• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Official Floated Withdrawing U.S. Forces to Please Putin - The Daily Beast today

Happens when you have inexperienced people in positions like this.

This guy Harrington worked for Flynn who worked for Trump. And we all know that Trump wants to make Putin happy. The question is 'Why is that?'
 
This guy Harrington worked for Flynn who worked for Trump. And we all know that Trump wants to make Putin happy. The question is 'Why is that?'

And that guy Harrington thought up a stupid plan to make himself look good to his boss's boss, and it was shot down. Happens often in business. Like I said, that's what happens when you have inexperience people in positions like this. I think you're reading too much into it.

Trump didn't didn't appear to have anything to do with it according to the story, yet you still find a way to make it his fault. :shrug:
 
LOL!!

So...someone has an idea...it's dismissed...never seriously considered.

Sounds like a nothingburger to me. Yum, yum...

Is he qualified to hold that position?
 
Removing us troops would do nothing unless it was nato. Russia has felt threatened because to them they have guys on most of their borders with guns pointed at them saying don't worry we won't invade you. Russia is a paranoid country, and has been backstabbed numerous times in history, defense wise they like a buffer zone. Basically nato would have to withdraw from eastern countries to appease russia and leave them feeling safe, otherwise to them it looks like western expansion and buildiong towards an invaSION.

Us removing some troops would still leave the russians paranoid as well as lessening our defense if they take that paranoia to the next level. They either need to stay how they are, or revert to the nato bush senior promised, anything inbetween is simply a waste of time .

Then NATO should position enough troops in the Baltic's to make it a red line- just as West Berlin was. Troops in West Berlin were a sacrificial lamb if the USSR attacked, and a red line that could not be crossed without full scale war.
 
Is he qualified to hold that position?

Who? The someone with an idea? I guess that's up to the person who hired him to decide.
 
If this happened under Obama you would be singing a different tune. You would have been asking how someone from a hedge fund lands a job on the National Security Council. You then would be calling for that person to be removed -- and of course, you would have crucified Obama for appointing such an unqualified person in the first place.

It DID happen during the Obama Admin. Only instead of it being merely a suggestion, the USA removed anti-missle batteries from Poland and the Czech Republic, part of the famous "re-set" of USA-Russia relations that occured in that government.

Condemn Trump all you want for having a guy on the NSC who doesnt appear to need to be there. But also recognise the proposal went nowhere.
 
And that guy Harrington thought up a stupid plan to make himself look good to his boss's boss, and it was shot down. Happens often in business. Like I said, that's what happens when you have inexperience people in positions like this. I think you're reading too much into it.

Trump didn't didn't appear to have anything to do with it according to the story, yet you still find a way to make it his fault. :shrug:

Just trying to connect the dots. 'Making Putin happy' is not the sort of idea that just suddenly pops into one's mind in U.S. Government.
 
Then NATO should position enough troops in the Baltic's to make it a red line- just as West Berlin was. Troops in West Berlin were a sacrificial lamb if the USSR attacked, and a red line that could not be crossed without full scale war.

How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?
 
How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?

For fun, just see how quickly the Russians can cut the Baltic's off from the rest of NATO. Then see their past exercises, Zapad was their latest, troop numbers, equipment, then consider how quick Crimea went down.
 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-official-floated-withdrawing-us-forces-to-please-putin

A member of Trump’s National Security Council staff had a radical notion: to pare back American troops in Europe as a way to curry favor with the Kremlin.

SPENCER ACKERMAN
01.09.18 7:00 PM ET

A senior National Security Council official proposed withdrawing some U.S. military forces from Eastern Europe as an overture to Vladimir Putin during the early days of the Trump presidency, according to two former administration officials.

While the proposal was ultimately not adopted, it is the first known case of senior aides to Donald Trump seeking to reposition U.S. military forces to please Putin—something that smelled, to a colleague, like a return on Russia’s election-time investment in President Trump. The White House did not immediately respond to The Daily Beast’s request for comment.

The official who offered the proposal, a deputy assistant to Trump for strategic planning, mused in February 2017 about withdrawing U.S. troops close to Russian borders as part of a strategy proposal to “refram[e] our interests within the context of a new relationship with Russia,” the former official told The Daily Beast, who heard this directly from the official, Kevin Harrington.

Harrington is the NSC’s senior official for strategic planning. He had neither military experience nor significant government experience before joining the White House. But he had an influential credential: As a managing director for the Thiel Macro hedge fund, he was close to Trump patron and ally Peter Thiel. Trump’s first national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, announced Harrington’s arrival in early February as part of a “talented group” ready to bring “fresh ideas to the table.”
==============================================================================================
Collusion? What collusion? Blackmail? What blackmail? Why was the Trump NSC looking at ways to please Putin as soon as they moved in?

