ED-057 wrote:Painting them as a dangerous aggressor while we bring their neighbors into our protection racket and surround them with military bases qualifies. Arming proxy forces to cause trouble for them also qualifies.
There's an argument to be had concerning just how well the Putin regime in fact fits the "aggressor" role, but for the heck of it, sure, let's agree that all the missile bases we've set up at their doorstep over the decades are excessive to the point of being provocative. And what the heck, let's also assume outright that most of the rebel groups and whatnot that we've supported when Russia is on the other side of the conflict were ill-advised as well. Now that we're here, it might be worth noting, once again, that the only person who seems giddy at the prospect of "solving" the Russia issue with explosive ordinance, despite how fraught with peril the situation has become, is Trump and company, though that certainly hasn't stopped the lot of them from painting everyone
else as teetering us on the brink of the apocalypse. And aside from "get a couple thousand troops out of Syria" nothing much has been proposed, at least that I'm aware of, to alleviate the "provocative" actions you describe; all Trump seems to think is necessary is "turning on the charm", and he moreover blames anyone with doubts about the wisdom of cozying up to the Putin regime for not letting him succeed, so the unbroken streak of "somebody else's fault" continues in grand fashion.
If you could forget about the Trump-Putin bromance fan faction for a second, you would notice that the Trump admin's policy thus far has consisted of sanctions, accusations, more sanctions, and more accusations.
As I said earlier, they have happened, but only ever follow protracted foot-dragging, contradictory statements, and (fancy that) accusations that anyone who wants
any action taken that Russia might not be able to instantaneously brush off is a blood-drinker; whatever does result inevitably does so
under protest (EDIT: ...and
then some!). By contrast, whenever the administration deems the proper response to be "push the launch button", suddenly Trump, by contrast, is
decisive,
strong,
high-energy (and, lest we forget, somehow simultaneously manages to "keep all options on the table" at the same time
).
What you describe here is nothing at all like reality.
The only thing that seems to get Trump's attention, much like most others', when it comes to Russia or Syria is chemical weapon use; "regular" ol' indiscriminate civilian slaughter? Human rights abuses on the survivors? Suspension or elimination of basic freedoms and rights? Rigged domestic elections? Interference in foreign ones? Imperialistic forays into foreign territory?
Sometimes-fatal suppression of dissent? Propping up even more openly brutal regimes than oneself? Sabotaging any UN resolution to do anything about any of the above? By the time we get to Nikki Haley uttering a few harsh words (before they're shoved back down her throat by her boss, anyway) we've had the rest of the country and the rest of the planet berated for tempting the doomsday clock, while the slaughter and its accompanying nativist "what me worry" goes on, and the cycle soon repeats. Until there's another politically-expedient excuse for a missile launch.
If the WHO publishes lies, that would make them liars, yes. Are they in charge of investigating alleged war crimes now?
No, but it IS their job to say "we're treating people for symptoms consistent with chemical weapon use". Which they've done, and you apparently believe they just made the whole thing up. To repurpose a heretofore-unanswered question I posed to quash some time ago, who
isn't in on the con? Who
doesn't want to start WW3? Whose attestations
would you believe when it comes to anything Russia-related? Pretty much everyone who's said anything thus far for at least the past several years has seemingly been corrupted beyond redemption and ruled out, so who's left, aside from Daddy's increasingly-schizophrenic (but
always somehow Better Than The Alternative) personal judgement on the matter?