Desperate To Change The Narrative, Liberals Are Now Saying The Reason Putin Was Contained Under Trump Was Due To His Weakness
Damon Linker, a senior correspondent with the Week, was so desperate to stop the blaming of Biden for the Ukraine crisis, now is trying to say the only reason this never happened under Trump was due to his weakness as a leader, Putin had nothing to fear from him.
Because Trump never went along with Leftist – Putin bad, China good, a narrative that continues to this day from the Democrats, this was seen as a support of some nature for Putin. The Left has taken this as a sign that somehow Trump was working for him.
The writer then goes on to attack:
Republicans have long had a toughness fetish. Going back to the early days of the Cold War, its flip side has been the insinuation that Democrats are weaklings ready to sell out the country to its enemies, with the GOP eager to serve proudly and unapologetically as America’s lone defenders abroad.
No one should be surprised that the script has already been updated to account for a recent distressing event in Russia and Ukraine’s border
The problem is how he ignores the fact that Biden came out when there were rumors of a confrontation said if Russia just went in little ways, we may sanction them, but it was not something we would go to war over. This gave Putin the green light to proceed to where we are now; this has nothing to do with Trump.
And this is not a destressing event along the border; we have that on our border, something this writer, for some odd reason, never writes about; what we have in the area is Russia has placed troops in another sovereign nation, that is an INVASION.
He then rants over Hugh Hewitt, asking why Putin never tried this when Trump was in office.
Late last week, conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt observed in a tweet that “the tyrant Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and will do so again in 2022 but did not do so between 2017 and 202me; Hewitt implied Putin became a pass without mentioning his name cat because of Donald Trump’s steadfast leadership as president.
But wait — wasn’t Trump Putin’s lapdog for the entirety of his presidency, famously refusing to say anything remotely critical about him and even siding with Putin’s denial of Russian interference in the 2016 election against the evidence provided by America’s intelligence services?
I find it interesting how he was upset that Trump did not take the intel community at their word; this, of course, is the same intel agency we later found were part of aiding in trying to put together the Trump collusion story, a story that was later shown to be false, just like the Steele dossier. At this point, one has to wonder, why would Trump have trusted them?
He then goes down a desperate road, trying to not only excuse away why Putin did not invade when Trump was president but then goes to set up why this is all Trump’s fault, Putin is invading because of how ‘tough’ Biden is:
No doubt realizing the absurdity of the claim, National Review’s Rich Lowry (and others) leaped in a few days later to add a layer of nuance to the assertion. It’s not that Trump was tougher than President Biden, but that he was more erratic: “The sheer unpredictably of Trump, his anger at being defied or disrespected, his willingness to take the occasional big risk (the Soleimani strike), all had to make Putin frightened or wary of him in a way that he simply isn’t of Joe Biden.”
There may be some truth in this revision of the thesis. Trump was indeed volatile, impulsive, and erratic. It’s certainly possible that Putin feared a move against Ukraine could spark a massive military response from Trump.
Of course, it was never that Trump would have stood up to Putin and his expansion; they were secretly bros. The thing that stopped Putin was the erratic nature of Trump; one never knew how he was going to react.
He then goes off on a rant, totally misconstrues what Trump was saying about NATO and why he did what he did:
But it’s far more likely he hoped for something very different. As Jonathan Last pointedly suggested on Tuesday in his newsletter for The Bulwark, Trump expressed his desire on numerous occasions for the United States to withdraw from NATO altogether. He did so while campaigning for president in 2016. He did so as president. And apparently, he even made clear to advisers he hoped to make it a reality after he won re-election in 2020.
Trump questioned NATO because the US was investing far more in its defense; nation members were refusing to invest the minimum amount in their defense. Trump questioned why we were demanded to provide most of the money for defense while many nations refused. This is why he threatened to pull out, and his threats did produce the results he wanted; the deadbeat nations started increasing their budget for their defense.
The fact that Trump showed more backbone than Biden ever thought of, how our international standing has fallen to dangerously low points due to Biden’s weak leadership, this has to be done away with, it is time once more to point fingers elsewhere, he can not have attention pointed where it should be, at Biden.
TRENDING: Kyle Rittenhouse tells Tucker Carlson which media & celebs are on the list to possibly be sued for defamation
He then goes on to openly state with some twisted logic the reason Putin never made in moves was that he was controlling Trump:
Putin didn’t play a nice guy from 2017 to 2020 because he was afraid of Donald Trump. He did so because he knew he had nothing to fear from the fanboy in the Oval Office.
Putin was given the green light to move by Biden, Damon Linker knows this, so do most Americans, but this is silly, Putin knew Trump saw no reason to confront if diplomacy got what was wanted (i.e., look to North Korea), he spoke nicely but let them know he could beat them down with a big stick if needed.
I would say that Damon Linker and the Left learned well from Obama, who spent eight years trying to blame every failure on Bush; we now have Biden and the Left doing the same with Trump.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.