Steven Lee Myers and Andrew Kramer have an important article in today’s New York Times that takes a long look at Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s connections to pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians and various Russian oligarchs. I encourage you to read the entire piece and share it widely in your social networks because it’s very important information.
The reason I think people need to be aware of Manafort’s history is not just some guilt by association way of casting doubt on the candidacy of Donald Trump. It’s vital that people have this context so they can at least try to understand why Donald Trump has been taking positions that are far out of the mainstream on matters that pertain to Russia and Ukraine.
It’s been much noted that Trump has said flattering and conciliatory things about Vladimir Putin that no ordinary politician would ever say, but his accumulating record goes much further than that. Most troubling, Trump has threatened not to honor our NATO obligations unless certain demands for money are met. He has made similar threats against our Far Eastern allies, Japan and South Korea, so the NATO threat doesn’t necessarily mean that Trump is thinking primarily of Putin’s interests rather than the interests our country and our allies.
However, the Republican platform committee removed a plank that called for arming Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces within their borders. You should probably take a look at the astonishing transcript of Donald Trump’s Sunday appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos for a wide variety of reasons, but his claims about this change in the platform are troubling. I am going to cite a big chunk of the exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Then why did you soften the GOP platform on Ukraine?
TRUMP: I wasn’t involved in that. Honestly, I was not involved.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Your people were.
TRUMP: Yes. I was not involved in that. I’d like to — I’d have to take a look at it. But I was not involved in that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you know what they did?
TRUMP: They softened it, I heard, but I was not involved.
STEPHANOPOULOS: They took away the part of the platform calling for the provision of lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.
Why is that a good idea?
TRUMP: Well, look, you know, I have my own ideas. He’s not going into Ukraine, OK?
Just so you understand. He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right?
You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?
TRUMP: OK, well, he’s there in a certain way, but I’m not there yet. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you’re talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he’s going where — he takes — takes Crimea, he’s sort of — I mean…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you said you might recognize that.
TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were. And you have to look at that, also.
Now, that was under — just so you understand, that was done under Obama’s administration. And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it’s a mess. And that’s under the Obama’s administration, with his strong ties to NATO.
So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess. Crimea has been taken. Don’t blame Donald Trump for that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You said that…
TRUMP: And we’ll do better and yet we’ll have a better relationship with Russia.
And having a good relationship — maybe. and having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Much of the focus today is on Trump seeming to be unaware that Russia has already invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. But, reading the full body of his remarks it is clear that he basically sympathizes with Putin’s annexation of Crimea and accepts his rationale for compromising the territorial integrity of another nation state.
It’s quite puzzling that Trump claims to have no idea who was responsible for changing the platform. Paul Manafort appeared on Meet the Press and backed up Trump’s claim. Manafort also argued unpersuasively that he didn’t have anything to do with it, either. In fact, he went so far as to say that the change “absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign,” which even Trump had not tried to deny.
People shouldn’t get distracted over the question of whether or not it should be U.S. policy to arm the Ukrainians, or even whether it’s appropriate to put that kind of foreign policy specificity in a document like the Republican Party platform. The focus should be on the possibility that there’s enough smoke here to indicate a fire. You don’t have to agree that the Ukrainians should be armed in order to consider it disqualifying (or worse) for Donald Trump to be putting the territorial ambitions of Vladimir Putin over the interests of Ukraine and our NATO allies. If there are financial explanations for these policy stances, that’s treasonous, criminal stuff.
In any case, I’m fairly certain that either Trump or Manafort went on television yesterday and lied about their involvement in the platform change. Quite possibly, they both lied. And that’s a cause of concern quite irrespective of the context in which they lied.
I’ll give it 10 minutes until someone posts a claim about Obama arming Ukrainian fascists.
Less than that for the attacks on Clinton to commence.
Remember, kiddies, no matter what the topic, it’s “Let’s all pile on Evil Hillary!” time!
“If there are financial explanations for these policy stances, that’s treasonous, criminal stuff.”
Our State is soooooooooo deep into agricultural and industrial policy, your statement would make a cat laugh, given the revolving door between govt and industry.
Deniability holds only because there in no scrutiny, or it is handwaved away. Like John Deere and Monsanto interests.
Also, if you do believe that Trump’s position on the Ukraine is reflective of a legitimate, defensible public policy perspective–why the hell is this the one area where Donald Trump has a legitimate, defensible public policy perspective?
I don’t. Please see my comment below.
Trump doesn’t have defensible policies. He has dreams that tend to change from day to day.
There must be something, somewhere, but I’ll be damned if I can find a Trump statement pertaining to political or global policy that is demonstrably true.
Can someone find a link?
They lied!!!???
I’m shocked!!! Shocked, I say.
I have no use whatsoever for Manafort, Trump, Stone and anyone else who purposely drew breath at table with Roy Cohn.
But breathlessly accusing them of lying while simultaneously supporting the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton???
Sheer comedy.
Need I remind you of just one instance? One out of how many? Hundreds? Thousands?
No more need be said.
AG
P.S. Except, of course…Clapper wasn’t fired for it. Obama either approved or was overruled by his controllers.
P.P.S. While I am at it:
All I can say is that if having policy stances influenced by foreign money is now literally treason, Clinton had better start assembling her legal team now.
You mean you think that she hasn’t done so already?
She has so many lawyers on retainer that she probably can;’t remember all of their names.
Lawyers might be good for avoiding prosecution, but for getting elected?
Not so hot.
AG
Rhombus9, That’s a good one. She is subject to the Clinton rules, try to show some respect.
for those that missed it, NYTimes, April 23, 2015 – Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.
The facts as reported on this one are correct.
Back in September 2015, Trump spoke via video link to a gathering of European politicians at a conference in Kiev. From this alone, it can be seen that Trump knew virtually nothing about Ukraine, and that was perfectly obvious to the attendees, including the press.
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=20kHwybGOpU
https:
/www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/11/donald-trump-ukraine-video-link#img-1
Trump still knows nothing about Ukraine. The only possible conclusion is that everything he says has been fed to him by his associates, such as Manafort, who are pro-Yanukovich and pro-Putin.
In other words, it’s not so much that Trump is TAILORING his views on Ukraine, Russia, NATO, etc. to suit Putin et al. It’s that he is such an ignoramus, he HAS no views on these subjects other than what they tell him.
“The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”
I love the smell of the Sudetenland defense in the morning.
The people there – in large part ethnic Russian – opted out after the overth..er change in government.
I love the smell of special pleading in the morning.
Lucidament, Your comment is hardly lucid.
Oh. But. Where are the Neocons? Cheney, Bolton, Wolfowitz, are 3 that come to mind. I have never known them to not have an opinion when it comes to foreign policy. Their silence is scary. It’s almost like there is something else about to drop and they don’t want to be anywhere near The Donald when it hits the fan.
Er, they would be with HC on this, no? Expansionist NATO?
A Trump Presidency will provide true change in America, mass deportation of immigrants and closing of our borders.
Leaving NATO.
Giving Russia whatever it wants.
Killing medical coverage for millions.
Privatizing Social Security.
Privatizing the VA.
Appointment of Scalia type Supreme court justices.
One other very possible outcome of a Trump Presidency that most seem to miss. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are not please with the treatment of the military by Trump. Trumps latest venture is to attack a dead soldier and his family. Thus I see a real case for the military to step in not just for the reasons listed here, for there are plenty more as well.
Well, I don’t want the military to “step in” and attempt to determine our civilian elections. But individual members of the military, as well as their families, have the power to speak out, guaranteed to them by the Constitution.
In the past, members of the military have disproportionately spoken out, and voted for, conservative candidates supported by the Republican Party, even as conservatism and their Party have become more radical. I found some of the justifications made by those members of the military flawed and unconvincing, but always understood their right to do so.
While they have the right to speak out, active members of the military do not have the right to be insubordinate to their civilian leadership. Criticizing the current President and their Administration is not in and of itself insubordinate, but the rare active duty member of the armed forces have strayed into true insubordination.
From the long list of bewilderingly offensive and dangerous things Trump has said during his attacks on the Khan family, this is the most dangerous and devastating:
“”While I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things…”.
This official statement by the Trump campaign supported Mr. Khan’s assertion of doubt that Donald has read the Constitution.
And now the VFW and a group of Gold Star families have weighed in as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/gold-star-families-trump-apology/index.html
I’m more comfortable with non-active military and their families lending their voices to the political debate, even though their voices have also most often opposed liberal policies, and disappointingly often have opposed many aspects of the Federal Government, the same government who financed and supported their careers.
You are taking what Trump says as policy positions. He is trolling the news media; those are not commitments at all, not even in the sense of normal campaign commitments.
A Trump Presidency could equally mean expansion of NATO a intensified Cold War with Russia, antagonism of China and especially North Korea, military action in Mexico or South America — or none of these things.
His campaign position is Jello; you can’t nail it to the wall. So it is a matter of “Trust me”, the last refuge of scoundrels.
” ‘Trust me’, the last refuge of scoundrels”.
And the first and foremost argument of a Strongman with millions of right wing authoritarian followers.
Tarheel, I disagree strenulously.
Trump should be taken deadly seriously on his campaign promises. The worst of his promises are the ones he repeats most often. And now, after the events of the last week, we can state with an even greater level of certitude that a Trump Administration would spy on their political opponents, from Congressmembers to common citizens, and use the information they gained from those surveillances to smear, prosecute, and otherwise destroy them.
I am genuinely surprised that you wish for us to take Trump seriously.
…that you wish for us to not take Trump seriously, that is.
Russia did not invade Ukraine. Ethnic-Russian militias were supplied at arms length from across the Ukraine-Russia border to defend against Ukraine nationalist ethnic cleansing.
Russia did not annex Crimea. The Crimean legislature held a referendum and voted secession from Ukraine and then relationship with the Russian Federation as an autonomous region.
It did this to secure its warm-water naval base in Sebastapol. US ships actually threatened this base from within the Black Sea during the Ukraine coup, which seemed to be a tit-for-tat response to Russia’s de-escalation of the war against Assad by negotiating Assad’s dismantling of his chemical weapons.
Thinking that Russia will not respond to the US/NATO efforts to extend the US deployed military beyond the Dnieper River without putting up resistance shows how out of touch the neo-conservatives foreign policy advisers have become. And it reveals that for some of the folks in the Kagan faction of national security policy, the goal to have deployed US military basing meet in Vladivostok and Shanghai–from the Atlantic and from the Pacific. That is Halford Mackinder insanity from the age of imperialism of a century ago.
Trump and Manafort are skating this to flank Clinton on the anti-war side; watch for Iraq AUMF references.
The problem is not the thrust of their assertions but the fact that they are completely unserious about any policy at all.
The only motivation I can think of for Trump with regard to Russia is permission to build a resort/casino/golf course on the Black Sea to attract Russian and Chinese oligarchs and billionaires.
That was my understanding of Crimea as well. So arming Ukraine could be putting more fire on the already tricky situation there. We must have the same news sources.
Hmm, Ukraine is NOT a NATO ally. It is not a NATO member. Our EU allies do not necessarily see eye to eye with us on NATO expansion, esp Germany. Europeans are in the process of lifting sanctions this year.
The key word in that argument is “yet”. The US policy direction has been unchanging since the end of the Cold War, but only the neocons would openly say what it was. There is a subculture in the national security area that wants to spike the ball after the Cold War to rid the bad feeling of ambiguity and lack of a clear-cut “victory” over the past 70 years.
One could wonder if NATO has over-played its expansionism when you look at Turkey.
Therein probably lies some of Russia’s angst when the government in Ukraine was sacked.
But President Obama has resisted arming Ukraine to attempt to reverse the incursion by the Russian military, which heavily armed Ukrainian separatists. He’s taken heat from Congress for refusing to arm Ukraine, but has maintained this position on behalf of us.
Hillary Clinton is not running on arming Ukraine, and she certainly isn’t running on going to war with Russia.
That this inferred baloney is written in evasive response to a post which documents the preposterous and factually incorrect statements by Trump and his lead campaign on Ukraine, Russia and Putin makes it particularly outrageous.
The factually incorrect statements you are referring to, I presume, is Trump denying he took the arming of Ukraine out of the platform. If he took it out it could be for all the wrong reasons?
So if Trump really wants them back in, then I have some objection to that. Obama has indeed played this well by not arming Ukraine IMO, as you noted. In Trump world there is no telling what would happen. I don’t know what HC wants to do in Ukraine. I hope not to arm them to go fight Russia. Do you know what her position Is?
But HC has suggested a no fly zone in Syria to help fight Assad and ISiS. That is also a bad idea IMO. Obama has done a good job gradually constraining ISIS. And a no fly zone could run right up against Russia.
I intensely dislike Hillary’s stated desire to install a no-fly zone over portions of Syria. The press’ incuriosity about the details of that policy proposal is allowing people to fill the space with their wildest suppositions and assertions.
There is nothing in Clinton’s past which leads us to believe she would unilaterally install a no-fly zone over portions of Syria. I don’t see a big appetite among a broad group of allies in the region to support such a policy, and I don’t think they could be jawboned into it. The new unsteadiness of Turkey makes this even more unlikely than I believe it already was.
People going hammer and tongs at Clinton here have placed full blame on her for subterranean mischief U.S. officials and allies were involved in during the run-up to the ousting of Yanukovych, which took place more than a year after she left the State Department, while essentially claiming she deserves no credit for our successful holding together of multiple nations against Iran in order to complete the nuclear deal with them.
She is having a hard time outrunning her past on that and on her e mails. I’m not into blaming her for Ukraine. But, like you, I highly suspect we were involved. That no fly zone is a no starter for me, if she presses it- at least until I hear more about why and how. No she will not do it unilaterally but she can appoint and surround herself with those with like views. And in that regard I am concerned about what happens next in Ukraine. I believe Russia will strive to protect their two naval bases.
I should say she is still my choice, since Trump can’t seem to stay on topic much beyond a news cycle. Plus things like SCOTUS, et.al. But she is undeniably a flawed candidate.
I agree with every part of this comment.
Not running on it ≠ not taking us there.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328
Putin may object, methinks.
I’ll add the Ukrainian Wikileaks for those who prefer original docs to opinions.
https:/wikileaksua.wordpress.com
Good chance Putin would object if it threatens his naval base there or if someone try’s to evict him.
Well, influential neocons who DO want NATO expansion are with her. Why do you think that is? They could remain neutral, no? But she has this thing called a “history.”
Now you might not think Jeff Sachs is neutral on Russia as he did oversee their “interesting” conversion to market economy back in the day, but he has been around in elite circles for a while…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
Maybe you need to prepare yourself for some disappointment, like the Sanders folks.
Yes, she is aligned with the MIC. That is worrisome along with her history.
That same comment about the importance of Sebastapol to Russia can be applied to Tartus in Syria. Threaten those naval bases and there could be retaliation.
Yeah. Confusing to see MOAR WAR post on a progressive site, no? Taking purity too far, imo.
I am sure I am missing something here. So someone tell me. Are we thinking of now starting another action (meaning with guns) in Crimea to take it back from the Russians. Are we going to arm Ukraine for that purpose? If so why after all this time? I understand we already have sanctions on Russia. But if we intend to arm Ukraine to go after Crimea that begs a war, no?
BTW now that I think of it, didn’t Donetsk and Luhansk also want to opt out of Ukraine after the overthrow and to that end the war got hot there? Russia would not accept them. This has been a frozen conflict ever since. If we now give guns to Ukraine we may just make this situation worse. Many of the people there as in Crimea are ethnic Russians.
Maybe I need to beg.
I will opt out of that war. You have to assume Russia will just give up her naval base.
Russian sanctions being lifted by EU. Russian just floated a big bond issue. So not sure why all the anti-Putin blow up unless that is in their minds. Using Trump to demonize Putin.
It’s the reverse. Using Putin to demonize Trump. Trumps is as close to a Russian oligarch as we have nominated for President of the US.
That does not mean that Trump is not dangerous in relationship to Russia, given his mercurial politics and the institutional power of neoconservatives in State and Defense.
But be careful that you political counterarguments don’t presage a mandate.
The issue with Trump and national security is unseriousness, bravado, and inflammatory speech. The problem he poses in the campaign is that he will not be nailed down on policy positions. It’s all “Trust me.”
Go after the real failure of qualifications.
The DNC hack was assigned in their messaging to Russia (Putin?) with very scant evidence.
That was being Mau-Mau’d long before Trump inserted himself.
Who will they blame for the DNCC hacks?
And don’t you have to be made or considered a “demon” before you become useful for “demonizing”?
I’m living in a time warp, I’m sure. Russia is the big bad wolf again. Well, what is the US going to do about it? Russia is not a two bit state like Granada where the US can bluster and brag about its prowess without any sacrifices or Iraq which for all intents and purposes was defenceless and still suffers from the mammoth fraud inflicted on it: talking about lying, I’m not defending Donald Trump. The Russia hysteria is unseemly and intelligent, well-intentioned people should know better, but is seems to be the answer for everything. Who did it? Putin. Fits all sizes and shapes.
Michael Smerconish and Real Clear Politics use Stephen Cohen’s expertise to try to flank Clinton on the left.
Russia Expert Stephen Cohen: Trump Wants To Stop The New Cold War, But The American Media Just Doesn’t Understand
Remember the Achilles heel of Trump is unseriousness.
The Clinton team needs to get ahold of this narrative and explain exactly what their policy is instead of lining up a mandate for the Kagans.
Trump is determined not to be “Daisy’d”.
Lord-a-mercy, does the Clinton team always go braindeed when they think they are winning?
To tell the truth. I don’t really know what either of them want. Trump, as I said, is like a man in a dream that tends to change day to day and HC has ties to neocons and I presume is hawkish. When it comes to Syria and Ukraine, I think caution is in order. It would be a mistake to take steps against Russian interests and think there would be no payback. So, yeah, the Clinton team should clarify their stance rather than reflexively make Trump the villain.
The left-wing crackpottery in the comments here by the usual suspects gets crazier everyday.
comment decrying “left-wing crackpottery in the comments here” that mysteriously fails to specifically identify (nor respond directly to, which could actually be appropriate) any such alleged “crackpottery”.
Under those circumstances, troll rating looks more appropriate to me! (Regardless whether it’s stir-up-shit trolling or trolling — successfully, it seems! — for uprates from fellow-travelers.)