work in Ukraine, not the work he’d done to rig the election and imprison and torture their Western aligned political opponent. This was something more recent, work he did WHILE Trump was in office.

After Trump won the election, the Senate report says, Manafort and Kilimnik worked together on a proposed plan for Ukraine that would create an autonomous Republic of Donbas in separatist run southeast Ukraine, on the Russian border. Manafort went so far as to work with a pollster of public attitudes towards Yanukovych, the deposed president. The plan would only need a “wink” from the new US President, Kilimnik wrote to Manafort in an email.

Manafort continued to work on the plan even after he’d been indicted on charges of bank fraud and conspiracy.

So, Manafort was very specifically working with Russia on overthrowing Ukraine, and he planned on leveraging his relationship with Trump towards this end. It’s also worth noting that his solution to his financial problems that started when democracy prevailed in Ukraine was to offer to work for Trump for free……after consulting with his Russian agent friends, of course.

This is a very good article, worth a read, the stuff Guiliani was doing was pretty damning as well. But Manafort’s work in helping Russia set the stage for war in Ukraine never got the attention it deserved.

150

I’ve been away for a few days, and I can’t quite remember what you’re arguing. I’m also reluctant to be robustly adversarial, as the arguments have apparently become heated enough to require moderator intervention. However, I will leave a comment that I’ve refuted your previous accusation of “strawmanning”, but instead of providing a riposte to my refutal, or providing evidence to further the contention that Trump should be blamed for the Ukraine invasion, you’re simply repeating yourself.

My argument is that the idea that Putin was influencing Trump to take actions that would harm Ukraine as steps for the future invasion of Ukraine is unfounded. It looks to me that the argument (and this is actual strawmanning, just so you can recognise it) is that Trump was evil and had issues with Ukraine and was pro-Putin, therefore he should be blamed for being a collaborator in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don’t see anyone in this thread making a better argument that the one I’ve just summarised, nor providing any connect-the-dots evidence. I’ll also note again that if Putin had Trump’s help, then he would have wanted to take advantage of that help while Trump was still President. I find the counterargument that Putin expected Trump to win to be weak. The advantage of having help from a US President would be huge. The idea that Putin and his intelligence associates were clever, resourceful and effective enough to be able to gain that advantage, but then squandered it over a gamble on an uncertain election result seems contradictory to me.

151

Apologies for the aside, but since no warning was issued, I didn’t want to raise this in ATMB. I enjoy robust debate, and have made many adversarial posts in that context. Please do not discourage Temporary_Name on my behalf. I didn’t find his comments particularly uncivil. Indeed you’ve taken away the opportunity for me to pejoratively respond to his post since he now has his hands behind his back.

152

LOL.

What you’re doing doesn’t magically become not straw-manning simply because I have quoted and pointed directly to it more than once.

153

An example of where we could be with his tiny hands at the helm of the ship of state:

154

Back up your accusation then. Quote the post that you believe I’m straw-manning. Then quote the strawman I’ve created. Then provide an explanation on how I’ve constructed a strawman.

Or better yet, instead of engaging in a pointless argument on Internet debate etiquette, you could try to put forth a convincing argument on why Trump should be blamed for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That might actually be interesting to read.

155

My argument is not “Trump was evil and pro-Putin and therefore to blame for the Russian invasion”. My argument is:

A Russian agent named Andrii Derkach was the point man in a Russian intelligence operation to influence Trump to take Russia’s side in the Ukrainian conflict. His scheme involved convincing Trump that Ukraine was involved in corrupt deals to enrich Joe Biden, that Ukraine was deeply involved with the US Democratic Party and had attempted to rig the 2016 election in favor of Hillary Clinton. This operation was intended to manipulate Trump into taking actions that were harmful to Ukraine, and it was at least partially successful, because they got Trump to fire the Ukrainian ambassador and to illegally withhold military aid to Ukraine.
Derkach was sanctioned by the Treasury department for his participation in the scheme. These sanctions happened during Trump’s term.

He was assisted in this efforts by Trump’s ass-clown Rudy Guiliani and Russian businessmen Parnas and Furman.

Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had a deep and long-lasting relationship with pro-Russian actors looking to bring Ukraine back to Russia, among them former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik. His job duties involved rigging Ukrainian elections and imprisoning Yanukovych’s political opponent, who was brutally tortured during her imprisonment.
This lucrative gig came crashing down on Manafort after Ukraine’s 2014 revolution, at which point he and his handlers decided the solution to his financial problems was “working on the Trump campaign for free”. Manafort got the Republican Party to soften its support for Ukraine.

In 2018, after he was arrested and indicted, Manafort continued to work with Kilimnik on his efforts to shore up support for “liberating” the Donbas region of Ukraine by recognizing its independence, a scheme very similar to what happened a few weeks ago. In communications revealed in the report on Russian interference published by the Republican Senate, Manafort was tasked with obtaining Trump’s buy-in ( what the e-mails referred to as a “wink” ) on the scheme to have Russia begin to take over Ukraine.

Noe, I’m not claiming Boris Badenoff came into the Oval twirling his mustache and handed Trump a sack of cash in exchange for Ukraine. I’ve said many times that Trump’s not corrupt like that, simply because he doesn’t recognize the concepts of obligation and keeping your side of the bargain. In fact, the list of people that tried something like this with Trump and ended up with nothing except a federal indictment is long and very amusing. Poor Eliot Brodie fundraised diligently for Trump and gave him a bunch of his own money and all he ever asked was for Trump to spend a couple of hours golfing with his client. And Trump wouldn’t do it.

But Trump is notoriously easy to play, and it worked. And there’s evidence that Russians had been playing Trump like this since the 1980’s, when he would make trips to Russia and come back blathering about wanting to run for President and publishing pro-Russia op-eds.

My opinion is that Trump was an unwitting tool of the Russian government, a danger to national security and a man totally unfit for public office.

My opinion is that the mere presence of Paul Manafort on a high level American political campaign was more than enough justification for a robust investigation.

Your opinion, one I have not heard you refute yet, is simply “WITCH HUNT”. This means that not only do you feel everything I’ve outlined above is right and proper, but that you think it’s technically impossible for Trump to have done anything wrong and that anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional. I’m interested in hearing your defense of this position.

I have provided cites for everything above in previous posts to this thread, I think - and I don’t feel like reposting them. But if you question any of the factual information I’ve posted above, let me know which points and I’ll find the cites.

156

I have already done that, and I’m not really interested in doing it again.

Maybe you could focus on @Ann_Hedonia 's excellent post above instead of doing whatever it is you have been doing.

157

Interestingly, you can go back and read a thread if you have forgotten. The writing does not disappear.

158

First, I compliment you on an excellent post. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Second, I haven’t replied back to you, as far as I’m aware, because I believe we’re looking at the same set of facts in different ways. You’ve stated you opinion that the situation wasn’t “Boris Badenoff came into the Oval twirling his mustache and handed Trump a sack of cash in exchange for Ukraine”. That’s my primary argument, and I’m glad you agree with me.

You’ve also declared “that Trump was an unwitting tool of the Russian government, a danger to national security and a man totally unfit for public office.” I don’t agree with you. Trump was elected as President. Proof of his fitness for office was the 2016 election. Trump was pro-Russian and pro-Putin. But for him to be a tool means that someone was manipulating him to cause specific actions. I think that’s where we’re disagreeing. Totally strawmanning, the argument I’m reading is that Trump was an influenceable asshole, who had pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine advisors. Therefore he had an anti-Ukrainian presidency that encouraged the Russian invasion of Ukraine after he left office. That’s obviously not your opinion or the consensus opinion of the anti-Trumpers in this thread, but I’m struggling to ascertain what that opinion is. Perhaps you could restate why Trump should be blamed for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and connect the dots of the evidence to your explanation of blame?

Your other point is that Trump was “a danger to national security”. I believe that Trump’s caustic relationships with the FBI and the intelligence agencies were counterproductive to US national security. I also believe that Trump was self-serving in his dealings with those agencies. And Trump certainly had ties with people with strong connections to Russia. Thinking about what I’ve just written, I’ll agree to your point that Trump was a “danger to national security”. But there’s a big leap from someone being a danger to someone being actively harmful. And there’s a phenomenal leap to the idea that Trump was supporting a future invasion of Ukraine, whether intentionally or not. Again, what I’m perceiving is an extrapolation from “Trump was an asshole” to “Trump was a traitor”. I’m not contesting the former. If anyone is claiming the latter, which certainly seems implied by this statement,

then I’d like stronger evidence than items such as Paul Manafort was a Trump campaign manager, especially since Manafort was fired by Trump in August 2016.

159

That’s an inaccurate statement. You’ve twice failed to back up your strawmanning accusation. But I’ll take your lack of interest in supporting your accusation as a failure of your accusation. Furthermore, I believe that failure is consistent with the failure of thought displayed in the posts you’ve made throughout this thread. Feel free to disagree with me. But then you were already invited to:

I’m done arguing about strawmanning. If you want to try to support a conspiracy theory that Trump has responsibility for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I’ll be happy to read your comments. Hopefully, they’ll have more content than your last few posts.

160

This is hilarious. You say you’ve had enough with straw-manning and then in the very next sentence try to put an argument into my mouth. That’s straw-manning.

I’ll decide what my position is. Not you. Thanks.