President-elect Donald Trump sits at a table for dinner with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and his choice for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus at Jean-Georges at the Trump International Hotel & Tower in New York, Nov. 29, 2016. LUCAS JACKSON / Reuters
Carrie Sheffield, Salon: Putin, Kim Jong-un or ISIS could test Trump in first 100 days: “There are very unpredictable and unstable people running countries”
Former Senator George Mitchell weighs in on Donald Trump's challenges with Russia, NATO and rogue regimes
Though his liberal worldview may not have a platform in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, Democratic statesman George Mitchell offered some pragmatic, nonpartisan advice in an interview yesterday: Before Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he should first meet with our traditional European allies, especially those in NATO.
After rattling the foreign policy establishment (along with many grassroots and “establishment” conservatives) during his campaign, Trump would be smart to reassure world leaders, which preelection polls showed largely held a dim view of Trump, that he will indeed be a steady hand at the helm of the world’s sole superpower.
Read more ....
Commentaries, Analysis, And Editorials -- November 30, 2016
With Aleppo poised to fall, Syria's Assad is set to rise -- Nicholas Blanford, CSM
Erdogan comes face to face with US, Russia in Syria -- Semih Idiz, Al-Monitor
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/11/turkey-syria-russia-wants-ankara-stay-clear-al-bab.html#ixzz4RXaqwF29
In Iraq, family honors a son's fight for national unity against ISIS -- Scott Peterson, CSM
The Coming War on ‘Radical Islam’ -- Uri Friedman, The Atlantic
Khamenei Threatens Reprisal Over Sanctions -- Behnam Ben Taleblu, RCD
What Is the UK Doing in Yemen? -- Abigail Watson, RCD
Is Vietnam Reigniting a Fire in the South China Sea? -- Nguyen Quoc-Thanh, Diplomat
An India-Pakistan crisis: Should we care? -- Moeed Yusuf, War On The Rocks
The South Korean President's Welcome Offer to Resign -- Bloomberg editorial
Satellite Imagery of Pyongyang: What is Missing in this Analysis? -- Robert Carlin, 38 North
In Myanmar, genocide looms as the world waits on Suu Kyi -- Tej Parikh, Asia Times
Sweden, Finland & Norway Deepen Defense Ties with the West -- Kaitlin lavinder, Cipher Brief
The revolution that gave us Brexit and Trump could be about to hit France -- Adam Shaw, FOX News
America's Post-Truth Reality: Hybrid Warfare Was the Real Winner in the Election -- Charles Johnson, RamenIR
Is the White House Hiding Secrets About Russia's Role in the Election? -- Kaveh Waddell, The Atlantic
2 comments:
Time permitting I will read the Salon article, however, even the very preface provided contains so many inaccuracies that not only would I not even know where to begin. Just to briefly touch on a few of these.
1.) George Mitchell is called "pragmatic and non partisan." This is ridiculous non sense. He was one of the people behind the woefully one sided against Israel "peace" initiatives. At best, this man is a blind ideologue. At worst, he is a complete idiot.
2.)"There are some very unpredictable and unstable people running countries." This is quite true. The people have names like Merkel, Obama, Clinton, and most any "western" leader or recent former "western" leader would meet this definition. It remains to be seen how Mr. Trump will act or what he will do. To use an expression "the jury is still out." In contrast to "western" leaders whether we like them or not Putin, Kim Jong-un, and the leaders and followers of ISIS are quite stable. In the case of ISIS, they have a plan of attack and are being very consistent in how they carry it out. The aforementioned are "unpredictable" in the sense that deception is often used when dealing with an adversary or potential adversary.
3.) It is suggested that first Trump should meet with "traditional European allies especially those in NATO" before meeting with Putin. This is flat out wrong. NATO, as it has become, is not an "alliance." This is a group of parasites using, abusing, and essentially sucking the United States dry. Mr. Trump was/is spot on when he suggested this needs to be renegotiated. Furthermore, when one looks to advance their interests/deal with threats and potential threats, one seeks to find the parties who can do them the most harm and who can benefit them the most. Russia can hurt the United States very, very badly should it choose to, Russia has vast military and intelligence assets that could greatly help us in the fight against ISIS, Russia wields tremendous influence over "death to America Iran" and their help here would be most helpful, and additionally the next POTUS may be dealing with US dollar as los of world reserve currency. In this case we are going to want a "soft landing." Russia can be of tremendous help here. In contrast "traditional European allies" especially NATO members can offer us nothing but continued use and abuse.
4.) Mr. Trump does NOT need to act to reassure world leaders. World leaders especially "allies" like the ones referred to above and in this ridiculous article need to act to reassure Mr. Trump and the United States of America and they need to start doing so IMMEDIATELY.
5.) The United States is referred to as the world's "sole superpower." At best it is debatable whether the United States is even the most powerful country in the world. This is hardly an inconvertible fact. To use an expression, this is hardly a "slam dunk."
Given as much nonsense as is touched on the in the opening lines of this article, it is hard to imagine the rest is going to be suddenly become accurate. It's hard to believe people are paid to produce such nonsense.
The ex senator states, "some argue we should not have extended NATO to the Russian borders, but tell that to the countries that live on Russian borders." Actually these countries "on Russian borders" need to tell the United States, its people, and its leaders why exactly they are worth placing the lives of 10s of millions of Americans in grave peril and very likely endangering the very survival of America itself. Even if America somehow "won" such a conflict which I deem unlikely, the victory would be so pyric as to be an extremely hollow one.
The former senator along with many current and former American leaders seem to have completely lost track of just whom and whose interests they are supposed to be representing. I look forward to a day when American leadership will make it abundantly clear that American military forces are to be used for the defense of America and for the advancement of its interests. They are NOT to be used and will NOT be used as pawns in someone else's power struggles.
Post a Comment