In comments on Twitter early Thursday, President Trump faulted his critics, saying he believes they “badly want to see a major confrontation with Russia, even a confrontation that could lead to war.”
Trump has been saying he wants better relations with Russia since the 2016 campaign, and has been facing heavy criticism for that position ever since. This week saw Trump’s first summit with Putin since the election.
That summit went well, but Trump was roundly castigated by much of the media as well as the overwhelming majority of US lawmakers. They were indeed demanding confrontations of Vladimir Putin and were extremely angry that the summit went well.
Trump believes this amounts to pushing “recklessly hard” for war, saying “they hate the fact that I’ll probably have a good relationship with Putin.” Though these critics generally aren’t advocating for war itself, they have been advocating for years for ever-worsening bilateral relations.
It is this hostility toward Russia that has driven bilateral ties to their worst point since the height of the Cold War, and has them resisting even the hint of detente. While they aren’t necessarily expecting this to lead to war, they are determined to see it not lead to peace.
President Trump is being increasingly vocal about his annoyance at this resistance to his diplomatic overtures, despite avoiding a war with Russia seemingly being an obvious part of long-term US strategic interests.
But as President Trump firmly positions himself against a disastrous war with Russia, it is likely to escalate the rhetoric coming out of his critics, making their anti-Russia stance yet more overt and more willing to counsel an unthinkable conflict.
53 thoughts on “Trump Says Critics Badly Want War With Russia”
Peace is treason.
Right, I guess it was his critics that that brought the “why can’t we use em” nukes development bill to congress, passed unanimously by the GOP, opposed unanimously by the dems. Then, I guess they made him sign it. The pathos is not the lying bs, but that so many believe it against their own interests.
Madline Albright said “What good is all this weaponry, if we don’t use it?” – or something to that effect.
Nice, she is a harmless talking head now, shall I post some quotes from our current National Security Chief, John Bolton ?
Be my guest, which only goes to prove that there are an abundance of warmongers in both parties, but historically it’s been the Democratic Party that craves war.
That’s true John, Albright is an excellent example, however, I am trying to get you righties to see, by congressional votes for warmongering bills, the GOP has been, hands down, the war party since McGovern. The parties are not the same, or, even close. Even a cursory, honest look at the vote records prove that. For antiwar folk, the GOP has to go.
I’m trying to get you lefties to see that the Deep War State is a two headed monopoly of the political system and that’s why Trump is hated by the neocon righties who were spawned from the liberal interventionist warmongers of yesteryear. When the Libs got a little less craven in their wars some migrated to the Republican party. They are not Conservatives at all.
The GOP is not conservative at all, it is a radical militancy. Exactly how many “libs” do you imagine joined the GOP so they could promote war ? 100,000 ? Couple million ? 3?
Very few – but I was not referring to the voting public, but warmonger influence peddlers who claim to have been or still do claim to be Conservative. People like Bill Krystal, David Frumm. Then theere are the gaggle of so-called Conservative Senators like McCain, Sasse, Graham, the whole Bush clan, Cheney, Romney who top the list of American warmongers, all the while claiming to be Conservative.
So funny how conservatives ex communicate their failed ideologues while simultaneously attaching them to their ideological foes.
Can you please elaborate upon how conservatives were forced to vote in war mongers and their policies….I’d really like to hear this line of victim-hood bullshit.
Could it be the ridiculous belief in opinions and ideologies that creates the space for opportunists and the morally deficient to rise to power no matter what ideology or opinion dominates the vernacular and power structure?
Monopoly is the main(dirty little secret) goal of capitalism. Thanks for accidentally highlighting the problem while you were busy conflating the symptom with the disease.
Both parties in Congress are money making toll booths. They charge for passage, the only difference is the right to deny passage to some if price is not right. President has to work with them. Either slavishly or by sticking it to them occassionally if suport is out there. US is in unenviable position right now. The idiots that played supremacist global policy forgot that others took iwould take it seriously, and now US is facing tecnological-military gap. Russia already has Kinzhal supersonic system in operations, Avantgard is following. As for the drone subs — we have no idea if swarms of them are already cruising deep seas, shadowing all surface or underwater assets we have. The weapon has no vulnerability, it is fast, quiet, limitless range and time in operation. What are we doing? Threatening with empty barrels, assuming forever being better and smarter then anybody else. Our arrogance and condescension towards others is incomprehensible. Now it is dual track — seek peace, deals on arms race, give concessions to procure safety, examine weapons systems now obsolete, and think next gen to gain some leverage. We have plenty of nukes, so what? If an adversary can easily overcome our defences, homeland is not safe. If so, all the wet dreams of controlling the planet are just juvenile fantasies. So, the knee jerk reaction to redevelop nukes is a natural one — and needed at present. We cannot just concede defeat. But plenty of concessions may be neded to get a meaningfull arms treaty this time around. We are still not getting it. I am glad that Trump — and whoever is watching his back — are.
Spoken like a true warmongering fanatic. Just one US sub could end Russia as a society. So could, India, Pakistan, Great Britain, France, Israel….even North Korea. Your perception of nuclear war, is the problem.
Hi Dave, no point getting into a debate on anything military with you — clearly not your thing. All any of us can do is be carefull in analysis of what is actually published officially or analysed by those who are qualified.
It is not war mongering to point out that we have fallen back scientifically and technologically when it comes to supersonics, missile defence, submarine drones and new alloys.
Please do not make me laugh with the idea that one submarine with its nuclear payload can destroy Russia. Also, check yourself when you asdume that Pakistan and India are in our column of piwers. England and France are lighwright. To give you a clue — India tested air to surface heavy missile Brahmos using Russian Sukhoi specially fitted to handle Brahmos. Also, this India’s heavy duty missile is a product of Indian and Russian cooperation. The name derived from two rivers: Brahmaputra and Moskwa. Only US is Russia strategic adversary. US was gainkng advantage by being able to move its short range nuclear cruise missiles clise to Russia borders. This makes short range cruise missiles dangerous, as defending against them — specially in numbers — nearly impossible. Thus US assets in Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Baltics or Black Sea — be that land based, sea based or submarines were dangerous to Russia. And this is why the establishment already came up with Russiaphobia — in US and Europe, assuming having enough military advantage to blackmail Russia into concessions. Whoever Trump advisers were, knew better. Trump argued pull back from arrogant military posture and foreign policy stupidity. And he was and is right. But what to do now when tables have turned? Two types of Russian next gen are the threatt to the forward posture that seamed like a winning card. One is Poseidon, as anything on or below water cannot be safe — and foremost those parked close to Russia territory. Second, while Poseidon is key defence, Avantgard is offensive, it would be the first long cruise missile nuclearly powered, with MIRV capacity, individually at Mach 20 speads in near plasma state. Hence, homeland is not secure. What would be a logical request from Rusdia? For our assets at short range cruiise missile capability to pull back ftom Russian targets. What do you think US move should be -/ other than negotiate new treaty?
I would say supersonic technology and FINALLY a heavy duty rocket engine capable of lifting Atlas payload. The true sign of corruption is the latest Air Force certification of Musk experimental heavy engine, which consists of strapping together three weaker ones. He tested it by proppelling Tesla car into space. Good optics, bad science. Also, to test a competitor to Russian RD-180 he had to send three Tesla cars up, not just the payload of anpout 22,000 lb.
No point getting rose coloured glasses here. The big talking warmongers unable to actually show what they have got — were shown up on March 1 for clowns they are. Thus Johnson and his “poisoning” case, cases of Russian spying, and endless anti Rusdia hysteria. None of it is answering real problems. If such clowns do not get out of politics and policy making — necessary changes and adjustments cannot be made.
Bianca, you can certainly provide reasons for further escalation, that is not difficul, just “defense of the homeland”. What’s odd, is your premise, of “if Russia gets ahead, they will attack us” is the exact kind of Russo phobia you also argue against, only instead of the pointless election meddling, you take it to the nuclear level. Which is it ? Disarmament and denuclearization doesn’t seem to be your forte, rather, rocket speed, payload. How many US cities nuked do you think it would take to end the US as a cohesive state? I recall a study of US Generals whom believe 10 warheads are enough to achieve MAD. Somehow, you believe disarmament occurs by investing more in WMD, rather than diplomacy and inspection. Cognitive dissonance. As to the US being “behind” in tech, let’s see, the US has been in near constant war since the Reagan administration, I believe we have lost a single jet in combat, a couple helicopters, no ships. We can missile what we want, when we want. That is what we observe, what kind of science do you use ?
Dave, I said no such thing. Never said Russia will attack us if in superior position. I am making a solid srgument for denuclearization, and treaties are key to starting such process. But I am a realist — and a best way to get to the negotiating table is when both parties can actually affort it. All I am saying truthfully is that US has slipped, and its negotiating position weakened. This can be remedied at leadt in supersonics. It is necessary to satisfy those that are likely to oppose any deals. And a more realistic — not empty braggibg — sobriety is necessary to those who think we own the absolute superiority. Both ends of the spectrum must become more realistic for meaningful progress to be made in minimizing nuclear catastrophy. And for those who are banking on innovation a foze of reality is in the slow process of evolving F-35, and the still elusive replacement for an already obsolete Russian RD-180. In this case our civilian space program is in trouble as well. Reorganization of NASA was a flop that gave miney away to marketing gurus like Musk and others. Look at the proposed Space arm if military as nothing more then bringing in NASA back into focus based on some national prioritids.
Bianca, if not Russia, then who are you afraid we are getting “behind”, and what does negotiating from strength mean ? Historically, it means arms race. Now, you claim the trump administration has pulled back from achieving ascendancy, yet the low yield cruise missile bill was proposed by him, and passed unanimously by the Gop, unanimously opposed (nearly) by the dems. Trump is not the inventor of “get along with Russia”, nor, the first to meet with them. When Obama met, they immediately signed actual arms control provisions. This was met with the predictable GOP opposition, wimpy Obama, Obama surrenders to Russia, same thing we see today with trump. Tho, there was a huge difference, in order to secure 2/3 vote on the start treaty, the GOP required passage of the huge nuclear upgrade program, and the arms race problem of anti missile programs. One step forward, two steps back. IF trump can negotiate for reductions, the difference in the parties will be evident.
Too add to your concerns, Obama overlooked hypersonics and other advanced super weapons the U.S. (at the time) felt comfortably ahead with and left out of START. From that perspective, reducing the number of active nukes meant little.
A comparison are the London and Washington Naval Treaties that left out ‘fast battleships’ and only nominally covered aircraft carriers.
Predictably the Germans and Japanese cheated, and their big-gun ships – particularly the Japanese dreadnaughts – ended up being outclassed by vessels with greater endurance.
Of course, both sides ended up blindsided by the aircraft carrier, with the Japanese at a disadvantage having developed first what we would call ‘carrier strike groups’, meant for land targets. The U.S. founded ‘carrier battle group’ naval warfare doctrine and only recently adopted CSG doctrine in the long absence of rival carrier navies.
What the blind spot is today isn’t clear, apart from the mutually assured extinction bit.
What was “overlooked” here, is that Russian weapons were designed to defeat US anti-missile systems, which were put back in development by the bush2 administration, contrary to START. The GOP required Obama to approve further anti-missile development, and deployment in exchange for their support of the START treaty, which would need 2/3 support. Do I need to tell you where these anti-missile ended up ?
Did not Madeline Albright say What’s the point in having this great military if we are not going to use it Both political parties are against us .
Sounds like requisite ‘tough talk’ presaging difficult negotiations with the Russians on disarmament.
Even if I were wrong, Trump broke bipartisan opposition to peace and met with Kim Jong-un and Vladmir Putin to try and defuse tensions.
At this point, the ball is in the left’s court, and their plan to top Trump on peace is… what exactly?
So far, it just looks like the Dems just want to be back in power, peace be damned.
Not exactly, those fools just want extremely bad relations with Russia for no good reason, and refuse to contemplate how that might increase the risk of direct war with them. The fools believe using Russia as a simmering adversary can be leveraged for financial, territorial and political advantage, domestically as well as abroad.
I’m no longer convinced they know the difference between bad relations and thermonuclear war.
It is like the plot logic of a weird South Park episode. Trump derangement syndrome has the Dems who used to be anti-war wanting to go to war with anyone who supports Trump. Even if it is Russia. It is a real problem because there is no cure for stupid.
Sheesh, when Obama met with the Russians (oh, forgot, trump invented “get along with russia”), the GOP castigated him as weak and surrendering, no support. I suppose Obama should have replied..the GOP wants war with Russia ? Don’t suppose you can get out of trump adoration long enough to see what a stupid, divisive comment from a president it is.
When Obama (who I voted for) met with the Russians the GOP was all neocons like Bushes, Cheney, McCain. They did want a war with Russia so they all endorsed Hillary. That is why I voted for Trump. And all the Russia Russia Russia meme only started when she lost and leaked emails made DNC and Clinton crimes undeniable. I concede that Trump doesn’t always think before he tweets but I support avoiding a confrontation with Russia.
Yes, 99.9 % of people in the world don’t want the US and Russia at war. Not the Dems, not the GOP, not trump, not Clinton ,not bush, cheney, maybe Bolton. ….to assert otherwise is just lame.
No one accused Obama of “collusion with Russia” even if some disagreed with rapprochement, and the dunces now accusing Trump of that in the Lib Party were all fine with Obama who was much softer on Russia (and rightfully so).
Many of the same RINOs who dissed Obama over being nice to Russia are willing to diss on Trump for being nice to Russia, like Paul Ryan.
