Trump's Fascist Game Plan: If He Can't Tame Russia, He'll Take Chicago
By: Michael Tomasky (The New Republic)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Let's cast our memories back to Donald Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, on August 15. Trump was criticized by many for excluding Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy from that conclave. Usually that means nothing, but lo and behold, this was one time when Trump clearly felt he needed to respond to the criticism, because he had Zelenskiy and other European leaders to the White House the following Monday. Unlike the Anchorage tete-a-tete, the failure of which even Fox News couldn't avoid noting, the Zelenskiy meeting was all smiles. Trump said at the time that the United States would give Ukraine "very good protection, very good security."
There were references in the American media to the supposedly cunning three-dimensional chess game Trump was playing; in the right-wing media, there was copious bleating about the inevitability of Trump's Nobel Prize. Trump also said that day that Putin had agreed to accept security guarantees. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff went even further, asserting that Russia had agreed to "Article 5-like protections"—a reference to the NATO charter, implying that Putin had privately signed off on the idea of Ukraine being part of a Western defense pact.
What's happened since? Putin went off to meet with China's Xi Jinping and India's Narendra Modi in a strongman summit that was obviously designed to announce to the world: We are uniting against Trump, and we are not afraid of him. Modi is furious about Trump's tariffs (he's levied a whopping 50 percent on India), and Xi is anxious about them (Trump has extended the deadline for a deal into November). As for Putin, his participation was a clear sign that if Trump had made any progress with him in Anchorage or since, Putin sure wasn't taking it seriously.
As if to further turn the tightening screws, Russia has since bombed a Ukraine government building. The weekend attack was the largest drone assault of the entire three-plus-year war, and it was the first time Russia managed to damage a building in the governmental area of Kyiv. There's no nice way to say it: Putin is ratcheting up the war that Trump said a thousand and one times he was going to end very easily on his first day in office.
In the meantime, what has the U.S. government done? Made moves to pressure Putin to come to the table, you might venture? Well, that would be the normal thing. But this is Trump. So instead, we have rounded up Russian dissidents seeking asylum and sent them back to Putin, so they can be returned to prison or sent to the front lines. It's hard to know the number, but The Times of London says it's "dozens."
It was always astonishing to me that anyone fell for Trump's obvious horseshit about ending that war. He gets away with it because too many people—including too many people in the journalism profession—permit the central lie about himself that he's been peddling for close to four decades now to persist in our political imagination: namely, that whole "art of the deal" thing.
It's one thing to peddle that when you're a huckster real estate man. But when running for the most powerful office in the world, you should be subject to a little more scrutiny. So it's a huge indictment of our media and our entire culture that a guy who cheated nearly everyone he came into contact with, who filed for four bankruptcies, and whom a reputable bank wouldn't touch for the last 20 years of his life could get away with making a claim like that and having it taken remotely seriously by anyone.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict isn't the only war Trump assured us he was going to end on day one. Violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict has only gotten worse and worse, and more and more abominable, with each passing week. On Sunday, Israel flattened a high-rise in Gaza City, along with a school and other targets, killing another 52 people. News broke over the weekend that Witkoff sent a new proposal to Hamas. We'll see what happens. But even if there is a ceasefire, the next phase would apparently be Trump's morally repulsive idea to turn Gaza into a new Monaco, with (undoubtedly) a Trump hotel and casino, having dispensed with the vast majority of Gazans first.
With Trump finding it impossible to play tough guy in Russia or the Middle East, he's settled on a new target for his destructive desires: Americans, beginning with those in Chicago and other American cities. That "Chipocalypse Now" social media post on Saturday about how Chicago is about to find out why the Defense Department is now called the Department of WAR (all caps, naturally) was yet another new low. The poison that he and his people inject into the civic bloodstream on a daily basis is truly sick. He is a sick, sick man.
He walked the post back a bit on Sunday ("We're not going to war"). But that's what he almost always does, after the real message has been sent. So imagine being an immigrant in Chicago right now. Someone who crossed the border illegally perhaps, however many years ago, but has been here living a decent life and paying taxes and raising kids. Or maybe even being an immigrant who came here legally. Because they've been snared in this net too. They must be terrified.
That's what Trump wants. It's what he needs—for someone to be terrified of him. It's at the core of fascist belief: that others must live in fear of the leader and his movement. If Putin isn't, if Benjamin Netanyahu isn't, if Hamas isn't, well, then, he'll find someone who will be. That's why it's crucial for Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to show zero fear. When Democrats stop showing fear, when they get right back in his face and mock him and fight back—that's his Kryptonite. (That, and those Epstein files.) He'll start melting down. In fact, he already has.
Trump will be giving Putin "two more weeks" any day now.
As the wise and mutually admired Abraham Lincol once said.................
"Who said the best way to defeat an enemy is to make him a friend?
I dont know on what planet that would be considered a response to what I quoted.
In reference to your "Trump will be giving Putin "two more weeks" any day now".
What it suggests is the fact that you don't see what the statement is saying.
Yeah yeah yeah Trump is playing five dimensional chess.
The reason he's been able to amass a lot of money in his 50 years as a conman is because there is endless supply of marks.
AI Overview
That and because if he'd simply invested what his daddy gave him in the S&P he'd actually be even richer than he is now.
"Are you sure you don't want to stay home, and not go to the theatre tonight"?
And after two weeks-- he will solve it on his first day in office!
#TACO!
He's not unhappy enough to do anything about it though.
What should he be doing? If you were the president, what would you be doing?
giving Ukraine what they need
The EU, and especially its immediate neighbors, are clearly committed to ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty and preserving its borders. The USA should show an iron-clad commitment to free Ukraine and continue to support it with weapons and intelligence.
Trump stupidly made things worse with his naive praise and respect for Putin, his bad-mouthing of Ukraine, his providing helpful political rhetoric for Putin to feed his people (especially the PotUS stating that Ukraine started the war), his wishy-washy handling of this war since taking office, and his clear intent to 'end the war' by forcing Ukraine to give in to Putin.
Tens of thousands of American troops?
It's real easy to say "give Ukraine what it needs" but not so easy to explain how you are going to provide that, when ukraine needs is thousands of trained combat soldiers.
Good vibes and complimenting Zelenskyy won't make Russia retreat.
There is a large group of Americans who truly believe Trump is a genius businessman, a master negotiator, and a brilliant planner. Its all nonsense and they are the cult.
There is a lot of written information about Trump that disproves all of that, but the cult wont look at it.
Before Trump got the Apprentice franchise tv shows his empire was on the ropes. He had all but squandered the 400 million dollars his father had left him. He was fortunate to get the Apprentice show, because he was not the first choice. Because of the merchandising and advertising that was built into the shows format he was able to make the Trump name a commodity that advertisers and developers would pay for and away he went.
Who suggested that?
You seem to twist things around completely. Do you recognize the political propaganda value to Putin to have the PotUS state publicly that Ukraine started the war?
It is not about complimenting Zelenskyy but rather NOT praising Putin, NOT bad-mouthing Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and NOT giving Putin political propaganda to shore up his support (and help quell dissent).
In short, Trump should NOT make things worse with ill-conceived rhetoric and fawning over dictators like Putin.
Imagine if Trump had taken a pro-Ukraine stance. What is the likelihood that his supporters would be in favor of strong Ukraine support instead of arguing that Ukraine is a lost cause?
for most of them 100%
How many divisions did that cost Ukraine? You can't possibly imagine that Trump saying that made an actual material difference on the battlefield do you?
is not about complimenting Zelenskyy but rather NOT praising Putin, NOT bad-mouthing Zelenskyy and Ukraine, and NOT giving Putin political propaganda to shore up his support (and help quell dissent).
It doesn't matter. The most perfect words in the world aren't going to move Russian divisions out of Ukraine.
That's very hard to imagine since so many of his cultists are besotted with and idolize Putin, just like Trump adores and idolizes Putin.
Of course, you leap to a strawman.
Did you not read what I wrote? Here, Sean, I will make it super easy for you:
That's not what a straw man is.
Try again. I'll make it super easy for you by simplifying the concept for you
If Trump only used a TIG approved script when talking about Putin, how much territory in Ukraine would now be free from Russian control? Or do you think Trump calling Putin a big bully and meanie would have ended the war and caused to Putin withdraw completely from Ukraine, abdicate and spend the rest of his life as a hermit hiding in shame because of Trump called him the aggressor?
Specify, exactly, how the situation on the ground would change if Trump only as you wanted, and how those words would change the military reality.
Great to hear. Then they should have no problem doing it without the US. Unless of course the comment is just bullshit and all they are not so clearly committed to doing what must be done.
Exactly. Based on what Putin is doing/saying nothing Trump could say or do (other than boots on the ground ) would make a difference to what Putin is doing.
[deleted][✘]
This is the strawman. My point was that Trump’s rhetoric gave Putin propaganda. I did not even hint that his words directly translated into military consequences.
Yeah, Sean, what you are doing is precisely a strawman argument.
Be specific.
Does that mean selling them weapons? Giving them weapons? What level of weapons? Are we talking latest gen top secret stuff or surplus Gulf War, which seems to be more than adequate?
Do we include airstrikes? Missile launches? Bombing campaigns like in Bosnia?
Or is this a full-on "this act of aggression will not stand" situation where American troops drive these fuckers all the way to Kazakhstan?
Who's paying for all of this? If it's the US taxpayer, why only us? The Europeans have much more to lose than we do, why aren't they paying for it?
And my point is these "propaganda victories" are utterly meaningless in the real world. I responded to John's demand that we give Ukraine what it needs. Propaganda victories for Ukraine aren't going to shame Putin or make Russia withdraw its troops 6 feet.
All this huffing and puffing about what Trump should have said and zero actual proposals how he could realistically end the war with Russia abandoning the territory it holds in Ukraine absent the use of American troops.
Paid for by whom? The EU, and most especially their immediate neighbors have a MUCH more direct interest in this conflict. Why are we paying the bill?
It's a little difficult to take seriously the whole Trump blame situation on this particular issue when Russia only seems to want to invade during Democratic presidencies.
I thought Trump tweets could alter planetary motion.
Your point is that propaganda victories do not necessarily translate into victories on the battlefield. You created that strawman rather than deal with the fact that Trump's irresponsible rhetoric allowed Putin to present his people, et. al. with the PotUS claiming that Ukraine started the war and providing admiration and respect to Putin.
Of course, you do not want to deal with the point I made; Trump's rhetoric was counterproductive ... just plain stupid.
By the allies. I am not for the USA footing the entire bill. I fully agree that the immediate neighbors should be the major players. The USA's solid, unwavering, clearly articulated support is a critical part of the foundation, but this is not our war.
So you bought into Trump's bullshit too. Have you noticed that Putin is continuing full steam ahead with an R PotUS?
Also, I am not blaming Trump for the war. I am criticizing how he has dealt with it (starting with his calling Putin's invasion 'genius' inbetween terms).
Right. If Trump had just called Putin the aggressor, the Russian people would have risen up and overthrown Putin, is that it? If not. what specific, material effect would that have had on the Russian war effort, in your mind?
Biden blamed Putin constantly. How did Putin ever manage to survive an American president calling him the aggressor? Does Biden just lack respect Trump has internationally? Was Biden too weak to be relevant?
How do you explain Biden having zero effect on the Russian people while believing Trump's words would actually have stirred them to do "something" which you of course don't mention.
A fine example of exaggeration. Nowhere did I suggest anything like that. Funny that you choose to portray yourself as not understanding that Putin broadcasting Trump stating that Ukraine started the war and giving praise to Putin helps Putin manage his population and quell dissent among his people and others.
Appropriately. So now you pull out another strawman argument that essentlally claims that criticism by a PotUS would cause the Russian people to remove Putin from office. I have claimed nothing like that.
You cannot deal with the point I made so it is one strawman after another.
Lol. I keep pointing how your point is nonsensical and challenging you to state, specifically, what material difference Trump using TIG approved language would make to the situation on the ground in Ukraine, and you can't. And since you can't, so you deflect to claims of invented claims of strawmen.
Stay on topic. Tell us what specific difference Trump's words would have made to the Russian occupation. You have Biden's example in front of you. They accomplished nothing. So explain what Trump's words would accomplish and why Biden's words failed.
Or, you can admit the obvious and give up pretending Trump's words have had a material effect on the actual course of the war.
You have done nothing but put forth strawman arguments to deflect from the point I made.
You have yet to rebut the claim that Trump's rhetoric gave Putin propaganda to help quell dissent with the Russian people, et. al. That was my claim and you keep running away from it and playing strawman games.
Pathetic. You obviously cannot rebut my argument and instead play the Trump game of just repeating dishonesty (your strawman arguments) over and over in the hope that people will simply believe it.
Lol. You are just makings thing up now.
Yet again, you fail to make a plausible argument that anything Trump said has had any any effect on the situation on the ground in Ukraine. I get it. It's impossible with the Biden example staring you in the face. So rather than admit the obvious you'll continue to deflect.
you are arguing nonsense. Nothing Trump's said has mattered. You know it. You can't show otherwise, yet you continue to parrot partisan Trump centered talking points.
That is your strawman. I never made that argument.
You keep repeating your dishonest strawman.
My point is that Trump gave Putin propaganda by having the PotUS claim that Ukraine started the war, etc. I have never even implied that rhetoric alone can directly impact military operations.
My point focused on propaganda and how Putin can (and almost certainly did) use Trump's rhetoric to help quell dissent among his people, et. al.
How do we make them do that?
You are equating "Trump's bullshit" with "documented historical fact". I'm not sure that's what you want to do.
The Russians/Soviets have launched six different invasions in the last 50 years. Five were launched with Democrats in the WH, and the 6th during the financial crisis of 2008. They clearly choose times when they think American response will be weak.
I understood that.
There are always criticisms of any president for how they handle a war, and in every instance at least some of those are valid. I think it's too early to say for sure whether or not Trump and team are winning or losing this. It's certainly fair to say mistakes have been made, but the information we (the public) don't know undoubtedly dwarfs what we do know.
We cannot make them do anything. Diplomacy is not about forcing other nations but rather creating conditions where nations choose to pursue the same objective. Given the EU neighbors are literally in the arena, they are naturally motivated to ensure Putin (and similar invaders) do not accomplish their goals. Their national security is at stake. So what the USA can do, as I already stated, is provide solid commitment to the mutual cause (Putin failing to achieve his goals). We do not put boots on the ground but we supply intelligence, weapons, and training. We also simultaneously engage in diplomatic efforts (both positive and negative).
Your 'invasion only when Ds are PotUS' statement is factual but your implied fact is that Putin would not have invaded if Trump (or an R) were PotUS. That is mere correlation, not causation. It is the same basic nonsense that Trump spouts with his bullshit claim that Putin would not have invaded if he were PotUS.
The other fact, that I mentioned, is that Trump IS PotUS right now and not only has he failed to persuade Putin to honestly negotiate, he cannot even get him to abide by a cease fire.
Platitude. We know reality is nuanced.
Good grief man, Trump has been bumbling this since before he took office. If this war ends without forcing Ukraine to submit, Trump will take credit for it, but I have yet to see him act in a manner that does anything to pursue that goal.
What progress have we seen towards a peaceful end of this war? I think it is quite fair to evaluate Trump on what he claimed vs. what he has been able to accomplish. We are not talking 2 weeks here; he has been PotUS for 8 months. It is also fair to criticize what he has said and done and on that count we have plenty of clear evidence. His negative acts and words against Ukraine and positive acts and words for Putin are the exact opposite of diminishing the aggressor and emboldening the defender.
We can certainly refuse to pay.
We've returned to the question of who pays.
I implied no such thing. I'm merely stating facts.
Nevertheless, the correlation is pretty well established.
Once again, the information you and I see as members of the general public is a tiny fraction of the total body of data. We have no clue at all what is happening or has happened behind the scenes.
It's worth noting here that peace negotiations absent of total military victory are generally very long, protracted affairs. Jimmy Carter worked for years to get Sadat and Begin to the table. The Russians stayed in Afghanistan for over a decade. Our own negotiations with the Taliban took a year, and we had total military superiority. Getting out of Viet Nam was a four year negotiation.
Why do you think you would "see" top secret negotiations? Are you at all familiar with Henry Kissinger?
And yet... nearly every comment you post seems to ignore this basic fact.
That creates a condition to encourage them down a certain path. It is an example of what I described, but it does not accomplish the objective since it takes away our necessary support. A more appropriate example would be to align our support with theirs. That encourages them to put in more support to get stronger backing from the USA. The principle of them putting more skin in the game.
Oh come on Jack. You point out that Putin only invaded when a D PotUS was in office and you want us to believe you were not implying that R PotUS' (implicitly Trump) prevented Putin from invading on their watch.
Which is why I noted that we can criticize what we see. We never have all the information. So shall we all just STFU until we find some way to be 100% informed?
A typical obnoxious, personal comment that usually shows the point where a debate is going ugly. Looks like you are out of arguments. Just repeating yourself and now starting the personal crap (albeit mild at this point).
You seem to accept as axiomatic the notion that our support is "necessary". Why? What stops the Germans, Austrians, Swiss, Dutch, Danes and the rest of Europe from banding together and taking care of the situation?
If you read carefully you'll notice I mentioned 6 invasions over a 50 year timeframe. I'm sure you'll find at least a few supporters for blaming the Afghan or Crimean invasions on Trump, but the rest of us will be laughing at it.
You are posting from a position of nearly complete ignorance and demanding that others validate to your conclusions. STFU seems a wiser move.
When you stop making obnoxious comments, I'll stop responding with them. If you don't want a fight, don't pick one.
You cannot pretend to understand that "reality is nuanced" when 90+ percent of your posts are dedicated to Trump being the devil and you attack anyone who refuses to endorse that view.
Given Putin's demonstrated willingness to make enormous sacrifices, and the fact that this war continues even with US support (albeit shaky), why would you even question what might happen if the USA just withdrew? The idea is to strength the Ukraine side, not weaken it.
If you read carefully you'll notice I mentioned 6 invasions over a 50 year timeframe.
Correlation does not equate to causation. You are taking basic facts in an extraordinarily complex reality, and making a claim that the USSR / Russia engage in invasions because a D was in the White House. While they might target if a D is PotUS, that does not mean that their calculus is so simplistic. And, of course, you are trying to hint that the only reason Putin invaded Ukraine was because a D was PotUS.
Yet again, you make things personal. You post this emotive crap in response to me noting that even though none of us have privy to information available to a PotUS, that we are able to still evaluate / critique a PotUS on his rhetoric and actions in response to his promises. We are quite able to, for example, note that weakening the position of our ally is counterproductive to securing peace (unless one is going to secure peace by forcing our ally to submit to the aggressor).
And this is a lie. I am always careful not to make things personal. In almost every case, when the argument is lengthy, your comments grow increasingly personal. Just as we are seeing them right now.
Another lie instead of a thoughtful argument. Further, I attack the positions and the words, not the person. Learn the difference.
Because I'm famous for my ability to imagine more than two possible outcomes. The better question is how can you not question it?
Why? Why is that so important now when we didn't care about Crimea?
No. But it certainly can suggest it.
No, you are once again inferring poorly.
I've actually stated as much. Read carefully.
No... you are just making shit up that people didn't say. Again.
Yet again... I respond in kind. Actually, I take that back. I am MUCH more polite to you than you deserve, and more polite than you are to everyone else.
I raised a simple fact that was inconvenient to your daily Trump bashing, and you immediately launched a personal attack, and now are whining because you got a 1/100th dose of what you dish out on a regular basis.
"Bought into Trump's bullshit"?? Don't pretend somebody else is obnoxious and don't whine about "made it personal". If you don't want that, don't start it. And don't fucking cry because the stones are coming back at your glass house.
You dodged the question. It is obvious that a withdrawal by the USA weakens the position of Ukraine. There are myriad manifestations, but one has to be imagining some rather naive scenarios to see a withdrawal by the USA not hurting the Ukraine position.
You need this explained ... again ? First off, recognize that the 2014 Crimea hostilities are factored into this; what happened in 2014 is a foundation. We have the benefit of hindsight to see that Putin will continue to break promises and continue on his ultimate goal of absorbing Ukraine in total. Crimea is but an inch and Putin wants the mile. But you should have been able to figure that out yourself; as well as figure out why Putin emerging victorious is strategically bad for Ukraine, its neighbors and interests of 'the West'. So let's use third parties to help you better appreciate what is at stake:
And here is a detailed position on Ukraine and Russia by a pre-2016 Rubio:
There are all sorts of sources like these available to you that explain the strategic importance of preventing Putin from prevailing. There is no excuse for having to ask others to explain this to you.
And that is all it does. So ultimately, one must dig deeper than mere correlation. You did not do so; you stopped at correlation.
Same old lame excuse we see all the time. People beat around the bush so they can deny intent when challenged. You stated that Putin only invaded when Ds were PotUS and now you are running away from the blatantly obvious support of Trump's bullshit that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if he were PotUS. Just take a stand and deal with the rebuttal.
I did not attack you personally; this is all on you. Yet again, you post lies.
You resort to personal attacks since you obviously have no argument.
As did you. Your question is based on a premise we have yet to establish.
It absolutely is not obvious. You presume that the things you suggest we provide Ukraine are not available from much closer sources.
Until there is consistency in your reasoning, yes. You're still dodging the first question, BTW.
Or... we should have seen it all along......
Setting aside the reliability record of think tanks, let's assume for a minute this far flung idea has some merit. It is then all the more important for countries like Germany and France to take more active roles in the defense of Ukraine. Or do we just imagine they will accept this new world order where they aren't "truly sovereign states"?
Correct. Intentionally so. The comment was intended to make you think outside your little box for a change. Instead, you launched a personal attack.
Right after you repeat a behavior. BTW, correlation directly implies causation for this one.
I realize this isn't in your wheelhouse, but it might.... .just might... be possible that not everything in the universe revolves around Trump.
The pattern suggests that the Russians (who are not stupid) strategically choose times when they believe the Americans are less likely to produce a strong response. Democrats tend to win the WH at times when the American public's appetite for conflict is lower. Republican presidents tend to win in the opposite situation.
Bullshit.
You did not read the links. Instead, you offer a 'nuh-uh' rebuttal.
You do not recognize my consistency nor consistency in the sources I provided (and similar that you can easily access on your own). Making unsubstantiated claims is not an argument.
Which is key in what I originally proposed. Pay attention:
Yeah, I know it is inconvenient to do so, but penning posts that ignore points I made and pretend I argued the opposite is intellectual dishonesty.
Do you not even recognize that you continue to make this personal and then accuse me of making a personal attack? Your posts grow increasingly laughable.
Another ridiculous exaggeration as you continue to demonstrate you have no argument.
Brilliant rebuttal.
Best you can do since you have no examples to illustrate your claim.
What's happiness got to do with it?
Of course not. He's actually just waiting "for his 'FIRST DAY IN OFFICE'" to come around so he can totally solve the problem!
Trump's "7 wars" bullshit, National Guard deployments, "Department of War", and other pointless acts are —of course— distractions from his failure to show his much-advertised negotiation prowess in areas that matter.
He can come up with ideas that please him and sign EOs to reify his desires. Something that any functioning human being could do as PotUS.
He is an incompetent clown whose one superpower is the ability to prey on gullibility.
I'm not afraid of the senile old fool. He may want to be feared but the author is right. Let's not fear him. Let's throw his own words back in his face and see if he remembers them (I doubt it)
Trump rarely says anything not layered with deniability, it's conman rule #1.
#TACO!!!
Let's throw his own words back in his face and see if he remembers them.
(NO ONE'S EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT!)
But that being what it may...
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!!!
(Maybe if i keep saying that Icould be president someday?
)
Watch out, instead of making you PotUS, it might just make you Trump.
Watch out, instead of making you PotUS, it might just make you Trump.
OMG-- not that!
Anything but that!