Results aren’t results unless they are results. Again, my definition of “leverage” here is “something that gets results even in the face of adversity”. I don’t think this is an unreasonable definition.
But the point of distinction is between “Trump is an 80IQ self obsessed freak and the US is an empire in decline so ceding power is the natural way things go” vs “Trump planned to weaken america (or putin planned it and forced trump to do it) and did these things with the intention of strengthening russia at americas expense”
I think if you gave trump a 100% working truth serum he would honestly believe that everything he did was to make america great again that all his actions were with the express purpose of strengthening america against it’s enemies. Because like all american “patriots” he has ego identified and in fact replaced the idea of america simply with himself and his wants and needs. If he does/feels better america is doing better by definition because america is him.
ChrisV needs tangible evidence of a criminal conspiracy or it didn’t happen, regardless of the mountains of circumstantial evidence that exist that tie tRUmp to Russia and her geopolitical interests. Ignores the fact that tRUmp has actively rid the world of the transcripts of their private meetings and that he has sided with Putin over his own intelligence and military services.
2 Likes
Does that mean you believe that something doesn’t increase the chances of nuclear war unless a bomb is actually dropped?
I think your definition is silly within the context of politics because it seems to oversimplify issues as being fought along a single axis.
It is really bad that Trump sincerely thinks what is best for him is best for America and that is what is best for him is taking benefits from Putin!
This isn’t some intellectual masturbation, Trump is running for re-election in 2024. “Well actuallying” this point is really harmful!
1 Like
It’s not well actually it’s an important distinction imo. As the US empire declines further you guys have two options. Either accept that it’s happening and retire gracefully on top of your huge hoard of the world’s loot like smaug. Or freak out seeing conspiracies and traitors everywhere, over reading into dumb shit and trying in vain to violently flail your way out of it. We’d all appreciate it if you’d take the first option.
I hope everyone can already do this themselves but: all I’m asking for is the result of the criminal conspiracy. Not the evidence that it happened. All I want is what allegedly got better, concretely, for Putin during Trump’s rule.
I understand the argument, that a weakening of NATO could induce Russia to make a move, for example, but I don’t see the concrete argument that NATO has actually been weakened, or that Ukraine was not supplied with arms. Perhaps Putin was induced to attack by NATO weakness, this is unfalsifiable since I can’t speak to Putin’s mind, but again Trump seems unlikely as an explanation given that Putin could have attacked while his White House Pal was in residence.
Yeah, US Democrats were really off base when we theorized that Putin was allying with corrupt weirdos like Trump to divide Western democracies so that he could open up political space to invade his neighbors. Boy, the egg on our face!
2 Likes
Attempted murder shouldn’t be a crime. You should only charge someone if they get the concrete results of actual murder.
1 Like
My argument is that when what is being assessed is “leverage of a mob boss to make someone kill a guy”, a half hearted “hey you know someone should I guess kill that guy, if it’s no trouble?” is to be assessed as many orders less magnitude than a bullet to the head. In a situation where you know the guy assigned with the murder is packing heat.
I’m not even sure he would understand the question. There is too much abstract thinking there, I’m not sure the concept of developing a strategic position of strength is in his range of understanding. You’d have to ask him a question like “Were you trying to win the negotiation?” and he’d say that he didn’t even have to try, he’s such a good negotiator that just going with his gut guarantees that he will win so that’s what he did.
The point is that this
Has very little to do with this
so that he could open up political space to invade his neighbors.
The space is being left by a retreating imperial hegemon. Trump being who he is may have sped the process up but if hillary clinton had won in 2016 the same broad strokes would have occurred, and we can assume that because trump isn’t in power any more and yet the invasion is happening. Assigning the outcome of historical necessity (empires wax and wane in power) to the actions of a single person is lunacy.
Yes, countries trend along broad strokes of history and also individual leaders do things to nudge the the strokes in certain directions and also individual leaders can make catastrophic mistakes that change the course of history.
Sure, but Trump is Mr Magoo being bounced around by the Brownian motion within the flow of history not Machiavelli trying to channel it.
Correct, Putin is the Machiavelli in this story that is trying to change the course of history and Trump is one tool in his toolbox. And the paradox is that the more you correctly call out Trump as Putin’s tool the less useful he becomes to Putin, making your claims seem overblown.
1 Like
The US withdrawing gives Russia the pretext to withdraw. If Russia unilaterally withdraws then starts shooting planes, they clearly look like the bad actor. This just gives them cover.
I hope ChrisV is on the jury at my next trial
3 Likes
that’s like saying trmp was simply asking for was some petty 11800 votes (which is one more than they had).
the strength of institutions actually did hold at least for the first half of trmp’s term. both sanctions against russia for crimea and investigation into election interference was already underway. a president can’t really stop those. sanctions in fact passed with veto-proof majorities. but trmp’s administration (mnuchin in particular) dragged their feet on their implementation, and lifted some sanctions related to russian state aluminum companies and deripaska, and did not use any executive powers to for the purpose of economic sanctions.
oh remember the time when trmp hd the brilliant idea of hosting G7 at Marolago which would have allowed to invite russia anyway?
at the moment, biden is leading the west’s economic war against russia without very much voting happening by congress. so yeah. trmp wasn’t actually tough in this respect either. like not even a bullshit tariff on anything.
i don’t think president could withdraw from nato, if for no other reason than a revolt in senate and potentially DoD. it would be gigantic undertaking that would make brexit look like peanuts.
Prove it.
I have to agree with ChrisV here. It seems like the main avenue for Putin to influence Trump was through Trump having a lot of Pro Putin admins surrounding him not through any direct correction, and the indirect connection lead to a lot of what we saw in public with Trump saying various and contradictory things because it’d be whatever advisor he listed to that day.
Having a large minority pro putin faction within a major party of the US is pretty troubling but it’s not something outside of normal politics like a Manchurian candidate or blackmail, it’s just politics.
1 Like