Wasn’t it rather crass? Spicer told Russia it’s on the wrong side of history. While he showed he’s clueless – about certain events taking place between roughly 1935 and 1945.
And what about those cruise missiles supposedly banging on target, as proudly announced by the US government a few days ago? Some Syrian airfield was their target. Yet within days, that same airfield which received several dozen missile-hits, is in full use again.
Hello? Who’s supposed to be impressed by this?
It merely makes one wonder if things may have gone like say – please mind, this is a cynical alternative interpretation of presented, hopefully real facts – POTUS 45 calls Putin:
“Hi dude, it’s me again – no my wad’s still full of your pocket-money. About those chemicals your friend used yet again? Hey, I need to go on telly claiming I’m terribly shocked about babies and will have to do something.
I’m not informing Congress. Just giving you a friendly warning.
We’re going to bomb this field with some dozen missiles? Just to impress the media and the rest of the world.
Looks good – no serious damage intended. Yeah – if you find time, tell your buddy Assad. Sorry ’bout this.
Oh, nearly forgot: if it gets to the UN, just veto. No problem with that. No, won’t be using any of your hotels soon; Tillerson’s coming. Don’t make it look to chummy on telly, or those muchos bad hombres from the media ‘ll start digging deeper. Cheers!”
Far fetched? Sure, the above is total fantasy. Though perhaps not the bit about someone’s pocket once being lined with Russian money. At least, if Jack Maidment in the UK Telegraph is to be believed. He cites an interview of Prospect Magazine with a former MI6 boss. The former spy-master claims Trump accepted Russian money at least once, to prop up his business “empire”.
As for the chemical attack: Syria’s government and army are now pointing at the US-led coalition. Their accusation is, that an ISIS-led chemical factory or nerve gas “warehouse” was accidentally bombed. This supposedly caused the recent civilian casualties.
Meanwhile, Pulitzer Prize winners The New York Times and Washington Post keep coming up with “Russia” articles. Today, the NYT sports a long one worth reading, reporting Mr Manafort may have been removed during Trump’s election campaign – it did not mean ties with Trump were severed.
As usual, the WP sports various articles critical of the current administration, ranging from speculations about Bannon’s fate to the weather-vane behaviour of POTUS 45, his Spice-girl’s English, Sessions, and the Trump administration building up an oversized deportation force.
The overall impression remains: this US government changes its opinions far too often to be considered a trustworthy ally by any country. It breaches election promises like eggs – without making any omelette. It remains under a very heavy, dark cloud regarding its strings or ties with Russia.
In short: much happens, but nothing changes much.