• 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

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 
Last edited:
A very extensive, informative (and truly frightening) article. I hope someone sics Mueller on this Harrison guy.
 
JacksinPA said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 .
 
This administration is owned by Russia.

Are the pictures and videos of Trump doing terrible things in the hotel suite that bad?:lol:
 
JacksinPA said:
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?
Click to expand...

LOL!!

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

Sounds like a nothingburger to me. Yum, yum...
 
DiAnna said:
A very extensive, informative (and truly frightening) article. I hope someone sics Mueller on this Harrison guy.
Click to expand...

Few problems.

1: Assuming there is truth to this: Someone proposes something which is dismissed by pretty much everyone and this feeds into your fear somehow? Why?

2: Just un-named sources...again. Nothing to back up what those "sources" said. I have no problem with un-named sources....so long as those un-named sources bring proof with them. You know, like what happened with Nixon?

3: It's the Daily Beast. They're about as dependable as CNN or Fox. Which is to say...they're not dependable at all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Few problems.

1: Assuming there is truth to this: Someone proposes something which is dismissed by pretty much everyone and this feeds into your fear somehow? Why?

2: Just un-named sources...again. Nothing to back up what those "sources" said. I have no problem with un-named sources....so long as those un-named sources bring proof with them. You know, like what happened with Nixon?

3: It's the Daily Beast. They're about as dependable as CNN or Fox. Which is to say...they're not dependable at all.
Click to expand...

My guess is that these unnamed sources were one of the early people to be let go...that they don't like Trump. So, they take an actual event...talking about US troops in Europe...and then add some bogus "appease Putin" thing to it that never existed.

So, it can be said that the discussion did happen...but the reason for the discussion isn't what's being reported. Hard to dispute. And if it IS disputed by the Trump administration, well...Trump is a liar, isn't he?

This is how the Mainstream Media presents their fake news.
 
The Trump Fanboyz predictably refuse to accept the report.

I accept it.

Putin owns Trump.
 
We well know we can't trust Trump with the nation's sovereignty and national security. One major reason is that intelligence chiefs who present the President's Daily Briefing omit anything about Russia because anything about Russia upsets Potus and risks throwing Trump into a rage.


Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked

Holding impromptu interventions in Trump’s 26th-floor corner office at Trump Tower, advisers — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and designated chief of staff, Reince Priebus — prodded the president-elect to accept the findings that the nation’s spy chiefs had personally presented to him on Jan. 6 [2016].

They sought to convince Trump that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win, according to three officials involved in the sessions. More important, they said that doing so was the only way to put the matter behind him politically and free him to pursue his goal of closer ties with Russian President Vladi*mir Putin.

Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House.

The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat. The repercussions radiate across the government.

Rather than search for ways to deter Kremlin attacks or safeguard U.S. elections, Trump has waged his own campaign to discredit the case that Russia poses any threat and he has resisted or attempted to roll back efforts to hold Moscow to account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clas...f7c19270879_story.html?utm_term=.2d4e9c2bd874


The Video:

[video]https://d21rhj7n383afu.cloudfront.net/washpost-production/The_Washington_Post/20171213/custom/5a31a58ee4b0d6b173bf92e6_custom/1513203110363_800_450_1729492.mp4[/video]
 
JacksinPA said:
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?
Click to expand...

So let me ask this.
What is so wrong with trying to curry favor with one of the worlds largest nuclear powers?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Few problems.

1: Assuming there is truth to this: Someone proposes something which is dismissed by pretty much everyone and this feeds into your fear somehow? Why?

2: Just un-named sources...again. Nothing to back up what those "sources" said. I have no problem with un-named sources....so long as those un-named sources bring proof with them. You know, like what happened with Nixon?

3: It's the Daily Beast. They're about as dependable as CNN or Fox. Which is to say...they're not dependable at all.
Click to expand...

I think we are all pretty much done with the whole abuse of un-named sources at this point.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I know I am.
Click to expand...

I still don't get why any of the other posters on this thread who believe this is an actual thing, actually believe so. Besides the ones we know are verdant trolls at least.

The whole OP even states that this really went nowhere, but for some reason they are so desperate to make it out to be something.

Is kind of sad really.
 
DiAnna said:
A very extensive, informative (and truly frightening) article. I hope someone sics Mueller on this Harrison guy.
Click to expand...

Over an article on a Clinton Family-owned website? That would certainly prove whose ventriloquist dummy Mueller is.
 
