Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine

[anatta]

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.

Inside the meeting, Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas who was a Ted Cruz supporter, proposed a platform amendment that would call for maintaining or increasing sanctions against Russia, increasing aid for Ukraine and “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military.

“Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine,” the amendment read. “The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a:homepage/story

 

[anatta]

Trump is dead wrong here. New Russian Surface to Surface missiles can "hon in" on Uk's unsecured communications.
They effectively guide in the missiles that use the transmission to pinpoint targets down to the meter.

On the other hand Clinton wants to give offensive weapons to the east. Ratcheting up the war.

Merkel (on the 3rd hand) wants neither defensive or offensive weapons! Preferring to keep the negotiated stalemate-
but allowing Russia to cement it's gains in the east -and keep it's weapons at ready in a superior stance.

Everybody gets it wrong except Putin....

 

[Darth Omar]

Putin is a serious player amongst stooges on the world stage.

It would be scarier if he were scarier. I can't put my thumb on him.

 

[anatta]

Putin is a serious player amongst stooges on the world stage.

It would be scarier if he were scarier. I can't put my thumb on him.

ya gotta think like Putin, and not like an American.
He's willing to sacrifice (in chess to "gambit") his economy now for long term territorial gains.

Stuff like Brexit is right up his alley -his goal is to weaken and fracture NATO ties.
Maybe even get to the point Article 5 isn't automatic..

which is where Trump needs work - he needs to understand only the US can lead NATO and the world.
Like it or not only we have the capacity, and (what's left of) the moral authority.

Most of all when things go rotten, China isn't going to step up unless it's in China's interest-
and China and Russia have a defacto Eurasian Economic Union like the EU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union#Membership
According to The Guardian newspaper, Putin's plan is for the Eurasian Union to grow into a "powerful, supra-national union" of sovereign states like the European Union, uniting economies, legal systems, customs services, and military capabilities to form a bridge between Europe and Asia and rival the EU, the US, China, and India.[71]

 

[Darth Omar]

ya gotta think like Putin, and not like an American.
He's willing to sacrifice (in chess to "gambit") his economy now for long term territorial gains.

Stuff like Brexit is right up his alley -his goal is to weaken and fracture NATO ties.
Maybe even get to the point Article 5 isn't automatic..

which is where Trump needs work - he needs to understand only the US can lead NATO and the world.
Like it or not only we have the capacity, and (what's left of) the moral authority.

Most of all when things go rotten, China isn't going to step up unless it's in China's interest-
and China and Russia have a defacto Eurasian Economic Union like the EU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union#Membership
According to The Guardian newspaper, Putin's plan is for the Eurasian Union to grow into a "powerful, supra-national union" of sovereign states like the European Union, uniting economies, legal systems, customs services, and military capabilities to form a bridge between Europe and Asia and rival the EU, the US, China, and India.[71]

That makes some sense except if the Russian economy goes in the tank it takes Russsia with it. Or maybe he plans on managing his own internal political uprisings while trying to conquer Europe.

I'm not convinced Putin's belligerence and objectives extend beyond the borders of the old soviet empire. On the other hand, I only consider such matters for a hobby lol.

 

[anatta]

That makes some sense except if the Russian economy goes in the tank it takes Russsia with it. Or maybe he plans on managing his own internal political uprisings while trying to conquer Europe.

I'm not convinced Putin's belligerence and objectives extend beyond the borders of the old soviet empire. On the other hand, I only consider such matters for a hobby lol.

his objectives with the EEU are "soft power". His territorial ambitions ( hard power) are as far as he can push-
but also to fracture NATO unity -so if a hot war breaks out.. say.. in the Baltics, the NATO response is muted.

His own internal uprisings are a big danger for him - he's relying on his relation with the oligarchs to wield power,
and the support of the Russian people to keep power.

 

[Legion Troll]

The Russian propaganda apparatus has thrown itself behind Trump’s campaign. Trump’s lack of creditworthiness makes him unusually reliant on unconventional sources of financing. This makes him vulnerable to financial leverage by an unscrupulous foreign entity.

The evidence of Trump’s unseemly affinity for Putin is extensive. Yet the most disturbing explanation for the evidence continues to get more plausible. Today, the Republican Party officially altered its platform on Ukraine and Russia.

The previous platform advocated “providing lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine, reflecting the virtually unanimous position of the Republican Party Establishment. Trump staffers prevailed on the Platform Committee to replace that language with a milder endorsement of “appropriate assistance.”

Given how little attention Trump has paid to the substance of the platform, the intervention is striking. At the very least, it suggests that the candidate’s extensive, fulsome praise for the Russian dictator is more than a passing fancy.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/donald-trump-working-for-russia.html

 

[tsuke]

dont see why we need to provoke russia. Still hoping for a grand russo american alliance.

Besides if NATO really wants to arm ukraine then germany has more than enough money.

Lets hope a russia america alliance would focus on terrorism and wipe it out

Hey maybe we can reconquer constanstinople with them and mecca too.

btw for the military minded people. Whats the difference between "defensive lethal equipment" vs "offensive lethal equipment"

It seems like any defensive weapon can be used in an offensive capacity.

 

[Leonthecat]

The Russian propaganda apparatus has thrown itself behind Trump’s campaign. Trump’s lack of creditworthiness makes him unusually reliant on unconventional sources of financing. This makes him vulnerable to financial leverage by an unscrupulous foreign entity.

The evidence of Trump’s unseemly affinity for Putin is extensive. Yet the most disturbing explanation for the evidence continues to get more plausible. Today, the Republican Party officially altered its platform on Ukraine and Russia.

The previous platform advocated “providing lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine, reflecting the virtually unanimous position of the Republican Party Establishment. Trump staffers prevailed on the Platform Committee to replace that language with a milder endorsement of “appropriate assistance.”

Given how little attention Trump has paid to the substance of the platform, the intervention is striking. At the very least, it suggests that the candidate’s extensive, fulsome praise for the Russian dictator is more than a passing fancy.



http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/donald-trump-working-for-russia.html

Trump loooooves him some Putin.

 

[Legion Troll]

He'd better. I hear Vlad has files on him that would make a lapdoggy's fur stand up straight. If Trumpski does as he's told, Vlad will finance his campaign.

 

[Leonthecat]

He'd better. I hear Vlad has files on him that would make a lapdoggy's fur stand up straight. If Trumpski does as he's told, Vlad will finance his campaign.

You sure Vlad isn't just "Putin' on the Ritz"?

 

[moon]

A stable, law-abiding union of world states communicating openly through the United Nations is in everybody's interests- except the arms industries. If Trump can actually ' re-set ' relations with the Russians then he deserves support in that area, asshole that he is. We'll all live longer. Billary isn't bright enough to realize that the stars-and-stripes flying over a wasteland is NOT a victory for America. It's troll-think- and her head is too small.
However, I don't believe that the forces which influence Washington- with AIPAC clear front and center- will ever support anything other than instability which furthers the life-span of the military/industrial complex. Trump might actually drum up some support by talking sense occasionally- but he would never be permitted to implement policies which threaten the Orwellian status-quo. We are all going to have to wait another thirty years until the white Christian Evangelist right is in a minority in Washington and the Latino demographic becomes the majority America-wide. If you can't change the minds of the establishment- get rid of the establishment. Learn another language while you're waiting.

Putin- although few would acknowledge it- has been working towards stability all along. Thanks to the Russians, ISIL is surrounded and shrinking. There will never be an actual caliphate of crackpots.

 

[Darth Omar]

A stable, law-abiding union of world states communicating openly through the United Nations is in everybody's interests- except the arms industries. If Trump can actually ' re-set ' relations with the Russians then he deserves support in that area, asshole that he is. We'll all live longer. Billary isn't bright enough to realize that the stars-and-stripes flying over a wasteland is NOT a victory for America. It's troll-think- and her head is too small.
However, I don't believe that the forces which influence Washington- with AIPAC clear front and center- will ever support anything other than instability which furthers the life-span of the military/industrial complex. Trump might actually drum up some support by talking sense occasionally- but he would never be permitted to implement policies which threaten the Orwellian status-quo. We are all going to have to wait another thirty years until the white Christian Evangelist right is in a minority in Washington and the Latino demographic becomes the majority America-wide. If you can't change the minds of the establishment- get rid of the establishment. Learn another language while you're waiting.

Putin- although few would acknowledge it- has been working towards stability all along. Thanks to the Russians, ISIL is surrounded and shrinking. There will never be an actual caliphate of crackpots.

That last part is why I don't peg Putin as an out an out bad guy.

Putin has put a hurting on ISIS; he is an ally in the undeclared war on radical Islam.

 

[anatta]

dont see why we need to provoke russia. Still hoping for a grand russo american alliance.

Besides if NATO really wants to arm ukraine then germany has more than enough money.

Lets hope a russia america alliance would focus on terrorism and wipe it out

Hey maybe we can reconquer constanstinople with them and mecca too.

btw for the military minded people. Whats the difference between "defensive lethal equipment" vs "offensive lethal equipment"

It seems like any defensive weapon can be used in an offensive capacity.

defensive would be like TOW missiles as anti-tank weapons.
Also better hardened communications eq.
Your Trumpian dismissal of NATO as a key alliance shows you don't understand HOW TO talk with Putin.
It's just as dangerous as Clinton's NATO expansion & "bad boy slouching" dismissal of legitimate Russian interests

 

[anatta]

The situation changed dramatically after the beginning of Russian aggression. Ukraine has found that its army is in a state of neglect.

That is why Ukrainian leadership has asked the U.S. to provide rear artillery systems, anti-tank guided missiles, body armor, electronic incoming radarand other equipment

http://112.international/opinion/th...ukraine-mechanisms-and-implications-2288.html


Democratic hawkishness may seem surprising. But since at the least the 1990s, there’s been a growing wing of liberal interventionists who believe U.S. intervention is the best resource to stop a foe; the push to intercede in Kosovo was one early example. Such advocates, most notably presumed 2016 presidential Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, have more recently pushed for U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

All the while, Obama has become more reticent to get America involved in conflicts that do not pose a direct threat to the United States, particularly after U.S and NATO intervention in the 2011 uprising in Libya, a nation now overwhelmed with jihadis from groups like the self-proclaimed Islamic State. Obama’s foreign-policy approach is shared by most Americans, according to several polls. The result is that many of Obama biggest critics on Ukraine reside within his own party—sometimes within his coterie of advisers.


Ashton Carter, Obama’s defense secretary nominee, said he would be “inclined to” give the Ukrainian army more lethal aid during his confirmation hearing Wednesday. And NATO commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove said last week that “I don’t think we should preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option.”

Secretary of State John Kerry was more vague about where the administration was leaning.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ow-pushing-obama-to-give-guns-to-ukraine.html

 

[tsuke]

defensive would be like TOW missiles as anti-tank weapons.
Also better hardened communications eq.
Your Trumpian dismissal of NATO as a key alliance shows you don't understand HOW TO talk with Putin.
It's just as dangerous as Clinton's NATO expansion & "bad boy slouching" dismissal of legitimate Russian interests

and those weapons cant be used offensively? seems like a tank blows up to a missile offensively or defensively.

Russia will talk to us or not whether or not we use NATO. The way you talk with Putin is that you have definitive hard lines which you tell him beforehand he should not cross and implement accordingly. He will still try and get what he can but that will limit his worst instincts. None of these ever shifting lines in the sand.

 

[anatta]

and those weapons cant be used offensively? seems like a tank blows up to a missile offensively or defensively.

Russia will talk to us or not whether or not we use NATO. The way you talk with Putin is that you have definitive hard lines which you tell him beforehand he should not cross and implement accordingly. He will still try and get what he can but that will limit his worst instincts. None of these ever shifting lines in the sand.

do you know what a TOW missile is? It's a guidewire anti-armor 1 person weapon.
The guide wire is used to "track" the missile to the moving target
Other wise you use RPG's or grenades, shaped charges for offensive weapons .

WTF is a "hardline?" how did that work in Donbas and the Crimea? what shifting lines?
You put NATO on his flanks when he burps -other wise you have joint exercises, etc. for political and military unity.

You guys need to learn about NATO before you dismiss NATO as optional.
It's amazing how clueless you are about the most successful alliance in the world.

 

[anatta]

 

[tsuke]

do you know what a TOW missile is? It's a guidewire anti-armor 1 person weapon.
The guide wire is used to "track" the missile to the moving target
Other wise you use RPG's or grenades, shaped charges for offensive weapons .

WTF is a "hardline?" how did that work in Donbas and the Crimea? what shifting lines?
You put NATO on his flanks when he burps -other wise you have joint exercises, etc. for political and military unity.

You guys need to learn about NATO before you dismiss NATO as optional.
It's amazing how clueless you are about the most successful alliance in the world.

my point is there really is no difference between offensive and defensive weapons these days. Everything is moderately mobile and helps offensively. Even simple armor helps with troop offensive capability.

Honestly in the grand scheme of things NATO matters less than the certainty that the US will react to certain things period. Like if a plane swoops down on a collision course with a ship we will shoot it down. That certainty that we will react will restrict russia a lot more than nato.

Plus overinvolvement in NATO might hamper a future Us - russia alliance. So far they have managed to prove more useful vs terrorism while the nato countries pretty much killed themselves via merkel.

 

[anatta]

my point is there really is no difference between offensive and defensive weapons these days. Everything is moderately mobile and helps offensively. Even simple armor helps with troop offensive capability.

you simply do not understand military tactics.
Telling me body/tank armor is some how an offensive weapon is ludicrous - what offensive capabilities does armor have?

Honestly in the grand scheme of things NATO matters less than the certainty that the US will react to certain things period

The US is a part of NATO -the whole concept is an alliance that can act in concert. The US never acts alone in Europe. European states are sovereign

Like if a plane swoops down on a collision course with a ship we will shoot it down. That certainty that we will react will restrict russia a lot more than nato.

firing at planes on maneuvers escalates tensions into a shooting war -do you want little hot wars all over the place?. Instead you get Putin the idea that flagrant maneuvers will be met with more NATO exercises/flanking which makes it counterproductive for him

Plus overinvolvement in NATO might hamper a future Us - russia alliance.

alliances with Russia outside of NATO are unthinkable..there can be cooperation, but not alliance

So far they have managed to prove more useful vs terrorism while the nato countries pretty much killed themselves via merkel.

There is a lot of cooperation with the US/Europe intelligence agencies -if you mean bombing ISIS in Syria -yes they have helped some-
but at least 1/2 the bombs have been on rebels like the Syrian coalition that want a state not allied with Russia -
IOW's they have strategic goals in Syria far more then ISIS..

You guys need to learn more about how the US and NATO are integrated defenses.