Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Oh Snap! Russia Asks Trump Admin to Attend Syria Peace Talks

Oh Snap! Russia Asks Trump Admin to Attend Syria Peace Talks

Russia seizes another opportunity to troll.

Trolls gonna troll and who owns the title as World’s Biggest Troll? Russian President Vladimir Putin! And the troll strikes again. Russia has invited President-elect Donald Trump’s administration to participate in Syrian peace talks with Turkey and Iran later this month.

I can hear everyone’s head explodes as they use this as more evidence of a cozy relationship between him and President-elect Donald Trump.

Or Putin has simply just latched onto the hysteria and wants to cause even more problems.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak extended the invitation to Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn on December 28. A transition official said Flynn did not make a decision at the time. However, Obama’s administration never received an invitation to the talks:

“We have not received any kind of formal invitation to the meeting,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “But if we do receive an invitation, we will certainly make a recommendation” to Trump’s incoming administration to honor it.

The talks on the future of Syria were announced in late December after a nationwide cease-fire was secured. They are being organized for the first time without the involvement of Washington, which had led all the international discussions to resolve the Syrian crisis in recent years.

Though the United States has not been a direct party to this specific initiative, Toner said: “We have been in close contact with both the Russians and the Turks as this has gone forward. And we would encourage the incoming administration to continue to pursue those efforts.”

The talks will take place in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, on January 23. Russia, Turkey, and Iran expect “Syrian government and opposition representatives” to attend the talks.

Of course the media has panicked because the U.S. passed new sanctions on Russians on December 28, prompting them to think Flynn and the ambassador discussed those sanctions for attempts to interfere with our election. The transition officials said Flynn had no idea the Obama administration planned to impose those sanctions on that day. Therefore, Flynn and the ambassador did not discuss the sanctions.

Instead, the men discussed the invitation and Flynn also expressed “condolences for the crash of a Russian plane carrying a choir to Syria.” The two men also chatted about “a Putin-Trump telephone call after the inauguration.”

Obama’s administration has approved of this meeting, even though they lack an invitation. Secretary of State John Kerry said the administration has encouraged these talks:

“We hope that could produce a step forward,” he said during a final news conference at the State Department. But the greater objective, Kerry said, was beginning separate, U.N.-sponsored talks among all the Syrian players in Geneva.

Please keep in mind that when Russia pulls these stunts they do it to troll and cause more problems. They do not want to be our friend. I also hope those around Trump make him realize this, too.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I do not have to trust Putin to appreciate a good stunt. I am also well aware that the ONLY reason he can troll the US is because the DNC and the Clinton Campaign have made the most god-awful fools of themselves, trying to blame the Russians for their own ethical failures.

To the extent our countries have issues in common (such as getting rid of the Daesh and other progeny of the Muslim Brotherhood), I am perfectly comfortable with the notion of co-operating with them on those issues. Co-operation can be had on a case-by-case basis only.

    Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | January 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    “I am also well aware that the ONLY reason he can troll the US is because the DNC and the Clinton Campaign have made the most god-awful fools of themselves…”

    Horseshit. You left out eight years of Obamic Break-overy(tm).

    You also left out Tillerson, who I think is a positive danger to US interests. Exxon-Mobile not so much.

    Putin is inviting the US to kiss the asses of Russia, Syria, the Turks, and Iranians. It’ll be interesting to see if the new administration declines. I’m not optimistic.

      Dang Rags, you are miserable aren’t you? Good grief.

      MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | January 14, 2017 at 9:11 pm

      Hey Rags, guess what! Trump won the elections!

      BTW, how may a$$es did Trump kiss to get elected? Kissing is standard par for the Uni-Party, not Trump.

      I have no clue how the Trump admin is going to do, but I doubt they can be as bad as the last 16 years. I use to claim myself as a Neocon, but after this election and review of history, the “Neocons” were just an extension of the Uniparty including Bush, Romney and McCain. Bush/Clinton screwed up the first time in Iraq. Bush Jr./Obama screwed up the second time. That is the tip of the iceberg to how badly they have screwed up foreign policy.

      Since we are on the Russians and the BS that the Intel community (that they supposedly are not) telling everyone about the so called golden shower, it sounds so much like the CIA crap that Bush Sr. pulled on Ross Perot’s daughter. Their technique is just getting worst.

      I think the biggest threat to the US is the brain dead people that has not accepted that Trump won and we can move on to get some work done instead of making noise.

      Did you get the memo?

        Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | January 14, 2017 at 9:31 pm

        Yah, I got the memo.

        “MarkSmith is an idiot”.

        It’s pretty much all over the place now.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | January 14, 2017 at 9:45 pm

          Rags, it is serious. You must have Trump Unacceptance & Resistance Disorder (TURD). Someone named In Az reposted the definition on the Lewis thread at the Treehouse.

          I suggest you seek aid immediately before you melt.

          On topic,

          “You also left out Tillerson, who I think is a positive danger to US interests.”

          You have zero facts to support this.

          Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2017 at 12:24 am

          It’s really pretty weird to hate on Tillerson so much, when his only real offense is being supportive of Trump. The worst you can say about him is that he’s probably mostly an internationalist, LIKE EVERY SEC OF STATE FOR THE LAST 70 YEARS. But he’s going to have to defer to Trump’s judgment on specific matters. One of the best things, I think, about the fact that he comes in as a complete outsider to the the political class is that he has no power base in Washington, except Trump.

          I won’t quote Machiavelli directly, but if you’ve read The Prince you’ll recall that he advises a successful ruler to always appoint men who are solely dependent upon him for their place in the power structure. They will always be the most loyal, even if they were formerly enemies, because they have to be in order to preserve their own position and reputation.

          Either Trump has spent some time reading “The Prince”, or he’s proof that reincarnation really does happen sometimes.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2017 at 9:21 am

          Why am I so NOT surprised that MarkSmith is a regular at “Conservative” Tree Sloughs…???

          Ha-ha, MarkSmith. That’s a pure shout of genius coming from a Tree Slough! But you have to consider that that source is a hiss and by-word among the sane. This explains a lot about you. Bad wiring is likely.

          And, other idiot, nobody is “hating on Tillerson”. People read and know more than you. I don’t know (and neither do you) the extent to which Tillerson “supports T-rump”. I DO know the indications that he’s best butt buddies with a guy who is a murderous tyrant and hater of the West. That’s right there in the open. I also know under his direction his company did business with Iran. Is this news to you?

          I take Mattis’ assessment over Tillerson’s any day.

          What a convocation of America-hating moronic T-rump suckers!

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm

          The Jacobin TURD STILL has not provided facts to support his statement:

          “You also left out Tillerson, who I think is a positive danger to US interests.”

          His last words are going to me “I’m melting! I’m melting!”

          Here is a special song to check out:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI0t_tadZJU

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2017 at 3:29 pm

          BTW:

          Order of Friendship in recognition of 20 years of efforts to enhance cultural understanding between Russia and the United States.

          From your lovely friends at WP:

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/13/what-is-the-russian-order-of-friendship-and-why-does-trumps-pick-for-secretary-of-state-have-one/?utm_term=.549b6e863473

          I don’t see butt buddies in that statement anywhere and in fact Order of Friendship sounds like the Russians give them out like the Democrats give ballots out to illegals.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2017 at 4:21 pm

          “The Jacobin TURD STILL has not provided facts to support his statement”

          Sure I have, you lying, anti-American POS.

          You just HATE facts. So, like a good lil’ cultist, you chose to denounce them. Tillerson is as Bush as anyone could be, and he’s as bear-bit as any American I can think of.

          You still don’t know WTF a “Jacobin” even is, but I do understand better where you get your madness.

          MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | January 15, 2017 at 5:59 pm

          Oh the snow flake is melting. Still no fact provided about Tillerson.

          So what definition would you like to be attributed as a Jacobin? Jefferson hack/US traitor like the ones who seems to think his opinion is the only valid one such as those found behind the XYZ affair and thinking about the french revolution? How about the pejorative version used by the British? You get to pick.

          I am still waiting for you to back up your statement.

          “You also left out Tillerson, who I think is a positive danger to US interests.”

Russia has an interest to end Western belligerence and Obama’s adventures in social justice (e.g. progressive wars). They confronted and stopped the bloodletting in Ukraine after the Western-backed coup. They confronted Western-sponsored terrorism in Syria and are making positive progress to stop the bloodletting and displacement. Trump is the last best hope to confront the proliferation of left-wing aggression, [class] diversity, and immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises).

    Mac45 in reply to n.n. | January 14, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    While this is basically correct, the Crimean situation is more complex than intimated here.

    For the last 20 years, Russia has been pursuing an agenda which will allow it to reestablish the borders of the old USSR. But, until the Crimean situation, in 2014, it avoided actually absorbing former soviet territory. Russia, in 2008, did not absorb South Ossetia, when it seceded from Georgia, opting, instead, to back the separatist government of South Ossetia. However, recognizing that the Obama administration would not oppose them in the Crimea, Russia engaged in a naked occupation and annexation of that area.

    The Ukrainian Revolution was NOT engineered by the West, but, rather, by Russia. The ground work was laid as early as 2007, when Russia issued passports to Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea. This was the same thing which Russia did in South Ossetia at the same time. Then Crimean separatists and Russia agents fomented unrest which forced the Ukraine to respond, giving Russia an opportunity to send troops into the Crimea. The only thing that keeps Russia from doing the same thing to the Ukraine is Europe and NATO.

    ConradCA in reply to n.n. | January 16, 2017 at 5:44 am

    It was Tyrant Obama the Liar who promised in 2009 to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression and did nothing when they were attacked by Russia.

They do not want to be our friend. I also hope those around Trump make him realize this, too.

Countries don’t have friends. Countries have interests. But countries can have enemies. The US has several. The most immediate is Obama. Foreign enemies are less dangerous.

Putin may be an enemy, or not; it hardly matters, because Russia has interests, and Vlad can be expected to pursue those; that’s his job. I seriously doubt that this is the first time Trump has ever faced such a situation. He’s been dealing with competitors, rapacious unions, oleaginous bankers, obstreperous lawyers, crooked contractors, flaky entertainment “personalities”, brain-dead government bureaus, and ex-wives for a while now; and he seems to have handled them adequately.

    Point taken. Something weird and wonderful about international relations is that sometimes even countries who hate each other have mutual interests that overlap, and in those narrow areas, they work together. Occasionally.

    So we have several possibilities:
    1) This is an honest extension of an olive branch to deal with an issue that affects both of our countries. I’d put that at about 10%.

    2) It’s a trap, and Russia has already organized a Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t plan for our attendance/absence. Probably 75%.

    3) It’s a “Why not?” gesture, because Russia has no idea how the peace talks are going to go. About 15%.

The Trump administration would be foolish not to attend. If they do not like what is going on there, they can always leave. After all, you can’t get into the game, if you don’t show up to the stadium.

Look, the Obama administration, not the people of the United States of America, got all of the mess in Syria started by arming the rebels. Then that administration doubled down with its stupid “red line” and launching strikes into Syrian territory, without Syrian permission, and hitting a Syrian military installation, injuring Syrian troops. The Syrian civil war is owned by the US. So, it would be in the best interests of the US to support an end to the hostilities which will reduce the non-combatant death toll. An, if we want any input on that, we better show up and take part in the discussion.

Oh, it would be a mistake for the US to attempt to support any rebels who are in any way related to the Global Islamic Jihad.

    MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | January 14, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    I think the problem goes deeper than arming the rebels. I think it is the failure to stop the the arms movement to Syria during the second Iraq war and allowing the meddling of Iran in Iraq.

    Same goes with 911. Poor follow-up planning after the Wilson war.

    Geez, our history is awful; look how we let down the Iraq’s after Iraq 1, Iran after our nice CIA coup to install the Shah of Iran. How many failed policies can I point to? Central America? The Philippines? Vietnam?

      The Syrian Civil War was the direct result of President Obama’s Arab Spring initiative. It began in 2011, 2 years after Obama took office and delivered his Cairo speech which inferred that the US would support any “popular revolt” against Middle Eastern and North African regimes. The results are strangely reminiscent of the Korean War following Dean Acheson’s Aleutians speech in 1950. Then the Obama administration provided arms and monetary support for the “rebels” in Syria, most of whom were made up of radical Islamists. Then he doubled down with his ridiculous “red line” ultimatum, in 2015. Launching strikes into Syrian territory, without the consent of the Syrian government, at least one of which hit a Syrian government base and injured Syrian troops only made it all worse.

      The problem is the international adventuring that various US administrations have gotten into. While the US is under no obligation to support existing national governments, it does have an obligation to honor international law and not actively assist others in the overthrow of a recognized government. The US government does have the right to utilize its military to protect property which is legally owned by Americans in foreign countries, following a violent change of government.

      Bush 41 was constrained by the terms of the coalition in the 1st Iraq War. Then Bush 43 inherited the mess left by Bill Clinton’s lack of interest in the region. Bush 43 allowed himself to get caught up in the anti-war nation-building mania in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It was largely a disaster.

      The final Shah of Iran was installed in a Coup in 1953 as a direct result of the Iranian government’s decision to nationalize the British oil interests there. Interestingly enough, his father was forced to abdicate by British and Russian forces in 1941 to seize Iran’s oil industry. And, like him or not, The Shah turned Iran into a Middle Eastern power, before the Revolution forced him from power in 1979.

      International politics is quite complex, having as many players as it does. But, a truism of international relations has always been that stability is far better than uncertainty. When practiced, this policy has usually worked out well.

Since there will be no Obama administration on January 23rd, how could they have been invited? Knowing that no matter how the election went, there would be a different administration in DC, why would the Russians issue an invite until they knew who to invite? Sometimes it’s just horses’ hoof beats you hear.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend