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.
>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?
> 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.
>Just to be clear, there have been two factions in the US with respect to Russia after the wall came down...Trump apparently shares Obama's...
That proposition treats the decades since the wall came down as static, without any action or directional policy shifts in Russia, U.S. or the world. You later acknowledge, without truly accounting for, dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and direct attacks on U.S. democracy.
And, certainly, you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia or, for that matter, that Trump's position (including rhetoric and concessions) are like those held by any serious U.S. official in that sphere. Whatever you think of their "hawkishness", HRC, McCain, etc. aren't the odd ones here. Your guy is.
In general, your recounting of recent history and your purported estimation of Trump's position and future intent leaves out an entire universe of conspicuously related facts; thus your conclusions are just wrong. Sprinkling in somehwat cogent nods to a few facets of the current geopolitical situation does nothing to obscure this.
I'm not defending Trump. His campaign strategy was to say somewhat ludicrous things and then when challenged, double down on them, thus amplifying the PR impact. To be quite clear, for every person who socially shared an article slamming one of Trump's ridiculous statements, perhaps 90% of their friends agreed, but the message also reached the 10% who approved of Trump's approach, or saw in it evidence he was not part of the establishment.
While I abhor Trump's approach of appealing to the worst parts of human nature (bigotry, fear, etc.) to rally support, it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career called for a "physical barrier" between the southern US and Mexico, and focused her talking points on "criminal aliens". Yes, HRC was playing to fear and bigotry when she said those things, just as Trump was when he called for a wall and described immigrants as "rapists". Trump brought a new level of crassness to something that had existed before but was spoken about in tones of moderation even though the intended audience read between the lines and found (and was animated by) the bigotry.
> you don't expect anyone to believe that Trump and Obama share the same position with regard to Russia
This is not the point of my comment. What I meant was that no president really has the power to dramatically shift US policy toward Russia, there are too many interest groups involved. The two main factions, those who are willing to accommodate Russia's adolescent mischief (led by strong man Putin taking the country for an authoritarian joy ride), and those who wish to send a signal that it will not be tolerated.
We've had 8 years of the former, during which time Putin has had quite a joy ride. Trump is inclined to let it continue, while HRC would likely have tried to put a stop to it one way or another. It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump in terms of policy. The revelations about alleged Russian meddling date back to July 2016, and according to the article you linked, it was known about for years prior. Yet Obama declined to impose sanctions, preferring instead some sort of back-channel communication (if any response at all).
Obama's decision to impose sanctions two weeks before the end of his term was likely a nod to the prevailing Democratic Party view, which Obama had not attempted to shape during the campaign. He had to be loyal to his party, and likely did the least consequential thing he could, sent a few people home and imposed sanctions that would be awkward for Trump to remove, etc.
So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric (as I think it is wise to ignore most of what politicians say, and instead focus on what they do), he is staying the course 100% with Obama's policy. Let's wait until there is actual policy change before concluding that he feels differently. We've seen him do a 180 on so many other campaign promises since taking office, why should Russia be any different?
> dramatic events such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine
US policy on this matter was set by president Obama and the congress at the time. The relevant before picture and after picture (in terms of US policy) have nothing to do with Trump unless he actually drives a policy change. There was a minority (including McCain, HRC, etc.) who harshly criticized Obama's inaction. This minority has become very vocal of late, and has attracted many HRC partisans to the chorus, but there is not really evidence that a majority of congress holds this view. Notably, the members of the GOP who are most vehement are the ones whose own opportunism calculus dictates that vocally calling out Trump on the issue suits their own personal objectives.
From a game theoretic perspective, I think the hawks may be right, though I personally hope we find a more peaceful, trade-driven equilibrium. I've worked with various Ukrainian and Russian software engineers before, and they are all nice, reasonable people who do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
>I'm not defending Trump...it's sadly a very common technique used by politicians. HRC at one point in her career...
Sure, you're defending him, by normalizing it through false moral equivalence. You can't say Trump has done anything wrong without invoking HRC, GWB, or someone else. That also happens to be a well-known Russian propaganda technique.
>So if you ignore Trump's rhetoric
Again, it has already gone beyond rhetoric, which I've noted exhaustively, including the RNC platform change. And, ignoring what he says is not wise in any case, as it sets the stage for policy. Further, contrary to what you state, he has not done "a 180 on so many other campaign promises".
>This is not the point of my comment... It's not clear Obama would do anything different than Trump
These two statements contradict, and the latter points back to your previous post that attempted to conflate Trump's position on Russia with Obama's. In fact, they couldn't be more different. Start with the biggest: sanctions.
>do not deserve to have the US launching missiles at them.
More propaganda in lock-stop with Russian fear-mongering. As if the choices are a.) defer to and appease Russia or b.) nuclear holocaust. And again, in your view, Russia never has responsibility in any of it. Invade countries, attack democratic processes, etc. And, the onus is on the U.S. to simply try to find some "trade equilibrium".
You should consider being more open about what you really believe. If you think you're in the right, then there's really no need to dissemble and hide. You just lose credibility. Just make your case in the open and people can process it on the merits. As it is, you repeatedly contradict yourself and morph positions, and much of what you write is demonstrably false.
So, feel free to continue solo with your walls of words.
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.