NY Times Editorial Fickle Diplomacy

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Post Reply
lennygoran
Posts: 12161
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

NY Times Editorial Fickle Diplomacy

Post by lennygoran » Thu Apr 13, 2017 5:23 am

This paragraph in the NYTimes editorial today caught my eye-I sure hope these probes will produce answers-no deflections must take our eye off the ball! Regards, Len

"Some of Mr. Trump’s critics have wondered whether he ordered the airstrikes, at least partly, to deflect attention from allegations that he and his allies had collaborated with the Kremlin during the presidential campaign. Congressional and F.B.I. investigations into these matters must continue. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the F.B.I. last summer obtained a secret court order to monitor the communications of a Trump adviser, Carter Page, the clearest evidence so far that Mr. Page may have been acting as an agent of a foreign power."


Mr. Trump’s Fickle Diplomacy

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD APRIL 12, 2017


Until a few days ago, Americans and the world had reason to think that the Trump administration’s policy toward Russia would involve cooperation and harmony and seek to reverse the acrimony and dysfunction that had come to characterize relations between the Kremlin and the Obama administration.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump fawned over Russia’s assertively proud leader, Vladimir Putin, praising him for “doing a great job” and calling him a “stronger leader” than Barack Obama. As to policy, he seemed almost an apologist for Mr. Putin’s aggressive behavior in Syria, his annexation of Crimea and his transparent efforts to undermine the NATO alliance. Findings by the American intelligence community that Russia had intervened in the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf seemed further evidence of a bromance, if not something more sinister.

Three months into the Trump presidency, Russia-American relations are as tense as ever, a casualty of Mr. Putin’s ruthless behavior and Mr. Trump’s changing views and whiplash approach to policy, infuriating Russians who had every reason to believe they would have a pal in the White House.

While both men could end up losers, there is a greater chance that Mr. Trump, a foreign policy neophyte who has bungled his presidential debut, will find it hard to prevail over the nefarious ways of Mr. Putin, a former K.G.B. agent. Mr. Putin’s approach to international engagement, which involves expanding efforts to meddle in countries from Europe to Libya and beyond, has been largely consistent; Mr. Trump’s has been anything but.

This, in turn, has shaken the confidence of allies that depend on America for prudent, steady leadership.


Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s trip to Moscow on Wednesday was further evidence of how low Russian-American relations have sunk since Mr. Trump, reversing earlier opposition to intervening in Syria’s civil war, launched 59 cruise missiles against a Syrian air base after President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. The Russians have strongly supported Mr. Assad despite his brutality.

Russian leaders kept Mr. Tillerson wondering for most of the day whether an encounter with Mr. Putin would take place. Once they did meet — it was the first between Mr. Putin and a top Trump administration official — the results were not encouraging. Mr. Putin said bilateral trust has “degraded,” while Mr. Tillerson said relations were “at a low point.” Back in New York, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Syria’s chemical attack, the eighth time it has protected Mr. Assad from diplomatic action.

Since the airstrikes, administration officials have steadily increased their criticism of Russia, which has variously denied that a chemical attack occurred and has blamed it on anti-Assad rebels, giving Mr. Trump, the master of misdirection, a taste of his own medicine. On Tuesday, the White House accused Russia of a cover-up. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump weighed in, saying Russia most likely knew of Mr. Assad’s plan to gas his own people and promising that Mr. Putin will come under increasing pressure to abandon Mr. Assad — “truly an evil person” — and to help end the Syrian civil war.

Some of Mr. Trump’s critics have wondered whether he ordered the airstrikes, at least partly, to deflect attention from allegations that he and his allies had collaborated with the Kremlin during the presidential campaign. Congressional and F.B.I. investigations into these matters must continue. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that the F.B.I. last summer obtained a secret court order to monitor the communications of a Trump adviser, Carter Page, the clearest evidence so far that Mr. Page may have been acting as an agent of a foreign power.

One important question is whether the chill in the relationship will make it harder for Mr. Trump to engage Moscow in the struggle to defeat the Islamic State in Syria; cooperation on that front, always questionable, now seems impossible.

Another is whether an angry Mr. Putin will intensify his mischief in Europe. He doesn’t have the strongest hand — his economy is in trouble — but he has thousands of nuclear weapons and a proven ability to chip away at the Western liberal order. The challenge is for Mr. Trump to develop a coherent strategy to address those threats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opin ... pe=article

lennygoran
Posts: 12161
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: NY Times Editorial Fickle Diplomacy

Post by lennygoran » Thu Apr 13, 2017 7:15 am

I'm confused-are you equating what you quote from the interview

BARTIROMO: Unmanned? Brilliant.

with this

""Mr. President, I'm dying to know: were the 49 cruise missiles you fired into Syria manned or unmanned?"

IOW where did you get the second quote from-is that also in the transcript?

Regards, Len

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests