G20 And The U.S.

Angela Merkel made a mistake when she picked Hamburg as a trouble free site for the G 20 meeting.The meeting of the top industrial nations of the world attracted more than the usual collection of dissenters from the left and antagonists from the right.The violence nearly overwhelmed the Hamburg police and kept the participants restricted in venue and mobility.It is possible that the withdrawal of the U.S from the Paris pact and the insistence of POTUS on making deals after the fact with trading blocs in Europe,Asia,South America&Canada has produced a new set of leaders who are untested and who lack superpower credentials.
The meeting between Trump and Putin went on for 2 1/2 hours and has no transcription.The why of that is ominous.Trump spent this time away from the G 20 with a second rate power in need of lifting of sanctions,positive trade agreements and relief from the support of an unpopular war and a widely hated Asad.He ended up supporting a meaningless Syrian truce,which has failed twice before in a part of Syria where the U.S has few if any dogs in the fight.WHY? He seems to totally misunderstand the meaning of diplomacy and the difference between a purported personal relationship with the Chines President,the Russian President,the Mexican President vs the diplomacy involved with Germany,France,United Kingdom,Japan etc.
As far as G20 goes,why is it that communist countries can acknowledge and play to the enormous wealth producing capability of capitalism while the G 20 antagonists cannot,attacking the production mechanism rather than the distribution mechanisms?



  1. We elect leaders to advance the interests of our country. Hopefully the advancement of our interest is also in harmony with the world’s best future and thereby reflects that which is fundamentally most important: That is, wisdom possessed by the electorate. Because countries today consist of often dangerously competing values and agendas, those we elect to navigate our interests into the future must often operate with compromise and secrecy. 2 and ½ hours with Putin could portend “positive” or “ominous” results. I know that I do not know for certain which of the two is closest to the truth. I thought that it was truly “ominous” when on March 26, 2016, Obama, not realizing he was on a live mike, leaned over to Russia’s Medvedev and told him he “would have more flexibility after the election”. But, if one has great trust in our leaders we ASSUME the best. If one has great anger and/or distrust for an elected leader it is reasonable to ASSUME the worst. But on this particular issue the most honest read of this particular event is a knowledge that we do not know. As with all situations if someone claims more certitude for a given position than all the evidence would rationally support we should understand that the prioritized agenda is not that of the whole truth, but something else (such as proselytizing a faith).

  2. You are probably correct in questioning Merkel’s judgment about Hamburg. According to its residents even Hitler avoided going there at the height of his power. Perhaps it was a way for Merkel to put a shot across the bow of the G20.
    As to the Trump-Putin meeting, Donald is indebted to Vlad for saving him from personal bankruptcy, not publicizing embarrassing photos, and helping to win the election. He met with Putin out of a sense of both fear and gratitude, a combination almost guaranteed to ensure acquiescence.

    1. Thanks for joining in our efforts for better understandings. There is today too much conflict that is subjective based and too little that is established with logic and empirical measurement.
      I agree that the Hamburg violence is evidence that a G20 meeting in that location was likely a bad judgment. I wonder “where” would have been better – or worse? If your premises about Donald being “indebted to Vlad” were true, logic dictates that your conclusions would also be solid. But therein we find a problem: These “facts” about Vlad saving Donald from personal bankruptcy, the existence of embarrassing photos, and actually impacting an election win, now having been long examined and still lacking actionable evidence of their being true, acquire a growing probability that they are just fabrications designed to hurt the Trump Presidency.

      1. Claims that Vlad did not save Donald from personal bankruptcy; the non-existence of embarrassing photos; and no actual impact on the elections are obviously belied by alternative facts at our disposal, and could be classified as “fake news”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.