Weak Stupid Trump Has No Power Over Russia And Will Pay For Defying Put
From
Stephen Miller@21:1/5 to
All on Wed Feb 19 19:16:18 2025
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism
Defying Putin will be the end of Trump.
Why Is Trump Spouting Russian Propaganda?
The president�s endorsement of the U.S.S.R.�s invasion of Afghanistan
echoes a narrative promoted by Vladimir Putin.
Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting on January 2, 2019.
Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting on January 2, 2019. (Jim Young
/ Reuters)
It was only one moment in a 90-minute stream of madness.
President Donald Trump convened a Cabinet meeting, at which he invited all
its members to praise him for his stance on the border wall and the
government shutdown. There�s always a lively competition to see which
member of the Cabinet can grovel most abjectly. The newcomer Matthew
Whitaker may be only the acting attorney general, but despite�or perhaps because of�that tentative status, he delivered one of the strongest
entries, saluting the president for sacrificing his Christmas and New
Year�s holiday for the public good, and contrasting that to members of
Congress who had left Washington during the Trump-created crisis.
But that was not the crazy part.
The crazy part came during the president�s monologue defending his decision
to withdraw all 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria and 7,000 from Afghanistan,
about half the force in that country.
David Frum: The crisis facing America
�Russia used to be the Soviet Union,� he said.
Afghanistan made it Russia, because they went bankrupt fighting in Afghanistan. Russia � the reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going into Russia. They were right to be there. The problem
is, it was a tough fight. And literally they went bankrupt; they went into being called Russia again, as opposed to the Soviet Union. You know, a lot
of these places you�re reading about now are no longer part of Russia,
because of Afghanistan.
Let�s go to the replay:
The reason Russia was in Afghanistan was because terrorists were going
into Russia. They were right to be there.
To appreciate the shock value of Trump�s words, it�s necessary to dust off
some Cold War history. Those of us who grew up in the last phases of the
Cold War used to know it all by heart, but I admit I had to do a little Googling to refresh my faded memories.
Through the 1970s, Afghanistan had been governed by a president who was friendly to the Soviet Union, but it was not reliably under Soviet control. That president, Mohammad Daoud Khan, became convinced that the local
Communists were plotting against him. He struck first, assassinating one Communist leader in April 1978, and arresting others.
Instead of preventing the plot, this coup-from-above triggered it. In April 1978, the Communists�enabled by their strong presence in Afghanistan�s Soviet-trained military�seized power.
The new regime launched an ambitious modernizing agenda: women�s rights,
land reform, secularization. That project went about as well as expected.
While the Communists appealed to a small, educated elite in Kabul, they offended the ultraconservative countryside. Violent guerrilla resistance gathered. The guerrillas called themselves �mujahideen,� holy warriors. The Kabul government dismissed them as �bandit elements� and �terrorists.�
Read: What Putin really wants
By the end of 1979, the Kabul-based Communist government was teetering,
nearing collapse. The Soviet authorities in Moscow blamed the incompetence, corruption, and internecine violence of their local allies. In December
1979, they overthrew and killed the then-Communist leader, installed
somebody more compliant, and deployed 85,000 troops to enforce their rule
over the countryside. The Soviets had expected a brief, decisive
intervention like those in Prague in 1968 or Budapest in 1956. Instead, the
war turned into a grinding Vietnam-in-reverse. The Soviets withdrew,
defeated, in 1989.
Here�s why Trump�s lopsided view of this story is so telling. Inflicting
that defeat on the U.S.S.R. was a major bipartisan foreign-policy priority
of the 1980s. The policy was designed by Jimmy Carter�s national-security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and executed by the Reagan administration.
It�s amazing enough that any U.S. president would retrospectively endorse
the Soviet invasion. What�s even more amazing is that he would do so using
the very same falsehoods originally invoked by the Soviets themselves: �terrorists� and �bandit elements.�
It has been an important ideological project of the Putin regime to rehabilitate and justify the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Putin does not care so much about Afghanistan, but he cares a lot about the image of the U.S.S.R. In 2005, Putin described the collapse of the Soviet
Union as (depending on your preferred translation) �the greatest
geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century� or �a major geopolitical disaster
of the 20th century��but clearly a thing very much to be regretted.
The war in Afghanistan helped bring about that collapse, not because it bankrupted the Soviet regime�that was an effect of the break in the price
of oil after 1985�but because it forced a reckoning between the Soviet
regime and Soviet society. As casualties mounted, as soldiers returned home addicted to heroin, Soviet citizens began demanding the right to speak the truth, not only about the war in Afghanistan, but about all Soviet reality.
It�s fitting that Putin�s campaign to reimpose official lying would
culminate in a glorification of the catastrophic Afghanistan war. And
clearly, that campaign has swayed the mind of the president of the United States.
As of mid-morning on January 3, the day after the president�s repetition of Soviet-Putinist propaganda in the Cabinet room, there has been no attempt
by the White House to tidy things up: no presidential tweet, no corrective statement. The president�s usual defenders�Sean Hannity, Fox & Friends, the anti-anti-Trump Twitter chorus�have likewise ignored the whole matter.
They�re back to denouncing the Steele dossier, fulminating against Mueller,
and reprising the Clinton-email drama. There�s apparently nothing they can think of to say in exoneration or excuse.
Putin-style glorification of the Soviet regime is entering the mind of the president, inspiring his words and�who knows�perhaps shaping his actions.
How that propaganda is reaching him�by which channels, via which
persons�seems an important if not urgent question. But maybe what happened yesterday does not raise questions. Maybe it inadvertently reveals answers.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)