[golergka]

Wrong. On the contrary, Trump administration imposed additional sanctions that prevented Nord Stream 2 from being complete — which Biden administration have reversed.

Western media portrayed Trump as "pro-Putin", but if you look at the actual decisions by administrations, he was the one who really pushed back against Putin, compared both to Obama and Biden.

[myko]

Actually, trump was being anti-NATO and working against the alliance, trying to alienate US allies. He was very pro-Putin, he still is - he spoke about how brilliant Putin's strategy in Ukraine is during this latest escalation of conflict (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-putin-ukraine/).

Biden has been a much stauncher anti-Putin-aggression ally than trump ever was. The coalition of nations adding synchronized sanctions against Putin's regime was extremely well done, as was Biden's repeatedly calling out of Russia and saying exactly what they were going to do ahead of time for the past month. JB has been very impressive in forming a coalition with US allies to enact a strong, unified, response to Putin's aggression. This is made possible by actually working with allies - like not blocking a project they desire - earning and keeping their trust.

In an alternate reality where trump wins election he likely trash talks NATO and does not help Ukraine at all (especially since they did not make up dirt to smear his political enemies). In fact I think Putin was relying on the weakened status of NATO, an environment created by trump, to allow him to do what he's currently doing with fewer consequences. If trump were in office this would likely lead to the breakup of NATO entirely.

[golergka]

> He was very pro-Putin, he still is - he spoke about how brilliant Putin's strategy in Ukraine is during this latest escalation of conflict (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-putin-ukraine/).

Having an opinion about brilliance of someone's strategy is not a value judgement. There were plenty of brilliant strategists who were awful people and fought for awful ideas.

I remember how western media attacked Trump after he praised Lee as a great general, making it look as if he supported confederacy — which in context of his speech was clear he did not. In both cases, it's either a gross logical fallacy or a weak manipulation, and just as I can't take the media that reported it seriously after that, I can't take your arguments seriously after this either.

[myko]

It's clear that trump was cheerleading Putin's actions and mocking the US. He even "joked" that we should do something similar on our southern border:

"And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border."

His surrogates like Tucker Carlson are also praising Putin and suggesting that liberals are your enemy, not Putin (https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1496290844797992960). This attitude among the American right became prevalent at trump's direction, and it is not an accident.

This may not seem like much to a non-American, but it's a shameful change in our national discourse for a political leader to cheerlead an enemy like this in the middle of a crisis. If you ignore this, fine - but my other point still stands, trump was anti-NATO and wanted to get out of it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-presiden... (reported in 2019)

and his concrete plans reported recently: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

"‘Yeah, the second term. We’ll do it in the second term,’ then-president reportedly said"

My thought on the entire situation - Putin expected trump to win again and pull from NATO, and then he'd kick this shit off. That didn't happen but he didn't expect Biden to be able to lead a strong, unified response (sanctions etc.) after the disastrous years of trump poisoning the relationship the US has with Europe.

Unfortunately Putin just has to wait until western nations to elect fickle / Russian aligned leaders (like maybe trump again in 2024) to win out.

[nate_meurer]

No, Trump was absolutely "pro-putin", and sanctions were imposed in spite of his protests. The administration could not help but be staffed by competent Russia hawks, since those same folks were needed to push Trump's desired agenda on Iran, but with regard to "being tough on Russia", Trump himself often had to be dragged kicking and screaming.

https://www.wichitaliberty.org/united-states-government/trum...

EDIT:

I should point out that the Trump administration's small and ineffective sanctions aimed at Nord Stream 2 are the exception that proves the rule. Nord Stream 2 brought together a unique set of issues that inspired Trump: hatred of Germany and Merkel, hatred of NATO, and his religious love of fossil fuels, manfiested in fear that Nord Stream 2 would wipe out his dream of shipping natural gas to Europe on tanker ships.

But the stubborn reality is that Nord Stream 2 was built on Trump's watch, and in the end his sanctions did exactly nothing. They threatened only a tiny fraction of the uncompleted prohect-- a couple hundred kilometers-- which were simply completed anyway by a Russian company instead of a Swiss one.

[ars]

I'm having a hard time understanding your objection. From the article "Trump touted these as major achievements", but because he complained privately to his staff they .... somehow don't count?

But because Biden something something something, when he removed sanctions that somehow doesn't count either?

Since when do actions not speak louder than words?

(Not to mention these tell all Trump books are unlikely to be reliable sources.)

[nate_meurer]

When did I say they don't count?

> But because Biden something something something

That something involved acknowledging that the pipeline was mere months from being completed, and that the US could do nothing to stop it, so why continue to waste diplomatic capital in a fight that we've already lost. Especially since that diplomatic capital may soon be critical in persuading Germany to withhold certification of the pipeline.

And if you have any specific criticisms related to the accuracy of Bolton's claims, which align nicely with what we know of Trump from his public statements, feel free to explain.

[ars]

You come from a mindset where motivations matter more than actions.

It would take a lot of work for us to speak the same language, and I don't think HN is the place for that.

Edit: I did not flag you BTW. If you still need an answer to your question read the other comments in the thread. If you still don't understand the answer, then I don't know how to explain.

[nate_meurer]

I didn't ask a question. What I did do is make a logical assertion with a wee little bit of outside support. I then pointed out that you seemed unable to articulate a material response, which is still the case.

Did I miss anything? (there, that's a question :)

[golergka]

What matters is the end result. And just as you showed yourself, if american voter wanted to put pressure on Putin, he should've voted for Trump (and his administration) and not Biden.

[laverya]

In other words, Trump may have been pro-Russia but the Trump Administration was very tough-on-Russia.

As said by the grandparent.

[mhh__]

Technically it says trump and then gives the admin as evidence.

Given what I read in Michael Lewis's excellent book about his administration I do not believe the two are anywhere near as correlated as they would be for (say) Clinton and the Clinton administration or Truman etc. Even bush who was an edge case because of Cheney.

[nate_meurer]

No, at pain of pedantry, the grandparent said this:

> Western media portrayed Trump as "pro-Putin", but if you look at the actual decisions by administrations, he was the one who really pushed back against Putin, compared both to Obama and Biden.

The lack of distinction between Trump and the rest of his adminstration is exactly what Trump is now using to claim that he was "tough on Russia".