Excellent!
Here’s the Donald:
LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) – U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said he will offer to end sanctions against Russia in return for a nuclear arms reduction deal with Kremlin chief Vladimir Putin, The Times newspaper reported.
In an interview with The Times of London, Trump said he wanted nuclear weapons arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers — the United States and Russia — to be “reduced very substantially”.
“They have sanctions on Russia – let’s see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that’s part of it,” Trump was quoted by the newspaper as saying.
Trump also criticised Russia for its intervention in the Syrian civil war, describing it as “a very bad thing” that had led to a “terrible humanitarian situation,” The Times said.
And people complain I never say anything good about Trump.
Am I changing my tune? Or is he? Here’s Trump a couple months ago:
Almost any list of America’s top foreign rivals would include Iran, Russia and the government of Syria.
Sunday night, Donald Trump spoke approvingly of all three.
Trump infuriated Republican insiders—and contradicted one of his own senior foreign policy advisers—when he suggested that those three governments are playing a positive role in Syria’s civil war.
I’m sure there’s an ingenious secret plan behind all this—run a campaign on the exact opposite of what you plan to do. I eagerly await Trump’s immigration amnesty announcement. Seriously, when he does something sensible, I’ll give him credit.
PS. Bob Murphy has a hobby of spotting contradictions—he’ll have lots of fun with Trump.
PPS. The nuclear arms thing also seems different from what he’s been saying, although in that case I suppose you could argue his views were always conditional on Russian moves. I don’t recall his exact promises during the campaign. Also good to see he isn’t willing to remove sanctions without something from Putin—I had the opposite impression, maybe from his alt-right fans.
Tags:
15. January 2017 at 16:22
There are photos of President Ronald Reagan hugging Gorbachov and they reached an arms deal.
Trump strikes me as the modern-day version of Ronald Reagan. Their personal styles are different, but policies are similar.
Edwin Meese, the old Reaganaut, in on the Trump transition team. I do not think he will reprise his anti-pornographer role.
An
15. January 2017 at 18:03
Yes, give credit when it’s due. But with all things Trump, we’ll have to see what actually happens. I agree this sounds good.
15. January 2017 at 18:25
I notice an absence of any explanation of how those two quotes are opposites.
Just because Sumner is an enemy of social progress and economic prosperity, it doesn’t mean that there is no way for him to provide at least some positive value to someone in the world in a particular way. By his logic though, everyone should ostracize him from society.
15. January 2017 at 18:38
Trump has always said that he is first and foremost a deal maker. His criticism of trade and foreign policy deals has always been that previous American negotiators of those deals were not very good at it. He said he would get better deals done than they did.
The real trouble is that it seems from his appointments that for trade agreements, at least, Trump’s idea of a good deal is basically the same mercantilism that Adam Smith was criticizing 240 years ago.
But his ideas as to what constitutes a good foreign policy deal may not be so bad. It wouldn’t take much to improve on Obama’s foreign policy.
15. January 2017 at 18:55
Sumner should move to ISIS-held territory, given that he’s singing their praises here.
Seriously, he should. Just to show everyone he’s sincere.
Seriously, Russia’s intervention has been a very good thing for Syria and was the turning point in the war.
“I don’t recall his exact promises during the campaign. Also good to see he isn’t willing to remove sanctions without something from Putin—I had the opposite impression, maybe from his alt-right fans.”
-Trump’s a negotiator, not a follower of morality and decency. After all, both the latter would require immediate removal of all post-2013 sanction on Russia.
15. January 2017 at 20:10
If a nuclear arms reduction agreement is reached, do you suppose Trump will give Obama credit for imposing the sanctions in the first place? Without them Trump would have nothing to bargain with.
15. January 2017 at 20:40
“Upon meeting Vladimir Putin in 2001, President George W. Bush announced that he had looked the Russian leader in the eye and found him to be “straightforward and trustworthy.”
–30–
And people say Trump is a lulu….
15. January 2017 at 21:15
I love to see people talking a lot about president-“elect”… still..
How much time spent for a president election?
16. January 2017 at 02:05
I don’t exactly favor lifting sanctions on Russia. But at least Trump is playing tit for tat. It seems he will alway try to reach a deal and not just give up something of value without getting something in return. That distinguishes him a lot from Obama.
(Just think of the “deal” with Iran for example, in which the Western world and Israel basically got nothing in return).
I also do not get why Sumner took the statements from Tillerson and others so seriously a few days ago. Everything they said there was during the hearing in front of the Senate. They simple stated what the Senate wanted to hear. I personally liked what they said but I don’t take it that seriosly. It was just a hearing in front of the Senate to get into office.
The general outlook didn’t change either. As always with Trump nothing is sure, we just need to wait and see what will happen.
I still stick to my prediction that his foreign policy will be better than Obama’s. Simply because this should be rather easy. Israel, Russia, China, Iran, he can’t deal with them worse than Obama did.
I’m more worried about his trade policy tough. I never thought that he would take his stupid tariff policy seriously. But it seems he does.
16. January 2017 at 05:05
He’s going to hit the re-re-set button?
16. January 2017 at 05:17
Actually, this idea of Trump’s is horrible. In the first half of the twentieth century, with no atom bombs available the developed world fought two destructive wars. After they were invented, and used (to end one of those wars, saving perhaps millions of Japanese lives), there have been zero world wars.
Even those proxy wars between the superpowers–Vietnam, Korea–were limited by the existence of nukes. Why fix something that’s not broken.
16. January 2017 at 07:41
Trump may say sensible things from time to time but that does not a policy make. It’s the random hit in a scattershot of hit and miss expletives. For a while I thought he cozies up to Russia because of a strategy to slam China (trade, islands) and he needs to keep his back free. Now this suggestion, which will not please the Russians – they sure don’t like being made fun of.
Either way, it looks like WYSIWIG: Trump will apparently remain the angry, fitful clown he was during the primaries. Midnight tweets as policy tools, in a style that reminds the Jerry Springer show… Who would have thunked America could sink so low. What a disgrace to all the decent people there, people who actually risk their lives for the country, or their fortunes in business. Who try to make sense and work hard, instead of just lashing out. What an insult to have this mouthbreather at the helm, who never put himself in harm’s way for anything or anybody.
Then again, who knows. If he keeps on badmouthing his security apparatus, maybe the praetorian guard will eventually get tired of it, arrest him, and deport him with his family. To Mexico.
16. January 2017 at 08:41
Sigh, another Sumner post, another day in the office rebutting him (easy work but tedious). First off, anything Sumner says must be wrong, so let’s look for the flaws: Sumner is obviously unaware that both RU and the US have too many nuclear weapons (~12k missiles each in the Cold War –without Googling it–half that many now) enough to kill the world many times over, so in exchange for reducing this too high number–and keep in mind many of these weapons, due to the half life of the nuclear bombs therein, must be retired anyway–RU gets a pass in the Ukraine. Good deal for Putin, bad deal for Trump. Trump gets outfoxed by the Russian bear; the obverse of the art of the deal. Second, as Russ Abbott says upstream, anything bargained away by Trump was only there because Obama put it there, so thank Obama for getting these chips. On this last point, the supposed–says Sumner–mistake of Obama’s ‘Red Line’ in Syria was actually a success: as Obama said recently on ’60 Minutes’, Syria actually reduced their chemical weapons stockpile by 90% or more since Obama made the “red line” comment, so Obama’s impromptu ‘red line’ comment reaped welcome dividends.
16. January 2017 at 09:07
Scott wrote:
“PS. Bob Murphy has a hobby of spotting contradictions—he’ll have lots of fun with Trump.”
Nah, Scott, finding contradictions in politicians is too easy. Instead I like to focus on no-nonsense bloggers who start one post like this:
“Some Trump supporters actually viewed him as the “peace candidate”, citing Hillary’s hawkishness on issues like Russian expansionism. But wars aren’t usually caused by hawkishness, they are caused by incompetence and mixed signals and recklessness.”
…then literally 2 posts later praise Trump for being dovish on Russia, and don’t say anything like, “OK maybe I was too smug when I mocked Trump supporters for suggesting he’d act like this.”
16. January 2017 at 09:10
Are “B Cole” and “Benjamin Cole” different commenters?
16. January 2017 at 10:12
Benjamin Cole,
Bush (and Obama) were so bad, I would only prefer them to Trump by FOUR orders of magnitude!
It does have to be admitted that as wrong as both Bush and Obama were on Russia and Putin, Trump has inexplicably managed to be worse. Even on this specific story I think Trump is wrong. A MUTUAL reduction in arms shouldn’t need to involve a concession to Russia. Seems like Trump sucks at deals (and this is just his proposal!) as much as he sucks at understanding international trade.
16. January 2017 at 10:35
Scott,
I’m obviously more hawkish than you. I see the end of sanctions and more nuclear arms control as both wins fit Russia. I prefer, if anything, increasing pressure on Russia with more troops in eastern Europe and, if need be, a stronger nuclear posture.
Russia can easily be contained if we’re willing to increase the pressure.
16. January 2017 at 13:08
@Cameron
A MUTUAL reduction in arms shouldn’t need to involve a concession to Russia.
A good observation. Seen from this angle I have to admit that you are right.
@Patrick
with no atom bombs available
Obama liked to talk about a nuclear-weapon-free world endlessly. There’s no indication that Trump is this stupid in this regard. He just wants to reduce the nuclear arsenal. An arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads that can kill the world many times over, which doesn’t make that much sense. It’s also very expensive.
16. January 2017 at 13:29
Ben, Yeah, Trump’s just like Reagan. (Rolls eyes)
Jeff, You said:
“Trump has always said that he is first and foremost a deal maker. His criticism of trade and foreign policy deals has always been that previous American negotiators of those deals were not very good at it. He said he would get better deals done than they did.”
If Trump actually knew anything about the world, he’d know that past trade deals strongly favored the US (which is a big bully, like Trump) Foreign trade experts just roll their eyes when Trump says the US is getting the short end of the stick on trade deals. We should renegotiate NAFTA to favor Mexico and Canada.
Patrick, One can favor having nukes, and also favor having fewer of them. Fewer nukes mean a smaller probability of accidental launch. What’s wrong with that?
Try watching Dr. Strangelove again—it’s not all that far from real life (accidental nuclear war almost happened a couple times.)
mbka, Yup, today he was back bashing the EU and NATO. Perhaps he thinks Europe did better before those organizations were created. He’s just completely random.
You said:
“What a disgrace to all the decent people there, people who actually risk their lives for the country, or their fortunes in business.”
It’s a disgrace to Trump, but not to ordinary Americans. America and its government are two very different things. To me, Trump’s just another government worker, not “my” president. He has nothing to do with my real life. Unless you mean he disgraces the image of America overseas, which is obviously true. But recall that he’s very unpopular here, 51% think he’s doing a poor job as president elect, vs. a normal 15% to 20% for incoming presidents.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201833/approval-trump-transition-low-inauguration-nears.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication
Bob, Why should I retract my earlier comment when this post proves my point. Trump is a loose cannon that might say or do literally anything. He’s completely unpredictable, random, which is how wars happen. That was my point, wasn’t it? Today he was back bashing NATO, which increases the risk of a Russian attack on the Baltics.
Scott, The way to contain Russia is to make it crystal clear that an attack on Estonia is no different from attack on Iowa. I think you and I probably agree that Trump’s falling a bit short in that endeavor. Hopefully the new Secretary of Defense can knock some sense into his pea-sized brain.
16. January 2017 at 13:44
‘Try watching Dr. Strangelove again—it’s not all that far from real life (accidental nuclear war almost happened a couple times.)’
Actual wars did happen, somewhat accidentally, far more often. WWI being the obvious example. And I doubt the NUMBER of nukes is much of a factor in the equation. Unlike during the Cuban Missile Crisis, say, where our retaliatory capacity surely had deterrence effects.
16. January 2017 at 13:49
Then there’s the guy who advised Kubrick;
http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300143379/arms-and-influence
‘Today, however, in our world of nuclear weapons, military power is not so much exercised as threatened. It is, Mr. Schelling says, bargaining power, and the exploitation of this power, for good or evil, to preserve peace or to threaten war, is diplomacy—the diplomacy of violence. The author concentrates in this book on the way in which military capabilities—real or imagined—are used, skillfully or clumsily, as bargaining power. He sees the steps taken by the U.S. during the Berlin and Cuban crises as not merely preparations for engagement, but as signals to an enemy, with reports from the adversary’s own military intelligence as our most important diplomatic communications. ‘
16. January 2017 at 14:14
He’s completely unpredictable, random, which is how wars happen. That was my point, wasn’t it?
But is this point really true? You might as well say the opposite: Putin went to war with Georgia because he thought that the Western world would do nothing about it. (And he was right.) The same with Putin and Ukraine. The same with Putin and Syria. The same with Saddam Hussein and Kuwait. The same with Hitler and Austria, and then the Sudetenland, and then Czechoslovakia, and then Poland.
The way to contain Russia is to make it crystal clear that an attack on Estonia is no different from attack on Iowa.
Finally a good point. But did Obama make this crystal clear? I mean he might have said it but it was never ever convincing. Everybody knows that the Baltic states can not be defended. Russia can take them down within 36 to 60 hours. And then what? The super-rational Obama going to war because of the Baltic states? This is not convincing at all.
You really need a madman for this to be convincing. You even said it yourself: There needs to be some probability that you carry through with this. And you said it yourself again: Trump is a loose cannon that might do literally anything.
So I’ll stay with my prediction. Trump really is kind of a madman (to some extent) and therefore he might be EXACTLY this one person that assures this “some probability” that the Western world might need so badly.
16. January 2017 at 14:16
I’ve managed to find an ungated site for Schelling’s famous essay, ‘Meteors, Mischief and War’
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/1960/December%201960/1260meteors.pdf
————quote————–
Accidental war is often adduced as a powerful motive for disarmament. The multiplication and dispersion of ever more powerful weapons seems to carry an ever growing danger of accidental war; and many who are confident that deliberate attack is adequately
deterred are apprehensive about the accidental-war possibilities inherent in the arms race.
But there is a conflict—and a serious one—between the urge to have fewer weapons in the interest of fewer accidents and the need—still thinking about accidental war—to have forces so secure and so adequate that they need not react with haste for fear Of being unable to react at all, and that the enemy has enough confidence in our ability to be calm to be calm himself. A retaliatory system that is inadequate not only makes the possessor jumpy but is ground for
the enemy’s being jumpy, too.
It is important to keep in mind, too, that ( as in any other business) accidents can be reduced by spending more money. To correlate weapons, accidents, and arms budgets, ignores the fact that the security of, control over, and communication with,
one’s retaliatory forces is an important and expensive
part of the military establishment. For a given number of weapons, more money may mean more reliable communications and command procedures. Skimpy budgets can mean skimpy protection against malfunction, confusion, and mischief.
————endquote—————-
16. January 2017 at 15:51
To know what Trump is doing, you have to do more than take something he says at face value. People don’t normally make the mistake of only taking things at face value, but for some reason in politics it is commonplace.
16. January 2017 at 16:20
Bob Murphy: yes thanks for asking, B Cole and Benjamin Cole are the same guy…different on-line devices…
Well,there is one substantial way Reagan differs from Trump: Reagan implemented protectionist policies more aggressive than those that Trump has proposed.
Yes, the style of Trump is jarring next to Reagan. Trump is a braggadocio, sometimes low class, while Reagan was a courtly gentlemen.
But a tax cut for the wealthy is a tax cut for the wealthy whether done by a clown or a prince.
16. January 2017 at 17:30
I was hoping this post was going to be about Mr. Burns, with a picture of him rubbing his hands together in glee. But I’ll take this one anyway …
16. January 2017 at 19:52
“Why should I retract my earlier comment when this post proves my point. Trump is a loose cannon that might say or do literally anything. He’s completely unpredictable, random, which is how wars happen.”
See that folks? Sumner contradicts himself, and his excuse is “because Trump”.
You can’t make stuff this up.
Also notice Sumner pleading against “unpredictability” and “randomness”.
No wonder he hates capitalism and entrepreneurs. Now it makes sense.
Oh, b-b-but politics is different? That politics must be all about predictability and non-randomness? Not only is that impossible, since HUMAN ACTION IS UNPREDICTABLE, but it is also dangerous and destructive to try. This is beyond Sumner’s comprehension, but it has to do with the same fundamentals of why the Lucas Critique is a thing, among other things.
16. January 2017 at 20:03
Scott wrote: “Bob, Why should I retract my earlier comment when this post proves my point.”
OK Scott, we can do this the hard way if you want.
1) You earlier said that Trump’s fanboys were mistaken when they claimed he was the peace candidate. On the contrary, his foreign policy moves would be more likely to start a war.
2) Now you’ve said that Trump’s behavior, described in the present post, proves your point.
3) You titled this post “Excellent!”
4) I can only conclude that you like war.
17. January 2017 at 10:16
“Today he was back bashing NATO, which increases the risk of a Russian attack on the Baltics.”
-It also increases the much higher risk of a Canadian attack on Michigan (cf., war of 1812). So what? NATO is little more than an Islamist terrorist organization.
“Yup, today he was back bashing the EU and NATO. Perhaps he thinks Europe did better before those organizations were created.”
-France and Spain must be war-torn hellholes for being out of NATO for so long.
“I think you and I probably agree that Trump’s falling a bit short in that endeavor.”
-I don’t.
17. January 2017 at 17:00
Bob, I meant the comments were excellent, not that Trump was excellent. Your mistake is believing what Trump says. I don’t.
21. January 2017 at 06:43
Scott wrote:
“Bob, I meant the comments were excellent, not that Trump was excellent. Your mistake is believing what Trump says. I don’t.”
I realize Scott that you have bona fide Trump fan boys arguing with you all the time, and so it may be hard for you to discern nuances in your opposition.
No, I don’t believe everything Trump says.
I’m pointing out that it’s weird that you are praising comments as “excellent” that, according to your own analysis, are lies that will make it more likely we go to war.
21. January 2017 at 08:16
Bob, I didn’t say that specific comment was a lie. In any case, why is it “weird” to praise a comment when the content of the comment is good? The fact that Trump’s a pathological liar is beside the point. I’m not changing my overall evaluation of him.
I’m sure I could find a few statements by Stalin or Mao that I agreed with, such as that Hitler is a bad guy. It doesn’t mean I like Stalin.