Abdullah: Compromise with Russia on Crimea to get its help in Syria

anatta

100% recycled karma
He also talked about the need for the United States to engage with Russian President Vladi*mir Putin and perhaps make some concessions to solve the crisis in Syria. Excerpts follow:


Q. What would you like to come out of your meeting with President Trump?

A. The president, when I met him [in February], was very keen to solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue as quickly as possible. Now all of us have got to do the heavy lifting.

How do you see the situation in Syria? Is Raqqa [which the Islamic State claims as its capital] about to fall? And if so, what happens next?

A. I think Raqqa will fall. I think things are going well in Syria and Iraq in defeating terrorism. The only problem is [militants] are going to move down towards us [in Jordan], which is a challenge, but we are ready for it in coordination with the U.S. and the British.

But they are also going elsewhere — you see them shift to Libya, and, as we succeed in Libya, they will move down into the Chad Basin, and that is going to strengthen Boko Haram. If Boko Haram is strengthened, then that is going to affect al-Shabab. Many members of the U.S. administration get that, and I think you are seeing a new strategy. We can’t just focus on Syria and Iraq. We have to focus internationally — wherever these people are, we have to take the fight to them.

Regarding the chemical attacks we saw in Syria this week, we have the moral obligation as members of the international community to fight this horrendous tragedy that is befalling civilians in Syria.

Q. But the attacks on civilians in Syria were most likely caused by President Bashar al-Assad.

A. Yes. We have to have a unified policy on what is acceptable and what is not.

Q. Does that include getting rid of President Assad?

A. Getting rid of Assad is a discussion for [future] Geneva [talks]. The Astana talks [backed by Russia, Iran and Turkey] that we’re involved in are purely related to getting a military cease-fire. We all know that the Russians want [Assad] there longer than the rest of us do, but I don’t think the Russians are wed to Assad. Common sense dictates that somebody who is the figurehead of such bloodshed towards his people probably will move on

. So you think that at forthcoming Geneva talks, the Russians will get rid of Assad?

A. I think they will barter on how Assad exits. At the end of the day, we need a regime that is accepted by all Syrian people.


Q. Do you want to see the U.S. engage with Russia over Syria?

A. I’ll tell you why that works: From the Russian point of view, they play what I describe as a three-dimensional chess game. To them, Crimea is important, Syria is important, Ukraine, and we see them in Libya. The Americans and Europeans must deal with the Russians on all these issues simultaneously.


Q. Once you understand these issues together, what do you do?

A. Then you horse-trade. For the Russians I think the most important thing is Crimea. If you come to an understanding on Crimea, I think you will see much more flexibility on Syria, and I think Ukraine then becomes the least problematic.

From Putin’s point of view, he has a major challenge with terrorism. ISIS international is heading towards Moscow. I think [the subway attack in] St. Petersburg is the start of foreign fighters moving to another battleground. Putin has to find a political solution sooner rather than later in Syria. If European countries have problems with foreign fighters, the Russians have 10 times more problems. They have all the terrorists from the Caucasus and have had two wars in Chechnya.

Q. What do you expect from President Putin?

A. A Russian-American dialogue will help. Otherwise, the Americans and Russians will fight it out in Syria and Libya. If you keep this tension going, the next problem will be in Moldova. . . . Russians are going to continue to shake the tree, unless we come to a meeting of minds.


Q. Is that a good solution for the West?

A. If we can solve Syria and come to a common understanding that is fair for the Syrian people, then yes. Crimea is Putin’s No. 1 issue, and I think that you say, “Let’s discuss Crimea, but when it comes to Syria, you have to move.”


Q. Is it true that Arab leaders are rejoicing because they feel that President Trump will be tougher on Iran than his predecessor?

A. Some countries do, some countries don’t.


Q. What is your view?

A. There are some strategic problems that Iran is involved in in our area. But here, again, is an opportunity: bringing Israel and the Arabs closer together. Because of the Iranian regime’s potential threat to the region, Israel wants to have a relationship with the Arabs. But the problem that is [standing] between the Arabs and the Israelis is the Palestinians. The whole point of our peace initiative is for us to be the guarantors of Israel’s security. If we can solve the Palestinian problem, then this is a new era of stability in our area, where Israelis are truly a part of the neighborhood.


Q. Are you worried when you look north that Iran will remain dominant in a post-Raqqa Syria?

A. There is an attempt to forge a geographic link between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah/Lebanon. I raised this with President Putin, who was fully aware of . . . Iran’s strategic intent to have power there.


Q. On your border, don’t you have Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps?

A. Yes, the Revolutionary Guard is about 70 kilometers away [in southern Syria]. If it is bad news for us, you have to put the Israeli equation into this.


Q. They must be very concerned. What will you do about it?

A. We were very explicit with the Russians, as were the Israelis, that nonstate actors from outside coming towards our border are not going to be tolerated. I think we came to an understanding with the Russians.
Q. Will Iran dominate Iraq in the future, if nothing changes?

A. We have had a hand in the reconciliation between all the Iraqis — Kurds, Sunnis and Shia. I will be meeting with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders in the near future, so we can build the atmosphere of reconciliation.


Q. But right now it looks like Iran will dominate a future Iraq. Am I wrong?

A. It has tremendous influence in Baghdad. I think bringing the nationalists together who believe in Iraq . . . tends to level the balance more.


Q. But isn’t the growing influence of Iran a threat to the region? Isn’t Iran backing the Shia-led Houthi militias in Yemen?

A. Iran is there. Iran is also in east Africa and in Africa in general. They have been there for a while trying to dominate. That has been somewhat nipped in the bud. But unless we strengthen the African countries, then other players will come in and try to dictate their policies. So the U.S. is more engaged in Somalia and is strengthening its relationships with Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti, because those are the critical countries fighting al-Shabab.


Q. What about U.S. aid to Jordan? Do you want to see it continued at its present level or increased?

A. We want to stop being a country that receives aid within the next four or five years. So increasing aid will allow us to increase growth and be able to wean ourselves off aid more quickly. We are going through a massive restructuring of the armed forces — we are coming down in size. We are shedding all our heavy equipment, because we can’t afford it. So support to the military is also important. With 20 percent of our country’s population being refugees, that puts an immense burden on our government. We are covering their health and education. The U.S. is our biggest supporter. We received $1.275 billion last year.

Q. What was your impression of President Trump?

A. He wants to engage and make a deal for Israelis and Palestinians. I was really struck by the commitment he had in bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together.


Q. What do you worry about the most?

A. My people and their economic situation.


Q. Unemployment is very high in Jordan, isn’t it?

A. There is a lot of unemployment, and that could lead to radicalization. That is what has kept me up for the past five or six years: the economy. Not the politics or the military
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-card-e:homepage/story&utm_term=.ea1f88769bc6
 
OUTSTANDING..
Instead of the demonization of Russia - or Obama's calling Russia a "regional power"
and practicing uni-polarism- you DEAL WITH RUSSIA

This was Trump's ideas ; so called "transactional foreign policy"and it's how Bannon wanted to play it
But with the cowards in Congress who only want confrontation,and the Dem's opposition to
anything Putin ( for purely political reasons) that might not be possible anymore.

It's the same idea of playing the "Russian card",and it's how nations accomodate each other and make progress on issues like Syria..realpolitik
 
OUTSTANDING..
Instead of the demonization of Russia - or Obama's calling Russia a "regional power"
and practicing uni-polarism- you DEAL WITH RUSSIA

This was Trump's ideas ; so called "transactional foreign policy"and it's how Bannon wanted to play it
But with the cowards in Congress who only want confrontation,and the Dem's opposition to
anything Putin ( for purely political reasons) that might not be possible anymore.

It's the same idea of playing the "Russian card",and it's how nations accomodate each other and make progress on issues like Syria..realpolitik
Tillerson has been saying that Russia is complicit or incompetent in regards to Syria using chemical weapons.

Syria isn't going to change because it can't. Assad's number one priority (and Russia's) is staying in power and attacking the rebels. Fighting ISIS is secondary. What kind of deal are they going to concoct?
 
Here's an old WaPo article from 9/5/13:


President Obama arrived in Russia today for the Group of 20 economic summit, where everyone is hoping he might be able to make some progress with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Syria. But Obama will not actually be meeting with Putin -- they had planned a one-on-one, but the White House canceled it after Russia sheltered NSA leaker Edward Snowden. So the mission to soften Putin's support for Syria, which is a major obstacle to ending the war, would appear to be over before it's begun.

It's probably just as well. Russia has, or believes it has, four big reasons for supporting Syria. And those reasons are so important to Russia's sense of its own national interests, not to mention its view of itself as a wounded great power, that there's probably not much Obama could do to get it to change its position.

It most matters that Russia still backs Syria because Moscow blocks the U.N. Security Council from passing anything that might hurt the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. That means that, under international law, almost any U.S.-led military action against Assad would be illegal. (As some critics point out, it doesn't say much for international law that it can be dictated by Moscow.) Given that the Obama administration's primary case for strikes rests on enforcing the international law and norm against chemical weapons, Russia has managed to not just hobble any international effort to organize against Syria but even the Obama administration's domestic case for strikes.

Russia's support for Syria also includes sending lots of weapons that make it easier for Assad to keep killing civilians and will make it much harder if the outside world ever wants to intervene. And, whether or not you think military action is a good idea, it's also true that Russia's support for Assad makes him less likely to negotiate or to accept a peace deal if he thinks he can win outright.

Here are the four big reasons that Russia wants to protect Assad, the importance of which vary depending on whom you ask, but all of which are probably worth much more to Putin than anything Obama might offer or threaten:

1. Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and Russia’s last foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union.

2. Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, as well as a touch of national insecurity, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances.

3. Russia also hates the idea of "international intervention" against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism and ultimately a threat to Russia.

4. Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports, and Russia needs the money.

With the exception of the fourth, you might notice that all of these have something to do with the Cold War, which still very much influences Russia's view of itself, its place in the world and its relationship with the dreaded West. To paraphrase Faulkner, the past is never dead in foreign affairs. It isn't even past.
 
Tillerson has been saying that Russia is complicit or incompetent in regards to Syria using chemical weapons.

Syria isn't going to change because it can't. Assad's number one priority (and Russia's) is staying in power and attacking the rebels. Fighting ISIS is secondary. What kind of deal are they going to concoct?
well I don't think assadd himself is critical to the Russians -maintaining their access to the client state of Syria is.
And assad is becoming more and more isolated -if Iran walks away, i don't think Russia alone can
prop him up.
It's getting more and more difficult because of all the Russian gains under Obama-but Crimea is clearly going to stay in Putins hands ( since the access to Sevastopol was threatened),,

I'm more interested in agreements to scale down the Cold War in Europe -with it's frightening mindless inertia
to arming and re-arming over and over. but any deal would break this vicious cycle of Russiaphobia
and a reactive Putin.

IOW's..start anywhere, get some gains, use the gains to start low level talks ( which we don't do anymore)
and then leverage out for some kina Summit.
None of this is new. It's the same blueprint we used for detente in Cold War 1.
 
well I don't think assadd himself is critical to the Russians -maintaining their access to the client state of Syria is.
And assad is becoming more and more isolated -if Iran walks away, i don't think Russia alone can
prop him up.
It's getting more and more difficult because of all the Russian gains under Obama-but Crimea is clearly going to stay in Putins hands ( since the access to Sevastopol was threatened),,

I'm more interested in agreements to scale down the Cold War in Europe -with it's frightening mindless inertia
to arming and re-arming over and over. but any deal would break this vicious cycle of Russiaphobia
and a reactive Putin.

IOW's..start anywhere, get some gains, use the gains to start low level talks ( which we don't do anymore)
and then leverage out for some kina Summit.
None of this is new. It's the same blueprint we used for detente in Cold War 1.
But since Putin already has the Crimea, what is he going to negotiate for? Drop the sanctions for him illegally invading and occupying another country?

The question to ask is how can we change Syria. You aren't going to replace Assad (or marginalize his position) with a rebel leader or sympathizer, they hate the Russians and Putin won't agree to that. So if you replace him with Assad 2.0, what will change? You'll still have a civil war, lots of civilian casualties, and chaos overall.
 
But since Putin already has the Crimea, what is he going to negotiate for? Drop the sanctions for him illegally invading and occupying another country?

The question to ask is how can we change Syria. You aren't going to replace Assad (or marginalize his position) with a rebel leader or sympathizer, they hate the Russians and Putin won't agree to that. So if you replace him with Assad 2.0, what will change? You'll still have a civil war, lots of civilian casualties, and chaos overall.
the 2 issues in Crimea are his support of the Russian separatists in Donbass,and of course Crimea.

Putin really needs sanction relief. I'm confident if we gave him that he would stop supporting the separatists.
The real reason he supports the separatists is to federate control of the east from a hostile Kyiv.

So you make the grand bargain.
Drop the sanctions and recognize Russian control over Crimea,in return Putin stops supporting the separatists.
The separatists are costly, and eastern Uk is already a Russian speaking area with cultural and strong economic ties to Russia -so this is all feasible
++

as to Syria, you are correct in the multitude of players,but that also opens up a multitude of possibilities.
Again Iran & Hezbollah want a Shi'a- or in Assad's case an Alawite- in charge.
The Sunnis obviously do not. So you have the intractable problem of sectarianism like you do all over the ME.

It's much more difficult to "solve" - i think Syria will eventually be torn apart since "assad must go"-literally.

But i might be missing some key moves here too -it would take an international peace conference
which is what everyone is saying..get that going(including the regional powers) and who knows where it ends
 
the 2 issues in Crimea are his support of the Russian separatists in Donbass,and of course Crimea.

Putin really needs sanction relief. I'm confident if we gave him that he would stop supporting the separatists.
The real reason he supports the separatists is to federate control of the east from a hostile Kyiv.

So you make the grand bargain.
Drop the sanctions and recognize Russian control over Crimea,in return Putin stops supporting the separatists.
The separatists are costly, and eastern Uk is already a Russian speaking area with cultural and strong economic ties to Russia -so this is all feasible
You can't recognize Russian control over Crimea, that is defacto saying it was legal to invade and continue to occupy it. Droppring the sanctions, sure, but you have to swallow a big piece of poop while you do that.

++

as to Syria, you are correct in the multitude of players,but that also opens up a multitude of possibilities.
Again Iran & Hezbollah want a Shi'a- or in Assad's case an Alawite- in charge.
The Sunnis obviously do not. So you have the intractable problem of sectarianism like you do all over the ME.

It's much more difficult to "solve" - i think Syria will eventually be torn apart since "assad must go"-literally.

But i might be missing some key moves here too -it would take an international peace conference
which is what everyone is saying..get that going(including the regional powers) and who knows where it ends
I don't think you will have anyone actually in charge of Syria any time in the near future, there will always be a major group opposing them and there is a good reason to dislike any of those groups.

Assad is dangerous because he has nothing to gain by compromise, he's already moved all his chips into the middle of the table. Putin is dangerous because his only hole card is playing the Russian strong man and cannot afford to look weak. And it is difficult to go after ISIS without them.

It's a clusterfuck.
 
You can't recognize Russian control over Crimea, that is defacto saying it was legal to invade and continue to occupy it. Droppring the sanctions, sure, but you have to swallow a big piece of poop while you do that.
well if you don't give to get,you live with Russia federating the Uk.
and more importantly you live with a continual mindless escalation of Cold War 2.0
with such CRAP as the European Reassurance Initiative ($4 b a year for more deployment) and Russian nuclear cruise missiles violating the INF.
Putin has no incentive to moderate - we are literally in an arm race


I don't think you will have anyone actually in charge of Syria any time in the near future, there will always be a major group opposing them and there is a good reason to dislike any of those groups.

Assad is dangerous because he has nothing to gain by compromise, he's already moved all his chips into the middle of the table. Putin is dangerous because his only hole card is playing the Russian strong man and cannot afford to look weak. And it is difficult to go after ISIS without them.

It's a clusterfuck.
that is is....
 
well if you don't give to get,you live with Russia federating the Uk.
and more importantly you live with a continual mindless escalation of Cold War 2.0
with such CRAP as the European Reassurance Initiative ($4 b a year for more deployment) and Russian nuclear cruise missiles violating the INF.
Putin has no incentive to moderate - we are literally in an arm race
You can't talk about a Russian reset in a vacuum. That is what Trump was doing despite the fact he was fanning the flames of Cold War 2.0

Don't forget he called for the US to greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities. He questioned Putin wanting to extend the New START agreement saying it was one-sided and he's the guy who has been calling for a huge increase in US military spending for quite some time. His budget would increase it by an amount that isn't much less than Russia's entire defense budget. With talk like that, why wouldn't Russia want to expand its nuclear weapon deployments?

McCain, Graham, the old guard of the neocon war-hawks aren't to blame, they are white noise that has been there for years, they haven't changed.
 
You can't talk about a Russian reset in a vacuum. That is what Trump was doing despite the fact he was fanning the flames of Cold War 2.0

Don't forget he called for the US to greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities. He questioned Putin wanting to extend the New START agreement saying it was one-sided and he's the guy who has been calling for a huge increase in US military spending for quite some time. His budget would increase it by an amount that isn't much less than Russia's entire defense budget. With talk like that, why wouldn't Russia want to expand its nuclear weapon deployments?

McCain, Graham, the old guard of the neocon war-hawks aren't to blame, they are white noise that has been there for years, they haven't changed.
you most certainly can -that's why it's a "reset".
But i agree you cant do a reset with actually doing some game changing,or allowing for change.

NATO expansion far proceeds Trump; it's the baseline evil that has set us on this course of expanding up to,
and allowing talk of membership by Uk. For gawds sake ROMANIA is a member of NATO!! (WTF??)

It's clear to me that the USAID and Victoria Nulald et all caused the Euromaiden in Kyiv.
Yanukovych was talking about a more Russia-centric trade policy and we went nuts.

Our boy John McCain went over there along with Nuland and a host of putsch-people;
and by gawd they got rid of Yanukovycch.
But in doing so they set the stage for Crimea -Putin had just signed a long term lease for Sevastopol,
and now it was threatened by our meddling.
Putin absolutely needs access to the Black Sea fleet..well I think you can see how this went down.

so "reset" this self inflicted inertial escaltion as i mentioned above. what we are doing now is pure madness.

Much of Trump's budget is to rebuild from sequestor.. I'm not happy with all of it-
especially this concept of winning 2 land wars at the same time. It leads to bloated personnel .
But the budget would follow needs if we started to cut back on the "gee whiz" redundant weapons systems in Europe
 
you most certainly can -that's why it's a "reset".
But i agree you cant do a reset with actually doing some game changing,or allowing for change.

NATO expansion far proceeds Trump; it's the baseline evil that has set us on this course of expanding up to,
and allowing talk of membership by Uk. For gawds sake ROMANIA is a member of NATO!! (WTF??)

It's clear to me that the USAID and Victoria Nulald et all caused the Euromaiden in Kyiv.
Yanukovych was talking about a more Russia-centric trade policy and we went nuts.

Our boy John McCain went over there along with Nuland and a host of putsch-people;
and by gawd they got rid of Yanukovycch.
But in doing so they set the stage for Crimea -Putin had just signed a long term lease for Sevastopol,
and now it was threatened by our meddling.
Putin absolutely needs access to the Black Sea fleet..well I think you can see how this went down.

so "reset" this self inflicted inertial escaltion as i mentioned above. what we are doing now is pure madness.

Much of Trump's budget is to rebuild from sequestor.. I'm not happy with all of it-
especially this concept of winning 2 land wars at the same time. It leads to bloated personnel .
But the budget would follow needs if we started to cut back on the "gee whiz" redundant weapons systems in Europe
How can you talk reset when it is Trump who is fanning the flames of Cold War 2.0?

Why is he wanting to get into a nuclear arms race? And now his actions are going to force Russia to dig in its heels. This is all Trump's doing, not McCains.
 
How can you talk reset when it is Trump who is fanning the flames of Cold War 2.0?

Why is he wanting to get into a nuclear arms race? And now his actions are going to force Russia to dig in its heels. This is all Trump's doing, not McCains.
c'mon / you're better then this.
the Russians deploy nuclear tipped intermediate cruise missiles,
and you put that up in the same league as Trumps offhand remarks about Russia won't win a race?

Trump says a LOT of shit. i agree -but a lot of it was campaign rhetoric.
You have to look at what the parties can do from state to state talks -not rhetoric.

It takes lower level talks to build on, and from talks come policies. Rhetoric isn't helpful
but its' surely not determinative by itself.

McCains "doing" is constantly calling for more arms an more confrontations..
calling the russian hacking a "act of war' WTF does that mean -are we supposed to go to war?

Mccain is a crazy old man with a hard on for Putin. Fuck him. Bypass that nonsense in favor of 2 party talks
 
c'mon / you're better then this.
the Russians deploy nuclear tipped intermediate cruise missiles,
and you put that up in the same league as Trumps offhand remarks about Russia won't win a race?
They aren't off hand remarks. Yes first he made the tweet but then he reiterated it in an interview and then he questioned New START and told Putin directly that he thought it was a one-sided deal that favored Russia. You going to try to claim that is an offhand remark?