In 2015 the Joint Chiefs ended 15 years of U.S. strategic ambiguity. JCS put Russia behind door number one, China behind door number two and Iran behind door number three. The JCS and chairman were right of course.

Here's one of 'em, Army Chief of Staff General Mark Miley....


US Army Chief Warns Russia: We Will Beat You Harder Than You’ve Ever Been Beaten Before


General Mark Miley chief of staff of the Army speaking October 6, 2016 at the annual meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army in Washington


Here is the quote in text:

“Recently a senior Russian official, ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said ‘the established world order is undergoing a foundational shake up with the Crimea, Russia and Brexit.

“’Russia can now fight a conventional war in Europe and win. Russia is the only nation that will remain relevant forever.

“’Any other country is dispensable and that includes the United States.

"We are at end game now.’”


Yakovenko is being belligerent on authority from Putin. Have no doubt Gen. Miley speaks for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff which Gen. Miley calls "The Team."

Russia has been the opposite of the United States for 1000 years. We see however there are Americans who approve and who want the USA to be more like Russia than the other way around. Forget it.
 
DiAnna said:
A very extensive, informative (and truly frightening) article. I hope someone sics Mueller on this Harrison guy.
Click to expand...

How do you spell 'quid pro quo?
 
JacksinPA said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think appeasing Putin as one of the first orders of business for Trump stinks to high heaven given the many suspicions about his ties to Russia & Putin & the documented Russian tampering with our election via the big targeted ad buys by RT & Sputnik, both big Russian media outlets working for Putin. This should be on Mueller's bucket list.

Quid pro quo? What quid pro quo?
 
Oborosen said:
So let me ask this.
What is so wrong with trying to curry favor with one of the worlds largest nuclear powers?
Click to expand...

Russia needs to be doing that now with the United States instead of attacking our elections while Putin mucks up his neighbor Ukraine and menaces Nato.

American Conservatives have for many years wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around. Trump is your Deliverance. Courtesy of Putin.
 
Tangmo said:
Russia needs to be doing that now with the United States instead of attacking our elections while Putin mucks up his neighbor Ukraine and menaces Nato.

American Conservatives have for many years wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around. Trump is your Deliverance. Courtesy of Putin.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you haven't supplied any evidence for any of this and your post are actually never meant to be taken seriously. I find very little reason for actually responding in general. Because, if you haven't noticed?

America started becoming more of a fascist system, under democratic rule.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as you haven't supplied any evidence for any of this and your post are actually never meant to be taken seriously. I find very little reason for actually responding in general. Because, if you haven't noticed?

America started becoming more of a fascist system, under democratic rule.
Click to expand...


Four fragments = A fragmented post thx.

Donald Trump and his base of voters and supporters are nationalists first and foremost. They oppose the liberal international network of nation states. Their nationalism is thereby extreme. The extreme is destructive.

Trump's social views and the cultural views of the Trump base are conservative. At their extreme -- as in MAGA -- they are reactionary. This is further explained and understood by the reality the USA and its liberal democracy are already great and that Trump and his base are degrading it.

Nationalism in the extreme does welcome a strongman leader, hence the natural bond between Trump and Putin. This is to the exclusion of all other factors that might otherwise apply. The single overriding bond includes of course the supporters of each strongman. Which also helps to state and comprehend how American Conservatives have for years wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around.

In contrast, fascism arises from any system and form of government, to include monarchy, theocracy, republicanism, autocracy, oligarchy and same or similar forms of rule. Fascism in Europe rose from the post WW I ashes of the monarchies destroyed by the war. It also manifested in fledging illiberal democracies in the various war ravaged and unstable countries.

The rise of fascism since its modern ideological origins post 1850 runs counter to republican liberal democracy. The two are not complementary and one does not necessarily give rise to the other. Further, it is yet to be proved that fascism can derive or arise in, or from, liberal democracy. This applies to liberal democracy as it is known in virtually all constitutional systems (monarchy, republican etc). Anyone trying to argue to the contrary would need to produce a pattern; any such pattern would need to be conclusive. Youse over there cannot accomplish this goal or purpose. It is impossible or prohibitively unlikely fascism could occur in the USA. To cite but one prohibitive factor, the institutions of the USA are too strong, deeply rooted, respected; broadly, deeply, comprehensively.
 
Tangmo said:
Four fragments = A fragmented post thx.

Donald Trump and his base of voters and supporters are nationalists first and foremost. They oppose the liberal international network of nation states. Their nationalism is thereby extreme. The extreme is destructive.

Trump's social views and the cultural views of the Trump base are conservative. At their extreme -- as in MAGA -- they are reactionary. This is further explained and understood by the reality the USA and its liberal democracy are already great and that Trump and his base are degrading it.

Nationalism in the extreme does welcome a strongman leader, hence the natural bond between Trump and Putin. This is to the exclusion of all other factors that might otherwise apply. The single overriding bond includes of course the supporters of each strongman. Which also helps to state and comprehend how American Conservatives have for years wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around.

In contrast, fascism arises from any system and form of government, to include monarchy, theocracy, republicanism, autocracy, oligarchy and same or similar forms of rule. Fascism in Europe rose from the post WW I ashes of the monarchies destroyed by the war. It also manifested in fledging illiberal democracies in the various war ravaged and unstable countries.

The rise of fascism since its modern ideological origins post 1850 runs counter to republican liberal democracy. The two are not complementary and one does not necessarily give rise to the other. Further, it is yet to be proved that fascism can derive or arise in, or from, liberal democracy. This applies to liberal democracy as it is known in virtually all constitutional systems (monarchy, republican etc). Anyone trying to argue to the contrary would need to produce a pattern; any such pattern would need to be conclusive. Youse over there cannot accomplish this goal or purpose. It is impossible or prohibitively unlikely fascism could occur in the USA. To cite but one prohibitive factor, the institutions of the USA are too strong, deeply rooted, respected; broadly, deeply, comprehensively.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tangmo said:
Four fragments = A fragmented post thx.

Donald Trump and his base of voters and supporters are nationalists first and foremost. They oppose the liberal international network of nation states. Their nationalism is thereby extreme. The extreme is destructive.

Trump's social views and the cultural views of the Trump base are conservative. At their extreme -- as in MAGA -- they are reactionary. This is further explained and understood by the reality the USA and its liberal democracy are already great and that Trump and his base are degrading it.

Nationalism in the extreme does welcome a strongman leader, hence the natural bond between Trump and Putin. This is to the exclusion of all other factors that might otherwise apply. The single overriding bond includes of course the supporters of each strongman. Which also helps to state and comprehend how American Conservatives have for years wanted the USA to be more like Putin's Russia than the other way around.

In contrast, fascism arises from any system and form of government, to include monarchy, theocracy, republicanism, autocracy, oligarchy and same or similar forms of rule. Fascism in Europe rose from the post WW I ashes of the monarchies destroyed by the war. It also manifested in fledging illiberal democracies in the various war ravaged and unstable countries.

The rise of fascism since its modern ideological origins post 1850 runs counter to republican liberal democracy. The two are not complementary and one does not necessarily give rise to the other. Further, it is yet to be proved that fascism can derive or arise in, or from, liberal democracy. This applies to liberal democracy as it is known in virtually all constitutional systems (monarchy, republican etc). Anyone trying to argue to the contrary would need to produce a pattern; any such pattern would need to be conclusive. Youse over there cannot accomplish this goal or purpose. It is impossible or prohibitively unlikely fascism could occur in the USA. To cite but one prohibitive factor, the institutions of the USA are too strong, deeply rooted, respected; broadly, deeply, comprehensively.
Click to expand...

How is it that when you post in spotted, broken English. That you can be taken just a tad bit more serious. Especially when you post long and clutter filled diatribes like this one?
This nationalism isn't extreme, so your attempts to make it seem so are pretty wasteful if I am to be honest. We have seen our country bend over backwards for the benefit of others and suffer horribly in the line of doing so. So the process of trying to take care of the issues we have on our soil, are no more extreme then the foreign policies run by even our last administration.

Along with the issue, that I haven't seen any conservative leaders come out and say that they want our country to run like Putin's already turns your sentiment inside out. Though, for some reason we have people telling us that this country was already great and that it doesn't need help to be great again. Even though the issues they say that are making it not great now, are the same issues that were prevalent back then, is nothing but a waste of breath.

Stating were fascism tends to come from, does not change the fact that we have had to deal with it recently in the US. We literally just got done with a year of people being punched, kicked and attacked with weapons. Simply because the other group didn't like what they were talking about. Not to mention one such group (BLM) was being supported by the current administration at that time and seeing as it more resembled an Oligarchy as well. Your more close to pointing out the fault in your very own reasoning.

If you still stink fascism cannot occur in institutions within the US. Then I suggest you do not visit colleges like Berkley. Where the very concept of free speech is almost entirely forgotten and the more conservative student bodies are threatened with (in most cases with physical or administrative force) to hold their own speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom