It’s official. The winner of the US presidential elections is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
I hear you. Putin’s name was nowhere near the ballot papers. It was Clinton versus Trump and a few also rans.
And, of course, it will be Donald J. Trump who takes the oath of office on the steps of the Capitol building and then moves into the prime piece of real estate at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But it was Putin, and the corrupt Russian oligarchy, who are the biggest beneficiaries of Trump’s election. The appointment of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State confirmed it– and the Trump Administration’s swing to a pro-Russian foreign policy. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson is undoubtedly a brilliant businessman. He is also a close friend of Putin and an even closer friend of Putin loyal Lieutenant Igor Sechin. He is also an opponent of Western sanctions against Russia and a man who will become very very rich if those sanctions are lifted.
Of course, Texan Rex still has to be confirmed by the Senate. But Republicans have a solid majority in the upper house and Tillerson has the backing of Republican foreign policy luminaries such as Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates, both of whom now work for lobbyists retained by Exxon Mobil.
Putin’s aims are simple. To re-establish Russian hegemony in Eastern Europe as a base for political supremacy in Eurasia; to replace the United States as the major non-Arab power in the Middle East and to stabilise his domestic political power base by engineering the lifting of Western sanctions.
Even before the election of Trump and the nomination of Tillerson things were going Putin’s way. The two biggest bulwarks against the expansion of Russian influence in Europe are the EU and NATO. The first provides a political and economic alternative and the other protects it with a US-backed defensive umbrella.
European unity was already suffering from its failure to recover from the 2008-2009 banking crisis and the refugee crisis of 2015 when Britain voted Brexit. That was quickly followed by the referendum vote in Italy which strengthened that country’s Eurosceptic Five Star Movement, and the selection of pro-Russian Francois Fillon as the Republican Party candidate in next spring’s French presidential elections.
As for NATO, from its 1949 start, the European allies have doubted the sincerity of Washington’s commitment to their defence. Moscow — under the communists and Putin — has consistently encouraged the doubters in an effort to “decouple” Europe from the United States. Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric about recognising the Russian annexation of Crimea, lifting sanctions against Russia, refusing to come to the aid of a NATO ally who has not committed at least two percent of their GDP to defense spending and now, the nomination of Rex Tillerson, has strengthened the hand of the doubters and increased the vulnerability of Europe to Russian pressure.
If Trump’s intention is to annoy and worry Europe then he doesn’t need to do any more. He has done enough just by raising questions which have forced Europeans to re-think their relationships with democratic America and authoritarian Russia.
As for the Middle East, well Putin won in Aleppo. Syria’s President Assad is now likely to stay in power. He owes Putin big time. The Russians have a solid military presence in the heart of the Arab world and a mountain of political capital.
It would appear that it was Russian military success in Syria that won the amoral heart of Donald Trump. The warplanes of single-minded Vladimir Putin are extremely effective at killing the Islamic Jihadists whose elimination is the stated number one foreign and defense policy objective of the American president-elect. The Russian planes are also remarkably good at eliminating innocent women and children and humanitarian aid convoys.
For President-elect Donald J. Trump it appears to boil down to a simple case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The problem is that in this case the enemy of Trump’s enemy is also the enemy of his country’s old and established friends in Europe.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Tristan Ward
cim
Tim Boura
Jenny Barnes
25 Comments
Tom
It is correct , the Trump presidency is a Putin presidency , a Farage one , and worse !
The Tillerson Secretary of state choice is shameful in the light of Syria and the Assad link, quite apart from the Exonmobil influence.
It all does rather raise the awkward question of whether it was foreseeable that the US would change direction at some point. Democracy suggest that changes of direction aren’t theoretical.
Is this something European leaders should have thought about?
Putin is a very accomplished and dangerous game player.
Pieces are moved into place. He plays a very holistic game board. Ukraine, Cyber attacks, Syria, Iran, the Baltic states, Georgia. It is not a world conspiracy view. He has investments sitting there, any signs of weaknesses, he is ready to make a move. If not cause agitation in one place to provide openings in another.
He is playing the long game too. He is not going anywhere soon and the final result is to reassert the dominance and sphere of influence of the USSR. Not the political ideological just pure power and influence.
A dangerous person and I don’t want to see WW3. I don’t have any answers…
Both the USA and Russia have monopoly capitalist systems. They both have oligarchs driving politics in their country. The USA bombed civilians in Vietnam during the 1960s and 70s, overthrew democracies in South America, etc.
So US’s Exxon is working with Russia’s Rosnef. Well, BP plc owns part of Rosnef, and so does Glencore: both FTSE100 companies.
Yes, can we as Welsh citizens invest in Wales’ largest steel producer ? …well…
….Only if you can access the Indian stock exchange. The easiest way to invest in a large steel producer quoted on the LSE? Yes, It’s Evraz (Russian steel, guess who owns 30% of it? and Chelsea football club) .
Yes, this is global capitalism.
See the whole picture before taking sides.
Europe has always been on its own except in the cold war when it was occupied by the 2 nuclear powers and opposing systems.
The EU needs its own foreign and defence policy separate from Washington and Moscow in its members and peoples interest.
Tom …. your interesting article deserves wider reading. I’m surprised there aren’t more comments.
Perhaps no one can offer any viable solutions about how to set this cruel world on a new course. Will the annihilation of our precious planet and its inhabitants be the closing move in this ‘game of power chess’.
A few replies to comments on my article:
Little Jackie Paper: I believe that by definition, if a political act occurred then it was forseeable. A bit mistake was made based on the same error as the Brexit vote– poor connection between the representatives of democracy and the people they represent. Damage limitation is the short-term order of the day and fixing the link between the governing and the governed is a long term priority.
Ethics Gradient: Yes, Putin is a very accomplished player with a clear goal and the determination and means to reach his goal by whatever means are necessary. The top down authoritarian political system gives such people an advantage. They can move much faster and more decisively than the bottom up representative democracies of the West. However, history has repeatedly proven that their gains are much more fragile than those achieved by the win/win system of consensual politics.
Ernest: Of course, the American political system is flawed. So is the British, the French, the German, the European Commission…. None of us are perfect, but a study of our collective histories shows that the implementation of our democratic values is helping us to constantly evolve towards better forms of government. . As for a more separate foreign and security policy– especially the formation of a European army, I can only say that it is something we may have to consider, but such a route is every bit as isolationist as the one that Donald Trump appears to be intent on pursuing. On top of that, developing a replacement for the American defensive umbrella would be be an incredibly complex and expensive operation. It would make negotiating Brexit terms look like a proverbial walk in the park.
Finally, Pat: Thank you for your kind comments. You may want to check out my podcast at http://www.lookaheadnews.com. I also do a regular column which is posted on the same website and called “Observations of an Expat.” As for World War III, I believe that a constant struggle to secure an international order based on the Lib Dem values of Openness, tolerance and unity, will eventually win the day. But it will be a struggle and it is constant. Henry Kissinger once said that even in the most prosperous and stable of times we are balanced on the edge of the abyss of disaster. In short, peace should never be taken for granted.
Tom Arms makes a powerful and serious geopolitical point which will surely make the UK realise the huge importance of remaining in the EU. We dare not risk another Munich and 1940! But who does this government’s strategic thinking?
@Tom Arms,
We are in agreement. Free, democratic societies have better long term futures. Because everyone has a chance to achieve their potential (if they wish to) and culmination of which is greater innovations, cultural developments and producing things.
What to do about the medium term of the next 10 years though? Appease Putin?contain Putin? confront Putin? have dialogue/work with Putin?
My Dad said long ago after the fall of the USSR that he could not believe they communists/USSR had just disappeared. I was more naive in those days… ‘ they are gone, USSR crumbled within’….. Maybe my Dad was right, they did not go, they just morphed, changed colours and waited for an opportunity to return.
Will we ever understand the Russians?
I too think Putin must be a very happy man. Now there is a pro Putin American President ( and who would ever have thought we would say that?) and a UK about to be separated from the EU, he has the two strongest opponents of communist Russia at their weakest point ever. In fact I wouldn’t put it past him to be financing the extreme right anti EU political parties in Europe because then he can build up the Soviet empire again as he is already starting to do.
The election of Trump has totally changed the political environment in which the Referendum was taken and may well totally disrupt NATO which Putin hates. He is already telling the Russian people there may well be a Third World War. It isn’t only our economic security that Brexit threatens but at the moment the Tories and the rest of the EU countries seem blind to the threat.
We Lib Dems want to prevent war, indeed it’s one of the reasons we support the EU, so I think we should be raising this issue as Tom has done whenever we have the opportunity and we must add it to the list of reasons why there must be a second referendum. No one anticipated that the West would be in this precarious position when people voted for Brexit because we had become too complacent about the peace the EU has given us.
John and Sue … what a shame you couldn’t resist linking Putin’s power play with Brexit. Putin’s behaviour has nothing to do with our national vote unless you wish to suggest that he interfered with our Referrendum result as people are claiming happened with the elections in the US. I don’t agree that we have ‘become too complacent about the peace the EU has given us’ …. how does that square with the evolving EU state and army? Just another power play.
Tom and colleagues
This is a very substantial area of genuine worry . The latest appointment of Trump , Rex Tillerson , the CIA revealing Russian hacking , the indifference and arrogance of the President – elect , the increasing level of the extent of the vote mandate of Hillary Clinton , the whole thing a shambles !
With the axis of Russia -Syria-Iran , in a war of true horror , we must be carefu and clear a hard one to do !
Pat, if Trump pulls America out of NATO, then Europe’s defence system will be in shreds. Putin isn’t just indulging in power play, he has already re-annexed some of Russia’s old territory and a weakened Europe will mean he can take back more. Look at what he has done in Syria. Now is not the time for us to become isolated and I don’t know why you would put Brexit above our national security and the prevention of war in the light of your earlier post.
Ethics Gradient: The input into strategic thinking is a collective effort involving British diplomats, academics, journalists, politicians, businessmen, NGOS and the general public. I like to think that our exchange makes a small contribution. The final direction and presentation– unfortunately– is the responsibility of Boris Johnson and Theresa May.
As for appease, contain, control or talk with Putin.? All but the first.
Regarding the Soviet Union, I agree with the American diplomat George F Kennan who maintained that the Soviet Union was more Russian than communist. For its long and sad history Russia been an autocracy driven by a national inferiority complex hitched to a paranoia which has driven that country to prove its worth through the barrel of a gun and territorial expansion.
Sue Sutherland: I believe that Putin is definitely aiding the far-right nationalist European powers. These parties are the biggest internal threat threat to European unity and that unity is perceived by Putin as the biggest threat to Russia.
Pat: As I agree with Sue I have to disagree with you about the absence of a link between Putin and Brexit. Have you listened to Farage extol the virtues of the Russian president?
I steer clear of conspiracy theories because generallyspeaking politics– especially international politics– has too many variables to allow any conspiracy theory to succeed. But common sense and a study of history leads me to conclude that Putin would favour any person or party that weakens the EU
Thanks for the post Tom.
I think you have to be little bit more nuanced with Putin. The Russian people are not total idiots. They will start to see through him more and more if they don’t already. His ethos is ‘Order against Chaos’. That’s what the Russian people get from him and it would not serve the Russian public to push him into isolationism. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. But never deceive yourself about his true nature. Besides, there are other flash points in the world to worry about in terms of Trumps Isolationism and lack of empathy. South China Sea and the rearmament of Japan. North Korea. The real threat in the middle east is Iran and a clash with Israel. If the USA tear up the Iran Nuclear deal that will put Israel and Iran on a collision course. In Europe we need to do what we are already doing, showing unity and a commitment to the Baltic States and Poland. And yes, I do think we should stay in the EU but in the absence of that we need to reaffirm our commitment European defense.
Pschos to the east of me, Pschos to the west, here I am stuck in the middle with EU.
Tom – Yours is what might, by analogy with models of the solar system, be described as a ‘Putin-centric’ view of global politics with everything revolving around the master manipulator.
But … the US economy is nearly 6x larger than Russia’s while the reach of its companies and international alliances are even more disproportionate. So, to change metaphor, which is the tail and which is the dog?
You say “Putin’s aims are simple” but have you seen inside his mind? An alternative interpretation is that Russia feels threatened by US expansionism which would actually be a very reasonable fear. The US has absolutely no rivals when it comes to destabilising and overthrowing governments – it’s a long list – and American evidence-free hostile invective makes it plain Russia is a target.
Specifically, the Russians believed they had assurances that, in return to allowing the reunification of Germany, NATO would not expand eastwards; in effect that the former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe would become a buffer zone which, given Russia’s 20th century history, is a very reasonable policy aim for Putin.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
From a Russian POV the US destabilisation of Ukraine was the last straw after a series of provocations and US involvement in Syria an opportunity to draw a line in the sand which Putin has done with immense skill. The US says it wants to promote democratic elements (when did that ever work in the Middle East?) but in practice has worked just as hard arming the jihadists in pursuit of the central US objective of destroying the Assad government as it has at fighting the jihadists.
The Assad government is deeply flawed but, as Lebanese-American Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains, it’s a lot better than the alternative (he omits how the factions approach the LGBT community which you can add for yourself).
https://medium.com/opacity/the-syrian-war-condensed-a-more-rigorous-way-to-look-at-the-conflict-f841404c3b1d#.rkhlvo767
Gordon, I don’t think Tom was describing Putin as some sort of Moriarty figure, just analysing current events from Putin’s viewpoint. However I’d like to take the conspiracy theory one step further. I think Jeremy Corbyn is an old style Trot and as I’m roughly the same age, I’ve met a few of them. In my opinion they want an extreme left takeover, probably through revolution, and think of Russia as the motherland. I have wondered if this explains Corbyn’s lacklustre support of the Remain campaign and Labour’s support of Brexit. Momentum resembles Militant tendency and may have close relations with Putin’s government who want to see a weakened EU.
I think it’s important to remember that the extreme left and the extreme right meet in dictatorship and violent oppression of opposition and minorities. We mustn’t be so concerned about the rise of right wing populism that we forget about the danger from the other side.
Sue Sutherland
Apart from the belief that Corbyn is a revolutionary , he is politically much of what you say but an incompetent ineffective politician as far as leadership .
Some of the far left are as worrying as anything on the far right , but we need therefore to make it clear we are in the radical centre and moderate centre left , and recognise fiends like Bright blue on the , vaguely right , only , barely , of centre.
Many apologies to Bright Blue who I like , friends not fiends , no amount of anti – Tory talk would let me think it of them of all people !!
It is interesting what Gordon has written. A lot can be considered as fact.
As I have said, we live in a global capitalist system where economics are linked and that includes EU to Russia and China. I am glad that Trump and Putin get on well and I hope it may be true, and that could avoid a world war !
I can not see why any mainstream Russian government would want to support any far-right mob gaining power in central and western Europe given the history of the Nazies and the costs of 20-30 million Russian lives during WW2.
Unlike the USA (2 identical establishment parties), the Russians do have a multi-party election system each with diverse views.
Putin and United Russia party (the current government) was elected by popular vote; the fact that URP made seat gains was at the expense of the ultra-nationalist Liberal-democratic party. The party that made the largest gain was ‘Fair Russia Party’.
Now consider in the USA: when Bernie Sanders was blocked from standing because he was too popular for the establishment, and Jill Stein (Green candidate) was blocked from entering most TV / media debates.
We should open relations with Fair Russia to press for continue reforms and to bring Russia into a united European Union and not to be fooled by US imperialist motives.
Ernest
Your comments are overblown to say the very least .
The love – in between Trump and Putin is not about collective peace but individual power .It is , in the midst of Russia hacking and interfering in America secretly or not , worrying .Add the appalling involvement of Putin in eastern European countries and especially for Assad and in Syria. He is no democrat and you painting his popularity as such is farfetched.
As for your comments on America’s two major parties being the same , that is as far from the truth as possible .The Democratic party runs ideologically and increasingly , from the left wing of the Tories , Sir John Major , Heidi Allen , Rory Stewart , Anna Soubry , etc would be Democrats , to the centre left , say Owen Smith , etc of Labour , and more or less all of the Liberal Democrats of British hue.
The Republican party is not that of Reagan much anymore , let alone Lincoln ! It is now a right wing conservative authoritaran and libertarian party of extremes.
As for Jill Stein,she is a very left wing , old fashioned political leftist I mean , complacent or worse on countries like Cuba or Syria , and one per cent of voter share does not merit inclusion in national debates !
Sue Sutherland – Russia today is a capitalist country but its version of capitalism is a very flawed one for several reasons especially the power of its oligarchs. In that, I agree with the original article.
The nature of Putin’s relationship to the oligarchs is less clear since even presidents and kings have to handle oligarchs with care. King John was bested by the barons (as oligarchs were then known) with the Magna Carta, the first iteration of which was only about barons’ rights, not people’s rights.
FWIW my impression is that Putin is gradually manoeuvring to put the oligarchs under the rule of law but only time will tell. I don’t think he’s anyone’s patsy and he’s certainly a whole lot smarter than King John.
What the article leaves out is the influence of oligarchs in Britain and the west, especially the US. We don’t hear much of this for the simple reason they control the MSM which has become vastly more concentrated in recent years – meaning that fewer magnates control ever more of it. With control of the press it’s easy to fabricate a scare that requires a strong response just as with Saddam Hussain’s mythical (as it turned out) WMD. Now there’s a new favourite villain “Look, it’s Putin wot done it” but, just as with Iraq there is little or no evidence – just “CIA sources” or similar.
So, I agree with Ernest that the two main parties in the US are functionally similar in that they both work primarily for the oligarchs and that is why, by any rational assessment, we just had two of the worst candidates in history when there was another – Bernie Sanders – who the polls agree would have walked it despite the virtual blackout of his campaign by the MSM albeit that they grudgingly had to do some reporting when he closed the gap on Clinton and according to many actually won but was robbed by the DNC putting its thumb on the scale for Clinton.
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/
@Lorenzo Cherin:
Your blind faith in the veracity of our media on the subject of Russian Policy on Ukraine and Syria is incredibly depressing.
“Add the appalling involvement of Putin in eastern European countries and especially for Assad and in Syria.”
Being a Liberal doesn’t mean that one should become uncritical in what one’s own government and media bubble may spoonfeed us, often continually regurgitated stories from unchecked and dubious sources. Did you know, for instance, that:
1. Russia, during Putin’s early years in power, asked to join NATO, but were immediately rejected?
2. Russia under Yeltsin was universally praised by Western countries as being democratic, yet underwent a massive economic collapse while Russian oligarchical power and corruption (favouring Western interests) was then far greater?
3. An undemocratic coup forced the elected Ukrainian pro-Moscow govt from power and that new govt issued a decree to ban Russian as a national language- despite half of Ukrainians being Russian speakers?
4. Those “Eastern Aleppo rebels” who are Syrians were mostly from the countryside, not city. They are almost all jihadist groups, of which the largest (est. at least 30%) is the Syrian Al Qaeda.
5. The “rebel” takeover of large parts of eastern Aleppo in 2012 meant most residents in those districts fled to govt held areas, leaving those who couldn’t flee, or those who were “rebel” supporters -at most 10% of Aleppan opinion.
6. These “rebels” beseiged western Aleppo- shelling & maiming 1.2million civilians in the smaller govt area- no Western govts or media objected then to “rebel” war crimes!
7. 14 military advisors from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and the US guiding these “rebels” were captured yesterday, hiding in a basement.
8. One key reason that “rebel” evacuations and their civilian followers were suspended last week was that the rebels were not only smuggling large weaponry, but also civilian prisoners.
9. Eastern Aleppo “rebels” held prisons, torture chambers, beheaded children (eg 12 year old from Palestinian camp), and liquidated those questioning their policies or suggesting they preferred the Syrian govt.
10. Foreign Governments – including the UK!- fund and train Syrian opposition media specialists.
PS The Guardian is one of the worst offenders of UK media on shoddy reporting of propaganda on Putin and the Syrian conflict.
This has come since the tragic appointment of a driven, blinkered complacent, self-entitled Foreign affairs commentator, Natalie Nougayrede.
Her stint as editor at Le Monde (before the Guardian) was a disaster for that paper as she pushed for getting those people who shared her political views a platform for their in- depth opinions alone.
The Guardian has let her stamp her angle on Putin and Syria all over it.
Thomas HJ
I am influenced blindly by no one , I am not a supporter of the opposite of everything , but of the truth within the mainstream .
I dislike the likes of Putin . I detest the likes of Assad .How that means I like those as bad but different escapes me . The enemy of my enemy is my friend , is not a favourite saying of Liberals or any true democrat .
I defend no jahadists. I prefer the Ming Campbell Paddy Asdown world view to many .
And I listened with respect to the remarkable Jo Cox on these subjects while she lived and remember her now she does not .
The views of Kate Godfrey who has just joined my party , our party , on this site , the Liberal Democrats . A fine example of a woman too marvellous in her moderation mainstream now for Labour , she has , with her work in the UN , lived and helped in Syria. Read her on Assad , Putin et al
I have to say that I think this is complete nonsense. This sounds a lot like the spinners within the Clinton campaign ‘Russia rigged the election’, ‘Wikileaks is backed by the Russian government’ (this claim was never substantiated) and all these allegations of ‘fake news’, which if you think about it is not just an issue with the smaller outlets but much bigger ones too.
I feel that a more positive relationship with Russia would not be a bad thing. Our main enemy is climate change, which the Trump administration will do nothing for. That being said, a less adversarial relationship could well aid security and help to take down ISIS and their evil collaborators. It is best to have Russia and other world powers on the same side when we face a common and unpredictable danger.
I agree with Gordon in that there is also another side to the argument which is that Russia feels threatened by NATO expansion. What has all the antagonism favoured by neoconservatives towards Russia achieved? Nothing.
The European Union had the chance to develop their own foreign policy. It has chosen not to do so but to instead blindly support US expansionism for decades. The imminent creation of an EU wide army which was denied by our former leader, Nick Clegg, has proven to be true.
The Russian and Syrian governments should be held accountable for civilian deaths in Syria but we could also say the same about our own actions or bombs in Yemen or Iraq. There are not any major countries within the foreign policy sphere that have not committed heinous actions and crimes. I also believe that this should be investigated across the board but it will not be because the forces of western hierarchy and imperialism within the international criminal courts are too great. If the world doesn’t play by the same rules then the credibility of that system does not exist.