China Summit

 

I have always disliked Communism, its principles and its practices. As a child I recognized that while we may have all been born equal, we did not develop equally either in the classroom or the playground. As I grew up, my studies and experience revealed that Communist regimes were among the most murderous in history, and that their atrocities were directed not just at capitalists but at their own people. 

 

Although not on a par with such brutal oppression, one of the worst things about Communists was the way in which they betrayed the hopes and dreams of their most ardent supporters. After all, there is something noble about Communism, despite its sordid history, that attracted and still attracts millions of idealistic supporters all over the world. Slogans from a bygone day like, “Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains” really resonated. 

 

There are countless examples of young idealists going to fight for Communism. I think of George Orwell, an English writer, whose political convictions led him to fight with the Communist backed Republicans against the Fascists during the Spanish civil war in the 1930s. His own experience in Spain led him to realize that in practice Communists were just as bad, if not worse than the Fascists.

 

Older readers will remember Orwell’s political fable “Animal Farm” about a rebellion of oppressed farm animals against the farmer who profited from their labor. The farmer and his men were driven off the farm that then was to be worked by and for the animals. A banner was raised proclaiming, “All Animals are Equal.” All would share equally in the work and rewards of the farm. 

 

Unfortunately, things soon took a wrong turn. The wily pigs took over with the aid of fierce attack dogs and soon lorded it over the other animals. One day the animals noted that the revolutionary banner had been altered to read: “All Animals are Equal, but Some are More Equal than Others.” 

 

The book ends with a very touching scene. One night the ordinary animals stand out in the cold peering through the window of the restored farmhouse. They behold the prosperous pigs enjoying a fine dinner. Their guest is the farmer. The revolution had been betrayed.

 

The above thoughts came to mind while I watched some of the ceremonies of President Trump’s recent visit to China. As Xi Jinping, the leader of the Chinese Communist party, descended the stairs in front of an enormous palace I could only think that he was the latest in the long line of Chinese Emperors. True, he preferred Western business attire to Imperial robes, but it is obvious that the People’s Republic of China is long gone.

 

The Communist Party in China is the largest in the world, but its one million members make up a small minority of China’s 1.5 billion population. Interestingly, workers in China are not allowed to unite. Labor and trade unions are prohibited. Communists and Communist sympathizers in the United States have to willfully blind themselves to the realities of Communist rule wherever it has triumphed. Whether Soviet Russia, China, or Cuba some animals were more equal than others.

 

Nevertheless, I hope the summit does achieve some good results. If President Trump somehow managed to convince the Chinese leader that it would not be in his best interest to invade Taiwan, that would be a huge success. If the trade deals work out, that would also be a major accomplishment. Actually, I think that President Trump understands that trade, rather than military force, is our best weapon in dealing with the Chinese empire.

 

###

War in Iran

  

                                           

 

Since first hearing the news of the joint US and Israeli bombing of military targets in Iran, I have been seeking out news of what is actually happening. It has not been easy. News sites that I watch or read provide very little information of what is going on.

Talking heads on cable stations usually focus on what they think or fear will happen and not what has actually happened. Often their opinions are accompanied by continually repeated videos of sites being blown to bits but with no indication of what sites are being destroyed. 

 

Here are some bits and pieces of what I have discovered so far. 

 

President Trump has declared that the attack on Iran has four objectives. He claims that the success of the initial attacks, especially the destruction of the Iranian high command, have put us far ahead of achieving these goals.

Ensure that Iran will never have a nuclear bomb. Iran’s refusal to accept this demand led to the breakdown of the most recent diplomatic efforts.*

Destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capability. The response to our attack showed how extensive the Iranian missile and drone system was. Even though most were intercepted, some did get through and cause death and destruction. Many seemed to have been aimed at non-military targets in nearby Arab states. 

Destroy the Iranian navy and its threat to shipping lanes in the Gulf of Hormuz. So far, it appears that we have sunk 17 Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf of Oman.

Ensure that the Iranian regime will no longer be able to arm terrorist proxies in the area. 

 

Rather than shooting from the hip, the President seems to have been very careful in making his decision. One former aide described the President’s decision-making process in some detail. He claimed that Trump listens to and encourage different opinions before coming to a significant decision. Contrary to popular opinion, he does not shoot from the hip in matters of such importance.

Nevertheless, the President took an incredible risk in this venture. Anything can go wrong in war, and one misstep could wreck his Presidency. So far, even military commentators on left-leaning cable shows have had to admit that the military operation has been extraordinarily well planned and executed. 

He also took a great political risk. Democrats who want the President to fail on anything he does were quick to distance themselves from the Iranian operation. Very striking were the remarks of Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority leader, who opined that the military attack would fail. How could he know that at this point? What he really meant was that he hoped it would fail. 

My own representatives here in Connecticut are apparently of the same mind. Both Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, as well as Representative Himes, have decried the Iran attack, and argued that Congress should have been consulted. Commentators have pointed out that when President Obama bombed Libya for 7 months, Congressional Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi did not insist on Congressional approval. 

It does appear that the President has acted within his authority, and early this week high ranking members of the Administration appeared before Congress in closed session, and answered questions for two hours. Even so, the Democrats could not offer any support. 

It used to be the custom of the party in Opposition to support the President when it came to foreign policy, especially when it came to war. But no more. When American service men and women are in harm’s way, no politician should dare to hope that they might fail.

###

*Note: Steve Witcoff, the President's chief Iran negotiator claimed that the  Iranian negotiators were intransigent, and bragged that they would soon have enough processed uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs. Is it too much to speculate that they might have been more reasonable if they felt that the USA was united behind President Trump in these negotiations? 

Predictions 2025

                                             

January is the time of year when many pundits like to make predictions for the upcoming year. Shortly after I started the Weekly Bystander, I realized that it was foolish to make predictions. Most predictions are either just wishful thinking, or simply a call for the continuation of the current trend. 

Nevertheless, I would like to do some wishful thinking of my own for 2025. Today, I listened as President Trump's spelled out an ambitious agenda in his inaugural address. As he spoke I thought about the harsh realities that would face him in the next four years.

Trump seems remarkably fit and hearty for someone his age. Still, as time goes by it will be more and more apparent that he is a lame duck who cannot succeed himself. He has surrounded himself with a group of ambitious young people who inevitably will begin to jockey for party leadership.

He has the slimmest of margins in Congress where he cannot even count on unanimity in his own party. Democrats in Congress will obviously be even more obstructionist than ever. I believe that it will be very difficult to advance his domestic agenda through Congress. Like his Democrat predecessors he will have to govern by executive order and administrative action.

Even if his appointees to high office are approved by the Senate, they will be impeded and obstructed by a Federal bureaucracy that is more than 90% Democratic. This bureaucracy is relatively secure in their jobs. Elon Musk will not be able to treat them as if they were Tesla employees.

However, President Trump will have a freer hand in foreign affairs. It is interesting that in his remarks today he said that he wants to be remembered as a man of peace. One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was his stated concern about the danger of nuclear war. I cannot find the exact source but I recall that when he was asked about the greatest issue facing the country, he put the threat of nuclear war at the top of the list. I do not recall whether any other candidate expressed a similar concern. Certainly, his first administration saw four years of relative peace in the world.

Of all the failures of the Biden administration, the greatest has been the failure of the outgoing President to appear as a champion of peace. For example, not only did his actions provoke the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but also, they quashed a peace agreement reached by the warring parties early in the war.

Internationally, however, Trump has a freer hand. In his upcoming State of the Union address he could present himself as a champion of world peace and claim that his primary goal in the coming years will be to lessen tension all over the globe. 

Over a hundred years ago, World War I, a conflict sparked by the assassination of a leader in central Europe, eventually led to the slaughter of millions. Many even think that the aftermath of WWI led to the rise of totalitarian states with their horrible persecutions of their own people, and ultimately to the devastation of the Second World War.

There are many trouble spots in the world where a similar spark could ignite a nuclear exchange that would have unthinkable consequences for the whole world. The President could make the lessening of tensions his major issue in the coming year. Here are some examples.

First, some real collusion with Russia would be a very good idea. Russia does not have to be an enemy of Europe or the United States. It would be really beneficial if Russia was brought into working relationships with Europe and the USA that would be beneficial to all.

If Russia became the primary supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, it would have little reason to aim intermediate range nuclear missiles at its customers in Europe. It would have every reason to treat its customers well. At the same time, Russia would receive a much needed revenue stream. 

As far as the USA is concerned it would be much better for us if Russia became a wealthy modern economy rather than a backward third world nation with so much of its GDP going to support a massive military. We don’t want to drive Putin’s back to the wall either economically or militarily. If we cut a deal with Russia, we could radically rethink the need for NATO, a military force that the Europeans don’t even want to support. 

A Russian deal could include a Ukraine deal. It is imperative to bring that war to an end. Both sides have much to gain by cutting a deal that would guarantee Ukrainian independence of both NATO and Russia. 

Second, the closing of a fair trade deal with China would not only benefit both sides economically, it might also lead the Chinese government to reconsider and reduce its provocative military build-up in the South China Sea. The last thing anyone wants is some trigger happy pilot on either side buzzing a rival warship.

We no longer have to fear Communist ideology in either Russia or China. It is true that both have authoritarian governments but their leaders seem much less interested in Communism than teachers and students in American colleges and universities.

Korea would also be a good place to cut a deal on behalf of peace. A peace treaty between North and South Korea would finally bring an end to the Korean War that began in 1950. It would be a great first step in reducing the enormous military weaponry already in place on both sides of the demilitarized zone. If all it takes to get North Korea’s leader to dismantle his nuclear program is the removal of American troops from the peninsula, I think it would be worth it. We should let the Korean people decide.

Finally, there is no greater tinder box in the world than the Middle East. American troops have been stationed there for over 20 years. Impossible as it might seem, I do think that deals could be cut there that would involve both Russia and Iran. If you look at a map, you will see that both of them have much more reason to be there than we do. After all, we don’t need the region’s oil anymore.

 If he presents himself a champion of peace, President Trump can rise above petty politics and secure his reputation forever.

###  

Armageddon: the Big, Big Issue

  

                                

Recently, at a political fundraiser, President Biden warned that the war in Ukraine has brought us closer to nuclear Armageddon than we have been since the Cuban Missile crisis of over 60 years ago. Younger readers may not know that shortly after the Communist revolution in Cuba, the then Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons in Cuba during the administration of President Kennedy. Although young and inexperienced, Kennedy was vigorous and surrounded by capable advisors. Fortunately, both sides stepped back and a nuclear Armageddon was avoided.

Now, President Biden claims that Armageddon again threatens because of the war in Ukraine. We have reached this situation under his watch. He has been President for almost two years and can no longer blame ex-President Trump. Neither can he blame the Republican party since they control neither House of Congress. He does blame President Putin of Russia, but Biden is leader of the free world. Any war represents a failure of diplomacy. Even without a nuclear exchange, the death and destruction on both sides in Ukraine is a colossal diplomatic failure on the part of the Biden administration.

No matter what you think about Donald Trump, we did have four years of peace during his term. It is true that we had the pandemic but we had peace. It is a disgrace that he did not get the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Abraham accords in the Middle East. Although the claims of Democrats that Trump colluded with Russia have now been proven to be a hoax, what President Trump actually did seemed to do the job. During his administration there was no Russian invasion of Ukraine.

You may remember that during the previous Obama/ Biden administration, Russia invaded and took over part of Ukraine with virtually no opposition. During that administration Vice-President Biden had been put in charge of Ukrainian affairs.  Among other things he threatened to withhold all aid to Ukraine unless the government dismissed an official investigating corruption. At the same time, his son, Hunter Biden, got a very lucrative sinecure with a Ukrainian energy firm.

Now fast-forward to today’s Biden administration. I still believe that the Biden administration must bear much of the blame for the war in Ukraine. About this time last year President Biden publicly announced that he saw no reason why Ukraine should not be considered for membership in NATO. These words were a provocation to Russia. We were threatening to place NATO forces and weapons smack up against the Russian border. Moreover, the entrance of Ukraine into NATO would have committed US forces to the defense of that country.

Just months after President Biden’s announcement, President Putin responded with a massive invasion of Ukraine, something that he had declined to do during the four years of the Trump administration. If you think that peace was maintained during the Trump era by collusion with Russia, then let’s have more collusion. 

Since the inception of the bloody conflict that now even threatens a catastrophic nuclear exchange, what has the Biden administration done? Has the President emerged as a passionate voice for peace? Has he called for negotiations to end the conflict? No, he has taken sides and step by step has participated in the escalation of the conflict to the point where he now raises the specter of Armageddon. 

During the Cuban Missile Crisis we were on the brink of nuclear war when Russian nuclear missiles were placed in Cuba 90 miles away from our border. Now, we are shipping potent missiles to Ukraine right on the Russian border. Back then, a young President Kennedy negotiated a settlement to bring us back from the brink. Now that our aged President has raised the specter of Armageddon, it is time for him to also step back from the brink, and stop escalating the conflict. 

The conflict in Ukraine is the big, big issue facing us today. It is such more serious than climate change, crime, inflation, the border, or abortion. A recent alarming news item indicated that we have just sent almost 5000 American soldiers to the Ukrainian border. What's next?

