That is exactly what I have been thinking. Far too early for people in Moscow to start celebrating
Is
it too early for Russia to rejoice over President Trump?
Though
Donald Trump has said many positive things about seeking better
relations with Russia, the ability of any US president to change the
direction of US foreign policy is open to debate.
Efe
Tanay
17
November, 2016
For
the eastern bloc of the world Donald Trump promises less conflict
with his positive statements towards Russia. But how much of that
positive rhetoric can actually be put into action?
When
Obama got elected for his first term, there was hope; he said he was
going to withdraw troops from the wars in the Middle East, close the
Guantanamo Bay prison and more.
He
actually had so much peace and positivity during the campaign that
only 11 days after taking office the Nobel Prize Committee announced
Obama as the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
But
the withdrawal from Afghanistan never took place and even after 8
years in power Obama sill hasn’t shut the doors of the Guantanamo
Bay prison, against his own will – as many believe.
It
has always been debatable how deeply a US President can shape
international policies. As is known institutions like the CIA and the
Pentagon have long term plans, independent of the presidents.
In
his interview to The Wall Street Journal after winning the election,
Donald Trump stated that he is likely to end the support for the
rebels fighting the Syrian government, making it clear that he sees
no profit in it for the US.
However
as is known war is a profitable business for those few at the top.
There
is a widespread belief that unlike Hillary Clinton Donald Trump has
no connection to the military industrial establishment and that its
warmongers can’t direct him.
However,
it it is unlikely that those who have invested so heavily in the
Syrian conflict are going to to let go so easily just because Trump
is in the White House.
Former
President Jimmy Carter stated in January 2016 that he would pick
Trump over Ted Cruz, because Trump is so malleable.
If
a former President of the United States thinks Trump is malleable,
then there have to be others who are of the same opinion. Either
willingly or through the pressure of events or circumstances, Trump
might change his positive view of working with Russia.
Trump
has spoken in a much more positive way about Russia than did Hillary
Clinton. However it shouldn’t be forgotten that Trump is also on
record as saying that the US might have to shoot down Russian
warplanes approaching US military assets when Russian warplanes
overfly US warships in international airspace close to the Russian
border.
For
the Russian side Trump promises a lot. He might play a role to end
the two sided conflict in Syria, sanctions against Russia, tensions
with NATO, and the Ukrainian conflict.
However,
there are too many sides to Trump and too many powerful people
opposed to such a rapprochement to make that a foregone conclusion.
CrossTalk:
Donald and Vladimir
President-elect
Donald Trump says he wants to improve relations with Russia. The
Russian President Vladimir Putin tells us he agrees. What does it
mean to have better relations and will the American foreign policy
establishment allow this to happen?
CrossTalking
with Daniel McAdams and Andrew Langer.
Trump's
Main Foreign Policy Challenge Will Be to Keep Neocon Vipers at Bay
(Podcast)
Originally
appeared at Sputnik
18
November, 2016
In
an interview earlier this week, Syrian President Bashar Assad said
that he would welcome President-elect Donald Trump as a 'natural
ally' in the fight against terrorism. Asked to comment on Assad's
remarks, 21stCenturyWire.com founder Patrick Henningsen stressed that
his hopes can be met, if Trump continues to maintain his independent
streak.
In
his interview for Portuguese television broadcaster RTP, Assad said
that while "we cannot tell anything about what he [Trump] is
going to do, but if, let's say if he is going to fight the
terrorists, of course we are going to be an ally, a natural ally in
that regard, [together] with the Russians, the Iranians, with many
other countries who want to defeat the terrorists."
Speaking
to Radio Sputnik, Henningsen explained that what Assad was talking
about "is a potential realignment in foreign policy – a clean
break from what has been the US policy for the last eight years, and
even going back further than that, which is Washington's disregard
for respecting the national sovereignty of countries – their aiming
to overthrow governments through regime change and other deep state
subterfuge activities led by the CIA and using partners like George
Soros on the ground, and softening up countries to the point where
destabilization could lead to regime change."
"This
has been the Obama doctrine, unofficially anyway," the
journalist explained, adding that "this is what we've seen in
Ukraine and Syria. And you could argue that a few Arab Spring
countries would fall into that category as well."
"So
Bashar Assad is talking about the potential that this presidency
might be looking at Syria as a nation state with some sort of
respect, rather than looking at it as something to topple, and
disintegrate, a la Libya, for instance." This, Henningsen
stressed, would be a "complete overhaul in the philosophy of
[US] foreign policy."
As
far as Assad's suggestions that Russia, Iran, the US and other
countries could join forces to face down the common threat of
Islamist terrorism, the journalist said that it would be "a
little more problematic," even if it would be "ideal."
"Donald
Trump has made a number of statements on the campaign trail that
equate with common sense, but as we assemble a cabinet in Washington,
you have some characters on the periphery that the establishment
would like to insert or embed. [Trump's win is seen as] an
opportunity for some neo-conservative elements to get reenergized and
get back in the game."
"Namely,
we're looking at characters like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani; these
would be the war hawks, people who have called for the bombing of
Iran – people who say that Iran is the world's number one state
sponsor of terror – making statements like this that really come
off a memo that's probably handed to them by the Israeli lobby."
"These
sort of characters are involved financially in some ways and also
politically very much aligned with Israel," Henningsen stressed,
"so anything anti-Iran is going to feature in their rhetoric and
belief system."
"That's
a problem, because of Iran and their support of Syria, and the
relationship with Russia and other countries, like China. This is
going to be a constant source of problems, of conflicts of interests
within the Trump cabinet."
Accordingly
the journalist suggested that only time will tell how everything
plays out. "If there is a complete realignment of US foreign
policy, then they will be looking at Iran differently, but this
rhetoric against Iran has been so deep and pervasive over the last
many years in the US that it would be very hard for some politicians
to walk back some of the outrageous statements [they have made]."
Asked
whether President-elect Trump will be able to overcome these hurdles
after stepping into office, Henningsen emphasized that thing the
businessman has going for him is his independent streak.
"In
Donald Trump you see an independent person in terms of a chief
executive compared to the last two presidents, who came in with very
little experience. George W. Bush had very little experience as a
statesman, much less traveling outside the United States before he
became president. Barrack Obama came in with less than one term as a
US senator, completely wet behind the ears…Both of those presidents
with little experience were basically surrounded by hand-picked
people around them. They had no power base."
"This
is different with Trump: he's used to being a CEO, making his own
decisions; actually caring about making his own decisions. He doesn't
have the political experience, but has a lot of experience as a
decision maker – as a chief executive."
"So
we'll have to see," Henningsen stressed. "It's going to be
very difficult for him to maintain that air of common sense foreign
policy with so many vipers in the nest. There are a lot of interests
and a lot of big money in Washington that have a vested interest in
seeing perpetual conflicts."
"Fake News" About Trump Continues Unabated
17
November, 2016
Clinton
makes some twenty different issues or person responsible for her loss
- everyone and everything except the DNC, her staff or herself. But a
campaign that did just enough to get the states it thought it needed
and not one bit more was going to lose no matter how much money it
would spend. Shunning progressives and implausibly blaming Russia for
her own mistakes did not help either. Clinton failed as a politician
and presidential candidate. She just isn't good enough in those
roles. It is as simple as that. But now another culprit responsible
for her loss is rolled out. "Fake
news"
that somehow was not censored out of social networks.
But
"fake news" was and is a daily occurrence even in major
media. What were the "Saddam's WMDs" stories if not fake
news? The Clinton campaign spread fake
news about Sanders. The news about Clinton's email were (mostly) not
fake even as she claimed otherwise.
My
personal impression is that there was more fake news about Trump than
about Clinton. The NYT, like most other mainstream media, was so much
off from reality that its publisher now wrote a letter
to request that
staff "rededicate .. to the fundamental mission of ..
journalism". He thereby admits that the NYT had failed as a news
organization.
But
there is no rededication, neither in the NYT nor elsewhere, that I
can see. The fairy tales about and around Trump seem not to stop for
a minute. It will be claimed in top headlines that Trump will make
John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani Secretary of State, lunatic Frank
Gaffney will be his advisor. Trump wants security clearances for his
children! Of course hardly any the active promoters of such nonsense
will put the official denials of
these lies on top of their pages or mention them at all. Poltico
today told
me that
Wall Street is celebrating the Trump win, implying that Clinton would
have been much better. Trump received some $5 million in donations
from the finance sector, Clinton received $105
million - guess why.
Trump wants to
abandon a No-First-Strike policy for U.S. nuclear weapons is one
current scare (650 retweets!). That is a policy the U.S. never-ever
had. Obama, like Clinton, rejected a
NFS policy. How could Trump abandon it?
Trumps
wants to register all Muslims? The National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System was
introduced in 2002 and only applied to visitors and residents from
majority Muslim countries. In 2011 the system was phased out
because it
was "redundant" -
some other system currently holds the data of mostly Muslim in the
U.S. The no-fly-lists are largely lists of Muslim - even four
years old ones. Obama waged drone war in seven countries and bombed
five. All were majority Muslim. So what please could Trump actually
do to Muslim people that would be worse than what Bush or Obama have
done?
Trump
is a racist and his voters are white supremacists is a fake news
claim that is still rolled out on a daily base. The facts do
not support it.
If they were true why did he get more votes from blacks and hispanics
than Romney or McCain?
Why
not take Trump for what he is? A fast talking salesman, born too
rich, but politically a centrist who long supported Democrats and who
will simply continue the political path Clinton, Bush and Obama
created and walked before him. There is some hope that he will be
less "globalist", neoconned and belligerent in his foreign
policy but that still needs to be proven. On many of his announced
policies there will likely be more Democrats
in Congress supporting him than
Republicans.
The
man should be attacked on his politics and policies whenever that is
justified. There will plenty such opportunities, especially with his
economic and tax plans. Instead we get a daily dose of fake news
about Trump this or that and one scare story after the other.
Is
it so difficult, or even impossible, for journalists and media to
"rededicate" themselves from feverish pro-Clinton and
anti-Trump advocates back to (semi-)serious reporting?
That
would be bad news for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.