Trump's "dictator envy"

President Trump seems to have "dictator-envy."    He sees the strong-men dictators and autocrats he admires being able to do things and get things that he wants.

Following his meeting with North Korea's Kim Jong Un in Singapore, Trump told Fox and Friends that he wants people to listen to him like Kim's people listen to him.

"He's the head of the country.  And, I mean, he is the strong head. . . . Don't let anybody think anything different.  He speaks and his people sit up at attention.  I want my people to do the same," Trump said.

Later he said it was sarcasm, a joke.     Uh huh.   But obviously it's what was on his mind, and he's spoken before of his admiration of the strong-man leadership of Putin, Erdogan, Xi Jinping, al Sisi, and Dutarte, as well as Kim -- all of whom have their enemies assassinated or imprisoned.

Trump doesn't seem to understand that the North Koreans' automaton appearance and their seeming adulation are the result of the strictest training and punishment -- plus a lack of exposure to any facts other than what is fed to them by the state-controlled media and highly censored reading materials.

It is not love and admiration, freely given.  It's life-long, strict training and obedience, with threat of severe punishment.    All this rote recitation of praise for the "Dear Leader" -- that's something that's drilled into them, like a catechism.

More disturbing than Trump's wish for all us citizens to be his little smiling slaves is the ease with which he dismisses the atrocities and the cruelty with which these dictators -- and Kim in particular -- have killed their own citizens.   Kim has had an uncle and a half-brother assassinated, because they were a threat to his power.   Hundreds of thousands are in political prisons for even slight opposition to him.  

Millions of Kim's own people have died of starvation and disease in order for him to put their country's meager resources into his developing the nuclear program that finally got him where he has craved to be:   on an intgernational stage as an equal with the President of the United States.

And Donald Trump is the perfect chump willing to make it so easy for him to fulfill that dream, with not nearly enough demanded in return.

Ralph

Israel wants to raze an entire Palestinian village to expand its settlements.

This is based on David Zonsheine's reporting in The Guardian newspaper.   The gist of the story is that Israel is about to destroy a whole village in the West Bank and take over the land in order to expand its settlements.  Here's the problem in Zonsheine's words:

*     *     *     *     *

"Israel is intent on destroying the homes of the 173 Palestinians who live in the small shepherding community of Khan al-Ahmar, along with the school that sereves 150 children from the area.  Last month, Israel's high court of justice removed the last obstacle to this barbaric act of demolishing an entire community in order to forcibly transfer its residents and take over their land.  Israel has announced that the land from which these Palestinians will be evicted will serve to expand the nearby settlement of Kfar Adumim.

"The story of Khan al-Ahmar exemplifies Israel's policy of expelling dozens of Palestinian communities from areas it plans to formally annex.   To keep international criticism to a minimum, Israel usually tries to evict residents slowly by creating unbearable living conditions that force them to leave their homes, allegedly of their own free will.   To that end, the authorities refuse to connect these communities to running water and power grids, do not authorize construction of homes or other structures and restrict their pastureland.

"Now, emboldened by Donald Trump's overt disdain for human rights -- or basic human decency for that matter -- and bolstered by the Israeli ideas that the European Union is too weak to act decisively, the authorities have stepped up their efforts and issued demolition orders for all the structures in Khan al-Ahmar.   Justice Noam Sohlberg, who wrote the ruling that rejected the petition against the execution of these orders, noted the 'undisputed' premise that 'construction in the Khan al-Ahman compound, both the school and the dwelling is unlawful'.  He went on to argue that the court should not interfere in the state's 'law enforcement' actions.

"However, these residents are not breaking the law deliberately.   Israeli policy has prevented them from even applying for building permits.   This has left them no choice but to build without permits and, as no community remains stagnant, they have had to continue developing and building that way.   The same planning authorities that were so inefficient in drawing up a master plan for the community or connecting it to water, power and sewage services were incredibly effective when it came to issuing demolition orders.  If the community cannot build legally, the court ruling that their construction is illegal is cynical, formalistic and manipulative.

"There is no way to sugar-coat it:  our government intends to commit an act that could constitute a war crime.  Our high court did not use its power to stop this, and instead chose to lend a guise of legality to this reprehensible act.   By doing so, the court is now complicit in liability for the decisions of the main culprits:  the prime minister, the minister of defence and top generals.

"If Israel is allowed to carry through with the forcible transfer of this relatively well established community, it will be tht much easier to do the same to dozens of smaller communities.   Moreover, the demolition of Khan al-Ahmar will have significant repercussions for possible solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:  clearing the area from Palestinians will effectively bisect the West Bank from north to south.

"On 5 June, we marked 51 years since Israel occupied the Palestinian territories in the 1967 war.  What the international community and the United Kingdom interpret as a temporary situation that should end in two states, Israel views as an interim stage that will end with formal annexation of most of the Palestinian land.

"Britain has all the necessary means to prevent the outrage of forcible transfer:  it is an important global actor, a permanent member of the UN security council and a member of Nato.  It has robust cultural, diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, with more than $7 bn in annual bilateral trade.   These assets give the British government enough leverage to save the people of Khan al-Ahman.  Does it possess the political will to use them?"

David Zonsheine is board chairman of B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the occupied territories.   He lives in Tel Aviv.

*     *     *     *     *

I do not know the history of this disputed land well enough to argue persuasively who is right.   But I instinctively tend to root for the oppressed and the seemingly mistreated weaker party by a strong one exercising brutal power over the other.

So my sympathies are with the Palestinians.   But I do know enough to have formed the simplistic opinion that the question of who owns this land depends on how far back in history you want to go.   Both sides have claims to have owned it at one time in history.

But at least in modern times, the Palestinians, being rural, shepherding people are being pushed out of their homes by the aggressive tactics of a major military power:  Israel, which I'm afraid is losing the moral authority it once had by acts just such as these.

Whatever legal claims Israel has to land it captured in the 1967 war, we do know that it keeps on expanding and annexing more and more.  And that seems to be what's happening here.    Unfortunately, Netanyahu now has Donald Trump on his side -- plus the backing of billionaire Americans like Sheldon Adelson who think Israel can do no wrong.

I see little hope for a peaceful solution, and certainly not one that is fair to the Palestinians.

Good work, Jared.   Weren't you supposed to fix Middle East peace?    Start off by calling off the attack dogs who shoot shepherds.

Ralph

Trump is no Reagan -- Bret Stephens

There's so much, from a progressive standpoint, to be critical of President Trump about regarding his "elaborate photo-op" in Singapore" and his new best friend, Kim Jong Un.    Rather than just ramping up those negatives, however, I turned to two opinion columnists who identify as "conservative."

Now I must admit that, as "conservatives" go these days, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post and Bret Stephens of the New York Times hardly represent the majority of Republicanism-cum-Trumpism these days.    Both are highly critical of President Trump.  So, here goes.

Rubin's column was written after the G-7 debacle and before the Singapore Summit began.   Hence, her focus is primarily on our truculent toddler's bad behavior with our allies, plus a prediction about the summit:

"Trump is now so desperate to show he’s “right” — a master negotiator who breaks every precedent — that it is becoming more and more likely the summit will deliver plenty of glad-handing but no concrete moves toward denuclearization.  In that respect, Trump is exactly like every other American president who got pulled into a process whose end result is North Korea’s continuing status as a nuclear power. The main difference is that none of Trump’s predecessors were dim-witted enough to give the ghoulish dictator of North Korea a public-relations triumph. Oh, and they managed not to get into fights with Canada."

New York Times conservative columnist, Bret Stephens, wrote his column after the Singapore Summit.  He thus could be more specific about its immediate outcome.   His column is well worth a full reading (below):

*     *     *     *     *

"An optimistic take on Donald Trump’s historic meeting Tuesday with Kim Jong-un is that it’s Geneva Redux — a reprise of the 1985 summit between Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that established their rapport, fundamentally altered the tenor of relations between the superpowers and led within a few years to the end of the Cold War.

"Let’s hope so.  Because another take is that it’s the Plaza Redux, meaning the 1988 real estate debacle in which Trump hastily purchased New York’s Plaza Hotel because it looked like an irresistible trophy, only to be forced to sell it at a loss a few years later as part of a brutal debt restructuring.

"The case for Geneva Redux, made this week by Peter Beinart in The Atlantic, sees parallels between Trump and Reagan, Republican presidents whose hawkish rhetoric and ignorance of policy details disguised an inner pragmatism and visionary imagination.

“'Trump’s lack of focus on the details of denuclearization may be a good thing,' Beinart writes. 'Like Reagan, he seems to sense that the nuclear technicalities matter less than the political relationship.'

"It’s true that Reagan was able to raise his sights above the technical arcana to something few others could see. To wit: The Cold War didn’t need to last forever. The security paradigms that defined it weren’t immutable laws of history. Personal chemistry with a Soviet leader could go a long way to changing the relationship.

"Could the same scenario unfold with North Korea? Probably not — for reasons that would have been obvious to most conservatives before their current Trump derangement.

"First, Trump isn’t Reagan. Reagan generally acted in concert with allies. Trump brazenly acts against them. Reagan’s negotiation method: “Trust but verify.” Trump’s self-declared method: “My touch, my feel.” Reagan refused to give in to Soviet demands that he abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative. Trump surrendered immediately to Pyongyang’s long-held insistence that the U.S. suspend military exercises with South Korea while getting nothing in return. Reagan’s aim was to topple Communist Party rule in Moscow. Trump’s is to preserve it in Pyongyang.

"Second, Kim isn’t Gorbachev. Gorbachev was born into a family that suffered acutely the horrors of Stalinism. Kim was born into a family that starved its own people. Gorbachev rose through the ranks as a technocrat with no background in the regime’s security apparatus. Kim consolidated his rule by murdering his uncle, half brother and various ministers, among other unfortunates. Gorbachev came to office intent on easing political repression at home and defusing tensions with the West. Kim spent his first six years doing precisely the opposite.

"Third, Kim knows what happened to Gorbachev, whose spectacular fall served as a lesson to dictators everywhere about the folly of attempting to reform a totalitarian system. Kim may pursue a version of perestroika to stave off economic collapse, but there will be no glasnost. The survival of his regime depends domestically on state terror and internationally on his nuclear arsenal. He will abandon neither.

"Fourth, the timetables are incompatible. Trump wants a foreign policy “achievement” by the midterms, and maybe a Nobel Peace Prize sometime before the 2020 election. Kim plans to be ruling North Korea when one of Chelsea Clinton’s kids is president. Trump’s incentive will be to make concessions up front. Kim can renege on his promises much later.

"Fifth, Trump is a sucker. Kim is not. Say what you will about the North Korean despot, but consolidating power in his vipers’ nest regime, fielding a credible nuclear arsenal, improving his economy without easing political controls, playing nuclear brinkmanship with Trump and then, within weeks, getting the prestige of a superpower summit are political achievements of the first order. Machiavelli smiles from the grave.

"As for Trump, the supposed success of the summit after the debacle in Quebec appeals to innate love of drama. He is where he loves to be: at the center of a stunned world’s attention.

"But he is also in the place where he always gets himself, and everyone else in his orbit, into the worst trouble: panting for the object of his desire. That’s been true whether it’s the Plaza Hotel, Stormy Daniels and now the “ultimate deal” with Pyongyang. Oilman T. Boone Pickens had the smartest line on this when on Monday he tweeted: 'Negotiating advice 101. When you want to make a deal real bad you will make a really bad deal.'

"I’d be happy to be proved wrong. I would be thrilled to learn that Kim is a farsighted reformer masquerading, out of desperate necessity, as a thug and a swindler. It would also be nice to think that Trump is playing geopolitical chess at a level plodding pundits can scarcely conceive. Political commentators should always maintain a capacity for surprise and an ability to admit mistakes.

"For now, however, it’s hard to see what the Singapore summit has achieved other than to betray America’s allies, our belief in human rights, our history of geopolitical sobriety and our reliance on common sense. For what? A photo op with a sinister glutton and his North Korean counterpart?"

*     *     *     *     *

I've sometimes found myself in strong disagreement with policy positions that Stephens takes.    But, more and more, I'm coming to respect his values and his integrity, as well as his writing.   I think this piece is not only the best thing I've read of his;  it's also the best thing I've read about Trump and the summit.

Some of our more progressive sources hit all the resonant chords to up my outrage.     But outrage itself can be depleting.   Stephens here is not less critical of Trump's shortcomings;  but his rhetoric, being a little less fever-pitch, lets me think more clearly and rationally.

Ralph

The morning after the summit

As far as it went, and on the terms that President Trump had set, this summit meeting was a limited, but definite, success.   A beginning, with a commitment to continue the process.

First, and foremost, let's acknowledge that talking is better than fighting.  And talking face to face in a planned meeting is better than all the tweeted bellicosity that we had between Trump and Kim until just a few months ago.

For Kim Jong Un, it was a success, because he got what he has long craved:  recognition as a national leader on the world stage, as well as the possibility of exchanging some of his nuclear weapons for peace and economic growth for his country.

For Trump, he got what he most wanted:   a grand, expanded photo op of a daredevil plan that could make him look presidential -- depending on the outcome.   So much was left out and left to be worked out.

For example, there is the grand, vague statement about "working toward complete denuclearization."   But it does not mention the all-important "verification."    Trump said, when questioned in his press conference, that verification was talked about -- as he also said that human rights issues were talked about.  But neither is mentioned in the document they signed.  And we know how easily Trump lies, when a reporter asks him "if" something was done.   He offered no reason for us to believe what he's saying on either count.

Still, he has tasked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo with taking the next step of fleshing all this out, as well as talking with our other allies in the region.  Much as I disagree with his policy positions, Pompeo is a smart man and a good manager (unlike many of Trump's cabinet secretaries).   He is chiefly responsible for the preliminary work toward this summit.   But will he stand up to Trump when he does something unwise?

The only big surprise that came in Trump's press conference was his saying that the U.S. will end the twice-annual military exercises with South Korea.   This had been mentioned before the announcement only in this context:   several analysts on MSNBC agreed that one possible goal -- formally ending the Korean War with a peace treaty -- was risky;  because it would remove the legal rationale for the U.S. keeping troops in South Korea.   No one hinted that he might just give that away without anything in return.

And now we find that Trump himself has as a goal "bringing our troops home" from South Korea.   He gave no voice to concerns that South Korea has and why the troops are there.   It's not just that the war isn't officially over, so we keep troops there.  It's that South Korea has felt threatened by North Korea's non-nuclear, military might right there on their mutual border.

Seoul, a city of about 20 million people, is only some 35 miles from the border.   Just across the border, the North has thousands and thousands of large mortars aimed at the South's capital city, ready to fire on the city.

Here's what our president thinks when he contemplates that scene just across the border from Seoul:    What a place to build some great condos.

In typical Trumpian fashion, Trump gave away the joint military exercises -- without even discussing it with South Korea's president Moon, who was the one who initiated this thaw between North Korea and the U.S.   South Korea is an important ally of the U.S.   Trump unilaterally decided to make this drastic change without even a warning.   Does this mean he will cancel the exercises scheduled for August -- just two months away?  President Moon was quoted as saying that "We will have to try to find out precisely what President Trump means."

In all, most analysts I respect are seeing this as better than escalating insults or outright war -- but also seeing it as Kim having come out the winner and Trump having given away too much without getting anything in return.    No details or plans about the denuclearization, no timetable, no benchmarks, nothing about inspections or verification.   And, when questioned by the reporters, Trump didn't even seem to understand the significance of what he had done.

As usual, with Trump, it's all about the appearance of winning;  not much about substance.

Ralph

PS:   Tuesday evening.   There are reports that state-run TV in North Korea is saying that President Trump agreed to lift sanctions against North Korea.   Let's see what Trump's response to that is.    Frankly, I find myself about equally willing to believe Kim and Trump.    One of them is lying, and I don't know which.   Or this may just be propaganda that Kim is telling his people.

What's happening in Singapore

The Guardian newspaper reports from Singapore on the even of the summit meeting between President Trump and Leader Kim Jong Un.

Trump has apparently moved his initial insistence on "complete denuclearization" to talk of offering "unprecedented security guarantees" to North Korea, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said will "go further than a 2005 agreement in which the U.S. pledged not to attack North Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons."

The meeting will begin at 9 am on Tuesday (9 pm Monday in Washington), and it will be a one-on-one meeting, with translators, but no aids or advisers.   Only after this initial personal session will aides and advisers join the meeting.

And remember that Trump has great confidence in his powers of sensing the other person.  He told reporters before leaving Washington Friday morning that he would know "within one minute" how this is going to go.    He also said he didn't need much preparation, "because it's all about attitude."

Those photo-op comments do not give the whole picture however.   As The Guardian says:
"'The discussions between the United States and North Korea are ongoing and have moved more quickly than expected,' the White House said.   However, there are doubts over whether Trump can persuade Kim to make a clear statement on his intention to dismantle and surrender his nuclear programme. . . .

