Why exactly would Putin prefer Trump? Honest question as both Hillary (as SoS) and Bill Clinton have been rather soft on Russia - Trump favoring domestic oil production, etc seems would be less preferred. Look how aggressive Russia has become in the past 8 years.
There are many, many reasons. Trump promised to be extra soft on Russia re:NATO, re:Ukraine, etc. His single contribution to the GOP platform was to soften the GOP's position on Ukraine. Some of his staff were also Russian clients. He's also expressed open admiration of Putin and Putin's style of governance, and emphasized that he wants the US to get along with Russia. His son secretly met with Russian reps before the election to discuss US policy in Syria and elsewhere. A Trump win would give Russia tremendously greater influence over Europe. Given Putin's open assistance to Trump in the election Trump would owe Putin favors, and it's likely one of the favors Russia would pursue wold be lightening the massive sanctions Clinton imposed on Trump. Trump's also incredibly easily manipulated which certainly serves Russia's interests.
I'm not sure how the US can be any softer on Russia and the Ukraine than they already have been. Trump has also publicly stated he wants to shoot down Russian warplanes that approach US assets. I think Putin just likes to see one of his rivals in a time of uncertainty.
I don't think most people understand how bad relations between the US and Russia have gotten in the last year and how badly they would have spiraled out of control if Hillary won.
Hillary's favored no fly zone policy in Syria would have unavoidably led to armed conflict between the US and Russia/Syria.
It remains to be seen what will actually happen, but Trump's rhetoric is mostly about working with Russia to take down ISIS. Putin might be a thug, but he's not insane and doesn't want to go to war with the US. He can work with somebody like Trump who wants to talk and take down a common enemy.
Mr Putin knows a certain way of performing politics and excels in this environment. It involves oligarchy, control of the media, nationalism and intrigue over political opponents.
Mr Trump offers that environment on a platter. Mrs Clinton maintains a different style of politics, involving red tape, careful processes, observance of laws. Mr Putin does not work that way.
I think you're missing the point. Cute and Russia already benefited from the results of this election. A more divided Europe, check? A United States. that is looking to lessen its global role, check. A contentious, divisive circus of an election where a significant number of people have some doubts on the results, check. A splintering EU, check. A less unified NATO alliance with a weaker US role, under even more threat with surging populist movements rising, check. All this without one single bullet fired and probably nit that much money spent. Putin may be a lot of things, but i cant help but respect how he operates. He's a bad man.
This election has been cyber warfare's coming out party. Even The greatest military and economic force in the world is susceptible to major attacks and that will not change for a while. Recruiting hackers or obtaining assets otherwise must more cost effective diplomatic tool than some over budget multi billion dollar weapons system. I guess thats progress that we have one more tool to use before going to a hot war, but its asymmetrical nature gives regimes like NK a more level playing field.
The rhetoric bloviated by Trumpf has alreafy caused a great amount of concern and in uncertainty. What kind of asshole just casually mentions that yeah, we might not honor treaties that were signed in good faith
With Trump in office, you also have a United States much more likely to make a deal in Syria and accept Assad and also accept a new reality in Crimea/Ukraine. IMO, the US is too fixated on Assad leaving. So fucking stupid. How many more times do we need to see what happens when you remove a strong man from that area of the world. Getting rid of Saddam and Qaddafi for "moderate" rebels sure worked out great /s.
Trump hasn't even taken office yet so no blame can really be tied to him just yet. He's said quite a few silly things so far, but hasn't yet done any real damage. Most of the hysteria is being generated by the 24 cable news channels. I can't turn on CNN without another Trump-o-phobia headline on the screen.
To be fair NATO/Europe have been having issues during the Obama administration. Brexit is just a symptom of a long running problem in the EU regarding national sovereignty and bail outs of poor nations (greece/spain). Obama has struggled finding partners in the middle east to provide support to fight terrorism, but even NATO allies like Turkey have refused to even let the US use their airspace.
I personally think that Trump is picking his battles. He can fight a Mexico trade/immigration battle and get an easy win. Fighting Russia over Syria has no winners. As for Assad, it's hard to see how a person responsible for the deaths of over 300K of his own people could ever really hold on to power with or without foreign support. The US has experience in supporting an unpopular foreign leader (south Vietnam) and it didn't go that well.
I think in the long run, Trump will be more of a 'domestic' president. Someone that really spends more time focusing on domestic issues rather than foreign ones. Hillary I think would have been the opposite. In some ways this may be better for foreign countries, because it means that we are more likely to stay out of their business.
For a guy that says "quite a few silly things" and "hasn't done any real damage yet" that sounds like quite a bit of confidence in skills and intelligence that has not been demonstrated. Picking battles?
How about: continue to expect silly things, and ultimately some real damage to become the new norm?
> As for Assad, it's hard to see how a person responsible for the deaths of over 300K of his own people could ever really hold on to power with or without foreign support. The US has experience in supporting an unpopular foreign leader (south Vietnam) and it didn't go that well.
As I say this with a gut-wrenching knot in my stomach, I prefer him vs the alternative due to recent history. As it is right on the doorstep of Russia and Iran, let them deal with the consequences if they want him in office that badly.
Putin prefer Clinton, because they will continue Obama's course, which allowed Russia to begin two wars. But, if Putin will say "I like Clinton, vote for her", it will cause opposite effect, so he said "I like Trump, vote for him" to have desired effect.
Opposed to Bush's course, which only let Russia start one war. Plus,saying Russia started the Syrian war is a huge stretch, the US had already been involved for years.
The guarantees aren't useless due to Obama, the US followed the memorandum and sought UN Security counsel intervention. Russia broke the deal, what do you think the US should do about it?
