It Isn’t Weakness

To believe this [the cited tweet, above – HW] is to suffer from temporary amnesia about how Donald Trump actually acted toward Putin while he was in office. Who can forget Trump’s kowtow to Putin at Helsinki in 2018? The U.S. president rejected the findings of the United States’ own intelligence community about the hacking of the 2016 election and said: “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Or who can forget Trump’s use of U.S. military aid to extort the government of Ukraine into helping him politically? Or all of Trump’s anti-NATO animus? Trump mused about pulling out of the alliance, questioned its Article 5 security guarantees and ordered a withdrawal of 12,000 troops from Germany. [WaPo]

But Rubin really doesn’t take this far enough. The key question is Why are there, or not, attacks during various Administrations? and since Rubin has certainly refuted the popular-on-the-right meme that Democratic military leadership is weaker than Republicans, thus inviting attacks, it’s worth asking just what’s really going on.

First let’s dispense with the ugly practicalities of attacks, which includes logistics, personnel, supplies, and failed diplomacy. Without any of these or a few other areas that may have slipped my mind, launching an attack is fool-hardy. You want your attack to succeed … whatever that means.

And that’s an important question, isn’t it? Everything a national entity does should, ideally, be in pursuit of a goal. The goal may be nebulous – Look at the stability and prosperity of Democracy! – or it may be very specific. The goal may even be to have that attack fail, also known as a feint. But it bears keeping in mind that what an entity isn’t doing can be as important as an action taken.

That is, if you can manipulate the other side into doing something for you, why waste military materials on a frontal assault? Sometimes it’s better to risk a spy than a brigade.

Keeping all that in mind, let’s look at the Republicans. On the matter of the Russians, they don’t present a united front, do they? There are still prominent Republicans ready to warn about the Russians. But then there’s also his #1 admirer … former President Trump:

“I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right,” Trump continued. “Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.”

Trump went on to criticize Biden’s handling of the crisis and claim Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would not have happened while he was in office. He did not offer any explanation or evidence for the claim, nor did he explain what he would do differently now.

“You gotta say that’s pretty savvy. And you know what the response was from Biden? There was no response. They didn’t have one for that. No, it’s very sad. Very sad,” Trump added. “I knew Putin very well. I got along with him great. He liked me. I liked him. I mean, you know, he’s a tough cookie, got a lot of the great charm and a lot of pride. But the way he — and he loves his country, you know? He loves his country.” [NBC News]

Or, as Rubin implied, Trump was, and is, abjectly weak. But where Trump goes, so goes the MAGA cult.

And that’s more than a reality-based insult. Trump was the selection of the Republican Party for the party’s Presidential nomination, and so he represents its strength on foreign policy towards Russia … or its weakness. President Putin of Russia, who’s nakedly driving this war, is no schmuck. I don’t doubt that he and his intelligence apparatus have evaluated the Republican Party as being the weaker of the two major American political parties when it comes to Russian policy: more friendly and less likely to oppose Russian strategic objectives … such as neutralizing American influence in Europe, or even world-wide.

A lesser opponent would attack when the Republicans are in power. After all, you have a weak opponent, right?

But why expend all that war material when patsies like Trump, Cruz, and Vance are ready to rollover for you? The Republican Party has been subverted by the Russians to the point where open attacks, when they’re in power, are unnecessary.

No, if your goal is to destroy an opponent greater than yourself, then you have to find ways to destroy their strengths. The Democratic Party, in Russia’s estimation, is more likely to effectively oppose them than the Republicans, so they’ve arranged to put the Democrats under a lot of pressure by dividing the political scene using their pawns, the Republicans, and then starting a war. They flood an increasingly wary American public with disinformation and divisive messages via Vance and many others, and try to portray the Democrats as weak via defeat of an allied country. The Democrats and Biden don’t need to be destroyed.

Just denied success at the ballot box.

And that’s the substance of the story. There are other factors, too, mostly germane to Putin personally: his age, his dreams for his country, his physical and mental health, his desired legacy. These also play into this dangerous, foolish game.

But I think the reality is that the Republicans are simply self-delusional when they credit themselves with strength and the Democrats with weakness. As Rubin points out, their record for the last few decades does not support their self-appraisal.

That’s something voters should remember next time they have to trek to their local voting location. Do you want Russian patsies and isolationists representing the country? Or experienced people who know what the hell is going on – and who is dangerous?