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.
Who’s in Charge?
At his confirmation hearing on Thursday, General James Mattis, warning that the nations of the north Atlantic were “under the biggest attack since World War II” and described Russia as the “principal threat” facing the United States. He called NATO “the most successful military alliance probably in modern history, maybe ever.”
After giving a full-throated defense of NATO, Mattis said he supported the European Reassurance Initiative, which right now is pouring troops and heavy equipment into eastern Europe to protect it against Russia. “Since Yalta,” Mattis said,
… we have a long list of times we’ve tried to engage positively with Russia. We have a relatively short list of successes in that regard.
I’m all for engagement but we also have to recognize reality and what Russia is up to and there’s decreasing number of areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing number of areas where we’re going to have to confront Russia … I have very modest expectations about areas of cooperation with Mr. Putin.
He also said, “If we did not have NATO today we would need to create it.”
He described it as urgently important to take coordinated action to shore up the alliance against Russia:
I think right now the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with Mr. Putin and we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance and that we take the steps — the integrated steps, diplomatic, economic, military and the alliance steps, the working with our allies to defend ourselves where we must.
In a written questionnaire, he wrote that he believes the alliance “must harness renewed political will to confront and walk back aggressive Russian actions and other threats to the security of its members.”
Congressman Mike Pompeo, Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, accused the Russian leadership of “aggressive action” in meddling in the US elections, “asserting itself aggressively” by occupying part of Ukraine and of doing “doing nearly nothing” to destroy Islamic State. Of Russian hacking, he said, “It’s going to require an incredibly robust American response.”
Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson (who, oddly, said he hadn’t ever discussed Russia with Trump) said he favored maintaining U.S. sanctions against Russia; he also averred that NATO allies were right to be alarmed by Moscow’s growing aggression. He blamed an “absence of American leadership” for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and said the United States should have taken stronger actions to deter this.
General John Kelly, nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, agreed “with high confidence” with the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian hacking.
So I was thinking, “Okay, perhaps this won’t be so bad. There’s clearly a big difference between what Trump says and what he means. These appointments suggest he’s not utterly clueless.”
But this morning, I look at the news and see that Trump has gone out of his way to cause panic in Europe. “Asked whom he trusted more, Merkel, a longtime US ally, or Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump called it a draw — at least for now. ‘I start off trusting both, but let’s see how long that lasts,’ he said. ‘May not last long at all.'”
The Times quoted Trump as saying he was interested in making “good deals with Russia,” floating the idea of lifting sanctions that were imposed as the U.S. has sought to punish the Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and military support of the Syrian government.
“They have sanctions on Russia — let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia,’’ Trump said, according to the Times. “For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it.’’ …
Repeating a criticism of NATO he made during his campaign, Trump said that while trans-Atlantic military alliance is important, it “has problems.”
“It’s obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said in the Bild version of the interview. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.” The Times quoted Trump saying that only five NATO members are paying their fair share.
I have a few questions. First, why did he nominate a cabinet full of men who are (in my view) quite realistic about Russia if he’s really of the opinion that Russia is ready to make “good deals?” Does he really think that NATO doesn’t “deal with terrorism?” By “obsolete,” does he mean that he believes Russia no longer poses a serious threat?
Is he aware that the US Army 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team just arrived in Poland, and that General Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, described this as “a significant moment in European deterrence and defense,” specifically noting that this “enables our force to rapidly be ready and postured should they need to deter Russian aggression?”
What’s the point of doing this if the Commander-in-Chief believes NATO is “obsolete,” and is ready to “make some deals” with Russia?
Is it some sort of good-cop, bad-cop routine? Can you really blame people for finding the idea that he’s being blackmailed by Putin plausible? If Americans can’t make sense of this — or at least, this American can’t — how can we expect adversaries to make sense of it? I truly don’t know whether we’re committed to NATO, or to any of our allies. I don’t think it’s possible to know, given how strange and mixed our signals are.
How do you understand this? How do you think the Kremlin understands it? Iran? North Korea?
Published in General
Until the body bags start coming into Dover AFB.
I think Trump has filled his cabinet full of seasoned, tested professionals whose knowledge and opinions are different from his for good reason – unlike Obama who surrounded himself with people who agreed with him on everything, and gave him bad advice. I think Trump looks at NATO from a rearview mirror and sees some unfairness, incompetence and lackluster record, but understands its importance.
Europe has not handled things well in recent years with regards to its decisions – The EU has become disorganized and I would ask who is in charge there, rather than here. The problems Europe faces are of its own doing and now are nervous about many things, including refugee mess, terrorism, Russian aggression, economy etc. as well as a populist movement taking hold. People aren’t used to Trump’s approach, but I believe he is all ears to those he has appointed, and will work with our allies in a much better context than Obama has.
There are 28 members of NATO.
12 of them are former Soviet client states. (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia)
4 of them are bankrupt (Spain, Portugal, Greece & Italy)
1 of them is headed up by an Islamic nutjob. (Turkey)
The rest are hobbled by the EU superstate, Islamic immigration or the stupidity of choosing Justin Trudeau as their Prime Minister.
I’ve always been of the mind that incorporating Russia’s near abroad into NATO was a foolish choice. Making nice with them, offering them arms and aid, fine. Making it clear to Russia that we support free states in Eastern Europe, fine.
Some of them have more issues than others: lack of ability or desire to meet NATO commitments; geographic disadvantages; penetration by Russian sympathizers; etc.
Merkel has been a bigger detriment to world peace than Putin.
Don’t forget that at the time of the great Eastern expansion it was everyone’s assumption Russia would eventually join NATO. That didn’t happen fast enough, everyone got cold feet, the Russians got annoyed, then petulant, then paranoid.
I am sorry @docjay but this statement is utterly preposterous and unworthy, representing a level of blindness that is staggering. Putin is the prime backer of some of the most violent and oppressive regimes on this planet. He is actively promoting civil war in Ukraine, is supplying the Iranian regime with arms and political cover, and his backing of the Assad regime is one of the primary reasons for the refugee crisis, and the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded in that country. To compare Merkel’s ill thought through refugee policy with Putin active promotion of the very causes of those refugees is disgusting.
I am aware of all the things Vlad the Impaler has done and have some idea of his machinations.
I consider Islam the greatest threat to humanity and world peace, bar none. It doesn’t matter if it is compared China or Russian aggression.
Merkel is part of a one world order globalist elite that sought to use Islam to overcome nationalism, nationalism being the enemy of world socialist order. Islam is/was the cudgel used to beat nationalists over the head in order to win the public’s hearts and minds.
Islam will swallow the world if not addressed as a cancer to be destroyed and idiots like Merkel/Obama were paving the way in 2011 for this Islamification of the west.
I stand by my statement.
[redacted image]
Well a deterrent is useless without the will to fight. Exactly what will trigger a military response? Will France, Germany, Italy, etc. send in their troops or just leave us to fight? Since many NATO countries won’t even pony up their share of the money, why should we assume they will commit when the bombs start to drop? Germany alone has a vastly stronger economy than Russia. France and Italy are far more prosperous than Russia. Tell me why they need the US to deter Putin? Before we go to war shouldn’t we demand that those nations provide the first line of defense? Sorry, but I do not see France rushing to the aid of Poland. Germany, maybe, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
You are incorrect sir. I for one would send a stern letter of note concerning the underpayment of the servants. I would use appropriate language to register my disappointment in the lack of high definition video..
I would also expect the video to be used in several entertainment venues to help reduce the national debt.
Make America Great Again, Mr Lileks. @jameslileks
EJ,
You know we could do a complete policy shift and invade Canada. Before the War (The Civil War) the Manifest Destiny gang wanted to do just that. With Trudeau in charge, it would be tempting. Think of the timber, the trout fishing, and with all that land parking would be a snap.
Assuming that we don’t want to change policy that much, I think we can withstand the cognitive dissonance of the Trump administration. As I have explained before, the Trump survival kit requires Dramamine for the motion sickness, Pepto-bismal for the nausea, and buffered aspirin for the migraine.
Gee, one minute it’s like a dance and the next minute…
Regards,
Jim
A little clarification might be in order here. Which definition of “cause”?
Jim, some people throw up on roller coasters, some enjoy the ride. This one is going to be screaming fun.
TK,
You know TK, I’m beginning to like it myself.
Regards,
Jim
I am sorry @Valiuth but this statement is utterly preposterous and unworthy, representing a level of blindness that is staggering. Obama/Clinton/Merkel have been the prime backer of some of the most violent and oppressive regimes on this planet, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. They are actively promoting civil war in Syria, supplied ISIS with arms and political cover, and their backing of ISIS is one of the primary reasons for the refugee crisis, and the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded in that country(/ies). To compare Putin’s active promotion of the very causes of those refugees with Obama/Clinton/Merkels active promotion of the very causes of those refugees and their civilisational self-loathing is disgusting.
And just a gentle reminder that this is the same Obama/Clinton/Merkel axis that the author voted for, and that “ill-thought-through refugee policy” is the same one she endorsed.
At all points Putin has backed Assad. That backing has given Assad all the room he and cover he needed to engage in the destruction of his own country and people. The result of which has been millions of refugees. It has been Putin’s Russia which has shielded Assad from any UN sanction, and it has been direct military aid from Putin that has given Assad the means by which to kill and drive out so many Syrians. The Syria refugee crisis has been driven by the ruthless actions of the Syrian regime and Putin is an aid and accomplice to those actions.
Merkel and her open borders ilk render the free world vulnerable to all threats, not just the immediate threat of the terrorists and other criminals they let in. That is the fundamental difference between Merkel on the one hand and Putin, the ChiComs, the NorKs, the Shiite Mullahs, and the Suni Jihadists.on the other.
You mean the Syria Obama destabilized by supporting the rise of ISIS in order to pressure Assad. The millions of refugees were anticipated by Merkel/Clinton/Obama as part of regime change plans. The Syria with the rebels we were running weapons to illegally and hoped to run even more via the Lybia/Turkey route? Obama/Merkel/Clinton failed and Assad turned to Russia instead of the negotiating table.
The millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands dead are on Obama, not Vlad the opportunist.
What is amazing to me is how tribal our politics have become. People that were condemning Obama/Clinton for being naive with regard to Putin are now praising Trump for being even more naive.
Scott Adams is right, humans don’t make decisions based on rational though, they make decisions based on emotion then use their rational thought to justify those decisions.
I hope that Donald Trump will listen to General Mattis. Donald Trump is not an expert on military history, much less European history. The presence of US troops in the Baltic States, Poland, and if necessary the Ukraine is a cost effective way to put a crimp in any Russian plans to move their own troops into these countries and then force us to act, or to back down.
We can live in fear and beg Putin to be a good person, or we can take proactive steps like placing American troops in Poland. Putin knows that to attack those troops would be suicidal. Dictators know full well they cannot run their own countries from a bunker.
I’ll be astounded if Trump doesn’t listen to the professionals about Putin. Let’s find out what happens.
Note:
Personal attacks.Yeah, the only reason to think the Russians are the biggest threat to American security is because the Russians have a blackmail dossier on you. [redacted]
There are three important problems or threats – Islamic world, China and Russia. Russia is nr 3 on the list in terms of importance. But I guess I see it that way because I was last week in a hotel room getting a golden shower and the FSB got all kinds of wonderful photographs of that.
The reason NATO is so totally and completely anachronistic is that it makes a point of increasing the threat from the Islamic world. So why should the US help with their Russian problem? Russia is far more of a threat to them than to us. If they (specifically Merkel) isn’t willing to do anything, then they are not allies. Period.
[redacted]
Keep fighting the good fight @claire. The Rothbard-Buchanan isolationists never want to hear it, and no one on the right wants to hear it when the Democrats are saying it, but Russia’s a threat, to us and our allies. Hopefully Trump’s advisers portend our new foreign policy.
That’s what I was hoping you meant, but I wasn’t sure. Thx.
Unlike government, in a profit making business, you hire people who know more than you do about how to do things and you listen to them about the how to and keep them as long as it works. The what to do is your job.
Keeping Putin wary is just where you want him to cut a deal with him.
I do have an issue with having US troops prop up another corrupt government. Ukraine has to earn it. We have propped up enough jerks.
Really? Like who?
I think you are on the wrong website, perhaps you are looking for the Breitbart comments section. Calling people that disagree with you all shades of stupid, or simple minded is not really an argument that is based upon setting forth premises and conclusions that follow from those premises when you disagree with someone.
Less believing of one’s own propaganda might be one place to start when analyzing what to do.
Pallywood methods seem to be employed by “our people” in Syria. And, I’m supposed to be in a lather over the nightly news reports of war crimes documented chiefly/exclusively second-hand, relying on “sources”? Why? I don’t believe nightly news shock stories about the “murderous” Israelis…never have, never will.
The Huns are bayoneting Belgium babies! The Kuwaiti infants are being thrown from incubators! The rebel forces against Arbenz have taken another Guatemalan city! The IsraElis are killing Palestinian children for sport!
How’s about we all take a breath and dig into the claims about the rival civilization before we believe every lie/exaggeration and go off half-cocked.
Of course, the same applies to #NeverTrumpers believing/repeating every rumor/lie that confirms their position and their putting the worst reading on every statement.
If only everyone were in such a lather to destroy the House of Saud and the Gulf Arab states and all their works that are the source of the world-wide religio-political contagion. But, no….they’ve paid so well…to both sides of our aisle, they’re great friends…fun guys, they set off the oil bomb that helped bring down the USSR. Hell, even GWB, whom I respected so much & whose every pronouncement I had cheered after 9/11/2001, was so sweetly helping old King Abdullah…holding his hand.