[RD] Trump on foreign policy

[red_elk]

If you think Putin and his crony capitalist crowd would turn down a green light to subjugate the former republics using whatever methods they deem fit you are misreading your leadership.

Your wording says for itself. No, it won't work even if Trump offers everything Russia may dream of, including US withdrawal from Eastern Europe and NATO.

The offer is basically to join another US military adventure in Middle East (which had so far 0% success rate), against a country which is currently in friendly relations with Russia and with an ally Russia currently doesn't trust at all.

 

[EgonSpengler]

In terms of international diplomacy the US president tweeting he is putting a country on notice (the president personally?) means absolutely nothing at all. In the exact same tweet Mr Trump mentions the US 'made a deal' with Iran. Which is incorrect: the US agreed to a deal made with Iran. It shows the current US president's foreign policy ignorance once again. Hopefully the Secretary of State can make clearer statements. Like to the press instead of a social medium.

I didn't even know there was a tweet. I was thinking of Flynn's press conference. (On the subject of Twitter, though, I don't pay much attention to it, and I've begun to wonder whether that's a mistake on my part.)

 

[EgonSpengler]

From The Washington Post this morning,

White House officials have refused to clarify the "on notice" statement either on the record or anonymously[...]

Iran experts in the United States have said the most likely initial sanctions would probably mirror those Obama applied last year to Iranian companies and individuals that Washington accused of involvement in the country's ballistic missile program.

"We should stop the crap. I think I know what he means... More sanctions," said Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The article also notes that the US has sanctions in place against Iran that are separate from the famous 'nuclear deal' that includes Russia and China.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Iran/Persia was never part of Russia. The closest they got to that was (iirc) an assassination of a russian diplomat in the 19th (?) century, for which some persian royal apologized. (or maybe that was just some even in Victoria; not sure ). Besides, it is not the same thing to invade neighboring countries and to nation-build stuff an ocean away like the US does. Russia declaring war on Iran is simply fantasy land.
I can see them, under some circumstances, declaring war on Turkey, though.

You seem to have missed the part where Bannon wants a world war. The US doesn't need Russia, or anyone else, to attack Iran. The US military is fully capable of leveling Iran all by itself. Islamic states that "used to be controlled by Russia and are now sources of Radical Islamic terrorism" will just be immediately branded "axis of evil" and the job of controlling them by any means he deems necessary will be handed to Putin. Just like in the last world war, where Russia didn't really have to do anything at all with regards to Italy to be considered an ally, as long as they are "doing their part and letting us do ours" everything will be just fine. Their part, by the way, will no doubt also include restoring "order" in Syria...again with a free hand.

But just like in the last world war there will be "the allies" and the "axis of evil" and everyone is going to have to choose a side except for those who are predesignated as evil, because Bannon and Trump are going to opt for "anyone who isn't openly for us will be treated as an enemy." Those who opt to be allies will be given the green light against any and all who opt to be included in the axis of evil. NATO participation will be required, and anyone who doesn't want to go along will be deemed to have withdrawn from NATO and eligible to be taken, either through internal revolution or conquest. Those who are particularly desirable targets for allies will have to work very hard to "prove themselves." For example, if Erdogan doesn't want to be offered to Russia on a plate he is going to have to make Turkey a very useful ally indeed, and probably do some "Radical Islamic Terrorist" purging to prove his heart is in the right place.

 

[Samson]

From The Washington Post this morning,


The article also notes that the US has sanctions in place against Iran that are separate from the famous 'nuclear deal' that includes Russia and China.

I guess they have clarified it a bit:

The Trump administration is imposing sanctions on Iran following its recent ballistic missile test.

The US Treasury Department announced the measures against 13 people and a dozen companies on Friday.
...
Some of the newly sanctioned groups are based in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and China, and include members of the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards Corps.

 

[red_elk]

But just like in the last world war there will be "the allies" and the "axis of evil" and everyone is going to have to choose a side except for those who are predesignated as evil, because Bannon and Trump are going to opt for "anyone who isn't openly for us will be treated as an enemy."

And just like in the last world war there will be countries who will stay neutral. If America wants to commit suicide it's their choice.
As for Middle Asian -stans, you are greatly overestimating Russia's willingness to control them as well as US influence in the region.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Not much discussion here about the fact that Trump pretty openly regards the EU as an enemy. I think it's a good opportunity to become more indeoendent of the USA. It's a good sign that most EU leaders don't seem willing to take any crap from the USA now that it has gone full Trumptard.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/03/eu-leaders-trump-may-attempt-act-bridge-malta-summit

European leaders launched a series of attacks on Donald Trump over his anti-EU rhetoric on Friday, accusing him of a lack of respect, as Theresa May’s attempts to act as a bridge with the new US president were roundly rejected at a summit in Malta.

[...]

Dalia Grybauskaitė, the Lithuanian president, offered a withering verdict: “I don’t think there is a necessity for a bridge. We communicate with the Americans on Twitter.”

 

[Kyriakos]

^Lithuania being a good choice for voice of the EU - or mouthpiece of some nation?

Most USians don't even know Lithuania exists; they won't care. If the mighty EU wants to attack Trump, don't call Lithuania to do it

 

[Akka]

Well, one good thing that could come from this is to make realize some European countries and people that we really do stand to gain to unite instead of compete with each others.

 

[Agent327]

^Lithuania being a good choice for voice of the EU - or mouthpiece of some nation?

Most USians don't even know Lithuania exists; they won't care. If the mighty EU wants to attack Trump, don't call Lithuania to do it

Well, that's probably why current EU chairman Donald Tusk voiced the opinion the EU should be concerned about the current US presidency. So yes, I don't think we need the added weight of Lithuania to that.

I didn't even know there was a tweet. I was thinking of Flynn's press conference. (On the subject of Twitter, though, I don't pay much attention to it, and I've begun to wonder whether that's a mistake on my part.)

I doubt that's a mistake. When politicians tweet something of consequence, it's usually reported by proper news media. (I don't follow twitter myself either.)

From The Washington Post this morning, (...)

The article also notes that the US has sanctions in place against Iran that are separate from the famous 'nuclear deal' that includes Russia and China.

I wonder if this somehow escaped president Trump when tweeting Iran is put ON NOTICE. They've been 'on notice' for quite awhile now. But I'm sure writing that IN CAPITALS makes all the difference.

Meanwhile a federal judge in Seattle has put the temporary 'Muslim ban' executive order temporarily on hold. It's expected the federal government will launch an appeal.

Federal judge in Seattle puts nationwide halt to Trump’s immigration order

See here: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ge-in-seattle-halts-trumps-immigration-order/

 

[innonimatu]

Well, one good thing that could come from this is to make realize some European countries and people that we really do stand to gain to unite instead of compete with each others.

I will only believe actions, not empty statements. And all actions I've seen are hostile competition.

 

[Akka]

I will only believe actions, not empty statements. And all actions I've seen are hostile competition.

You'll forgive me if I don't particularly rely on your objectivity in everything related to EU

 

[ThERat]

I share your sentiments, Akka. There has got to be something positive coming out of this.

Other nations should realize that the USA is not very reliable currently as a stable partner and form their own alliances. The world would be better off, I am sure.

 

[Kyriakos]

You'll forgive me if I don't particularly rely on your objectivity in everything related to EU

Words are cheap. Moreso when you aren't financially ruined due to the Eu. It is not looking as if the Eu will try to unite or help either, so your position comes across as empty words backed by absolutely nothing. Look what Eu managed to do to Eu itself, in little more than 8 years.

 

[red_elk]

EU should create their own military alliance and not rely on unstable USA.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

EU should create their own military alliance and not rely on unstable USA.

Because nothing says "world peace" like a bunch of heavily armed European nations...

 

[red_elk]

The idea is that they won't be much more armed than they are now. France and Germany aren't afraid of each other anymore and they are not afraid enough of Russia to start arms race. Neither is Russia.
Europe doesn't have external enemies, at least the ones who wear uniform.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

France and Germany aren't afraid of each other anymore and they are not afraid enough of Russia to start arms race. Neither is Russia.

I think you underestimate the persistence and extent of paranoia.

 

[Agent327]

Iran/Persia was never part of Russia. The closest they got to that was (iirc) an assassination of a russian diplomat in the 19th (?) century, for which some persian royal apologized. (or maybe that was just some even in Victoria; not sure ).

While that is strictly speaking correct, czarist Russia took over part of current day Kazakhstan and the Caucasus from Persia in the 19th century. And in WW II Persia was divided in 'influence zones' between Soviet Russia and Britain, following military intervention from both.

I'm not sure why president Putin would declare war on Turkey though. Relations have remarkably improved since both governments (re-)discovered their common interest in Syria and elsewhere.