I thought that was what the NSA and DHS were for. — Question

People applying for a job in the intelligence community or the armed forces or those inside them moving to positions where they handle confidential materiel are universally checked in any country.

But in a democracy there's no government official giving a green or red light to a person that is elected to his position by the people. And the President's own staff isn't a similar appointment as some administrative position, a position of a secretary of a department or an appointment like the judge to the Supreme court, which go through a nomination process.

Trump had the cozy relationship with the Russians before the elections at least on some level. — ssu

What's wrong with that? Trump was upfront about his views on Russia, he said all along that he considered the Russians to be natural allies in the fight against extremism and that he would work to ease tensions with Russia and put US-Russia relations on a friendlier footing. So what if he had business dealings in Russia or brought individuals into his campaign with connections to the Russian sphere, that would only be in keeping with the explicit position he campaigned on.

That seems very strange, but I understand that such an organization would be (rightfully so) an antithesis to democracy. It's just sad that you find out after the fact about what kind of person is sitting in the oval office.

My question seems to be of the following,

How is Trump still president if what you say is true?

↪VagabondSpectre There's a revealing article in the NY Times today, about how the 'conservative media'/Trump supporters are depicting Trump's problems. According to them, and him, the whole problem is the 'deep state' which is defending itself against Trump's vision for 'making America great again' by leaking and undermining at every point. Backed by the big money of liberal donors like Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, and various un-named moles in the State Department and other agencies, all of Trump's problems are simply being spun into existence by the dirty liberals. — Wayfarer

There's likely some truth in that. Trump is an incompetent blunderer who probably had no idea that the Western establishment has been working for decades to marginalize Russian influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and ultimately to bring Russia under Western neoliberal control, and that Putin has been a major obstacle to this agenda from his first days in power all the way through and up to the present. Trump isn't with the program so he has to either be brought into line or forced out of office because his approach to Russian relations threatens to derail a long running project of major importance to the Western establishment. That's not to defend Putin or Trump, they're both horrid little monsters, but this does seem like the game that's being played here on the old 'grand chessboard'.

How is Trump still president if what you say is true? — Question

The Republicans who control Congress don't want to remove him. Whether that's because they believe he's innocent, because they don't care so long as he's on their side, or because they're as guilty as he is and are only trying to protect themselves.

Or because they believe it will hurt them in the next election. Trump has a lot of support on the right.

My question seems to be of the following,

How is Trump still president if what you say is true? — Question

There is allways a first time and likely nobody believed this could happen... not likely even the Russians at first.

The Russians has for a long time made similar operations. It basically comes from the Soviet Union's playbook. Yet then Soviet intelligence services were hampered down by the official ideology and then simply there wasn't the means as now to have such effective "active measures".

That these kinds of active measures and disinformation aren't anything new, here's one documentary from 1984 about these. (I think I've given this once, but I'll repeat it)



How is Trump president still? Just look at how many investigations there are... and how chaotic is Washington about it.

Likely he will resign before his first term ends ...at the pace things are collapsing now.

I think if resigning would divert an asteroid on a collision course with earth, Trump wouldn't resign.

Everybody is just waiting to see what the investigation brings to light.

Everybody is just waiting to see what the investigation brings to light. — Mongrel

That true. And they will take time.

The only thing is that Trump himself just makes things worse by what he does, what he says and what he tweets. I cannot image a more demoralized administration than this one.

What's wrong with that? Trump was upfront about his views on Russia, he said all along that he considered the Russians to be natural allies in the fight against extremism and that he would work to ease tensions with Russia and put US-Russia relations on a friendlier footing. — Sivad

And this whimsical idea just shows how totally ignorant, hubristic and out of touch Trump is with reality. What suits me is important, what other think, who cares?

Having better relations with Russia would be a great thing. But clueless appeasement and praising of Putin simply isn't that. Russia actually despise someone trying to lick their ass.

Perhaps for him this would be a great idea, but it actually doesn't take into account that improving relation is mutual endeavour and the other side ought to also think so. It just shows how self-centered and clueless the idea is. You allways negotiate from a position of strength and reason, not appeasement as then you loose your face.

The reality, which many people seem to be totally blissfull, is that for the present regime in Russia the US is an enemy, the biggest threat there is. NATO enlargement is the no. 1 top threat to Russia in their own military and security doctrine. International terrorism is on their doctrine and threat on number 11. or so. Not at all important. Basically Putin needs the threat of the US to justify his harsh rule in the first place.

So now Russia has annexed parts from two countries and the Trumpian response (during elections) was to improve the relations!

Hence when some idiot like Trump waltzes to the scene with an olive branch, you use him for the time since this clueless flip-flopper will changes his stance as quickly when seated with some of his allies and understands the geopolitics. And as Trump doesn't have the backing of either party in his "let's be allies with Russia" brainfart, the Russians do understand that this is something just temporary.

And lastly, Trump's actual foreign policy has been the standard US line. The sanctions have been kept, the annexation of Crimea isn't accepted.

Some context for the the current state of affairs -
The Harvard Boys Do Russia

Post-Soviet Russia, Made in the U.S.A.

If Trump is not colluding with the Russians, he sure does not do a good job of assuring people that this is the case. I think rather than overplaying this, people are underplaying this. If Trump is implicated in anyway to be involved with the Russians during the election and during his presidency, this would be treason. If he permits a foreign government to influence elections, OR has a bias towards a pro-Russian policy due to inside connections or past deals, this is giving up his country's interest for a foreign power. If that really is the case, Watergate/dirty tricks/spying on the opposition party and covering it up would be nothing compared with this.

annexation of Crimea isn't accepted. — ssu

I'm curious if calling this an "annexation" is actually fair. If the Crimean people really wanted to be Russian and voted for it, should we really feel so bad for Ukraine that we tell the Crimeans they aren't allowed to join Russia?

Whether or not their referendum was representative seems a relevant question.

:D

EDIT: Ideally we side with the Crimeans. This is one of those points in the narrative that both sides play fast and loose with, which is why I find it interesting.

Clearly both sides just want Crimea to be a part of their economic batteries and not the other's.

Not to justify it, but what's the difference between Trump colluding with the Russians and virtually every other politician in DC colluding with transnational corporations and international finance?

Tact.

It's a courtesy that politicians keep their sloven corruption thoroughly closeted. We're already being physically and mentally fucked, we don't need to be emotionally fucked too.

If you lose enough money at a Casino they treat you real good. Not because they feel bad for you, but because they don't want you to hold it against them.

I don't believe Trump would sell out American interest for Russia, but I do believe he would sell out on American interest if it's in his own interest.

Maybe, but the rest of them are just as brazen, the only real difference is that Trump isn't protected by the establishment. Hillary Clinton ran a massive pay for play operation with all sorts of nefarious entities(including Russia) and she basically got a pass. The only reason they're going after Trump is because Trump has his own agenda and Trump's agenda conflicts with the establishment's agenda. Trump is no better or worse than the rest of them, if anything Trump is just a two bit crook while the people that are going after him are world class villains.

Getting screwed by a world-class villain feels every different than getting screwed by a clown. The villain makes you feel good about yourself, but with the clown things just get weird.

When it comes to "Trump's agenda" I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he even has one beyond securing his own legacy. He is seemingly willing to entertain just about any idea. When the military comes to him with a risky operation they're rearing to execute, Trump will give the nod. If the Republican party could come with a coherent set of asks for medical insurance reform or other bills, he would happily put his name on it (like so many pieces of real-estate he doesn't actually own). It seems like he will do whatever he thinks people will love him for. The only solid promise he actually made was to build a wall, beyond that he's a political and ideological hurricane.

At least the world-class villain operates with precision so as to not risk binging the entire house down...

That said, America needs electoral reform and a shake up of the two party system more badly than ever, so I'm actually grateful for Trump because he just might irreparably damage the corrupt status quo of contemporary Washington politics. It's risky but I'm ready to roll those dice.

Getting screwed by a world-class villain feels every different than getting screwed by a clown. The villain makes you feel good about yourself, but with the clown things just get weird. — VagabondSpectre

That actually makes a lot of sense, good point! :D

When it comes to "Trump's agenda" I wouldn't be so quick to assume that he even has one beyond securing his own legacy. — VagabondSpectre

I agree, his agenda is just petty self-aggrandizement, beyond that he's rudderless.

Trump isn't protected by the establishment — Sivad

Trump's the President. He is the establishment.

Those Champagne bottles weren't opened in celebrating in Trump's win just for Trump winning, but for the brilliant work made for Russia. — ssu

That's your conjecture. There were a number of plausible reasons for the Russians to support Trump during the election, him being some sort of a Russian mole being probably the least plausible. Firstly, I don't think the Russians even expected Trump to win, any more than anyone else did. The primary goal pursued by their propaganda during the campaign was probably just more propaganda: to discredit democratic institutions and weaken the future leader of the US (whom they fully expected to be Clinton).

