Timeline for How exactly does Donald Trump's administration benefit Russia in 2017-2018?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 6, 2018 at 9:39 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=9558 by developer User.Id=5404 | |
| May 26, 2018 at 14:00 | comment | added | William Jockusch | The President sets Rules of Engagement. Trump's are much less strict than Obama's were. thehill.com/policy/defense/… The military makes the final decision, based on those rules. | |
| May 26, 2018 at 13:45 | comment | added | userLTK | On Trump not managing the Military: vox.com/2017/5/25/15632614/… latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-military-20170602-story.html | |
| May 26, 2018 at 13:43 | comment | added | userLTK | Your updated article isn't much better. That was a Syrian attack on a US base (actually a Kurdish base with some US support). The Russians were soldiers for hire essentially working for the Syrian army and they were the aggressors - per your article. The US defending a base doesn't even defer to Trump. It wasn't even a Trump decision. Trump doesn't micromanage the military (for better or worse). Your example was likely not even a Trump decision point. | |
| May 26, 2018 at 13:35 | comment | added | userLTK | US oil production is booming, but Trump's pulling out of the Iran deal have driven oil prices up, and so has his pulling out of the climate change meetings. Russia and OPEC also reached a deal to produce less oil. Everyone saw the US increase coming. It's been growing for a while. I don't think you can use Oil production as an example of Trump being tough on Russia. money.cnn.com/2018/04/26/news/companies/… | |
| May 26, 2018 at 13:32 | comment | added | William Jockusch | There were different strikes; one hit Russians and another didn't. I accidentally linked the same one twice. Fixed. Thanks. | |
| May 26, 2018 at 13:31 | history | edited | William Jockusch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| May 26, 2018 at 13:30 | comment | added | userLTK | Your article says nothing about killing 200 Russians. It says quite the opposite. I quote: "Because the strikes did not hit Russian assets, and do not appear to have significantly undermined the Assad regime, there is no material reason to go further than that". Trump's strike on Syria was a statement against chemical weapons, but it was in no way a "loud and clear" statement that he was strong against Russia. | |
| May 26, 2018 at 13:06 | history | answered | William Jockusch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |