The Truth about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Imperialist Propaganda

Πέμπτη, 21 Ιουλίου 2016

The Truth about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Imperialist Propaganda

By Nikos Mottas*.
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible…”
– Harry Truman, 1941.
Since the end of the Second World War, the bourgeois historiography has tried to distort various incidents in order to vilify Socialism and the USSR. One of these incidents- which has been a “banner” of imperialism’s apologists and other anticommunists- is the so-called “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”* which was signed in 1939. In it’s unscientific, unhistorical effort to equate Communism with Nazism, the bourgeois propaganda presents the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as a medium of expansive policy by the USSR and Hitler’s Germany. The distortion of historical events, the amalgamation of lies and the half-truths by the Imperialists and their collaborators aim in defaming the huge role of the Soviet Union in the anti-fascist struggle of WW2.
However, the reality is different than the one presented by the bourgeois historiography. Here, we will examine the circumstances and the events which led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression pact, in an effort to debunk the anti-communist propaganda on this matter.
Having the financial and technical support of US and European monopolies, Hitler’s Germany began to strengthen its armed forces in the mid-1930s. In 1936, the Nazis proceeded to the militarization of Rhineland, helped Mussolini in capturing Abyssinia (Ethiopia) while they played a crucial role in the imposition of Franco’s fascist dictatorship in Spain. The strengthening of Nazi Germany and the beginning of fascism’s expansion in Europe took place under the tolerance of the then powerful “democratic” imperialist powers; Britain, France and the US.
After the annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany in March 1938, the Allies (Britain, France) proceed to the Munich Agreement (30 September 1938). The apologists of Imperialism usually try to downgrade the importance of this agreement between Britain, France, Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. However, the impact of the Munich agreement- an act of appeasement towards the Nazis- was definitely significant. With the signatures of the then British and French Prime Ministers, Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier, the Nazis annexed Czechoslovakia and intensified their expansionist aggressiveness towards Eastern Europe.
The participants of Munich Conference, 1938. From left to right:
Neville Chamberlain, Eduard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini.
A few months later, on April 7, 1939 the fascist regime of Italy invaded and captured Albania. On March 31, 1939, the governments of Britain and France guaranteed the protection of Poland in case of a Nazi attack- Both London and Paris signed bilateral agreements of mutual aid with Poland. When Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, 1939, Britain and France declared war against Hitler but without taking any military action until next year! From their side, the United States declared their neutrality.
Before the invasion of the Nazi army in Poland, the government in Warsaw had tried to negotiate with Hitler a possible joint attack against the Soviet Union. The negotiations failed, as long as the Polish bourgeoisie prefered instead to sign defense agreements with Britain and France. What is important here is that Poland had rejected an agreement of mutual defense (against Nazis) offered by the Soviet Union.
The Imperialist propaganda tries to obfuscate Britain and France’s stance of appeasament towards the Nazis and hides the reasons behind the US “neutrality”. The words of US Senator Robert A. Taft are characteristic: “A victory of communism would be much more dangerous for the United States than a victory for fascism” (CBS, 25 June 1941). According to historian John Snell, the western powers regarded the Third Reich as a “barrier” against the Soviet Union in central Europe. The strategic aim of the “democratic” imperialist states was to turn Hitler against the Soviet Union; in a few words, to use the Nazis as a weapon against the contruction of Socialism in the USSR. That was the initial aim of the so-called “allies”.
On that point, we must remind that, before the war and while Hitler’s regime was building a powerful military, the Soviet Union took numerous initiatives in order to deal a defensive agreement with the European capitalist states. Despite the Soviet calls for the preparation of a common front against the Nazis, the western European “allies” declined such a perspective. For example, before the 1938 Munich Agreement, when Hitler annexed Austria, the Soviet Union proposed an International conference (March 1938) which would deal with the confrontation of Nazi agressiveness.
On July 23, 1939, the Soviet Union proposed to Britain and French the beginning of negotiations for the formation of a defense plan in case of a German attack. However, the British government had other priorities: to secretly negotiate a non-agression pact with Hitler’s representatives in London. Indeed, while the Soviet Union was proposing to the capitalist states an anti-fascist front, the British government was secretly negotiating with the Nazis the “spheres of influence” in Europe!
What the bourgeois historiography deliberately hides is the fact that the Soviet Union was the only state that had not an aggressive, expansionist policy. Both the two sides of international imperialism (the “democratic” capitalist allies and, on the other hand, the Nazi-fascist Axis) were aiming at the elimination of the Soviet Union. The real enemy of both sides was the Socialist construction in the USSR and for that they didn’t hesitate to use each other against Moscow.
The temporary non-agression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany came after numerous efforts by the Soviets to deal a defense agreement with Britain and France. Therefore, being under the continuous threat of the expanding Nazi army and in order to prepare itself for an extensive war, the Soviet state forced to sign the non-agression pact with Berlin. What the bourgeois historians and the apologists of Imperialism call an “alliance between Hitler and Stalin” was in fact a needed diplomatic manoeuvre by the Soviet Union in order to gain time and prepare effectively for a full-scale war. Even bourgeois historians admit that the Soviet policy was complete realistic, given the then circumstances and the danger of a German attack (F.Dulles, The road to Tehran, New York, 1944, p.203-207).
According to the imperialist propaganda, the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-agression pact led to the Soviet “capture” of a part of Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Such arguments- about the supposed “Soviet occupation”- have fostered the rise of fascist, neo-Nazi groups in these countries after the counter-revolution in the USSR. However, the truth is also quite different. Poland had participated actively in the allied imperialist attack which was launched against the newly-founded Soviet state in 1918. With the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918) the Bolshevik leadership had renounced Tsarist claims to Poland. The Polish government kept under it’s control a number of areas in the Baltic region, including western Belarus, western Ukraine and a part of Lithuania). After the Nazi invasion in Poland in 1939, the Red Army moved towards the Soviet-Polish borders and liberated the abovementioned areas.
The bourgeois-imperialist propaganda tries to distort history when it refers to “Soviet occupation”- on the contrary, the Soviet Army was the one which liberated the Baltic countries and eastern Europe from the Nazis. The Motolov-Ribbentrop pact did not include any kind of Poland’s “partition”. On the contrary, the 1938 Munich Agreement between Britain, France and the Axis (Germany, Italy) led to the partition of Czechoslovakia and the seizure of the country by Hitler’s army.
The imperialist propaganda regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact consists one of the numerous cases of blatant anticommunist lies. Through bourgeois historiography, Imperialism tries to equate communism and fascism, to vilify Socialism and the Soviet Union. In order to do this, Imperialism’s apologists distort history and invent the most hideous slanders against the Soviet Union and the socialist states; from the “Moscow trials” and the “gulags” to the supposed “Stalin-Hitler alliance” and the “Soviet invasion” in Afghanistan. What the Imperialists want to hide is the fact that fascism is just another kind of bourgeois authority– the simple fact that, as Bertolt Brecht said, fascism is the “most naked, brazen, oppresive and deceitful form of capitalism”.
* The Soviet-German non-Agression Pact took it’s name from the surnames of the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs who signed it: Soviet diplomat Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov (1891-1986) and Nazi Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893-1946). 
Nikos Mottas is the Editor-in-Chief of ‘In Defense of Communism’, a PhD candidate in Political Science, International Relations and Political History. 
Why One Shouldn’t Be Deluded by Trump’s Pro-Russian Remarks
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters in Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S., May 24, 2016

Why One Shouldn’t Be Deluded by Trump’s Pro-Russian Remarks

© REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst

Get short URL
Ekaterina Blinova

There is a fuss about Republican candidate Donald Trump’s allegedly “pro-Russian” stance in the US media. Does it mean that Trump’s election in November as the 45th US president could bring an end to “the nightmare of unwarranted sanctions” and demonization of Russia?

There has been little if any doubt that Donald Trump will eventually win the Republican nomination for President of the United States, regardless of the controversial statements voiced by his political opponents within the GOP during the course of his campaign.

Still, as it turns out, Trump’s stance on Russia and Ukraine differs greatly from that of the party’s national security leaders.

Is Trump a ‘Putin Apologist’?

In one of his latest articles for the Washington Post, American journalist Josh Rogin called attention to the fact that the Trump team has changed the Republican security platform’s stance on Ukraine, to the astonishment of delegates.”The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington,” Rogin wrote Monday.

In fact Trump staffers have changed just a few words in an amendment proposed by Diana Denman, a platform committee member from Texas. The amendment called for increasing sanctions on Russia and providing “lethal defensive weapons” to Kiev.

However, the tone of the document was softened by the Trump team, which replaced the words “lethal defensive weapons” with “appropriate assistance.”

US soldier, center, instructs Ukrainian soldiers during joint training exercises on the military base in the Lviv region, western Ukraine
© AP Photo/ Andrew Kravchenko, Pool
US soldier, center, instructs Ukrainian soldiers during joint training exercises on the military base in the Lviv region, western Ukraine

“He [Trump] simply doesn’t see Russia as a dangerous threat,” Rogin emphasized.

Predictably, the move has prompted The Weekly Standard, an American neoconservative magazine, to claim that “Trump and his advisors have shown signs of cozying up to Russia.”

So, does Trump really bring grist for Russia’s mill?

“There are advisors around Donald Trump who have long-standing business ties with Russia and who believe the sanctions are a dead-end,” F. William Engdahl, an author and strategic analyst, told Sputnik.

“That being said, the larger problem is that every sound bite from Mr. Trump’s lips is a calculated voter seduction, every one. He has tapped into a very deep current of American rage and frustration at Washington double-talk and frustration over the negative direction of the US economy over the past two or more decades. Those Americans are fed up with all these pointless wars-Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria… So he is trying to tap into that frustration while Hillary Clinton is the warhawk Par Excellence a la Libya,” Engdahl underscored.

As for William Kristol’s Weekly Standard,  it is the recognized mouthpiece of the military industrial complex and their neocon lobby, the strategic analyst remarked.

Trump vs. Clinton: There is No ‘Lesser Evil’

But given Trump’s remarks that he would “get along very well” with Russian President Putin, could we assume that he is a “friend” and possible “partner” of Russia?”I feel we come to better clarity if we do not speak of ‘friends’ when it comes to national interests. On that I have to agree with Lord Palmerston, [who said] nations have interests not ‘friends.’ The interests can be advanced in a friendly way but clear perceptions of what constitute Russia’s true national interests, or America’s true national interests are vital,” Engdahl stressed.

“I understand how the Russian media would ask such a question with unstated hope that the nightmare of unwarranted sanctions and a vilification or demonization of Russia beyond belief would finally be ended. In my view it won’t, at least anytime soon, and certainly not with a putative President Trump nor a putative President Clinton II,” the strategic analyst continued.

Engdahl explained that if one researches deeper into Donald Trump’s background, he would find out that the politician has come out of a very murky world of financial manipulations.”American deserves far better in my view, at least someone with the depth of a JFK,” the author underscored.

“I must stress again, this is no ordinary election in the United States. The national infrastructure deficit has reliably been estimated at more than $3 trillion-bridges, water systems, highways, railroads, the electric grid-the very heart of any real economy,” Engdahl pointed out.

The question then arises whether Donald Trump has worked out a plan to heal America’s economic wounds.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (L) and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are seen in a combination of file photos
© REUTERS/ David Becker/Nancy Wiechec/Files
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (L) and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump are seen in a combination of file photos

“Has Donald Trump set out a program to rebuild that? That could create millions of jobs and hundreds of billions in needed tax revenues. No he hasn’t. Has Donald Trump outlined a program to clean up the Wall Street banking disaster and bring those responsible for it to justice after almost nine years of this nonsense? No,” the author underscored.

The problem is that it is a part of human nature to desperately hope that out of two choices, one might be the “lesser of two evils,” he notes. Unfortunately, this time in America, it isn’t, according to Engdahl.

“The choice between war-waging Hillary, who would be facing criminal charges if it weren’t for White House and FBI corruption, and the Casino Don, liar and political neophyte, Trump. That’s like choosing between the Black Death and Cholera. Both will kill us,” the author believes.

Trump and Russia: Nothing Personal, It’s Just Business

And still there is a lot of fuss in the US media regarding Trump’s alleged “pro-Russian” stance. The Washington Free Beacon reported on July 11 that Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump, had traveled to Moscow.

In a speech he delivered at the New Economic School, Page “blamed the United States for ‘mistakes’ that have damaged US-Russian relations,” the media outlet wrote, adding that the advisor “has a history of criticizing US foreign policy and portraying Russia in a favorable light.”

Could we regard this visit as an attempt to build bridges between Washington and Moscow by the Trump camp?

The analyst says, “It’s impossible at this point for me to say if he was there to build bridges for Trump. He was apparently not on an official Trump mission, but rather as a private businessman. Mr. Page knows Russia, has lived there as a businessman some years ago and has business dealings with Gazprom and other Russian companies, so presumably he has a more sober and better informed view of what is really going on in Russia.”

“That being said, it is impossible at this point to say whether he will in any way influence a possible Trump presidency,” he stressed.According to Engdahl, Trump is using his pro-Putin remarks as a kind of selling point to gain additional political points and attract media attention.

“One thing you should be aware of in American psychology, we are the nation nurtured on John Wayne movies, Rambo, Terminator. That was, so-to-speak the ‘mother’s milk’ for today’s adult Americans. In their Hollywood-shaped world of perceptions, Vladimir Putin comes across to them as some kind of Super Rambo who takes no nonsense,” he explained.

“For Trump to slyly let himself be even vaguely identified with a decisive world leader like Putin is a cheap way to gain more votes, all subliminal. I have spoken with so many fellow Americans from my vantage point here in Europe, who have said privately, ‘If we only had a decisive President like Russia…’  That’s what Trump senses and is trying to opportunistically capitalize on,” Engdahl highlighted.

However, “if you look closely at the people Trump has chosen, it is a mixed bag of some leading neo-cons and some realists,” he remarked.

Trump is a hardheaded businessman and he has no affection for Russia or its leadership. As the saying goes, “Nothing personal, it’s just business.”

But what about Trump’s changing the Republican security platform’s amendment on Ukraine?

“This is not much of a dissent from the hawkish line on foreign policy, but it is a rejection of one of the more thoughtless and irresponsible foreign policy proposals out there,” Daniel Larison of the American Conservative commented on the matter, adding that most of the Republican platform on foreign policy and national security remains as hawkish as ever.

“Nothing good for Ukraine or the US would come from sending them weapons,” Larison stressed, adding “the Republicans that should be embarrassed by this episode are the ones that wanted to insist on throwing more weapons at a foreign problem.”

Trumpism is a Scam – You’re Actually Voting for Mike Pence
| July 21, 2016 | 8:01 pm | Analysis, Donald Trump, political struggle | No comments
Thom Hartmann Program

Trumpism is a Scam – You’re Actually Voting for Mike Pence

Thom Hartmann Program

Get short URL
Thom Hartmann

When he officially accepts the 2016 Republican nomination for president Thursday night, Donald Trump will do so as a different kind of Republican. Or so the thinking goes.

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

Now, we have no explicit confirmation of this, but everything in the Times’ report suggests that Trump made this exact same offer to Mike Pence before making him his running mate.

And if that’s true, it reveals two very important things. The first thing it reveals is Trump’s management style. Like a lot of billionaire corporate executives, Trump is a delegator, which is fine for the business world, but poses some big problems for the presidency, a job that requires attention to detail and around-the-clock engagement. So that’s the first thing this Times story reveals. The second thing it reveals is a much bigger deal.

If Donald Trump really did offer Mike Pence complete control over domestic and foreign policy in return for serving his running mate, then that means that Donald Trump’s entire campaign is a sham. Unlike Donald Trump (or at least 2016 presidential campaign edition of Donald Trump), Mike Pence is a rock-solid, down-the-line all-for-the-billionaires-and-corporations Republican. Pence voted for and supported the Iraq War. Pence supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA, CAFTA, and all the rest of the so-called free trade agreements that have run the American middle-class into the ground. Pence supports slashing Social Security, and Medicare, hates unions, and wants to cut taxes for the rich, and on and on.

