Are U.S. Presidents Too Reflexively Pro-Russian (Putin, Congress, Iran)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach, but my hope is he does not simply take a realpolitik approach and suggest that, you know, if we just cut some deals with Russia, even if it hurts people or even if it violates international norms or even if it leaves smaller countries vulnerable, or creates long-term problems in regions like Syria, that we just do whatever's convenient at the time.
Presidents have, at least since the time of FDR tended to lean towards the Soviet Union/Russia, and sometimes regret it. The biggest benefit and really only benefit Russia has given the U.S. is to supply millions of its best people as immigrants, leaving behind a largely unproductive and ruined country. Russia, whether under the Czars, Communist dictators or post-Communist Putin, has generally been an unconstructive, unhelpful force in the world.
I have never been a fan of Barack Obama and certainly am not one of Donald Trump. But I will say that other Presidents have been enamored of their own personality and expected that they could get along with Russian leadership. Really the only exception was Ronald Reagan, who held out for what the U.S. wanted rather than caving.
The tradition of caving to Soviet or Russian leadership is long. FDR caved at the Tehran Conference in 1943 and Yalta in 1944 or 1945. To FDR and the U.S. people Stalin, during WW II was Uncle Joe. FDR gave the Soviets an outsized role at the U.N. that was just being formed.
Truman, similar to Reagan, was a rare president that had real problems with the Stalin's utter lack of good faith. Truman pushed through the Berlin Airlift and started the doctrine of containment in response to Soviet aggression in Europe.
Eisenhower talked tough, but went too far in accommodating the Soviet Union in Korea. In Hungary his government encouraged rebellion and cynically did nothing to save the Hungarians from their rebellion being brutally crushed.
JFK also talked a good line, but did little other than speechify with regard to the Berlin Wall. He arrived at the first summit with Nikita Khrushchev unprepared, a cardinal sin that for which a freshman law associate gets castigated. The Test Ban Treaty was unverifiable and sanction-less as to the Soviets, but very enforceable-by a free press-against the U.S. and other democracies.
Johnson was taken in by Kosygin with the "Spirit of Marlboro."
Nixon was one of the worst offenders. He talked tough, but ultimately aided the Soviets financially through the grain deal by selling grain at below-market prices that was instantly flipped on the world market for a higher price, without ever touching the Soviet Union. In other words financial aid for corrupt leaders dressed up as "humanitarian assistance." The SALT I treaty suffered from the same verification issues as did the Kennedy Test Ban treaty. Ditto the less well-known ABM Treaty. With regard to nuclear treaties generally, the West always gets far less benefit than the Soviet Union/Russia. The latter has continuing interest in stirring the pot in free countries, in order to gain influence or, as in the post-WW II era take them over. The West has no designs on taking on ruling an unproductive Russia, rife with alcohol abuse. Nuclear weapons are the West's tripwire, so that if the Soviets mount a conventional invasion we can respond with nuclear power. An aggressor has a major advantage in waging conventional warfare as they can pick the time and the place. The West's defense on the other hand are spread over a huge boundary. So Nixon, in order to create pre-election euphoria in 1972, gave both the Soviets and Chinese carte-blanche.
Ford bears little mention. His time in office was short, and he didn't do much damage.
Carter is another story. His "joint proclamation" with Brezhnev on the Middle East was alarming enough to force Anwar Sadat into Menachem Begin's arms. His SALT II treaty was so alarming that he didn't even submit it to Congress.
Reagan mostly scared surrender monkeys in the U.S. That included the "nuclear freeze" people who panicked that Reagan wanted war. Reagan understood that nuclear force was the only counterweight that the Soviets understood. His firmness, combined with low oil prices, put the Soviets at a major disadvantage.
Bush I and Clinton both mostly watched as the Soviet Union fell apart. Clinton entered into a weak, unenforceable pact on former Soviet nuclear assets located in Ukraine. The enforcement provisions were useless when Russia violated them by annexing Crimea from Ukraine.
Bush II thought he could see Putin's "soul." So I am bi-partisan in my criticism. Putin was obstreperous then as now.
Obama similarly thought he could "re-set" relations by putting Eastern Europe at risk, by canceling planned missiles for Poland and the Czech Republic. I am , however, happy that he sees that as a failed policy and is wisely counseling Trump not to repeat his mistake. I see it less as hypocrisy than as having learned an old, sad lesson about Russia - they are not our friends. We should act accordingly.
Look, you either believe that a One World Order run by the money-elite who toss scraps
of subsistence upon a subjugated, neutered population is good, or you think it's evil.
You are not supporting true American ideals by demonizing Russia. Russia is a soveriegn
country with a sovereign PEOPLE who want to stay in charge over their historical area,
not sell it out to foreigners like it was in the 1990s, and not integrate into the One World
Order. The United States and Britain are not powerful enough to overthrow Russia like
they did Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran (in the past) and all other places who resist the formation
of a One-World judeo-masonic pyramid scheme. Do not let them manipulate your mind.
Expansion of NATO and using NATO as a thorn in Russia's side would not meet with
the approval of presidents Reagan, Carter or even Nixon.
The good thing is that now, Russia is so powerful technologically and deepening its
ties with other nations, that it really doesn't matter what you think. They are not
going to be defeated, and will not resign their sovereignty. So all those "monied-elite"
who are drooling over the prospect of raping and stealing Russian lands and people
will have to be ready to die most miserably or shut the hell up.
Look, you either believe that a One World Order run by the money-elite who toss scraps of subsistence upon a subjugated, neutered population is good, or you think it's evil.
So far so good. But not for long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
You are not supporting true American ideals by demonizing Russia. Russia is a soveriegn country with a sovereign PEOPLE who want to stay in charge over their historical area, not sell it out to foreigners like it was in the 1990s, and not integrate into the One World Order.
I don't know how well that goes with their stirring the pot in Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as Syria. You seem to be calling all of those places (except maybe Syria) their "historical area." How is that different from what others call "colonialism" as practiced by the British. How is that different from the U.S. impulse to protect Israel from their citizens being slaughtered?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The United States and Britain are not powerful enough to overthrow Russia like they did Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran (in the past) and all other places who resist the formation of a One-World judeo-masonic pyramid scheme. Do not let them manipulate your mind.
"One-World judeo-masonic pyramid scheme"? Never heard that one before. Can you explain a little further?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
Expansion of NATO and using NATO as a thorn in Russia's side would not meet with the approval of presidents Reagan, Carter or even Nixon.
It certainly would have met Reagan's approval. How is NATO a "thorn in Russia's side" unless they intend to overrun the new NATO countries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The good thing is that now, Russia is so powerful technologically and deepening its ties with other nations, that it really doesn't matter what you think. They are not going to be defeated, and will not resign their sovereignty.
Does their "sovereigny" equal colonial power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
So all those "monied-elite" who are drooling over the prospect of raping and stealing Russian lands and people will have to be ready to die most miserably or shut the hell up.
What Russian land are the "moneyed elite" drooling over?
You can't claim that one. Russia and Gorbachev are adamant there was an
understanding that NATO would not expand to the Russian borders, let alone
placing missile batteries down their throats. The neoconservatives took over
the Republican party starting with Bush Sr., not Reagan. They are to be
vilified and avoided, not consulted as experts.
Concerning the rest, look into it on your own, and good luck, if you indeed
do have the people of America's best interests at heart, and not some dusty
old impressions of Cold War biases, you will begin to realize what is truly best.
You can't claim that one. Russia and Gorbachev are adamant there was an understanding that NATO would not expand to the Russian borders, let alone placing missile batteries down their throats.
The use of the present tense, as it applies to Reagan, is quite strange. And while I do respect Gorbachev more than any Soviet leader that preceded him, and more than Putin, I can't quite accept his version of the end of the Cold War. Since he values his life in a Putin-controlled Russia he has more than enough incentive to reinvent history.
As for any understanding on NATO I thought that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland are independent countries and want NATO protection. And don't say that the situation with Cuba is different. The Soviet Union has always sought to expand it's coverage. The U.S., by and large, has not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The neoconservatives took over the Republican party starting with Bush Sr., not Reagan. They are to be vilified and avoided, not consulted as experts.
Jeanne Kirkpatrick was one of the original neo-conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
Concerning the rest, look into it on your own, and good luck, if you indeed do have the people of America's best interests at heart, and not some dusty old impressions of Cold War biases, you will begin to realize what is truly best.
My bias goes back much further than the Cold War. Czarist Russia and pre-Cold War Stalin were both relatively expansionist and aggressive.
That article/blog/whatever is full of errors, OP. But to answer your question, yes, there has been an embarrassing level of naivete in dealing w/Russia in the past. That strikes me as very odd, considering that Presidents would have had access to top specialists on the Soviet Union (and its latest permutation under Putin, a product of that era).
However, I disagree especially with a couple of points; "JFK talked a good line"? He did a lot more than that. I doubt anyone would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as deftly as he did. The Pentagon was pushing him toward war. Heaven knows how H. Clinton would have reacted to such a circumstance, or Reagan. And Salt II was, indeed, presented to Congress. It wasn't approved, due to the initiation of war in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. And make no mistake; the Soviets got Carter's global message on human rights loud and clear. He was not popular over there, though they collaborated with him on SALT. I regard that as a very good sign. Reagan, OTOH, met with official approval there, reflected in Pravda articles saying he was a good guy.
Reagan, for all his "evil empire" talk, got quite chummy with Gorbachev, but Gorby was an unusual Soviet leader, not cut from the standard mold.
Beware of "news" and commentary sites posted by self-appointed "experts" engaged in re-writing history, OP.
That article/blog/whatever is full of errors, OP. But to answer your question, yes, there has been an embarrassing level of naivete in dealing w/Russia in the past. That strikes me as very odd, considering that Presidents would have had access to top specialists on the Soviet Union (and its latest permutation under Putin, a product of that era).
The article in the OP was quoted to show that Obama is warning Trump to be on guard with Putin. I did not fact check the article though I agree with its direction. I did qualify that the blog is "right wing" to show that I am not treating it as a 100% valid source of information. But that blog does illustrate at least the opening naivete in many administrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
However, I disagree especially with a couple of points; "JFK talked a good line"? He did a lot more than that. I doubt anyone would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis as deftly as he did. The Pentagon was pushing him toward war. Heaven knows how H. Clinton would have reacted to such a circumstance, or Reagan.
We gave up strategically important nuclear-tipped missiles in Turkey. And apparently with undue haste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
And Salt II was, indeed, presented to Congress. It wasn't approved, due to the initiation of war in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union.
It may have been withdrawn. It was never voted on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
And make no mistake; the Soviets got Carter's global message on human rights loud and clear. He was not popular over there, though they collaborated with him on SALT. I regard that as a very good sign.
The Soviet Union also "worked" with Carter on a joint Middle East communique that alarmed both Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin; not an easy accomplisment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Reagan, OTOH, met with official approval there, reflected in Pravda articles saying he was a good guy.
As a result of respecting him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Reagan, for all his "evil empire" talk, got quite chummy with Gorbachev, but Gorby was an unusual Soviet leader, not cut from the standard mold.
Chummy enough that he walked out on Gorbachev in Reykjavik.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
The framework for a warming of the Cold War started years before Gorbachev.
Reassurance to a little girl is not very convincing as a position statement. I bet Andropov likes puppies as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