###

Russia, the USA, and Ukraine

In going through the archives of The Weekly Bystander today, I came across this strangely prophetic post, dated 2/13/2015 during the last year of the Obama administration, about the war in Ukraine. Today, I underline some especially prescient remarks. 

In an interview in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal General Frederick B. Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, made the case for military aid to the Ukraine and for an increased NATO involvement. Nevertheless, the General made some admissions that make one wonder if there might be another alternative. 

The General argued that Russia is preparing for war some five or six years in the future with some unspecified enemy. He believed that the Russians regard China as their greatest threat but that at the same time noted that they were conducting simulations of a nuclear attack on the United States. He did not mention that they might be concerned with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism all along their southern borderlands. *

To counter the Russian threat the General pointed out that our own resources are stretched thin. Nine out of ten of our divisions are currently engaged in missions all over the world. The General insisted that we cannot act on our own anymore and must rely increasingly on our allies. However, our NATO allies have not and will not live up to their treaty commitments. Only four of them dedicate more than the required 2% of GDP to defense spending. **

Finally, the General admitted that we need a strategy and that military aid to the Ukraine or any other country does not by itself constitute a strategy. He asks that we consider the outcome we want to achieve in the Ukraine.  Do we really want the Ukraine to become a battlefield where millions might die? Do we want a city like Mariupol on the Black Sea to become a desert like Mosul?

Why can't we consider Russia as an ally and not an enemy? Instead of confronting Russia with NATO, why not guarantee that an independent Ukraine will never be part of NATO. The Ukraine provides Russia with millions of customers for its vast energy reserves. After all, both the US and Russia will more and more have to deal with the growing power of China, as well as with radical Islam. 

The Journal has launched a barrage of editorial comment against Russia in the past week. One op-ed suggested that a military buildup is not necessary because we could crush the Russians economically with increased sanctions and low oil and gas prices. This is another dangerous suggestion since if we drive the Russians to the wall, they might become desperate. Why isn't a strong Russia to our advantage? If we think economic sanctions hurt the Russian oligarchs, what do we think they will do to the ordinary Russian citizen.

Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime proponent of arming the Ukrainians, even quoted and praised a practically insane statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham who claimed that he did not know what the outcome of military intervention would be, and did not care how many Ukrainians or Russians might die, or even if we lost. All that mattered was that the US not back down and appease Putin. ***

It would be so much less costly in terms of men and money to bring the Russians into NATO than to confront them with a flaming sword on their historical Western front. It would be better to have a strong, economically viable Russia as an ally rather than an enemy in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

Notes:

*Before the recent invasion, Russia apparently made a deal with China.

** Readers will remember that not only did President Trump try to make NATO live up to its treaty obligations, but also, that his efforts to strike a deal with Russia were hampered by incessant partisan attacks claiming that the 2016 election was stolen by the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia.

*** Lindsay Graham is still a senator from South Carolina.

### 

Ukraine: Who's to Blame?

I do not know what the outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be, but I do believe that the war and its terrible consequences could have been avoided. Faced with Russian warnings over the past few years, the government of the Ukraine only had to pledge that it would never join NATO or the European Union, or allow foreign troops on its soil.

 

In other words, while affirming its independence of both Russia and the West, Ukraine would have opted for neutrality in the same way that Switzerland has done for hundreds of years. This pledge would have retained Ukraine’s independence as well as its ability to deal politically and financially with both Russia and the West.  A pledge of neutrality would not have been appeasement. It would allow the people of Ukraine to live in peace and shape their own destiny. It was worth a try especially now that we see the mounting devastation and loss of life on both sides.

 

The war in Ukraine is a tragic failure of diplomacy on all sides. It is easy to blame President Putin of Russia and call him insane as our media likes to do, but leaders in the West are also to blame for the diplomatic failure.

 

On March 22, the Wall Street Journal, always hawkish on Ukraine, published an interview with Robert Service, a respected historian and analyst of Russian affairs. In the interview he pointed out that in November of last year, President Biden dismissed Russian objections to NATO expansion. Here is an excerpt from the interview:

 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine resulted from two immense strategic blunders; Robert Service says. The first came on Nov. 10, when the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Charter of Strategic Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The pact made it likelier than ever the Ukraine would eventually join NATO—an intolerable prospect for Vladimir Putin. “It was the last straw,” Mr. Service says. Preparations Immediately began for Russia’s so-called special military operations in Ukraine.

 

People will remember President Biden’s history of meddling in Ukrainian affairs as Vice President during the administration of President Obama. He even bragged about bullying the government of Ukraine by threatening to cut off U.S. aid unless it agreed to dismiss a prosecutor investigating corruption in the Ukrainian energy company whose board of directors included his own son, Hunter, who somehow got the high paying post with no experience or qualifications. Ironically, President Trump was impeached by Democrats because of a phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky asking him to investigate corruption.

 

The Biden administration can now add the war in Ukraine to its growing list of failures which are too numerous to recount here. Any policy that results in war with its attendant destruction, loss of life, and displacement of millions of people must be regarded as a failure despite the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people.

 

I also blame Democratic politicians in this country for spending the four years of the Trump administration constantly harassing the President over a Russia collusion hoax that effectively hindered the President of the USA from coming to any kind of peaceful arrangement with Russia over the status of Ukraine. Remember that President Trump was a critic of NATO and its expansion. He even went so far as to question its existence especially since the European partners seemed unwilling to bear the financial burden. Nevertheless, NATO went so far as to include tiny countries on Russia’s border like Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania as members. Does anyone seriously believe that the USA will go to war if those countries are invaded?

 

Of course, Vladimir Putin of Russia must bear the lion’s share of the blame for the tragedy in Ukraine no matter how the war turns out. It seems to me that he could have used Russia’s vast energy reserves as a much more potent weapon than his military. Ukraine and Europe are dependent on Russia for energy. Despite the long-standing animosity between Russia and Ukraine, they still could have worked together for each other’s benefit.

 

Despite his heroism in the current crises, President Zelensky could have and should have found a peaceful resolution to allay Putin’s fears. Looking at things now, what did he gain by signing the Strategic Partnership Pact with the USA last November?

 

 

###

Ukraine Again

 

                                             

In March 2014 during the Administration of President Obama I wrote the following post on the Ukraine. Of course, I did not know how deeply then Vice-President Biden and his son were involved in the Ukraine. Nor could I have imagined how two years later a "Russian Collusion Hoax" that originated in the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, would dominate the news throughout the term of President Trump, and prevent him from making any progress with Russia. Nevertheless, much of what I wrote is still relevant in the current crisis in the Ukraine. 

***************************

I still remember playing the game of “Risk” as a child more than 60 years ago. It was, and still is, a popular board game where the object was to conquer the world. It could be played by two or more combatants who initially drew cards containing the names of different countries or regions. Players would plant one of their armies on each country they had picked and then would proceed to attack neighboring countries by rolling dice.

Success with the dice was important but it was still a game of strategy. You could be cautious or daring and each strategy had its risks. It seemed to me at the time that it was better to control small areas, protect your home base, and marshal your forces together rather than spreading yourself too thin over the whole board.

Russia, for example, was so large that it was divided up into a number of regions with strange sounding names. Controlling that vast area was virtually impossible until you had gained an overwhelming superiority over your opponent. I distinctly remember that one of those regions was called Ukraine. It was completely land-locked and surrounded by a host of countries from which it could be easily attacked.

Today, I find it hard to believe that the Wall Street Journal, my favorite newspaper, is beating the drums for a very aggressive US posture on the Ukraine. It seems that not a day goes by without an editorial or an op-ed calling for the US to get involved in the Ukraine.  What kind of madness is this? The Ukraine is a next-door neighbor to Russia and we are about 6000 miles away. The Ukraine became an independent country with the break up of the Soviet Union only a short time ago.  Historically, it has always been dominated by its powerful neighbor to the East. 

Nevertheless, ever since it became an independent republic NATO and the European Union have been trying to incorporate the Ukraine into their orbit for what reason I cannot say. Both we and the Europeans have been thumbing their noses at the Russians and literally forcing them to take action. The Wall Street Journal always applauds when two companies bid against each other to acquire another company. Yet, when Russia outbid the Europeans for the Ukraine and its assets, the Journal cried foul. 

Now, the Journal and others demonize Vladimir Putin and call him a dictator. Yet since when have we opposed dictators, even those near our doorstep? We have allowed a brutal dictatorship in Cuba for over 60 years, and we will do nothing to topple the one that has ruled and ruined Venezuela for over a decade. We support practically every dictator on the continent of Africa.

Despite media attacks on Putin it would appear that both Russians and Ukrainians today enjoy a greater degree of freedom than at any time over the past 100 years. Recently former chess champion and political commentator Gary Kasparov wrote that the way to punish Putin was to threaten the investments of Russian millionaires in the West. Wealthy Russians did not buy luxury homes in New York and San Francisco during the Stalinist era. 

In another recent Journal op-ed Matthew Kaminski argued that the recent revolution in the Ukraine created an environment that was an embarrassment to the Russian dictator. He mentioned new Ukrainian leaders who wait on line like everyone else at airports, who take the subway to work, or who stand in line in the government cafeteria. Kaminski contrasted such leaders with those in repressive Russia, but when he returns home from Kiev, he will be hard pressed to find any American politicians flying economy or taking the subway to work. Is President Obama a dictator because he flies in luxury aboard Air Force One? I doubt if ultra liberal mayor Di Blasio takes the subway to work each day.

At about the same time I was playing “Risk” as a boy President Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex in this Nation and also argued that this country should never get involved in a land war on the continent of Asia. We have repeatedly ignored this advice to our great harm. Now we are sending planes and war ships into Lithuania and the Baltic Sea right into Russia’s front yard.  This could be far more serious than the mess we have created in Afghanistan where all we had to deal with was neighboring Pakistan.

We cannot and should not be the world’s policeman. When we have tried we have often done more harm than good. We deposed a dictator in Iraq but does anyone know how many Iraqi lives were lost in the process? You could even argue that despite their obvious political differences, our last two Presidents have de-stabilized the entire Middle East. Do we want to do the same in the great borderland between Europe and Asia?  After all, what is NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, doing in the Ukraine? Any child looking at a “Risk” board would see that the Ukraine is far from the North Atlantic.

###

Hatred of President Trump

 

 

Shortly after President Trump’s election an old friend told me that I ought to be “sick to my stomach” at Trump’s behavior. I replied that my stomach was fine, and asked him to please list a couple of things that Trump has done as President that he found objectionable. He declined to provide anything except to say that it was Trump’s personality and behavior that disgusted him. Like many he played the amateur psychologist and claimed that Trump was “narcissistically self-aggrandizing.” In other words, he didn't like the President and it won’t matter what he does.

I suspect that this attitude is shared by most of those who today literally hate the President despite lawn signs proclaiming that “Hate Has No Home Here.” They vehemently dislike the man and everything about him including his family. From the beginning his detractors have complained of every word and gesture. 

One acquaintance recently told me that the President was totally evil and responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the country. He is responsible for the 200000 coronavirus deaths as well as the fires raging in California. When I asked her if she could think of one good thing the President had done, she could not name one. 

Unfortunately, relentless hatred against Trump has meant that too few have bothered to discuss or assess what he has actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against his person, his words and even gestures, but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. It should be possible to have a rational discussion of these policies without descending into invective against Trump. Even though actions are supposed to speak louder than words, words travel faster and fake news travels even faster.

Perhaps the President’s greatest achievement so far is the fact that he is still in office after more than three years. When the President took office, there were many who believed that he was unfit for the office and would not be able to govern or even form an administration. They predicted that his Presidency would not last 4 weeks much less four years. We know that at the beginning there were those in high places in government who even conspired to remove him from office. The Mueller investigation was part of this effort.

Now despite continued opposition from Democrats that sought to constantly obstruct the President, and even led to a highly partisan attempt at impeachment, the President is still in office and can point to a number of real achievements. 

Just recently his administration brokered an unprecedented deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates that led these two long-time enemies to establish relations. A few days later the President announced that a similar agreement had been reached between Serbia and Kosovo. Efforts of precious administrations had come to nothing.

When I mention these achievements to people, they express disbelief probably due to the fact that a Trump-hating media is censoring any news that would reflect credit on the President.  One person I know dismissed the news and claimed that these peace deals would not last.

Some people have noticed. Recently, a Norwegian parliamentarian nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize because of his role in the Israel/UAR settlement. That was followed by another nomination for his role in the Serbia/Kosovo agreement. Most people have not heard this news, and when they do they dismiss it and claim that the nomination process is flawed. Headlines and lead articles on Yahoo news are mainly negative.

You have to dig deep to find that the Norwegian, characterized as far-right, who nominated the President claimed that the Nobel committee “should look at the facts and judge him on the facts—not on the way he behaves sometimes.” He concluded, “I think he has done more trying to create peace between nations than most other peace prize nominees.”

I wonder what the President’s critics thought of the Nobel process when President Obama won the Peace prize after only one year in office, and with no foreign policy successes. 

It used to be an axiom in American politics that while the parties could disagree vehemently on domestic issues, they would come together and support the President in his dealings with foreign countries. Nevertheless, President Trump has never been able to count on the support of the Democratic party in his dealings with foreign powers, whether friend or foe.

He tried, for example, to broker a deal between North and South Korea that had the potential to end the North Korean nuclear arms program. Who knows what success he might have had if the Democrats had stood behind him on this vital issue? Instead, by constantly seeking to de-legitimize him and even remove him from office, they obviously weakened his negotiating position. What a shame.

### 

 

Trump-Putin Summit 2018

It is still too early to assess the results of the recently concluded summit meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued as much in his testimony yesterday before a Senate committee. Nevertheless, Democrat politicians and anti-Trump media were quick to claim that President Trump had sold out his country to the Russian premier to the point of treason. In previous years the Soviet Union was a darling of leftists in this country, but now that Trump is President, it is a different story.

The Weekly Bystander is taking a little break this month but I have written about Russia before. Below is a reprint of a March 2018 post  that dealt with the subject of the relationship between the United States and Russia. It is still relevant.

Russia has been constantly in the news since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. I would like to make a comparison with the formidable task that President Trump faces, and the one faced by Vladimir Putin, the recently re-elected leader of Russia. It has been said that the job of President of the United States is the most difficult one in the world, but it seems to me that the Russian Premier’s job is much more difficult.

You just have to glance at a map to see that Russia is surrounded by enemies. If Islamic militancy is a great danger to us, it is a far greater threat to Russia which is bounded on the south by Iran and Kazakhstan. Even within its borders the large Muslim population, especially the fiercely independent Chechens, constitutes a constant menace. 

American commentators on both the left and the right like to blame Putin for his involvement in Syria but Putin has much more to fear from ISIS and other radical Moslem extremists than America does. These same commentators should ask what business the United States has in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  Geographically, we are 6000 miles away from the war-torn scene. 

Moreover, while we worry about trade relations with nearby Canada and Mexico. Russia is bordered by industrial and military superpowers. To the West the economy of the European Union dwarfs that of Russia, a third-world economy compared to Germany alone. In addition, the NATO alliance is a very serious military presence on Russia’s doorstep and seems to continually seek new members. Of course, the presence of NATO is also the presence of the United States.

To the East, Russia is bordered by Mongolia, a Chinese province, and then by China itself, an industrial and military superpower. The Chinese population and economy far outstrip that of Russia. In recent years Putin has negotiated deals that have made Russia a leading supplier of energy to the growing Chinese population and economy. In this respect, Russia’s relationship with China resembles Canada’s with the USA.

Even though Russia doesn’t border North Korea, Pyongyang the capitol of North Korea is only 400 miles from the Russian Pacific port city of Vladivostok. That’s about the same as the distance from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Who should have more to fear from a North Korean nuclear weapon, Russia or the USA? I would also guess that the South Korean economy is further advanced than Russia’s.

We should try to put ourselves in Putin’s shoes. Twenty-five years ago the collapse of the Soviet Empire was a tremendous loss both strategically and psychologically. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Russia effectively lost the Cold War. Former satellite countries like East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and the Ukraine fell away into independent states that sought entrance into the NATO military alliance. Geographically, Russia is still the largest country in the world, but its population has shrunk to 143 Million. Compare this figure with China’s 1.3 Billion population or even with the more than 300 Million population of the USA. 

When Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II, we rebuilt those shattered countries and they became not only two of the world’s great powers but two of our most reliable allies. When Russia lost the Cold War we could have attempted something similar instead of seeing it as a threat.

During the Presidential campaign Donald Trump made some remarks about seeking a new, positive relationship with Russia. However, since the election a number of reasons has led his administration to act tough on Russia. Economic sanctions have been imposed, and diplomats have been expelled in response to some of Putin’s moves. Also, NATO has been flexing its muscles, and the new 1.3 Trillion USA budget promises an escalation of the arms race.

I fail to see the value of driving Putin’s back to the wall, especially since his country has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Why tempt him to use it over the poisoning of a spy? I think it would be much more advantageous to take the pressure off Russia both economically and militarily. 

Economically, our objective should be to help rebuild the Russian economy in the same way that we did for Germany and Japan after World War II. The United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are the world’s three leading suppliers of oil and natural gas. Russia’s geographic position should make it the largest supplier for energy poor Europe. We should encourage this natural trade relationship and not try to upset it with sanctions or price manipulation designed to weaken the Russian economy. A prosperous Russia with a growing middle class is in the best interests of the United States.

Militarily, we could ease the pressure on Russia so that such a large percentage of their GNP does not have to go into military spending. The first step would have to be an agreement that would guarantee the independence of the Ukraine. If Putin would agree to that, NATO could agree to pull back its forces from the Ukrainian border. 

Actually, I fail to see why we should not offer NATO membership to Russia itself. After all, it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Originally, NATO was designed to counter the military might of the aggressive Communist Soviet Empire. Now that Empire no longer exists, and Communism is a dead letter. The United States and Europe would be much better able to deal with the great geo-political problems of the twenty first century if Russia was an ally and not an enemy.

###

President Trump in Saudi Arabia

A long-time friend recently told me that I ought to be “sick to my stomach” at Trump’s behavior. I replied that my stomach is fine, but I asked him to please list a couple of things that Trump has done as President that he finds objectionable. He declined to provide anything except to say that it was Trump’s personality and behavior that disgusted him. Like many he played the amateur psychologist and claimed that Trump was “narcissistically self-aggrandizing.” In other words, he doesn’t like the President and it won’t matter what he does.

I suspect that this attitude is shared by most of those who were shocked and dismayed by Trump’s election. They vehemently dislike the man and everything about him including his family. As a result, they will not rest until he leaves office either by resignation or impeachment.

In a post written after the President’s speech to Congress I wrote that “the true test of the Trump administration will be on how much it can deliver. If President Trump can just deliver on a third of his promises, it will be a successful Presidency. Batting .333 is good in any league. I hope commentators will begin to focus on what the Trump administration is actually doing, and not on what they feat he will do.”

Unfortunately, relentless hatred against Trump has meant that few have bothered to discuss or assess what he has actually done in office so far. There has been a steady flow of vitriolic venom directed against every word or even gesture but no real discussion or evaluation of his public policies or actions. Even though actions are supposed to speak louder than words, words travel faster and fake news travels even faster.

The ship of state is like a giant aircraft carrier that takes time to turn. Even after the captain orders a change of direction, momentum will still carry the ship forward for a while. A huge ship cannot turn on a dime. It is the same with government. So what has Trump done so far?

I’m not going to spend much time discussing his various appointments, none of which seem to be those of some psychopath. Also, health care and tax reform are working their way through Congress in a much more open and constitutional fashion than in the previous administration.

It would appear that this week President Trump began the slow process of changing the course of American foreign policy. Interestingly, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, John Bolton, a foreign affairs guru, argued that so far Trump has followed the same basic course as his two predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. However, Just this week President Trump began his first overseas visits with stops at the seats of the three great Western religious faiths.

To me the recently concluded visit to Saudi Arabia marked a real turning point. It is obvious that the visit had been well planned.  No one makes a $400 billion arms deal on the spur of the moment. Yesterday, my local Connecticut newspaper, a virulent opponent of Trump, featured an article indicating that the Saudi deal would provide much needed jobs at Sikorsky Aircraft, one of the country’s leading helicopter manufacturers.

But it was not just the trade deal. Despite his alleged Islamophobia, Trump received a royal welcome from the Saudis who were obviously happy to see him. The visit itself as well as the well- crafted speech that Trump gave on Sunday marked a real change over the policies of Obama and Bush. Trump announced that he was there to repair the relationship with Saudi Arabia that had been so damaged during the Obama administration. He declared his full support of Saudi Arabia not only in the fight against terrorism but also against Iran.

We don’t need Saudi oil anymore but we do need them as an economic and military partner. Trump also appealed to the Saudi leadership by stating that the era of nation building and outside interference was over. He expressed no desire to call for democracy or civil rights reforms in Saudi Arabia. He will not mess with their internal affairs or their religious doctrines and culture.

This marks a real change in policy. The policy of supporting and arming rebels in places like Libya, Egypt and Syria would appear to be over. Ivanka Trump might want to work for women’s rights in the Moslem world but her father and his advisors seem to understand that the greatest attacks on civil and women’s rights have come in countries where we have intervened to bring down autocratic rulers.

Saudi Arabia is a royal despotism where women have to cover their faces and bodies in public. But we just have to compare it to its neighbors where the breakdown of authority has led to the total denial of civil rights. In neighboring countries women are routinely kidnapped, beaten, raped, forced to flee their homes, and murdered.

In many ways Saudi Arabia is a business more than a country. Trump intends to do business with them but leave the running of their own business to them. Time will tell whether this strategy will work or not but it is worth a try. It has worked in many times and places. Discussion of this strategy should be based on its merits and not on the personality of President Trump. It is not the strategy of a psychopathic narcissist.

###