Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: 'There is no other word for it:' Former Bush ethics czar says FBI uncovering evidence of treason [View all]ColemanMaskell
(783 posts)The position has changed, so the response would naturally change. Vlad wanted to avoid the situation of the US having a strong leader like HRC. Mission accomplished.
New game: Dealing with the US now. I guess Vlad might work to "dispose of" el presidente only if it was obvious that the next in line of succession looked easier to manipulate. That is not obviously true now. DJT is such a bufoon that his ineptitude would be hard to top. That's why GWB is all smiles and cheerfulness on the talk shows now - he's happy that he no longer holds his former place at the top of the heap of reviled presidents. So you'd have to go pretty far down the chain of succession to get to someone better for Vlad's purposes. It would be hard even for Vlad to implement a plan to get that many busy people into one airplane or helicopter together and arrange an accident. No, the chance of Vlad getting any situation better for him than the current one is pretty small.
There seems to be a non-zero chance that Vlad might have blackmail material on DJT, or DJT could owe him money or want permits for some building scheme in Russian territory, or could be enticed by some other business offer. So Vlad may see lots of possibilities there.
DJT seems to have one talent -- he's like an idiot-savant (sorry I can't find a polite synonym). His one talent seems to be manipulating crowds of people, like those evangelical preachers who used to travel the country putting up circus tents, putting on one-man shows, and raking in donations. At that one thing he seems to be unsurpassed. His speech even has a similar cadence to the stereotypical evangelical travelling preacher. Apart from that, he doesn't seem to be particularly capable at anything. In my opinion, of course. But if Vlad sees it the same way I do, then there would be no reason for Vlad to want to "dispose of" the man. An inept and malleable US president is the best he can reasonably hope for.
As far as foe vs enemy, it's my sense that the word foe designates any opponent, whereas the word enemy connotes feelings of animosity, possibly more so than it connotes opposition. You might be lifelong friends with someone who is currently a political foe, for example, and you might have long-standing enemies with whom you are not currently engaged in any battles or contests.
I'd say an enemy is someone you can reasonably assume would injure you if given a good chance. That definition would probably fit North Korea. It probably would not fit France, even if they happen to vote differently from the US sometimes in some international bodies. The enemy need not be a country; it can be any group of people intent on doing you damage. Certainly during the nineteen fifties Russia was widely considered an enemy. These days, in Syria, they are involved in a war where they seem to be at odds with some of the US allies, in fact I think they've actually done strikes on some groups allied with the US there. Certainly they are at odds with us on Ukraine. So they might reasonably be considered an enemy. If they interfered surreptitiously in our elections, which it seems they did, then unquestionably they can be considered an enemy.