Posted on 12/12/2016 9:45:31 PM PST by ErikJohnsky
Instead, they purport to be the experts qualified to make recommendations to Trump.
But is that what he still is? I’m not saying it’s a sure thing cause I don’t know the man but people can and do have coming to God moments and turn from their old ways. Just wondering why can’t Putin be given the benefit of the doubt? After all, he seems to be pro- Christian, church and family these days.
Lots of people that could win a bingo game believe they just know who is best for every damn EH post.
I’ve yet to see one where there wasn’t some wannabe talking head here insists that (insert reason here) proves that so and such is a “bad pick”, and instead the pick should be some super famous person in conservative media circles...because reasons.
Putin’s goal is to restore the Russian imperial state. The USSR mobilized it by appeals to Marxist-Leninism and soviet man, post-Yeltsin Russia is doing it by elevating the Orthodox Church and Russian nationalism. The only thing the Russian elite believes in is maintaining and acquiring power.
But the goal is the same - achieve local strategic dominance and creep outward from there. The first thing the USSR did after winning their civil war was to retake the Ukraine.
It then immediately tried for Poland but had to wait for WW2 before entirely locking up Eastern Europe and the baltics. Russia is struggling against Islam only because it interferes with its political hegemony in Chechnya and Central Asia.
Insofar Putin was rooting for Trump it’s because he thinks Trump will pull us out of NATO. That seems unlikely to happen - the defense community has been making the same point Trump did for decades that Europe needs to pay for more of its own defense burden for NATO’s security guarantee to be stable, but he’s been saying it much more stridently than anyone has before.
Syria is the other obvious place where Trump is better for Russia than Clinton. Defeating ISIS will stabilize the Syrian government who is his client state as well as Iraq.
Condi Rice has endorsed the pick,and James Baker also,whatever that means,Rice is touted to be an expert on Russia
Come on, folks. I’m inclined to trust Trump’s judgment. He obviously knows things and sees things that we don’t.
Do something useful for a change:
troll
Gaffney is a neo-con artist, don’t trust him.
That’s right. We have more in common with the Russians on policy than ever before.
Tillerton sounds like an outstanding. I love even more that McLame and Erik Erickson are strongly against him.
Gaffney is a globalist neo-con war merchant. I have concerns about Tillerson, but seeing people like this oppose him gives me some comfort.
You are absolutely correct. I must have had a brain fart.
Trust me, doing business with someone doesn’t make you their friend or lapdog.
+2.
Don’t forget Powell.
Tillerson is probably one of the 10 most qualified people in the country to be Secretary of State. He is infinitely more qualified than Hillary Clinton or John Kerry and both easily were approved by the Senate. He has successfully managed a large, complex global organization. These skills are essential for reorganizing and reforming the State Department bureaucracy. He has a global network of business and political connections. He knows how to negotiate good deals on a global basis with nations and corporations.
As to his Russian connections, Russia is the largest producer of oil in the world. Tillerson has been CEO of the largest US based multinational oil company. It is natural he would know Russian leaders and businessmen given that many of the oil deals with Russia are as much about politics as they are about business. Given that Russia has been an adversary of the US for almost a century, the knowledge of internal Russian politics and behavior of the players is invaluable for a Secretary of State. The fact Putin respects Tillerson does not mean Tillerson is a pushover for Putin or is aligned more with Russian interests than with American interests. On the contrary, Putin’s respect for Tillerson will make Secretary of State Tillerson a more credible negotiator than either Hillary or John Kerry.
We must also remember the global economy still runs on petroleum, and will continue to do so for at least the next two decades. Much of the diplomatic work of the State Department is related to securing reliable supplies of petroleum for western countries allied with the United States. Geopolitics center around oil supplies, hence the turmoil in the Middle East. Much of the Chinese military expansion in south east Asia (the island airstrips for example) are related to oil drilling in the future. Tillerson understands the geopolitics of oil from first hand experience. Certainly he knows the issues better than consultants from think tanks, academics, politicians, and journalists.
Anyone who can successfully run Exxon Mobil has to be smart and tough. Tillerson will walk into the job and be respected by both our allies and enemies, unlike his recent predecessors.
Finally, the State Department needs a major overhaul. Bringing an outsider in ensures there are no sacred cows when the slashing of the bureaucracy begins.
“Trust me, doing business with someone doesn’t make you their friend or lapdog.”
I agree. During my business career some of the best business deals I negotiated were with people I would never invite to my house for dinner.
Exactly. In 1996 I did a deal (for a company I worked for) with a large South Korean company. It took me two weeks in country. $9 million dollar contract. I wouldn’t cross the street to put any of those guys out if they were on fire.
” I wouldn’t cross the street to put any of those guys out if they were on fire.”
My guess is Tillerson has a better perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the major players in Russia than anyone in the CIA, much less the State Department.
Hey, Soros troll, the fact that you’re siding with McCain, Graham and the Washington Post is all we need to know about you. Get lost.
Now if DJT had only selected Frank for SoS everything would be just dandy ...
Since Frank Gaffney insisted (and perhaps still does) that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, he has essentially zero credibility on any foreign policy issue as far as I’m concerned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.