The subject line, minus the question mark, is the title of a truly remarkable opinion article by Max Boot in the Washington Post. Remarkable, even if you were to believe (which is simply assumed in this column) that Putin was responsible for Russian “meddling” and that those efforts were responsible for Trump’s election, both remarkably dubious assertions.
The article compares the pros and cons of Putin's alleged "gamble" of getting Trump elected. Here are the cons for Russia which Boot himself lays out: "he has authorized the sale of lethal weaponry to Ukraine, expanded sanctions to include 38 Russian individuals and companies involved in the invasion of Ukraine, requested more defense spending and launched a cruise missile strike on the Syrian regime of Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad." Facts. He even omits some, like the fact that Trump hasn't even returned the seized Russian compounds.
Now check out the supposed pros for Russia which represent the “gamble paying off big-time”. Most of them are words: Trump "routinely trashes everyone from Oprah Winfrey to Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), [but] never has a negative word to say about Russian President Vladimir Putin." Trump "still plays down its [Russian meddling] importance and refuses to respond". The one actual deed he cites is the fact that Trump, via Mike Flynn, talked Russia into not immediately retaliating for Obama’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. Wait, wasn’t that a good thing for the U.S.? How exactly did that benefit Russia?
Remarkable.
Comment Policy : Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, saepe gubergren sed id, et est posse insolens temporibus, alterum blandit offendit est et. Quando vocibus nam at. Quo malis detraxit ut, eu nulla decore mentitum, eu ferri postulant urbanitas pri. Nihil consul viderer vel ea, vel doctus accusamus gloriatur ut. Elitr iuvaret.