By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite criticizing European leaders for their delayed response to Russia’s actions, the author acknowledges President Trump’s prescient warnings regarding European defense spending and energy dependence on Russia, dating back to 2016. While acknowledging the likelihood of US withdrawal from Ukraine, the author suggests that increased European unity and leveraging relationships with major trading partners like China, India, and Iran, could yield significant results through sanctions. This coordinated approach could create substantial leverage, even without US participation, and requires greater cooperation between the UK and Europe. Ultimately, the author believes a unified European response to the crisis holds potential, despite the current grim outlook.
Read the original article here
Fiona Hill’s assertion that Donald Trump is terrified of Vladimir Putin is a striking claim, one that resonates with many observations about their interactions. It’s a statement that goes beyond simple political disagreement; it suggests a deep-seated fear that profoundly shaped Trump’s actions and decisions. This fear, if real, might explain otherwise inexplicable behaviors and choices during his presidency.
The image of a seemingly powerful president, outwardly boasting strength and confidence, yet privately consumed by fear of a foreign leader, is a compelling one. This fear might explain Trump’s unusually deferential behavior towards Putin, a stark contrast to his often aggressive approach toward other world leaders. It might also explain some of his seemingly inexplicable decisions regarding foreign policy, where he appeared to prioritize Putin’s interests over those of his own country.
The idea that this fear stems from compromising information held by Putin is a frequently mentioned possibility. This “kompromat,” as it’s often called, could be anything from financial irregularities to deeply personal indiscretions. The power of such information to control someone is immense, particularly when that someone is already prone to being controlled, or is easily swayed by threats to their image or reputation.
The potential consequences of this vulnerability are enormous. A president paralyzed by fear is a president whose judgment is impaired. A president susceptible to blackmail is a president whose decisions are not his own. It raises significant questions about national security, and about the very nature of power and leadership.
The implication is that Trump’s behavior wasn’t just a matter of poor judgment or political calculation; it was a direct consequence of his fear. This fear, if genuine, would explain Trump’s repeated efforts to appease Putin, even when it contradicted the advice of his own intelligence agencies and the interests of the United States.
The potential existence of compromising information held by Putin is a particularly alarming aspect of this theory. Such information could be used to exert influence not just over Trump, but also over the Republican Party as a whole, creating a situation where crucial policy decisions are being made based on fear rather than reason or national interest.
It’s important to remember that while Hill’s statement is strong, it’s a single perspective. Further investigation is necessary to determine the precise nature of Trump’s relationship with Putin and the extent to which fear played a role in his decisions. However, even without definitive proof, the possibility itself raises serious concerns.
The implications of a president operating under the shadow of fear are vast and potentially devastating. It questions the integrity of the highest office in the land and prompts reflection on the vulnerability of democratic systems to manipulation and foreign influence. The idea that a sitting president could be so fundamentally compromised is a truly unsettling prospect.
The assertion that Trump is terrified of Putin offers a powerful framework for understanding many puzzling aspects of his presidency. While it remains an unproven claim, the possibility itself raises profound concerns about the nature of leadership, the vulnerability of democratic institutions, and the potential for foreign actors to exert undue influence on national policy. The picture it paints, whether true or not, demands careful consideration.