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:

The 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.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 231 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    The West paid a very significant price for talking up Soviet Russia and FDR’s lies about Soviet Russia were also disgusting.  We have to understand that it was in the context of defeating Nazi Germany which was a threat to the world.  So I understand it.  Perhaps Trump lying about Putin will somehow help beat a threat as serious as Nazi Germany?  Is there some goal Trump has in mind?

    • #1
  2. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Historical perspective is a wonderful thing. Thanks, Peter.

    • #2
  3. Tutti Inactive
    Tutti
    @Tutti

    I guess even the best leaders sometimes miscalculate. 

    • #3
  4. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    Brian Wolf (View Comment):

    Perhaps Trump lying about Putin will somehow help beat a threat as serious as Nazi Germany? Is there some goal Trump has in mind?

    My thoughts in posting this Churchill quotation: 

    1. To make a historical point: Those who say that in his treatment of Putin today Trump was doing something no other western leader has ever done–and John McCain issued a statement to just that effect–simply don’t know their history. Churchill defended Stalin when it suited his larger purposes, FDR positively fawned over Stalin, Nixon courted Brezhnev, and so on.
    2. To raise the very question that you raise here, Brian. Churchill gave Stalin easy treatment, giving the dictator a character reference that Churchill knew to be utterly unwarranted, because he was using Stalin. He had larger purposes. Does Trump? Over the long term, you could argue–indeed, I would argue–we’re going to want Russia to cooperate with us in a number of ways, but above all in providing a counterweight to the Chinese. Is Trump pursuing such a strategy? Does the man even think in strategic terms? Are Pompeo and Bolton guiding him? Or in dealing so warmly with Putin was Trump just mouthing off? Do I know the answers to those questions? I do not. But I believe they’re the questions to ask.

     

    • #4
  5. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):
    Churchill gave Stalin easy treatment, giving the dictator a character reference that Churchill knew to be utterly unwarranted, because he was using Stalin. He had larger purposes. Does Trump? Over the long term, you could argue–indeed, I would argue–we’re going to want Russia to cooperate with us in a number of ways, but above all in providing a counterweight to the Chinese. Is Trump pursuing such a strategy? Does the man even think in strategic terms? Are Pompeo and Bolton guiding him? Or in dealing so warmly with Putin was Trump just mouthing off? Do I know the answers to those questions? I do not. But I believe they’re the questions to ask.

    These are the questions to ask.  There is a real price to pay for buttering up dictators like Putin.  It can cost lives as Yalta eventually did, not to mention the decades of fellow travelers that used our World War II alliance to cover up Soviet crimes.  The question is are we playing for any stakes worth the risk of the price?  Reagan complimented Gorbachev and gave him space to take a PR win when Reagan was getting everything that he wanted from him and that of course led to our victory in the Cold War. 

    Russia needs us to be a counter weight to China more than we need them.  Do we really need to pay the price of covering up his crimes this way?  I hope that Trump is playing for a win big enough to cover up the cost of that press conference but if he is I don’t have any idea what it is.

    • #5
  6. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Is Russia currently our ally in a great powers war?

    • #6
  7. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Is Russia currently our ally in a great powers war?

    An ally in any context at all?

    • #7
  8. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Is Russia currently our ally in a great powers war?

    Do you want war with Russia?

    • #8
  9. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    @PeterRobinson did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    • #9
  10. Seco Inactive
    Seco
    @Seco

    Thanks Peter. I shall be forwarding. 

    To me, Trump’s style comes across as keeping your friends close but your enemies closer. Pandering to your allies has meant the US has by and large been taken advantage of so why not start calling them out. Likewise with Russia, maybe a few flattering words will achieve more than Trump’s predecessors did. 

    I’m somewhat amused by Russia’s rise to an evil empire by the Left, after all didn’t Obama ridicule Romney by saying “The 80’s called, they want their foreign policy back” when Romney suggested Russia should be watched carefully.

    • #10
  11. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Is Russia currently our ally in a great powers war?

    Do you want war with Russia?

    Does avoiding war with Russia require public obsequiousness to their dictator? If so whose the real power in the world?

    • #11
  12. Could Be Anyone Inactive
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    Tell me @PeterRobinson did Churchill in the same breath equivocate between the UK and the USSR on an act of subterfuge committed by the USSR against the UK?

    But let’s suppose that he did for the sake of argument. I would still find that to be a demerit to Churchill and even more important than that I don’t judge Trump by past foreign leaders, I judge him against the purpose of his office.

    Trump’s statements at that presser in Helsinki were bordering upon appeasement and did not showcase any resolve. Anyone, and there will not doubt be tens of millions worldwide who will have seen it, will infer weakness on the part of US leadership after watching the footage.

    What is even more saddening is that Trump is developing a pattern here in foreign policy where he whines about Allies, compliments enemies, and gets little in tangible results for his “diplomacy summits”.

    • #12
  13. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    Anyone remember what this famous Never Trumper said about the Vlad?

    “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.” 

    • #13
  14. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Ray Gunner (View Comment):

    Anyone remember what this famous Never Trumper said about the Vlad?

    “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”

    And he was rightfully excoriated for that by most right wing pundits. 

    • #14
  15. Peter Robinson Contributor
    Peter Robinson
    @PeterRobinson

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    @PeterRobinson did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    Oh, Churchill and FDR threw a lot more under the bus than their intelligence services.

    Witness the Warsaw Uprising. Churchill pleaded with Stalin to permit the British to help the Poles. Finally–and, I certainly grant, to his immense credit–Churchill lost patience with Stalin, ordering the RAF to make low-level supply drops to the Polish resistance even though the Soviets were still withholding air clearance. FDR? He hung back even more than Churchill had, permitting the U.S. Air Force to extend assistance–minimal assistance, making only one air drop–only after Stalin had at last agreed to such a mission.

    Those delays cost lives–and, in the end, Warsaw was almost entirely destroyed.

    • #15
  16. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    What is even more saddening is that Trump is developing a pattern here in foreign policy where he whines about Allies, compliments enemies, and gets little in tangible results for his “diplomacy summits”.

    The tangible result is that he shores up his base who hate liberal democratic Europe with a passion but remain indifferent or even friendly to totalitarians Russia. 

    • #16
  17. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Jamie Lockett: …did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    And it’s pertinent bookend of a question, did the U.K. security services throw Churchill under the bus for Atlee?

    How differently may this whole thing played out if someone at the FBI or Obama White House gone to candidate Trump and say, “There’s something serious going on here. There may or may not be something amiss with people close to your campaign.” 

    But they smugly believed that was inconsequential, since everyone knew Hillary was going to win. Who’s going to hear anything about unmasking? There were going to be a lot of holdovers between the Obama and H. Clinton Administrations everything would be contained and the world would keep right on spinning.

    Has any president ever came into office having the IC run a political hit job on them? If you choose to get political don’t be shocked when it catches up to you.

    • #17
  18. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Peter Robinson (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    @PeterRobinson did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    Oh, Churchill and FDR threw a lot more under the bus than their intelligence services.

    Witness the Warsaw Uprising. Churchill pleaded with Stalin to permit the British to help the Poles. Finally–and, I certainly grant, to his immense credit–Churchill lost patience with Stalin, ordering the RAF to make low-level supply drops to the Polish resistance even though the Soviets were still withholding air clearance. FDR? He hung back even more than Churchill had, permitting the U.S. Air Force to extend assistance–minimal assistance, making only one air drop–only after Stalin had at last agreed to such a mission.

    Those delays cost lives–and, in the end, Warsaw was almost entirely leveled.

    A fair point, but not quite what I was getting at. Anyone of Australian descent is well acquainted with Churchill’s penchant for strategic abandonment of allies in the face of greater threats. I still don’t think Churchill would have publicly rebuked his own cabinet in service to Stalin’s lies. Especially when there is no war threatening the lives of the entire globe. 

    A far more appropriate Churchill for this analogy would be the Churchill that spoke about the Soviets when there was no war raging that posed an existential threat. I would point to his speech before congress as a fine example. 

    • #18
  19. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett: …did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    And it’s pertinent bookend of a question, did the U.K. security services throw Churchill under the bus for Atlee?

    How differently may this whole thing played out if someone at the FBI or Obama White House gone to candidate Trump and say, “There’s something serious going on here. There may or may not be something amiss with people close to your campaign.”

    But they smugly believed that was inconsequential, since everyone knew Hillary was going to win. Who’s going to hear anything about unmasking? There were going to be a lot of holdovers between the Obama and H. Clinton Administrations everything would be contained and the world would keep right on spinning.

    Has any president ever came into office having the IC run a political hit job on them? If you choose to get political don’t be shocked when it catches up to you.

    Is your argument that the actions of the FBI under Obama give license to Trump to trust the word of an enemy dictator over that of his DNI. If such is the case why not fire the entire security apparatus? If they are so untrustworthy as to prefer the word of a know liar and murder then we have much bigger problems that the Mueller Investigation. 

    • #19
  20. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Tell me Peter did Churchill in the same breath equivocate between the UK and the USSR on an act of subterfuge committed by the USSR against the UK?

    But let’s suppose that he did for the sake of argument. I would still find that to be a demerit to Churchill and even more important than that I don’t judge Trump by past foreign leaders, I judge him against the purpose of his office.

    Trump’s statements at that presser in Helsinki were bordering upon appeasement and did not showcase any resolve. Anyone, and there will not doubt be tens of millions worldwide who will have seen it, will infer weakness on the part of US leadership after watching the footage.

    What is even more saddening is that Trump is developing a pattern here in foreign policy where he whines about Allies, compliments enemies, and gets little in tangible results for his “diplomacy summits”.

    I have to agree here and hope there is some sort of strategy in play.  I didn’t see much of the press conference other than snippets on news tonight, but Trump’s facial expressions, tone, etc. looked to me like he emerged from a lion’s den with scratches and realized it.  My concern is his ego, and preoccupation with this idiotic Mueller investigation and proving it was a hoax.  Putin looked a little too pleased to me.  We’ll see.  As we all know, what Trump says and does can be totally different, but perception is a huge part of Russian propaganda.  

    • #20
  21. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    OMG! Someone said something positive neutral about Donald Trump! We cannot let this stand!

    • #21
  22. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Jamie Lockett: Is your argument that the actions of the FBI under Obama give license to Trump to trust the word of an enemy dictator over that of his DNI.

    My argument is that it’s dangerous for us to have a partisan intelligence community that doesn’t fully have the trust of the president. It doesn’t give “license,” as you say, but having an IC that keeps to their mission greatly reduces the chance of this happening.

    • #22
  23. Could Be Anyone Inactive
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    A far more appropriate Churchill for this analogy would be the Churchill that spoke about the Soviets when there was no war raging that posed an existential threat. I would point to his speech before congress as a fine example.

    But this isn’t about being logically consistent. Its about using a war analogy in order to make wrong actions seem right because of the context of war. Its an act intended for rhetorical success rather than honesty. Which, to be honest, is quite intellectually dishonest since the US is not in a war.

    • #23
  24. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett: Is your argument that the actions of the FBI under Obama give license to Trump to trust the word of an enemy dictator over that of his DNI.

    My argument is that it’s dangerous for us to have a partisan intelligence community that doesn’t fully have the trust of the president. It doesn’t give “license,” as you say, but having an IC that keeps to their mission greatly reduces the chance of this happening.

    Then the correct thing for Trump to do is to fire the DNI and any other intelligence official he feels is providing false information for partisan purposes. Immediately. 

    • #24
  25. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    @PeterRobinson did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    Were Churchill’s security services undermining his prime ministership?

    • #25
  26. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    What are we to make of the meeting?  Bush saw into his soul, Obama was going to cooperate more after the election and Hillary had a button.  So what should President Trump  have done?  Postured?  Threatened? What would that mean?  It might help him domestically but I wouldn’t even count on that given Democrat hysteria.  But what good would it do the nation to posture and insult? Is Putin such a shrinking flower that he’d cave?  What do we want? What do we expect?  For him to not be the thug he is? Or to let him know, not by threats because those are implicit,  that we can have better relations which we both need because of China and Islam, if he chooses to have them.  It’s up to him.   I don’t know what’s going on in President’s mind, but that’s  what he told us prior to the meeting and it’s probably the right way to have played it.  His critics on our side, as usual, are being stampeded by Democrat and media hysteria. 

    • #26
  27. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    The Deep State is a far greater threat to America than Vladimir Putin 

    • #27
  28. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    A far more appropriate Churchill for this analogy would be the Churchill that spoke about the Soviets when there was no war raging that posed an existential threat. I would point to his speech before congress as a fine example.

    But this isn’t about being logically consistent. Its about using a war analogy in order to make wrong actions seem right because of the context of war. Its act intended for rhetorical success rather than honesty. Which, to be honest, is quite intellectually dishonest since the US is not in a war.

    No. @peterrobinson is one of the most honest commenters out there, I’ve been watching, listening and reading him for over 20 years. He’s just mistaken here (Ugh, how I have the balls to say that I’ll never know…sorry Peter)

    • #28
  29. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    @PeterRobinson did Churchill throw his security services under the bus while praising Stalin?

    Were Churchill’s security services undermining his prime ministership?

    If this were true of Trump I just wish he had the power to do something about it…

    • #29
  30. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Mike LaRoche (View Comment):

    The Deep State is a far greater threat to America than Vladimir Putin

    Coming soon on Epix.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.