Surrender Summit II: Putin Invited to Washington

[Hrothbern]

Adding to that
During the Reagan-Gorbachev talks, Reagan interrupted the meeting several times to brief and get council back from his specialists.
Teamwork.

 

[metalhead]

And when Reagan and Gorbachev spoke, were there other people in the room to document every word, and guide every discussion point? You bet your sweet ass there was.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

See, that's why this summit had to be different...there aren't that many people willing to be in the same room with Trump.

 

[red_elk]

Ok, so this is a criticism of Trump not following established procedures during the meeting, as well as his unprofessionalism. Which is (probably) valid.
Does it mean Putin would try to take advantage of it? Most likely yes, any experienced diplomat would do.
But it doesn't mean Trump made any agreements which go against American interests, or that there was a "collusion".
And a collusion doesn't necessary mean betrayal, it can be to a mutual benefit.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And a collusion doesn't necessary mean betrayal, it can be to a mutual benefit.

Mutual benefit of Putin and Trump, probably. Benefit of Russian citizens, perhaps. Benefit of American citizens, almost certainly not.

 

[mitsho]

But that is the only thing Trump is capable of. Other democratic participants on the world stage seem to thus have given up and are now just spinning their wheels waiting for another election in the US. There's a quote by the German Foreign Minister that you can't really do International Relations when all paradigms can change in 24 hours. I believe that statement was about Trumps would / wouldn't flip flop after the Putin meeting, but it holds true. The question is thus not how many concessions the autocrats of this world can get out of Trump, but whether these will hold true when the changing of the guards happens at the White House. Time is of course the crucial factor here. How much of the system can Trumps whisperers destroy until then? And will Trump get more erratic with a (possible) democratic opposition in the house/senate next year? Traditionally, US presidents end up more involved in foreign policy in their later years as they have more leeway there. And that is kind of scary, so yes, a race to the next election of ignoring, stalling and blocking awaits us probably.

 

[metalhead]

Ok, so this is a criticism of Trump not following established procedures during the meeting, as well as his unprofessionalism. Which is (probably) valid.
Does it mean Putin would try to take advantage of it? Most likely yes, any experienced diplomat would do.
But it doesn't mean Trump made any agreements which go against American interests, or that there was a "collusion".
And a collusion doesn't necessary mean betrayal, it can be to a mutual benefit.

It doesn't mean he didn't make any such agreements, either. And given the intense cloud of suspicion around him and his relationship to Putin, it's incredibly stupid to go into a summit with nobody there to witness it, to document it.

 

[red_elk]

Well yeah, I agree that Trump's behavior doesn't seem very wise in that regard and that it looks like he doesn't care about suspicions in US media about him.

 

[Dachs]

Ok, so this is a criticism of Trump not following established procedures during the meeting, as well as his unprofessionalism. Which is (probably) valid.
Does it mean Putin would try to take advantage of it? Most likely yes, any experienced diplomat would do.
But it doesn't mean Trump made any agreements which go against American interests, or that there was a "collusion".

Sure, that's all true - in a vacuum. The meeting behind Trump and Putin didn't take place in a vacuum. That was the other half of my original point - that his campaign is currently under investigation for colluding with the Russian government. Holding a meeting that was not adequately prepared and at which nothing of substance appears to have been discussed is incompetent, not criminal. Holding such a meeting, including a long one-on-one closed-door session with no notes and no prep, while under investigation for secret communications with the exact same world leader, is extraordinarily suspicious.

The meeting has been quite good for the Russian government, which is claiming that Trump discussed or agreed to any number of things, such as a referendum in Ukraine, while Trump has consistently failed to specifically state what they even talked about. The only exception was Trump's trial balloon over the McFaul trade, which was so roundly denounced by the entire American body politic that it was withdrawn a day later with the requisite amount of gaslighting (which is shockingly fast for this administration). You'd think that if Trump managed to get some kind of "good deal" (by his lights, anyway) he'd bring it up. But other than the thing about McFaul, he's been vague as hell. Not a great sign for him.

Right now, these are the possible outcomes of the one-on-one meeting (including combinations):

1. Trump went in unprepared and wasted Putin's time, with the only productive aspect of the meeting for being the McFaul trade suggestion that Trump took up in front of the media and which was withdrawn. Putin chose to salvage the meeting by claiming they talked about a bunch of things that were not actually discussed, and of which there is conveniently no record. This is the best possible outcome for Trump and America based on what has happened since the summit, and it is a pretty crappy outcome.
2. Trump went in unprepared and got chicaned into agreeing with a bunch of things detrimental to American interests, but is too afraid of the consequences to admit it or too stupid to understand what he gave up.
3. Trump refused preparation from his foreign policy staff and refused notes because the discussion items dealt in part with his campaign's alleged collusion with the Russian government.

And a collusion doesn't necessary mean betrayal, it can be to a mutual benefit.

Collusion in this context refers to the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, which used its security organs and intelligence agencies to attempt to artificially alter the result of the 2016 election in Trump's favor. It undoubtedly was to a mutual benefit: Trump's and Putin's. However, it is also illegal in the United States and delegitimizes the result of the election. Many Americans would indeed consider such collusion to be a betrayal.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Look at the bright side; If Trump gives away Alaska, then you'll no longer have to deal with Sarah Palin.

 

[Moriarte]

It doesn't mean he didn't make any such agreements, either. And given the intense cloud of suspicion around him and his relationship to Putin, it's incredibly stupid to go into a summit with nobody there to witness it, to document it.

Intense cloud of suspicion is mere result of evaporated lake of salty tears. When things go beyond resolution (Syria for one), perhaps it is better to pick a different format - NOT the one where each force would pull in their own direction, but rather where major forces first establish a vector of mutual understanding. In private. Which means they will remain in control of their agreements for some period of time, at least. It is, of course, simpler to talk of stupidity and unprofessionalism, having 0 knowledge of the content of the meeting.

 

[red_elk]

The only exception was Trump's trial balloon over the McFaul trade, which was so roundly denounced by the entire American body politic that it was withdrawn a day later with the requisite amount of gaslighting (which is shockingly fast for this administration).

It means they at least discussed a possible interrogation of Russians and an offer about McFaul (unacceptable to Americans as Putin knew it) was rather a way to deflect Trump's request without declining it plainly. Interesting that the Americans want to interrogate Russians but similar counteroffer to interrogate a US citizen is shocking and outrageous for them
(Yes, I know that McFaul is not an ordinary citizen, but still)

Collusion in this context refers to the allegations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government, which used its security organs and intelligence agencies to attempt to artificially alter the result of the 2016 election in Trump's favor.

I think this is crazy.
By the way, did the investigation found anything substantial except Clinton e-mails and facebook ads?

 

[Dachs]

Intense cloud of suspicion is mere result of evaporated lake of salty tears. When things go beyond resolution (Syria for one), perhaps it is better to pick a different format - NOT the one where each force would pull in their own direction, but rather where major forces first establish a vector of mutual understanding. In private. Which means they will remain in control of their agreements for some period of time, at least. It is, of course, simpler to talk of stupidity and unprofessionalism, having 0 knowledge of the content of the meeting.

You're not arguing in good faith.

It means they at least discussed a possible interrogation of Russians and an offer about McFaul (unacceptable to Americans as Putin knew it) was rather a way to deflect Trump's request without declining it plainly. Interesting that the Americans want to interrogate Russians but similar counteroffer to interrogate a US citizen is shocking and outrageous for them
(Yes, I know that McFaul is not an ordinary citizen, but still)

When even a Russian admits that it would not have been a good trade for the Americans, you know it wouldn't have been a good trade for the Americans.

We don't even have to get into all the other objections. Most Russian posters on the Internet deny their validity, which is all part of the game. But even when you throw those objections out, you're still left with trading a former ambassador who had diplomatic immunity at the time for twelve employees of the state security apparatus, and that's not a fair trade. Which makes it counter to American national interests. Which goes back to the point I made in the earlier post.

In fact, if we credit Trump with any intelligence at all, we might say that he brought the notion up to be able to claim that he wasn't obstructing the investigation into his campaign (even though he is), knowing that it was facially unacceptable to the American legislature and to American public opinion and would never result in anything. I personally think that Putin suggested it, not Trump, which is supported by Trump's own comments at the time.

By the way, did the investigation found anything substantial except Clinton e-mails and facebook ads?

They certainly have, yes.

 

[metalhead]

We don't even have to get into all the other objections. Most Russian posters on the Internet deny their validity, which is all part of the game. But even when you throw those objections out, you're still left with trading a former ambassador who had diplomatic immunity at the time for twelve employees of the state security apparatus, and that's not a fair trade. Which makes it counter to American national interests.

These are people for whom there is an indictment. That might not mean much to a state like Russia that deals with crimes against the state with summary beatings, imprisonment, and assassinations, but in a state like the U.S. where legal due process is a concept that still means something, the equivalence is just a stunningly bad faith attempt to paper over a ridiculous and offensive request that anyone who isn't as ignorant as Donald Trump would have summarily rejected.

Intense cloud of suspicion is mere result of evaporated lake of salty tears. When things go beyond resolution (Syria for one), perhaps it is better to pick a different format - NOT the one where each force would pull in their own direction, but rather where major forces first establish a vector of mutual understanding. In private. Which means they will remain in control of their agreements for some period of time, at least. It is, of course, simpler to talk of stupidity and unprofessionalism, having 0 knowledge of the content of the meeting.

This is an incoherent mess of buzzwords masquerading as a rational thought. This makes no sense whatsoever. How is an agreement to be reached without a diplomatic process having been followed? To think such a thing is possible is insane. Really.

 

[red_elk]

When even a Russian admits that it would not have been a good trade for the Americans, you know it wouldn't have been a good trade for the Americans.

Actually I doubt this would be a good trade for Russia too, because I'm not sure Russia really needed to interrogate McFaul.

These are people for whom there is an indictment. That might not mean much to a state like Russia that deals with crimes against the state with summary beatings, imprisonment, and assassinations, but in a state like the U.S. where legal due process is a concept that still means something, the equivalence is just a stunningly bad faith attempt to paper over a ridiculous and offensive request that anyone who isn't as ignorant as Donald Trump would have summarily rejected.

You may believe there is no equivalence, but problem is that on bilateral meeting your counterpart may disagree with you. Position "we are good and you are bad, therefore you have to concede" is not very useful for negotiation if you want to achieve something.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ok, so this is a criticism of Trump not following established procedures during the meeting, as well as his unprofessionalism. Which is (probably) valid.
Does it mean Putin would try to take advantage of it? Most likely yes, any experienced diplomat would do.
But it doesn't mean Trump made any agreements which go against American interests, or that there was a "collusion".
And a collusion doesn't necessary mean betrayal, it can be to a mutual benefit.

The problem is Trump is too dumb to know when he is working against American interests. He was willing to take up Putin's offer for Russia to interrogate American diplomats until everyone not in the room had to break it to him how idiotic such a deal was.

 

[innonimatu]

But that is the only thing Trump is capable of. Other democratic participants on the world stage seem to thus have given up and are now just spinning their wheels waiting for another election in the US. There's a quote by the German Foreign Minister that you can't really do International Relations when all paradigms can change in 24 hours. I believe that statement was about Trumps would / wouldn't flip flop after the Putin meeting, but it holds true. The question is thus not how many concessions the autocrats of this world can get out of Trump, but whether these will hold true when the changing of the guards happens at the White House. Time is of course the crucial factor here. How much of the system can Trumps whisperers destroy until then? And will Trump get more erratic with a (possible) democratic opposition in the house/senate next year? Traditionally, US presidents end up more involved in foreign policy in their later years as they have more leeway there. And that is kind of scary, so yes, a race to the next election of ignoring, stalling and blocking awaits us probably.

Portion in bold because democracy presupposes that different people with different polices and be elected, and change a country's international stance. Where policies cannot not be changed through an election, any "democracy" is a phony ritual that only serves to disguise the fact that the real power rests with an oligarchy.

It is the autocrats who can give assurances that the country's stance won't be changed. No "democratic leaders" can give those. "Democratic participants on the world stage" should not complain that democracy allows for this. Unless they are actually oligarchs disguised as democracts. What is "the system" you mention? May it be perhaps an ever-extending international web of treaties designed to restrict the choices of any new elected government in nations enmeshed in it?

 

[Gori the Grey]

the equivalence is just a stunningly bad faith attempt to paper over a ridiculous and offensive request that anyone who isn't as ignorant compromised as Donald Trump would have summarily rejected

ftfy

Was there ever an official explanation given as to what the "summit" was even about? Usually when leaders meet at a hyped up summit, they meet about a specific thing. Was there ever a "thing" proffered as the reason for the first meeting?

There wasn't. And this is a really important thing to keep in the mix. It's difficult to do so, given that Trump dumps his crazy (would/wouldn't) on the media and then the media goes crazy with it. The lack of any announced objective to the meeting, along with the insistence that the two leaders meet in private, should be telling even beyond the crazy stuff said and not said in the press conference.

I wish the press would push this a little harder (not that you can ever actually force an answer out of Trump or Sanders). Here's how I wish they'd push it: "What is it that you don't think the American military can achieve on its own in Syria, Mr. President? Why is it that you feel we need Russia's military to help us with that operation? Do you feel that the US military is deficient in some way and needs to be supplemented by another military?" "What kind of help can Russia give us with North Korea? What are they asking us in return for giving that help? Do you think what they are asking is a good price to pay for what they can give?" Trump's line, in interviews on FOX, is that it's better to "get along" with Russia. Left utterly without context, that's a plausible claim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

By the way, did the investigation found anything substantial except Clinton e-mails and facebook ads?

Do you comprehend the basic fact that legally it doesn't matter if they find anything "more substantial"? Under US law politicians running for office aren't allowed to take any kind of help from foreign governments, and they certainly aren't allowed to solicit such help. It really doesn't matter whether the help in question is hacking the opponent's computers, running advertising, or rolling tanks down the street outside of polling places...it's all blatantly illegal.

That's what makes it hilarious when Trump and his slurpers say "no collusion." A very short series of questions invariably reveals that they don't actually know what it is they are trying to deny.

 

[Berzerker]

it was the media who pushed the collusion accusation

does Israel help sympathetic candidates?