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, Flynn, Tillerson — Is this a Putin-Patsy Presidency? No Way.
As Democrats and media continue their campaign to discredit President Donald Trump, no question is more potentially toxic – nor more misperceived – than the direction Mr. Trump hopes to take US-Russian relations.
You know the list of accusations: Trump has said nice things about Russian president Vladimir Putin; his new national security advisor, retired general Michael T. Flynn, is too cozy with Putin; as head of Exxon/Secretary of State designate Rex W. Tillerson did business and developed an apparently warm relationship with Putin.
In response, it is easy enough to ask, what does anyone think the president should have said about Putin before taking office? Critics seem to have wanted full-throated denunciations — odd, at least coming from critics in the major media. These media maestros are sensitive enough to the president’s criticism of them. This morning’s New York Times ran an angry, whiny, front-page defense of the inaugural coverage, coverage the president strongly criticized yesterday before a highly enthusiastic and approving audience at the CIA. Watching that event on television, it was impossible not to sense that those leaders and soldiers of the intelligence community knew a thing or two about one-sided, agenda-driven journalistic treatment. But with the people at the Times so touchy about presidential barbs thrown at them, do they really advocate that Mr. Trump treat his Russian counterpart as roughly as he has treated them? Right off the bat? Really?
Still, what about Flynn?
The fact is that the media has got Flynn’s views on Russia 180 degrees wrong. Not that those views are any secret. Flynn laid them down directly and unambiguously last July in his book (co-written with global strategy guru Michael Ledeen) The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies. On page 171 the two men wrote, “The two most active and powerful members of the enemy [that is, anti-U.S.] alliance are Russia and Iran….”
The fact is that from Flynn to the new Defense Secretary James Mattis to every other national security appointment, Mr. Trump’s cabinet is full of men who are utterly without illusions about the Russian president and his purposes.
So what about Tillerson?
Before answering, ask yourself, what about Russia?
That is, to what strategic facts or factors is Russia most sensitive? The answer is that Russia is a great power for only two reasons: nuclear weapons and hydrocarbons, meaning oil and natural gas.
On nuclear weapons, Mr. Trump is such a pushover that when Putin announced he would beef up his nukes, the then president-elect tweeted (to the consternation of his you-are-too-close-to-Putin critics), “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” He added in an MSNBC interview, “[L]et it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”
But this is just where secretary-designate Tillerson comes in. Who better understands the role of oil and gas in the Russian economy, and the subtleties of using that dependence as a lever in the broader relationship? And while we are at it, who better understands the implications of the Russian dependence on the arctic as a major source of future hydrocarbon supply?
Here is what I am driving at. Mr. Trump’s good-cop, bad-cop appointments suggest that he is looking to merge previously siloed economic and security relations with Russia to create a larger and more flexible arena for negotiation. He intends to put into play incentives as well as penalties as a means of confronting Putin and turning him from his destructive course. He wants to get away from the seemingly exclusive dependence on sanctions as levers in the relationship. No secretary of state pick could have a better grasp of the economic side of that strategy than Mr. Tillerson.
Here is a question for Trump critics to consider: How does Mr. Trump stack up as an apparent patsy for Putin against his predecessor, Barack Obama?
Yes, Mr. Obama repeatedly trotted out sanctions. But he also cancelled the missile defense systems planned for Poland and the Czech Republic, continued his party’s determination to deny a missile defense shield for the US, and allowed, some experts charge, our nuclear deterrence capacity to deteriorate in the face of Russian upgrades. Meanwhile, he blocked the Keystone pipeline, waged a war on coal, started a similar EPA attack on fracking, and put vast amounts of potential offshore oilfields off limits to exploration and development — all actions that will work to push global energy prices higher, strengthening the Russian economy. Mr. Trump has indicated that he intends to reverse all of these Obama Administration security and energy actions.
Now, which president is Putin’s friend?
Published in General
“As Democrats and media…..”. And Evan McMullin.
Obama I sincerely believe, didn’t realize he was giving such a boost to Putin. He is a Progressive (I hate that word because there is nothing progressive about it – it’s regressive – mental note: never use that word again – it’s back to liberal Democrat)….where was I….Obama’s world vision was that America needs to apologize, and we need to withdraw from many of our strengths that held countries like Russia back from aggression toward its neighbors. We need to be silent when China is hacking, building islands to give it strategic advantages, manipulating its currency, we need to be silent where Christian ethnic cleansing is concerned, we need to let Netanyahu enter by the back door and kept waiting, to teach him a lesson, let’s retreat from the Middle East and let them all work it out (oops – did Russia show up?). If terror attacks occur, we’ll send James Taylor to let them know they’ve got a friend.
There could be no bigger contrast in a foreign policy vision than Obama and Trump’s choices of an administrative staff and policy. I think your theory is right on.
Cat
“mental note: never use that word again – it’s back to liberal Democrat”
I think Progressive is a better word. Progressives have a despicable history, were racists, set the stage for European racism, eugenics, and dictatorship and everything we hate about Democrats now. Liberal, in contrast, has a great history that should never have been applied to the illiberal progressives. If they call themselves progressives we can quote their progenitors, the fathers of liberal are ours.
Somebody send this article to Rubio, McCain, and Graham.
I think the biggest threat from Russia is this stuff that Svetlana Alexeivich is protesting. (I’ve been puffing her book, Secondhand-Time, here on Ricochet without knowing she was a Nobel prize winner.) I will be very interested to know if Trump ever pays any attention to it, and if so, what he says about it.
Ha.
Nice article sir.
Great article! I have found this recent Red Scare among Lefties so funny! So in love? with Russia and the Soviets since 1917. So sanctimonious about the blacklist. And was there ANY bigger bogeyman to the Left than Sen. McCarthy? (If he were alive today, they’d be drafting him as DNC chair!)
is this all because Russia is Christian again?
Dont they get how powerful an ally Russia can be vs. Islam? (Oh wait, I guess maybe they DO get that; it would explain their antipathy..)
And about Trump’s much-derided tweet about a new arms race: don’t they remember that winning the arms race was how Reagan broke the “Evil Empire”?
For that matter, haven’t they ever read the revisionist ideas about the Cold War being not such a bad thing? Hint: it was “cold” not hot–both or all sides built up,arsenals, but no one used ’em…
Why, theLeft can’t seem to remember back even as far as 2011, when Prez Omega mocked Romney for saying Russia might be a geopolitical threat!
No, it’s sad ?but I fear Progressivism’s best days lie behind it. And its best lies, too…
Well said. That’s all. Well said.