Ron Paul: "Who's Afraid Of The Trump-Putin Summit?"

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

President Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton was in Moscow last week organizing what promises to be an historic summit meeting between his boss and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bolton, who has for years demanded that the US inflict “pain” on Russia and on Putin specifically, was tasked by Trump to change his tune. He was forced to shed some of his neoconservative skin and get involved in peacemaking. Trump surely deserves some credit for that!

As could be expected given the current political climate in the US, the neoconservatives have joined up with the anti-Trump forces on the Left - and US client states overseas - to vigorously oppose any movement toward peace with Russia. The mainstream media is, as also to be expected, amplifying every objection to any step away from a confrontation with Russia.

Bolton had hardly left Moscow when the media began its attacks. US allies are “nervous” over the planned summit, reported Reuters. They did not quote any US ally claiming to be nervous, but they did speculate that both the UK and Ukraine would not be happy were the US and Russia to improve relations. But why is that? The current Ukrainian government is only in power because the Obama Administration launched a coup against its democratically-elected president to put US puppets in charge. They’re right to be nervous. And the British government is also right to be worried. They swore that Russia was behind the “poisoning” of the Skripals without providing any evidence to back up their claims. Hundreds of Russian diplomats were expelled from Western countries on their word alone. And over the past couple of months, each of their claims has fallen short.

At the extreme of the reaction to Bolton’s Russia trip was the US-funded think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is stuck in a 1950s time warp. Its resident Russia “expert,” Anders Åslund, Tweeted that long-time Russia hawk Bolton had been “captured by the Kremlin” and must now be considered a Russian agent for having helped set up a meeting between Trump and Putin.

Do they really prefer nuclear war?

The “experts” are usually wrong when it comes to peacemaking.

They rely on having “official enemies” for their very livelihood. In 1985, national security “expert” Zbigniew Brzezinski attacked the idea of a summit between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was “demeaning” and “tactically unwise,” he said as reported at the time by the Washington Times. Such a meeting would only “elevate” Gorbachev and make him “first among equals,” he said. Thankfully, Reagan did engage Gorbachev in several summits and the rest is history. Brzezinski was wrong and peacemakers were right.

President Trump should understand that any move toward better relations with Russia has been already pre-approved by the American people. His position on Russia was well known. He campaigned very clearly on the idea that the US should end the hostility toward Russia that characterized the Obama Administration and find a way to work together. Voters knew his position and they chose him over Hillary Clinton, who was also very clear on Russia: more confrontation and more aggression.

President Trump would be wise to ignore the neocon talking heads and think tank “experts” paid by defense contractors. He should ignore the “never Trumpers” who have yet to make a coherent policy argument opposing the president. The extent of their opposition to Trump seems to be “he’s mean and rude.”

Let us hope that a Trump/Putin meeting begins a move toward real reconciliation and away from the threat of nuclear war.

Comments

Ghost of PartysOver ted41776 Mon, 07/02/2018 - 13:19 Permalink

Could we be entering peak assploding?  Libtards and the Supreme Court pic will be joined by the Russia-phobic Spooks and Neocons.

I think there might be a business opportunity in here.  Assploding Repellent?  Assploding Bio Cleanup?  All weather assploding protective clothing? 

There will be a bunch of assploding in the future with a huge market potential.

In reply to by ted41776

JimmyJones Ghost of PartysOver Mon, 07/02/2018 - 13:19 Permalink

The only people against peace are those that profit from fear and war. The Neocons haven't joined with the left, the never were apart.  Sure they acted like they disagreed on domestic issues but when ever it came to Foreign policy they were always lock step, with War or with Trade they never parted ways.  They both were all for the creation of a environment that rewarded offshoring of manufacturing, they both had no issue with going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, both parties voted for it.  It was only with Syria that the Republican Base woke up and knew we were on the wrong side.  We saw Christians being killed not by Assad but by the alleged Moderate Rebels who were really just ISIS. 

In reply to by Ghost of PartysOver

Automatic Choke JimmyJones Mon, 07/02/2018 - 13:22 Permalink

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nobody prefers nuclear war.

What the trump haters want is continual, perpetual, restrained and defined war on gooks.   Continual bombing and sales of high tech warfare to third world locations where only little people are (or were). 

Silly pundits, nuclear war is over too quickly, and has too few weapons sales.   Much better to make it last forever.

In reply to by JimmyJones

beemasters Dr. Acula Mon, 07/02/2018 - 13:54 Permalink

Helsinki seems like a terrible choice for Putin. Finland isn't quite an impartial nation being an Eu member. Putin will be extra vigilant in the lions' den.
Any summit for peace should ideally be held in Bhutan. But then, I suspect this one isn't quite for peaceful intentions, but to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran/China. Bolton seemed too eager to be involved- a reason to be suspicious. We'll see.

I'd be more confident/at ease if President Ron Paul was there instead.

In reply to by Dr. Acula

not dead yet Automatic Choke Mon, 07/02/2018 - 16:31 Permalink

If they knew they could get away with it with minimal damage you can bet the US would blow Russia off the map. The military was all for it in the 50's and 60's. The military may have been behind the killing of JFK as not only was he going to pull out of Vietnam but refused to bow to the generals as they wanted to nuke the Soviet Union and invade Cuba during the missile crisis. With Russia gone there would still be plenty of countries to invade and terrorists to create to keep the arms sales going. With Russia turning the tide in Syria there are plenty of arms deals that will never happen as the rebels are surrendering. Any deals with the Syrian government will go to Russia.

In Iraq it was claimed the US went in there to get the oil and Iraq would pay the US for "freeing" them. Never happened. Some American companies got contracts but the bulk went to the Chinese.

Power is intoxicating which is why so many crave it. The power of life and death. Yet people take the easy out and blame the MIC for the never ending wars and claim all the think tanks and politicians press for wars because they are getting paid by the MIC. More like the MIC is a tool, along with the bankers, to be used by the pols and their fellow travelers as weapons to bring about world domination. They are getting paid by the bankers and MIC not as bribes but the warmongers, who hold the power and could if they wanted too run MIC companies and banks out of business, are selling their services to the highest bidder. Pay or you don't play and the buyers are lining up cash in hand as the warmongers taste for death is never ending.

When the neocons and their politician buddies call the bankers step up to the plate to screw over any country that has become a target. As long as they play ball the bankers can play their games and never go to jail and get bailed out when when their gaming creates a disaster.

In reply to by Automatic Choke

el buitre JimmyJones Mon, 07/02/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

"The Neocons haven't joined with the left, the never were apart."

Well, never is a long time.  I am over 70, and I remember back in the 60's and early 70's, the "New Left's" foreign policy was very similar to Ron Paul's current positions.  Do not get involved in foreign wars and entanglements and mind our own business at home.  Granted that their domestic economic policy was a whole different kettle of fish from Paul's.  I will also say this about the New Left in the 60's and 70's.  For the most part they were for civil discourse and debate and critical thinking, as opposed to the current Antifa scum who are very similar to the Nazi brown shirts.  I am referring to the rank and file, and not many of the psychopathic totalitarians who attempted to position themselves as leaders, such as Saul Alinsky.

In reply to by JimmyJones

RedBaron616 Mon, 07/02/2018 - 13:31 Permalink

The real point is that the world doesn't need to be at peace. We just don't need to involve ourselves with any wars. Let others kill each other as they see fit, but none are worth even one American life.

not dead yet RedBaron616 Mon, 07/02/2018 - 17:10 Permalink

So you buy into the fiction that the US is the worlds policeman and without us exceptional people the world would descend into chaos. The US is the worlds biggest terrorist and greatest danger to peace and you would know that if you did your research. The ignorant point to Hitler and say the US must rule to keep peace but never realize without the machinations of the power hungry of the west and their industrialists looking to make a fortune Hitler would never have risen above the rank of a pauper painter. It is said WW1 was the handiwork of 3 people aiming for more power.

With the rise of the commies in Europe, thanks to the "victors" screwing over the great war losers, the rise of Hitler was a an opportunity to turn back the red tide. Churchill and the rest knew Hitler wanted "living room" and thought Slavs were subhumans thus the Soviet Union was Hitlers ultimate target. Thus to steer Hitler in the proper direction Britain and France refused to sign a pact with Stalin when he begged for one and guaranteed to declare war on Germany if they invaded Poland. Hitler not being very bright, but smart enough to keep ass kissers as his general staff, went into Poland anyway and eventually France and almost brought Britain to it's knees. Thus Churchill's plan to stand aside, and never get their hair mussed, and have Hitler and Stalin destroy themselves in a war didn't work out. Germany for decades was eating Britain's lunch in the manufacturing arena which was one reason for WW1 was to destroy German competition and also for WW2 as they hoped Germany and the Soviet Union would destroy each other. Hitler was a useful tool who would not be controlled. All of this is speculation on my part except for Britain's wish to eliminate German manufacturing.

In reply to by RedBaron616

lnardozi Mon, 07/02/2018 - 13:34 Permalink

Peace. Bring all our people home. Peace. Sell all our foreign bases. Peace. Equip all those people as engineers. Peace. Rebuild our infrastructure. Peace. Rich folks, it won't cost you a dime to give us - peace.