talked with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 about establishing a back channel for communications. The talk between Kushner and the Russian envoy about communications was focused on the U.S. response to the crisis in Syria and other policy-related matters.
The former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, called Kushner’s request for a communications back channel “off the map."
“What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt, would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or appropriate idea?” Hayden said.
“This is off the map,” Hayden said. “I know of no other experience like this in our history, certainly within my life experience.”
That was then, but now, Trump is back in the news again having a back channel communication with Putin and then praising Vladimir Putin as “very savvy” shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine which shocked many Americans and put the Republican Party in an uncomfortable position.
“How can anyone with any understanding of the world call Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine ‘genius’ and ‘very savvy’ as we watch him unite the rest of the world against Russia in nearly an instant?” Christie asked Monday on Twitter. He went on to say that Putin has two choices now: an “unwinnable occupation of Ukraine” or a “humiliating retreat.”
But what was more telling is how many conservatives mimicked Trump's assessment. This is lunacy. Donald Trump taking Putin's side is a reminder of "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing." The difference this time is that the back channel communication between Putin and Trump was centered around Trump selling the Ukrainian assault by Russia to the right wing in America. So why is a former president of the United States rooting for Russia to be uncontained? And while the war is ongoing he's trying to embolden China to invade Taiwan.
This is part of the plan to cause chaos in the world. That is why Trump never released the transcripts of his meetings with Putin.
The coalition of evil is at work here, even worst is the role played by propaganda pushers on Fox News such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham who like glitchy robots straight out of Stepford, are literally repeating Putin's disinformation of Ukraine word-for-word, their stale rants so identical they eerily line up perfectly when played simultaneously.
Putin’s savaging of Ukraine, which many of his right-wing supporters had said he would never do, has recast the Russian president more clearly as a global menace and boogeyman with ambitions of empire who is threatening nuclear war and European instability.
For many of his longtime admirers — from France to Germany and the United States to Brazil — it is something of an awkward spot. The stain of Putin’s new reputation threatens to taint his fellow travelers, too.
Mr Trump has a history of praising authoritarian leaders, including Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea, but he has long seemed particularly fond of Mr Putin — whose government’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election was intended to boost Mr Trump’s electoral chances.
Former Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who rose to prominence as a witness in Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, said the Republican Party has "blood on its hands" for emboldening Russia to invade Ukraine.
He said that Trump's refusal to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin was one of the factors that led Putin to act. He also blamed Trump for weakening the US internally with his divisive politics.
He singled out Trump, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Fox News host Tucker Carlson for criticism, highlighting their praise for Putin even as it became clear that he would invade.
As Trump takes center stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, his unbridled and open admiration for a man increasingly seen as an international pariah is problematic for the GOP as it heads into midterm elections and wants to present a united front. It exposes Trump’s enduring grip on a party that still can’t reconcile its populist leanings with its more traditional hawkish stance on foreign policy.
Some at the right-wing jamboree in Orlando, Florida, enthusiastically support his unorthodox view of Putin while blaming the invasion on President Joe Biden for being “weak.” Others simply won’t express an opinion on what Trump says about the Russian leader.
The conservative establishment has largely pursued the expected course of action in calling for strong sanctions and support for Ukraine. The divergence of views leaves the party in a bind as to how it will attack Biden in the biggest test of his presidency.
Asked what his message is to Trump and others praising Putin in light of the assault on Ukraine, Biden told political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen, “I put as much stock in Trump saying that Putin’s a genius as I do when he called himself a stable genius,” according to a video posted on Twitter.
Among the more surprising statements was that by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a usually reliable Trump ally, who clearly saw the potential backlash for praising Putin. He called the invasion of Ukraine “reckless and evil,” and said Putin should be “held accountable.” He was also restrained in his criticism of Biden’s approach.
At a speech in New Orleans, Trump mused that we could simply apply Chinese flags to our F-22s and then “bomb the s--t out of Russia,” setting off a conflict between those two countries.
“And then we say, China did it, we didn’t do it, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch,” Trump said, according to a recording obtained by The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey.
The audience laughed. A joke, perhaps! But also one about something that might well violate international law. And that’s if you can get past the idea that Russia would ever mistake F-22s — a highly recognizable airplane that the Chinese don’t use — for Chinese aircraft.
“Using the flag of a neutral state or any other state that is not a party to the conflict is prohibited,” said Laurie R. Blank, an expert on international law at Emory University’s law school. “This idea would bring the U.S. into the conflict (because it would be actually engaging in military operations against Russia) and be in violation of the rule prohibiting the use of the flags, emblems or insignia of neutral states or states not party to the conflict.
“It would escalate the conflict dramatically, and the rules on neutrality and neutral states are designed to prevent exactly that.”
Blank cited Article 39(1) of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which states, “It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict."
Other experts say the idea floated by Trump sounds akin to perfidy.
“A ruse like that one is perfidy and violates [international humanitarian law] and customary international law,” said William C. Banks of Syracuse University. “Perfidy in lay terms is treachery.”
Comments
Post a Comment