George Szamuely posted an article on The Duran, “Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: Potential Partners – Not Allies or Even Friends“, which gives the most accurate assessment to date of the Trump / Putin narrative.
If you want to get an honest view of what was said by both leaders as the US elections continue to unfold, and the possible implications a Trump presidency may bring to US-Russian relations, than Szamuely’s piece is the gold standard.
If you wish to fill your head with more mind numbing fear and warmongering, then turn your attention to ‘the paper of record’, The New York Times, and their recent Trump interview, where the newspaper responsible for selling the world on the Iraq invasion is at it again.
This time the NYT is trying to convince readers that Russia is evil, Putin a dictator, and a Russian invasion of the Baltic states is all but assured if not for NATO’s defensive posturing, that stops Putin from conquering Estonia…and possibly expanding Russia all the way to the English channel.
The New York Times fails to acknowledge that no one has plans to touch the Baltic states, a place where statistically the population decrease is the highest in Europe (meaning not even Latvian’s want to live in Lativa).
Likewise the NYT never mentions the US coup in Ukraine or the neo-nazi government that put in place by Vicky Nuland with the sole purpose of securing Crimea. When Nuland’s Crimea plan was thwarted, the US gave the green light for an attack in the East of the country, after the population voted for autonomy.
Finally the NYT paints a picture of a peaceful NATO, ignoring alliance’s constant expansion eastward, its offensive military missions in Serbia, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, and newly minted missile systems in Romania and Poland, all for the sole purpose of having tactical nukes closer to Moscow, in case the warmongers in the west decide that a first strike scenario is worth trying out, at the expense of US client states in Eastern Europe.
All of this is ignored, as the NYT prepares its case to lead the western public into another conflict, that the liberals running the publication seem all too happy to oblige.
Excerpt from the New York Times interview of Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, discussed his views on foreign policy in Cleveland with David E. Sanger and Maggie Haberman of The New York Times during the Republican National Convention.
SANGER: Since your time is limited, let me ask you about Russia. You’ve been very complimentary of Putin himself.
TRUMP: No! No, I haven’t.
SANGER: You said you respected his strength.
TRUMP: He’s been complimentary of me. I think Putin and I will get along very well.
SANGER: So I was just in ——
TRUMP: But he’s been complimentary of me.
SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid?
TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it.
SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated ——
TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills.
SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part.
TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that.
SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations ——
TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.
HABERMAN: And if not?
TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.
SANGER: You’ve seen several of those countries come under cyberattack, things that are short of war, clearly appear to be coming from Russia.
TRUMP: Well, we’re under cyberattack.
SANGER: We’re under regular cyberattack. Would you use cyberweapons before you used military force?
TRUMP: Cyber is absolutely a thing of the future and the present. Look, we’re under cyberattack, forget about them. And we don’t even know where it’s coming from.
SANGER: Some days we do, and some days we don’t.
TRUMP: Because we’re obsolete. Right now, Russia and China in particular and other places.
SANGER: Would you support the United States’ not only developing as we are but fielding cyberweapons as an alternative?
TRUMP: Yes. I am a fan of the future, and cyber is the future.
SANGER: President Obama, as you probably know, as you probably read, is considering a no-first-use pledge before he leaves office for nuclear weapons. We don’t have one right now. Some other nations do, some don’t. Would you consider that stabilizing?
TRUMP: Depends on who we are talking about, it depends on who we are talking about. I would only make that commitment as the agreement is being signed. I wouldn’t want to play my cards. I don’t want to say that.
SANGER: This would be a declaratory policy of the United States.
TRUMP: I understand. I will do everything within my power never to be in a position where we have to use nuclear power because that’s a whole different ballgame. That’s very important to me. I will do everything in my power never to be in a position where we will have to use nuclear power. It’s very important to me.
SANGER: President Obama, as you know, has talked about reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal and hopefully getting to the point, maybe not in our lifetimes, of no nuclear weapons. Do you believe at this point that we have sufficient forces that we could come down unilaterally?
TRUMP: I only like that premise if nobody else has them. But that’s never going to happen.
SANGER: Do you think we have too many weapons than we actually need to defend the United States?
TRUMP: I think we have a lot of obsolete weapons.
SANGER: We certainly do.
TRUMP: We have nuclear that we don’t even know if it works. We have nuclear where the telephone systems are 40 years old and they have wire that’s so corroded that they can’t call from one station to the next.
SANGER: That’s right.
TRUMP: We have nuclear that their silos are rusted so badly that they don’t even know if the rockets are going to pour out.
SANGER: Well that raises the question whether we need that part of the triad?
TRUMP: Yes. Yes, I think you need all three parts, but — but we have, much of what we have is obsolete. Now, Russia, if you look at what they’re doing, they’re building submarines, they’re going to a level. …
SANGER: You’ve been a little bit vague about what we’d do with ISIS other than bomb the hell out of them.
TRUMP: I don’t want to be specific because I don’t want ISIS to know what I’m planning. I do have ideas, very strong ideas on ISIS.
SANGER: Do any of them involve diplomacy, as opposed to — in other words, diplomacy in terms of getting Russia and others to help cut them off?
TRUMP: Oh, I would love to have a good relationship where Russia and I, instead of, and us, and the U.S., instead of fighting each other we got along. It would be wonderful if we had good relationships with Russia so that we don’t have to go through all of the drama.
SANGER: You would keep Assad there if he’s also fighting ISIS?
TRUMP: I don’t want to say that, I have a very specific view on Assad, but I think we have to get rid of ISIS before we get rid of Assad.
SANGER: So you agree with President Obama in that regard?
TRUMP: Look, Assad hates ISIS; ISIS hates Assad. They are fighting each other. We are supposed to go and fight them both? How do you fight them both when they are fighting each other? And I think that ISIS is a threat that’s much more important for us right now than Assad. You understand what I’m saying?
TRUMP: Because Assad and ISIS are fighting. Now we are going to go in and fight them both, because we have people that don’t know what they are doing. We have people that don’t know what they are doing. So I would get rid of ISIS, but I don’t want to fight at the same time. The other thing you have is, is Assad is backed by a country that we made a power, O.K.? Iran. And Russia, O.K.? So why didn’t we do something about that before we made Iran rich, and before we gave them this tremendous power that they now have, that they didn’t have and shouldn’t have had?