Why did Russia want Trump to be president?

Owl'd You're Up! said:
I understood that to be your argument before, Amadeus. I am convinced it is internally unsound, and it doesn't fly with what we know about Putin.
Click to expand...

It doesn't fly with you, but then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I think it makes perfect sense from every angle.

First, if the Trumpy isn't the driving force, consistently surrounding himself with Russia-aligned personnel, even trying to establish a back channel behind the U.S. President's and the intelligence community's back, is inexplicable. Sticking with these people in the light of serious allegations (Flynn, Kushner) of lying about, or establishing secretive Russia contacts also doesn't fly. Nope, the Trumpy is in on it, and his interests of some kind are being served by that alliance. If the Trumpy knows one thing, it's where his bread is buttered. That's where the search should begin, and be successful.
Click to expand...

I don't know if Trump is the driving force on his end, I think people overestimate Trump, his intelligence, his general awareness and/or involvement in his surroundings, etc. He's a failure of a businessman, has almost zero knowledge or interest in history, doesn't read, doesn't proactively increase his knowledge, and is driven almost entirely by his gut instinct. Lets stop pretending that he's some 4D chess player.

Second, Putin wouldn't invest time, money, and political capital in a wrecking ball that is so easily manipulated as you say, as it might come flying back in Putin's direction. I, for one, wouldn't believe that for a second, as it would amount to the schoolyard taunt mentioned above, with Putin ending up with egg all over his face. Nope, I cannot see how that is supposed to fly.
Click to expand...

It might come flying back in Putin's direction, it might not. One thing I don't underestimate is Putin and his ability to capitalize on a situation. I think Putin is the 4D chess player, whereas Trump is off in the corner with a propeller-beanie-hat playing Hungry Hungry Hippos.

It would seem to me you are underestimating both Putin and Trump to hold on to a theory that would amount to infantile game-playing. That's not my impression.
Click to expand...

It's not a game, and I never suggested that there is anything infantile in Putin's machinations.
 
I suppose that it's a pretty dicey choice, but if you are faced with much stronger opponents it is probably preferable to have them led by a narcissistic clown who never grew up. More dicey than I'd care to risk, admittedly, but the Russians like gambles.
 
anatta said:
my bad for thinking this was a serious thread..it's an interesting topic.
Click to expand...

It was a good thread until it devolved into a pissing contest.

It amounts to discerning Putin's intent in something he may or may not have done, depending how much stock you put in the intelligent estimate about Putin and the election.

How many angels dance on the head of a pin lol?
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
... sponsoring a wrecking ball that might fly back and devastate his own position.

Nope.
Click to expand...

Trying to predict the outcome of a Trump presidency, from Putin's perspective, would be a fools errand. Trump had virtually no track record on foreign policy whereas Hillary was a known quantity. Putin had already proven he could manage her, so the safe bet would be to pull for Hillary.

Putin was putting along just fine under Obama/Hillary and now Putin is being threatened under Trump in Syria. I'll wager he misses the former.
 
Putin wants what the USA should also want -a settling of the relationship into a bi-polar mutual concern
for security.
NATO expansionism has all but ruled that out under Clinton,and Bush had Condy Rice.
But Obama is the one that demonized Putin with his comments of "Bad boy slouching"due to Obama's refusal
to take Russian security needs as real.

Much of this goes to the Ukrainian Euromaiden where US meddling caused Viktor Yanukovych to abandon his office and flee the country.
It was a coup supported by U.S.A.I.D. money -and hyped by John McCain and Victoria Nulands 'cupcakes'
in Independence Square.
It was an attempt to put in a US puppet ( recall Nuland's "Fuck the EU's" conversation)

That was part of or directed by Hillary Clinton's State Dept. No way would Putin want any more of that.
It forced his hand on Crimea
( having just secured a long term lease for his Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol w/Yanukovych).

Also Clinton is a known warmonger, with typical Russiaphobia views . Her's is the driving force behind Obama's monopolar view of US/Russian relations. Her's is a policy of interventionism.

Trump wanted to try to work past this to establish a path to rapproachment.
Trump had no interest in the Cold War 2.0- rightfully viewing Putin as wanting a deal.

Of course this changed with the Flynn firing,and the appointment of Matthis; but Trump still has to meet Putin
so there is still hope or a reduction in the arms race.
Perhaps the hysteria of the Russiaphobes could be undercut by steps towards arms reduction..but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Darth Omar said:
Trying to predict the outcome of a Trump presidency, from Putin's perspective, would be a fools errand.
Click to expand...

That would usually be somewhat true (and still it's being tried in the foreign policy departments all around the world), but it is not at all a fool's errand in case there were mutual assurances and agreed-upon collaboration to achieve certain shared aims.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
That would usually be somewhat true (and still it's being tried in the foreign policy departments all around the world), but it is not at all a fool's errand in case there were mutual assurances and agreed-upon collaboration to achieve certain shared aims.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Defeating ISIS would be an excellent shared aim.
 
Darth Omar said:
Trying to predict the outcome of a Trump presidency, from Putin's perspective, would be a fools errand. Trump had virtually no track record on foreign policy whereas Hillary was a known quantity. Putin had already proven he could manage her, so the safe bet would be to pull for Hillary.

Putin was putting along just fine under Obama/Hillary and now Putin is being threatened under Trump in Syria. I'll wager he misses the former.
Click to expand...
Russiaphobic events, and the Flynn firing overcame Trump's geo-political views as a candidate.
The Deep State ensures it's anti-Russianism endures as a policy.
Recall Comey's testimony
They're coming after America, which I hope we all love equally.
Click to expand...

Hopefully this all goes away with the demise of this insane idea of "collusion", and a realpolitik
relation w/Putin becomes possible.
But the Russiaphobes are in Congress as well as the bureaucracy (Deep State).

John McCain gets way too much play, and the safe bet for those weasels is to go along happily pursuing Cold War madness
 
Darth Omar said:
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Defeating ISIS would be an excellent shared aim.
Click to expand...

I'd say it is at the very least a questionable thing in case the aims are kept secret, not just from the world and Americans, but from even the American intelligence community.

Oh, BTW, Russia isn't overly interested in defeating Daesh, and neither is Syria, as they've left that task largely to the Kurds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top