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, ISIS, and Russia
I wanted to highlight some comments from the debate that really baffled me:
Trump: I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don’t know Putin.
Is he unaware that the US has been trying, frantically, to get Russia to “fight ISIS together” — and that this has been the result?
U.S.-Russia relations fell to a new post-Cold War low Monday as the Obama administration abandoned efforts to cooperate with Russia on ending the Syrian civil war and forming a common front against terrorists there, and Moscow suspended a landmark nuclear agreement.
Trump continued:
But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they’re trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know — I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don’t deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from Russia. …
Russia attacked the United States. Trump was apparently extensively briefed about this. Why would he intimate that this is all made up? Does he really believe that? Do you think he really believes it? If not, why is he saying it?
But if you look at Russia, just take a look at Russia, and look at what they did this week, where I agree, she wasn’t there, but possibly she’s consulted. We sign a peace treaty.
A peace treaty? Does he mean the ceasefire?
Everyone’s all excited. Well, what Russia did with Assad and, by the way, with Iran, who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I’ve ever seen in the history of deal-making, the Iran deal, with the $150 billion, with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough to fill up this room.
But look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us.
What deal? Does he think the deal caused Russia and Iran to become hostile to the United States? What is he talking about?
So she wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There’s only one problem. You don’t even know who the rebels are. So what’s the purpose?
The only one who doesn’t seem to know who the actors here are is Trump.
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: And one thing I have to say.
RADDATZ: Your two minutes is up.
TRUMP: I don’t like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy.
Frankly, we’d be better off with the guy who didn’t know what Aleppo was. Trump either believes something nonsensical, or he knows what he’s saying is rubbish and he’s trying deliberately to mislead the American people about who our adversaries are and the seriousness of the threat. None of these parties is “killing ISIS.” Russia’s campaign has barely dented ISIS. ISIS’s territorial losses have mostly come at the hands of Kurdish militias backed by a US-led coalition. Russia rarely even targets ISIS in Syria. Unless you live in a universe of skepticism so profound that the only sources you believe are Russian propaganda outlets, you’d know this. This paper is one of almost infinitely many reports and analyses from groups across the political spectrum to report that no, Russia’s not killing ISIS:
Initial Russian Defense Ministry combat reports claimed that ISIS was the only target. Yet analysis of open source and social media intelligence (OSSMINT) quickly revealed that the ministry’s claims were deceptive, and that the Russian strikes were not primarily targeting ISIS. Subsequent research also revealed evidence of the use of cluster munitions and bombs that destroyed civilian targets.
OSSMINT analysis further reveals that Putin’s claim that Russia was “able to radically change the situation in fighting international terrorism” does not match the reality on the ground. The almost six months of Russian air strikes caused only peripheral damage to ISIS: Their positions at the end of the campaign were little altered from those at the start. The strikes also had a limited effect on the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, which launched an attack on more moderate forces just days before Putin announced: mission accomplished.
In fact, the main beneficiary of the Russian air strikes was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces were able to retake key areas in and around Latakia and Aleppo. The main losers were the more moderate rebels against Assad, including those backed by the West.
The hallmark of the Russian campaign was disinformation. It accompanied the launch of the campaign; it covered the targets chosen and the weapons used to strike them; it masked the real purpose of the campaign, and the strategic effect that it achieved.
In the words of the study’s authors,
Putin’s policy was to distract, deceive, and destroy. The buildup to the Russian air strikes distracted Western and Russian attention from Putin’s Ukrainian operations and the buildup of his forces in Syria. The official campaign reports deceived the world about the mission’s true targets and goals. The operation destroyed the capabilities of the only credible non-jihadist alternative to Assad’s regime, including those elements directly backed by the West. This fits a pattern of behavior already played out in Ukraine. It can be used as a template to predict, examine, and judge his future actions.
Or here’s a report from the Institute for the Study of War:
Key Takeaway: Russia’s involvement in Syria is facilitating ISIS’s territorial gains, while also strengthening Assad. Russia is supporting the Syrian regime’s offensives in Latakia, the al-Ghab Plain, and northern Hama. Russia also intensified strikes on rebel-held northwestern Aleppo, likely to set conditions for an imminent Russian-Iranian-Syrian regime offensive in the area. U.S. defense officials and local Syrian activists reported the arrival of hundreds of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-Quds Force fighters and other Iranian proxy forces in Aleppo over the past few days. Russian strikes largely concentrated along the rebel-held supply route leading to the besieged regime enclaves of Nubl and Zahraa northwest of Aleppo City. If the regime can link with these enclaves, they will successfully sever the rebel-held supply route from Aleppo City to the Turkish border. Simultaneous regime offensives in both Hama and Aleppo Provinces will likely fix rebel forces along multiple fronts and prevent them from reinforcing their positions across northwestern Syria, resulting in a loss of terrain for the Syrian opposition.
ISIS is benefiting from Russia’s strikes on the Syrian opposition. On October 9, ISIS advanced 10 kilometers against rebels in northeastern Aleppo, the largest advance by ISIS in the province since August 2015. ISIS continued to conduct probing attacks against rebels northeast of Aleppo City from October 10-14. The Syrian regime and ISIS have historically leveraged one another’s offensives in order to advance against rebel forces in the northern Aleppo countryside. Both ISIS and the regime will likely capitalize on the effects of Russian airstrikes on rebels. Russian airstrikes have thus far failed to deter ISIS from launching new offensives and rather have facilitated ISIS’s seizure of new terrain.
Someone — probably many people — has explained this to Donald Trump. But he’s either chosen not to believe it, or he’s consciously lying about it. Why? If he wins the election, he’ll have to do something about this situation. How is he going to explain that no, we can’t cooperate with Russia to kill ISIS, because Russia doesn’t share our objectives?
RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, let me repeat the question. If you were president…
(LAUGHTER)
… what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo? And I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and that if Russia continues to be involved in air strikes along with the Syrian government forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime.
TRUMP: OK. He and I haven’t spoken, and I disagree. I disagree.
RADDATZ: You disagree with your running mate?
Why does he disagree with his running mate about this very fundamental issue of national security? Does he really believe that Assad is fighting ISIS?
TRUMP: I think you have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. But Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and it’s Iran, who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a very powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly, very, very quickly.
Here we have something, maybe, like an argument — that we’re hamstrung and unable to maneuver without assuming apocalyptic risk, given Russia’s involvement in Syria. But if that’s so, how does he propose we “get ISIS?”
I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria. They had a chance. And that was the line. And she didn’t.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if Aleppo falls?
TRUMP: I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise.
RADDATZ: What do you think will happen if it falls?
TRUMP: I think that it basically has fallen. OK? It basically has fallen.
Does this sentence make sense to anyone? Is he saying, “It will fall and we can’t do anything about it?”
Is it plausible that Trump is getting his news from Russian disinformation sources? If not, why does he sound like it? Can you put any spin on these comments that isn’t sinister? If he’s saying these things for a crude electoral purpose, why does he think it will help him to sound like Sputnik News?
Published in General
Is that card in community chest or chance?
Question,
I have a strawman friend too. I just don’t listen to him ever.
Regards,
Jim
Admiral,
Odd, Obama is completely prepared but the only thing that he’s done is follow a hack Marxist analysis and then go play golf. He did return the bust of Winston Churchill. Oh well, Churchill was about 70 when he became Prime Minister. “Some chicken, some neck.”
Regards,
Jim
@jamesgawron James you ask how can things get worse than what we have now with Obama? I think you lack imagination. I can imagine things getting much worse specifically with Trump in charge. While our global order is cracking up now thanks to Obama’s poor leadership Trump has show tendencies, and expressed opinions that I think indicate he will break the whole thing apart. In such a case chaos and war will reign throughout and we will very well find ourselves powerless and unwilling to stop it. We may avoid the immediate effects like we did with WWII but invariably in such a world we will be drawn in to conflict ourselves and not on our own terms.
I think Hillary even with the poor decision making she has show is less likely to crack the whole thing apart, and time may be our best ally. Time we need to rework and rebuild our alliances and strengthen democracies across the world. Trump I do not think will buy us time. He has show no interest in foreign policy. His negligence will precipitate what Obama has wrought, while Hillary will at worst just continue it apace. Perhaps you might see how I think slowly driving towards a cliff is preferable to speeding towards it.
We are in a bad spot. Trapped between those who will not defend democratic world order and those incapable of it.
I hope you aren’t comparing Trump to Churchill because that would be like comparing Ron Popeil to Thomas Edison.
Good point –
Val,
You really ought to do something about those nightmares. Tendencies, expressed opinions? Obama expressed pure Marxist opinions. He expressed Jihadist sympathies over and over again. For eight years he’s followed up on this idiotic nonsense. Hillary Clinton had about 1 million opportunities to say no or to fight against these policies. She doesn’t have any principles she was born without them the poor thing.
I wasn’t comparing Churchill to Trump. However, my suggestion is that being a 70-year-old man is not proof of anything. Actually, Reagan was 70 too. He did alright. You know, he took the evil empire apart.
As far as Trump goes, I’ve always said he’s a gamble. Hillary is no gamble. She is an automatic loss.
Regards,
Jim
I see a book in there somewhere….called Menace in America – Why the Crisis is the World’s too..
I agree.
Trump seems either to be reading and taking seriously Russian propaganda or informed exclusively by people who are — and ignoring what other people say to him. This no longer a conspiracy theory. There’s just no other way to explain how quickly it goes from “Russian propaganda site” to “Things Trump says.”
It’s another step in the general escalation and an attempt to dominate and cow the Black Sea region. They’re trying to establish new facts on the ground before the election. I don’t know if Putin truly wants war, but miscalculation is a huge risk.
This sounds bad. I hope Europe responds soon.
Hi Jim! Glad you haven’t lost your good humour. Just felt the need to point out that all of these were contributed to by decades of realpolitik – iow Republicans and Democrats both have some ownership of these outcomes because they both contributed to the causes. Obama was at the helm when the dam broke, but that’s more chance than anything else. Jmho.
As you were.
American proxies (however unwisely and precipitously chosen) defeated by Russian proxy (and Russia).
I’ve known this friend since grade school. Having read his posts and comments over the last few years, and compared them to Trump’s core supporters, I believe he is a fair representative of what drives the Trump movement. My friend doesn’t like Obama, but he hates Republicans even more. He wants Medicare for all and he says Paul Ryan wants seniors to eat catfood. Likewise, Trump says that health care is the responsibility of the federal government. Trump says that he is not like most Republicans in that he won’t let people die in the streets. Trump is at least as anti-Republicans as he is anti-Democrats. His ability to thwart Republicans is much better demonstrated than his ability to thwart Democrats. I understand his value as a body who can take a place otherwise filled by Hillary Clinton, but when that body is so good at hurting Republicans, I don’t think it’s worth it.
I’d agree, if this was 1920.
It isn’t.
The absolute last problem we have is that the United States isn’t involved enough in the world.
At the risk of repeating myself, our actual problem is that we have a government that is contemptuously disinterested in the fate of the actual United States, instead preferring to agonize about all the poor foreigners it could help if only
the damned dirty apesthe American people would stop worrying about their own grubby lives and futures.Obviously, I’m not pleased about that.
But it’s worse, because the US government is not only poke-poke-poking at every hostile regime on the planet but it can’t even be bothered to retain the means to realistically threaten them.
Sticking with the navy, back when I was expecting to be killed by the Soviets, Norfolk had so many ships based there that finding places to put them was a real problem. The last time I was there, the piers were almost empty. And the new ships we are building are too often seagoing garbage. Google the problems with the so-called Littoral Combat Ship, for example. Eight years after the first was commissioned, with dozens built or building, none of them are able to deploy.
Don’t think our enemies haven’t noticed.
And I’ll add this, on the general topic of Syrian intervention.
Way back before Trump, in ye olden times, Barry made a famous remark about redlines.
It was ignored.
So. It appeared we were going to have a war with Syria.
Briefly, that is. I remember seeing a story that the Republican party leadership in the House had set about organizing a vote to authorize and support the upcoming war. Then the war talk ceased abruptly. Subsequently, I saw a story stating that calls to Congress were something like 1000-1 against, and even the especially stupid flatworms of the gop were able to turn away from that flame. Barry was forced to back down, because he wasn’t willing to go to war without being able to blame the GOP for the consequences.
The point here is that if the American people were interested in Syria we would have already gone to war.
The American people simply aren’t.
When I was a kid every school building had this sign:
Not so much anymore.
It’s shame. I think we’ll be needing them, no matter who wins this insane election.
Does Hillary want war? She wants a no-fly zone which cannot be done (unless the failed ceasefire talks can be revived, and the Russians really don’t trust us now) without war with Russia and Syria.
Or maybe she is going to let Assad stay after all to cut a deal with Putin or maybe she’s going to bet the farm that she can simultaneously frustrate Russia’s strategy of using Assad to plug a jihadi sized hole in Damascus and keep it a proxy war.
Another interpretation might be – he is aware of the frenetic posturing of Pres Obama (as a completely submissive puppy, on his back, showing his belly and wanting it rubbed) and wishes it were otherwise?
What deal, you ask – where there is only one deal I know of recently with Iran, where the US guaranteed their right to purify Uranium and make a bomb in 10 years while we pay them $400M up front with additional cash transfers of up to $1.7B in exchange for the Americans the Iranians held hostage.
Yes, the deal showed uncharacteristic weakness and encouraged more bad behavior from Iran (Navy hostages) Houthi (shooting at Navy ships), Russia (Nukes in Kaliningrad), Syria et al.
True. The American people should be more interested though, and not just in Syria but in the rest of the world to. I understand we have problems at home, and I can also accept that those problems might be more urgent. Certainly they seem more imminent to the average person’s life. I also happen to think that Trump has not good solutions to any of those problems either, but lets leave that argument aside. One of the primary jobs of the US government is to worry about the foreign problems. The domestic ones really should be taken care of at the more local level. We have a president precisely because the American people need to worry about their own lives and economy, and it is the Presidents job to worry about what the world is doing and how it will effect us. Trump is utterly uninterested in that task. As we can see from the way he discusses it. I think his negligence on that speaks far worse for him than Hillary’s incompetence. She might actually learn something. He seems incapable of it.
The other point to be made is that we are well entangled in these places. So if our goal was to disentangle why would you trust Trump to do it well?
And that is a good point, to further consider. We are not always in control (if anyone ever actually is in control is also debatable) of the things that happen, but we must manage them. Obama has managed them poorly I would say, because he seemed uninterested in managing them. Hillary seems far more interested, and maybe she won’t to that well either, but we know what lack of interest gets us, and Trump is uninterested. Hillary seems to me like the kind of politician that will work to keep the terrible status quo, but Trumps lack of interest and ignorance I think guarantees he will make things worse. Not, even in the obvious way, because I think Trump ever eager to befriend and impress Putin will band with him and do his dirty work in Syria to mop up ISIS after Putin has secured Assad. And, in return for the honor of helping his pal Trump will abandon Eastern Europe to the Russians effectively.
To hell with Syria.
The American people are more interested in Kim Kardashian, Kanye West, Brad and Angelina and the random whereabouts of Ozzy Osbourn. We should always have a national plebiscite on any foreign policy matter. Hey, people could text in their votes on their smartphones. Just trying to be helpful.
I would prefer his negligence to her malfeasance. She was 4th in line to the Presidency for 4 years and made a fortune selling access to that office on behalf of foreign governments and domestic cronies. I will not vote to reward her with higher office.
He has learned a few things – I use as evidence, the visit to Mexico. Unfortunately that worthy did not have the squeeze to get Herself to visit as well.
As if the Baltic missile hadn’t proved Pres. Obama did that already.
Can’t you guys restrain your contempt for the American people long enough to make a case for your endless desire for more war, intervention, dead Americans to save foreigners, that stuff…
Oh, wait you can’t. You’ve tried, and the public just isn’t having it.
So, yeah, go ahead and lament that people have lost interest in doing nice things for people who hate us, and at great cost as well.
You lost that argument. As you should.
Well, that’s me all over. I’m so ashamed.
We have no reason to be entangled in Syria. None.
We were not back when the Assad regime was killing American troops in Iraq. We were not back during the Cold War, when a different Assad was wrecking our policy in Lebanon. We were not back when the US was overwhelmingly dominant militarily, against everyone, just after the Cold War ended.
We have no reason to get more entangled now, except for what seems to be a bizarre and idiotic desire by the US government to ensure that islamist regimes are imposed everywhere in the Middle East, for no apparent reason at all.
To quote@mikelaroche to Hell with Syria.
Not our circus, not our monkeys, not our problem. Period.