FRIENDS AGAIN !

So we are going to be friends with the Soviet Union/Russia again.  Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton had there reset with Putin  for which Hillary was roundly criticized by the Republicans.  Now they seem to be all right with it.  I guess it matters who does it.  But it confuses me.

Prior to WW-II a lot of people in the U.S. turned to Soviet-style Communism in a hangover from the Great Depression (or were we still in it?).  Then in WW-II they were our friends that seemed a bit strange, but I understand that the enemy of our enemy is our friend so it was OK.  Also they took the brunt of WW-II as the main front though it was difficult enough what we and our allies did.

But shortly after armistice of WW-II  the Soviets/Russians became our enemies again.  Remember the "Cold War?"  then in the early 1970s, President Nixon started a "Détente" and the Soviets/Russians were our friends again.   I was confused by this but "what the 'hey " I was offered a science prize and went over to give a couple of lectures during a "hard" freeze on foreign travel by the U.S. government.  I had to get myself to London and they did the rest (see "You couldn't Have Been On That Plane - Parts I- III:" http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-couldnt-have-been-on-that-plane.html).  Everything was very nice and I had to spend all the prize money in the Soviet Union/Russia so I went first class on everything that, was none too good  in some cases.

Then came along President Reagan and the Soviet Union/Russia became the "Evil Empire," in 1983 -  remember?  This felt better to me.

Reagan was followed by President George H.W. Bush who negotiated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union/Russia.  Under these conditions, it was not surprising that we became friendly with the Soviet Union/Russia again as they tried to convert to Capitalism.  Give them a chance, so to speak.

This friendly relationship extended into President Clinton's* years, although he took several Eastern European counties into NATO that created a stir, but
Clinton also supported the besieged leadership of Russian president Boris Yeltsin as well as the funneling of billions of dollars in loans to Russia from the International Monetary Fund.In 1999, Clinton's support for financial aid to Russia came under attack in the face of mounting evidence that much of the borrowed money may have been stolen by an organized criminal syndicate which included members of Yeltsin's own family. However, supporters of Clinton's pro-Yeltsin policies credit his administration with an important achievement not easily measured in dollars or in the short run: the security of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Working through the provisions of the Nunn-Lugar Act, the administration provided extensive technical assistance and funding to the former Soviet states in the safeguarding of nuclear power plants and dismantling of nuclear weapons—an astounding achievement in view of the animosity that once existed between the United States and the Soviet Union. By the end of the Clinton presidency, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers was almost nonexistent.

However, the failed "reset" in the Obama/Hillary Clinton period sort of drifted back to hostility to the Soviet Union/Russia which is where we are now with about a month to go in the Obama Administration tour.  There seems little reason for a change in attitude.  The Soviet Union/Russia is still occupying parts of the Ukraine and has taken over the Crimea.  The Soviet Union/Russia still supports the leader of Syria and won't agree to a cease fire in Aleppo.  What's changed ?

Nonetheless, President-Elect Trump will try his own reset.  He has been very friendly to Putin and gives every indication of continuing that friendship into his administration.  After all why not ?  Putin has said nice things about him, and helped Trump win the election by leaking things about his opponent through WikiLeaks.  His National Security Adviser, Gen. Flynn, is also is cozy with Putin.**  He is considering a candidate for Secretary of State who is also friendly with Putin and has done business with him (Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil).  Even the leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell has gotten onboard.

[Note added December 13: It appears thaMcConnel has had a change of heart and now supports an investigation into the the Soviet Union/Russian hacking and says that the Soviet Union/Russia is not a firend of ours.***].

So it looks like "Here We Go Again" regarding friendship with the Soviet Union/Russia.  Perhaps Trump at least can build a hotel in Moscow (and maybe one in St. Petersburg as a bonus) and Tillerson can get his deep drilling contract for oil in Siberia out of it.

* http://millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-foreign-affairs
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.4f2c30d0cedd
*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.53cc9b92e806

TRUMP-PUTIN LOVE AFFAIR

I don't know about you, but the thing that worries me the most about Donald Trump is his mysterious love affair with Vladimir Putin, the dictator, I mean president, of Russia.

Is it because Putin has said some nice things about Trump and flattery will get him everything?

Is it because Trump likes dictators (strong men)?

Maybe it is a combination of the two.

But how far will Trump go in this love affair.  He seems to favor what Putin wants: destruction of NATO (because countries haven't paid their fair share), a breakup of Europe letting Putin take the Baltic States, Poland and who knows how many other countries (if they haven't paid their share of NATO),?  Just how much is Trump in Putin's pocket?

This paramount worry is in addition to comments he has made about ISIS and killing families, etc.

I find Trump very scary on foreign policy.

I'M SITTING OUT THIS ONE

I've decided I'll sit out the ISIS (ISIL if you prefer) War.  I usually record news programs like Morning Joe so I fast forward through the ISIS parts.  I may miss something else, but so be it.  If the news program is not recorded, I toggle between Soundscapes and the news program to avoid the ISIS War.

I went along with al Qaeda being very bad.  After all they actually killed nearly 3,000 people in this country.  Maybe more if you count those who are delayed in dying from smoke inhalation.  I felt we had to do something and invading Afghanistan to get al Qaeda was fine (remember Afghanistan tribes provided the first "boots on the ground.").  Now we are told that ISIS is even worse.  And the other day I heard of yet another organization that is considered even worse than ISIS in that their aim is to destroy the U.S.(Khorasan).*  And there are also those who say that Hamas is just as bad as ISIS.**

Now during most of my life (and I'm 83) the standard was to say that a group or individual was"worse than the Nazi's."  It is interesting that this analogy is no longer used.  After all, the Nazi's were defeated almost 70 yrs ago.  We've had two or three generations grow up since then.  I guess there is a feeling that ISIS is worse than the Russians.  Remember when it was Assad that had to go?  For the minute we'll ignore him, but I'm sure we'll get back to him some year.

To begin with, we won't put "boots on the ground" though special forces or the CIA don't count.  President Obama wants other Arabs or Muslims to do this.  I have to wonder why they haven't already done this?  They don't seem to worry about ISIS being a threat to them.  We always seem to align ourselves with a group of people that don't want to fight for their land.  Remember Vietnam and the Iraqi military divisions that collapsed when they were first threatened and armed ISIS by abandoning all their equipment?  How many years did we train Iraqi troops - 8 yrs at least, I think.  Who trained the North Koreans (well maybe the Soviets), North Vietnamese, Taliban and ISIS forces?   They seem to be self trained and better than all our training of their opponents    Hey the Americans will do it for us, calm down!

I don't remember the Korean War very well (though I was of age to be called up with the draft), but before we entered the Korean War, it seemed like the North had almost pushed the Southern forces into the sea.**  It used to be that the first thing we would do was send in 5,000 Marines and then regretfully build up from there.  It is interesting, however, that since we were kicked out of Vietnam, they want to be our trading partners, and we have no residual forces there.  Can you imagine that?  And Indonesia is still a non-Communist country.  Remember the Domino Theory where if South Vietnam would fall to the communist North, then the other SE Asian countries would fall, including Indonesia.

Of course the big focus on the Middle East concerns oil.  I had supported oil exploration of ANWR on the north slopes of Alaska and fracking, and the Keystone XL Pipeline to make us independent of  Middle East oil  and allow us to withdraw from there, but it hasn't worked.  Importing some oil from Canada, Mexico, and Valenzuela would be OK.

I yearn for the good old days of Carter and Reagan and Clinton when all we had to worry about were Embassy kidnappings, war with the island nation of Grenada, and fly by shooting of Iraqi radar posts.****  I'm going to sit out this latest war.

* http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-khorasan-group-airstrikes-isis-islamic-state-2014-9
**  http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/israeli-government-propaganda
***  http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war
**** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/09/good-old-days.html