So if Donald Trump really did offer Mike Pence complete control over domestic and foreign policy in exchange for being his running mate, then that means that a Trump presidency would really just be a Pence presidency. In other words, if you’re thinking of voting for Trump because you hate the TPP and NAFTA and want to bring the jobs home, what you’re actually going to get is Mike Pence, who loves the TPP and NAFTA. If you’re thinking of voting for Trump because you’re sick of us wasting all that blood and treasure in the Middle East, what you’re actually going to get is Mike Pence, who was one of the biggest Iraq War boosters around. If you’re thinking of voting for Trump because you think he’s going to protect Social Security, what you’re actually going to get is Mike Pence, who’s just another Republican who wants to throw granny off the cliff. You get the idea.

Of course, the fact that his campaign is such a blatant scam doesn’t matter one bit to Donald Trump. He doesn’t care about what Pence will do to the middle class, he doesn’t care what Pence will do to the nation, and he certainly doesn’t care what Pence will do to you and me. All Trump cares about is inflating his personal brand, and getting elected president is the best way to do that. But, just because Trump doesn’t care, doesn’t mean Republican voters shouldn’t. They should be outraged that their candidate is pulling a fast one on them.

Unfortunately, the media is so busy covering the Trump campaign like a reality show that it hasn’t bothered pointing any of this out. Hopefully they do before it’s too late, because the last thing this country needs is another right-wing Republican president.

Black Therapist With Raised Hands Shot by Cops While Helping Patient
Charles Kinsey

Black Therapist With Raised Hands Shot by Cops While Helping Patient


Get short URL

On Wednesday, a video was posted to the internet showing the moments before and after an unarmed black man in Florida was shot by police while his hands were raised, and he was laying in the street.

The shooting victim, Charles Kinsey, is a licensed behavioral therapist who was attempting to help an autistic man who had run away from a group home. Kinsey found the man, who can also be seen in the video, in the middle of the street, playing with a toy truck.

Kinsey was shot three times and subsequently hospitalized. In the video, police can be heard telling Kinsey to roll around on his stomach, and Kinsey can be heard explaining, “All he has is a truck. A toy truck. I’m a behavior therapist at a group home.” The toy truck was being held by the autistic man, and appears as a black object.

​Kinsey said of the 23-year-old, “I was more worried about him than myself.”

This new shooting comes at a time of widespread protest against police shootings of black people, particularly Alton Sterling of Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Philando Castile of Minnesota. Sterling was accosted by police while selling CDs at a local gas station, and Castile was in the process of retrieving his license and registration when he was shot. The killings highlight consistently unresolved issues concerning race and policing in the US.

Following the incident, North Miami Police Chief Gary Eugene told reporters “Our officers responded to the scene with that threat in mind. We had witness statements that there was a gun. We had a 911 call with that same information,” he added, “However, I want to make it clear, there was no gun recovered.”

The North Miami Police Department said in a statement that officers “attempted to negotiate with two men on the scene,” when they responded to a call that claimed there was an armed man threatening to commit suicide.

Kinsey described the shooting saying, “It was like a mosquito bite, and when it hit me, I’m like, I still got my hands in the air, and I said, no, I just got shot! And I’m saying, ‘Sir, why did you shoot me?’ and his words to me, he said, ‘I don’t know.'”

After being shot, Kinsey said, “They flipped me over, and I’m face down on the ground, with cuffs on, waiting on the rescue squad to come. I’d say about 20, about 20 minutes it took the rescue squad to get there. And I was like, bleeding — I mean bleeding, and I was like, ‘Wow.'”

The shooting itself was not caught on video and the officer’s justification for shooting remains unknown. The officer is currently on administrative leave during the investigation.

Kinsey is surprised that his compliance with police didn’t lead to a de-escalation. “As long as I’ve got my hands up, they’re not gonna shoot me, that’s what I’m thinking,” he said. “Wow, was I wrong.”

Cruz May Have Hurt Political Career Failing to Endorse Trump


Get short URL

Former Republican presidential candidate and US Senator Ted Cruz may have damaged his political career when he failed to endorse the party’s nominee Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, US Congressman from Texas, John Carter told Sputnik.

CLEVELAND (Sputnik) — On Wednesday, Cruz delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention, where he failed to clearly endorse the party’s nominee. After the speech telling Republicans to “vote their conscience,” he was booed off the stage.

“I think he made a mistake,” Carter said on Thursday of Cruz’s speech at the Republican National Convention where he failed to endorse Donald Trump as the party’s presidential nominee. “I think it is harmful to his career.”

Earlier on Thursday, Cruz addressed the Texas delegation, which Carter described as “contentious” meeting. Carter added that he is most disturbed that Cruz was “supposed to keep his word” in signing the 2015 pledge to endorse the nominee.

In 2015, the slate of 17 Republican presidential candidates assembled in Cleveland to sign a “loyalty pledge,” affirming they would support the Republican Party candidate, regardless of who won the ticket.

Michael Moore: ‘Sorry to be the Buzzkill’ but He Thinks Trump Can Win
| July 21, 2016 | 7:51 pm | Analysis, Donald Trump, political struggle | No comments
michael moore

Michael Moore: ‘Sorry to be the Buzzkill’ but He Thinks Trump Can Win

© AP Photo/ Joel Ryan

Get short URL

As Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump prepares to formally accept his fractured party’s nomination on Thursday, he will make an effort to win over unconvinced members of the party establishment, along with voters still straddling the fence.

Controversy surrounding Trump’s campaign has followed the real-estate speculator to the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveland, where a group of loosely organized #NeverTrump party members attempted unsuccessfully to force a roll call so they would not have to vote for the former reality television star.

On Wednesday, documentarian and activist Michael Moore surprised some by solemnly declaring that he believes Trump will win the presidency.

During an online episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Moore said that he believes that the pillorying of Hillary Clinton taking place during the RNC is designed to reach people that have not yet made a decision on whom to vote for.

“One of the things I’ve been concerned about this week is we’re all sitting in our bubble, having a good laugh at this total, as you said, s***show, but the truth is that this plays to a lot of people that he has to win to become the next president.”

Moore, who directed the documentaries Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine, compared Trump’s political maneuvers to the strategies of Britain during their exit from the European Union.

“And I have to say, I’m sorry to be the buzzkill here too, early on, but I think Trump is gonna win,” he said. “People are in denial of this, but the chance of winning is really, really good.”

Moore’s statement elicited boos from the crowd, but host Maher said he was actually glad Moore expressed the unpopular opinion, saying  “The enemy is complacency,” and that people should “Say it every day.”

Trump May Reduce US Tensions With Russia If Elected President
| July 19, 2016 | 8:41 pm | Analysis, Donald Trump, political struggle | No comments
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump holds a rally with supporters in Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S., May 24, 2016

Trump May Reduce US Tensions With Russia If Elected President

© REUTERS/ Jonathan Ernst

Get short URL

US Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump could help reduce tensions between the United States and Russia if he wins the White House in November, Virginia State Senator and convention delegate Richard Black told Sputnik.

CLEVELAND (Sputnik) — He added that if Trump becomes president, “we are going to see cooperation with Russia, and once that happens I think we are going to start winning the war on terror.”

“I believe that Trump will reduce tensions with Russia,” Black said.

In June, Donald Trump said he would be inclined to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to Washington if he became president. He also emphasized how cooperation between the United States and Russia could have led to the destruction of the Islamic State terror group, which is outlawed in both countries.

“[Trump] is willing to cooperate in ways that make some people very nervous,” Black explained. “Trump has made it clear that he does not see a reason for all the tension and conflict with Russia, and I agree with that.”

The United States is more likely to wind down its conflicts abroad under President Trump, Black asserted.

“I think he is going to bring peace, and I think [Democratic presidential hopeful] Hillary Clinton will double-down on the Neo-conservative approach to making war every place under the sun,” he said.

Senator Richard Black recently made headlines when he visited Syria and met with President Bashar Assad.

Tensions between Washington and Moscow erupted in 2014 in the wake of the Ukrainian crisis and reunification of Crimea with Russia.