When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation of "hacking the election" on December 29, Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead Putin’s response was to issue an invitation to American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday celebrations in the Kremlin.
Then came the shock from President Elect Trump, in the form of a tweet (what else) heard round the world that read:
"Great move on delay (by V. Putin) – I always knew he was very smart!"
And to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump "pinned" the tweet which means it is the first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of "pinning" for Trump. And to be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, December 30.
Trump Takes on the Entire Apparatus of the War Party
The implications of this move are breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite as his adversaries. This makes perfect sense if Trump’s desire is to reign in the War Party and to strive for a New Détente.
If the main enemy is those who are stoking a New Cold War, and worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against them. Consider who those folks are, in addition to Obama, Hillary and company and whole army of neocons and neoliberalcons: all the mainstream media, press, TV, NPR and PBS, NED, the various Soros-funded "N"GOs, all the think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, the CIA and the other "intelligence" agencies like the NSA. They have all been working at demonizing Putin 24/7, stoking a New Cold War and likely worse. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!
Putin as Ally Against the War Party
And as Trump looks for allies looking for New Détente and a relaxation of US-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them by any sane assessment. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Reagan embraced Gorbachev or Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. A new battle for survival has been joined, and Trump has shown considerable courage in where he has drawn the lines.
The response to the tweet was immediate and predictable. Later the same afternoon as Trump’s tweet, one Maya Kosoff writing for that deep thought journal of foreign policy, Vanity Fair, right away got out an article entitled "Twitter Melts Down over ‘Treason’ After Trump Praises Putin." The first batch of such tweets is from "journalists and other foreign policy experts," the next from Evan McMullin; formerly (?) of the CIA and stooge candidate to draw off GOP votes from Trump in the election who tweeted: "To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America’s greatest adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this." Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump’s words "treasonous" or "seditious." In response, the Trump spokespeople refused to issue a "clarification," saying instead that Trump’s words spoke for themselves. No backing off there.
Voting is a simple yes or no. In contrast an elected president has multiple policies, each of which can be supported or opposed.
Trump’s move was entirely predictable.
The mainstream media scorned Trump’s promises during the campaign to seek peace with Russia. Usually Trump’s position on Putin and Russia was dismissed with the claim that Trump says contradictory things and no one can believe anything he says. But that is not the case with his statements on Russia. If a politician says something that will win votes, then you do not know whether it is conviction or opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or him votes and sticks with it, then you can be sure it is heartfelt. Trump pledged a kind of détente with Russia in the GOP primaries and stuck with it even though the GOP leadership has been notoriously hawkish on Russia. In the general election he stuck with it even though it was a principal line of attack on him by the Hillaryites and even his own VP candidate disagreed with it. He stood by it even though it offered him no electoral advantages and lots of negatives. By that simple test he was sincere and so this latest opening to Putin was entirely predictable.
Finally those who want peace should be speaking out in favor of Trump’s "treasonous" tweet, no matter their political persuasion and how they stand on other issues. The vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down – nothing in between. And progressives could list many reasons for not voting Trump. But a presidential administration itself is multi-issued – not all or none. One can disagree with a president on some issues and agree on others and even back him strongly on the latter. So one may disagree with Trump on his immigration policy but agree on his scrapping the TPP. There is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump on his approach to Putin and Russia. To refuse such backing is a politics, "unencumbered by the thought process," as Tom and Ray used to put it.
Finally many progressives and also many on the Right who profess opposition to war and Empire will tell you in whispers that they do support Trump’s attempt at Détente 2.0. But they doubt he will succeed. Meanwhile they are keeping their heads down and remaining quiet. But clearly Trump’s success at Détente 2.0 depends on how much support he gets. Those who do not have the courage to speak up in unmistakable terms when they agree with Trump as on the "treasonous tweet" cannot escape part of the responsibility if he fails.
John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com.
I wonder if Trump has business dealings with Russia. Will there be a Moscow Trump hotel? And lets not forget that Trump is definitely not in the peace camp with regard to Iran.
This is a very predictable and one-sided response.
Thank you, Cass Sunstein.
Let there be Trump hotels in every country, the better to prevent the USG from bombing those countries!
I’m all for a Trump hotel in Teheran and Gaza.
Not likely.
This is good and we should support Trump on peace with Russia. Too bad he seems to be pushing war with Iran and China. But if he’s serious about friends with Russia, maybe he will back off threatening Russia’s allies.
Good points. But on China the talk is economic competition not war. When an Empire is dominant, it is gung ho on free trade. It resorts to protective tariffs in decline, bad news for the US.
The hostility to Iran is a bigger problem and it grows in part out of a blind and aggressive loyalty to Israel on the part of the Bannon circle of advisors. But if you look at Trump’s bottom line in his AIPAC speech, the final point of the three he made about Iran, you will find that he promises only to vigorously enforce the P5+1 agreement.
Sooner or later Trump will have to choose between Tillerson et al versus Bannon et al.
Trump has shown remarkable ability to shed advisors who oulive their usefulness. “You’re fired,” comes to his lips easily when necessary.
Trump is not an ideologue. Not being an ideologue frees him to think logically. And by now it should be obvious that insults and accusations mean damn-all to him.
“Not being an ideologue frees him to think logically.”
Cool. When does he plan to start?
Did you skip the article and go directly to the comments? If not then your reading comprehension truly stinks. Peace with Russia is logical or do you disagree?
I’m going to tell you something that I have told everyone else when they take up the same banner as you have. You come across as hoping that he will be the worst he possibly can be, so you will sound smarter by comparison. This makes you look like someone who cares more about their own personal agenda than anything else.
We get it, you don’t like Trump, but at the very least you could wish him good luck, offer some praise when he gets it right and reserve your criticism for the days when he is wrong. Instead you simply sound like another sour grapes clown. You do yourself a disservice behaving in this childish manner. And frankly, this nonsense makes it hard to take any of your better articles seriously. It’s as if you can’t “win” your way, that you would rather nobody win at all. That’s a little too close to rooting for failure and the death and destruction that would come with it for my liking.
I’m an anarchist. Trump is about to become the ruler of a major world state. No, I won’t be wishing him good luck.
I do offer him praise when he gets it right. Which he does every now and then. But I’m not going to pretend he’s some kind of outsider when he’s a lifelong member of the establishment, or that his fuck-stupid economics ideas make any sense, or that his immigration authoritarianism is anything but the sickening anti-American horseshit that it is, or that he hasn’t taken every possible position on foreign policy and, so far, tended to go with the worst of those positions in action.
Or, to put it a different way, I am not an addle-brained cultist. And don’t intend to be.
Oh my, you sure do like to make up some nice strawmen and argue against them don’t you. Where did I say you think he is an outsider or that anything about insider/outsider, immigration or accuse you of being in a cult? As for your second statement below, when did you predict it? I certainly don’t remember you predicting any such thing. I suppose I missed it but whatever. As for acknowledging that he won, do you need a pat on the back for that? You acknowledge reality, how special.
As for taking every possible foreign policy, that is simply untrue. The most likely foreign policy he could have taken was to be anti-Russia and him refusing to do so even when it was politically easy is what the article above was about. You claim to give him credit when he gets it right, but again when would that be? You have a chance right now and instead you just slam his some more. You claim he takes every possible position but that is a lie. He hasn’t taken the anti-Russian one has he? Then you say he takes the worst of the positions in action. Good trick that one, considering he hasn’t taken any actions at all yet.
You being an Anarchist doesn’t give you any special credit with me, not when you act like a rather spoiled child and continue to do so. This does a disservice to Anarchism in my mind. Look at your above rant and tell me that is how adults behave? Stawman arguments followed by BS and you pretend to give Donald a fair shake? Give it a rest, you have a chip on your shoulder so big it’s crushing you and it’s obvious for anyone to see miles away.
“Where did I … accuse you of being in a cult?”
You didn’t accuse me of being a cultist. I simply noted that, unlike you, I am not one.
And as for “winning my way,” there was never any chance that this election would produce an outcome that I was happy with. He won fair and square. I predicted it, and I acknowledged it when it happened.
He’s already doing that on Russia. As far as his domestic policies go, that’s none of my affair. He can stuff his bank accounts for the next 4 years for all I care.
“Those who do not have the courage to speak up in unmistakable terms when
they agree with Trump as on the “treasonous tweet” cannot escape part
of the responsibility if he fails.” Thank you John for closing your neat article with this call for commitment.
Perhaps Thomas Knapp missed this part or actually thinks that praising Trump for getting anything right is a form a treason. I’m not sure how acting like a “progressive” and opposing Trump, no matter what, makes libertarians look any different. I hope the rest of us can do a little better and follow John’s advice, I’m glad to see you are.
Grab ’em by the pu**y, Don. When you’re famous, they’ll let ya. If you can’t find that grab a tiny handful of those ‘short curlies’, or get them ‘by the bag’. They’ll behave.
I hang out at this site because it’s my job to read every comment that is posted and get rid of the comments that violate the guidelines.
I comment at this site — sometimes but not always about Trump; when about Trump sometimes but not always negatively; and in reply to some small portion of comments about Trump — because I’m here anyway and enjoy doing so.
One of us is definitely an anti-war libertarian. You I’m not so sure about, but I don’t see any reason to assume you aren’t. Like anyone else, an anti-war libertarian can fall for nonsense.