In defense of Russian politics trump

Known liberal and anti-Communist philosopher Sidney hook (Hook, Sidney) once formulated a rule of debate: “Before you challenge the motives of the opponent, even when they can be challenged quite thoroughly, answer his arguments.”

Unfortunately, critics of Donald trump do not follow this rule. What strikes me about the debates on the policies of the new President towards Russia, so it’s their evil nature. These are especially those who claim to moral superiority.

They are free to rush such words as “stooge” “puppet” and “the Manchurian candidate”, does not particularly affirming their arguments. Charges move in perfect circles. “Why is trump in favor of detente with Russia? Because he is a puppet of Putin. And how do you know that he is a puppet? Because he wants detente with the Russians.”

Alas, the attribution of motives and the attacks on them is often the first step in what today is called political debate. But this is not always undermines the validity of arguments.

In recent weeks, critics of trump with only weak us intelligence report on Russian hacker break-ins has tried to delegitimize the new President. They argue that Putin is responsible for the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the election on 8 November. About 70 lawmakers from the Democratic party boycotted this week’s inauguration of the trump.

Other critics have used even more dubious and unscrupulous dossier to disrupt his plans to normalize relations with Russia. They heard unconfirmed allegations that the Kremlin is compromising information on the new President.

Such attempts to delegitimize the new President and his initiative for reconciliation with Russia is outrageous. They will further poison American politics and will harm the national interests of the United States. Democrats, especially on the left flank, just lost his mind because winning trump. Expressing unsubstantiated assumptions about his collusion with the Kremlin, these people do not pay attention to a very serious and substantial issues raised by the President.

There is another problem. Many people are so excited with the election of former child star of a reality show and tycoon of the real estate sector that in their opinion, if you don’t oppose him on every issue, then you are a shameless supporter of Donald. But such logic is absurd. You can criticize trump and Putin, for that matter, and to act for detente with Russia.

My feelings on this subject, for example, there is no love for the Russian and American leaders, but there is a desire to avoid nuclear confrontation of the 21st century in the image and likeness of the Cuban missile crisis.

Trump’s critics need to answer the following questions:

Why Moscow seized the Crimea, where the Russian black sea fleet and was part of Russia since Catherine to Khrushchev? If this has occurred once during the Western-backed conspiracy in Kiev in February 2014 overthrew the democratically elected Pro-Russian regime?

Why interfere in the Affairs of neighboring countries of the great powers, has a huge Arsenal of nuclear weapons? Is NATO and the EU during the years of expansion and integration of the border countries of the former Soviet Union did not cause a painful reaction in Russian? Why is the military maneuvers of NATO from the Baltic to the Black sea makes me so nervous.

Why make threats against Russia and promises of the Baltic countries, if Western States cannot and do not want to implement them? Will, exhausted by the wars America has shed the blood and spend the wealth of the region where the American army has ever fought, and the Russian has a significant military advantage?

Why America and Russia can cooperate in the fight against jihadists of the “Islamic state” cannot contribute to a political settlement in Syria to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and work together to reduce nuclear weapons?

Here you need to look into the past. Australian scientist from the University of Copenhagen Matthew Dal Santo (Matthew Dal Santo) reminded me that before 2014, Russia was considered extremely weak compared to the Alliance US-EU-NATO, in connection with which its interests could safely be ignored. While Washington and Brussels had sought to bring Ukraine from the strategic orbit of Moscow.

But it’s only been three years, and we hear something quite different: Russia has become such a huge threat, being able to put in power in the White house their own candidate and split the European Union. Assessment you can choose different says Gave Santo, but if you say both the first and second, it would be unwise and inconsistent.

As for the accusations of Russia in the conduct of hacker break-ins, it does not matter much. Hacker attacks are carried out continuously. (Remember that Australian intelligence agencies somehow bugged the mobile phones of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his wife.) The question is, who gave information of the National Committee of the Democratic party and e-mailing the head of election headquarters of Hillary Clinton, John Podestà of WikiLeaks. As admitted even by a tireless and fierce critic of Putin and trump Masha Gessen, the U.S. intelligence community absolutely ridiculously failed in their attempts to prove that Russian helped Trump to defeat Clinton.

Trump is right when he says: “Good relations with Russia is good, not bad”. If the critics want to derail the significant and legitimate foreign policy initiatives of the new President, they need to present convincing arguments instead of simply questioning the motives trump.

Tom Switzer is a senior researcher of the Center for studies in the USA at the University of Sydney and ABC radio host.