But, but, but, Trump is Putin's bitch and is being blackmailed by Putin for peeing on Russian prostitutes. Why do we need one of Trump's national security team to float this idea? Why hasn't Trump already done this?
 
But, but, but, Trump is Putin's bitch and is being blackmailed by Putin for peeing on Russian prostitutes. Why do we need one of Trump's national security team to float this idea? Why hasn't Trump already done this?

Seems odd to me but:

Trump+Putin.jpg

These guys don't look like adversaries to me.
 
How would you feel if the Russians had a few dozen divisions of troops along the Mexican border? A bit paranoid perhaps?

So what exactly is the concern here? That Putin is justified in his angst of NATO troops along his western border?
Would there be a less adversarial relationship if those concerns were removed?
 
It DID happen during the Obama Admin. Only instead of it being merely a suggestion, the USA removed anti-missle batteries from Poland and the Czech Republic, part of the famous "re-set" of USA-Russia relations that occured in that government.

Condemn Trump all you want for having a guy on the NSC who doesnt appear to need to be there. But also recognise the proposal went nowhere.

The two are not symmetric. The Trump official idea was knee-jerk while the Obama decision, even if you disagree, was well thought out.

Israel and most NATO countries in Western Europe approved of the move, news stories show, as they thought the missile system provoked Russia. Initial reactions from Polish and Czech leaders were not thrilled.Obama delegated explaining the decision to an interesting source: Gates, the same official who recommended the missile defense plan to Bush in 2006 to combat the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.
Gates explained why he urged Obama to change course in a 2009 New York Times op-ed and in his 2014 book Duty, in which he described the new strategy as necessary due to changing times, technology and threats. (And in which he said some not-so-nice things about Obama.)
source
 
The two are not symmetric. The Trump official idea was knee-jerk while the Obama decision, even if you disagree, was well thought out.

Well-- to play the devils advocate- if the concern was that a missle system on Russia's borders was a provocation, why wouldnt troops on the border also be seen as a provocation?

The other issue that was raised in this thread was that the suggestion is evidence of colusion.

In any event, its a moot point. The Trump admin made no such decision. Moreover, nothing indicates it was under conideration by the admin. Judging from the actions of the past year, its not going to happen.
 
So what exactly is the concern here? That Putin is justified in his angst of NATO troops along his western border?
Would there be a less adversarial relationship if those concerns were removed?

The history suggests that there would be less of an adversarial relationship between the U.S. and Russia/Soviet Union if we practiced a Foreign Policy that placed the U.S. in a world where we actually recognize it for what it is. We used an irrational fear of communism to make poor decisions throughout the Cold War...

- The French, still clinging to empire and wishing to re-establish southeast Asia as their jewel, used our efforts in Europe to pull us into Vietnam. The French argued that they could not support their efforts in southeast Asia and support Truman's "containment" policy in Western Germany. Refusing to leave the colonial business in the past, the U.S. began to financially assist them in southeast Asia, especially when the French began to start arguing about communist aggression (despite Ho Chi Mihn still telling his people that America would help them). In time, we were bank rolling their mission in Vietnam, years and years before that war was Americanized and began arguing the "Domino Theory."

- The British were unable to move Truman in regards to Iran's (Mohammad Mosaddegh) wish to nationalize their oil away from the Brits. However, they began to understand our developing misunderstandings of the world. They began to release ant-Democratic propaganda in Iran among the protesters who were unhappy with their government's economic issues.
So, when Eisenhower entered Office, the Brits through the Dulles Brothers, easily convinced him that Iran's democracy was going to fall to the Soviet Union's communist agents. Hence...the 1953 CIA-led coup that shattered Iran's new democracy, even as Mosaddegh continued to believe that America was own his democratic side, and the Shah's rise, who would oppose the Soviet Union. Shortly after, Eisenhower extended "containment" to the Middle East.

- Of course, then there's the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which followed the U.S. installation of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey as a means of defense against Soviet "aggression" and the Bay of Pigs invasion to dismantle Castro's communist government. Khrushchev decided to agree to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to counter what the U.S. had done all along the Soviet border. After Kennedy established a military blockade around the island, Khrushchev recognized that matters had gone too far. He and Kennedy opened the lines of communication, but both agreed that both would need to back away while saving face. The Soviets removed their missiles and the U.S. got Cuba, which further legitimized the Monroe Doctrine; and the U.S. publicly declared that it would not invade communist Cuba again, and secretly agreed to dismantle Jupiter systems in Turkey (Dismantling Italy followed soon after but there is no revealed evidence that Italy was a part of the deal).

In the end, The U.S. developed arguments to address communism everywhere and to perceive everything the Soviet Union did as a direct attack on our interests. We argued that they were the aggressors, despite so much of what the Soviets did was in reaction to what we did. For anybody who reads this, I recommend The Global Cold War by American Foreign Policy historian Odd Arne Westdad and A Failed Empire by Soviet Foreign Policy historian Vladislav M. Zubok. Both provide a very accurate perspective of the Cold War from each side's perspective and compliment each other very well. So much of our global activity was based on assumptions about Soviet activity that were misunderstood, and so much of the Soviet activity was based failing policies that tried to live up to the competition.

So when a guy like me sees today's Putin/NATO and American Foreign Policy issues, I have to wonder how small our scope of global understanding still remains.
 
Last edited:
Which ironically may be due to nationalism. You're welcome.

However, you are wrong. Facism can arise under any and all forms of government. All it takes is for a few men/women placed on high to ignore the beginnings of it. Such as Antifa who, while crying about facism, are supporting facists and facist ideas. They're among the most contradictory groups I've ever known to exist....yet they have wide support.

Fanaticism yes, authoritarianism yes, but unless you are using "fascism" as a generic term. People often posit that fascism is ultra right wing, it is not, it was a rise of socialism that brought Mussolini to power.
 
Then NATO should position enough troops in the Baltic's to make it a red line- just as West Berlin was. Troops in West Berlin were a sacrificial lamb if the USSR attacked, and a red line that could not be crossed without full scale war.

That is generally what caused russia to become agrressive, maintaining things how they are is one thing, but doubling down on them is a bad idea. As another poster mentioned, how would the us feel if mexico had russian troops stationed there with their cannons and missles pointed their way, with the russians claiming it is just defensive.

Or on the same note would you in canada be fine if the us allied with russia and both mainland us and alaska had troops tanks cannons missles etc aimed at your countries borders, would you view that as simple defense or rather like the russians vs nato who see it as an imminent invasion with the opposition building base before the move. Keep in mind prior to the us the last major power who kept saying we are not going to invade while expanding their territory east ended up invading them, and that was nazi germany.
 
It's almost all didactic down spiraling up there in a post that is separated by only some sporadic roaming. I suggest going back to square one as a resolution, i.e., discuss the issues and the arguments rather than the posters thx. Virtually all your posts are about the poster so I take this opportunity to point this out and to encourage better posting thx. Try to minimize the many bad habits hanging around.

So I take it you can't answer some simple questions?

Par for the course I guess.
 
That is generally what caused russia to become agrressive, maintaining things how they are is one thing, but doubling down on them is a bad idea. As another poster mentioned, how would the us feel if mexico had russian troops stationed there with their cannons and missles pointed their way, with the russians claiming it is just defensive.

Or on the same note would you in canada be fine if the us allied with russia and both mainland us and alaska had troops tanks cannons missles etc aimed at your countries borders, would you view that as simple defense or rather like the russians vs nato who see it as an imminent invasion with the opposition building base before the move. Keep in mind prior to the us the last major power who kept saying we are not going to invade while expanding their territory east ended up invading them, and that was nazi germany.

Nazi Germany you say. Sounds like Trump talking about the FBI.

Nato has 7000 troops deployed along the Russian border from the Baltic to the Black Sea. This includes from USA 600 troops in the Baltic states, 300 in Norway, a battalion in western Poland and a brigade in northwest Poland near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. This is not an invasion force nor is it an advance invasion force. So get real over there cause you're talking about invading Russia. The sovereign territory of Mother Russia is threatened by no one nor will it be threatened by anyone.

Here meanwhile is more like what the U.S. has in Latvia....

170117132422-us-troops-lithuania-large-tease.jpg

This is it folks. All of 'em. They're our guys on the spot they are. It's more than enough to keep the bear from the door. So now the Russians have their hands full and Putin knows it.


nato-map.jpg






And here again is the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad dropped in between Poland and Lithuania. We see Russia borders Latvia and Estonia. All three were Soviet possessions from 1945 until only recently. Each of 'em joined Nato to keep the bear frozen out for good. They know from experience.

kaliningrad-map.jpg



Trump and the Putin-Trump Fanboyz are instead talking about Nazis. The blatant contradiction is that Trump and His Fanboyz don't like WW II Nazis but they say Nazis in Charlottesville are "good people." And that the MSM in the USA "are the enemy of the people."
 
Last edited:
Trump and the Putin-Trump Fanboyz are instead talking about Nazis. The blatant contradiction is that Trump and His Fanboyz don't like WW II Nazis but they say Nazis in Charlottesville are "good people." And that the MSM in the USA "are the enemy of the people."

It is rather hard to reconcile that contradiction. I think it is safe to state that they abide American Nazi wannabes simply because they rallied for their guy. That's how shallow we are to our convictions in this country anymore. From shrugging at a denigration of Vietnam Veterans to abiding the supremacists, some Americans appear to be struggling with their own identities.
 
Back
Top Bottom