Trump says a LOT of shit. i agree -but a lot of it was campaign rhetoric.
This was after the election, he was president-elect and not campaigning.

You have to look at what the parties can do from state to state talks -not rhetoric.

It takes lower level talks to build on, and from talks come policies. Rhetoric isn't helpful
but its' surely not determinative by itself.

McCains "doing" is constantly calling for more arms an more confrontations..
calling the russian hacking a "act of war' WTF does that mean -are we supposed to go to war?

Mccain is a crazy old man with a hard on for Putin. Fuck him. Bypass that nonsense in favor of 2 party talks
McCain has been an uber-hawk for years. He hasn't changed. He's not the problem, the Russians probably make McCain jokes all the time, they know his shtick down pat and it's not what is driving US-Russian relations. Trump is the one who is driving them and he's a shitty driver.
 
They aren't off hand remarks. Yes first he made the tweet but then he reiterated it in an interview and then he questioned New START and told Putin directly that he thought it was a one-sided deal that favored Russia. You going to try to claim that is an offhand remark?

This was after the election, he was president-elect and not campaigning.

McCain has been an uber-hawk for years. He hasn't changed. He's not the problem, the Russians probably make McCain jokes all the time, they know his shtick down pat and it's not what is driving US-Russian relations. Trump is the one who is driving them and he's a shitty driver.
If the Russians are laughing off McCain they are surely dismissive of Trumps remarks.
All the rhetoric during and post election doesn't begin to stand up against Trump's Tomahawking Syria

If you notice this was the first time Putin himself said it was worse then he hoped ,and he tore up the de-conflict order,
and his secretary said "US Russian relations are at a low point" ( and this includes Obama)

By now it's evident what Trump says today can be bypassed in next week statement.
What Putin is looking at is US actions,and US policy as it evolves..

So....talking face to face 2 party talks is the only way for the states to deal -
not over Twitter,and not thru News agencies.

Talking can be breakthrus -even in this crappy US/Russian relations.
It's a workable strategy -much more then just flooding Europe with advanced and redundant weapons system.
One cannot not argue against talking ( unless it's John McCain/Graham)
 
McMaster has sought to reshape the National Security Council since joining the White House team. Earlier this week, the White House suggested it was McMaster that decided chief strategist Steve Bannon should no longer sit on the the NSC principals committee.
all that assumes Trump is still interested in talking after being stripped of Flynn and Bannon,
and replaced by the Russiaphobe McMaster.. That Russian reset is a ship that's passed-
now it's managing the conflicts
 
If the Russians are laughing off McCain they are surely dismissive of Trumps remarks.
No way. McCain is old stick and a senator buying his time until retirement. Trump is the new president. And they certainly don't dismiss something Trump says directly to Putin.

Akll the rhetoric during and post election doesn't begin to stand up against Trump Tomahawking Syria
And that is ALL TRUMP and ZERO MCCAIN. Trump is driving the it.

If you notice this was the first time Putin himself said it was worse then he hoped ,and he tore up the de-conflict order, and his secretary said "US Russian relations are at a low point" ( and this includes Obama)
And this is 100% TRUMP'S doing. You are making points against your own argument.

By now it's evident what Trump says today can be bypassed next week statement.
That's just an argument that tells Putin that he can't believe anything Trump says, that he's unpredictable and that he can't be trusted to do what he says.

What Putin is looking at is US actions,and US policy as it evolves..

So....talking face to face 2 party talks is the only way for the states to deal -
not over Twitter,and not thru News agencies.

Talking an be breakthrus -even in this crappy US/Russian relations.
It's a workable strategy -much more then just flooding Europe with advanced and redundant weapons system.
One cannot not argue against talking ( unless it's John McCain/Graham)
I'm not arguing against talking, they can talk. But it is time for Trump to grow up and show some restraint and stop babbling. And most importantly he needs to formulate an actual coherent policy, Tillerson and Haley are contradicting each other and themselves, it's kindergarten hour. That's another huge problem for him, he doesn't like to do actual policy work, it bores him. He had several months to build a team and formulate a healthcare bill to present to congress, but he just sat back and let Ryan do all the work.
 
Back
Top