Its just that they have to be careful not to upset the Republican base, which generally supports Trump’s peace initiatives. The Dem base, however, appears almost totally for war with Russia.
Support for the war machine is and always has been bi-partisan at an elite level. However, the Democratic elite may be splitting with some of the grassroots over support for war, and trying to mask it with Trump hate.
I have some news for you. The “Dems” were never ever antiwar. It’s the biggest lie ever made up. In fact, historically ever major wars was under them. They are just showing their true color because the Bush Republicans AKa fake opposition party isn’t in charge.
It is not news to me that Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ were war mongers. However, opposition to Vietnam was mostly democrats. I am not aware of any Republican anti-war movement ever. I was in Chicago in 68 and supported McGovern who campaigned on ending Vietnam. I guess I identified with the anti-war grass roots that was mostly democrats while Nixon was bombing Cambodia.
Since the Bush-Clinton cartel began under Reagan there hasn’t been much antiwar sentiment anywhere. The Middle East mess is all on them. I didn’t see any “love it or leave it” Republicans in the massive protest to W Bushes “shock and awe”. Now the deluded leftovers of the Democrat party want to be tough on Russia and don’t want Trump talking to them. I am astonished at how F’ed up that is.
Poll: 71% of Republican voters approve of Trump’s performance with Russia, and we know less than 5% of Congressmen do. What does this say about the total disconnect between Republican voters and the Republican politicians? Everything.
I don’t know where you get your numbers. The GOP is proven to support in lockstep, all warmongering legislation. Their base will follow the GOP into nuclear oblivion. The GOP told trump to change his story and he did. His base doesn’t care what he said, just that he, said it. Trump is a GOP rubber stamp, as he would’ve been for the dems if he had chosen and won that way. There is no there there, except, party politics.
The Republicans ended up nominating Trump and not any of the GOP’s actually leaders to be the president. How is that voting in “lock step”. LOL Trump’s polling numbers went sky high after he told Jeb that his Brother was a disaster and that the Iraq war was his fault.
So the “GOP” Base chose a person who promised less war. On the other hand the Democrats nominated a complete and total war hawk. So what the hell are you talking about? It wasn’t Republicans who stuck with the status quo warmonger, it was democrats.
You put down a lot of wishful thinking as if it’s fact.
If you had ever checked congressional war votes, like I suggested several threads ago, since McCarthy , you would know that the GOP does indeed vote lockstep for war, including since trump’s election. And, he signs em.
LOL Nice deflection. This doesn’t change the fact that Trump voters didn’t vote in lock step. They tossed out the GOP insiders and nominated Trump who promised less war. Whether or not he delivers on that promise doesn’t change the fact that they voted for a promise of less war. On the other hand Democrats voted for a woman who not only promised more war but had in fact already delivered on that promise every chance she was given.
Oh and using your historical data for a unique precedent like Trump doesn’t carry water because Trump is in fact unique. But even if Trump was just another typical Republican it still wouldn’t hold water as an argument. Why? Because both parties have gone back and forth between promising war to promising peace and both parties deliver war. So it’s pointless to say that Republicans are the ones who consistently deliver war, when in fact war is simply the status quo.
They BOTH consistently deliver war and you and I both know it. Use the same type of data and apply it to the democrats and what do you get? You get the same thing, they both deliver war no matter what they promise to do. And guess what? The GOP base turned on their party and chose someone who had never worked for even one day in his life for the government. You can ignore that fact until the cows come home but it’s a fact. The GOP base tossed out the status quo, the democrats embraced it.
Your claim that, “Their base will follow the GOP into nuclear oblivion.” is patently false. The GOP base rejected the war mongers their party offered and so far it’s Trump who is at least willing to offer some hope that our foreign policy might move in a better direction. What did the Democrats do? Oh that’s right they tried to put a war criminal in office who promised even more war and when it didn’t work they blamed Russia and are now pushing for war with them! And you blame the “GOP’s voter base who picked Trump over another Bush?
You know what I think Dave? I think that you refuse to see that it’s the Republican base who actually made a move in the right direction by picking Trump. And you refuse to make an honest assessment of the Democratic party or hold them to the same standards that you do everyone else.
Now I’m not saying that Trump is some good friend of liberty and peace. I’ve never said that. I am simply saying that it’s my opinion that Trump presents some possibilities for movement in the right direction, whereas Hillary was a proven warmonger through and through. You for some reason unknown to me, seem to think it’s the other way around despite the evidence to the contrary.
Trump was the only candidate among the Republicans (except maybe Rand Paul) who said, “Wouldn’t it be better to get along with the Russians?” All the rest of ’em craved confrontation with Russia.
And we all know Trump never lies and you can believe everything you hear in a political stump speech.
Dave with the last name Sullivan you ain’t no republican but even if you are a democrat you must admit the government does not do what we want . I don’t know but Trump just might do what we want I believe those poll numbers of the republican politicians wanting the opposite of what Trumps voters want .. That is why I don’t care if some democrats win too . Trump would love to do something for the democrats too As Trump is just as much a democrat as a republican ..
There’s the conservative base, then there’s the RINOs.
Only the Democrats are demonstrating consistent anti-democratic monolithism. Only very recently has some of the Democratic base started to shear away from the elites, as the election of Ocasio-Cortez and a few othe upstarts may to indicate.
What you seem to be missing are all of the non-partisan voters who will vote for peace even if Trump is the delivery man.
Trump said “confrontation” not “war.” I think he’s right.
The war hawks of both parties want to spend to the advantage of their own base, and to manage proxy forces, and to use force to push projects. They want to hem in any rivals, which means China, Russia, and actually means the EU too any time it seems about to get its act together in any independent way.
However, they don’t want to go all the way. Business likes military spending, but does not like major war. Major war promotes government power and restricts business activity and trade.
They want tensions, and to exploit those.
“Confrontation” is a euphemism for “war” and everyone gets that.
Trump probably keeps guys like Bolton around to remind him of just how far neocon and humanitarian warmongers are willing to go for a little tension to exploit.
Trump said “compromise is better than confrontation”.
Just because Trump says something doesn’t make it true. The mass murder economy demands the perfect enemy in order to justify billions spent on useless crazy weapons and war related revenue that DC has gladly justified for it’s entire modern history.
If war were indeed the object of the game we’d already have one. Since the invented war on(of) terror cannot justify spending on fleets of ships or worthless fighter jets a restored Russian cold war fills the bill nicely.
Trying to attach war mongering to one side of the corporate uniparty is nothing but a distraction meant to once again dupe people into thinking we can vote our way out of mass murder for profit via fear mongering.
These people will not be able to fleece the tax payer if the entire planet has been incinerated in a nuclear exchange.
Except for one problem; the crony capitalist model is expand or die, who ownz, rulz.
The possibility of war is real because the elite crony capitalists can’t expand any further past the Mackinderan wall of Eurasia. Even Trump’s trade war with China is a thinly disguised attempt to force China to concede more of its natural economic pie to foreign (Western, esp. U.S. crony elite) ownership.
Past a certain point, Trump’s trade war with China makes no sense because the U.S. doesn’t produce enough for perfectly balanced U.S.-China trade. This is even after adjusted for the Oxford study affirming that the U.S.-China trade gap is only half as big as Trump says it is.
If a faction of ultra-rich Globalist crony capitalists faced the end of their bubble world, they would not care if what was just their end took everyone else with them. For that reason, there can be no serious concessions on the part of Eurasia; they would always be held hostage.
China might for example, let the Qualcomm-NXP merger go ahead in goodwill exchange for Trump letting ZTE go, but the U.S. Senate’s actions to shoot Trump’s hostage only validated Made in China 2525 as necessary for China’s tech security no matter how much Trump wanted to soften that policy for U.S. interests.
“If a faction of ultra-rich Globalist crony capitalists faced the end of
their bubble world, they would not care if what was just their end took
everyone else with them”
Not terribly logical when you figure in the very low rate of suicide among sociopaths.
These people are also used to fluctuations in their influence and are aware of the fact they can reinvent themselves over and over again. There’s still a very good chance their money and social position will pardon them from their crimes and allow them to keep their ill gotten gains until they can once again reconstruct their image and influence.
That’s a common myth, however, what drives an antisocial sociopath is opportunities to victimize; that’s what makes life worth living to them.
However, sociopaths are made, not born. While pyschopaths are born the way they are, some conditioning event(s) made the sociopath a sociopath. Arguably, sociopaths are more socially effective than psychopaths because they can more naturally fake empathy, having some residual capacity.
The loss of a prized victim or victim pool would be problematic for a sociopath; having no empathy for others does not preclude self-pity because the base capacity for normal empathy, including empathy for self, is inhibited or damaged, not naturally absent.
Murder-suicide, therefore, is something a sociopath could be very much inclined to, if triggered by the loss of a prized victim or victim pool.
You just described the Israeli regime.
Trump keeps my head spinning. He wants a nice relationship with Putin, but he bombs Syria, sends another $200 million in armaments to the Ukraine, and wants to stop Germany from doing business with Russia. Sounds like he is inviting war with Russia just as much as his detractors.
Comments are closed.