Russian arms build up – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government begins a three part examination of Russian-U.S. relations.

There is a foreign policy conceit that affects all new American presidents, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

Despite the reality that nations retain roughly the same international goals for centuries, newly elected White House occupants seem to believe that somehow, some way, they can by charm or skill persuade foreign leaders to disregard the course of their history. Most Presidents realize the folly of that perception relatively quickly. Unfortunately, former President Obama utterly failed to learn the lesson throughout his entire tenure.

Relations with Russia will not change for the better merely because there has been a personnel change in the Oval Office. The Associated Press recently reported that “It would be challenging to reach common ground [between Russia and the U.S.] on some issues even if Trump and … Putin both want it, as the interests of Russia and of the United States differ sharply…”

President Trump has indicated that he is seeking better relations with his Kremlin counterpart. The intention may be commendable, but the reality is it will not occur. Russia will only reduce its aggressive tactics if it is compelled to do so by powerful economic or military factors. Washington should not ignore past and ongoing Russian misdeeds by signing onto agreements that require lifting sanctions or limiting U.S. troops in Europe in return for assurances from Moscow that it will behave more reasonable. The concept is unrealistic. Offering arms pacts is also a futile gesture. Bluntly, Russia is already cheating on those it has already signed.
There is sildenafil best price a very serious impact of PDE-5 blocker with nitrate drugs You should strictly avoid taking Kamagra with other certain medications such as Nitroprusside, Methscopolamine nitrate, Cisapride, and more. It is prepared by an Indian medicine manufacturer Ajanta Pharma. generic cialis prescriptions Think I’d rather buy cialis line go without, thank you very much. In addition, everything in the viagra buying online guide is very simple to buy emergency contraception online.
President Trump is not wrong in signaling that he is willing to speak or meet with Putin in the hopes of improving communications. The two leaders should develop a relationship to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations that could lead to conflict. However, common ground will not be found unless Russia does a full reverse on many of the activities it engaged in during the Obama presidency. These include its continuing unlawful activities in Ukraine, its dramatic military buildup, (Russia’s massive military buildup should be a key issue for the Trump Administration. Despite pressing domestic needs, Putin surged forward with his armaments program at a time when Russia faced no viable threats. It has allied with China, on its southern border. European nations have very weak military capabilities, a fact that became a campaign issue when Trump complained about their inadequate contribution to NATO. The U.S., under Obama, sharply reduced its military funding) its threatening positioning of troops bordering Eastern European nations, its meddling in the internal affairs of its neighbors, its resumption of nuclear bomber patrols along the coastlines of the United States, its return to Cuba and Nicaragua, its militarization of the Arctic, its support for Iran’s nuclear program, and other related activities.

Unlike Islamic extremists, Russia, while aggressive, is neither irrational not prone to suicidal actions. It will respond positively when it realizes that its actions will produce more harm than benefit. The Kremlin realized that its dependence on its military for international gains was failing when President Reagan responded to it with a major increase in U.S. military strength. Russia’s realpolitik outlook helped prevent the Cold War from turning hot. President Trump’s pledge to strengthen the U.S. military should have a similar positive result.

But when Moscow encounters weakness, either at the negotiating table or in the field of arms, it has and will take every advantage possible. By advocating a reversal of President Obama’s devastation of the U.S. military and America’s system of alliances throughout the globe, President Trump has singled a return to a more realistic worldview. That practicality should not be diminished by a belief that relations with Moscow can be improved without creating conditions that compel Putin to believe that he has no other viable alternative.

The Report continues tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]