Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The real reason Trump’s so publicly frustrated with Putin

Published

on

The real reason Trump’s so publicly frustrated with Putin

President Donald Trump is reportedly frustrated with Russian leader Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine war and is considering new sanctions and indirect military support via sales to NATO countries. But in his half year back in office, U.S. policy, on balance, has still shifted in an anti-Ukraine, anti-democracy, anti-NATO, pro-authoritarian, Russia-favorable direction.

“We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin,” Trump told reporters at a White House meeting. “He’s very nice to us all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.”

But that’s always been the case. Ukraine supporters have said so since the beginning (it’s part of why they chose to support Ukraine).

So Trump is frustrated, but with what?

When Putin ordered that over three years ago, Trump gushed that it was “savvy” and “genius.”

Not that Russia aggressively invaded Ukraine. When Putin ordered that over three years ago, Trump gushed that it was “savvy” and “genius.” He has never denounced Russia’s attack as aggressive, illegal or wrong, nor expressed support for independence and sovereignty on principle. If anything, it’s been the opposite, as he threatens U.S. allies and partnerssaying he’ll take Greenland from Denmark or the canal from Panama, both in violation of signed treaties.

Nor is Trump frustrated that Russia frequently fires at civilian targets. Trump sometimes laments the war’s destructiveness, but always generically, without blaming Russia, like how people talk about natural disasters. To cite a recent example, Trump unspecifically said, “So many people are dying in that mess.” At a meeting in February at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump and Vice President JD Vance echoed Russian propagandablaming Ukraine for the war and denigrating Zelenskyy’s efforts to highlight Ukrainians’ suffering.

If Trump actually cared about Russia killing civilians, he never would have blocked aid for air defense. When he was asked at the news conference where he expressed frustration with Putin who ordered the pause, Trump said, “I don’t know. Why don’t you tell me.”

Support for Ukraine later resumed (for now), though that too seems primarily geared toward managing Trump’s image. His primary complaint is that Putin hasn’t dealt fairly with him, not that Russia’s war is illegitimate.

Most likely, what’s frustrating Trump is that events aren’t following his reality TV script, or Russia-sympathetic conspiracy theories. He promised he’d end the war on his first day back in office, using pressure on the Ukrainians and his personal rapport with Putin to stop the fighting, and get himself a Nobel Peace Prize. Now that self-aggrandizing fantasy is crashing into reality.

Trump put Putin above U.S. national interests, and Putin hasn’t returned the favor. Instead of prioritizing Trump’s image-crafting, Putin keeps prioritizing Russia’s national power. Putin wouldn’t even need to do much — he could just say this was all Joe Biden’s fault and give Trump something flimsy he can call a deal — but Putin won’t do even that. If anything, Putin seems to enjoy these displays of dominance, toying with Trump rather than giving him a fig leaf.

It may have finally been too much. Trump reportedly will authorize increased weapons sales to NATO countriesknowing they’re bound for Ukraine. If he follows through, it will improve Ukraine’s position, though even in that positive scenario it won’t undo the damage from six months of farcical negotiations.

At the end of May, Trump expressed frustration that talks hadn’t produced a deal and told reporters he might impose new sanctions on Russia. Then he didn’t, supposedly because doing so would hinder negotiations. But he had already eased sanctions enforcementreducing leverage over Russia before talks even began.

Congress is considering a new sanctions package, but Republicans won’t do it without Trump’s approval. Even if they pass it, enforcement could be lax and haphazard, and subject to the president’s moods.

Cultivating the president’s image is a different goal than ending the war.

Cultivating the president’s image is a different goal than ending the war. All it needs is something Trump can market as peace in the short term. In that way it’s similar to Trump’s trade wars, seeking to tout “deals” that the president “won,” rather than advance U.S. national interests.

Trump could impose economic penalties on Russia — currently one of the few countries exempt from his so-called reciprocal tariffs — but it will take work just to get back to the level of the pressure under Biden. In the short term, announcing more military sales to Europe might get Trump a diplomatic reaction, but won’t alter Russia’s core position, and, even with follow-through, will take time to impact conditions on the ground.

Occasionally pausing and overall reducing U.S. military aid to Ukraine made Russia less likely to negotiate, since battlefield gains improve their position in talks. That’s true even when some aid resumes, because the delays hinder Ukraine’s ability to fight, and make Russia think Ukraine will be weaker in the future. The only way to send a different message would be a big increase and credibly returning the American posture to unambiguously pro-Ukraine, with unqualified opposition to Russian aggression.

The fundamental truth of the Ukraine war today is the same it’s been since the beginning, no matter how many times Trump and others have denied it.

Putin attacked without provocation, for national and personal aggrandizement. He could stop it at any time, but chooses not to. That’s because he doesn’t want peacehe wants to dominate Ukraine, and thinks the death and destruction he’s causing is worth it.

Ukrainians, quite reasonably, don’t want to bow down to a foreign tyrant. They weren’t somehow tricked or forced into resisting Russia’s invasion — they chose to fight for their freedom.

That leaves only two possible paths to end the war:

1. Russia defeats the Ukrainian military, dismantles the Zelenskyy government and crushes Ukrainian independence.

2. Russia stops trying to conquer Ukraine, whether from a collapse of the war effort or deciding it’s no longer worth the cost, and either withdraws unilaterally or makes enough concessions that Ukraine takes a deal.

Only the second is a just peace with a chance of lasting, rather than another temporary pause in Russian aggression, during which they reconsolidate forces before attacking again.

But changing Russia’s calculus is hard. It’ll take time and sacrifice. It will bother Putin fans in Trump’s coalition, who genuinely want Russia to win because they see it as a culture war champion. It requires admitting that the Biden administration and America’s NATO allies got this one right from the start. And none of that is primarily about putting on a show to glorify Donald Trump.

So you can see why he’s frustrated.

If we see a sustained net increase in American weapons shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine, stepped up economic pressure on Russia, and real, sustained solidarity with NATO and democratic Europeonly then will it be true that Trump has changed his Putin-sympathetic position.

But to get a real peace deal, U.S. pressure must be high and sustained enough that Putin comes to believe he’ll get more by compromising most of his war aims than by continuing to attack while playing on Trump’s combination of incompetence and susceptibility to manipulation. Given Trump’s long record with Putin, that’s a tough sell.

Nicholas Grossman

Nicholas Grossman is a political science professor at the University of Illinois, editor of Arc Digital and the author of “Drones and Terrorism.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Iran moves to take permanent control of Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping choke point

Published

on

Iran announced on Thursday that it was drafting a “protocol” that would allow it to “monitor transit” by oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuzthe strategic waterway Tehran has shut downsending oil and gas prices soaring in the U.S. and across the world.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, said tanker traffic through the narrow route “should be supervised and coordinated” between Iran and Oman, the two countries that border the strait, according to a translation of a report from Iran’s state news agency cited by CNBC.

“Of course, these requirements will not mean restrictions, but rather to facilitate and ensure safe passage and provide better services to ships that pass through this route,” Gharibabadi said according to the report.

President Donald Trump has suggested that the U.S. may leave it to other countries to end Iran’s de facto blockade of the strait, which it enforces by firing missiles at tankers. Trump has called on European nations to do so, but experts say Europe lacks the military resources to halt Iranian attacks on tankers for the long term.

Iranian and Omani officials did not respond to requests for comment from MS NOW.

For decades, the strait has been an international waterway, controlled by no country, that ships from all nations could transit.

Gregory Brew, a senior Iran and oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, said that if Iran manages to take control of the Strait of Hormuz permanently, it would be a “colossal win” for the country.

“It’s a massive strategic win, given that Iran has demonstrated that it can close the strait,” Brew told MS NOW. “It’s a huge financial win.”

Brew added that if Iran gains long-term control of the straitit would be more powerful than it was before the Trump administration attacked it. Iran’s parliament passed a law to begin charging “tolls” of up to $2 million per ship, which could mean as much as $100 billion in annual revenue — or the equivalent of Iran’s current annual oil export earnings.

“It’s not innocuous,” Brew said, referring to the protocol announced on Thursday. “Iran has passed legislation and is now claiming to be coordinating with Oman in establishing joint management of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Brew predicted that Oman, which has less oil and wealth than other Gulf nations, may be willing to accept a temporary arrangement that could help end the conflict.

“The Omanis are probably hedging; they’ve always tried to manage their relationship with Iran, and they lose relatively little by cooperating with Iran right now to ease pressure on the strait,” Brew said. “The bigger question is whether they continue to cooperate after the war.”

Ted Singer, a former senior CIA official who oversaw the agency’s operations in the Middle East, said Iranian officials are likely trying to see what they can achieve.

“I wouldn’t see this as a fork in the road,” Singer told MS NOW.

Singer, who served as a CIA station chief in five different countries over a 35-year career, said Iranian officials could be trying to stoke division between gulf countries.

“The Iranians are good at doing more than one thing at a time,” he said. “Why not stake out a maximalist position on tolls, then toss out options to roil the waters?”

The United Arab Emirates, for example, is adamantly opposed to Iran taking control of the strait.

“The Iranians play multi-dimensional chess,” said Singer, now a senior adviser to the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm run by Michael Chertoff, who served as secretary of Homeland Security in the George W. Bush administration.

