Scott
Verified User
I thought it might be a good idea to make a thread on President Trump, seeing as how I definitely think he's a subject that's worth talking about, being the President of the United States. People here certainly found a previous thread I made on something Trump had done here to be interesting, so I know that there is potential in a thread that covers Trump in general.
As some here know, I'm not a fan. That being said, I had had hopes that he could help facilitate a peace deal in Ukraine. At this point, I just hope he continues to not escalate that war and I think that hope is justified. I just read an article about him from Michael Brenner, which I thought was quite good. It can be seen here:
scheerpost.com
From the article, this is the desription given of Michael Brenner:
**
Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform), and the Brookings Institution (Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era).
**
I don't agree with everything Mr. Brenner has to say in his article, specifically his views on Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who some here know I admire for the most part. He only dedicates a single sentence to the Kennedy, however, without even mentioning his name, whereas I think that much of the rest of what he says may well be true. With that said, quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article below:
**
So, President Donald Trump’s heralded intervention to bring resolution to the Ukraine conflict has fallen flat. Rejected by Russia, by the EU states, by Kiev. An unprecedented trifecta of failed foreign policy.
His contrived scheme designed to skirt the core issues and interests at stake was a non-starter from Day One. That should have been obvious. There was no serious thinking in the White House that might produce a coherent diplomatic strategy.
There manifestly was no understanding of Moscow’s position rooted in post-Cold history and events since the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 — nor of the intransigence among the ultra-nationalists who pull Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s strings.
Instead, what we got was vintage Trump. An impulsive reaching for a quick triumph to punctuate his brilliance as a statesman. The fixing of an objective without a thought-out plan how to achieve it.
A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.
Against this background, his ability to cast himself as a winner owes more to the perversity of contemporary American society that invites chicanery than to any genius on his part.
On Ukraine/Russia Trump was grandstanding. There is an element of self-promotion in everything that he does publicly. The idea of being celebrated as a great peacemaker captured his imagination — not because he had any concern about the destruction and human cost or Europe’s long-term stability.
Admittedly, he also seemed to have been sold on the fashionable notion that the U.S. should mute its confrontation with Russia so as to be in a position to concentrate all our resources for the titanic struggle with China. The role of warrior-in-chief potentially could be just as appealing as that of peacemaker.
In fact, he had it both ways for a while: a Nobel Prize candidate for mediating in Ukraine; laurels from Israel’s American legions for reinforcing Washington’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide. What counts for Trump is the limelight and the exaltation.
So, he fixates on the one step that could stop the Ukraine fighting quickly — a ceasefire. None of the necessary and suitable preconditions exist; it amounts to calling a timeout of indeterminate length in a war that the other side is winning.
Yet, for three months that is the centerpiece around which everything pivots — futile proposals hatched by Trump’s virally anti-Russian advisers that only a fantasist images could lead to a settlement of the conflict.
The package presented to the Kremlin on a take-it-or-leave-it basis included such zany ideas as the U.S. taking over the critical Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station now under Russian control. This from a government that relentlessly for the past decade has pulled out all stops in its campaign to isolate and undermine the Russian state.
[snip]
So, Donald Trump is repositioning his foreign-policy people. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is exiled to the United Nations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio becomes interim national security adviser – warming the seat until Steven Witkoff has completed his failed special-envoy missions in Moscow and the Middle East and available to take over.
In a normal government, led by a normal person, such a move so early in an administration would be seen as having considerable practical significance. It might reflect the outcome of a dispute fueled by serious policy differences. It might impend important changes in the structure and process of decision-making. Neither is likely in this instance.
There is no organized process for setting foreign-policy objectives, for choosing among strategies, for formulating the appropriate diplomacy. Structured, orderly deliberation is absent and alien. Decisions are made by Trump on an ad hoc basis. He listens at random to advice from the principal officeholders, from his White House entourage, from golf pals, from FOX TV personalities. From whomever.
The appointment of the hapless numbskull Pete Hegseth to head the Pentagon happened because Trump relished the crude inanities that he uttered at FOX. (During Trump’s first term, he habitually chatted late in the night with Sean Hannity about what the latter had broadcast in that evening’s segment).
Whatever impresses him he adopts — even if the ideas are contradictory or ephemeral. Hence, the changeability of what he tweets or says from day-to-day — re. Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine in or out of NATO, grabbing Greenland/Panama/Canada, trade negotiations with China versus new sanctions, negotiations with Iran vs Trump fatwa forbidding anyone in the world from buying its oil. All of this is transparent and repetitious. Yet, elided by the media and most commentators.
Frankly, there is a case to be made that the psychology of Trump’s unhinged behavior is less of an analytical challenge than is the behavior of all those analysts who insist on normalizing it by ascribing to Trump’s words and actions design and coherent strategy that simply do not exist.
**
As some here know, I'm not a fan. That being said, I had had hopes that he could help facilitate a peace deal in Ukraine. At this point, I just hope he continues to not escalate that war and I think that hope is justified. I just read an article about him from Michael Brenner, which I thought was quite good. It can be seen here:
Michael Brenner: Core Trump
“For the U.S. president, the truth has no claim” — Michael Brenner scrutinizes the effects of Trump’s behavior on foreign policy over the past 100-plus days.
scheerpost.com
From the article, this is the desription given of Michael Brenner:
**
Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. His writings include books with Cambridge University Press (Nuclear Power and Non-Proliferation), the Center For International Affairs at Harvard University (The Politics of International Monetary Reform), and the Brookings Institution (Reconcilable Differences, US-French Relations In The New Era).
**
I don't agree with everything Mr. Brenner has to say in his article, specifically his views on Robert Kennedy Jr., Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, a man who some here know I admire for the most part. He only dedicates a single sentence to the Kennedy, however, without even mentioning his name, whereas I think that much of the rest of what he says may well be true. With that said, quoting from the introduction and conclusion of his article below:
**
So, President Donald Trump’s heralded intervention to bring resolution to the Ukraine conflict has fallen flat. Rejected by Russia, by the EU states, by Kiev. An unprecedented trifecta of failed foreign policy.
His contrived scheme designed to skirt the core issues and interests at stake was a non-starter from Day One. That should have been obvious. There was no serious thinking in the White House that might produce a coherent diplomatic strategy.
There manifestly was no understanding of Moscow’s position rooted in post-Cold history and events since the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 — nor of the intransigence among the ultra-nationalists who pull Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s strings.
Instead, what we got was vintage Trump. An impulsive reaching for a quick triumph to punctuate his brilliance as a statesman. The fixing of an objective without a thought-out plan how to achieve it.
A reliance on bullying, intimidation and underhanded dealing — the hallmark of his entire career; its apparent successes rooted in corruption, cronyism, and criminality — facilitated by the deference of other parties who lacked his ruthless cold-bloodedness. In his record of failures, as testified by six bankruptcies, he contrived to stiff his partners and creditors in each instance.
Against this background, his ability to cast himself as a winner owes more to the perversity of contemporary American society that invites chicanery than to any genius on his part.
On Ukraine/Russia Trump was grandstanding. There is an element of self-promotion in everything that he does publicly. The idea of being celebrated as a great peacemaker captured his imagination — not because he had any concern about the destruction and human cost or Europe’s long-term stability.
Admittedly, he also seemed to have been sold on the fashionable notion that the U.S. should mute its confrontation with Russia so as to be in a position to concentrate all our resources for the titanic struggle with China. The role of warrior-in-chief potentially could be just as appealing as that of peacemaker.
In fact, he had it both ways for a while: a Nobel Prize candidate for mediating in Ukraine; laurels from Israel’s American legions for reinforcing Washington’s complicity in the Palestinian genocide. What counts for Trump is the limelight and the exaltation.
So, he fixates on the one step that could stop the Ukraine fighting quickly — a ceasefire. None of the necessary and suitable preconditions exist; it amounts to calling a timeout of indeterminate length in a war that the other side is winning.
Yet, for three months that is the centerpiece around which everything pivots — futile proposals hatched by Trump’s virally anti-Russian advisers that only a fantasist images could lead to a settlement of the conflict.
The package presented to the Kremlin on a take-it-or-leave-it basis included such zany ideas as the U.S. taking over the critical Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station now under Russian control. This from a government that relentlessly for the past decade has pulled out all stops in its campaign to isolate and undermine the Russian state.
[snip]
So, Donald Trump is repositioning his foreign-policy people. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is exiled to the United Nations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio becomes interim national security adviser – warming the seat until Steven Witkoff has completed his failed special-envoy missions in Moscow and the Middle East and available to take over.
In a normal government, led by a normal person, such a move so early in an administration would be seen as having considerable practical significance. It might reflect the outcome of a dispute fueled by serious policy differences. It might impend important changes in the structure and process of decision-making. Neither is likely in this instance.
There is no organized process for setting foreign-policy objectives, for choosing among strategies, for formulating the appropriate diplomacy. Structured, orderly deliberation is absent and alien. Decisions are made by Trump on an ad hoc basis. He listens at random to advice from the principal officeholders, from his White House entourage, from golf pals, from FOX TV personalities. From whomever.
The appointment of the hapless numbskull Pete Hegseth to head the Pentagon happened because Trump relished the crude inanities that he uttered at FOX. (During Trump’s first term, he habitually chatted late in the night with Sean Hannity about what the latter had broadcast in that evening’s segment).
Whatever impresses him he adopts — even if the ideas are contradictory or ephemeral. Hence, the changeability of what he tweets or says from day-to-day — re. Zelensky, Putin, Ukraine in or out of NATO, grabbing Greenland/Panama/Canada, trade negotiations with China versus new sanctions, negotiations with Iran vs Trump fatwa forbidding anyone in the world from buying its oil. All of this is transparent and repetitious. Yet, elided by the media and most commentators.
Frankly, there is a case to be made that the psychology of Trump’s unhinged behavior is less of an analytical challenge than is the behavior of all those analysts who insist on normalizing it by ascribing to Trump’s words and actions design and coherent strategy that simply do not exist.
**
