World, Writing, Wealth discussion

11 views
World & Current Events > Hamburg's on fire when Putin meets Trump

Comments (showing 1-21 of 21) (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 7789 comments The setting is there - demonstrations, fire, riots, police to create an appropriate backdrop for the long-expected meeting.
But with all the tensions, it may well be pleasant and cordial.
It looks like some media is already setting the stage of their own for whatever happens: to say how inexperienced Trump was manipulated by shrewd Putin.
Will Trump sign off Alaska back to Russia, cancel sanctions, buy Crimea or nothing very special is gonna happen?


message 2: by Philip (new)

Philip (Phenweb) | 575 comments Nik wrote: "The setting is there - demonstrations, fire, riots, police to create an appropriate backdrop for the long-expected meeting.
But with all the tensions, it may well be pleasant and cordial.
It look..."


Nothing very special - all agreed - see One Morning In The Office


message 3: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments I wonder why Merkel selected Hamburg? It is supposedly known for its disruptive elements. Was there some sort of message she intended to send???


message 4: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 1211 comments He did call them out for being one of the deadbeats in the NATO alliance...just look at how happy the Greeks have been for being treated like the deadbeats in the EU...


message 5: by Matthew (last edited Jul 10, 2017 12:11PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) | 1393 comments You're missing the headlines here. Trump ended up holding a meeting that was an unmitigated disaster. He not only publicly accepted Putin's explanation that Russia had nothing to do with the hacking of the US election, but agreed to collaborate with them on cyber-security. Can you say "doors open, Vlad!"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/op...

In fact, the WH staffers got so concerned that Trump was giving the barn away that they had to send in Melania to try and break things up. It failed, of course, and the result was a diplomatic victory for Putin and another embarrassment for the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

Meanwhile, back at home, Kushner's secret meeting with a Russian asset, in which incriminating emails on Clinton and sanctions were again discussed, and Mannafort and Kushner were in attendance. Oh, and he lied about it to boot. The case of collusion deepens!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments It is interesting to see Matthew's priorities. Here, Trump might be something of an embarrassment, but it is because of his withdrawal from the climate change treaty and his habit of tearing up agreements and his obsessions of taking Obamacare apart with no valid replacement.

The embarrassment about hacking is fairly low down on the scale, and it is mainly the frenzy being stirred up about it. Maybe it has something to do with distance, but the role of Melanie/Ivanka etc at Hamburg is making a more of a "well, what do you know about that?" sort of impact.


message 7: by Matthew (last edited Jul 10, 2017 12:13PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) | 1393 comments Ian wrote: "It is interesting to see Matthew's priorities. Here, Trump might be something of an embarrassment, but it is because of his withdrawal from the climate change treaty and his habit of tearing up agr..."

My priorities? You're the one claiming that Trump opening the door to the country that hacked the US election - thus making Trump president - is a low on the scale. Last I checked, a US president being manipulated by a hostile dictator - or worse, his committing treason to become president - was not low on anyone's scale.

And we're not talking about some "embarrassment over hacking". We're talking about yet another indication of obvious collusion between Trump and Putin. Russia hacked the election to help Trump become president. Now Trump is officially endorsing their denial and he's talking even about handing the US own cyberkeys over to them. How the hell are you missing the significance of this?

As for Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement and tearing up treaties, of course that's a priority as well! Trump's entire presidency has been an unmitigated disaster, and saying that his relationship with Putin is low on the scale compared to his other stupid decisions is just plain ridiculous. It's like saying shooting yourself in the leg is no big deal because you've also shot yourself in the shoot.


message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments I guess the difference between Matthew and myself is the issue of form over substance. As an example, the local news here has just this morning made something of a meeting between Donald Jr and a Russian lawyer, and there are allegations that the lawyer mentioned something about Hillary. We don't know what. However, for collusion, it is now necessary to show (a) that the Trump team were working with the Russians to obtain that information, and (b) they took advantage and used the information in some way, and (c) the Russians benefited in some way.

I guess (c) gets into a logic problem because people will say they benefited by Trump even talking to Putin. However, we still need evidence that (a) and (b) occurred, and allegations by the Washington Post, etc are not evidence. Even if the Russian mentioned something about Hillary, suppose what was said was already in the public domain? Facts are evidence, and to be reliable we need a self-consistent set of facts so that only one interpretation is plausible. Recall, innocent until proven guilty. We still have to wait for Mueller, but so far, I have seen no relevant facts, let alone a set. That A talked to B is not relevant. What is A supposed to do if they come into contact? Why is someone who is doing business in Russia not supposed to talk to Russians? What did Trump say (or tweet) prior to the election that indicated he had critical knowledge of Clinton's campaign that could only have come from Russians?

Taking the other view of the Hamburg meeting, it appears that Trump and Putin have agreed to enforce a peace zone in southern Syria. Why is that not good? If it is good, why is it so bad to meet with Russians in the hope of doing good?


message 9: by Matthew (last edited Jul 10, 2017 11:06PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) | 1393 comments Ian wrote: "I guess the difference between Matthew and myself is the issue of form over substance. As an example, the local news here has just this morning made something of a meeting between Donald Jr and a R..."

No, its an issue of being informed vs. being ignorant. Case in point, the story about Donald Trump Jr. that you clearly didn't read given how you missed the significance of it so thoroughly. This meeting took place because a known Russian agent (a lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya) was offering Trump Jr. what she claimed was incriminating information about Hillary, apparently in exchange for promises to lift US sanctions against Russia.

Mannafort and Jared Kushner - a member of the transition team and Trump's son in law, both of whom had other contacts with Russian agents and lied about them - were also in attendance.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-son-don...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/why-do...

In other words, this demonstrates that Trump's team and own family were actually complicit in the Russian hacking efforts, not just benefiting from them. And this is not the only evidence of such criminal behavior. According to recent documentation, Peter Smith - a GOP operative - was also trying to recruit people to hack into her server for the sake of finding emails they could use against her. This has also been confirmed by a UK cybersecurity expert (Matt Tait) who claims he was one such recruit.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...

Fyi, these are not "allegations" being made by one news outlet, they are details emerging from testimony and documentation that is being produced by an ongoing investigation involving 7 US intelligence agencies!

As for the rest of your post, there are a few glaring points which scream for correction.

"Even if the Russian mentioned something about Hillary, suppose what was said was already in the public domain?"

Nothing was "mentioned". The entire purpose of the meeting, as Trump Jr's email shows, was to discuss an exchange of information for promises to lift sanctions. And what the Russians were offering was access to Hillary's private server! Nothing about that was in the public domain!

"Why is someone who is doing business in Russia not supposed to talk to Russians?"

SMH. One more time, these were not "business" meetings with Russian businessperson! They were clandestine meetings with members of Russia's intelligence community - ones which Trump's people have repeatedly attempted to cover up. And this took place at a time when the Russians were hacking the US election to make sure Trump won. This is not "business as usual", its evidence of high treason!

"Trump and Putin have agreed to enforce a peace zone in southern Syria. Why is that not good?"

This one is particularly simple. Putin's only concern in Syria is protecting Assad's regime, a war criminal, by ensuring that the pro-democratic rebels (not ISIS) are bombed. Cooperating with him is a bad thing because it means aligning US policy with Russia's, despite the fact that Putin has repeatedly proven he can't be trusted to enforce peace zones or focus his country's efforts on ISIS.

If you're seriously still thinking there's nothing going on here, I can't help you. I grow sick and tired of explaining the painfully obvious to people and having to inform them what treason is and how its being made as plain as day here.


message 10: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments The only fact in the first reference other than that people met was that Russians were funding Hillary. Interesting. Similarly, that the Russians want the Magnitsky act reversed is hardly surprising. The issue is NOT what the Russians want, it is not that people talk, rather it is what People DID. What acts from anyone altered votes, other than legitimate campaigning?

Don Jr would not give promises to lift sanctions because ehe was not in a position to do so. Don Jrs lawyer gives a reasonable counter in the second reference. That does not mean it is true, but unless there is evidence to contradict that, he must get the benefit of the doubt.

That the Russians were hacking Hillary is NOT treason - it might be espionage. Equally, even if Trump made a statement (which there is no evidence he did)_ that "When I am President, I shall do …. " is not treason - it is a statement of future policy that is conditional on the person being in a position to deliver.

As for a peace zone in southern Syria is bad because you have a hatred for Assad is interesting - how many southern Syrians do you want to kill to get rid of Assad? Me, I think peace would be good, and this could even be the start of the process for all of Syria. If you want to keep killing, then I am very sorry for you. Take a look at what Mosul looks like now to see what those cities might look like.


message 11: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 7789 comments Hey Matt,

But even the articles you bring rightly tag the words of different folks as "allegations", copypasted from the Guardian article : "British internet security consultant Matt Tait’s allegations may shed new light....."
And when we read "... emails offered by a mysterious and most likely Russian source.", we know that 'most likely' requires more conclusive answers.
I hope Mueller is well remunerated to interview all the dudes claiming to know things, as well as suspects, and come up with convincing results to the public...


message 12: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 7789 comments Whether the collusion happened or not, I hope we will know, as 7 agencies as well as a special investigator need to justify their salaries, beyond spying on billions of uninvolved people -:) In the meantime, I definitely think the world has a lot to gain from good relations between US and Russia and a good chemistry between the two heads of state. S. Syria and hopefully the entire region, if those two become good fire extinguishers, can be an excellent starter..

Trump repeatedly asking Putin whether Russia intervened in the elections is a little naive to say the least, but probably makes good headlines of stern Trump and unequivocal Putin. Maybe from Trump's point of view the investigation is closed now once he himself inquired and verified -:)


message 13: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments Nik, I think Trump will be disappointed. If he thinks this investigation is going to go away, I think he is wrong. The problem is, if he is innocent, you cannot prove a negative, and this will continue ad nauseum. Of course, if he is guilty and evidence is found, in the resultant (or continuing) frenzy it is difficult to see a happy ending for him.


message 14: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 7789 comments I think the investigations should either end in indictment or clearing him from suspicions, as with Clinton. This may reduce the division in the public...


message 15: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 1211 comments Nik wrote: "In the meantime, I definitely think the world has a lot to gain from good relations between US and Russia and a good chemistry between the two heads of state. S. Syria and hopefully the entire region, if those two become good fire extinguishers, can be an excellent starter....."

Like it or not, we can't just put Russia in a little box, isolate them and try to starve them out like they're North Korea and Iran. They still have a scary military and as we've seen in places like Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Putin is not afraid to use it. If we think sanctions are going to work against him, he'll just take Russia back to the old ways of doing things where you invade other countries for plunder. I'm not sure anyone here in the States wants to see a war with Russia, but part of the deterrent is check their aggression.

If we take Syria as an example, Obama's reluctance to go all-in let Putin take over and engage in campaigns to prop up Assad. All the sanctions we can put in place won't mean much for the trade between those two countries when Assad secures his position thanks to Russia's help. But when Trump commits to strikes on Syrian targets over chemical attacks and indicates a more active role for fighting ISIS in Syria, it serves as a subtle message to Putin that we won't let him run roughshod over the rebels like he did with the Georgians and the Ukrainians. But at the same time, Putin has to show strength and he's threatened to shoot down our planes if they fly within his little sphere of war. The press, foreigners, etc., can criticize Trump all they want over that meeting, but fact is, both leaders have rattled their sabers, and now it's time for them to talk and de-escalate before we do get into a shooting match.

President Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis in much the same way more than fifty years ago - sending the military to blockade Cuba, refusing to stand down as the Soviet ships approached, and taking both countries to the brink of war to show America's resolve. But he kept his finger off the button, and once both countries were done beating their chests, he and Khrushchev talked and reached an agreement. I don't think anyone's naive enough to think this truce they've brokered will definitely hold, but like with every ceasefire, we're hopeful.


message 16: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments I can remember quite clearly the Cuban crisis, and I confess to have been really frightened. What J.J. may not realise is that every day US aircraft carrying armed nuclear bombs were flying up and down the border with the iron curtain. I have spoken with one of the pilots so that is true. There were obviously missiles also near the borders The question then was, why did Russia not have the right to do the same sort of thing to the US? At that point Kennedy was obviously not going to back down, and he was prepared to unleash nuclear war. It only needed one pilot to have a navigational error, or an incorrect blip on a radar. Fortunately, Khrushchev backed down, and they reached an agreement.

It turned out that later on there were at least three occasions when errors happened, but the situation was resolved because there was a general feeling, "surely they wouldn't do that?" and there was time to correct it. One was even a training exercise in a US base, and when it as over, some careless character forgot to turn it off, and some time later it reactivated itself, but nobody knew it was an exercise, and in that the equipment deliberately gave false readings. I hope we never get back to that scenario again, but this "everything's Russia's fault - we have to do something" is hardly encouraging.


message 17: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments Meanwhile, Matthew will be having a happy day. A fact has emerged - on our news this morning it appears that Don Jr has admitted that he received an email prior to the meeting with the Russian lawyer that she had information re Hillary. We still don't know what happened next, but this is real substance for Mueller to work on. Things could get interesting.


message 18: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 1211 comments I wasn't around in that time, so I can only comment as a "student of history." Funny you mention near accidents though, because it seems we had a few that didn't involved the Russians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Go...

A plane broke up, raining nuclear bombs down upon Eastern North Carolina. Apparently they were one safety switch away from a catastrophe.


message 19: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 4100 comments J.J. wrote: "I wasn't around in that time, so I can only comment as a "student of history." Funny you mention near accidents though, because it seems we had a few that didn't involved the Russians.

https://en...."


The scariest part of that story for me is the irresponsible nature of certain people who are given authority. Why was it necessary to fly over Carolina with live nukes?


message 20: by Graeme (last edited Sep 04, 2017 09:16PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 3272 comments Ian wrote: "J.J. wrote: "I wasn't around in that time, so I can only comment as a "student of history." Funny you mention near accidents though, because it seems we had a few that didn't involved the Russians...."

Imagine if only one of those weapons had gone off, would we have had thermonuclear war because someone decided the US was under attack and struck back...


message 21: by Graeme (last edited Aug 26, 2017 04:39PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 3272 comments As a follow up to the post on this thread, the German government have identified the perpetrators of the violence in Hamburg during the G20.

REF: https://www.thelocal.de/20170825/inte...


back to top