You have permission to edit this article.
Ignoring Trump's strong actions against Russia

Ignoring Trump's strong actions against Russia


To columnist Ann McFeatters: Recently I read your commentary in the Napa Valley Register, July 4, “Trump’s affinity for Russia is baffling and dangerous."

I reviewed your bio information on-line and I note you are an opinion writer, and I presume not a reporter of news. And you identify yourself as a "news follower."

Based on the information presented in your article it would seem readers who put trust in your analysis and words, would conclude President Trump’s has some type of dangerous and undefined affinity for Russia based on his rhetoric or personal behavior.

As one example of this affinity you cite Trump meeting Putin twice with no U.S. officials present; how absolutely horrible, maybe even impeachable?

But Ms. McFeatters, your article completely fails to mention the many policy actions Trump has taken against Russia (Putin). In fact, I believe no other administration has ever taken so many policy actions against Russia.

My evidence is a study published by The Brookings Institution, an esteemed 104-year-old nonprofit public policy organization in Washington D.C. On Dec. 31, 2019 they published a study titled, "On The Record: The U.S. administration’s actions on Russia 2017-2019."  In that report, they list 52 policy actions taken by the Trump administration against Russia during Mr.Trump’s first three years as president.

Although the Brookings study describes the 52 policy actions against Russia, Ms McFeatters you chose, as an opinion writer, not to list a single one.

Are you writing fables or fact-based analysis for the public to read? What feature of your personal character prevents you from mentioning not even one of these policy actions against Russia? Apparently, you wield your own personal cancel culture on facts and the truth.

My goal in sending you this is to learn why you decided to mislead your readers by totally ignoring these facts. Maybe you are fearful of losing your position if you show anything favorable of Trump?

Many of the 52 policy actions impressed me. For example, in 2017 President Trump supplied Ukraine lethal Javelin anti-tank missiles to help defend against Russia. In contrast, President Obama would not supply lethal weapons to Ukraine, only supplies such as blankets and training were permitted. Maybe President Obama had an affinity for Russia and Putin?

President Trump applied 20 sanctions against Russia over the last three years for a variety of malicious activities such as; 2016 election interference, human rights violations, corruption, cyberattacks, nerve agent attack in the U.K., Crimea and Ukraine occupations. In addition 60 Russian intelligence officers were expelled and various U.S. Russian embassies were closed. President Trump, in addition, has actively opposed the construction of the multi-billion Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany.

So here I am again wondering what is it in your personal value system that prohibited you from mentioning not even one Trump policy action against Russia? Why should anybody bother to read what you write if you exercise such flagrant disregard of the truth?

Perhaps opinion writers by definition are not expected to offer fact-based content to support their opinions. It raises the question of what social value such grossly distorted opinion pieces offer the public.

Richard Anderson


Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


News Alerts

Breaking News