A Bad Week For Trusting Russian Leaders

-IfIbcYDejOKU57wU67iV-RVGKgG83f4Am32Z3dVlB8As many of you know, I am a history nut and I could not ignore the 100th anniversary of the murder of the entire Romanov family on July 17, 1918.  It is an ironic anniversary after the disastrous meeting of President Donald Trump in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  There are perils to trusting some Russian leaders and I am afraid that Putin, the former KBG officer, would be one of those least worthy of trust.

The Bolsheviks promised to treat the family fairly but instead left them in worse and worse conditions while being verbally abused.  They ultimately murdered Tsar Nicholas II, his wife Tsarina Alexandra and their five children OlgaTatianaMariaAnastasia, and Alexei). They also murdered their companions  Eugene BotkinAnna DemidovaAlexei Trupp and Ivan Kharitonov.
They then mutilated their bodies and and burned them. It was one of the most heinous acts by the Communists and a precursor of blood soaked history of the NKVD and later the KGB.
Putin’s record of killing journalists and political enemies shows how little has changed in some quarters of the Russian government.  His well documented history of murders and misrepresentations makes him a particularly lethal and untrustworthy adversary.
The Romanovs trusted their “competitors” in 1918 and it was the last mistake Tsar Nicholas ever made.

591 thoughts on “A Bad Week For Trusting Russian Leaders”

    1. another lame case based on Foreign Agents Reg Act that was widely ignored by everyone.

      butina’s charges sound like they all hinge on all first amendment protected activity

      in which case she will either get them dismissed in due course or have grounds for appeal in the unlikely event she is convicted of anything. don’t hold your breath it will be years on down the road and for the prosecutors it’s all uphill from here

  1. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/18/climb-down-from-the-summit-of-hostile-propaganda/

    ublic reactions to an open letter from academics, journalists and politicians asking for co-existence with Russia show many Americans don’t buy the media’s bellicose spin, as Norman Solomon explains.

    By Norman Solomon

    Throughout the day before the summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: “Just by Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead.” The Sunday headline was in harmony with the tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is “an implacably hostile foreign adversary.”

    Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme. Mainline U.S. journalists and top Democrats often bait President Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her tweet Sunday night: “Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?”

    A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not give it a second thought — and that makes it all the more hazardous. After President George W. Bush declared “You’re either with us or against us,” many Americans gradually realized what was wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.

    Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro — “the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition,” in the words of Wikipedia. The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).

    Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way. But other selectively fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and Russia as an angelic victim. Those governments and their conformist media outlets are relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago, “All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed.” In other words: don’t trust, verify.

    The Trumps leaving Helsinki on Monday. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

    Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the brazen U.S. intervention in Russia’s pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government’s 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases overseas — in contrast to Russia’s nine.

    An Open Letter for Sanity

    For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last week by The Nation magazine: “No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false.”

    The initial 26 signers of the open letter — “Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security” — included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F. Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)

    Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from a petition already signed by 30,000 people. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now “vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere” — and for taking “concrete steps… to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers.”

  2. by the way. i don’t agree with equating sverdlov to putin. that’s an inapposite comparison

    sverdlov was not russian orthodox and putin (at least now) definitely is. as was the Tsar.
    Putin would have been on the Tsar’s team, i think we might all agree
    not the bolsheviks

    you can read about sverdlov in a. solzhenitsyn’s two hundred years together…. if you can find it in english translation LOL


    Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a master of diplomatic verbosity and sardonic barbs, summed up the results of the Helsinki summit in just three exuberant words: “better than super.”

    “The summit was yet another small miracle created by Trump,” columnist Edward Lozansky wrote in the newspaper Izvestia. “As much as they tried to humiliate Trump or give him unsolicited advice, the American president disdainfully brushed aside his enemies and confidently strode to his goal.”

    The official government paper headlined its lead story on Tuesday with the words “Ball in play” over a photograph of Putin giving a soccer ball to Trump during the post-summit news conference. State TV focused on the imagery of the two men meeting in the picturesque Finnish capital and used the words “substantive” and “productive” to describe a meeting that had produced no formal agreements — not even a final communiqué.

    Alexander Gabuev, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center, says that in the short term, the Kremlin can be happy about Putin’s burnished image as a statesman who holds his own with the U.S. president.

    “The long-term impact can still be pretty nasty, because both presidents missed the chance to move forward on really tough issues like strategic stability involving nuclear arms,” said Gabuev.

    What’s more, Trump’s conciliatory, almost apologetic tone toward Putin — he blamed U.S. “foolishness and stupidity” for bad relations — may have played well on Russian television, but in the United States, it’s causing outcry from Democrats and Republicans alike.

    “Judging by the reaction in the U.S., the whole press conference will create a stinky mess that will not easily go away,” said Gabuev.

    Kremlin loyalists have been rushing to Trump’s defense on social media.
    “Hysteria has begun in U.S. over Putin-Trump meeting in Helsinki,” tweeted Alexey Pushkov, a Russian senator. “Mainstream media are gleefully attacking Trump. Enormous resistance to normalization of relations with Russia.”

    “Freedom in America has clearly become the main victim of the establishment’s fight against Trump the revolutionary,” commentator Sergey Markov posted on Facebook.
    The arrest in the United States of Russian student Maria Butina shows that “millions can now be quietly arrested for their views,” Markov wrote. Butina was charged with secretly working as a Russian agent just hours after the Helsinki meeting ended.

    “Putin will be cautious and observe what happens with the fallout from this summit,” said analyst Gabuev. “If he discovers that Trump can absorb the damage, he will move very carefully toward a next meeting, but probably not in the U.S.”

    Edited from: “Better Than Super: Russia Reacts To Trump Putin Summit In Helsinki”

    NPR, 7/1818

    1. well they have a point. sounds like butina’s actions were free speech and associational activities protected by the first amendment. you phonies out there ought to think about that


      The people of Russia said let’s give peace a chance.

  4. Overt subversion, insurrection and treason by communists (i.e.democrats) in America.

    Monday, July 16, 2018 05:42PM


    Monday the Department of Elections Issued Voter Registration Forms for non-citizens who are eligible to vote for members of the San Francisco Board of Education in the November 6th 2018 election. The measure passed in 2016 with a close vote of 54 percent to 46 percent following two failed previous attempts.

    1. George: you list no source. And secondly I must point out that San Francisco has gotten so expensive that few, if any, undocumenteds can afford to live there. Even low level executives with 6 figure incomes are finding it difficult to live in San Francisco.

          1. you said ” few, if any, undocumenteds can afford to live there”
            you are full of the feces the homeless spew on SF streets
            there are plenty of places in the USA with high rents and yet illegals find a way to subsist

            anyhow why would somebody want to give any noncitizens voting ballots unless they just want to win elections at any cost. yeah. well I guess that’s good enoug reason huh?

          2. And they’re on the street because rents are absurdly expensive. High rents tend to breed homeless problems. Though a lot of them are there to mooch off tourists and residents.

            1. Not to mention that the high-end restaurant district in San Francisco provides large amounts of high-quality discarded food for the homeless.

  5. America has become incoherent and hysterical.

    The restricted-vote republic was never intended to be an ochlocracy or a one man, one vote democracy.

    President Trump should repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th amendments by executive order.

    President Trump should do this, as did “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, to save the republic.

    President Trump should issue “The Constitution Proclamation.”

    The proclamation should then be followed by the mass deportation of the “Trojan Horse” of unassimilable enemy invaders.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

  6. We get to see here every day that street-level Democrats invest in the stupidest memes and have absolutely nothing to say anymore about how the country is actually governed (beyond using state power to harass the opposition betwixt and between having small mobs and random fanatics harassing the opposition). Congratulations guys. You’ve constructed a political dispensation that has absolutely no value.

    1. “Trump is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.”

      Jay S., thank God you can no longer reproduce for if you could you would be a danger to humanity.

      1. Allan says, “Let’s Ignore The Obvious!”

        Putin’s hold on Trump could not be any clearer. 20 years from now people will look back and ask, “How did that go on so long?”

        And the answer is, “Trump supporters were White Nationalists who admired Putin. And they chose to ignore the obvious treachery because Putin represented their ideals”.

        1. Trump is making America grea again.
          Let’s hear it for more empty and stupid slogans like this, or that Trump is a “clear and present danger”.

        2. what’s a white nationalist? a white person who likes white people? are white people supposed to hate themselves? would that make us good people? are you the arbiter of that?

          1. To my fellow Americans that support Trump, Are you just ignorant everyday, or are you showing us that you practice being ignorant everyday?

            1. Does that insult prove anything or are you just venting your spleen?
              You are free to believe what you like about “your fellow Americans”

              1. Does that insult prove anything or are you just venting your spleen?

                Actually both. Venting the spleen is what Fishwings believes proves a point. What Fishwings has yet to realize is it only proves Fishwings doesn’t do any thinking from the neck up.

                1. OLLY, And you “think” with your head up your A**. I know you were in the navy, can I ask which one? If you were in the navy, then sticking up with Trump and Putin most likely would get you slapped upside your head for taking the word of a dictator and a con-man.

                  1. And you “think” with your head up your A**.

                    Ooh, got me there. LOL! Actually what would get you more than just slapped upside the head is your lack of critical-thinking skills.

                    You would be that sailor that was reporting onboard while we were in drydock, standing at the end of the brow in dress whites with his seabag on his back, wondering how to board the ship. 30 minutes later he was back, filthy, after taking a tour of the bottom of the drydock.

                    Your level of idiocy in the Navy is what gets people injured or killed.

              2. Mr. Kurtz,…
                I didn’t read Hillary’s book, so I don’t know if she covered this particular reason that actually did contributed to her loss.
                That reason being “the basket of deplorables” remark she made about Trump supporters.
                I think she’ s bright enough to that her comment did some damage…to her, not Trump.
                So for Trump supporters, comments like Hillary’s, or variations of that remark like the one that Fishwings just presented, are a true gift.

                  1. “There are plenty of ‘deplorables’ on this thread.”

                    Thank goodness for the US and the world.

                  2. Peter Hill,…
                    Here, and elsewhere, the “deplorable” or “deplorable equivalent” label is much more a tool of the left than the right.
                    I left aside “facsist”, “racist”, and some other tools in the label toolbox.
                    My point was, and remains, that the tactic of throwing around those labels/ accusations is an extremely stupid, and counter-productive, political stunt.
                    But if it makes people feel better to use those labels, they should go for it.
                    It may lose elections, but at least they “know” that they have the moral high ground.

          2. “what’s a white nationalist? ”

            To the Shill, Peter HIll calls anyone that disagrees with him a White Nationalist, even if the person is a black transgender Muslim American Indian.

        3. actually it’s pretty obvious Trump feels that people have belittled his legimate electoral victory and “trumped it up” to be the result of “putin” and so he has a tendency to take a dim view of the signficance of whatever “Russian meddling” there may have been

          I am sure that the tens of millions of Americans feel the same way. I do.

          It may be they “meddled” but cyberwarfare is a part of every major nation’s arsenal and the effect was negligible. It’s been exaggerated by all the people who are bitter Hillary lost. That’s what couldn’t be any clearer to us.

          1. Kurtz: yeah, Trump has a very fragile ego and he can’t get over his Popular Vote defeat. So of course Trump hesitates to give any credence to well-documented meddling by Russia. It’s just America’s misfortune that this man-child somehow got the White House.

            1. Peter, it’s only a matter of time before they say, well…why can’t we have Russians in our National security system.What’s wrong that we pay Putin for our defense. Who cares who we vote for.

            2. well that’s the system we have so you can go change the laws if you dont like it
              meanwhile he won fair and square
              you and the whiners like clapper and brennan ought to get over it

            3. of course BERNIE might have had a better chance than hillary but according to donna brazile there was a SECRET TAKEOVER OF THE DNC

              there’s the voter fraud that the democrats ought to worry about but they want to keep on losing

                1. i hear dems want to abolish ICE. so we will have no border. that’s the real danger to American security. Radical nut cases ~!

        4. “Allan says, “Let’s Ignore The Obvious!” is what Peter Shill quoted and stated I said. He is not only a shill but a liar as well. His second quote seems made up as well.

          There isn’t very much Peter Shill has to say so now he makes things up.

          1. Allan, we get it. You don’t ‘want’ to know about the meddling. If Trump thinks Putin’s cool, then you’re cool with Putin.

            1. “Allan, we get it. You don’t ‘want’ to know about the meddling. If Trump thinks Putin’s cool, then you’re cool with Putin.”

              Peter, I’m all for investigating what the Russians did and who acted in concert with foreign nations no matter who they are. Unfortunately, we have counterintelligence that is supposed to do that but became partisan as is the special prosecutor.

              I have no love for any politician. I look at results and Obama was a failure, GWB was a mixed bag at best and Trump has been doing a great job. You don’t like Trump’s success which is America’s success because your love is not of America but of your ideology.

              Putin is a killer and runs a country that has nukes. Other than those nukes, its size and its history Russia is quite unremarkable. Russia needs the west more than the west needs Russia. We don’t need to fight with them. We need peace and to keep the Russian army inside of Russia. Demographically and perhaps economically as well they are a dying people.

    2. Fishy:

      Would that be when he threw Russian diplomats out, pulled out of the Iran deal that Putin wanted, put more missiles aimed at Russia in Poland, beefed up NATO and US military capability, blew up Russian soldiers in Syria or when he armed Ukraine? When did he become that clear and present danger to US security?

    3. Does he want to abolish border enforcement? A huge rich nation like the US without any border enforcement sounds like a lot worse threat to security to me. But what do I know, I just live here.

  7. Stephen Cohen is married to the editor on The Nation magazine. Katrina is an extremely liberal woman. I now have a great deal of respect for mr. Cohen. He certainly is more liberal than I am, but he seems to be a fair minded and honestly objective man.

    1. He was actually pro-Soviet during the late Cold War, just not given to trafficking in fictions as did Jerry Hough. I think if he fancies the present moment is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis, he’s lost his marbles.

      1. I have mentioned that there is a path, potentially, for Putin to reconcile with those on the left like Cohen.
        Reconstruct/ re-establish the old Soviet Union.
        Do away with elections after establishing Communist rule and reopening the gulags.
        Those conditions might mollify those like Cohen, who seem to prefer “the good,old days”.

        1. No, Cohen was an admirer of Roy Medvedev, the late-Soviet era semi-dissident. You’re confusing Cohen with Alexander Cockburn.

          1. TS to Dance,…
            My mistake; I understood your earlier comment to mean that Cohen was part of that group that had pro-Soviet sympathies.

            1. Stephen F. Cohen’s magnum opus, “Bukharin and The Bolshevik Revolution,” advanced the thesis that Stalin hijacked the great Socialist Revolutionary project that otherwise supposedly would have achieved the worker’s paradise of communism at the end of history according to Karl Marx.

              I do not agree with that thesis in the slightest, least little bit.

              P. S. Cohen was a big Gorbachev fanatic back in Gorby’s heyday.

            2. He was pro-Soviet, but his sympathies were with the critics within the system, not the critics outside the system. He was dismissive of Anatoly Scharansky, to take one example. Again, he wrote for The Nation, which favored the enemy during the late Cold War.

              1. TS to Dance,..
                Thanks for the info on Cohen. I’ll have to read up on his backround, and look at what exactly he said the other day.
                Based on the information I currently have about Cohen, it looks like he’s an example of “how your hard-core Commie works.😏😊😄

                1. OFCOLA. Your nemesis posted a link on the previous page that explains Cohen reasonably well.

      2. I think it bears some similarity because you have a big pro war establishment and a president that is loathe to go nuclear, literally. And it is worth remembering because, well, the former head of the CIA hated JFK, and the former head of the CIA clearly hates Trump.

        It could be hazardous to one’s health to have the former head of CIA green lighting you on Twitter.

    2. Katrina sold out The Nation by endorsing HRC and slighting Sanders. 0 respect for the Nation. If you want a real Progressive POV go to Disobediant Media, TruthDig, Medium.

  8. The msm did not make Trump do anything. Just like when Obama assured a Russian leader that he would have more flexibility after he gets re- elected( if that isn’t collusion I don’t know what is). And tha msm didn’t make the Obama administration send $1.7 billion in cash to Iran. That’s $100 bills stacked on pallets. Do you know how much paper weighs? Forklifts were needed to move all that cash. Our government doesn’t even want its citizens to use cash because it’s so liquid. But the msm surely carries the water for the liberal left.

  9. “There are perils to trusting some Russian leaders and I am afraid that Putin, the former KBG officer, would be one of those least worthy of trust.”

    You mean like Brennan and Clapper? The proven perjurers??

        1. I get a kick out of Styxx – even while as a Progressive I disagree with some of his points. I find his delivery amusing and refreshing.

        2. i think he likes the band blood axis. isnt that a blood axis banner behind him?
          do you like blood axis peter? non?

          1. Mr. Kurtz, no doubt Peter does not recognize SPQR is the acronym of ‘Senatus PopulusQue Romae’

      1. It is Autumn’s go-to-savant, very few people take her seriously. She is so edgy.




    Maria Butina, who was indicted this week on charges of being a covert Russian agent, struck up friendships with the influential leaders of the National Rifle Association and the Conservative Political Action Conference, touting her interest in U.S. affairs and efforts to promote gun rights in Vladi­mir Putin’s restrictive Russia. She sidled up to GOP presidential candidates, seeking first an encounter with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and then, after his rising candidacy stumbled, with Donald Trump.

    But by August 2016, when she moved to the United States on a student visa, the FBI was watching, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

    Rather than question or confront her, they said, officials decided to track her movements to determine whom she was meeting and what she was doing in the United States — the kind of monitoring that is not uncommon when foreign nationals are suspected of working on behalf of a foreign government.

    Edited from: “She Was A Novelty: How Alleged Russian Agent Maria Butina Gained Access To Elite Conservative Circles”

    The Washington Post, 7/17/18

      1. No one sane believes Wash Compost. I bet you believe the Skripal and other “poisonings” in the UK as well. Seriously? As if the Russians would be that clumsy!

        “Guns, Sex, Spycraft” – Court Filing Unveils Shocking New Details In Russian Spy Case

        “According to a new court filing, investigators found a handwritten note in her apartment that included details about a job offer from the FSB, and allegations that she was in contact with senior Russian intelligence officials.


        Because, apparently unlike every other spy agency in the world, the GRU is the only one known to recruit idiots and to advise its agent to specifically leave incriminating evidence in handwritten notes behind so it can be conveniently discovered by, well, anyone.”


        1. @Autumn, even if you don’t believe US intelligence about Russia’s cyber attacks, and you don’t believe Trump was aware of them as they happened, we have open collusion between Trump and Putin right now, which is arguably worse.

          The collusion is in what Trump says (refusing to back the United States’ intelligence agencies) and in what went unsaid (such as: You ought to stop disrupting Ukraine, downing civilian airliners, attempting to assassinate people abroad using poisons, and so on, and on).

          1. MarryaMinority……….”Collusion” is not a crime, but it’s right up there with “resist”, as far as most overused word in modern history.

            1. Collusion isn’t a crime but it is a political liability, especially when the country he is colluding with is illegally occupying Ukraine.

              Conspiracy is a crime and Mueller will get to the botton of it.

              1. Marryaminority……..Mueller will get to the bottom of it? In which century? LOL
                Sorry to laugh, but that was funny.

          2. Umm, it was us who disrupted Ukraine and installed a Nazi leader. That would be your dear friends Victoria Nuland and the HRC. Corporate whores both.

            We are not a position given our history to lecture Putin on his wrongdoings – real or assumed. ALL countries / leaders have done terrible things – most of which I’d argue are not sanctioned by their citizens.

            I just want a working relationship between the US and Russia to avoid an accelerated Cold War scenario.

            1. Ukraine decided on its own to depose its leadership after its former president Victor Yanukovich decided to take $2 billion in Russian bail-out money out of $15 billion offered. This would have made the country totally beholden to Russia.

              When Ukranians protested this, he cracked down on the protestors, which left about 100 people dead.

              *I* am in a position to condemn this as I have extended family in Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, which are at risk of Russian expansionism.

              Russia’s foreign policy has created a great deal of instability in Europe. It is behind an insurgency in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, which has killed over 7,000 people including roughly 3,000 civilians.

              The Russian involvement there has been condemned by the United Nations, and the referendum separating Crimea has been found illegal by the UN.


              If you don’t trust the US’s motives, that’s your prerogative. But the UN backs up the US position on Ukraine.

              1. There was mention of c.100 protestors killed.
                I had all of the “cable news channels” in early 2014, when the uprising in the Ukraine became violent.
                There were various estimates of the size of the crowd clustered in and around key government buildings.
                The European media outlets tended to do more detailed, “on the ground” and “in the crowd”- type of reporting.
                Given their proximity to Kiev, relative to the U.S. media, this was understandable.
                I remember an interview with one British journalist who had been “on the ground” for some time.
                He described the layout of the various government offices and ministries, and the takeover/ occuopation of those buildings by anti-Yanukovych crowds gathered there.
                He summed it up by saying that a comparable situation in Wsshington DC would be if thousands if people gathered around Capitol Hill, the State Department, government administration buildings, etc., and stormed and occupied those buildings.
                Movement of traffic was virtually impossible due to streets clogged with crowds, and the encampments that had sprung up.
                It didn’t appear that most were “part-time” demonstrators. They weren’t going home, going down to demonstrate for a while, then returning home.
                There were tents and other makeshift shelters in the encampments.
                There were also overturned vehicles, firebombed shells of buses, some Molotov cocktails being thrown, and lots of clubs, boards, rocks, etc. being lobbed at police.
                I think about 15 police officers were killed during the course of the uprising, with many more injured.
                I couldn’t tell from the coverage that I watched how loyal the police and armed forces were to Yanucovych.
                I didn’t a military presence; it seemed to be only the police that were engaged in combat with the crowds.
                It looked like government operations were paralyzed. Ultimately, Parliament itself was unable to meet.
                Just as if Capitol Hill were seized and occupied, all normal operations of the House and Senate would cease.
                Members of Parliament who supported Yanukovych were especially scarce, given the nature the uprising and the breakdown in security.
                I mentioned before here, months ago, that there was a striking difference in the reporting of European-based coverage and the coverage of U.S. media outlets.
                Even a network like CNN, with a global reach, seemed to underperform their European counterpart networks.
                Given the menu of cable news that I had then, and suffucient time to watch coverage by various media outlets, I may have come away with a different impression of events than Americans who only saw American networks’ coverage, or no coverage at all.
                It appeared to me that orderly Constitutional measures to remove the existing givernment from power were bypassed, in favor of a concentrated uprising at the “nerve center” of the Ukraine government.

                1. Tom Nash, I opine that you fail to understand just how corrupt the Ukrainian government was. Is only a bit better now; check the corruption perception index.

                  1. DB Benson,…
                    Actually, I was aware that the Ukraine has a big problem with corruption.
                    It is unforetunately one of a number of countries that have “ingrained, institutionalized” corruption.
                    In the comment the I made that you are replying to, I was recounting what I observed in early 2014 as the “Orange Revolution” unfolded.
                    And I noted what I took away from closely following that coverage from a number of different media sources.
                    I didn’t get into the reasons for/ objectives of the uprising.
                    I’ve done that previously, but my post was long enough without trying to review every aspect of the Orange Revolution.
                    I do think it was a mistake to run Yanukovych out of office the way that they did.
                    He was nearing the end of a five-year term; I think he was elected President in early 2010, so he had less than a year left in his term to serve, and was unlikely to be re-elected.
                    Additionally, he did offer to resign before his term ended….since he had only c. 10-11 months left in his term anyway, he probably didn’t feel he had a lot to lose by accelerating his departure.
                    When there are constitutional means to remove an elected president, as was the case in the Ukraine, I think it’s better to use those means.
                    Rather than having Yanukovych flee Kiev for his life, then removing him for “failure to perform the duties of his office”.😏😕😬
                    It was not possible for Yanukovych to effectively function in government when large numbers of anti-Yanukovych who would like to kill him were on his doorstep, so retroactively removing him for “failure to perform his duties”😀 was somewhat disingenuous.

                  2. PS…I didn’t know about the Corruption Perception Index…..thanks for pointing it out.

        2. Autumn: how aggressively ignorant of you to suggest this story has no significance. This same story is all over the mainstream media. But you think I should follow some no-name paper instead? It seems you’re one of those people who thinks the truth can only be found in no-name newspapers.

          1. The story has no significance. It’s just the latest tempest in the teacup. There’s been one every couple of months for the last three years.

            1. Spastic is tenacious with facts and wonky details only when it suits her purpose. But Spastic is strangely disinterested when it comes to Trump, Putin and Russians in general.

                1. The story would be almost unknown but for the penchant of the news media to highlight anything in order to twist the dialogue into a fallacious anti-Trump meme. Every day very important things slip by without ever being reported by the media. These important issues should be the ones discussed by both parties in a fashion meant to improve America rather than to destroy America for political reasons.

              1. Excerpted from the DOJ press release linked above:

                According to the affidavit in support of the complaint, from as early as 2015 and continuing through at least February 2017, Butina worked at the direction of a high-level official in the Russian government who was previously a member of the legislature of the Russian Federation and later became a top official at the Russian Central Bank. This Russian official was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control in April 2018.

                The court filings detail the Russian official’s and Butina’s efforts for Butina to act as an agent of Russia inside the United States by developing relationships with U.S. persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian Federation. The filings also describe certain actions taken by Butina to further this effort during multiple visits from Russia and, later, when she entered and resided in the United States on a student visa. The filings allege that she undertook her activities without officially disclosing the fact that she was acting as an agent of Russian government, as required by law.

              2. Excerpted from the WaPo article to which Peter Hill linked upstream:

                In 2013, Butina and Torshin invited Keene and other American gun enthusiasts to Moscow to attend the annual meeting of her organization.

                There, Butina met Paul Erickson, a South Dakota-based Republican operative who was well known to Republican insiders, going back to the work he did as national political director for Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaign in 1992. She told the Senate Intelligence Committee in April that she began a romantic relationship with the American operative, people familiar with her testimony said.

                Erickson matches a description of an American described in court filings as a political operative who helped introduce Butina to influential American political figures “for the purpose of advancing the agenda of the Russian Federation.”

          2. You are so funny Peter Shill. “Aggressively ignorant”? Hmmm, methinks you are protesting too much. Here’s a suggestion – read some spy novels and get back to me for a real discussion. OR you could watch the most excellent series “The Americans” to see how clever Russian spies really are.

            NO intel agency is that clumsy.

            1. Really??? You’re recommending works of fiction, including TV shows, as evidence for the ingenuity of Russian spies??? So your thesis is that actual Russian agents are contractually required to be at least as ingenious the screenplay to a Hollywood TV show??? And that, therefore, Mariia Butina cannot possibly be a Russian agent??? Because she got caught??? No Russian agent has ever been stupid enough to get caught–unless, of course, they secretly wanted to get caught??? Because, sometimes getting caught is part of the ingenious plan??? I smell a sequel!!!

    1. a major nonevent
      i am wondering if all her activities were protected by 1st amendment or does that not apply to Russians?

      1. No, Mr Kurtz, Greenwald is what the Zionists call a “self hating Jew” because he is opposed to their heinous tactics

    1. Tim Shorrock, journalist and author of “Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing”

    2. By not trusting US intelligence on Russian cyber attacks, he is saying he won’t trust US intel if Russia attacks Europe as well.

      Therefore, he is undermining the trust between partners that is the key to NATO.

      If he refuses to believe that Russia attacked his own country, when Russia tries to attack Europe he won’t believe the intelligence either.

      Logically, denying US intelligence on Russia is a victory for Putin and undermines NATO.

      Would you rather believe Putin or US intelligence? That is what the situation boils down to.

      1. Am I a Putin fan? Absolutely not.

        Having said this, there are things taking place on U.S. soil that are blatantly unconstitutional and most Americans haven’t a clue. We need vigorous oversight of our intelligence agencies — and a thorough housecleaning. Once that happens, my faith in our intelligence agencies might be restored — at least partially.

        And James Clapper is a criminal who belongs in prison. There are others who belong there as well.

        1. How about naming those “blatantly unconstitutional” things and telling us why they are unconstitutional.
          I know that you are not used to doing anything beyond blowing smoke and posting links, but give it a try.
          You complain about a lack of substance😩 in these threads, so pretend that your comments have substance and expand on your normal pablum.😳

          1. Most likely anonymous is referring to the NSA’s warrantless wire-tapping scandal and the FISC report on 702 abuses. No doubt there are many other issues implicated in anonymous’ statement about “blatantly unconstitutional things” taking place. The main concern, I presume, is that there’s no way to find out whether, nor how many, innocent people, including American citizens, may have been targeted by the numerous counter-terrorism investigations listed in the FISC report on 702 “about queries” that allow surveillance of people like us, for instance, who talk about the subjects of FISA warrants whose names have been leaked to the press.

          1. “A thorough housecleaning should start at the Oval Office.”

            You are right Peter Shill. Obama left stains all over the Oval Office, the DOJ, the FBI, the IRS etc. These stains need to be removed and so far Trump has been removing them one by one and the stained Obama legacy is disappearing.

          1. Is that supposed to be a rhetorical question? anonymous’ skepticism about the US IC has been crystal clear for at least a year and, I presume, going all the way back to The Snowden Affair in 2013. Chances are that anonymous has legitimate gripes against the US IC going back much farther than 2013.

            P. S. Allan, disagreeing with anonymous is always risky business. Tread lightly, Ninny Na Na.

        2. You have two choices: believe Putin or believe US intelligence.

          There is no third option because both of them cannot be correct or wrong.

          Either you believe Russia committed cyber attacks or they didn’t.

          US intelligence is backed up by the UK, France, Germany, and the intelligence of most other European countries.

          1. You have two choices: believe Putin or believe US intelligence.

            There is no third option because both of them cannot be correct or wrong.

            Brilliant! What’s next, you either believe the Democrats or you believe the Republicans; there is no third option because both of them cannot be correct or wrong?

            If you lack critical-thinking skills then it’s all a zero-sum game. At the root is money, power and securing the interests of those with money and power. With that as a baseline, I expect they will all act in their own self interests.

            I certainly don’t trust Putin, but our own IC has proven they are as trustworthy as they are verifiable. Mix in the power and money motivations of the political class and we absolutely have more than 2 options.

            So who do I believe? I believe our IC, but will remain skeptical as long as they are politicized.

            1. If Putin is right on election meddling, then US intelligence on Russia is wrong.

              If US intelligence is right on election meddling, then Putin is wrong.

              What other choices are there in this scenario? It is a simple binary choice. There are no alternatives. Either Putin is correct, or US, UK, French etc. intelligence agencies are correct.

              We now a have president who is openly colluding with Russia. That is even worse than colluding with cyber attacks before the election.

              Putin wants to undermine trust in US intelligence so he has free reign to interfere in Europe. Americans who want to believe him over their own government are at best “useful idiots.”

              1. What other choices are there in this scenario? It is a simple binary choice. There are no alternatives.

                Sure there are. It’s not black and white; there are shades of grey. First of all, as long as every country on the planet has the resources to meddle in the affairs of other countries, especially those involving strategic interests, then they will.

                Of course Russia has attempted to meddle in our elections and will always try to do so. I believe our IC knows the means and extent to which they succeeded. That’s the grey area.

                Since our own agencies including the FBI have been exposed to be corrupted by politics, we have a duty to trust but verify. So when a key piece of evidence (hacked servers, etc.) were never taken into custody by the FBI because the alleged victim wouldn’t turn them over, then that grey area is expanded. And when actual evidence exists that the alleged victim had on their payroll Pakistani criminals under IT contracts, $84 million in laundered campaign funds, rigged their own primary; then I question who actually succeeded in meddling in our electoral process.

            2. Option 3- don’t believe either. They are both/all nothing more than propaganda machines.

              “I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds” -JFK

              Still true after all these years. Maybe Trump, with support of the American people, can finally get the job done.

          2. of course they engage in cyber attacks. as do we. the relevant question is a) did it affect the outcome? no. no proof it did. just a bunch of facebook ads and some hacking that showed how hillary scrwed over bernie. donna brazile wrote a book about that and she would have anyways b) does that cyberwarfare invalidate the larger goals of peace and diplomacy? no unless you are a vindictive hillarite

          3. Actually one could argue that it’s the UK who has been interfering in our elections.

          4. U.S. intelligence on Saddam’s WMDs was also backed up by U..N. Inspectors, the intelligence agencies of the countries you mentioned, at least a dozen prominent nembers of the previous Clinton Administration, etc.
            All of this against Saddam’s denials.
            “Who do you believe?”
            I lost a more detailed comment ( my mistakes, not Word Press’ this time) on the pitfalls of the “who do you believe” oversimplification, but I’ve retyped just part of it here with the Saddam example.

      2. Marry translation: “Between nuclear winter or Russian diplomacy, I prefer the former because it makes me right and rids the world of Trump.”

        1. No, I prefer a harsh economic embargo against Russia. Not war.

          A ban on all exports from Russia to the West should do heavy damage to Putin and their economy.

          If they cannot sell their natural resources to the West, they will lose their biggest source of wealth generation.

          Their invasion of Ukraine alone should be enough to justify this, never mind their cyber attacks.

          1. Europe is still connected to, and reliant on, Russia.
            More accurately, there is a mutual reliance in critical areas.
            While the current set of sanctions are said to be “targeted” at Putin and his inner circle, the effects of the sanctions go far beyond that circle.
            Additionally, Putin seems unlikely to respond to the pressure of sanctions.
            That will likely remain the case, given the overall support he has among the Russian people.
            They’re not likely to blame Putin for the sanctions and any hardships resulting from those sanctions.
            I think Putin is more than willing to continue giving the finger to Western Europe and the U.S.
            It appears that he is attempting to build a Russia- China-Iran-India-Syria alliance, or at least strong relations, trade and otherwise, with these countries.
            Those “alliances” may be morphing into a new kind of “3rd block” of countries outside of the U.S. and Eurozone blocks.

            1. Tom, that’s all pretty much the Russian geopolitical strategy, and it will probably continue to be regardless of whether the US is more or less belligerent.

              with respect to such competitors as Russia or “adversaries” one might say to use a stronger word, diplomacy is appropriate and worthwhile

          2. well trump took the germans to task for buying russian gas. so you should thank trump if that’s your view.

          3. Mary’s policy: “Ignore the fact that the Al Saud crime syndicate ruling over Saudi Arabia is the most evil dictatorship on earth, because the rest of the MSM and MIC (who desire to destroy Trump) have invested so much into the meme that Russia is the den of Satan. Just ignore the fact that Saudi Arabia annually beheads more than the rest of the globe combined including ISIS. And that women just started legally driving a few months ago.”

    3. Yes. The exact same “Intelligence Services” (Orwellian enough?) that brought us about $5T in lost blood and treasure (include care for at least one generation of maimed soldiers, working toward the 2nd gen now), five illegal wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria) + Yemen where the Al Saud crime syndicate (women just allowed to drive 6 months ago, more annual beheadings than ISIS) use American war machines to commit their hundreds if not thousands of uncharged war crimes (creating ever increasing more lifetime enemies of the USA in the process).

      The same “Intelligence Services” that let HRC keep her server which Putin allegedly hacked, that refused to call a Grand Jury on HRC, that did not put her under oath, that did not record her interview, that let her bring friends and counsel to her interview, that handed out clemency like candy to witnesses in exchange for nothing, that positively pre-determined her innocence by changing words both in written docs and when AG Lynch ordered Comey to change his speech descriptions of HRC’s criminal actions.

      Why anyone should trust the above scum of the earth and their water carriers (MSM and politicians who enable them) is beyond me.

      I don’t trust Putin, but I trust the above less because they masquerade as protectors of democracy better than Putin ever could.

      As Trump has correctly stated, the US and Russia comprise 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. Between nuclear winter and Russia diplomacy, call me stupid but I prefer the latter.

      If you require a correlation between US diplomacy and ephemeral “quality” standard of a foreign government, then please justify US diplomacy with the Al Saud dictatorship/crime syndicate, who behead more people that the rest of the globe combined including ISIS. And then let’s move to Israel, who by Israeli law prohibits male Palestinians from becoming citizens, violates international West Bank “neutral territory” agreements with impunity, and intends to pass a law requiring allegiance to one religion (Judaism) as a citizen test.

      And no, I don’t favor Israel over Palestine, I just want to stop taking sides, stop selling weapons to Israel, and let the ME sort it out alone, whatever that means. I want the US to respond to “news” about ME problems by saying, “Who gives a rat’s behind?”

      Israel and Syria share a commonality, which is that both nations have absolutely no bearing on US national security, none.

      Decades ago the US and League of Nations invented Israel by threat of force and out of thin air. The “justification” was that Judaics require a “homeland” to secure their safety and continued existence. It’s a strange and interesting anomaly that about 55% of current Judaics disagree, having chosen to live outside the alleged safety of the Judaic homeland.

      1. Excellent post JJ! Netanyahoo and his supporters pose a far greater threat than Putin as Zionists are imbedded in our government affecting both domestic and foreign policy.

        There are many Jews who do not support Zionist supremacy

        1. There is a loud and unbelievably brave minority of actual Judaic Rabbis who publicly condemn Israeli Zionism! whtt.org

          Without US Zionist Christianity, US support for Israel would likely cease to exist. The best video for “The Roots of Christian Zionism:”

          Zionist Christians (AKA “Western Evangelicals”) John Hagee and Benny Hin praying for war in the name of Jesus: http://whtt.podbean.com/e/john-hagee-with-benny-hinn-praying-for-war-in-the-name-of-jesus/

          “Politics is the entertainment branch of the military industrial complex.” Frank Zappa

          1. Joseph Jones,

            You might not be aware but this website only permits two links per comment. I edited this one so that it would post.

            If in the future you wish the readers to see more than two links, this can be accomplished through multiple comments.

          2. Joseph….Why not cite the old Pharaoh, as well?
            Please forgive me but I must say, the longer I live, the more I am convinced that the only things certain in life are Jew-bashing and taxes.

            1. Cindy B.,
              I see that you omitted “death” from the certainties.
              Given my age, I wish to thank you for that.😊

              1. Tom…hahahaha…I have not experienced death, so am not qualified to comment on it 🙂

                1. Cindy B.,
                  When you have experienced all three, try to get back to those who are still around on this blog for an update.
                  I know that we have 2-3 seers with psychic powers who are among those who comment here.
                  They themselves may not be qualified to conduct seances, but may know others with paranormal powers who specialize in seances.

                  1. Tom Nash – I am a Cassandra, but that comes with a curse, no one believes you. 😉

                    1. PC Schulte,….
                      Did that curse predate any contact with L4D?
                      Or was it put in place after the “Schulte/curses” warning she issued?

                    2. Tom Nash – I have been a Cassandra as long as I can remember. It is a real downer. 😉

                    3. Paul C Schulte,…
                      So YOU’RE that voice in the wilderness I keep hearing whenever I go camping.😌

                    4. Tom Nash – Cassandra made her best prophesy from the back of the chariot. Agamemnon should have listened. 😉

            2. Not “Jew Bashing” at all – Zionist outing. After all it’s not only Jews who identify as Zionists – even lefties like Uncle Joe Biden self identify as a Zionist.

              Here ya go– a quick primer to bring you up to speed:

              1. http://www.dennisprager.com/explaining-jews-part-vii-why-anti-zionism-is-anti-semitism/

                Explaining Jews Part VII: Why anti-Zionism is anti-semitism

                Imagine someone saying that he seeks the destruction of Italy because he regards Italian national identity as racist. Further, imagine that this person constantly denies being anti-Italian, because he does not hate all Italians, only Italy and all those who believe Italy should exist.

                Now substitute “Jewish” for “Italian” and “Israel” for “Italy” and you understand the absurdity of the argument that one can be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish.

                Among the many lies that permeate the modern world, none is greater — or easier to refute — than the claim that Zionism is not an integral part of Judaism or the claim that anti-Zionism is unrelated to antisemitism.

                In order to understand why, it is first necessary to explain Zionism and anti-Zionism.

                A modern secular movement called Zionism was founded in the 19th century, but the belief that Jews belong in Zion (the biblical term for Jerusalem) is as old as the Jewish people. See Part One of this series, “Explaining Jews,” for a discussion of why Jews are a people and not only a religion.

                Starting in 586 B.C., with the destruction of the first Jewish state, Jews were already Zionists in that they fervently prayed to return to Zion. While the movement known by the specific name “Zionism” is modern, the movement of Jews returning to Zion is more than 2,500 years old. That is why the claim that Zionism — the return of the Jewish people to Zion — is not part of Judaism is a theological and historical lie.

                Judaism has always consisted of three components: God, Torah and Israel, roughly translated as faith, practice and peoplehood. And this Jewish people was conceived of as living in the Jewish country called Israel. One can argue that the modern state of Israel was founded at the expense of Arabs living in the geographic area known as Palestine (there was never a country or a nation called Palestine); but that in no way negates the indisputable fact that Zionism is an integral part of Judaism. Nor does the fact that some Jews who have abandoned Judaism are opposed to Zionism, nor that a tiny sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews (Neturei Karta) believe that only the Messiah can found a Jewish state in Israel.

                When anti-Israel Muslim students demonstrate on campus chanting, “Yes to Judaism, No to Zionism,” they are inventing a new Judaism out of their hatred for Israel. It would be as if anti-Muslims marched around chanting, “Yes to Allah, No to the Quran.” Just as Allah, Muhammad and the Quran are inextricable components of Islam, so God, Torah and Israel are of Judaism.

                But, one might argue, even if Zionism is as much a part of Judaism as any other part of the Hebrew Bible, the modern Jewish state of Israel has no right to exist because it displaced many indigenous Arabs, known later as Palestinians.

                Before responding to this, it is crucial to understand that this argument — that Israel’s founding was illegitimate — is completely unrelated to anti-Zionism. An intellectually honest person who believes Israel’s founding is illegitimate would still have to acknowledge that Zionism is an inseparable part of Judaism.

                But the argument that Israel is illegitimate because its founding led to 600,000 to 700,000 Arab refugees is as anti-Jewish as is anti-Zionism. Virtually every country in the world was founded by displacing some of the people who had lived there, and many of those countries did far worse to far more people than Israel did. Therefore, anyone who calls only for Israel’s destruction had better explain why, of all the states on earth whose founding was accompanied by the displacement of others, only the Jewish state is illegitimate.

                Take Pakistan, for example. Unlike the Jewish state of Israel, which had existed twice before in history, there was never a country called Pakistan, nor was there ever any other independent Muslim country in the part of India that was carved out to create Pakistan. Moreover, if the Jewish state of Israel is illegitimate because it created 700,000 Arab refugees, why isn’t the Muslim state of Pakistan, which created more than eight million Hindu refugees, illegitimate?

                The answer is obvious. When people isolate the one Jewish state in the world for sanctions, opprobrium and delegitimizing, they are doing so because it is the Jewish state. And that, quite simply, is why anti-Zionism is simply another form of Jew-hatred.

                You can criticize Israel all you want. That does not make you an antisemite. But if you are an anti-Zionist or advocate the destruction of the Jewish state, then let’s be clear: You are an enemy of the Jews and of Judaism, and the word for such a person is antisemite.

                1. Do American Jews allow that there are a lot of Jews in this world who are critics of Israel, starting with a lot of Israelis? I have heard many times from Jewish people in conversation, that the worst kind of antisemite is a Jewish one. I often wonder if that is referring to Saul of Tarsus or Noam Chomsky. This reminds me of the joke: “two jews, three opinions”

                  I have talked to some Palestinians in my life too, certainly, fewer than the Jewish people I have known throughout the years, but I am certain they disagree there is “no country called Palestine.” The Romans definitely called a territory by that name and so did many others. I am under the impression Arabs from Palestine consider themselves a different nationality than Arabs from say Egypt or Dearborn, assuming they were born there.

                  I am also not sure Iran as a country is a good target for a broad brushing of antisemitism either. It has compared favorably to various other places at many times in history. Perhaps there is more antipathy today because of strategic tensions.

                  Russia has been accused of antisemitism throughout various episodes in history, but, we can see that Putin has maintained good relations with Israelis and the observant Jewish population in Russia. Perhaps some fear he is antisemitic because of geopolitical rivalries which place Russia’s interests closer to its shiite neigbhors, that have been on the wrong side of some conflicts with the US in the middle east. Very complicated!

                  People tar Jews with a broad brush, and it seems to me Jews return the favor sometimes. I am not any kind of authority on the topic however.

                  Putting all that into context of the thread subject, I contend that DIPLOMACY is a good thing for people to try, national leaders, and not just war. It makes the world a safer place perhaps?

                  Diplomacy allows that other national groups have a right to exist, for starters. I think that may cut both ways where Israelis and Palestinians are concerned. As an American, I do not see it in our interests to deny the national rights and aspirations of either people, who vie for the same territory. This is a difficult problem for them but of special interest for us because there are about as many Muslims as Jews in this country and for the rest of us perhaps we do not really want to always be forced to pick a side.

                  It’s worthwhile to consider both viewpoints in a hostile situation with a lot on the line.

                  1. “Do American Jews allow that there are a lot of Jews in this world who are critics of Israel, starting with a lot of Israelis?”

                    People have diverse opinions and that I guess includes Jews. However, in recent years it has become quite clear that the vast majority of people that are anti-Zionist are using the term Zionism to hide their anti-Semitism.

                    If people don’t like aid to Israel that is their opinion but then one has to ask if they like aid to those peoples that are trying to destroy the state of Israel?. Some people think the US government gives vast amounts of money to Israel. It’s really quite small especially considering the fact that almost all of it is in credits for purchases of American military equipment. The Israelis actually modify that equipment and aid our military in that fashion and with information the US needs. Many think that Israel is politically supported by our government over other actors in the area but starting with Eisenhower one has to recall that he forced the French, British and Israeli troops out of the Suez Canal something I believe he later realized was a mistake. The American people have given more support to Israel than our government and the State Department has consistently been anti-Israel.

                    Noam Chomsky is an expert in linguistics, not political science or the relevant fields. He has used that expertise to implant his uneducated opinions onto society by giving people something to hate. If you recall while Pol Pot’s government was killing 1/3 or 1/2 of the Cambodian population he was telling the people of America how wonderful that government was. Walter Duranty did the same thing when reporting on Stalin from Moscow where he was lavishly treated. The New York Times never permitted the Pulitzer to be removed for that phony reporting.

                    Many Arabs moved into the land of Israel when the Jews started cultivating the desert and creating a small amount of industry.I think most of those Arabs are considered Jordanian. They have suffered, not through the fault of Israel but the fault of their own leaders that hate. Today Arabs are citizens of Israel and hold Knesset and Supreme Court positions. An almost equal number of Arabs left Israel on their own as did Jews leave the rest of the Mid East with their possessions stolen and their lives threatened. No one seems to remember that displacement of people whose families lived in the same area for generations.

                    AS far as the territory involved, the entire territory was huge and only a tiny sliver ended up as Israel. The British left the area leaving the weapons and forts to the Arabs after preventing Jews from arming themselves. At a point in time it was decided that would be where the border would stand. The Israeli’s were few in number facing the best third world Air Force Jordan along with Jordanian troops and faced off with Egyptian tanks from the south and Syrians from the north all aided by the hundreds of millions of Arabs in the area. Israel had no air force, tank squads or even a modern army but it survived even though it should have been destroyed. One can only have admiration for such a people.

                    Since that time they have been under threat of annihilation by the Arab nations that surround them and have to win every war despite the disadvantage of being almost a spec on the map with a low population and until the present without oil. I don’t care if you like them or don’t like them, but unless one wants to be called the equivalent of a racist one shouldn’t dislike them for no reason.

                    You are a lot smarter and more knowledgeable than Autumn so I urge you to read a bit about their history and the history of the middle east that the Jews occupied long before Mohammed was born. For myself, I am an American number one, number two and number three. I despise racism.

                    1. Well Allan, thanks for your opinion, it’s an interesting topic
                      Did you know the US government was favorable to the Pot regime too?
                      It was adverse to Vietnam. Vietnam invaded and put an end to their craziness.
                      The Khmer Rouge were aligned with China, and Vietnam has an ongoing vendetta against China too. We had been against Vietnam as you recall in a big war.
                      The world is a complicated place and a lot of diplomacy and statecraft can seem “bad” and “immoral’ in retrospect but the exigencies of the day often compel difficult choices.

                    2. Mr. Kurtz, Yes, I recognize what you say, but I don’t think we followed the gamebook that a large power like we were should have played. Just as an aside, I spent a good amount of time on more than one trip to China and southeast Asia. I didn’t go on a tour so I would hire a driver and a car or boat or take a plane wherever I traveled. The translator I had in N.Vietnam was of course licensed by the state and was a real “communist” jerk though after a few fights he became a bit more decent. Things were completely the opposite in South Vietnam which is what seems to financially support the entire nation.

                2. Imagine someone saying something as stupid and ignorant and false as “_______ (fill in any nation name) has a right to exist.”

                  Israel and the USA have no “right to exist.” Such right is a figment of reader’s imagination.

                  Further, the US Constitution does not address any nation’s existence except this one. President Wilson’s alleged goal of spreading democracy around the globe has ushered in more bloodshed than any other meme since Wilson.

                  I am an American citizen and I have sum total zero moral responsibility for Israel’s existence and/or demise. Every American citizen should feel the same. If they disagree and desire to insure Israel’s existence, then simply prove to me that my safety and well being are related in any way to Israel. Such thought is pipe dream worth of being flushed down the toilet of history, the sooner the better.

                  It is morally repugnant to give one of the world’s richest nations $5B annually when we have a $22T debt. Further, Israel is the most hated nation on earth. The putrid stench of Israel rubs off directly onto me and every American because of our support for it.

                  1. “The putrid stench of Israel rubs off directly onto me and every American because of our support for it.”

                    Joseph Jones, the “stench” you smell is the change from your dirty environment to a clean one. Israel is just another country that has survived despite the barbaric tactics of people that surround them and despite the anti-Semitism that flows so easily from the mouths of the ignorant. Israel will survive with or without American aid which today is relatively small compared to what Israel provides the US. My presumption is eventually it will disappear.

                    The regimes around Israel are afforded far more aid from far more countries. Israel distinguishes itself from the region by permitting other faiths to survive and engage in its society. Arabs are in the Knesset and on the Supreme Court. Woman are treated as equals and gays are not thrown off roofs. Young women are not stoned to death and children do not blow themselves up killing other children.

                    I don’t care if you have no feelings towards Israel. The question is whether you love killing those of a different faith, dictatorship, throwing gays off roofs, stoning young woman and sending your children out with bombs strapped to their chests to kill other young children. If you prefer the latter to the former then you really are a sick person and require intensive help

            3. Ah yes, the age old debate stomper and “let’s force the goyim to shut up” standard “ANTI-SEMITE!” The immediate knee jerk reply from an Israel-firster when they are too lazy or too inept or it’s impossible to reply to a legitimate criticism of a Judaic and/or Israel.

              A few comments. Surely, if there is such thing as an anti-Semite, then by mathematical necessity, there must be “anti-goyim.” But no, let’s just ignore all that such reality brings to mind.

              My favorite definition for the term Anti-Semite is by the late James Sobran: “Not one who hates Jews, but rather one hated by certain Jews.”

              A fantastic video jog through history from 1915-1938, in which we see with our own eyes and hear with our ears the several, yes several different “Jewish holocaust events” published in the NYT and the NY Sun claiming “six million dead Jews.” Is it not strange we never hear about these many other unheralded holocausts any more? Why is that I wonder? Strange we never hear about all these various different pre-Hitlerian holocausts, all the hate reserved for only Hitler’s holocaust.

              Who you gonna believe? The Israel firsters or your lying eyes and ears?

              1. “Israel firster” is code for someone who is not unfriendly to Israel.

                I know you fancy it’s perfectly normal to be in a frothing rage about a parliamentary republic whose population approximates that of greater Chicago whose output approximates that of Hong Kong, in which resides just a two-digit population of American soldiers, and which accounts for less than 3% of American civil and military expenditure abroad. It isn’t normal, Joseph, which is why people get the idea that being a vicious wanker is baseline for you.

          3. I am all for denouncing zionists but in this case we have to put the blame for the anti Russian hysterian on gentiles

            there are some prominent jews who have encouraged the left to step back from the insanity such as the Nation’s Stephen Cohen




            1. Absolutely correct Mr Kurtz – some of the most avid Zionists are members of the so-called “Christian” Right!

              1. I have posted this many times here, so I apologize for the repeat. I know for a certainty (I attended an SBC Church) that Southern Baptist Conference membership is prohibited if one denies that modern Israel is the modern fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. The largest Protestant damnation (denomination) in the West is SBC.

                An accurate and reasonable translation for Western “evangelical” Christian is Zionist Christian. Without Judaic and Zionist control of western evangelical doctrine, western support for Israel would likely evaporate.

                1. Joseph…I grew up in the bosom of the SBConvention. Three things:
                  1) Baptists, technicaly, are not protestants.
                  2) Each Baptist church has autonomy apart from the “convention”.
                  3) Lefties seem to always, and happily, rationalize disdain for Christians and Jews

                  1. No, not all Lefties show disdain for Jews and Christians. What a lot of us dislike is fundamentalism. The fusion between fundamentalists and politics has led to blind support of interventions ie endless war

                  2. Cindy Bragg – any Christians, including Mormons, who are not Roman Catholic, are Protestants. The CofE gets some back because as a Catholic you can do you Sunday duty by attending Mass at a CofE church. They keep talking about getting back together. They really have only one great divide to conquer.

                    1. Cindy Bragg – please explain why the Baptists are not Protestants. I am open to discussion.

                    2. 1. No Mormons are not Christians. The Holy See has made this plain by classifying discussions with the Latter-Day Saints under the heading ‘inter-religious dialogue’.

                      2. No, you cannot discharge your Sunday obligation in an Anglican congregation. Leo XIII ruled in 1896 that Anglican holy orders are spurious. In certain contingencies, you can attend the Liturgy at an Orthodox or non-Chalcedonian Church, because they do have authentic holy orders.

                      3. Yes, Baptists are protestants.

                    3. Haven’t you forgotten the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East, aka, Nestorian?

                      Only about 350 million people in those denominations.

          4. Without US Zionist Christianity, US support for Israel would likely cease to exist.

            Of course, this sentence is absurd. Israel has a diversified industrial economy and a level of affluence that compares favorably to most of Mediterranean Europe. It’s also one of the few occidental countries reproducing above replacement level. External aid amounts to all of 1.3% of the country’s gross domestic product (of which 90% of it consists of credits for military equipment purchases) and has been of declining significance for over 30 years. The net income of the Jewish National Fund is about $400 million. The share attributable to evangelical Christians is notably less than that.

            1. AIPAC would not suddenly fold up and vanish without evangelicals. That’s for sure.

                  1. What is? You made a stupid statement about the salience of evangelical support for Israel, then shifted ground to discussing AIPAC, and now are as clear as mud on that topic, too.

                    1. well, it’s not salient that evangelicals support israel, not salient to this topic of the blog.
                      even though they do. and even though aipac is big and powerful and would exist with or without them.

                      anyways, i said it was irrelevant, maybe you just want to argue with me, tell me something more interesting, like, do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman? I suspect you do

            2. Teaching Spastics: You’re wrong about Baptists being Protestants………..but maybe you could teach them to dance? 😊

        2. Israel has a population of 8 million (about that of Austria), an annual domestic product of about $320 bn dollars (about that of Hong Kong), and has no active conflicts with anyone but some rancid paramilities camped out on its border. It has latent conflicts only with characters like Autocrat Erdogan and Ayatollah Khameinei who prefer to remain in a functional state of belligerency.

          It’s interesting where a combination of stupidity and malice leads you.

          1. I am pleased to criticize Israel and zionists etc and do not fear being called names for it.

            However, you make a very good point. Israel is small. Even if the Jewish lobby in America is very rich and powerful. there is no putting this mess on Israel. Israel has maintained sensible relations with both the USA and Russia, which any small nation should wish to emulate.

            The point about relative size actually adheres to Russia as well. Other than their fearsome and dangerous nuclear arsenal, their economy is dwarfed by the US economy. Their military spending has actually shrunk the past few years. It is not the baba yaga that the lying press pretends.

            The relative size of adversaries and “competitors” is certainly something to be considered in foreign policy. Trump has taken a de-escalation of tensions verbal strategy and paired it with some tough actions on other fronts, which is an interesting combination that serves the US strategic interests surprisingly well. Perhaps he will go down in history as a greater statesman than anybody suspects today, even his admirers

            1. People who loathe Israel fancy the ‘Jewish Lobby’ is ‘rich and powerful’. AIPAC has a large budget. What people who loathe Israel don’t understand is that few people loathe Israel, so there is not much organized opposition to AIPAC.

              Barack Obama is as hostile to Israel as anyone who ever occupied the Oval Office. There’s a reason the Los Angeles Times has been sitting on his after-dinner remarks at a testimonial dinner for Rashid Khalidi. Jewish voters don’t have his hostility to their cousins in Israel thrown in their face. That’s enough for them. He got the same 4-1 margins among American Jews that John Kerry received.

              1. You can call their budget large or you can call it rich, such words are synonymous in context. You seem provoked by the topic.

                But I agree with you that Obama was as adverse to Israel as any American president.
                I also agree there is little organized opposition. Those are both factual statements.

                You don’t like me, that’s fine, I don’t know you and dont care. But I will agree with your statements or not, as I please. You can react or not, feel free.

                Overall, it has nothing to do with the Helsinki summit.

                1. You and Autumn bring the subject up (and Autumn will do this in contexts where it makes no sense), but somehow I’m the one with the issue.

                  1. no she brought it up. and you commented on it and then I did too. I don’t really care. You’re arguing with someone who agreed with you that it’s besides the point. yeah, you’re touchy about it. that’s ok. I still value your contributions. Keep up the good work.

              2. Let’s look at this. Obama sent 150Billion to Iran that has pledged to wipe Israel out. How much does AIPAC spend in a year? $60Million? It’s not the money that counts rather what people do with it. I suggest all those that hate Israel throw their phones and computers away because many of the things in them were created in Israel.

                When they get lost they should consider that when they use Waze they are using an Israeli created app created in Israel. Same for Mapquest that bought the rights to use Waze. It’s a tiny little country that is mostly a border with hostile enemies on all sides.

                1. I have to admire the pluck of Israelis for maintaining their security amidst a very hostile neighborhood.

          2. I think it is more than simple “stupidity and malice” that leads Autumn. She has a problem.

            1. No, I do not like the influence that Israel has in MY damn country. And I do not like the fact that we are spending 10.5 mil a day of tax payers monies going to Israel when far too many of my fellow citizens are hurting economically as well as our rapidly declining infrastructure.

              1. Autumn, you are entitled to an opinion too. I won’t immediately attribute these feelings to bad motive. Americans are entitled to want to put America first just as others would do the same.

                However, one could argue that the Arab world has benefited more from US aid and reconstruction dollars than Israelis at various times in our history, recently included. But I doubt one group or Arabs or another would agree about that.

                One problem with getting too exercised about Israel and all that, is that sometimes people forget about other more consequential factors. They may have a disproportionate influence but as Allan said it is still a tiny country.

                1. That is too damn bad Autumn that you don’t like it and want to wrap the American flag around a personal attitude that stinks.



    Trump’s links to Russia were widely written about during the 2016 campaign. As early as March of that year, articles in mainstream media reported that convicted felon Felix Sater, an immigrant from Russia, had an association with The Trump Organization. It was believed said firm had become dependent on Russian investors. Donald Junior was quoted as saying as much. Business journals noted that Deutsche Bank, Trump’s primary lender, was laundering money for Russian billionaires. Tellingly Trump refused to show his tax returns; a 40 year tradition for presidential candidates.

    By September of 2016, two months before the election, Time Magazine ran a cover story picturing a mural in Europe in which Trump and Putin were portrayed as gay lovers. That month, in a presidential debate, Hillary Clinton accused Trump of wanting to ‘break up NATO. An accusation Trump did not forcibly deny. Clinton then asserted that Trump was a ‘sock puppet’ for Putin; an extraordinary claim for a presidential debate. Yet again, Trump did not forcibly deny the accusation.

    Fast forward to Trump’s first Monday in the White House. On that night Trump hosted a dinner for Congressional leaders. There Trump rashly announced that ‘illegal aliens’ were responsible for Clinton’s Popular Vote victory. Trump, of course, had no proof to support this wild claim. Therefore he felt compelled to create a sham of a commission to investigate voting by ‘illegals’. Trump, however, made no attempt to investigate Russian meddling in the election, To the contrary, Trump repeatedly referred to Russian meddling as ‘fake news’ during the entire first year of his presidency.

    As Trump began the second year of his presidency, he, political allies and right-wing media were growing increasingly hostile to the Mueller Probe. The term ‘witch-hunt’ was being used on an almost daily basis. Threats to fire Mueller and Rosenstein became regular features of the news. Rudy Giuliani was brought in as Trump’s lawyer with demands that Mueller end his probe by September. Most recently a caucus of severe conservatives has threatened to impeach Rod Rosenstein.

    Yet despite two years of controversy surrounding Trump’s links to Russia, Trump goes to Canada and disrupts the G-7 Summit with boorish behavior towards the participants; even carrying on a Twitter feud with Justin Trudeau in the summit’s aftermath. Only weeks later, Trump disrupts the NATO summit with similarly boorish behavior. Trump’s thrust, it seems, is to cast as much doubt as possibly regarding his commitment to NATO. Trump goes from that summit to London where he totally embarrassed Teresa May by bad-mouthing her in an interview then denying comments made on tape.

    From the U.K. Trump goes to Helsinki insisting that his meeting with Putin be a one-on-one affair with no aides present. This despite the indictments of 12 Russian Military Intelligence Officers just handed down by Robert Mueller. Despite those indictments, Trump spent 2 hours ‘alone’ with Putin (only translators were present)! Those 2 hours have to be the most suspicious ever spent by a sitting U.S. President.

    Trump and Putin then emerge to hold a press conference in which Trump not only sided with Putin against American Intelligence Agencies, but suggested that they work with Russian Intelligence Agencies to learn how the latter had nothing to do with election meddling. At this point Trump’s mask came off. He is clearly a stooge for Putin and the entire world was witness.

    At this point every American who cares about this country should want Donald Trump out of office as soon as possible. Trump can no longer be trusted to even read intelligence reports. His continued presence in the White House is a major security threat. And anyone who doesn’t see that is either brainless or a Putin sympathizer.


      Then Peter Shill woke up from his dream and looked in a mirror to see what a fake Peter Shill is.

    2. Alright Peter, let’s pretend for a moment you were advising any President of the United States going into the summit with Putin. What would you have recommended he say publicly to President Putin and the Russians?

      And no, don’t cop out by saying I wouldn’t have done or said… What should our President say publicly for all the world to see and hear?

      I’ll wait.

      1. How about this?

        “A complete and total shutdown of purchases of Russian exports for the United States and Europe.”

        That would have been my proposal for Putin.

        1. “A complete and total shutdown of purchases of Russian exports for the United States and Europe.”

          That would have been my proposal for Putin.

          What strategic goal do you believe would be achieved by that action?

          1. Olly, a total and complete shut down on buying Russian exports would weaken Putin tremendously. Most of the country’s wealth is generated on selling natural resources to the West.

            It would isolate Russia and force them to take a more conciliatory foreign policy towards their neighbors.

            I would say we will not end the embargo until Russia leaves Ukraine entirely.

            The 2014 invasion of Ukraine remains an abomination and I wish the US government took a hard line on it. I have extended family in that region of Europe and the Putin invasion has greatly increased instability there.

            Trump almost never even mentions it.

            1. Do you agree with President Trump’s hardline stance with our NATO allies and especially Germany’s Angela Merkel regarding the pipeline with Russia?

              1. Yes, I do agree with his stance on Germany. However, he did not call for a ban on exports from Russia, and only attacked the pipeline, which is a small fraction of Russia’s exports.

                1. Is it reasonable to assume what our President is willing to say publicly was not expressed in more specific terms privately? For instance, if President Trump wanted to squeeze the Russian economy would it make sense for him to stand next to Putin and threaten him with economic sanctions, or would he accomplish the same thing by convincing our European allies to buy elsewhere?

                  1. It would make more sense to do it publicly. I have family in Western Ukraine and in Poland. They would love for the US and EU to call for an embargo on Russia. It would greatly increase morale in Europe and would put Russia on notice that their economy would be devastated if they continue on their path of aggression.

                    Trump has never once condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, nor its chemical attacks in Britain.

                    Instead, we have a president who openly sides with Putin over the US government.

                    Even if you don’t believe Trump knew about Russia’s attempts to help him in 2016, he is now openly colluding with Putin.

          2. Olly, I would be satisfied if Germany just stopped buying oil from Russia. We cannot totally isolate Russia and that might not be a good idea. What is the result you want? Revolution? How did that work out in Libya? What we should strive for is stability and gradual movement in a positive direction.

        2. But you’re down with US diplomacy with the Al Saud crime syndicate, with more annual beheadings than the rest of the globe combined, including ISIS?

          How do you rate anything Russia did Re. USA voting scams with the USA assassinating and replacing by military and financial force legally installed State Leaders throughout our history?

      2. Olly: why would Trump spend 2 hours ‘alone’ with Putin???? Millions of people already suspected him of being a stooge. If Trump had any common sense he would have wanted at least 5 aides in that meeting to serve as witnesses.

        No president has ever done more to make himself a suspect.

        1. “…why would Trump spend 2 hours ‘alone’ with Putin????” -Peter Hill

          Stupidity and/or hubris.

          1. I can think of few more details to add to both Trump’s stupidity and his hubris. For instance, Trump is probably going to need Putin’s help getting reelected in 2020. And especially so if Putin actually releases the tape recordings of Trump’s private conversation with Putin rather than merely threatening to do so.

        2. No president has ever done more to make himself a suspect.

          LOL! He was a suspect before he was elected and will be one long after he leaves office. Gnashing your teeth about it will do nothing but ruin your teeth.

          why would Trump spend 2 hours ‘alone’ with Putin????

          I don’t know, because that’s what Presidents do!? Because nothing demonstrates weakness better than requiring your elected President be chaperoned in a meeting with another head-of-state. Do you seriously believe anything actionable out of that meeting would remain a secret?

          Just relax, serious people that actually put aside partisan politics won’t let your bogeyman hurt you. Maybe your party and your progressive ideology, but not our republic.

          You’re welcome.

        3. Peter,..
          Why did Trump meet alone with N.Korea’s Kim?
          There are reasons why a President may want a “private” meeting with other heads of state, and it certainly is not unprecedented.

        4. Suspect for what? Nothing he may have said would be binding on our country without ratification by our Senate. Or did you forget about that rule since Obama ignored it for 8 years?

          1. FFS,
            So now they’re concerned about an Uber presidency. Fortunately for them conservatives don’t want one either. So while 50% of the country was building monuments to Obama’s reign, now we have probably 75+% concerned with the separation of powers.

    3. “At this point every American who cares about this country should want Donald Trump out of office”

      Agreed! President pansy appears to be traitor. At the very least he is an incompetent boot licking wuss. What a wimp!

      1. Bill W:

        I guess new missiles to Poland pointing at Moscow, arms to Ukraine, killing Russian surrogates in Syria with bombs and running Russian diplomats out of the country makes one a “boot licking wuss.” Maybe Trump should elevate us to DEFCON4 to show his stuff.

        1. Mark,
          Perhaps these unhinged Lefties would have preferred President Trump bring out his aide with the football (nuclear), when Putin was giving him the soccer ball. Trade you!

          In all seriousness, there was nothing President Trump could have done that would have silenced his critics. Had he acted as Putin’s footstool, launched nukes, or anywhere between, the fact he is the President is all that was necessary for their unhinged reactions to that summit.

          1. LMAO! putin is a dictator and killer. treasonous trump, in all seriousness (if u can type such bs then so can I), got down on the ground and licked the thugs “strong and powerful” feet..

            I understand why traitor trump paid off a doctor to dodge the vietnam war. But this cowardice is simply treason. If the conservative congress were patriotic they would start articles of impeachment.

            1. “would start articles of impeachment.”

              There are not enough hinges in the world to get the unhinged Bill W. back on track.

              1. your response appears as wimpy as your cowardly, treasonous president. now please go back and play with your hammer and sickle

                1. “your response appears as wimpy as your cowardly, treasonous president. now please go back and play with your hammer and sickle”

                  Bill W. there are sensible ways of dealing with dangerous enemies. Girlymen sometimes try to prove how manly they are by acting stupid.

                  1. “Girlymen sometimes try to prove how manly they are by acting stupid”

                    at 2:16 you posted

                    “there are sensible ways of dealing with dangerous enemies”?

                    so you are suggesting the current conservative foreign policy is to prostrate oneself to a murderous dictator and belittle your own country?

                    I understand the desperation to triage this mess. especially for party before country trumpers and trumpettes. But the traitor trump will not be able to walk himself back on this. Helsinki was TREASON! I haven’t put a bumper sticker on one of our cars in decades……..but……..

                    1. “so you are suggesting the current conservative foreign policy is to prostrate oneself to a murderous dictator and belittle your own country?”

                      He did neither of those two things and even though he didn’t have to, he corrected his double negative. Look at the Brookings Institute to see what your weenie Obama did and then compare it to the aggressive actions Trump has taken. That has been posted several times as well so I won’t waste my time listing it to you again. Instead, I will leave you to wallow in your ignorance.

            2. Bill W:

              You don’t know the definition of treason (hint: it requires an enemy with whom we are at war). Now, you’ve got a working knowledge of sedition. I’ll give you that.

              1. Mespo is technically correct. And I fully intend to hold him to that technical correctness should the need arise.

        2. ROFL! Yes! he is president pansy. We’ve never had such a weak excuse for a leader.

          Maybe if traitor trump actually fully embraced and enforced already approved russian sanctions, you could say he isn’t the weakest to ever walk this earth. But since he only gets off the ground groveling when congress and the public when push into a corner (did u see the train wreck fake correction yesterday? and u think that worthless piece of garbage is worth defending?) he currently rates as an unpatriotic wimp and patsy.

          but don’t worry he is tough on 2 year old asylum seekers – so i guess that is good enough for nazi/white supremacists.

          1. “ROFL! Yes! he is president pansy. We’ve never had such a weak excuse for a leader.”

            “Throughout his presidency, Obama consistently underestimated the challenge posed by Putin’s regime.
            But not everything is relative; we should not slip into collective amnesia over the Obama administration’s weak and underwhelming response to Russian aggression. Throughout his presidency, Obama consistently underestimated the challenge posed by Putin’s regime. His foreign policy was firmly grounded in the premise that Russia was not a national security threat to the United States. In 2012, Obama disparaged Mitt Romney for exaggerating the Russian threat—“the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama quipped. This breezy attitude prevailed even as Russia annexed Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine, intervened in Syria, and hacked the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Obama’s response during these critical moments was cautious at best, and deeply misguided at worst. Even the imposition of sanctions on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine was accompanied by so much propitiation and restraint elsewhere that it didn’t deter Russia from subsequent aggression, including the risky 2016 influence operation in the United States. Obama, confident that history was on America’s side, for the duration of his time in office underestimated the damaging impact Russia could achieve through asymmetric means.

            Obama’s cautious Russia policy is grounded in three conceptual errors: a failure to grasp the true nature of the Russian threat, most clearly visible in his administration’s restrained response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014; a “long view” of historical trends which in his view inexorably “bent” toward liberalism; and the perception that formidable domestic political obstacles stood in his way when it came to crafting a response to Putin’s assault on the elections in 2016.”

            1. It’s a reasonable inference that Obama’s understanding of foreign affairs was largely a function of the mentality promoted by a certain sort of magazine journalism ca. 1983. His mother would have been at home with this, as would faculty members where he attended school, as would (w/ scant doubt), the ‘international students’ in his circle of friends. Some of these publications favored the enemy during the Cold War (The Nation, Mother Jones, Radical America, The Village Voice). Others fancied themselves too sophisticated morally and intellectually to take the side of their own country in a dispute abroad (The New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, Commonweal, the Sulzberger editorial page). Others had a variegated response which included these two (Harper’s, In These Times, Working Papers). Others struck pluperfect poses, as if the government’s choices were it’s own artifact rather than what circumstances dictated (Dissent). See Lewis Amselem on the culture of the Foreign Service; these types are everywhere.

              Obama is an unremarkable man with political identikit of the deputy dean of students. We suffer as a nation because these types are so common among our bourgeoisie.

              1. Oo La La Gaga! c/o Merriam Webster

                Definition of pluperfect

                1 : past perfect

                2 : utterly perfect or complete

            2. “Throughout his presidency, Obama consistently underestimated the challenge posed by Putin’s regime.”

              I gather the quotes were due to copy and paste from elsewhere? any citation?. No worries – most convicts struggle with cogent foreign policy. As for Obama, he certainly could have done some things differently……and some better. But at least he never got down on his knees and spent minutes licking the butt of a murderous thug (“strong and powerful” in wimpy trump’s traitorous words).

              We all knew the racist trump was an idiot, moron, etc… (quotes from his own cabinet). But this unpatriotic, treasonous groveling at putin’s feet? shameful….disgraceful. One would actually hope putin has the goods on traitor trump – at least then we would maybe understand why trump is such a cowardly traitor. Maybe the republican Mueller will bail out our pansy president.

              1. “I gather the quotes were due to copy and paste from elsewhere?”

                Yes, I had posted this more than once with the source. The Brookings Institute.

                “But at least he never got down on his knees and spent minutes licking the butt of a murderous ”

                No pictures of Trump doing anything of that nature but there are plenty of video’s of Obama bending over.

                1. The traitor trump groveled to the dictator. and since we now know treasonous trump knew about the “meddling” since before inauguration, virtually everything said since is a known lie.

                  However, I will give president pansy for not saluting the murderous thug. it seems the wimp may have learned something since the north korea debacle.

                  1. You seem to forget that Trump didn’t know very much about the FBI’s meddling in his affairs until he was told by Rogers. How would he know about Russian meddling except what the Obama administration already knew and reported?

                    You seem to create stories based on what you would like to hear instead of one’s that are actually based on fact.

    4. “The 80s called; they want their Russia policy back.” Geezis Soetoro Obama

    5. how about you excerpt the relevant text and quit posting long long quotes of tiresome garbage and get to your point

  12. Alright, so who lit L4D’s fuse about the missing servers? Well done! 140 more posts from her on this thread and she will still have no answer as to why the FBI didn’t take custody of them. 🙂

    1. Olly,…
      i noticed something earlier that was interesting, maybe even encouraging.
      When I remember, I sign up for notifications when there are new comments on a given thread.
      And those notifications indicate who is commenting, and who the comment is
      replying to.
      Many of Late4Dinner’s comments also show that those comments are “in response to Late4Dinner”.
      Basically, she is addessing herself in these comments.
      I don’t won’t to get anyone’s hopes up, but a “self contained” troll might get in the way less often.
      If she is increasingly talking to herself, she’ll get in the way of other people’s exchanges less often.

      1. “I don’t won’t to get anyone’s hopes up, but a “self contained” troll might get in the way less often.” -Tom Nash

        You’re such a joke, Nash.

        Sometimes people reply to themselves simply to add information.

        And here’s a news flash: This blog belongs to its owner — Jonathan Turley — and the “comments section” isn’t owned by any one group. If you only want to hear your own voice — and those of your ilk — go to a chat room.

        1. I’m aware if who ” this blog belongs to”, but thank you anyway for more useless information.😌😞😊

          1. You’re predicatable, Nash. I’ll give you that. (And don’t skimp on those dopey emoticons. They become you.)

        1. A while back, “anonymous” made a a snarky remark about someone posting too often to make the most frequent commentor list.
          I pointed out to that fool that she was on that list, too.
          It had just been published here.

      2. Are you tallying the comments Late4Yoga posts under her other sock-puppets?

        1. TS to Dance…..I no longer read most of L4D’s posts, and have never tried to count them.
          I think someone once noticed of the first c. 30 comments on a thread, about 20 were L4D’s and about HER chosen topics.
          My last comment was about the griping “anonymous” did about someone who made the “most frequent commentators” list.
          I pointed out that anonymous made that same list.
          I was going to explain the concept of “irony”, but ran short on the lengthy time it would have taken to do so.
          As far as the sock puppets, there were 2 cases when I knew for sure that the same person was posting under different user names.
          Don’t know about L4D posting under other names….some who have been here longer than me, for many years, believe that she might be a woman who “officially” left here after a conflict with this site’s administrator, or moderator.

      3. “Obama is an unremarkable man with political identikit of the deputy dean of students”

        DSS, great description.

Comments are closed.