Putin Puts Trump to the Test

[grzegorz]

Ukraine: People flee frontline eastern town amid upsurge in violence

UKRAINE
Ukraine: People flee frontline eastern town amid upsurge in violence
last updated: 01/02/2017
Euronews

The first humanitarian evacuations have begun from Avdiyivka, a town on the freezing frontline of the recent flare-up of hostilities in eastern Ukraine.

Since Sunday at least 19 people have been killed amid renewed fierce fighting between government forces and pro-Russian rebels that has left residents terrified.

“This is the first time here but the shelling often happens around,” said one woman, whose neighbour was killed.

“Two shells got into our hospital. My daughter called me and said a shell hit their street. A woman is wounded there. In recent days we have been living as if we are sitting on a volcano.”

Mothers and children were the first to board buses leaving the town, according to media reports.




As the UN Security Council expressed ‘grave concern’, Ukraine’s military and pro-Moscow separatists accused each other of launching the offensives in the government-held industrial town and firing heavy artillery, despite the two-year-old Minsk ceasefire deal.

“The members of the Security Council expressed their full support of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine,” the Security Council said in statement on Tuesday. “The members of the Security Council called for an immediate return to a ceasefire regime.”




The Security Council includes both Russia and Ukraine, which is a rotating member of the council. Both nations had agreed to the Security Council statement, which noted the unrest’s “severe impact on the local civilian population”.

The latest clashes mark the first significant escalation in Ukraine since the inauguration of US President Donald Trump, whose call for better relations with Moscow has alarmed Kyiv while the conflict remains unresolved.

The Kremlin claims Ukraine is testing the new Trump administration by provoking clashes.

Ukraine and NATO accuse Russia of supporting the rebels with troops and weapons. The United States and European Union have imposed sanctions on Moscow over the conflict, as well as for its annexation of Crimea.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Russia on Wednesday to use its “considerable influence” with rebels to end what he called “the most serious spike in violations” of a shaky truce there in a long time.

Speaking to reporters, Stoltenberg said the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine has been violated more than 5,600 times in recent days, leaving some 20,000 people without electricity.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/01/ukra ... n-violence

[grzegorz]

So Trump threatens and yells at Mexico, Iran and Australia.

I guess Putin finally got to him.

I always said the honeymoon wouldn't last because it never does.

[Steve James]

"Are we great yet?"

[grzegorz]

Trump is willing to lift sanctions on the FSB while Putin attacks Eastern Ukraine.

[Steve James]

There's no record of Tump's call to Putin, but the new Ambassador to the UN stated a view.

US Ambassador Nikki Haley on Thursday condemned Russia's "aggressive actions" in Ukraine and pledged strong US support to Kiev even as the new US administration seeks to improve ties with Russia.

"We do want to better our relations with Russia. However the dire situation in eastern Ukraine is one that demands clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions," she said in her first public remarks at the UN Security Council.

A surge in fighting in eastern Ukraine has presented the new administration of President Donald Trump with a first test of its Russia policy and Haley's comments were closely watched for signs of any shift.

The US ambassador opened her remarks stating that it was "unfortunate" that her first appearance at the council required her to "condemn the aggressive actions of Russia" in what she described as a "replay" of past US statements.

"The United States stands with the people of Ukraine who have suffered for nearly three years under Russian occupation and military intervention," she said.

"Until Russia and the separatists it supports respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, this crisis will continue."

Haley asserted that US sanctions imposed on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea would remain in place "until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine."

[grzegorz]

Russia opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza, previously poisoned, hospitalized - CBS News

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-oppo ... pitalized/

[Steve James]

Trump’s defense of Putin and assertion of moral equivalency between Putin’s regime and the U.S. (in an interview aired today) has caused a firestorm among congressional Republicans.

1. In a CNN interview this morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected any comparison between the two nations, citing Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its invasion of Ukraine and its interference in the U.S. presidential election. “I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way that the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does.

2. Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted: “When has a Democratic political activists been poisoned by the GOP, or vice versa? We are not the same as #Putin.”

3. On an ABC interview this morning, Republican Sen. Ben Sasse blasted Trump’s remarks and called on him to “show moral leadership about this issue.”

In this case, Trump's remarks were right: America's guilty. But, he certainly didn't run on that platform. Anyway, here are his remarks. This isn't hatin'. I'm only quoting.

President Donald Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he doesn’t think America is “so innocent” when confronted with the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer of those who criticize him.

In a preview of the interview, which is slated to air at 4 p.m. Sunday right before the Super Bowl, O’Reilly asks Trump if he respects Putin, and Trump gives a surprising answer:

O’Reilly: “Do you respect Putin?”

Trump: “I do respect him.

O’Reilly: “Do you? Why?”

Trump: “I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with them. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russian than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS…and Islamic terrorism all over the world…major fight. That’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.

O’Reilly: “He’s a killer, though…Putin’s a killer.”

Trump: “We got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

I agree with him. O'Reilly thinks he believes all that American exceptionalism nonsense. However, it's good to see that Trump is at least talking practically about Russia. We shall see what effect an erosion of support for NATO will have on affairs in Ukraine.

[grzegorz]

You agree with O'Reilly or Trump?

Because I would argue that most world rulers do not have any blood on their hands.

For me it is an insight to how Trump believes one should or could rule.

[Steve James]

You agree with O'Reilly or Trump?

Complex question. I agree with the principles that O'Reilly presumes that an "American" president should have or would expect him to have. It's not surprising that Trump might not share those principles.

Otoh, I agree with Trump that "America" has blood on its hands. I don't agree with him that that makes what Putin does acceptable, or excuses it. In fact, to me, it would suggest that both stop what they're doing when they know it's wrong; and to acknowledge and accept responsibility for those actions.

The question is, if Putin does it, does that mean that Trump thinks it's okay to do the same thing. Without some basis in principle, how can we know? He will certainly ask some Americans to get their hands bloody or shed some. That's why it's important.

[grzegorz]

Otoh, I agree with Trump that "America" has blood on its hands.

Very RT argument.

But is there evidence of US presidents targeting, poisoning, imprisoning or assassinating the opposition?

I only say this because in China too I used hear this "logic." They used to say that the Tianamein massacre was nothing more than their Kent state.

[Steve James]

But is there evidence of US presidents targeting, poisoning, imprisoning or assassinating the opposition?

That's more specific than I intended. I'm not talking about Putin's poisonings and the elimination of his political opposition. No, we haven't done that on the national level. I don't believe that Trump is even like Putin in that regard.

My point was more generally about the U.S. in history. As far as atrocities, I think the US can hold it's own with any other empire or international power. Otoh, "America" has espoused a certain set of principles that few other nations have; and, we were brought up to believe that those principles were true and even made "us" unique among nations. We didn't torture; we didn't shoot people in the back; we believed in ... what's written on the Statue in NY harbor.

Some even argued that we could be known by the way we played baseball. So, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, people could believe in the US as the "good guy." That's even as far back as the 60s and 70s and the CIA assassinations in Africa and South America. That's even in the 80s when we supplied Saddam Hussein with missiles and chemical to attack the Iranians, and we gave the Taliban rpgs to take down Russian helicopters.

And that's why your question is complex. No, I don't believe that any US president has been like Putin (not even Bush sr., who was head of the CIA). But, I wouldn't put it past any of them either. In any case, I think that Trump's statement suggests that he doesn't consider it out of the question. That's what surprised O'Reilly (and the Republicans who commented). It sort of burst a lot of illusions, yeah. But, the fact that people accept it shows that it was just an illusion anyway.

[windwalker]

Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was an American[8] and Yemeni imam and Islamic lecturer. U.S. government officials allege that he was a senior recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda,[2][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and he became the first United States citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike.[16] Barack Obama ordered the strike.[17] His son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (a 16 year old American citizen), was killed in a U.S. drone strike two weeks later.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki


A US citizen what happened to his rights under the Constitution.
What did his 16yr old son do?

On April 21, 2014, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that the Obama administration must release documents justifying its drone killings of foreigners and Americans, including Anwar al-Awlaki.[244] In June 2014, the United States Department of Justice disclosed a 2010 memorandum written by the acting head of the department's Office of Legal Counsel, David Barron.[245][246] The memo stated that Anwar al-Awlaki was a significant threat with an infeasible probability of capture. Barron therefore justified the killing as legal, as "the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process"

Barron therefore justified the killing as legal, as "the Constitution would not require the government to provide further process

interesting isn't it.

[grzegorz]

Don't forget the American daughter killed on Trump's orders.



It still is not the same to killing the political opposition to hang onto to power which is now the norm in Putin's Russia.

Interesting how those who hollered about Anwar al-‘Awlaqī seem silent now.

[Steve James]

Interesting how those who hollered about Anwar al-‘Awlaqī seem silent now.

Aw, he was an "American" assassinated by Obama, and the fear was that he would assassinate others. That's even though al-Awlaqi directly advocated violence and radicalism in the United States. Otoh, with Trump, al-Awlaqi (and his women and children, don't forget) are considered acceptable targets because they are Muslim.

Billionaire presidential candidate Donald Trump said Tuesday that the United States should kill the family members of ISIS terrorists in order to defeat the jihadist group, a tactic that would likely be considered a war crime.

In an interview with Fox and Friends, the Republican frontrunner said he would “knock the hell out” of ISIS with an aggressive military strategy if elected president. That strategy, he said, would include using deadly force on people who are related to ISIS members.

“We’re fighting a very politically correct war,” he said in response to a question about avoiding civilian causalities. “And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

Well, according to reports, Trump sure succeeded there. Though, it's probably true that many of the women who were killed were also armed. Then again, in Yemen, AK-47 (well, the Chinese knockoffs) or "Kalys" are in almost every home.

Anyway, that's what I mean about principles and the ability to express them --instead of just running off the mouth with opinions. Do I think it's ok (morally, not legally) to kill someone for espousing views that encourage others to commit violence against myself or others? It's easy for me to say yes or no as long as I don't have to pull the trigger or give the order. Suppose I had the power, though. I'd have to say that I couldn't justify doing so unless that person had actually committed an act equivalent to killing. If I knew that he'd given the orders for attacks that had occurred. The point, however, is that his mere intentions wouldn't rate his execution, let alone the execution of his family.

Thinking that way, I'd say that Obama was morally wrong to order al Alwaqi's death, whether or not he was a citizen or not. Of course, I can't know what Obama knew or was told at that time. But, by the same reasoning, I can't say that Trump was morally wrong for doing what he did because he might have had more information. If I had been in his shoes, I might have done the same thing. I wouldn't have done it because al Alwaqi was a Muslim. I'd treat individuals based on their acts, and treat all enemies (foreign and domestic) the same.

Then again, I'd probably attend the intel briefings, watch what happened from the situation room (because I was worried about doing the right thing), and not believe that aiming at families is a moral strategy. Yeah, I know. I know nothing about war. Fair enough. I wouldn't want to be CiC either.

[windwalker]

The paper cited a Yemeni official saying that “at least eight women and seven children, ages 3 to 13, had been killed in the raid,” and that the attack also “severely damaged a school, a health facility and a mosque.”
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/oba ... ld-sister/

All loss of life is regrettable.
In this case they were not directly targeted. Other reports I've read indicate the women were actively
involved in shooting back. As such they became targets.

Collateral damage assessments are done according to target value.

The 8-year-old girl, Nawar Anwar al-Awlaki, known as “Nora,” was an American citizen by her late father, and is the second younger al-Awlaki to be killed by U.S. forces. Two weeks after the controversial extrajudicial killing of Anwar in late 2011, a U.S. drone strike killed his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman, who military officials said was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time during an airstrike intended for an al Qaeda leader.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl

In this case “Anwar” was the target while not acceptable it is a little different then being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Understanding why he was targeted still felt is was wrong as he was an American citizen. They should have just revoked his citizenship.
"Joining the military of a foreign state" never understood why this was not done.

My point was more to the fact that "America" has blood on its hands.”
Actually we all do as Americans, just as those in other countries do which I think was the point of the comment made by President Trump.

As to the targeting of terrorist families and such a comment made by the then Candidate Trump.
I would comment more about the thinking that might be behind this but see little value in doing so here...