In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate," Paul Krugman says of Donald Trump:
"[W]e’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.
I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest."
A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate"? You've got that much right, Paul.
But what about Obama's foreign policy vis-à-vis Putin? As observed in a July 1, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria — again" (my emphasis in red):
"FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladimir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal."
Moreover, as reported by The Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article entitled "Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S." by Adam Entous and Gordon Lubold (my emphasis in red):
"The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.
U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.
The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise."
So how does Trump differ from Obama? One admires him, while the other kowtows to him. Both empower him.
And while we're at it, let's not forget Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous "reset" of relations with Putin.
A sickening sign of the times.
By the way, Krugman also makes no reference to the nuclear standoff between Obama and Erdogan involving the encirclement of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS.
SEE: "David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis."