Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Went Easy on Putin? Get a Load of Churchill on Stalin
Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in 1945, shortly after returning from the Yalta Conference:
Published in GeneralThe impression I brought back from the Crimea is that Marshal Stalin and the Soviet leaders wish to live in honourable friendship and equality with the Western democracies. I feel also that their word is their bond. I know of no Government which stands to its obligations…more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government. I decline absolutely to embark here on a discussion about Russian good faith.
Two years and three months, plus a few days.
A nodding conspiracy of unelected bureaucrats that can suborn the IRS, CIA, FBI, DOJ, and FISA courts into pursuing Americans based on partisan politics is a lot worse threat to my security and liberty than Russia.
That’s not saying that Trump did well or poorly with Putin. Only time will tell. What doesn’t tell us a thing is the media and leftist uproar, which was as much baked in the cake as the howling that nominee XX for SCOTUS would be the end of Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, life, the universe and everything. There is no signal there, no new information. It’s just sad to see how many are falling for it who should have learned better.
Truman’s policy towards the Soviet Union was basically pursued by 8 Administrations over a period of 45 years. And the man that did the most to bring it to fruition was in 8 years and still left it for his successor to enjoy that final push when the USSR ceased to exist.
Today may not have been Trump’s best hour but some of the rhetoric today has been reminiscent more of the late 1800’s than the Cold War. The left and the media (but I repeat myself) are acting and talking like they’re not going to be assuaged unless we go to war with Russia and avenge our national honor. And all because someone lost an election they weren’t “supposed” to lose.
One of the reasons that the Allies won the Cold War is because Churchill’s suicidal efforts to invade Norway were undermined by the bureaucracy. Thankfully, he was sabotaged long enough for Hitler to invade first; the Norwegian parliament spent the initial portion of its time responding to the invasion by trying to work out who it was that was attacking. It was one of the key moments in increasing American support for Britain.
Churchill was an excellent cheerleader at a time when the world really needed an excellent cheerleader, and he was absolutely right to promote a vigorous response to Hitler. He was also an excellent historian. He was terrible (one of history’s worst) at seeing the value to moderation and respect for the constitution; before him, British politics is dominated by the constitution, after him people literally cease to be aware that it exists. His willingness to gas Kurds after doing so became a war crime, his lack of patience and restraint at Gallipoli, his role in the functional abolition of the House of Lords and in an income tax that was designed to be punitive rather than merely remunerative, his retention of rationing after the war; his praise for Stalin wasn’t out of character in a man who was perhaps unique in British history in his enthusiasm for egg breaking in the service of omelette.
That said, his key role came at a moment when we needed to have a willingness to throw ourselves into a meat grinder and keep pushing the flesh in. As Peter said, he was willing to sacrifice a lot, both ethically and materially, to defeat Britain’s greatest geopolitical foe. My recollection is that @peterrobinson agreed with the claim that that foe for America today was Russia. Since that agreement, Russia has engaged in more of the activity that Churchill felt was sufficient to demand war. In September 1938, what had Hitler done that Putin has not? Not, so far as I am aware, anything that formed the basis for Churchill’s opinion of him. On the other hand, if Hitler had engaged in espionage and published the private correspondence of the Liberal Party’s leadership as part of a concerted effort to raise tensions and division within the British public, it seems likely that that would have played a role in his thinking.
It would have been similar if Churchill made the claim that Britain was as much to blame for Hitler’s excesses as the Germans were. Churchill famously described his position thus: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
What is unique with Trump is not that he was willing to describe his country in damning terms, nor that he was willing to fawn on Putin, but the cheapness of his praise might be (not to say that it is, just that I cannot think of a Presidential example; I’m open to education from historians of shameful moments). Who is the Hitler in this analog? What is the compelling motivation?
Sec. Clinton has written a lot of books, but the only part of her writing that I’ve regularly found to be useful as conveying a high quality of insight was her writing about Russia in Hard Choices. In defense of the reset, Russia in 2009 had invaded Georgia, but nonetheless had a dramatically smaller portfolio of recent atrocities. Under her time in office they became dramatically more terrible, and the decline continued under her successor. She’s pretty good at laying out the sort of case that Peter lays out; we needed Russian help with a lot of things, from North Korea and Iran to various smaller issues at the UN. Even when she was writing, she recognised that she’d made a mistake, and admitted it.
Hillary and Obama, though, were far more moderate in their engagement. I genuinely don’t know if Peter was pro-reset in 2009. It seems to me that if he was, this seems far less like the corruption of power.
Also, as Jamie notes, Trump has been pretty good on substance with this issue.
@ejhill I think very highly of you and all you have accomplished for Ricochet. However “may not have been Trump’s best hour” underestimates the negative impct of today’s Helsinki press conference. Personally, I think he really screwed up!
This.
Spot on Brian… Churchill’s and FDR’s goal was to defeat the evil of the Nazi’s. Trump’s goal is to protect himself, either in the legitimacy of his election or worse. The two circumstances could not be more different.
Obama’s was much worse. And he caved to what Putin Wanted. Did Trump cave on anything? We know Trump is not a wordsmith, indeed he’s pathologically inarticulate and insists on not following a script. Obama was articulate but always followed what was scripted for him because he had to.
What did Trump cave in on if anything? we don’t know. I can’t remember if Bush did, but Obama gave him everything he wanted and was easily and systematically manipulated by Putin on all the critical issues over months. Those are the things that matter, not a one off press conference by the most inarticulate president we’ve ever had who insists, unlike other Presidents, on talking off the cuff. Trump doesn’t seem to understand that the whole purpose of these things is the photo op and press conference following them. He may think there meant to actually make progress toward something. I think that’s a good thing, but I wish he’d let his staff prepare remarks and stick to them like every other president. Clinton would go off script as well, and it never worked out well, but nobody was paying attention.
Thanks for expressing my thoughts so well.
Do you honestly believe that? Do you know how many Russians died taking the brunt of the Wehrmacht so that Americans and Brits didn’t have to.? You people would rather have dead Americans than dead Russians. That is in effect what you are saying. And I think that is disgusting.
Not believing in the bullet that kills you does not make you any less dead.
It took 8 years of Reagan’s policy under Reagan, and two years of it under Bush before the USSR fell.
But not surprising.
And by tbeir own desire to stampede. Yes, the president’s approach was no secret.
Was the president obsequious? I didn’t watch the whole press conference and I wasn’t in the meeting. That wasn’t my impression though.
First, these kinds of things aren’t new as Peter points out. I think this is just fuel for people who are already burning rather than an incendiary event if it’s own.
Would this be approached any differently if we didn’t have two years of Russia collusion nonsense swirling around?
It’s all well and good to believe x, y, or z about Putin. Are we willing or able to make an actual case? If so, what’s the next move or even the end goal? If not, why would we do it then? To what end?
Last, let’s get specific. One criticism I’ve heard is something about equivocating. What were the exact words? Then we can have a more intelligent discussion. Because right now people are just beginning with their impressions and obviously there are divergent impressions.
He could have avoided press controversy. But that’s not how he operates. Avoiding controversy does not get wins. It becomes the goal in itself.
Which values were debased by a press conference?
Since when are the neocon elites and their leftie friends America? The foreign policy establishment of this country pushed Russia around when it was weak. It sponsored coups and sponsored invasions and bombed and killed people. It has a horrible record and blood on its hands. If you want to defend them, fine. It simply shows what you are.
I’m sorry, but someone needs to explain this to me. When did the Mueller investigation become synonymous with the US security services? I don’t blame Trump for being a little bit skeptical of the most recent indictment. An indictment is meaningless. As the old saying goes, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. (Actually, I’m not even sure if this came from a grand jury.) An indictment is especially meaningless if the prosecutor knows that he will never have to test his allegations at trial, because the named defendants will never be turned over to the US for trial.
From a broader perspective, though, Trump is also sensible to avoid unequivocal statements about any part of the Mueller investigation, other than “There was no collusion.” The left is constantly trying to blur the distinctions between “meddling” and “collusion” (not that either of those words has any legal meaning in the first place) and “stealing the election.” So long as the left treats any smear of Russia as being an automatic smear of Trump (while making no effort whatsoever to connect those dots) I think it makes sense for Trump to avoid jumping on the “smear Russia” bandwagon.
What impact? On what? What will happen or not happen based on the press conference? Let’s get specific so we can talk about it instead of posturing.
So, this speech was in 1945. In 1946, Churchill gave his famous Iron Curtain speech.
Anyone want to bet that Trump will give a speech a year from now condeming Putin in the most unambiguous terms?
American government employees are a far greater threat to America than a nuclear-equipped geopolitical enemy. Okay. :eyeroll:
Per Tom Cotton: “In the last few years alone, Russia meddled in our presidential campaign, violated arms-control treaties with the United States, invaded Ukraine, assassinated political opponents in the United Kingdom, made common cause with Iran in propping up Bashar al-Assad’s outlaw regime in Syria…”
That’s not to mention shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing one US citizen and dozens of citizens from our allies such as Europe (including the UK), Australia, and the Philippines.
President Trump publicly and directly contravened his DNI and the conclusions of all our major intelligence services in favor of the assurances of a muserous tyrant. Looks past the Mueller investigation for 5 minutes and think about what this means.
So? When are our intelligence services going to quit sponsoring coups against elected officials? The hypocrisy and self-righteousness is truly funny.
If you really believe this then you should be calling for the abolition of all of our intelligence agencies and the imprisonment of its leadership at a minimum. Are you willing to do so?
Excuse me?
Why would I want to do away with them? I just want them and the foreign policy establishment to serve American interests which they have not done since the end of the Cold War. As for sending them to jail, we shall see.
I am not against acting coldly in self interest. I am 100% opposed to dressing it up in moralistic blather which has been required since Woodrow Wilson. Such thought is both dangerous and stupid. I see Republican and Democratic foreign policy establishments as being joined at the hip, incompetent and not serving American interests. They get us into needless wars – we’re still in Afghanistan over a decade later. And for what? When have these idiots ever won a war? And you can then think Trump is dangerous is hilarious.
So when it comes to this specific issues: Russian interference with our elections. You believe that the word of Vladamir Putin serves America’s interests while the work of the CIA, NSA and FBI does not?
Russia is not the Soviet Union. God willing, there won’t be any reason to give an Iron Curtain speech – I assume you’re hoping the same. I think Peter’s point is that the current overreaction seems all the more silly given some monumental “diplomacy” with some “unsavory” characters and nations in more trying times.