Because of Trump, Putin Did Not Attack Ukraine, According to Bolton’s Explanation| Latest News!

About a week ago, Donald Trump appeared to be on the defensive after his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin landed him in some political hot water.

Because of this, he issued a foolish written statement in which he claimed credit for rescuing the NATO alliance.

The only thing that threatened NATO’s continued existence, as we noted shortly after, was Trump himself, who not only frequently disparaged the organisation,

but who also voiced a desire in withdrawing from the alliance entirely on multiple occasions. According to all accounts, it was a strategy that he intended to carry out during his second tenure.

The Washington Post reported late last week that John Bolton, who served as the White House’s national security adviser during the former president’s administration, believes Trump would have withdrawn the United States from the NATO alliance if he had been elected to another term.

Even if this isn’t a surprising remark, it’s worth noting because of its potential relevance: Let’s take a step back and evaluate how a quote like this one relates to the greater context.

For Trump and his supporters, the fact that Putin did not invade any of his neighbours during the Republican’s tenure in the White House is a source of tremendous satisfaction.

Putin conducted offensives against neighbouring countries in 2008, 2014, and 2022, but between January 2017 and January 2021, the Russian leader exercised caution in his actions against those countries.

The fact that this exists, we’ve been told, is unequivocal proof of… something.

There are two pillars that support the usual line from the right. To begin with, there is the notion that Trump was so powerful and unpredictable that the Russian authoritarian was simply too terrified to irritate the Republican leader.

It’s also common to hear people say that when the United States withdrew from Afghanistan, they were sending a message to Moscow that we were weak and uninterested in international military conflicts.

Because the first argument is so obviously absurd, it’s astonishing that Republicans would even bother to make it.

President Donald Trump spent four years going to almost ridiculous lengths to please Russian President Vladimir Putin, to the extent where the then-American president’s own director of national intelligence later said he was concerned Trump had been compromised by the Kremlin.

According to Bolton's Explanation

As for the Afghanistan assertion, which is a favourite of a large number of prominent Republicans, the situation isn’t much better. It is clear that Putin’s concern with Ukraine dates back much longer than the summer of 2014.

Evidence suggests that Russia began assembling military forces along the Ukrainian border months before U.S. troops were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan.

In light of recent developments, the notion that President Biden would have agreed to keep thousands of American troops in Afghanistan would have caused Putin to change his years-long aspirations in Ukraine is clearly at odds with the facts.

(Moreover, if the right were serious about this line of rhetorical attack, it may raise some uncomfortable concerns about the geopolitical ramifications of Trump’s February 2020 agreement with the Taliban to bring the decades-long war to an end.

So, since the typical Republican explanation is unconvincing, what is the real cause for the shutdown?

Read More:

A recent column I wrote, which received an unusual amount of hate mail, argued that Putin’s restraint during the Trump administration was due to the Russian authoritarian’s belief that it was unnecessary to meddle with what was working well.

The underlying argument — which I was pleased to see others support — is that Trump’s actions were consistent with Moscow’s objectives and that an invasion of Ukraine would threaten to break the delicate balance.

Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to destroy the NATO alliance, and President Donald Trump succeeded in doing so.

Russian President Vladimir Putin wished to weaken the European Union, while President Donald Trump made no effort to express his distaste for the EU.

Putin desired to assist authoritarian regimes, and Trump cultivated relationships with authoritarian regimes. Putin desired to cause harm to Ukraine, and Trump responded by launching an extortion scheme that promised to cause harm to Ukraine.

Putin wished to undermine the United States’ political system, and Trump was unnervingly aggressive in his attempts to undermine the United States’ political system.

In other words, why would Putin upset the apple cart when Trump is already pushing it in the Kremlin’s chosen direction is beyond comprehension.

However, Bolton has provided a comparable explanation that appears to be pretty credible:

Putin recognised that the United States was headed in a path that Moscow favoured, and the Russian leader was waiting for Trump to complete the task.

For the avoidance of doubt, this should not be construed as an endorsement of Bolton’s hyper-hawkish worldview, which I have been brutally critical of numerous times over a long period of time (and continue to be critical of).

Rather, Bolton’s point of view on issues like these is important precisely because of his position as a key member of the Trump administration.

Reply