Posted by on February 11, 2017 10:50 pm
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories: Business Climate change skepticism and denial Conservatism in the United States donald trump Donald Trump presidential campaign Economy Fail Fox News International reactions to the United States presidential election Political positions of Donald Trump Politics RT television The Apprentice The Economist Trump University Twitter Ukraine United Nations white house WikiLeaks WWE Hall of Fame

Last week he was “the insurgent” in The White House, this week The Economist decides to revert back to the Putin-puppet narrative for President Trump, as they proclaim ‘the art of the deal meets the tsar of the steal’ warning “the quest for a deal with Putin is delusional… and could be very bad indeed.”
 

Washington is in the grip of a revolution, The Economist began last week…

The bleak cadence of last month’s inauguration was still in the air when Donald Trump lobbed the first Molotov cocktail of policies and executive orders against the capital’s brilliant-white porticos. He has not stopped…

…In politics chaos normally leads to failure. With Mr Trump, chaos seems to be part of the plan. Promises that sounded like hyperbole in the campaign now amount to a deadly serious revolt aimed at shaking up Washington and the world.

To understand Mr Trump’s insurgency, start with the uses of outrage. In a divided America, where the other side is not just mistaken but malign, conflict is a political asset. The more Mr Trump used his stump speeches to offend polite opinion, the more his supporters were convinced that he really would evict the treacherous, greedy elite from their Washington salons.

His grenade-chuckers-in-chief, Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller, have now carried that logic into government.

Americans who reject Mr Trump will, naturally, fear most for what he could do to their own country. They are right to worry, but they gain some protection from their institutions and the law. In the world at large, however, checks on Mr Trump are few. The consequences could be grave.

Without active American support and participation, the machinery of global co-operation could well fail…

If Mr Trump truly wants to put America First, his priority should be strengthening ties, not treating allies with contempt…

America’s allies must strive to preserve multilateral institutions for the day after Mr Trump, by bolstering their finances and limiting the strife within them. And they must plan for a world without American leadership.

A web of bilateralism and a jerry-rigged regionalism are palpably worse for America than the world Mr Trump inherited. It is not too late for him to conclude how much worse, to ditch his bomb-throwers and switch course. The world should hope for that outcome. But it must prepare for trouble.

Read more here (if you dare)…

Scared yet? You should be…

And if you’re not… here is The Economist this weekThe art of the deal meets the tsar of the steal

Donald Trump appears to want to go much further and forge an entirely new strategic alignment with Russia. Can he succeed, or will he be the third American president in a row to be outfoxed by Mr Putin?

The details of Mr Trump’s realignment are still vague and changeable. That is partly because of disagreements in his inner circle. Even as his ambassador to the UN offered “clear and strong condemnation” of “Russia’s aggressive actions” in Ukraine, the president’s bromance with Mr Putin was still smouldering. When an interviewer on Fox News put it to Mr Trump this week that Mr Putin is “a killer”, he retorted: “There are a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

For an American president to suggest that his own country is as murderous as Russia is unprecedented, wrong and a gift to Moscow’s propagandists. And for Mr Trump to think that Mr Putin has much to offer America is a miscalculation not just of Russian power and interests, but also of the value of what America might have to give up in return.

Warning ominously that…

The quest for a grand bargain with Mr Putin is delusional. No matter how great a negotiator Mr Trump is, no good deal is to be had. Indeed, an overlooked risk is that Mr Trump, double-crossed and thin-skinned, will end up presiding over a dangerous and destabilising falling-out with Mr Putin.

Better than either a bargain or a falling-out would be to work at the small things to improve America’s relations with Russia. This might include arms control and stopping Russian and American forces accidentally coming to blows. Congressional Republicans and his more sensible advisers, such as his secretaries of state and defence, should strive to convince Mr Trump of this. The alternative would be very bad indeed.

In case you’re wondering if The Economist suggests any redeeming features, any ‘fair and balanced’ perspective of the new ‘leader of the free world’ – the answer is simple – no.

But then again – when your published – Lynn Forrester de Rothschild was a “loyal adoring pal” of Team Clinton…

What chance to you stand of getting anything other than trite scaremongering to maintain their narrative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *