RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Krugman writes: "If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears hats promising to make America great again. But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate."

Ivanka Trump, daughter of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, waves. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Ivanka Trump, daughter of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, waves. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

22 July 16

 

f elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin’s man in the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous question. After all, he must be a patriot — he even wears hats promising to make America great again.

But we’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest.


READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
-1 # librarian1984 2016-07-22 12:11
And starting a nuclear war instead is preferable?

Is Mr. Krugman, diplomat extraordinaire or, as he's known in academic circles, the Siberian economist, suggesting that we cease all negotiations with all other countries? Or perhaps that we send diplomatic messages on warheads to avoid transmission delays?

Wow, that would sure make things easier -- and faster!

Neoliberal disingenuousnes s, anyone?
 
 
+21 # carp 2016-07-22 13:35
No kidding. I also do not care to be redirected to the NYT to finish the piece as I am getting close to my 10 piece limit. Even worse are the constant redirects to the WAPO. I will not pay for a subscription to them. I have a monthly contribution to RSN and wish I could make it larger.
 
 
+6 # rocback 2016-07-22 14:34
Paul Manafort, Trumps campaign manager was also the campaign manager of Putins puppet that was run out of Ukraine amount many other thugs Manafort lobbied for.
 
 
+25 # Radscal 2016-07-22 17:27
The legitimate government of Ukraine was as corrupt as any, but it was overthrown in a violent coup by groups including actual Nazis. And that was with US direct influence.

The thugs in Ukraine are now running the place. Racist Nazis are murdering people of the wrong "race." The main targets are people of Russian or Polish descent, but Ukrainian Jewish groups noted a sudden rise in anti-Semitic language and vandalism during the rise of the "pro-democracy Maidan protests." And right after the coup on January 22, 2014, they reported actual murderous violence.

And yet, the ADL and other radical Zionist groups refused to acknowledge that and insist the real problem was Russia!
 
 
+14 # rocback 2016-07-22 14:51
Donald Trump is not the first authoritarian demagogue who could take power and undermine constitutional government in the US or Europe. Right-wing authoritarian populists have often grabbed power during economic crises, particularly in Western societies suffering national decline and severe racial divisions or culture wars.

The classic example is Weimar Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. The Nazis were one of many far-right movements in Weimar -- and Hitler was only one of many hyper-nationali st demagogues stoking the flames of economic discontent and promising to restore Aryan racial supremacy and make Germany great again.

For progressives who want to (1) fight Trump's dangerous messages and (2) win the long-term struggle for justice and democracy, there are vital lessons to be learned from the failure of Weimar progressives.


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36938-facing-down-trump-s-demagoguery-lessons-from-weimar-germany
 
 
+22 # MidwestTom 2016-07-22 15:01
Nobody is going to shrink, or even contain, the Military Industrial complex without siting down will all of the big time military players; namely China, Russia, France, Germany, and then biggest of all the uS; and coming to an enforceable agreement to LIMIT ARMS PRODUCTION.

If we let the neocons in DC push us into another war, it is our own fault. Hillary has said that Assad must go, even if it means invading Syria; and then there is Libya, where her policies have left the world with another giant mess.

I don't know what Trump would do, but i am sure that organizing an arms reduction treaty is not on HRC's priority list.
 
 
-24 # rocback 2016-07-22 16:02
Putin understands only strength. He will continue pressing us and probing us to see how far he can get.

Deploying troops to easter Europe sends the right message.

NATO will now deploy four battalions to front-line states. In Estonia, they will be led by Britain; in Lithuania, by Germany; in Latvia, by Canada; in Poland, by the United States. Not nearly enough, and not permanently based, but nonetheless significant. In the unlikely event of a Russian invasion of any of those territories, these troops are to act as a tripwire, triggering a full-scale war with NATO. It’s the kind of cold-blooded deterrent that kept the peace in Europe during the Cold War and keeps it now along the DMZ in Korea.

They would not test Hillary but they might test Trump who just said he may not honor our word on NATO.
 
 
+12 # Farafalla 2016-07-22 16:44
No wonder you are such a Hillary-ite Rocback. Front line states? How quick you forget that one of the things we promised Gorbachev when he announced the dismantling of the USSR, that we would not roll NATO right to their front door. What did we do? We rolled NATO right to their front door. You miss the Cold War don't you? You are such a right wing troll.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-07-22 19:59
As usual, you lie. If that were true, wouldn't you think Gorbachev himself would not deny it. Here he denies it:

" But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer

Do you people have no shame?
 
 
+1 # kbarrand 2016-07-28 10:18
Do you really think you can persuade them with facts?
 
 
+6 # kundrol 2016-07-22 13:52
Right Lib. I'm really getting sick of RSN drifting more and more into MSM thought control.
 
 
+5 # RMF 2016-07-22 14:45
Come now, Putin is running a very intolerant regime -- and perhaps that is why those in the GOP, along with other right want nutcases, admire him so.
While it is true that we should negotiate with countries, esp those who are adversaries -- negotiating being preferable to hostilities -- but this is nothing more than a non sequitur, and not an earth-shaking revelation. But what we should not do is sell our allies down the drain, in fawning admiration of strong man Putin. And striking examples of Russian intolerance are easily found -- a couple to consider include the treatment of the music group Pussy Riot and the homophobic nature of the Putin govt, not unlike that of some other reactionary nations in Africa and elsewhere. Is that who you want your president sidling up to?
 
 
-16 # MidwestTom 2016-07-22 15:06
Is Putin homophobic just because he outlawed the PROMOTION of homosexual behavior? He is not prosecuting those following alternative lifestyles.
 
 
+4 # RMF 2016-07-24 08:56
Well yes, of course it's homophobic...an d even more, it is a severe infringement of speech with substantial political content...somet hing that those of us who reside in a nation with a Bill of Rights should be more cognizant of, but sadly for many of us is not the case.
 
 
-8 # skylinefirepest 2016-07-22 14:47
A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate?" Yeah, she is isn't she. A candidate who simply cannot tell the truth and doesn't care about the good of the country as long as she prospers. Blood money!
 
 
+4 # wrknight 2016-07-22 15:10
This is one of those instances where Paul should have stayed in his own lane. He is a brilliant economist but, as far as I'm concerned has has no credibility in history or foreign policy and should limit his blogs to that which he knows best.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-07-22 18:09
After Krugman's lies about Sanders' financial policies, I'm not so sure he's such a bright economist, either.
 
 
+3 # RMDC 2016-07-23 20:00
Rads. You are too kind. Krugman is a fucking dope and a hillary shill.
 
 
+18 # guomashi 2016-07-22 12:48
Mr. Krugman can go to the hot underground place as far as I am concerned.

I am sick and tired of the endless, insistent demonizing of Russia by these half wit hacks. Russians know far more intimately than we do what war is, and they want absolutely nothing to do with it. They will not, however, be pushed around either.

Reversing the last seventy years of dangerous, misguided, even disastrous US foreign policy in this particular matter is the best thing that could happen to the world.
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-22 13:54
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+4 # guomashi 2016-07-22 18:40
Quoting kundrol:
I agree with most of your posts including this one, but I've noticed you keep getting flamed. Trolls maybe?


Thanks for your kind words.
I don't concern myself with the detritus from under the bridges.

Whether it has an effect or not, I say what I have to.

If the world is going to self immolate I may be able to do nothing about it, but at least I will not have been silent.
 
 
-2 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2016-07-22 14:23
guomashi — They're demonizing Putin who poisons and assassinates his intellectual rivals? I think Putin demonizes himself by his own actions, so let's try to keep an objective perspective, if you can, which I doubt, given the cadre of circle-jerking nutjobs on this comments board, nutjobs who say they're progressive, but tear down every progressive in the cause of hating Hillary — get over it, whiners. Your incessant bitching and misplaced rage is wearing very, very thin.

Now give me all your thumb downs, you curmudgeonly ciphers. By the way, the Tea Party has a place for whiney, confused intellectually challenged rabble like you — please go there, or are you actually FROM there? It sure sounds like you are.

YOU ARE THE DE FACTO BROWN SHIRTS IN TRUMP'S ORANGE REICH.
 
 
0 # RMF 2016-07-22 15:14
Reductio Ad Absurdum -- No thumbs down from this Bernie supporter -- your remarks hit the bulls eye dead center. We don't maintain and advance the current leftward movement in the Dem party by picking up our marbles and going home. Bernie knows that, as shown by his support for Hillary, but some can't see the impeccable logic of Bernie's position, no matter how carefully or clearly explained.
 
 
+13 # guomashi 2016-07-22 17:45
Quoting Reductio Ad Absurdum:
guomashi — They're demonizing Putin who poisons and assassinates his intellectual rivals? I think Putin demonizes himself by his own actions, so let's try to keep an objective perspective, if you can,


I believe my perspective to be very objective and much more highly informed than most I see here.

In short, I was in Russia at the time Putin took over the government. All Americans should in fact be extremely embarrassed by what we did to Russia in the 90s. It was in a state of third world poverty.

Putin came on the television with Yeltsin, who was obviously quite drunk, and Yeltsin announced he was turning over the government to Putin. Many Russians I met at the time were quite concerned because Putin was former KGB and they didn't know what to expect.

Since that time the quality of life in Russia has improved many times over. They are on the opposite trajectory to US, but at a much steeper slope. Now, we are behind them. Russians are quite happy with their improved standards and proud of what their country has accomplished in the past 16 years.

I will take the lessons of my direct experience any day over any Bush, Clinton or Obama, even more so over some propagandized half wit hack on a message board.
 
 
-8 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 20:04
Okay, so things are better in Russia in some ways than they were in the 90's. We probably did push them too hard towards laissez faire economics. But remember, things were better under Hitler than they were in the 1920's Weimar Republic, too. At least for people Hitler favored.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-07-22 23:32
People were starving and freezing in the winter. Life expectancy plummeted. You minimize the suffering they endured under Yeltsin. Of course they love Putin. And Putin is not Hitler. He is more autocratic than Americans generally prefer (we'll see what happens with Trump) but he is what they want now.
 
 
-17 # rocback 2016-07-22 20:09
guomashi, you are not from here so you should move there then if you like it so much.
 
 
+11 # guomashi 2016-07-22 20:37
Quoting rocback:
guomashi, you are not from here so you should move there then if you like it so much.


I was born and raised in America.
I have lectured all over the world on my original research.
You are an idiot.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-22 22:36
So has David Duke but he should leave too.
 
 
+4 # harleysch 2016-07-23 09:27
rocback, Your idiocy is quite astonishing. Most of what you say about Russia comes from the U.S. State Department, Obama, 10 Downing Street, and NATO HQ. Do you think for a moment they have an interest in military build-up, for other than pure motives?

You seem to have missed the implications of two recent developments: 1.) the Chilcot Report, which shows that Blair lied to justify overthrowing Saddam, and that Bush was a full acomplice; 2.) the release of the still-redacted 28 pages, which shows that Obama wished to continue the cover-up of the Saudi role in international terror. Why??? Because he is continuing the alliance with Saudi-backed terrorist groups, in his drive to overthrow Assad.

Many Americans are coming to realize the criminal nature of our government, and appreciate the relative straight forward approach of Putin, who actually has a competent anti-terror strategy.

It is not surprising, given your troll profile, that, in your last response to guomashi, you fell back on the old 1960s right-wing retort, "If you don't like it here, move there...."

You have again discredited yourself.
 
 
-4 # rocback 2016-07-23 12:39
You wont find me defending Bush OR Blair and the Iraq war so I agree with 1 and 2. 3 on the other hand is BS.

As for what I say about Russia being "from the U S State Dept", no, it came directly out of Gorbachev mouth who was the head of Russia when the deal was made. I don't think there is a better source than that.
 
 
+9 # tigerlillie 2016-07-22 22:41
Quoting rocback:
guomashi, you are not from here so you should move there then if you like it so much.



You are a disgusting bigot, rocback.
 
 
+3 # kundrol 2016-07-23 11:26
Hi Guo - I deleted my comment about you getting flamed because after that you got a whole lot of greens. Not because I decided to not like your post. I like most of your posts, however, I do have some reservations about Putin based on some disturbing news from neighbors of mine whose son moved to Russia, learned the language in 6 months then because a correspondent with the NY Times and interviewed Putin on RT. He then married a Russian woman who is also a journalist who is known to criticize Putin. A few months ago we heard from her that one of her family members had been disappeared.
 
 
0 # guomashi 2016-07-24 07:31
Quoting kundrol:
however, I do have some reservations about Putin based on some disturbing news from neighbors of mine whose son moved to Russia, learned the language in 6 months then because a correspondent with the NY Times and interviewed Putin on RT. He then married a Russian woman who is also a journalist who is known to criticize Putin. A few months ago we heard from her that one of her family members had been disappeared.


Ever read the patriot act?
Do you believe our presidents will in perpetuity avoid exploitation of the presidential powers it grants to label and execute terrorists at the stroke of a pen?
Of course, Obama already does that on a weekly basis.
DO you think anyone is safe under a Trump or Clinton presidency?
Both of them are psychopaths.
Trump at least is a narcissist. Narcissists can be calmed by flattering them.
Clinton is ambitious and completely closed off from reality. No one can reach her.

Besides the fact that it has already happened, as detailed elsewhere in these responses, it is now completely legal. Furthermore, the genie has been pulled out of the bottle with the recent execution by robot-bomb in Dallas.

In any case, Putin's deadly hissy fits are sure as hell not worth WW III.
 
 
-2 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2016-07-24 10:11
guomashi — knock it off with the ad hominem school-yard shit, you arrogant "I lectured all of over the world" pseudo-intellec tual fop.

You shot your mouth off about living in Russia (as if that makes you a foreign affairs expert), but you didn't address the content of my statement.
 
 
+2 # guomashi 2016-07-24 11:47
Quoting Reductio Ad Absurdum:
guomashi — knock it off with the ad hominem school-yard shit, you arrogant "I lectured all of over the world" pseudo-intellectual fop.

You shot your mouth off about living in Russia (as if that makes you a foreign affairs expert), but you didn't address the content of my statement.


Well, good morning and a cheery GFY to you too!
I wasn't responding to you, and I won't further as I don't feed trolls.

As a matter of fact, my knowledge of the world comes from first hand experience, having lived and worked on 5 continents, which was the point of my self identification. Take it any way you want. You don't have to compare it to yourself, as the deficit on your end is more than obvious.

Back to the bridges with you.
 
 
-2 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2016-07-24 16:18
guomashi, you quoted me in your response, and whether it was intentional or not, that is the impression your response gave.

Now, don't try to deny you called me troll, which is the kettle calling the pot a kettle as you have eight comments on this board to my two or three. Don't expect to puke out inanities without receiving some blowback — your opinions do not reign supreme nor indemnified from challenge.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-22 14:41
Russia just got caught cheating on a sport for gods sake! It was not just a few athletes but it was state sponsored cheating. And he denied it at first but got caught red handed with a mouse hole behind the cabinet that held the urine samples.

That is the first time an entire country has been banned from the Olympics because they got caught doing state sponsored cheating.

Now if the former KGB spy, Putin, will cheat in sports what do you think he would do with more important matters.

Trump said yesterday that if he were president NATO might not come to the aid of countries in NATO if they had not paid. their 2% of GDP.
In other words, Trump is telling Russia "have at it with Estonia or the other Baltic states and we will ignore our treaty, our word and just stand by.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-07-22 18:17
Considering the rising threats by NATO against Russia, Trump is right on this one thing.

NATO (which is basically the US Military's European arm) is a terrible threat to world peace.

Despite promises, NATO has taken 14 new countries since the dissolution of the USSR. Since our coup in Ukraine, we've built 6 brand new "fast response" military bases on Russia's border. We just activated a new IBM (nuclear missiles) base in Romania.

NATO just completed its largest military "drill" in history right on Russia's border.

LEAVE THEM ALONE! We do NOT need to antagonize and threaten the country with the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

You neoliberals will be the death of us all. And that is the BEST reason to keep HRC away from the White House.
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-07-22 22:39
There were no such promises. Every expert agrees. Gorbachev himself admits it (see above). Saying a lie over and over again doesn't make it true.

"Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)"
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-23 17:50
NATO Expansion

From:
http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Consent_to_Nato_ks.pdf

Earlier in the conversation, [Secretary of State[ Baker had given assurances to Gorbachev that were to play an important role several years later in the vehement Russian opposition to any eastward expansion of NATO - to include former members of the Warsaw Pact and even former Soviet republics like the Baltic States. If Germany were to remain part of NATO, Baker said, “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.”

Baker then asked Gorbachev directly whether he would rather see an independent Germany tied to NATO but with assurances “that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward.” Gorbachev replied that he was still giving thought to these options. “Soon we are going to have a seminar [a discussion] among our political leadership to talk about all of these options.”

One thing was clear, however: “Any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.”

“I agree,” Baker replied.

Radscal comment:
But Gorbachev failed to get that agreement in writing.
 
 
+4 # kundrol 2016-07-23 11:31
Hear hear Radscal.
 
 
-6 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 14:56
Here is a comment on the NY Times to the article. Someone said he found the article shallow.

"Whether you find the article shallow or not is an opinion to which you are entitled. However, Prof. Krugman does not "represent" the United States and was publicly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Your statement that the article "is replete with half truths and innuendo" would be more comprehensible if you cited one."

"As to Putin's dilemma of be encircled by NATO, it bears pointing out that those former Soviet entities and satellites doing the encircling voluntarily looked west rather than east. One wonders why they made that choice when mother Russia was the devil they knew."
 
 
-8 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 14:59
Here's another one in the same thread.

"Countries have joined NATO voluntarily because they don't want Russian troops in their country. After centuries of aggression by Russia, is it any surprise that countries want to be independent and therefore join a military alliance that offers a defense against invasion?

"If Russia does not want to be contained, does Russia want to expand? At whose expense will be Russian expansion?

"Russia has been an aggressive, belligerent, oppressive neighbor. In violation of the Yalta agreement, Russia illegally occupied Eastern Europe for 44 years.

"People want to join NATO. Russia has no allies in Europe, the consequence of Russia's actions in Europe. Look at the Ukraine with thousands dead from a Russian invasion."
 
 
+22 # wrknight 2016-07-22 15:27
These are all comments in the NYT which, along with the rest of MSM, is on a roll demonizing Putin and Russia.

You should spend a little time in Europe and ask Europeans for their thoughts. You should also ask, who is the aggressor as NATO continues to march eastward into Russia's former sphere of influence.

How would you like it if the former Warsaw Pact formed alliances with Canada and Mexico and started putting anti missile systems and heavy weaponry along their borders with the US? You might want to read about the Cuban missile crisis to learn how the US responded to that action.

You have a really strange idea of who the aggressors are.
 
 
-11 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 15:32
Well, have you noticed that Canada and Mexico haven't formed an alliance with the Warsaw Pact or China?

If Trump is elected, I can believe they might.
 
 
+8 # jimmyjames 2016-07-22 15:53
Quoting tgemberl:
Well, have you noticed that Canada and Mexico haven't formed an alliance with the Warsaw Pact or China?

If Trump is elected, I can believe they might.


It is so sad to have to listen to someone so ignorant of the world and gets their "history/truth" from propaganda outlets such as US mainstream media.
 
 
-7 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 16:16
wrknight was giving a hypothetical. What would I think if Canada and Mexico formed an alliance with the Warsaw Pact? Since the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, let's consider if they made a pact with China. If they did, I think it would be their right to do so. Just like I think Venezuela has a right to make a pact with Cuba and Bolivia.

But notice that in fact, Canada and Mexico have not made a pact with China. Apparently they see no threat from the United States. It is their main trading partner, and they're happy with that.
 
 
+15 # jimmyjames 2016-07-22 15:28
You are SO wrong in your understanding of history. Russia was invaded by Napoleon in the 19th century, and later by Hitler in the 20th century resulting in 10's of millions of lives lost. In defense, Russia decide to build a new empire called the USSR to provide a buffer against European invasions. I'm not saying that was right, just understandable.

When the Soviet Union began it's collapse in the late 80's/90's, they made an agreement with the US and NATO, that NATO would NOT expand east towards Russia. That agreement has been violated numerous times until many nations now bordering Russia have joined the NATO alliance, threatening Russia. Recently, missiles have been placed and NATO war games have been conducted right on the Russia border. Russia did not "invade" Ukraine, but intervened to protect it's citizens living there. Ukraine, with the help and urging of the United States,overthre w an elected President of Ukraine.

You need to understand a bit of history and the current situation before you make such ridiculous statements.
 
 
-9 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 15:34
Okay, I believe that agreement was real. However, what do you do when the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians come to you and say, "we really want to be in Nato. We do not feel safe next to Russia"?

I don't deny that the building of Russia's empire was based on anxiety. But there's a point when you need to give up anxiety and move into the 21st century. There was an article about a year ago about Russians developing their own I-phones like Apple's. The general consensus was that it was unimaginable that they would. Their economy is mostly based on the extraction of resources like oil and timber. There is little entrepreneurial ism.
 
 
+11 # jimmyjames 2016-07-22 15:42
Quoting tgemberl:
Okay, I believe that agreement was real. However, what do you do when the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians come to you and say, "we really want to be in Nato. We do not feel safe next to Russia"?

I don't deny that the building of Russia's empire was based on anxiety. But there's a point when you need to give up anxiety and move into the 21st century. There was an article about a year ago about Russians developing their own I-phones like Apple's. The general consensus was that it was unimaginable that they would. Their economy is mostly based on the extraction of resources like oil and timber. There is little entrepreneurialism.


Why would they not feel safe next to Russia? Russia never threatened anyone. Do you have facts to back up that opinion? I suspect they were coerced, bribed, and/or threatened to agree with that. It's the American way! The USA is considered to be the biggest threat to peace in the world - not Russia.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-07-22 16:30
"Why would they not feel safe next to Russia?" That could be one of the most naive statement ever on this site.

He sells weapons to Assad and has propped him up while he gasses his own people

He shut off the gas to Ukraine and the rest of Europe and lied claiming they were behind in their payments when they weren't.

He made a special law to get rid of NGOS that Human Rights Watch described as a way to shut down dissent

He jailed activists who were protesting the Russian Orthodox Church for supporting Putin and had them beat up by his goons.

He jailed opponents and journalists who cross him. He has even had journalists killed. Many believe Putin was directly responsible.

He annexed Crimea.

Banned gay couples from adopting children

Continues to have Russian soldiers in Ukraine

Putin is quick to threaten nuclear weapons in regional conflicts:

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/28/arms-expert-russia-quick-threaten-nuclear-strikes-regional-conflicts
 
 
+13 # Farafalla 2016-07-22 16:52
US Naval Institute?????? You really are a piece of work Rocback! I'm thinking of promoting you to King of the Trolls because Midwest Tom and Lee Mason would probably not go as far as you often do.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-22 20:03
Jimmy james, you said:
"When the Soviet Union began it's collapse in the late 80's/90's, they made an agreement with the US and NATO, that NATO would NOT expand east towards Russia. That agreement has been violated numerous time"

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer

Some people on here including you seem to favor Russia and believe their lying, narcissistic leader and want a clone for the leader here. I suggest if Trump doesn't win you move there.

You people have no shame.

How many times do u need to be caught in a lie to slink away?
 
 
+12 # wrknight 2016-07-22 16:47
Quoting tgemberl:
Okay, I believe that agreement was real. However, what do you do when the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians come to you and say, "we really want to be in Nato. We do not feel safe next to Russia"?

The smart thing to do would have been to disband NATO as it no longer serves any purpose except to provoke hostilities and enrich the military/indust rial complex.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-22 20:20
But for NATO, Putin would be in control of most of Eastern Europe.
 
 
+5 # guomashi 2016-07-22 17:48
Quoting tgemberl:
Okay, I believe that agreement was real. However, what do you do when the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians come to you and say, "we really want to be in Nato. We do not feel safe next to Russia"?


Who was it that said "your word is your bond?".
And, who was she referring to?

What you do is you honor your treaties.
Otherwise you are a rogue nation.
Welcome to US!
 
 
-9 # rocback 2016-07-22 22:48
Gorbachev himself said there was no agreement and certainly no treaty. The fact that you still claim it destroys what little credibility you have left. Guomashi, you have lost all credibility.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-23 00:50
"If Germany were to remain part of NATO, [Secretary of State] Baker said, "there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO ONE INCH to the West."

"One thing was clear, however: [Gorbachev said] ANY extension of the zone of Nato is UNACCEPTABLE."

"I agree" said Baker.

http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Consent_to_Nato_ks.pdf

But Gorbachev foolishly did not get it in writing.
 
 
-2 # rocback 2016-07-23 12:45
" But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-23 17:54
See my citation above. Secretary of State Baker assured Gorbachev there would be NO expansion of NATO "one inch to the east.”

Gorby FAILED to get that in writing. He admits that, of course.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-22 18:23
"there's a point when you need to give up anxiety and move into the 21st century."

Yes. Russia did. The US and its pet project, NATO did not.

Have you read Brzezinski's 1996 book, "The Grand Chessboard?" There, the creator of the Mujahideen, al Qaeda described how the US Empire should take control of Eurasian resources.

And EVERYTHING we've done in Eastern Europe and the Middle East (as well as the "Asian Pivot") is following those instructions to the T.
 
 
0 # ericlipps 2016-07-22 19:11
Russia didn't build the USSR because of Hitler's invasion; it seized the Baltic states, for example, prior to that attack.

Stalin was always out to grab whatever he could get away with--not for Communism per se, but in the name of his own personal power. How do you think he ended up in control of Soviet Russia in the first place?
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-07-22 20:14
Jimmy james, you said:
"When the Soviet Union began it's collapse in the late 80's/90's, they made an agreement with the US and NATO, that NATO would NOT expand east towards Russia. That agreement has been violated numerous time"

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)."

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer

Some people on here including you seem to favor Russia and believe their lying, narcissistic leader and want a clone for the leader here. I suggest if Trump doesn't win you move there.
 
 
+7 # futhark 2016-07-22 20:05
Russia has never invaded the United States with combat troops. The United States sent active combat units to Russia to intervene in their civil war in 1918. In July 5000 members of the American army (American North Russia Expeditionary Force) were sent to Arkhangelsk and 8000 more (American Expeditionary Force Siberia) were dispatched to Vladivostok from the Philippines and California. These forces were coordinated with Canadians and British to oppose the Bolsheviks in support of the White Russians. Some historians claim that these Allies wanted to restore the previous regime, as it was prosecuting the war against Germany on the Eastern Front. Others, more cynically claim that the hope was that the anti-Bolsheviks would honor payment on Russian war bonds, which the Bolsheviks had disavowed and in which a great deal of American and British capital was invested. In a sense it was a prequel to the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq and the results were no more favorable to the Americans than these later examples.

History lessons can at times be of immense value.
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-07-22 22:56
The only objective for American troops going into Siberia in 1918 was as much diplomatic as it was military and they didn't engage in a single battle. Boy you are really stretching here to find fault with the U S to go all the way back 100 years with not a single shot fired to justify Russia current aggression.
 
 
0 # Caliban 2016-07-24 15:15
I love history and strongly believe in its value as an aid to contemporary political debates. But Russia and the US in 1918? No. Both countries have changed too much for these events to have any meaning now at all.

For meaningful applications of history to US - Russia relations today, start with the outbreak of WW2 and Stalin-- FDR relations and work forwards towards the present.
 
 
+16 # bardphile 2016-07-22 13:27
I'm with you part way. The bi-partisan policy of containment and defeat of the USSR was a good thing, for us and for the world. But our demonization of Russia and the aggressive expansion of NATO toward the Russian border, not so much. Much as I despise Trump, his unwillingness to get on board with the neocon Russia policy is a point in his favor. (OMG, did I really say that?)
 
 
# Guest 2016-07-22 13:56
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+19 # Disappointed 2016-07-22 13:43
Unfortunately, Krugman reflects Hillary's view on foreign policy. Her State Dept. behaved aggressively on Ukraine, inspiring the overthrow of the government and then backing the coup, despite the agreement with Russia the day before that there would be an interim agreement. This in turn lead to the split by Eastern Ukraine. NATO is out of date and no longer an instrument for peace with respect to Russia.
 
 
-11 # rocback 2016-07-22 16:37
Amazing you blame Hillary for the overthrow of the Ukrainian govt instead of the Putin installed puppet. Did she also pull the voting machine when the Ukraine Parliament overwhelmingly voted him out? Did she force Yanukovych to reject a key trade deal with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Moscow contrary to the peoples wishes?
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-07-22 18:28
HRC brought notorious NeoCon Victoria Nuland into her State Department, where she (by her own word) "midwifed" the coup.

You either know nothing about what really has happened in Ukraine since 1945 (Operation Gladio US support of Nazis), or are lying.
 
 
-9 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 20:08
Where is the proof?
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-07-22 22:58
These people don't need proof. their hatred and bitterness of losing blinds their vision and poisons their judgement.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-23 00:55
http://www.globalresearch.ca/welcome-to-nulandistan-a-videographic-essay-of-what-the-us-and-eu-have-unleashed-on-ukraine/5381838

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-protests-carefully-orchestrated-the-role-of-canvas-us-financed-color-revolution-training-group/5369906

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22090-neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup

There's even a video in there where Nuland BRAGS about the US spending $5 billion to bring Ukraine into their arms.
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-07-24 10:37
Nuland said we have given the Ukraine $5 billion dollars since 1991. If she had said "since 2011," it would be more questionable.
 
 
0 # Radscal 2016-07-24 13:01
"If she had said???"

I gave you ample "proof" as you demanded.

The US worked covertly to overturn the legitimate governments of Ukraine since 1945. Nuland is just talking about how much was spent after Ukraine seceded from the USSR.

Recently, CIA declassified a trove of documents. Included are many relating to the dirty work they did with the actual Nazis in Ukraine, from 1953 through the 1980s.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article189895.html

And of course, the US didn't stop between the end of the most recent of the CIA declassified documents and 1991, when HRC's appointee Nuland's tally began.
 
 
-1 # Caliban 2016-07-24 15:23
Nuland was a disaster, but I truly do not believe that Clinton should be blamed (too much) for Nuland's absurd theatrics.

That said, Nuland's appointment was a poor call on HRC's part. She (HRC) knew Nuland and husband Kagan well enough to have known better than to make that appointment.
 
 
-1 # Radscal 2016-07-25 11:57
Oh yeah, Hillary knew exactly who Nuland is.

President Bill Clinton gave Nuland her first job at the State Department. Later, Vickie was National Security Advisor to Darth Cheney.

Hillary just brought an old friend and comrade back to her State Department.

This isn't another case of "bad judgement." This was a deliberate carrying out of Brzezinski/Kiss inger RealPolitik plans laid out in the 1990s.
 
 
+22 # Roger Kotila 2016-07-22 14:06
The New York Times is appearing more and more to simply be a part of "The Mighty Wurlitzer." Look it up.

Those readers who are concerned about propaganda should understand that the Wurlitzer Organ is back in full overdrive and Krugman is apparently part of the orchestra, helping to make "enemies."

An article demonizing Putin and Russia seems like something that we'd find from some journalist that the CIA would consider to be a "media asset." Why? US/NATO desperately wants to keep an "enemy" out there to justify Empire's ambitions for regime change and the Pentagon's goal of Full Spectrum Dominance.

Frankly, Krugman could at least bring some balance to his article by admitting that the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy...not much different I suppose than politics in Russia.

By the way readers, remember Gorbachev? The Russian bear wanted peace. Like Gorbachev, Putin doesn't want a war, and he doesn't want to conquer the world. I'm willing to bet that Russia and Putin would vastly prefer friendship along with economic and political ties with Europe...and would probably be willing to join the European Union if given the chance.
 
 
+19 # jimmyjames 2016-07-22 14:29
The US and NATO pretty much have Russia encircled with military armament and personnel. I'm not quite sure what their aim is, but their foolishness is getting us closer to WW III all the time. I can fully understand how the Russians and European nations are getting quite nervous of US aggression. If Trump wants to create closer ties with Russia I applaud him. Seems to make a helluva lot more sense than war.

Clinton on the other hand.....?
 
 
+10 # Saberoff 2016-07-22 14:36
The co-conspirators (think tanks) are really earning their keep this year!

What a cesspool of contradictions, falsehoods, misdirection and propaganda this article postulates; Leaves the mind reeling!

"Mr. Putin’s crony-capitalis t paradise..." Oh?

And I'm rather beginning to wonder of late, about RSN eliciting responses like those most suredly guaranteed! with shit like this.

RSN: You sure you're not taking names?
 
 
+7 # jimmyjames 2016-07-22 15:04
I think RSN has been getting hit with so much criticism from Hitlaryites, that they are trying to throw them a bone in hopes of donations. Anyone paying attention knows that Paul Krugman is a neo-liberal shill for Hillary Clinton and probably kisses the "queens" feet on a daily basis.
 
 
-16 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 15:06
Let me know if you agree with these statements:

Small countries can't be independent. They must be part of a larger power bloc. The Baltic States and the Ukraine should be part of the Russian power bloc because they are next to Russia.

During the Vietnam War, it would've been sensible for Vietnam to be an ally of China rather than Russia. It's right next to China, so why shouldn't they want to be dominated by China?

Pol Pot wasn't that bad a ruler of Cambodia. Since he was an ally of China, Vietnam should've left him alone.

The Carter administration was right to recognize the regime of Pol Pot. Since they were allies of China, they were the legitimate government.
 
 
-7 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 19:56
No responses yet. I wonder why not.

Isn't there someone who at least wants to endorse Carter's recognition of Pol Pot? That was non-interferenc e in a sovereign country's affairs.
 
 
+10 # djnova50 2016-07-22 15:33
Paul Krugman is pro-Hillary. Vladimir Putin does not want war; but, will defend his country. He also can play the piano and sing Blueberry Hill, much better than I can.

It's an oldie; but, a goodie:

https://youtu.be/IV4IjHz2yIo
 
 
-12 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 15:41
Great. We need a president who can play the piano and sing Blueberry Hill.
 
 
-10 # rocback 2016-07-22 16:42
God, after looking at that, we should nuke them so he doesn't sing again.

I'll go with Fats Domino instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek1P7GM33so
 
 
-8 # ericlipps 2016-07-22 19:14
Quoting djnova50:
Paul Krugman is pro-Hillary.

Heretic! Burn him at the stake, and all his writings with him!
 
 
-3 # tgemberl 2016-07-22 20:16
Sorry. If he can do those things, great. But I don't know if it says anything about his qualifications to be a leader.
 
 
+5 # Maturus 2016-07-23 00:31
I have to wonder whether a USian can have any concept of 'qualifications to be a leader'.
 
 
+1 # guomashi 2016-07-23 06:52
Quoting Maturus:
I have to wonder whether a USian can have any concept of 'qualifications to be a leader'.


You don't have to wonder.
Trump v. Hillary proves they don't have any such concept.
 
 
-2 # tgemberl 2016-07-24 10:40
Well, do you think a leader has to be able to play the piano and sing Blueberry Hill?

I realize djnova was probably just putting some humor in the discussion. He or she probably did not intend to imply anything serious.
 
 
-1 # Radscal 2016-07-24 13:06
Quoting Maturus:
I have to wonder whether a USian can have any concept of 'qualifications to be a leader'.


Were it not for election fraud, USians would have Democratic candidate Sanders(a leader with enormous qualifications) running against the Drumpf.
 
 
+1 # Caliban 2016-07-24 15:45
After everybody finishes rocking along with Vlad the Performer, stay on You Tube and pull up Bill Clinton on the saxophone.

Then imagine what a pop duo we have missed out on.
 
 
+4 # siva24549 2016-07-23 07:49
Mr.Krugman, if you find Putin a danger to world peace, I think your political views, I mean geopolitical views, are bordering on ignorance. America has been the most terrifying danger to the world from the time 2nd World War ended. Russia and every communist country, had to be a kind of dictatorship, because communism works that way. The police state atmosphere that prevails in every communist country is ONLY because of the eternal threat to their existence itself, which came from the capitalistic west from the time communism was born in the early 20th century. You cannot preach democracy to communist countries, which is same as asking them to abandon communism and invite capitalism. Communism failed to bring prosperity to the people, but at least it created relative sustainability and financial security to its populace. Capitalism on the other hand has failed to deliver anything it promises. Therefore, do not view communist countries as evil and the west and America as some kind of saviors of the world. His letter in the NY Times clearly defines his position in regard to geopolitics-he genuinely wants peace. It is very disappointing to see liberals like you viewing communism as some kind of evil, and now Putin in this way. Wake up and understand the real enemy-it is not Islam or communism, but western capitalism, the western civilization and today, America.
 
 
-2 # tgemberl 2016-07-24 10:48
I would not deny that communism was threatened by the US to some extent. But the reason it fell was not pressure from the West. Remember that the Solidarity Strike in Poland was before Reagan. It showed that the system was collapsing from within. As someone said, communism could build advanced weapons but could not provide consumer goods for its people.

The electronic/comp uter revolution was a major part of communism's fall. As long as industry could be centrally commanded, communism thrived. In the 50's, the Soviet Union's rate of economic growth was higher than ours. But with the coming of electronics, it could not compete. Electronics and information technology development cannot be centrally planned. There's no way the government could ever have said to Steve Jobs "invent the iPod." It was something that some individual had to imagine and tinker with. Maybe not Steve Jobs, but some engineer in his company. And once you create something new, it is risky. People might not like it. So a government agency can't produce it. Why would the taxpayers take a risk on it?

Actually, at the time of the Solidarity Strike communism still seemed to be expanding. I think countries like Ethiopia became communist after that time. But within a 12 years, it would be dead.
 
 
+2 # Edwina 2016-07-23 10:05
Krugman may need a vacation. He is getting as silly as the Republicans, with unfounded speculations. To scare people even further about Trump? Putin cannot be the scapegoat for all this country's problems. However, I guess he helps rationalize the fact that we spend more than 50% of our national budget on the military. Now that is scary.
 
 
+3 # rcdawson 2016-07-23 13:01
Could it be that the (in my estimation) ignorant Trump has a better policy for dealing with Russia that our supposedly peace-loving, bleeding heart liberal President Obama who, following in the footsteps of Clinton and Bush, thinks it is a really good idea to format strife in Russia's neighboring countries and then move troops and missiles to the Russian border? I seriously doubt Trump's ability to conduct a serious foreign policy, but Krugman's criticism harkens back to the worst cold war rhetoric.
 
 
+2 # tigerlillie 2016-07-24 15:49
I have been speculating about Putin's private opinion about Trump, and the verb that keeps popping up in my mind is "contempt." I suspect that from his point of view, Trump is an out of shape, undisciplined weakling, who, if he had any class at all, would shave his head.
 
 
-2 # Magars 2016-07-24 17:18
Krugman should stop inoculating again the Russian fear. He repeats the statements that Obama,another traitor to the promised changes made public. On official speeches > Krugman sounds like McCarthyism spokesman. Why you never stand by yourself and denounce the lies about the unemployment numbers and other economical disasters of this administration that betrayed the trust of pools nd voiceless. Stop being and hypocritical nmanipulator.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN