In the country I grew up in, no politician would have had anything nice to say about the Soviet premier, nor would they have excused their suppression of a free press. That’s not to say that we didn’t often make ourselves stupid through our refusal to see nuance and our enforcement of taboos, but that’s definitely not what is going on with the love affair between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. This morning, Trump appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and was questioned by the hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski.
“Well, I mean, [Putin is] also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?” Scarborough asked.
“He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader,” Trump replied. “Unlike what we have in this country.”
“But again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him,” Scarborough said.
The Republican presidential front-runner said there was “a lot of killing going on” around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.
“I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know,” Trump replied. “There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is. But you didn’t ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that’s fine.”
Scarborough was left visibly stunned.
“I’m confused,” the MSNBC host said. “So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?”
“Oh sure, absolutely,” Trump said.
This isn’t your father’s political campaign, that’s for sure. I’m trying to picture Barry Goldwater basking in the warmth of Nikita Khrushchev or Leonid Brezhnev’s praise.
Yeah, that didn’t happen.
Any questions?
“I’m confused,” the MSNBC host said. “So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?”
“Oh sure, absolutely,” Trump said.”
Yes Trump gets into power depend upon him running the USA just like his idol Putin. Journalist and political opponents beware! The Donald will get ya if ya don’t watch out! He is the Grinch in disguise.
Having to be pushed desperately by Cup o’ Joe to say “Oh sure, absolutely” is a hilarious exchange. It debased the host and defined Trump as, in an almost literal sense, answering the question by verbally shrugging his shoulders and saying “whatEVER.”
Call me crazy, but I just don’t think Trump will run to any candidate’s left on defense issues. He won’t want to (not his brand!), and he wouldn’t be credible at all if he wanted to.
The very best thing? Trump will remain on speed dial with the producer of the Squint and the Meat Puppet show, and these extremely threatening and authoritarian expressions will be forgotten when The Donald’s 15-minute call with the hosts and guests is broadcast on the show next week. And the week after, and the week after…
Sarah Palin had a thing for Putin as well — he’s actually quite popular with the wingnuts. Weird.
Scarborough said., (Putin) ‘invades countries.’ I’m not making that up. Do we know anyone else who invades countries—halfway around the world? Putin’s intolerance of dissenting journalists is definitely ugly, however. Trump’s reaction maybe even more so.
Why isn’t this getting more attention? I find it to be one of the most truly bizarre symptoms of the current right wing fever, so thanks for bringing it up. And it’s not just the politicians. At least among my acquaintances, the people most strongly supportive of Putin are the far right loons. Many of them people I grew up with in Alaska who have spent years of their lives crapping their britches in fear of the Ruskies. Just really, really weird.
I scan a site that provides a daily dose of rightwing email forwards and Facebook posts.
Putin has been a yoooge hero in wingnut land ever since you know who “invaded” the “WHITE” house. There’s loads of posts of bare chested, manly Putin sent out on a constant basis – of course negatively comparing him to girly-girly weak & feckless you know who, the blah in the WHITE house.
Get the drift?
Of course, it’s so nutty in wingnut land bc one day they’ll be excoriating Putin for being the evilest dictator ever in the history of mankind – this was mainly during the USA-paid Nazi invasion of Ukraine, which you know who was fecklessy f*cking up – or Putin is the most manliest of men who shows up Obama for the weakling politically correct feckless lazy dumbo of all times.
Lather rinse repeat. I’ve seen the fawning over Putin so often now that this recent foray with Joe S is, in wingnutland, not newsworthy. I’m sure Trump’s supporters are all sitting around going: Right ON!!!! YAY Trump! Woot! WOW! Putin praised Trump. This PROVES we need to vote for Trump.
Of course, I think Putin just pwnd Trump, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Nothing weird about it — they like those with a tough guy persona. Even when it’s a phony as a three dollar bill as in the case of John Wayne, Reagan, and GWB. Also GWB looked into the eyes of Putie and saw his own reflection.
Putin is at least as rightwing as Francisco Franco, for heaven’s sake, a lover of Russian Orthodoxy and the sainthood of Nicholas II and a hater of independent women, gay people, unions, and the press. He exudes compassion for endangered dictators from Yanukovych (“it was the legitimate government!”) to Assad, none for the people suffering under their regimes. And subject of a personality cult somewhere between Mussolini and Lee Kuan Yew.
The only thing for rightwingers not to like is that he comes from Russia. If he were from Texas he’d be the frontrunner in the Republican primary.
One man’s poorly considered actions and strong offensive statements are another man’s evidence of leadership and strength.
Trump is just another tinpot tyrant to be welcomed to the fold:
He sounds like Pope Francis. At least Putin understands this “work” for what it is; the essential challenge of demagoguery. US politics in 2016 is paying huge dividends of entertainment on my modest investment over the years. Bring it on.
Putinism on Trump’s ‘great man’ bromance with himself:
Oh, brother…
A little payback for team Clinton’s interference in the Russian 1996 Presidential election?
Although I think it is merely a variation of the Putin Doctrine; our great power diplomacy defends your right to domestic tyranny. I’m guessing Putin sees in Trump the makings of a fellow didact and demagogue.
Unlike you, I don’t have access to the private thoughts and feeling of Putin. However, putting myself in his shoes, it’s somewhat easy to see that the GOP contenders other than Trump (and Paul, but he doesn’t have a chance) are rabid warmongers and kneejerk anti-communists and those, such as Nuland, that are close to Clinton along with Clinton’s impulses would would be of great concern to me.
There is that. Given Clinton’s involvement with the Kaganate of Nuland, Putin may be thinking that, given the options, perhaps buttering up the giant ego of the Donald might be on order.
Putin is many things, but I do believe he’s pretty smart.
Putin’s aspirations are not so hard to discern, really. If you look at his alliances and puppetry among the former Soviet republics a common thread emerges.
If I were to imagine what Putin thought I would assume he felt that Trump’s apparent success was a welcome justification from the West of his own illiberal and autocratic cult of personality.
Oh hell, thirteen years on Americans can’t even agree on GWB’s aspirations for invading Iraq when his and US alliances and puppets are well known. Big fucking deal if Putin expends energy on holding the Russian Federation together. Didn’t one of our greatest Presidents do the same and don’t we expect all Presidents to behave the same way if challenged in that way?
I concede, Marie. You just fairly compared Putin to Abraham Lincoln and you’re not wrong either. Respect. I never saw that coming.
Prefer empathy and analogies when evaluating people and situations. Both were sorely lacking in the west in the aftermath of WWII by dismissing the huge price the USSR paid to defeat the Nazis on the Eastern Front.
Have you ever read Russia at War? It’s an excellent book and a startling vivid snowdome of the time; though published well after the war.
No, but the casualties and destruction that the USSR suffered in WWII compared to that of the US are telling. More USSR casualties in the Battle of Stalingrad than for the whole of the war for the US. Unlike the Iraq War, the US didn’t open the Western Front until it had the army it needed.
Excuse me for being a bit sensitive at the moment as I’m reading The Devil’s Chessboard.
Holding the Russian Federation together is one thing, expanding it is another.
Your comment would have more relevance if NATO hadn’t been expanding after agreeing with Gorbachev not to do so.
NATO doesn’t use tanks to keep it’s members in NATO.
NATO isn’t a country or republic. But it feels free enough to send in bombers, troops, and tanks to non-member states of its own choosing.
Need I also remind you what happened in this country when states seceded from the union and initiated armed conflict against the union?
We didn’t like nor tolerate USSR missiles near our border, why should Russia accept US/NATO missiles on its borders?
‘NATO’ just shot down two aircraft in Syria. Or was that Turkey?
Your larger point seems right; NATO hasn’t annexed any territory recently although Erdogan is trying. Whereas with Putin it is something of a pattern.
But that’s Turkey, not NATO.
The countries that joined NATO wanted to join NATO for protection from Russia. All states are free to leave at any time. France used to belong to NATO and then DeGaulle took France out of NATO.
If you can’t see the difference between a voluntary alliance and an empire, I’ve been thinking too highly of your cognitive skills. It’s like the difference between a voluntary marriage and that creep in Ohio who held three girls as sex slaves for years.
You really should read Chalmers Johnson’s trilogy for a better understanding of “empire.”
As for “voluntary,” most people don’t view slavery as in any way, shape, or form as voluntary. However, sex-slavery exists in this country. $290 million/year in Atlanta’s illegal sex industry.
After age 18?
How voluntary is a marriage between a young and attractive woman and an old wealthy man? Money and promises of goodies can buy a lot of voluntary alliances. And when it comes to nations, who decides on those “voluntary” alliances? The majority of the people of S. Vietnam (1954-1974) were denied by the US the referendum to make their wishes known and suffered the devastating consequences of a war to prop up US puppets. Don’t erase from your mind all the various ways that the US has and continues to control those that do as their told.
btw — you might want to inform yourself as to why De Gualle pulled France out of NATO.
well, no, irrelevant because the milieu that matters is their own history and historical precedent.
Rs are much easier to deal with, in fact easy to manipulate b/c they are predictable, simple minded about foreign policy [nowadays anyway], and strangely naive on the personal foreign relations level.
also seems to me a bit of trolling going on.
Some Americans seem wound up tighter than an eight-day clock. Just relax and enjoy the show.
not quite sure what you’re getting at here. but you’re wrong about the aspirations as well – or at least incomplete, because you don’t mention the internal situation at all which is the primary issue. most commenters are just projecting some usa situation on their situation.
oh, now I see, you’re trying to insult me. well, I guess if you are promoting ignorant spectator-hood and ridicule. what you are ridiculing, however, has impact on people’s lives
No offence intended. My point is that these discussions are meant to be entertaining; that we are somehow solving the world’s problems here or having the slightest influence on the outcomes seems unlikely, if that is your meaning. Though not impossible.
I like commenting to set a marker, take a risk, possibly share a useful insight; if some other well-informed seeker after truth has a different slant or can, indeed, shoot some argument down in flames, as sometimes happens, so be it. For me it’s fun and stimulating. Sometimes I’m didactic but I try not to be invested in convincing you, the interlocutor; I might have a swing at it but hopefully not more than one.
If we disagree on matters of subjectivity or admissibility of evidence there is little recourse to resolution beyond the collective opinion of our peers. I’m happy to drop most such arguments in the interest of good will and fellowship. Hopefully next time we’ll meet again as equals and compatriots.
well I guess we differ on that – some threads are entertaining I guess, though i usually go to tpm comments for entertainment. for me these issues are very serious; as far as influence on outcomes goes, well that’s around on this blog as well; and as accurate as possible interpretations make a difference and that’s what discussion is about. of course some here have a large amount of info about things I know little about, so I read for that as well
The issues are serious. Our commentary maybe not so much beyond exploration for the truth; hard enough at best of times.
Here’s my argument. The West has NATO; the vestige of the Cold War alliance and it is held together by the collective intention of the member states (well, most) to preserve social democracy as an institution and themselves as sovereign territorial states. What does Putin’s emergent great power Russia have? Nada.
Yet he’s surrounded by the former republics of the Soviet Union where the see-saw conflict of democracy versus autocracy seems to be slipping one way; to some variation of tyranny. We don’t talk about this very much in the States but I’m suggesting it lies at the heart of Putin’s geopolitical power and control over Central Asian resources; an important point for him. To Putin Iran is one of several nations in a declared sphere of influence sharing the Caspian Sea, for example. If they happen to be run by theocrats or tyrants all the better, really.
But back to the main event. Putin, though himself a latecomer modelling his ascent on those of other regional strongmen, clearly sees that his great power aspirations can also be parleyed into alliances, if not outright obedience, with these autocracies. Except in situations where Putin has installed a hand-picked tyrant he carefully avoids the appearance of meddling in their domestic politics, such as it is. This has created a tacit anti-NATO collective of states, like Belarus, which are somewhat insulated from Western condemnation by Russia, in the UN for example. In return Putin claims their allegiances. Hence the Putin doctrine; Russia’s great power diplomacy defends your domestic tyranny.
This is the heart, it seems to me, of what is at issue in the Ukraine and demonstrates how far Putin is prepared to go to promote this doctrine. From his point of view the former and legitimate government was overthrown by subversives and he is upholding the rule of law. He sees Western human rights NGOs the same way, as foreign subversion. This plays well in Uzbekistan, Kazahkstan and Azerbaijan.
It’s possible to see this doctrine also at work in, at least, Putin’s stated positions on Assad, although there is clearly geopolitical great power mischief afoot in Syria as well. Erdogan and Putin are having a bit of a cage match there; but that’s another subject.
So by citing his ‘doctrine’ as the motivation for Putin’s encouraging comments about Donald I was attempting a playful dig at Trump’s demagoguery and apparent ‘putsch’ of the Republican party.
well, your analysis lacks any analysis of the internal issues driving the situation, hence misses the mark in terms of the dynamic. that’s my problem with it.
This is all to do with Russia’s foreign policy; it is offered as a foreign policy doctrine. It also assumes that Russia herself is an oligarchic autocracy which understands and values protection from human rights criticism.
Russia’s domestic politics is another matter; I was shocked to discover recently the history of the Russian apartment bombings in 1999 and their part in Putin’s rise to power. Is that the kind of thing you mean?
well, yes that’s connected with very important internal issues, (I mention about every day that one of Russia’s interest in keeping extremism down in Syria has to do with their activity already and proximity). very difficult to sort out the facts of course. but your link goes to what I’m criticizing in your comment, yes, because previous analysis was lacking any analysis of domestic situation as a driver. you should look at the economy over the past 25 years as well (in your spare time)
It’s not a pretty picture. And, sure, Putin’s experience as a domestic tyrant and ruthless opponent of dissent certainly informs what I’m suggesting is geopolitics on much the same theme. That’s a really good point.
Perhaps that’s why the master manipulators are generally rightwing and fascist.
Trump as a potential republican prez would have all the weaknesses of GWB and more,
With the added benefit of having utterly destroyed the Republican party as we know it on his way there. But could he win the general election? Have we fallen so far as to be capable of that?
I think we’re about to find out.
I doubt it, but it does depend what happens on the dem side.
You’re not suggesting Putin wanted the Zyuganov Communists to win? He was on Yeltsin’s team. That was his springboard to the presidency.
Putin’s springboard was the devastation wrought on the Russian economy by the the drunk Yeltsin, oligarchs and western neoliberals.
Knowing that Putin was a lower level official on Yeltsin’s team is a fact that doesn’t compute well for those of us in the US. We’re accustomed to two major parties and not one party as has long existed in Russia. It would be as if after GWB’s screw-ups, we had to choose between Condi Rice or Cheney.
Perhaps you’re too young, but Reagan said nice things about Gorbachev.
FDR and Stalin managed to get along. Although FDR and Churchhill weren’t on the same page with Uncle Joe as to what to do with Hitler’s top military, ministerial, and party ranks at the end of WWII. One party favored identify and shoot them. The other advocated for public trials and no executions without conviction and such a sentence.
Is a fairly accurate but marvellously simplified summation of a key turning point in 20th century history.
Appropriate for the post and comments that simplify today. Trump is a simpleton (not more so than his primary race competitors), but Putin not so much.
It’s wrong. Far from it. Just that this complex relationship has filled a whole shelf of history books.
What’s wrong? That FDR and Stalin didn’t manage to get along? Or that they have different ideas on how to handle the Nazi high command after the war?
“Not Saying… It’s wrong.” The ‘get along’ thing. The handling of the Nazi high command came well after FDR had any say in it, although I agree with you in principle.
The broad outline of the Allies agreement, in which FDR most certainly did weigh in on, was followed after the war. Not sure what you’re disputing.
Apparently. Remind me not to play with you anymore.
You did conveniently deflect away from an interesting and little known factoid in my first comment. Easier to split national leaders into sane and insane when facts interfere with prejudice.
I couldn’t work out whether you were saying that FDR and Churchill weren’t on the same page with each other in their differences with Stalin or that they collectively weren’t on the same page with Stalin. What’s the little-known factoid?
FDR and Churchill wanted to round them up and execute them. Stalin insisted on the public trials before sentencing. He managed to persuade FDR and Churchill went along.
Great power geopolitics:
Everyone else’s megalomaniacal aspirations fought to a brief standstill while we strangle Daesh? This will be interesting.
Certainly one of my favorite things about Obama is his long insistence, throughout the 2008 campaign and afterwards, that he could deal with Putin, which rightwingers love to mock. Who treated him, of course, the way Netanyahu does, as an insolent shvartser. But Obama got very important things out of it, the renewed Start treaty, the Syria chemical weapons deal, the Iran agreement, now a proper Security Council approach to peace in Syria. So point taken.
But I somehow doubt Trump is up to that kind of dealing.
This is nothing new. The “Your children will be communist” lick has been supplanted by “Your children will be Muslim.” Putin’s Russia is much closer to the oligarchical Permanent Government of the U.S. than many of us want to admit, and Russia/U.S. are now natural allies against extremist systems that want to “change things.” After ISIS is broken, then the two giants acn go back to being head-to-head competitors. Until then? “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours and we’ll succeed in scratching out the upstarts.” It’s just Business, folks. Just business.
I really do not know about Russia’s treatment of dissenting journalists because I do not believe anything that the Toe-The-Party-Line U.S. media says about any so-called enemy. It would not surprise me in the least if Russia did terrible things to people it considers its enemies. I do know about how the U.S treats dissenting journalists/whistleblowers if they have any real impact on the PermaGov/Deep State hustle that has been running this joint since the JFK assassination. They have to run for their lives/hide in neutral embassies or they get thrown naked in a cell like poor little Bradley/Chelsea Manning. How the U.S. treats its enemies? Proven or otherwise? Remember Abu Grhaib; remember Guantanamo; remember the thousands of unsupervised drone killings. Trump is the logical extension of the BushCo/Cheney regime.
Sad times.
At least the end of the American Dream is near at hand.
It was only a dream.
Time to wake the fuck up and smell the conspiracy.
WTFU.
Save your outrage for whoever wins, because whomever that may be, you can be assured that they signed off with the controllers.
Watch.
AG
“Russia is much closer to the oligarchical Permanent Government of the U.S. than many of us want to admit…”
Ha! Too true. And the people in the media who might blow this up but aren’t doing so are much closer to that power structure than we are. They know the smell of it.
The Putin/Trump bromance is not surprising, really, but it is very illuminating. The writing is there on the wall for anyone who wants to see it.
No reason to be confused, Booman. The two are exactly alike. Trump is a genuine fascist, a true authoritarian. He admires Putin’s use of “power” and would like to strut on the world stage in exactly the same way. He’ll be another “strong leader” who’s not going to put up with any bullshit from those who oppose him, foreign or domestic.
I think Trump has shown very plainly that he doesn’t have the first idea what our constitution is about, or what the “rule of law” is. If this egomaniac were to become President we would have a constitutional crisis that would make the illegalities of Bush and Cheney look like childsplay.
Why should he know the Constitution? Aren’t his lawyers paid to do that?