The attempt of the Democrats to ascribe Trump intrigue with Moscow will inflict several blows to the Republicans.
The New York Times reported on the collusion of Donald trump with Russia — the alleged Russian military intelligence insurgents-the Taliban* (organization banned in Russia — approx.ed.) has offered a reward for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan.
However, there is yet no evidence that this story is true. By trump and the White House, of course, deny this, citing intelligence structure — say, no such data, and this story is a common invention of Newspapers.
In any case, this publication is not accidental. Soon the US presidential election, and trump not so many victories, which he can boast. While the recent peace agreement between the US and the Taliban in Afghanistan, which, in fact, don’t work out, presented as a victory and personal success of Donald trump. That he first went to such a step, do not argue. Perhaps closer to the election, this success would be spun harder.
I believe that all this information about the conspiracy published in order to neutralize the discourse about Afghanistan and the strike on Trump: “Look, no success, no, it’s all a conspiracy! And indeed, the President of the United States covers the killing of American soldiers”.
It is no secret that trump is very proud that he has developed good relations with the military: his military respect, he often travels with visits to American military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Germany. Each time, starting with a visit to one of these countries, trump tries to go to the military. We must admit that among American troops he’s really popular.
Because this story might cause a few bumps.
The first trump relationship with the military.
The second on the alleged success of the trump in Afghanistan.
The third is that this story is a successful attempt to shift attention. The last time the Republicans (as long as it was not so noticeable, but perhaps to the election this will be done actively) began to spin the story that Afghanistan was started by the Democrats: it is with their support, the invasion and war, they actively supported it, invested in this war, trillions of dollars, but the us eventually lost the war.
In this publication clearly show the desire of the Democrats to make excuses for his role in the history of Afghanistan and try to shift attention to “the bad trump”, which is allegedly in cahoots with the enemy. In principle, it is part of the General discourse that trump is an agent of the Kremlin. This is the “old barrel organ”, which is not really “flies” in the States, judging by the reaction media on the same “film Derkach”… Perhaps now the Democrats decided to go with the other hand.
Not saying that this story is fake, I just don’t know. However, I can clearly see the concrete political purpose of this publication New York Times. She has appeared not just so, and the story unwinds for a reason. Moreover, the reaction of the leaders of the Democratic party it was a very operational: they immediately started talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation, that trump the bad… In particular, they automatically said that, if this story is somehow confirmed, States may impose sanctions against the intelligence and defense sectors of Russia. What exactly is meant by this — I can’t tell, because the difference between statements and a bill that really can take can be significant. Besides, not the fact that the trump would want to impose these sanctions.
I think the Democrats will act the classic: most likely, they will submit a bill on sanctions, which the administration trump will drive into a trap. Indeed, on the one hand, the imposition of sanctions would mean an indirect recognition by the Republicans what kind of troubled history was still, and, therefore, they will hit themselves. On the other hand, if sanctions are imposed, it would mean that the administration trump has partnered with Russia and Putin covers.
Most likely, it was in this political trap the Democrats want to drive trump. And, of course, the whole story has an electoral dimension, this doubt can not be.
Ilya Kusa — an expert on international policy and the Middle East of the Ukrainian Institute of the future.