As for why they might have wanted Trump to be President, he had positioned himself as an isolationist and a pragmatist, someone who cared little about international affairs and who wouldn't stand on ideology. He would rather break ranks with Europe, make a deal with Russia and get off its back than carp about democracy, human rights and international law - which would have suited Putin perfectly. He could then indulge his fantasy of being a feared and respected leader of a superpower in a multipolar world, like in the good old days of the Soviet empire. Trump's fawning references to Putin (like Putin, he seems to confuse brutality with strength, authoritarianism with efficiency) would have made him look like an ideal figure in the Oval Office.

Perhaps Putin also thought that Trump would be a weaker adversary, easier to manipulate and outmaneuver. And if nothing else, Trump wreaking havoc in his own country and weakening Europe would also have been considered a win by Putin, for whom international politics is a zero-sum game: what's bad for his adversaries is good for him. At least he wouldn't look as bad by comparison.

As for those "politicians" who were reported to pop the bubbly following the news of Trump's win - they are nobodies, mere figureheads. There is no real politics in Russia, at least not as it is understood in Western democracies. Those kleptocrats in the Russian "parliament" have no insider knowledge of any import and make no real decisions - they were just trying to read the mood of the man in power. Which wasn't at all difficult, since they were just following the trend set by all the major media outlets in the run-up to the US elections.

I'm curious if calling this an "annexation" is actually fair. If the Crimean people really wanted to be Russian and voted for it, should we really feel so bad for Ukraine that we tell the Crimeans they aren't allowed to join Russia?

Whether or not their referendum was representative seems a relevant question. — VagabondSpectre

It wasn't. There wasn't anything like a real referendum, such as what the Scots had. Before Russia made its play, there wasn't even much of a separatist movement there; it was just a sleepy and neglected province, more-or-less content to eke out a living from Russian and Ukrainian summer vacationers. But once the invasion got under way, local authorities toppled, Ukrainian media shut down and the propaganda of fear and patriotism revved up, I think it is plausible that most of the population would have voted to join Russia. But they weren't even trusted with their voices.

Clearly both sides just want Crimea to be a part of their economic batteries and not the other's. — VagabondSpectre

If that were so, Russia would've been happy for Ukraine to have Crimea: that battery is shelling their own! Now and in the foreseeable future Crimea is a drain on Russia's resources. And I am not just talking about the international sanctions.

If that were so, Russia would've been happy for Ukraine to have Crimea: that battery is shelling their own! Now and in the foreseeable future Crimea is a drain on Russia's resources. And I am not just talking about the international sanctions. — SophistiCat

What interest could Putin have in Crimea if not economic? Oil and natural gas (and it's increasing scarcity), is to my knowledge what gives the Russian economy it's strength, and so keeping it out of the hands of economic competitors becomes increasingly valuable while the cost of oil extraction rises. This means Russia gets to sell even more oil and at an even higher price in the long run, doesn't it?

It wasn't. There wasn't anything like a real referendum, such as what the Scots had. Before Russia made its play, there wasn't even much of a separatist movement there; it was just a sleepy and neglected province, more-or-less content to eke out a living from Russian and Ukrainian summer vacationers. But once the invasion got under way, local authorities toppled, Ukrainian media shut down and the propaganda of fear and patriotism revved up, I think it is plausible that most of the population would have voted to join Russia. But they weren't even trusted with their voices. — SophistiCat

I'm not saying this isn't the case or even out Kremlin-character (the degree of Russia's involvement pre-referendum), but I would like to see evidence as to the extent before I entirely discount the "democratic" narrative RT and it's echo chambers have stuck to.

What concerns me I guess is that both sides seem to care less about the Crimean people than they do about getting what they want and spiting the other, so I'm often left not knowing who's account contains more deceit.

I'm curious if calling this an "annexation" is actually fair. If the Crimean people really wanted to be Russian and voted for it, should we really feel so bad for Ukraine that we tell the Crimeans they aren't allowed to join Russia? — VagabondSpectre

Classic reply would be: so did the Sudetenland Germans want to join Germany. And the question is, just how many do have to have to "join" Russia. Russia has a long track record of staging these kind of "voluntary joining".

Mind you the Russia Special Forces took over Crimea first, and then there was a so-called election. Now Russians in the Crimea have had thoughts of joining Russia even earlier. And people in East Ukraine have them too (so the war in Ukraine really is a genuine civil war). Russia btw. has this method of creating satellite states, like Novorossija (the People's Republics of Donetsk & Luhansk), Republic of Abkhazia and Transnistria), which other countries haven't acknowledged. Furthermore, the leadership of these "states" is firmly in the control of the Russians.

How it started. Russian Spetnaz seizing the regional Parliament in Simferopol:


Also Russia agreed to uphold current Ukrainian borders when Ukraine agreed to give away it's nuclear arsenal. We tend to forget that.And basic Westphalian approach is that you don't annex parts of other sovereign countries. Hence in a multitude of ways Russia broke international agreements.

Now what is true is that there is genuine support at least in part of the population for the annexation. First and foremost, the economic situation in Ukraine is far worse than in Russia, hence there was really an economic incentive to join Russia also. And what united all Ukrainians was there hate towards the corrupt leaders of the country. It's notable that Yanukovich, who fled to Russia, isn't wellcome even in his former base region of Donbass, which now fights against Ukraine.

What concerns me I guess is that both sides seem to care less about the Crimean people than they do about getting what they want and spiting the other, so I'm often left not knowing who's account contains more deceit. — VagabondSpectre

How about the Tatars in Crimea?

Present-day offshore oil and gas production that Russia seized from Ukraine doesn't amount to much (which is why Ukraine largely relied on energy imports, even before it lost control of Crimea). There are potentially rich deep-sea oil and gas deposits that Russia now controls in the Black Sea, but their size is uncertain, and Russia will have to rely on its own outdated and thinly stretched resources to develop them. International oil giants will eventually wear down Western governments to allow them to work elsewhere in Russia, but I don't see this happening in Crimea any time soon.

For now Russia has to rely on expensive schemes to deliver energy and other resources to Crimea, with which it doesn't even have a land border. Crimea and Chechnya are among Russia's greatest budget sinks.

As ssu says, you just need to take a look at the timeline of the events, which Russian officialdom now largely acknowledges, even if they don't like to talk about some aspects of it. Even its extreme brevity speaks volumes (compare with Scotland's years of campaigning and preparation). It was a classic blitzkrieg.

There is another distinctive narrative here: that of Crimean Tatars. They are now only some 12% of the population, down from the overwhelming majority that they once were, but they are a very cohesive group, and from the outset they were vehemently opposed to Russian plans (their history has taught them not to expect anything good from Russia, and the events subsequent to the annexation have validated their apprehensions). The Tatar leaders, now in forced exile, are basically using the same rhetoric as the Russians, only turned on its head and used against them: they are arguing that Tatars are the true heirs to Crimea, they are the only people who have the right to call themselves "the Crimean people." And therefore "historical justice," with which Russia likes to justify its actions in Crimea, is actually on their side. (I myself don't approve of either side's rhetoric and think that nationalism and "historical justice" are very pernicious routes to take.)

In light of Russia admitting spetnaz involvement pre-referendum, annexation might be a fair word regardless of what the Crimean population actually wanted, but I still wonder how much of the west's vigorous condemnation of this move is built around self interest rather than sympathy for the Crimean's loss of sovereignty.

In light of Russia admitting spetnaz involvement pre-referendum, annexation might be a fair word regardless of what the Crimean population actually wanted, but I still wonder how much of the west's vigorous condemnation of this move is built around self interest rather than sympathy for the Crimean's loss of sovereignty. — VagabondSpectre

Don't forget that the actual war happened in Eastern Ukraine, in the Donbass region. It's not a separate issue here. And there the Russians didn't just aid the rebels, but participated with Russian ground forces in combat.

After the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 there wasn't anything else but condemnation. And afterwards there was the Obama "resetting" of the relations. Just as had happened, well, with George Bush (as the relationship had become colder in the end with Clinton). Hence there was a pattern of Russia doing something that the West doesn't like and then the West being OK with it, and then Russia doing it again.

Now Russia has officially annexed South Ossetia and attacked another neighbouring country. My guess is that not only the West put sanctions just because of the breaking of international law, but also not to give the idea that it can do similar actions in other places, like Central Asia. And naturally the development changed the situation to worse on the NATO-Russian border in the Baltics and Poland. The eastern NATO countries are naturally worried about the developments.

I'm from Finland myself and I can guarantee you that for the Finns the Ukrainian war was a turning point to a worse security situation. The tensions in the Baltic Sea and in Northern Europe have increased, not to level where is imminent, but to a similar tension as during the Cold War.