Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Romaansheikh (article contribs).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170129074824/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/readout-of-donald-j.-trumps-meeting-with-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-ne to https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/readout-of-donald-j.-trumps-meeting-with-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-ne

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Ukraine policy

Does the following text on the Trump administration's Ukraine policy belong in Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#Ukraine?:

In December 2017, the Trump administration agreed to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons, including "long-sought" FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles. Source: Wilkinson, Tracy (2017-12-26). "U.S. decision to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine angers Russian leaders". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2017-12-29.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as nominator. This is a notable development formerly opposed by the Obama administration, the subject of a great deal of international controversy, and widely covered by reliable sources. There is no legitimate reason to exclude this information from readers.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Tentative support as an "announcement". I'll believe it when I see it, considering the agreement Trump has with Putin. After all, Trump stands to lose the promised $11 BILLION if doesn't stand by their agreements. They had agreed that Trump would downplay American support for Ukraine's efforts to resist Russian aggression, and he made good on that promise by getting a real change to the GOP party platform. So far Trump has done that. This is a change back to Obama era policies, so I'm not sure it will happen, but who knows.... Maybe this is Tillerson speaking? We can either wait to see what happens, or include as a news item. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Obama steadfastly refused to arm Ukraine. "The decision was discussed internally as a lifting of the de facto Obama administration restrictions." The Ukrainians have been waiting on the Javelins for more than three years. The Clinton "dossier" is fictional, and the alleged Rosneft bribe—as explained previously—"is clearly a fake and a worthless conspiracy." Trump's team did not change the symbolic GOP platform at all, but rather watered down an amendment to that platform so that instead of being much harder on Russia than Obama, it was merely slightly harder on Russia than Obama.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• SPECIFICO argued that this content is WP:SYNTH and unrelated to the topic of this article (i.e., that it has nothing to do with Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration). While her rationale for deletion may seem absurd on its face, because of the infamous "consensus required" discretionary sanctions known to encourage tendentious WP:GAMING, there is no way to override her veto without demonstrating a resounding consensus, hence this RfC.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Doing my best to ignore the characterising of another editor's motives above, which is rarely a good start to an RfC, has there been any prior discussion here of the issues? One trivial observation is that the use of 'lethal' is extraneous - most weapons kill! Pincrete (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliable sources: "The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine since 2014."—Washington Post; "President Trump's long-delayed decision to provide Ukraine with defensive lethal weapons signaled a new willingness to oppose Russian intervention in its neighbor, but has made European allies nervous that a recent hike in fighting could escalate."—Los Angeles Times; "Obama decided that providing lethal weapons to Ukraine would accomplish little but antagonize Putin. Yet refusing to arm Ukraine had the opposite effect: It emboldened Putin. Obama's hesitance is one reason why Russia-backed rebels control eastern Ukraine today."—Chicago Tribune.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the lead

The opening of the lead says "includes a focus on security, by fighting terrorists abroad and strengthening border defenses and immigration controls; an expansion of the U.S. military; an "America First" approach to trade; and diplomacy whereby ..."

What political leader anywhere does not claim to "focus on security" as the primary goal of foreign policy? If what is meant is that the admin's "stated aims sre to focus on security etc...", the lead should say that.

Later we have comments about "terrorists", specifically about waterboarding them. Even the source used refers to "terrorist suspects", half of the controversy over waterboarding and other such measures hinges on the use of that key word "suspects".

Also, what does this mean "During the campaign, Trump promised he would provide presidential leadership with strong diplomacy to restore respect for the United States around the world"? It is simply a bit of campaign rhetoric, in no sense a foreign policy position. Pincrete (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article will be more stable and is better served if we stay away from too much campaign rhetoric and just document actual policy-based actions. Trump's rhetoric is notoriously unstable and untruthful, changing from minute to minute, usually spoken for the effect it can immediately generate, without thought of long-term consequences. Trying to document that is nearly impossible, while documenting real actions is much easier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)