From 2014-2021, Ukraine was facing guerilla tactics from the Russians in the non-Crimean disputed areas. They weren't fighting the Russian army until the invasion.

First you suggest that Crimea was the only front in 2014, and now you mischaracterize the action on the other front. While the so-called separatists were involved in the Donbas, so were Russian troops & armor, in some cases clearly demonstrated by the battlefield debris. Ukraine lost 440 tanks in 2014-16, which seems rather strong evidence that they, too, would have benefited from more anti-tank weaponry & counter-battery artillery. Let’s also remember that the Obama policy prohibited any lethal military aid, not just ATGMs or heavy weaponry. Again, the idea that Ukraine was incapable of utilizing any lethal military aid for the entire period of 2014 to 2017 is absurd.

Perhaps some discussion of what an actual pro-Putin agenda might have looked like in 2017 would be beneficial? It would likely have included: (1) Limiting fracking in the U.S. as much as possible to boost prices for Russian energy; (2) Blocking oil and gas pipelines in North America for similar effect, while allowing Russian pipelines to expand into Western Europe; (3) Cutting U.S. military spending; and (4) easing sanctions on Russia’s ally Iran. That clearly wasn’t Trump’s agenda, nor any other Republican that I can think of, but lots of Democrats embraced most or all of those measures.

#1 on Putin's agenda would have been weakening and possibly splintering NATO, and Trump did his level best to try to achieve that.

What is this, golden oldies day?

We're now back to the Trumpian argument that contrary to the Mueller report *and* confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate Intel Committee, Russia didn't attempt to assist candidate Gameshow Host?

Perhaps some discussion of what an actual pro-Putin agenda might have looked like in 2017 would be beneficial?

Or, rather than make up a pretend Putin's agenda, how about we look again at what Trump actually said about Putin.

Donald Trump just can’t stop praising Vladimir Putin

“The smartest one gets to the top,” Trump told the crowd. “That didn’t work so well recently in our country. But they ask me, ‘Is Putin smart?’ Yes, Putin was smart. And I actually thought he was going to be negotiating. I said, ‘That’s a hell of a way to negotiate, put 200,000 soldiers on the border.’”


“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius,’” Trump said during an interview with conservative radio hosts last month. “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine – of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”


“They say, ‘Trump said Putin’s smart.’ I mean, he’s taking over a country for two dollars’ worth of sanctions,” Trump told a crowd at a fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago, according to a recording of the event. “I’d say that’s pretty smart. He’s taking over a country – really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in.”


Does that sound like Trump is for or against Russia invading Ukraine?

#1 on Putin's agenda would have been weakening and possibly splintering NATO, and Trump did his level best to try to achieve that.

Trump urged, cajoled & harangued our NATO allies to actually meet the NATO goal of 2% of their GDP going for defense. That strengthened NATO, as some countries did increase military spending. Too many didn’t, and haven’t even after Russia invaded Ukraine, but increasing NATO spending isn’t really a pro-Putin agenda item.

Trump urged, cajoled & harangued our NATO Allie’s

You forgot ... threatened to ignore our treaty obligations.

Trump says he threatened not to defend NATO against Russia

Appearing at an event held by the Heritage Foundation in Florida, Trump claimed that he told fellow NATO leaders that he might not abide by NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause if those countries didn’t pay more for the alliance.

A fellow leader “said, ‘Does that mean that you won’t protect us in case — if we don’t pay, you won’t protect us from Russia’ — was the Soviet Union, but now Russia,” Trump said. “I said, ‘That’s exactly what it means.’ ”

I guess in Clapper's world it is normal to ignore treaty obligations.

And, of course, Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia

Sounds pretty anti-NATO to me.

So numerous times praising Putin to the skies, and numerous times threatening NATO and NATO allies. Which side was Trump on?

Does that sound like Trump is for or against Russia invading Ukraine?

That’s Trump suggesting that Putin is doing a better job playing his hand than we are ours. That may well have been true before 2017, but less so after, especially since 2/22/2024. Trump has also said Putin wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine on his watch, so his rhetoric is typical Trump self-promotion, and hardly an endorsement of the invasion.

You forgot ... threatened to ignore our treaty obligations.

And engaged in a campaign of disinformation of what NATO treaty obligations entail. after Montenegro joined:

"Montenegrans are very aggressive people. And they might get aggressive and then, congratulations, you're in World War III." That served to erode public support for NATO.

Trump BTW did that interview just a few hours after his Helsinki closed door meeting with Putin.

Appearing at an event held by the Heritage Foundation in Florida, Trump claimed that he told fellow NATO leaders that he might not abide by NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause if those countries didn’t pay more for the alliance.

As I said, Trump repeatedly harangued the other NATO allies to pay their fair, agreed upon share of the cost of their defense. Some may find his bluffing about the U.S commitment off putting, but it worked to some degree, there was some increased spending. The other thing that should be recognized is that ‘free riders’ also undermine NATO. You can certainly find U.S. politicians before Trump complaining about prosperous European countries relying on the U.S. for defense and not paying their share.

Hunter Biden pleading guilty on tax & gun charges. Looks to be getting off light.

So we all agree then that since Trump spoke against NATO and threatened NATO allies and also speak glowingly about Putin that it is clear that Trump was on the side of Putin and against NATO.

Side Note: I agree with Clapper that Biden will continue to do better in his second term regarding NATO, Russia, and Ukraine. I mean, 2/22/24 is a weird date to pick, but by then I think even to Trumpkins it will be obvious that the alliance with Ukraine that Biden has helped forge will have beaten Russia, and by that time hopefully Russia will be looking for a way out of the mess that Putin drug them into and that Trump applauded.

EDIT: I suppose at that point Clapper will have decided that it was all a clever gambit by Trump to encourage Putin to invade, and we should applaud Trump's master move.

Hunter Biden pleading guilty on tax & gun charges. Looks to be getting off light.

Um, no.

This is getting off light - a civil case and a settlement.

2/22/24 is a weird date to pick

Ah, a transposed typo for 2/24/22, the start of Russia’s current invasion.

Ah, a transposed typo for 2/24/22, the start of Russia’s current invasion.

Transposed?

especially since 2/22/2024

Seems like a weird transposition, especially since in your post you wrote out the whole year "2024". Had you abbreviated like I did your story might be more believable.

Some may find his bluffing about the U.S commitment off putting,

Ah, so this was one of those don't-take-him-seriously-or-literally moments.


But of course he repeatedly lied and claimed that 2% was dues to NATO that they were behind on, which it was not.

2% of GDP was the NATO target, which many alliance members failed to meet, some by a lot.

Seems like a weird transposition

Eh, not really.

Seems like a weird transposition, especially since in your post you wrote out the whole year "2024". Had you abbreviated like I did your story might be more believable.

when you spend so much of your time and energy constantly lying, small details like dates, and whether the woman in a picture is your ex-wife or someone you raped, are easy to get mixed up on.

2% of GDP was the NATO target, which many alliance members failed to meet, some by a lot.

Yes, it was a target. It was a spending target, not dues owed to NATO (let alone to the US, as Trump seemed to think).

Yes, it was a target. It was a spending target, not dues owed to NATO (let alone to the US, as Trump seemed to think).

You’re being quite silly. Yes, it was a target, but it was official NATO policy, even if it wasn’t self-enforcing. There was no NATO condo board to put a lien on the countries that didn’t contribute their share, but that behavior seriously undermined the Atlantic Alliance, which many had noted long before Trump. He did something about it, even if more remained to be done. That strengthened - not weakened - NATO.

The strength of NATO was not in any way dependent on whether Luxembourg was spending 2% of its GDP on defense spending. The strength of NATO was entirely dependent on whether the U.S. would actually continue to be a part of NATO, and perhaps even more importantly, whether other countries (members and enemies alike) believe that the U.S. would actually continue to be part of NATO. Trump's threats to pull out undermined NATO; they did not strengthen it. You know this. You're just pretending otherwise.

The strength of NATO was not in any way dependent on whether Luxembourg was spending 2% of its GDP on defense spending. The strength of NATO was entirely dependent on whether the U.S. would actually continue to be a part of NATO, and perhaps even more importantly, whether other countries (members and enemies alike) believe that the U.S. would actually continue to be part of NATO.

Nice cherry picking on Luxembourg, but NATO was threatened by some of the wealthiest European countries (and Canada!) shirking their defense responsibilities. France, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Belgium & Spain, among others, all failed to meet the 2% target from 2014-22, many by large margins. Converting NATO from a shared burden, mutual defense pact to the USA picking up most of the tab while taking on disproportionate burdens & risks is what would really weaken the alliance. Eventually, folks might balk at that one-sided bargain.

There’s really someone on a stats-based, fact-oriented website arguing that Trump hasn’t been pro-Putin, anti-NATO? For decades. You can argue Trump is right, and that the US is better off supporting “winners”-the bullies of the world-rather than wasting our political capital on supporting weaker democracies against those bullies. But pretending that Trump isn’t who he so manifestly is? Who on this forum is going to be deceived?

To again state the obvious, increasing NATO defense spending is NOT a pro-Putin policy.

I don't know why everyone calls Hitler an anti-Semite. He was really nice to his Jewish doctor.

You blindly support a lying criminal treason weasel for enough years and you start to lose any self-respect or contact with reality. It is like staring into the abyss too long, but petty and gross.

I always forget, is Putin the warm and funny guy who loves his people or is that Kim?

Why not both?

To again state the obvious, increasing NATO defense spending is NOT a pro-Putin policy.

Publicly questioning & threatening to ignore Article 5 is loudly & strongly pro-Putin

From the link in #426, NATO Defense Spending Annual Rate of Change 2012-22:

2012: -2.7%
2013: -1.3%
2014: -0.9%
2015: 1.6%
2016: 3.0%
2017: 5.9%
2018: 4.3%
2019: 3.6%
2020: 4.6%
2021: 2.8%
2022: 2.2%

So, the 4 years with the largest NATO spending increases were all when Trump was President, even if he had to be a bit blunt with the Europeans about paying a fair share of their own defense. The “Tell Vlad I’ll Have More Flexibility After The Election” guy? Not so much. I’ll also note the crickets as to the other aspects of what an actual pro-Putin agenda would look like set forth in #402. Again, nothing like Trump’s policies, but they do match up with many of his critics.

You don't seriously think you are convincing anyone with this nonsense, do you?

It must be tough to go to bat for a lying criminal treason weasel.

Wouldn't 2017 spending be based on 2016 budgeting? If so, the largest hike would have followed Barack Obama's pleas for NATO members to hike spending, rather than Trump's?

all i know is that it's never concerning to see germany spend more money on their military.

To again state the obvious, increasing NATO defense spending is NOT a pro-Putin policy.

To state the even more obvious, the point of Trump's demand was not to increase NATO defense spending; it was to give him an excuse to pull the U.S. out of NATO. Which is a pro-Putin policy.

Lake, the former local news anchor who lost Arizona’s gubernatorial race to Democrat Katie Hobbs in November, has reportedly all but moved into Mar-A-Lago, Trump’s private club in Palm Beach—to the extent that she’s there more than Melania. “Kari Lake is there every night ... She’s there all the time,” a source told People. “There’s a suite there that she practically lives in.”
[...]
I’m not trying to insinuate that there’s an affair going on here between Lake and Trump (gross), but unfortunately, I do have to bring up the fact that Lake once said Trump had BDE. (If I could, I would travel back in time to ruin my parents’ first date and make sure that I’d never been alive to read that sentence.)

To state the even more obvious, the point of Trump's demand was not to increase NATO defense spending; it was to give him an excuse to pull the U.S. out of NATO. Which is a pro-Putin policy.

’Obvious’ only to those determined to cast Trump negatively in every instance regardless of the facts. There is a process for withdrawal from NATO (with 1 years notice), and Trump never took any action toward that, he just got other NATO countries to contribute more to their own defense.

’Obvious’ only to those determined to cast Trump negatively in every instance regardless of the facts.

Or people pretty familiar with his thinking, like John Bolton.

There is a process for withdrawal from NATO (with 1 years notice), and Trump never took any action toward that,

Stop playing stupid. Trump could not just spontaneously announce that he was pulling the U.S. out of NATO. He would've had the support of roughly 15 members of Congress if he did. He needed to lay the groundwork for it, which is what this was.

He needed to lay the groundwork for it, which is what this was.

By getting the other NATO countries to actually contribute more to their own defense? Some groundwork.

By getting the other NATO countries to actually contribute more to their own defense?

No, by giving an ultimatum he knew wouldn't be satisfied. I reiterate: stop playing stupid.

stop playing stupid

It's never a good faith discussion with that dancing monkey (or any of the others), so the only rational tactic is to fight stupid with stupid. And that's why I'm here!

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under a state law that exempts religious officials from having to report child sex abuse if they learn of the crime during a confessional setting.
[...]
Clergy in Arizona, as in many other states, are required to report information about child sexual abuse or neglect to law enforcement or child welfare authorities. An exception to that law — known as the clergy-penitent privilege — allows members of the clergy who learn of the abuse through spiritual confessions to keep the information secret.
[...]
An Associated Press investigation of the clergy privilege shows it exists in 33 states and that the Mormon church, often joined by the Catholic Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other faiths, have successfully lobbied against attempts to reform or eliminate it.

in this country, there is problem.

What's the problem?

No, by giving an ultimatum he knew wouldn't be satisfied. I reiterate: stop playing stupid.

Not an ultimatum, but it had a positive effect on some countries, and not a single step toward NATO withdrawal was taken. Your insults won’t change that.

I never figured that Clapper would die on the "He's playing 12-dimensional chess" hill, but here we are.

and not a single step toward NATO withdrawal was taken.

You mean, other than the ultimatum.

I never figured that Clapper would die on the "He's playing 12-dimensional chess" hill, but here we are.

Of course, I never said Trump was playing “playing 12-dimensional chess”. It’s well-known that his negotiating strategy was to often stake out a very favorable initial position in hopes any eventual compromise would be closer to that than if he had started with something less favorable. I believe he even wrote a (ghost written) book touting that method. In any event, I remain surprised that anyone would contend that increasing NATO defense spending was a pro-Putin policy. I don’t think Putin sees it that way.

"I think that there’s kind of a place for everybody on a baseball team if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to practice, and if you’re willing to hone your skills,” DeSantis remarked. “I kind of thought it was always a very democratic game, a very meritocratic game.”

“Whereas I kind of viewed like basketball as like these guys are just freaks of nature. They’re just incredible athletes. In baseball, you know, you have some guys that might not necessarily be the best athletes, but maybe they’ve got you know that slider that nobody can hit, or they have the skills that allow them to compete at the highest level.”

ronda: robably not a big fan of the WBC.

I remain surprised that anyone would contend that increasing NATO defense spending was a pro-Putin policy.

Your analysis was debunked by DMN, more than once. Repeat it as often as the music in your head plays, Monkey.

Your analysis was debunked by DMN, more than once.

Well, SoSH, but yes. Not surprising he ignored it.

436. SoSH U at work Posted: June 21, 2023 at 03:16 PM (#6134119)
Wouldn't 2017 spending be based on 2016 budgeting? If so, the largest hike would have followed Barack Obama's pleas for NATO members to hike spending, rather than Trump's?

Clapper hasn't ever been surprising.

3 strikes and he's out!

Looking at it further, I think Trump has even less responsibility for the spending increases than I initially recalled. Though he did mention the need for NATO allies to increase spending in 2017, the hard push Clapper is referring to seems to have been delivered in July 2018, at which point all of 2018 (the 4.3 percent increase) would have been budgeted and even some of the 2019 spending (Germany, for example, does its defense budgeting for the following fiscal year in February, as far as I can tell). It seems Obama's message had more of an effect than Trump's in terms of getting much of Europe to pony up (though Estonia and Latvia were already doing their part, a byproduct, I suppose, of being on the doorstep of the very smart Vladdy).

As Clapper's 434 notes, spending did continue to increase in 19-20-21 (the years Trump's egging could have played a major role in) albeit at slowing rates the final two years.

Furthermore, as David alluded to, there's a case to be made that Trump's push had less to do with strengthening NATO than a misunderstanding of how NATO operates, that the European countries' unwillingness to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense somehow cost the United States.

In his July 2018 remarks, he said, "Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money from many years back, where they're delinquent as far as I'm concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you'll just add it all up, it's massive amounts of money is owed."

That's not how things work. There isn't a giant NATO kitty that the U.S. had to contribute more to because of the cheapskates in Paris, Rome and London.

One shouldn’t just look at NATO’s overall spending in isolation. As noted in #402, the United States’ own defense spending is an even better indicator. U.S. Defense spending declined from $752B to $633B from FY 2012-2015 during Obama’s presidency, and barely rebounded to $639B in his last year, but increased every fiscal year of Trump’s tenure, rising from $646B to $778B. I doubt Putin wanted that, either.

Utterly surreal.

On any given day for the last 7 years - you could visit sputnik or RT or other Russian state controlled media and answer this question.

But, the 12-D chess excuse is used to apply to all them.

Clapper should really be ashamed. But he lacks the capacity for shame.

And remember that total eclipse that happened on Trump's watch? Putin wasn't too happy about that either.

Clapper is a narrative in search of facts. And, really, any facts will do, even if they don't really apply.

The Dancing Monkey King is Trump. Project, distract, willfully misinterpret, lie. Clapper is a disciple, so, what would you expect from him?

One shouldn’t just look at NATO’s overall spending in isolation.

Well, not anymore.

Everyone knows Hitler is bad.

This is intentional dishonesty in reporting, but we aren’t surprised- all they want is clicks. Do better @indystar

The chapter shouldn’t have quoted Hitler without condemning him at the same time. They have issued a statement of apology to clear… https://t.co/q9jZAmdKfH

— Moms for Liberty (@Moms4Liberty) June 22, 2023

An actual pro-Putin agenda is set forth in #402, and it wasn’t Trump’s agenda, nor that of the GOP. I suppose some here will next claim that the February 2018 near total destruction of a Russian Wagnerite battalion in Syria by the U.S. was also pro-Putin?