[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".