"'It is the case we are prepared to give security assurances necessary for the North Koreans to engage in . . . denuclearisation,' Pompeo told reporters.  'We are prepared to take actions that will provide them sufficient certainty that they can be comfortable that denuclearisation isn't something that ends badly for them.'

"He added:  'We are prepared to make . . . security assurances that are different, [more] unique than what America has been willing to provide previously.  We think this is both necessary and appropriate.' . . .

"The format for the talks is aimed at establishing a personal rapport between the two leaders. . . .  Pompeo said he was optimistic that the summit would be a success, but defined success as an agreement that the negotiations should continue [and that]  . . . this summit will set the conditions for future talks.

"It was reported that Kim planned to fly back to North Korea in the early afternoon on Tuesday, leaving very little time for actual negotiations.   There is still considerable uncertainty about what a deal between the leaders would look like.

"The Pyongyang regime envisages denuclearisation as a gradual and somewhat amorphous process, in which both sides take phased reciprocal steps to defuse tensions with the ultimate but distant goal of nuclear disarmament.

"The Trump administration has previously insisted on 'complete, verifiable, irreversible disarmament' (CVID) of North Korea, with the emphasis on unilateral steps by Pyongyang rewarded by US security assurances.   But the president has significantly softened the US negotiating stance in the immediate run-up to the summit, accepting the prospect of open-ended negotiations involving multiple future summits.

"Pompeo muddied the picture further on Monday, . . . saying the US remained 'committed to the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.' . . .  Most observers predict the outcome will be a short and vague statement built around the ambiguous aim of the 'denuclearisation' of the Korean peninsula,' leaving it to later bilateral meetings to negotiate what that would mean in practice."

*     *     *     *     *

Here are some thoughts I have about this:

1.  Both leaders want very much to leave Singapore being able to say this was a success -- plus some great photo-ops to show the people back home what an important world leader they are.

2.  Both have made concessions.   Kim's have been concrete -- destroying and dismantling parts of his nuclear testing site, releasing American prisoners -- as well as has promise of "denuclearization," although his definition is different from ours.   Trump's concessions have been lessening his demands for pre-talk committments, plus promises for security and economic assistance in exchange for steps toward denuclearization.

3.  Each is going to want to be able to say that he got the advantage in the meeting.  Trump -- probably Kim, too -- can't tolerate being thought weak or having been taken advantage of.

4.  For all his bluster in Quebec City at the G-7, even Trump has to know that he behaved badly.   In fact, I think he did it intentionally -- just to throw his weight around and flaunt his power over our allies.   The bully!    So leaving in a huff here would only add to that image of him as the immature, demanding child that he is.

5.  As for Trump's saying he can size Kim up within one minute just based on his being able to read his attitude:    Remember George W. Bush's first meeting with Putin?   He said he could see into his soul -- and that he had a good feeling about their relationship.    So much for that.

6.  Let's hope that they don't reach any further than that bland, final sentence in The Guardian report above, where they predict a vague, general statement about intentions.   If they try for anything more detailed, it may end badly.

7.  One sticking point down the road is likely going to be Kim's asking that we remove our troops from South Korea.    That should be far, far down the road.   North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world -- over 1 million.

8.  By the time most people read this in the morning, whatever happens between Trump and Kim will likely already have happened.   But I'm not staying up til 4 am for Trump's briefing of the press.    I wouldn't trust what he says, anyway.  So I might as well wait a few hours and read about it.   That's what happens when someone destroys his credibility.   You can't trust anything he says.

Ralph

PS:   Monday night:   just heard on TV that the joint statement that will be adopted out of the summit has already been agreed to before Trump and Kim even met at the first meeting.   So there obviously will be no startling news coming from the meeting.

What it takes for a Republican office-holder to stand up to Trump

Atlanta Journal-Constitution's opinion columnist Jay Booker writes about three Republican House members who have challenged President Trump's continuing to tweet and speak about the false news story claiming the FBI embedded a "spy" in his 2016 campaign.

This is a false story that has now been publicly discounted, not only by all three of our intelligence agencies, but also by these three GOP House members:   Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee. who has been briefed on the classified documents by our intelligence chiefs, said:  "I am  even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got."

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL), member of the House Intelligence Committee said. referring to Trump's false claims:   "What is the point of saying that there was a spy in the campaign when there was none? . . .  It's like, 'Let's create this thing to tweet about knowing that it's not true . . .  Maybe it's just to create more chaos but it doesn't really help the case.'"

And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said:  "I have seen no evidence to the contrary of the initial assessment that Chairman Gowdy has made."

These are all Republican leaders speaking out publicly -- But each one had already announced that he is not seeking re-election in November. 

That's where Jay Bookman starts his column.  He continues:

*     *     *     *     *

"These top Republicans know that Trump is not just lying to the American people, but lying to them on a grand scale, and about something important.  They know that the president of the United States is falsely attacking the credibility and integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice in a desperate attempt to save his own skin, and they are finally saying so, even if more delicately.

"Other Republicans know all that too, but unlike Gowdy, Rooney and Ryan, they don't dare to say so.  With rare and courageous exceptions, the only Republicans who dare to question the emperor's on so-fine, resplendent new clothing are those who are leaving the game in disgust at what it has become, and at the price they pay in self-respect to remain."

*     *     *     *     *

Trump's devious purpose, it would seem, is to do everything he can to discredit the FBI and the Justice Department, so that, when Mueller's investigation brings impeachable evidence against him, the American people will believe Trump's claim that it was all a plot to get rid of him.    He knows he can't win in a court of law -- or at least his lawyers know -- and so they are trying to sway the American pubic to rise up and denounce any attempt to impeach him.

We need to also consider this from another angle.  With people like Ryan, Gowdy and Rooney leaving, it's even more vital that Democrats regain the majority control of the House.   Otherwise, we'll have the current lapdog Republican House, only worse -- without these belated, somewhat tepid, restraining voices.

Ralph

Susan Rice on Trump/Putin

Former Ambassador to the UN and former National Security Adviser to President Obama, Susan Rice, has weighed in on the Trump-Putin relationship.   It appeared in the New York Times.

Reminding us of the tradition of an outgoing president leaving a personal letter in the presidential desk for the incoming president, offering perhaps some wisdom but mostly good wishes.   President Obama left such a letter for President Trump.

Rice then imagines what if, instead of Obama, it had been President Vladimir Putin writing a letter for President Trump?   What advice would he offer to this man he had helped get elected in order to advance his (Putin's) own agenda?   Rice suggests:

"Mr. Putin's objectives are plain:   to restore Russia to global greatness at the expense of the United States and to divide Europe by weakening NATO and the European Union.   In Mr. Putin's zero-sum calculus, when the United States and Europe founder, Russia benefits.  The Russian leader knows that America's global power rests not only on our military and economic might but also on our unrivaled network of alliances from Europe to Asia. . . .  Accordingly, Mr. Putin seeks to drive wedges between the United States and its closest partners, to strain and ultimately rupture its alliances.

"If Putin were calling the shots, he would ensure that America's reliability is doubted, its commitments broken, its values debased and its image tarnished.  He would advise the new president to take a series of steps to advance those aims."

According to Ambassador Rice, these would include:  withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate agreement;  criticize NATO and cast doubt on America's willingness to defend our allies;   corrode the European Union by praising Brexit;  send Stephen Bannon to stoke European anti-establishment movements;  and undermine Europe's most powerful country, Germany, in part by installing a right-wing flamethrower as our ambassador to Germany.

In addition to these moves, Rice says Putin would probably advise that Trump start a trade war with our closest allies.   Combine that with withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, then threaten sanctions on European countries for abiding by the deal, "which has worked as intended."

Then Rice has Putin suggesting that Trump find ways to insult and disadvantage our allies, all the while complaining that we are the victims being taken advantage of.   And to cap this all off, Trump might ensure that countries will revile America by:   "disparaging African nations and Haiti with a vulgarity;  calling Latin American migrants rapists and criminals;  halt most refuge admissions;  ban Muslims from several countries from entering the United States;  restrict legal immigration;  and separate children from their parents at the border."

Now, the amazing thing about this imagined prescription from Putin to Trump is that everyone of these things has been done by President Trump.

And that's not all:    Rice obviously wrote this before Trump's Friday morning, totally unexpected call for the G-7 group to readmit Russia to its membership -- even though Russian has done absolutely nothing to alter the behavior (invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea) that got him kicked out in 2014.

So, what do you think?    As the headlines are saying about this latest move from Trump:    "Putin has gotten a good return on his investment in getting Donald Trump elected president."

Rice concludes her essay by saying:   "There is no evidence that Mr. Putin is dictating American policy.  But it's hard to imagine how he could do much better, even if he were."

Ralph