Hating the Bear

 

"There is no mystery about why the accusations took hold. It was in part because Trump had said early on that he thought he could do business with Putin, earning him the reputation of being soft on big bad Russia. Then the Democrats at their convention chose to divert blame for the hacking of their computer system on to Russian intelligence. This was never conclusively proved and all the supposedly corroborating statements from US officials contained get-out clauses. People with intelligence connections suggested that everyone tried to hack everyone’s computers, especially at election time, without any intention of actually interfering. 

The truth of any Russian involvement will probably never be known. But certain myths that gained currency need to be dispelled. One was that Trump was receiving privileged information from Russia. In fact, anything he said was already openly available before he said it. Another was that Trump had complicated and suspect business dealings with Russia. No evidence was ever produced – despite what must have been exhaustive efforts by the Clinton campaign – beyond a campaign adviser official, Paul Manafort, who had once advised the ousted president of Ukraine. There also seems to have been some confusion between Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, which hardly reflects well on the accusers."  The Guardian

---------------

 Someone explain to me how Russia threatens the security interests of the United States, or even those of the NATO countries into which the US has pushed the alliance?  Explain it to me.  Is it by flying too close to our ships?  Is it by legally fighting on the side of the Syrian government  Is it Russia's refusal to abandon ethnic Russians in SE Ukraine to the tender ministrations of the fascists in Kiev?  How is it?

Do they threaten our security interests by existing?  Is that it?  does their possession of land and armed force automatically make us see them as "enemies?"  I have actually heard them referred to with that word in the boobocrat world of the MSM.  Actually, Jake Tapper, the election night dancing man, called them that today.

Are we really so pathetically juvenile as a country that we must dominate the world?  If so, to what end?  The nice lady from Ft. Brooklyn lost the election.  Making the world safe for "the children" was one of her major themes.  Robbie Mook, her little friend, cried today at her concession speech.  He should.  He will be known forever as a loser after this disaster.

Trump wants to have better relations with Russia?  How terrible!  Why did the Deplorables vote for him?  Perhaps something should be done abut these creatures who "live in the hills with Bibles and guns"  (MSNBC anchor today)  Perhaps they should not have the same voting rights as the Enlightened.   

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-putin-russia-kremlin-obama

Comments

[different clue]

kao_hsien_chih,

I can see one major difference between Trump and Obama. Trump was sponsored by nobody. He was opposed by most OverClass establishment figures and their institutions. He slashed and clawed his way to the Presidency on his and his supporters' own.

Obama was owned and sponsored by powerful owner-sponsors right from the start. He was obviously somebody's curling stone, with all rough spots on the ice ahead of him sweepered away by OverClass-dispatched sweeper squads.

[different clue]

rkka,

Zbigniew Brzezinski and all his Realists also hated Russia for existing. Zbiggie-poo in particular wanted and may still want to see the post-Communist Russian Federation divided into several countries to be assigned as economic protectorates and investorates to neighboring big strong countries.

[Keith Harbaugh]

Patrick Lang wrote:

Someone explain to me how Russia threatens the security interests of the United States …
Do they threaten our security interests by existing? Is that it?
Does their possession of land and armed force automatically make us see them as "enemies?".

Colonel, please let me try to answer a related question:
“Why is a possible alliance with the existing Putin regime
anathema to the U.S. ‘elite’?”

One answer to that question is in:
Trump’s Russia Motives
by David Leonhardt
New York Times Op-Ed, 2017-02-21

Here is an excerpt (emphasis added) from that op-ed:

I [David Leonhardt] count five possible explanations for Trump’s Russophilia,
and they’re not mutually exclusive.
...
The final possible motive — an ideological alliance —
is in some ways the most alarming.
Putin isn’t only a leader with “very strong control over his country,”
as Trump has enthused;
Putin also traffics in
a white, Christian-infused nationalism
that casts Islam and “global elites” as the enemies.

He does not go as far pursuing these themes as hard-core Russian nationalists,
much as Trump merely flirts with the alt-right.
Either way, the themes are undeniable.
As Michael McFaul, a former ambassador to Russia, says,
“The inauguration speech sounded like
things I’ve heard from Russian nationalists many times.”
…
In recent days, Trump has tempered his pro-Russia comments
and even criticized its actions in Ukraine.
So it would be a mistake to imagine that we know the full story of Trump and Russia.
But based on what we do know, it represents
a shocking risk to American interests.

So there you have it, at least for this NYT columnist:
"Christian-infused nationalism" is "most alarming".

I hope LondonBob can comment on this.
In particular, LondonBob said
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2016/09/today-is-friday-16-september-2016.html#comment-6a00d8341c72e153ef01b8d21e22b0970c

The nationalists are Putin's most dangerous opponents whom he then persecutes periodically,
although in current Western terms Putin is a nationalist
in Russian terms he is not.

That distinction between different definitions of "nationalist" needs explaining, for me at least.

[turcopolier]

KH

OK, then I see you as not favoring improved relations with Russia. pl

[Keith Harbaugh]

Patrick Buchanan has squarely addressed this issue,
and with it John McCain's February 2017 speech to the Munich Security Conference:

Lavrov vs. McCain: Is Russia an Enemy?
by Patrick Buchanan, 2017-02-27
http://buchanan.org/blog/lavrov-vs-mccain-russia-enemy-126589

From that article (with some added emphasis):

Is Putin’s Russia an enemy, as McCain seems to believe?

Before we can answer that question,
we need to know what the new world struggle is about,
who the antagonists are, and what the threats are to us.

If we believe
the struggle is for “global democracy” and “human rights,”
then that may put Putin on the other side.
But how then can we be allies of President el-Sissi of Egypt and Erdogan of Turkey,
and the kings, emirs and sultans of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman?

But if the new world struggle is about
defending ourselves and our civilization,
Russia would appear to be not only a natural ally,
but a more critical and powerful one than that crowd in Kiev.

In August 1914, Europe plunged into a 50-month bloodbath over an assassinated archduke.
In 1939, Britain and France declared war to keep Poland from having to give up a Prussian port, Danzig,
taken from Germany under the duress of a starvation blockade in 1919
and in clear violation of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the Danzigers’ right of self-determination.
In the two wars, 50 million to 100 million died.

Today, the United States is confronting Russia, a huge and natural ally,
over a peninsula that had belonged to her since the 18th century
and is 5,000 miles from the United States.

“We have immense potential that has yet to be tapped into,”
volunteered [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov.
But to deal, we must have “mutual respect.”

Hopefully, President Trump will sound out the Russians,
and tune out the Beltway hawks.