Logo uploaded by: SSG Carlos Madden
Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Posted on Dec 6, 2019
Russian Transgressions Met With increasingly Weak US Response | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
2.67K
178
101
10
10
0
Of course Trump supporters will attack Rachel right out of the gate, but they won't dispute the facts or address the content. This is the cliff notes version. The full segment provides much more detail and demonstrates how the Trump administration is complicit in advancing Russian objectives. The Trump admin has worked to dismantle all US efforts enacted to address Russian aggression in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and it gets worse.
Donald Trump
Russia
Ukraine
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 19
16
16
0
1. Invasion of Crimea happened in Feb of 2014. Who was he president then, you guessed it, Obama. Maddow's calling the worlds reaction strong is a joke. The Russians are still there, that is the proof you need that the response was ineffective. No one was willing to put a tank on the ground and the Russians knew it.
This was so serious the Obama administration would not/did not provide lethal aid to the Ukrainians. Trump at least provided lethal aid.
2. 2016 Election Interference. Whatever happened during that time it happened under, you guessed it, Obama again! Ooh, Maddow is right, Obama gave Putin a stern a warning (you better stop it) and expelled some diplomats and slapped a few sanctions after the fact, so what.
Who really wants to go to war with Russia over two assassinations, one in GB the other in Germany? The answer is no one.
You could make the argument, based upon the incidents she listed that Russia activity has quieted since 2017. An assassination in Berlin and the UK pale in comparison to the invasion of Crimea and election interference do they not?
You could do a similar look at China and I think the risk from that side would be greater than from Russia.
This was so serious the Obama administration would not/did not provide lethal aid to the Ukrainians. Trump at least provided lethal aid.
2. 2016 Election Interference. Whatever happened during that time it happened under, you guessed it, Obama again! Ooh, Maddow is right, Obama gave Putin a stern a warning (you better stop it) and expelled some diplomats and slapped a few sanctions after the fact, so what.
Who really wants to go to war with Russia over two assassinations, one in GB the other in Germany? The answer is no one.
You could make the argument, based upon the incidents she listed that Russia activity has quieted since 2017. An assassination in Berlin and the UK pale in comparison to the invasion of Crimea and election interference do they not?
You could do a similar look at China and I think the risk from that side would be greater than from Russia.
(16)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Cpl Jeff N. - See Jeff, you are too stupid, dishonest, and uniformed to argue with. The Obama admin DID authorize lethal aid in 2016 having already provided millions of dollars in military assistance, so in fact, yes, the Obama administration did authorize lethal aid under the 2016 NDAA. It didn't include Javelins, but it did include other forms of lethal aid - anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition. So once again, you are wrong, incorrect, misinformed. I suppose you are just lucky that stupidity isn't painful. I am sure you aren't a big enough person to admit that, once again, you are wrong.
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/
Gaetz misleads about Obama's record on Ukraine military aid
U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., has become one of President Donald Trump’s key attack dogs as he pushes back against the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry through protests, regular Fox News appearances and on Twitter. As part of his defense of Trump, the second-term north Florida congressman has pointed the finger at former President Barack Obama’s actions related to Ukraine.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - You might want to actually read your own story genius. Since you seem to lazy to do so, I will past the pertinent parts here for you.
Politifacts "conclusion:
Gaetz said, "Barack Obama put a permanent stop on this MILITARY AID to the Ukraine - he never allowed it to go."
Obama did not permanently stop MILITARY AID to Ukraine.
The element of truth in Gaetz's statement is the Obama administration did not provide LETHAL MILITARY AID that Ukraine asked for in 2014. However, it did provide OTHER MILITARY EQUIPMENT and training. The United States has provided $1.6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014, on average $300 million a year.
Also from your bogus fact check: In July 2016, the White House announced a $335 million security assistance package for Ukraine that included "counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, secure communications, training aids, logistics infrastructure and IT systems, tactical UAVs, and medical equipment." Steve, this is also non lethal aid.
Politifact calls this "mostly false because Gaetz used the words MILITART AID and not LETHAL MITARY AID in his text.. The "element" of truth is about the LETHAL aid. You really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. You continue to show up here and embarrass yourself. I will wait for your apology.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html
Above is a "fact check" from CNN that admits the Obama admin provided NO LETHAL MILITRY AID.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-leader-calls-for-more-western-military-aid [login to see]
A story about the aid with no weapons from the WSJ
Politifacts "conclusion:
Gaetz said, "Barack Obama put a permanent stop on this MILITARY AID to the Ukraine - he never allowed it to go."
Obama did not permanently stop MILITARY AID to Ukraine.
The element of truth in Gaetz's statement is the Obama administration did not provide LETHAL MILITARY AID that Ukraine asked for in 2014. However, it did provide OTHER MILITARY EQUIPMENT and training. The United States has provided $1.6 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014, on average $300 million a year.
Also from your bogus fact check: In July 2016, the White House announced a $335 million security assistance package for Ukraine that included "counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, secure communications, training aids, logistics infrastructure and IT systems, tactical UAVs, and medical equipment." Steve, this is also non lethal aid.
Politifact calls this "mostly false because Gaetz used the words MILITART AID and not LETHAL MITARY AID in his text.. The "element" of truth is about the LETHAL aid. You really ought to work on your reading comprehension skills. You continue to show up here and embarrass yourself. I will wait for your apology.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-ukraine-military-aid-sheets-pillows-fact-check/index.html
Above is a "fact check" from CNN that admits the Obama admin provided NO LETHAL MILITRY AID.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-leader-calls-for-more-western-military-aid [login to see]
A story about the aid with no weapons from the WSJ
Fact-checking Trump's claim that Obama gave Ukraine 'pillows and sheets'
While the Obama Administration was criticized for its refusal to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine, it did provide over a hundred million dollars in security assistance, as well as a significant amount of defense and military equipment.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Cpl Jeff N. - Jeff said, "For all of the Russia concerns, Obama did nothing, zippo, not even lethal aid to Ukraine,"
The fact is "The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law in November 2015, [Obama Administration] called for "lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition." - The Obama administration authorized lethal aid.
The Obama admin also took other action:
1) Led the effort to kick Russia of the G8
2) Imposed economic sanctions on Russia targeting their oil industry to include a multi-billion dollar deal with Exxon
3) Strategically invested heavily in military infrastructure in eastern Europe to facilitate increased US and NATO response if needed
4) Provided millions in military aid to Ukraine to include lethal military aid authorized in 2015, well before Trump was elected.
You are wrong again, and as always, too stupid and dishonest to argue with. Stick to loading luggage and handing out the peanuts.
The fact is "The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law in November 2015, [Obama Administration] called for "lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition." - The Obama administration authorized lethal aid.
The Obama admin also took other action:
1) Led the effort to kick Russia of the G8
2) Imposed economic sanctions on Russia targeting their oil industry to include a multi-billion dollar deal with Exxon
3) Strategically invested heavily in military infrastructure in eastern Europe to facilitate increased US and NATO response if needed
4) Provided millions in military aid to Ukraine to include lethal military aid authorized in 2015, well before Trump was elected.
You are wrong again, and as always, too stupid and dishonest to argue with. Stick to loading luggage and handing out the peanuts.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
I respect the fact that Russia is a potential threat, and one we should never take lightly. I also respect the fact that for more than fifty years, we lived in a state of undeclared, un-publicized "war" with the Soviet Union. I even respect the fact that under Putin, the Russian Federation has emerged somewhat less weakened as it was after the fall of the USSR. Seriously MSgt Steve Sweeney, I respect your apparent zeal to never let us forget, or be tempted into thinking we have "friends" in Moscow.
Now...a counterpoint.