“Try to create division between Oman and the rest of the Gulf countries,” Singer said. “Why not fiddle around with this and see if something sticks?”

David Rohde headshot

David Rohde

David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.

Ian Sherwood is the director of international newsgathering for MS NOW, a former executive editor for NBC News and a former deputy Washington bureau chief for the BBC.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Thursday’s Mini-Report, 4.2.26

Published

on

Thursday’s Mini-Report, 4.2.26

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Targeting Iranian infrastructure: “President Trump celebrated the destruction of a bridge near Tehran on Thursday, warning on social media that there was ‘much more to follow.’ The attack on the B1 bridge between Tehran and the nearby city of Karaj killed eight people and wounded 95, according to Fars, a semiofficial Iranian news agency.”

* I don’t think the speech worked: “The price of oil rose sharply and stocks wavered on Thursday after President Trump, in an address from the White House the day before, said the war against Iran was ‘nearing completion’ but failed to offer a concrete timeline and committed to more attacks. In the 19-minute address, Mr. Trump said U.S. forces would hit Iran ‘extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.’”

* Reversing one of Noem’s worst ideas: “Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Wednesday rescinded a rule that DHS expenditures over $100,000 be personally approved by his office, ending a widely criticized policy implemented by his predecessor Kristi Noem that critics said put a particular burden on the Federal Emergency Management Agency ’s work aiding disaster response and recovery.”

* The latest on the ballroom: “Donald Trump’s handpicked National Capital Planning Commission voted Thursday to authorize the president’s plan to erect a gilded 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom in place of the historic East Wing, which was destroyed last fall to make way for the ballroom.”

* Remember when Congress, by constitutional mandate, had the power of the purse? “President Donald Trump said Thursday he will soon sign an order to pay all Department of Homeland Security employees who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 48 days.”

* A year after “Liberation Day,” there’s fresh tariff news: “President Donald Trump announced Thursday he will levy tariffs as high as 100 percent on some name-brand pharmaceuticals and is adjusting tariffs on products that contain steel and aluminum, the administration’s first move to expand duties since the Supreme Court dealt his trade agenda a blow in February.”

* The latest from Artemis II: “NASA’s latest update about the Artemis II moon mission shows a breathtaking view of Earth as the Orion capsule with four astronauts on board orbits tens of thousands of miles above. Hitching a ride beyond Earth’s atmosphere atop NASA’s powerful Space Launch System rocket, the three Americans and one Canadian selected for the mission are preparing to begin heading toward the moon.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Judge weighs legality of Trump’s planned arch near Arlington National Cemetery

Published

on

Judge weighs legality of Trump’s planned arch near Arlington National Cemetery

A federal judge is weighing whether the Trump administration can legally build a 250-foot arch just across the Potomac River from the Vietnam and Lincoln memorials, as three veterans who fought in Vietnam have argued the project would violate federal law and permanently alter one of the country’s most sacred landscapes.

Judge Tanya Chutkan declined on Thursday to issue a preliminary injunction, instead asking the parties to report by 5 p.m. on Friday whether they can agree to halt groundbreaking while the case proceeds. If no agreement is reached, she will ask the executive branch to provide supplemental sworn declarations disclosing any awards, grants, contracts, permits or other relevant information related to the arch’s construction.

The suit was brought by three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian, who argued the project would obstruct views of the Vietnam War and Lincoln memorials from Arlington National Cemetery. The plaintiffs contended the planned arch would violate federal laws governing historic sites and monuments, and the White House cannot lawfully proceed without congressional authorization.

The plaintiffs cited Trump’s various Truth Social posts and public statements to support their claim that construction is underway, pointing to design specifications, a target completion date of July 4 and renderings backed by a White House fact sheet. They also argued the National Park Service must sign off on any use of the land before construction begins.

President Donald Trump told reporters in January that his proposed arch “will be the most beautiful in the world,” and is already “being built.” He also shared renderings of the arch on his Truth Social account.

The government’s attorney, Bradley Craigmyle, argued that Trump’s media and social media statements constitute hearsay. Chutkan pushed back sharply, saying Trump’s posts are admissible as statements by a party. Throughout the hearing, Craigmyle argued the project is in the conceptual phase despite the president’s statements.

Today’s hearing comes as the National Capital Planning Commission voted 9-1, with two abstentions, to approve construction for Trump’s 90,000-square foot ballroom at the White House, clearing the final procedural hurdle for the project. Chutkan referenced the ballroom case during the hearing, saying, “If we haven’t had the whole White House ballroom situation, this might be a little more academic than it is now.”

Selena Kuznikov contributed to this article.

Peggy Helman is a desk associate at MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending