Other stuff

[Gavagai]

To explain my thesis a bit more - Trump, it is true, made lots of symbolic gestures of respect towards dictators. I see it as smart diplomacy because people who become dictators tend to trade real advantages for empty symbols. It is quite shocking for me that the American public does not understand even so basic a concept.

[Gavagai]

I think I would say Trump actually handled diplomacy with dictatorships really well because he has a deep and instinctive understanding of the way the game is played where politics is personal. But he handled poorly diplomacy with democracies because he does not have a good understanding of how giant impersonal bureaucracies interact with each other.
(He seriously screwed up with Kim but it happened because of the blinders he shares with all Americans. At least, he made an honest attempt to resolve the situation what cannot be said about those before him.)

[Ginger*]

If the Russians expected Ukraine to capitulate, why would it matter the American stance? Any non-aerial response would take weeks to plan and launch, if Putin planned all along to stick a puppet, annex the Donbas and present the rest of the world a Fait Accompli, gauging the US reaction doesn’t make sense.

That’s the problem I have with the central thesis of your argument that “any other US President would’ve successfully deterred Putin”: if they were willing to implement one really shit plan (invading UKR as they did) why would it have changed the decision if the indicators were more unfavorable? Rational or not, it’s pretty clear that some of Putin’s intel and assessments are laughably off.
It’s certainly possible that Biden saying “we will institute No-Fly zone in the event of a general ground invasion” would’ve made Putin look elsewhere but I’m not sure, we already see how he’s doubled down

[Gavagai]

The best argument that Trump was good for Putin is that Russia tried to swing the election in Trump’s favor.

Edit: And thinking about it a bit, it’s probably not so much that Trump was directly helping Putin, but that his “America First” agenda was weakening America’s global influence.

Darrell

About Russian interference. It is actually a great example of non-events that only have great significance inside American media bubble. For me it is especially comical because I have some understanding of how Putin and his government operate and I can reconstruct how the events transpired on the other side.
Firstly, Putin is very certain that Americans massively and systematically interfere in Russian elections and is quite mad about it. So, when people from his inner circle approached him with the idea "hey, we can play this game too!" he gave it a green light without much thought. There was no cunning plan or considered strategy behind it, he just saw an opportunity for "payback".
Secondly, from the perspective of those who put the plan into action, the primary goal of the operation was to steal the money allocated to it. From the evidence of "Russian interference" I saw, it was obvious that they were doing things with the goal to generate content for sufficiently convincing reporting, not actually influencing anything. Their budget was infinitesimal compared to the budget of American campaigns (no wonder because the money was mostly stolen). Needless to say, the real-world effect of all this was probably zero.
I find the fact that small-scale Russian corruption turned into a huge American political scandal hysterically funny.
(With that said, Trump handled the whole affair terribly in lots of ways but this is a different story.)

[Mjmd]

To explain my thesis a bit more - Trump, it is true, made lots of symbolic gestures of respect towards dictators. I see it as smart diplomacy because people who become dictators tend to trade real advantages for empty symbols. It is quite shocking for me that the American public does not understand even so basic a concept.

Did we get anything out of this that is worth what we are giving away? We are giving away prestige and moral high ground (which we already lack) and bolstering countries who we have very little in common with for what?

[Gavagai]

If the Russians expected Ukraine to capitulate, why would it matter the American stance? Any non-aerial response would take weeks to plan and launch, if Putin planned all along to stick a puppet, annex the Donbas and present the rest of the world a Fait Accompli, gauging the US reaction doesn’t make sense.

That’s the problem I have with the central thesis of your argument that “any other US President would’ve successfully deterred Putin”: if they were willing to implement one really shit plan (invading UKR as they did) why would it have changed the decision if the indicators were more unfavorable? Rational or not, it’s pretty clear that some of Putin’s intel and assessments are laughably off.
It’s certainly possible that Biden saying “we will institute No-Fly zone in the event of a general ground invasion” would’ve made Putin look elsewhere but I’m not sure, we already see how he’s doubled down

Putin generally has a very good understanding of people and politics. In the case of Ukraine, his understanding failed him because of subjective reasons. Also, I think he more or less understood the pitiful state of his army but had exaggerated ideas about the quality of his security service and they were supposed to do the job in Ukraine (subjective reasons once again). Finally, how Western public opinion operates he never quite understood at all. Russians are cynical and they cannot comprehend a worldview that takes morality seriously. But when it comes to cases where he is free from emotional attachments and philosophical blinders, like American leadership, his understanding is usually spot on.
Secondly, Putin built his entire political career on the impressive use of risk-management skills. He is normally very careful and conservative in his actions but he has an excellent instinct for understanding the right moment to risk everything and get a huge pay-off. So, normally he would not risk an open confrontation with NATO irrespective of whether the war plan against Ukraine is good or not. He never saw (and still does not see) Ukraine as a proper opponent, his enemy was always the USA. And he understood that the USA has lots of ways to hurt him even if he wins in Ukraine militarily.
And after Biden was elected president, he saw that this is the moment; because he looked Biden in the eyes and saw the eyes of a man who would surrender Ukraine to him and Biden gave him multiple signals to confirm this impression after that. The rest is history.

[Mjmd]

Jowy does tend to go too far. Trump weakened NATO, and in general antagonized practically all the USs traditional allies. I don't know what his goal was or if he even had one. Everything Trump did internationally was based on how he thought he base would view it. It didn't matter if it was good or smart, it was if he thought it would make him look good to 'his' people. Betray our 20 year allies in the Kurds for anti immigrant cred; checks out.
1) Aid to Ukraine started with the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014" which also included a lot of sanctions. Again, with the Syria Wagner thing there isn't proof there; at least none that has been presented.
2) Trump was ignoring Russian interference in US elections, refused to act on Russian bounties for killing US servicemen, and again as a reminder threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine for political dirt. The whole betraying the Kurds also increased Russian clout in the middle east. He was also providing positive press for Putin.
3) Considering the first two has a lot of logical flaws.

The above was off the top of my head. To note in the following I'm leaving out things he "thought about doing / didn't want to do" as well as instances where he said "he was being sarcastic". I'm also leaving out things that are from "former officials" that aren't confirmed. Also, leaving out things that I believe MIGHT have been valid.

Others that stick out to me: During the 2016 campaign he said it was OK if Russia kept Crimea. 2016 R convention blocked language calling for US gov to send aid (this was part of Mueller investigating but determined it wasn't made on behest of Russia). 2017 he gave them highly classified intelligence about ISIS, which is prob valid, but there was concern Russia could figure out source. Trump did say NATO was obsolete. I think I mentioned somewhere above that Trump did ease some sanctions and tried to weaken others. Blocked his administration from giving statement 10th anniversary of Russia-Georgia war. Nov 2018 declined to publicly condemn Russian attack on Ukrainian military vessels. I am mentioning as there is congressional testimony on and it was prepared so all he had to do was read the thing. Called for Russia to be invited back to G7.

As I said, we have very different perceptions of how politics operates. From my perspective, almost everything you listed is senseless American media drama that has no real-world relevance but I understand how you would think otherwise if you live inside this narrative. With respect to some other things you said I am uncertain you fully comprehend what you are saying. For example, to refrain from betraying Kurds would mean to betray Turks; I hope I do not need to explain how incredibly important this country is in the current conflict and, more generally, how key Turkey is for NATO if NATO seriously wants to contain Russia. How you can in the same breath criticize Trump for sucking up to Turkey, being soft on Russia and weakening NATO I do not understand.

So one of my many problems with Trump betraying the Kurds is the US didn't get anything out of it. That situation had been tense Obamas whole term but it was kept stable; we weren't betraying either side. While Turkey is important, they aren't betraying long term allies just to make them temporarily happy important. Erdogan is very close to (if not already) a dictator and I doubt this helped us a thimbleful in for instance trying to get Finland and Sweden in NATO. Hell Trump got a rare mass Republican rebuke for this.

Edit: please comment on Trumps lack of action on the two instances above where he could have spoken up against Russia.

[Gavagai]

To explain my thesis a bit more - Trump, it is true, made lots of symbolic gestures of respect towards dictators. I see it as smart diplomacy because people who become dictators tend to trade real advantages for empty symbols. It is quite shocking for me that the American public does not understand even so basic a concept.

Did we get anything out of this that is worth what we are giving away? We are giving away prestige and moral high ground (which we already lack) and bolstering countries who we have very little in common with for what?

Well, it was during Trump presidency the previously very hot conflict in Donbass was essentially frozen and Russia seemed serious in pursuing a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. I cannot know for sure, of course, but I would not be surprised if there is a causal connection between this and sacrificing the mysterious thing you call "moral high ground".

[Gavagai]

Edit: please comment on Trumps lack of action on the two instances above where he could have spoken up against Russia.

I do not understand how the symbolic act of "speaking up against Russia" is important. What I see is that Biden called Putin a murderer but allowed North Stream and also "a small invasion". I would much prefer Trump who did not needlessly insult his opponent but stopped North Stream, gave Ukraine weapons and made it clear that he is not afraid to engage Russian forces.

[Mjmd]

Yep that is Trump. Never needlessly insulted anybody; certainly not countries we were allied with. Again weapons started in 2014 (and again Trump threatened to withhold for political gain). And again, last statement has not been proven and is based at best on a possibility.