I think this will go down as one of the pinnacles of diplomacy (the opposite of Clausewitz) of the past century.
Now I go "political"; this is Open Discussion where such, presented in a mature and respectful manner, is fair game. That Joe has had such as stable staff with so little turnover (OK; a Press Secretary where the "lure of the Green Room, and $$$" proved too much, and a Chief of Staff who came back for Joe's campaign - and may still be part of Kamala's) means that the counterparties knew that who they are negotiating with today they will be negotiating with tomorrow.
With Trump's "who's on first" world of "SecState, SecDef, and NSA of today" means others tomorrow, I doubt if he would have would have been able to pull this feat off. I think that Putin recognized this as well, and, much as he would have liked to have given his "pal of convenience" Trump the laurels, he recognized that he'd best "play with the players" who have been on the field throughout. Plus, he reasoned, what if Kamala somehow won? She's "not exactly in love" with him, so, if a deal were to move forth during her presidency, it would be back to square one.
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
I cannot ascertain what you are basing your opinions on, with all due respect.
If the “pinnacle of diplomacy” means exchanging dangerous assassins for journalists, then perhaps war is better by comparison, and not war with “proportionate response” but overwhelming response assuring victory. For one egregious example, I believe that Obama was heavily involved in the extremely lopsided exchange of 1,027 Hamas murderers for Gilad Shalit, one of those exchanged being a major player in the 10/7 incursions/murders.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Helfner, are you implying that had everything Joe accomplished in arranging the swap should have just been "iced" until next January when, more likely than not, Trump returns to power and have him start over from scratch?
posted