We invaded Iraq on by what any "reasonable" person may call tenuous justification. It's possible we have been "interfering" with the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan (and I'm sure other places) for going on two decades now. We theoretically "assassinate" leaders of foreign terror groups all the time... we'd just do it with sophisticated and expensive weapons, or highly trained operatives, as opposed to poisons and other more "underhanded" means (as far as we know). For each of these instances, I could provide substantive arguments supporting why each was at least "necessary" to the interests of national security, if not morally and ethically justified.
I honestly don't know if Trump is trying to buddy-up to Russia or not. I think it's always good to look behind the curtain and make sure we know who is pulling the strings. However, I also think it makes at least some sense to avoid a conventional war with them if at all possible. Let's not forget that the EU depends heavily on Russia for fossil fuels, and an energy crisis there could spark off a regional, if not global conflict involving nuclear arsenals. Everyone loses if that ever happens, so there has to be a price we're willing to pay to avoid it. I'm guessing the President...any President, has to take that into account when forming policy.
As to the elections... I've simply not seen anything that convinces me Trump won for any other reason than a substantial portion of the United States isn't ready to embrace institutional humanism, and socialism quite yet.
I'm not a "Cold Warrior"... my war was with radical Islamic jihad. In that sense, I have to ask myself if the "devil" I know, is better than the one I do not. Russia isn't communist any longer... they've gone back to being "Imperialists"-and they don't like Islamic extremists any more than we do. Moreover, they're fighting them, while most of NATO isn't. They've allied themselves with some sordid people to do so, but arguably...so have we. They're also far from Bosom Friends with China... possibly the most dangerous semi-superpower threat we currently face.
Things change, and maybe idealism takes a back seat to realism when you live on a planet full of enemies.
Now...a counterpoint.
We invaded Iraq on by what any "reasonable" person may call tenuous justification. It's possible we have been "interfering" with the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan (and I'm sure other places) for going on two decades now. We theoretically "assassinate" leaders of foreign terror groups all the time... we'd just do it with sophisticated and expensive weapons, or highly trained operatives, as opposed to poisons and other more "underhanded" means (as far as we know). For each of these instances, I could provide substantive arguments supporting why each was at least "necessary" to the interests of national security, if not morally and ethically justified.
I honestly don't know if Trump is trying to buddy-up to Russia or not. I think it's always good to look behind the curtain and make sure we know who is pulling the strings. However, I also think it makes at least some sense to avoid a conventional war with them if at all possible. Let's not forget that the EU depends heavily on Russia for fossil fuels, and an energy crisis there could spark off a regional, if not global conflict involving nuclear arsenals. Everyone loses if that ever happens, so there has to be a price we're willing to pay to avoid it. I'm guessing the President...any President, has to take that into account when forming policy.
As to the elections... I've simply not seen anything that convinces me Trump won for any other reason than a substantial portion of the United States isn't ready to embrace institutional humanism, and socialism quite yet.
I'm not a "Cold Warrior"... my war was with radical Islamic jihad. In that sense, I have to ask myself if the "devil" I know, is better than the one I do not. Russia isn't communist any longer... they've gone back to being "Imperialists"-and they don't like Islamic extremists any more than we do. Moreover, they're fighting them, while most of NATO isn't. They've allied themselves with some sordid people to do so, but arguably...so have we. They're also far from Bosom Friends with China... possibly the most dangerous semi-superpower threat we currently face.
Things change, and maybe idealism takes a back seat to realism when you live on a planet full of enemies.
(10)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
Just wanted to make one comment. While I don't necessarily agree with all your post, I do wish to thank you for a reasonable, polite approach in this post. No insults, no spin, just concise comments. Thanks you.
(6)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Thank you for your comments. I want to respond in kind and measure, but have been expending my energy on lesser arguments with less considered thinking. I will swing back around.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Nancy Pelosi hit the nail on the head at her news conference yesterday:
All roads lead to Russia.
All roads lead to Russia.
(8)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google