Trump’s words don’t make it look like a Russian mole

The basis of the global strategy trump is to destroy any illusions in Moscow about the fact that Russia is the equal rival of Washington.

Their latest expansive remarks about the importance of expanding the us nuclear Arsenal, expressed in an interview with Reuters, President trump had brought the press into a state of panic.

But the press mostly ignored the latest statements trump the obvious truth about what undermines her own narrative, the one who sits securely in the pocket of Vladimir Putin, not to run around and utter such speech. Perhaps liberal America has forgotten recent history, but Russia, of course, did not: the proliferation of arms and weapons from backward and economically weak Soviet Union was a winning strategy of Ronald Reagan in 1980-ies. Technology and wealth is a key advantage of America over Russia, as it was then, in the case of the Soviet Union.

The message of today trump is that he’s going to follow in the footsteps of Reagan. He also intends to use force to advance American influence, which will inevitably lead to the marginalization of one of the main sources of Russian influence and prestige. Decrepit Putin’s Russia is not able to compete with America in building nuclear weapons as the sclerotic Soviet Union during the Brezhnev era were not able to stay level with the United States, and Putin knows it.

A completely different question relates to whether it will work, but do not have too much doubt that the main global strategy trump would destroy any illusion of Moscow or anyone else regarding Russia as an equal opponent of the United States. The administration of the trump for four years will be a living hell for Russia because of the significant increase of shale oil production and the substantial increase in weapons. In other words, trump is a nightmare for Putin’s much larger and more serious threat to the goals of Putin than President Obama was for all the years of his reign, or was intended to be.

If trump was a Manchurian candidate and many people continue to believe it, then he’d do, particularly these things:

— limit as much as possible fracking;

— would block construction of gas pipelines and oil pipelines;

— would have started the negotiations on substantial reductions of nuclear weapons;

— would reduce the military expenditures of the United States;

— tried to reduce tensions with Iran, an ally of Russia.

The fact that trump is planning to do just the opposite, maybe — but may not be good policy for the United States, but anyone who thinks this is appeasement of Russia, probably drank too much alcohol.

Obama, in fact, just did all those things, but none of the liberal media fighting today with trump, I never called Obama a Russian puppet. Instead, the press preferred to see President Obama’s courageous, far-sighted and courageous statesman. Trump does not do anything of the above, and in addition, it offers a course that will inevitably lead to the weakening of Russia’s position in the world — but the media suddenly moved eight years of soft, of dovish policy in a remote memory now speak with caution in regard to the fact that trump’s policy towards Russia is treacherously soft.

Such nonsense is best explained as unjustified panic attack. The liberal media hate trump more than any other American politician for a generation, and they don’t understand how his supporters, and the reasons for its appeal. They with great zeal to use any opportunity to strike him a blow in the hope that they will find a way somehow to convert his Roman Titus Annija Milona.

Hatred so blinds them, that they are unable to understand that their own behavior causes the public opinion of America to move in that direction in the future does not portend anything good the liberals. First of all, assume that Donald trump, in fact, will not be the second coming of Benedict Arnold (Benedict Arnold). Suppose that instead, he, most likely, will take as President is very tough, hawkish stance, against which even George W. Bush will probably be similar to Jimmy Carter.

The media and the leaders of the democratic party, risking trust, make a huge bet on the position that, ultimately, would be ridiculous and wrong. Six months or a year they will cease to believe trump’s anti-American traitor and Russian plants, and will call him a dangerous fascist ultranationalist, inflexible hawkish stance which brings us to a third world war. Sometimes they are already on the same day simultaneously accuse him in fact, and in another occupying the hawkish traitor to the ideology in the Nazi “America first”, which leads him to licking the boots of Putin. The media want to portray trump as a Neville Chamberlain and how Adolf Hitler; however, you can’t give the Sudetenland to yourself.

Talking heads and leading experts will disagree with this, and maybe they don’t see — our media are perfectly able to hide from unpleasant facts, but few people are convinced chosen direction of the attack. A hawk or a traitor — of these two options you can only choose one.

Meanwhile, the media and issued by the Democratic party drumming, and zealous, hyperpatriotism and anti-Russian zeal to legitimise just this kind of nationalist aggressiveness and chauvinism, which in normal times, the liberals are trying to keep. Liberal media desperately trying to strike at the Tramp, to help create a national climate concerned, and the defender of patriotism, but it leads to the formation of just such a climate in public opinion, which is Catnip for Republicans and some liberal Democrats.

Of course, it is possible that all these rumors and gossip regarding trump and Putin are true, and that in the hands of Putin is a powerful materials in order to blackmail trump. It is also possible that they share some dark and anti-democratic dream that they can jointly impose on the world. But if all this is true, then we know it not because some unnamed source will whisper something untoward was one of the naive 27-year-old journalists in the entourage of Ben Rhodes (Ben Rhodes); it will be because trump will begin to change the foreign policy of the United States so that it will be beneficial for Russia.

How to look for such signs of betrayal?

Trump can, for example, to accept the larger presence and influence of Russia in the middle East. It might limit fracking in the United States and thus, we help to raise for Putin the price of oil. He may try to limit the stockpile of nuclear weapons in such a way that it will provide Russia much-needed respite from the heavy burden of armaments, which every day more and more are acting on it. In addition, in this case, it will be recognized as permanent parity between the United States and Russia in the field of nuclear arsenals that will make America a permanent hostage to nuclear terror balance with a much weaker Russia.

Maybe he will cut military spending and procurement of weapons; instead persevere to gain advantage over Russia in the field of armaments, it can slow down this process and allow Russia and other powers to eliminate the backlog. In other words, if trump is indeed a pawn in the hands of Putin, his foreign policy will begin to be much more like the foreign policy of Barack Obama.

Enough, in fact, the Newspapers New York Times and the Washington Post the courage to call trump a “traitor” for such a policy, which is taken directly from the script of Obama?

That would be a pretty stupid position that would even bring a blush to the press, at least some of its representatives. Gray lady (Gray Lady — a nickname for the New York Times — approx. TRANS.) has its limits. Instead, there is a recognition in General, inefficient and symbolic sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea, as the gold standard of anti-Russian policy. If trump just hint at the possibility to negotiate the withdrawal of these mainly ornamental sanctions, we are likely to see historic firestorm in the media.

It is not based on reality; Obama selected set of policies was weak and uncertain to the extent which may be weak and unsure of such policies. The sanctions were a way to pretend to ourselves about what our policy towards Ukraine contains more than just an attempt to force Russia to abandon its conquest. Trump policy in the area of fracking and large-scale arms build-up are more anti-Russian and no sanctions, which, from the point of view Obama would be practical or wise.

This does not mean that there are genuine and important questions about trump and Russia. Trying to understand the business relationships trump, and in the possible presence of conflict of interest is legitimate journalism. And there is little doubt that some Russian and ex-Soviet figures who had in the past business contacts with President trump, are not those people with whom the future President ought to associate his name.

However, the real foreign policy trump is hardly evidence that he is enslaved by the Kremlin, and excessive tendency to pigeon policy is unlikely to be the main defect of the administration of the trump. The more the media lure yourself into a narrative about trump-the mediator, the harder it will be their job in the moment when the real difficulties of the presidency, trump will begin to take shape.

America needs wealthy intellectually and emotionally stable press in order to give this President a sceptical and rigorous assessment of what he needs. Instead, we have something significantly more harmful to the health of the Republic — a blind instinctive fury, which has no harm, and to a greater extent damages the credibility than the selected target — all discreditied press just at the moment when its contribution is most needed.