First, my general attitude toward the Russia-Trump scandal since 2016 has been that it's important, it should be thoroughly investigated, and the US election process needs to be secured against foreign hacking and domestic gerrymandering and voter suppression. I've also thought and still think that the general , and Democratic approach to approaching the scandal has been a very unfortunate mixture of melodrama, retro-cold-War posturing, and timidity in actually confronting Trump. You don't have to be a political junkie to notice that accusing the President of being a foreign agent and/or subject to Russian blackmail - the latter being almost certain - along with massive corruption and then stedfastly refuse to impeach him is an incredibly mixed message. And a sign of real weakness.
Also, for in-depth and fact-based analysis of the whole Trump-Russia issue, see Marcy Wheeler's Emptywheel. Also, David Cay Johnston of DCReport.org has also been reporting on Trump for a long time.
While we wait to learn more from the IC whistleblower, re-upping my recent thread reviewing all the ways Trump has aligned US foreign policy with Putin in recent months. It is alarming, and worthy of its own inquiry. https://t.co/peZNFKItlo— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 19, 2019
After speaking to Putin, Trump dramatically changed his Administration's position on Venezuela, saying he and Putin "feel the same way" on the country. https://t.co/a3VZY1CASm— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 12, 2019
Here we already see the problem in the Democratic temptation to talk about foreign policy in a neo-Cold-War binary framework. It's ridiculous to assume that if Russia favors it, it must be bad for the US. Foreign policy is all about countries defining and pursuing their interests, managing conflicts with other countries, coordinating complementary priorities. Nor are countries always right in what they think is good for them and bad for others. The Cheney-Bush Administration and a majority of the US Congress in 2003 thought invading Iraq would be good for the US, good for Iraq, and bad for Iran. Wrong, on all counts.
Trump's regime-change policy in Venezuela has been a spectacular mess, motivated by American desires to control Venezuelan oil reserves. (That may be a clichee, but anyone who thinks that's not the overriding consideration on US policy there is way off base, to put it mildly.) Backing away from the current policy pursuing an international arrangement to hold new elections in Venezuela and normalize relations would be a good thing for the US, if not necessary for fossil fuel corporations. Pursuing the previous regime-change policy makes Venezuela even more dependent on its foreign allies, not least of them being Russia. Trump's regime-change policy is good for the US and Venezuela in the same way the Iraq War was for the US and the Middle East.
Trump's main goal at the recent G7 meeting, of all things, seemed to be about getting Putin back in and legitimizing his global aggression. https://t.co/kNKGJjRVVs— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 12, 2019
Trump's blundering diplomacy around the G7 meeting also worked to Putin's interest in at least marginally distracting from international objections to the annexation of Crimea. How useful the G7 meetings in themselves are is another question. More to the point here would be how useful Russia thinks they are.
And now, by softening his position on Iran, he appears to be choosing his buddy Vlad over his former buddies MBS and Bibi. https://t.co/nmN3KIgHae— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 12, 2019
His back of the hand to Ukraine a few weeks ago was also seen as another huge gift to Russia. https://t.co/7b6yc8hM5T— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 12, 2019
War with Iran is an even worse idea than invading Iraq was. The US pulling out of the nuclear agreement with Iran was a bad idea. Imposing new, wide-reaching sanctions on Iran even though Iran had stuck to the terms of the agreement was a bad idea.
None of this excludes the possibility that Russia may have influenced Trump's decision-making, such as it is, in some inappropriate or illegal way. But here again, a binary assumption that whatever Russia wants is bad and therefore the US should do the opposite would be nuts.
The Ukraine situation is complicated. I have little idea of what we can expect the situation in Crimea to look like in 10 or 20 years. But because it is complicated, having an erratic, uninformed, bad negotiator like Trump calling the shots on the American side right now can't be the best thing. But neither is unnecessarily feeding the military conflict with arms sales.
That Trump and #MoscowMitch have blocked common sense efforts to make it harder for Russia to once again interfere in our elections is of course another remarkable gift to Putin. https://t.co/hecqwIwIuL— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 12, 2019
12/New developments, thread update.— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) September 18, 2019
Trump backs off military confrontation with Putin-aligned Iran, softens US position even though the Saudis "pay cash." Backing away fr military engagement consistent w/recent alignment of US interests w/Russia. https://t.co/DBc4RCSBE3
Saudi Arabia is a very troublesome ally, though Trump obviously likes them. But the apparent assumption backing off military aggression against Iran is evidence of a Russian plot is a gigantic assumption.
And it doesn't quite make sense. Iran does have good relations with Russia, and I assume that Kremlin policymakers don't want to US to invade Iran. But would a disastrous US war in Iran weaken Russia's overall geostratigic position? Like the way our invasion of Iraq weakened Iran's position? (NOT!)
No comments:
Post a Comment