Discussion in 'Politics' started by MessiahDecoy123, Oct 15, 2016.
Is this a chess move ahead of Trump losing?
Will Trump supporters rally behind Russia?
The Trumpeteers are free to emigrate to Russia. Don't let the door hit y'all on the way out, *******s.
Russia really has been out of control.
Obama has been completely ineffectual in checking them.
Any examples of what Obama should've done that wouldn't start a war?
Take out Assad?
The thing is, if we wanted to, we could bring Russia to its knees quicker than Putin could say, Stalin. They are nowhere near as powerful as the once were (it's debatable if they ever really were) but the USA could shut them down so quick they wouldn't even know what happened to them. If we were to launch a coordinated cyber-attack coupled with strategic strikes on key compounds it would be over in less time than the first Iraq war.
Granted this would cause WW3 most likely so it's not an advisable scenario but the point remains.
It is true. Russia is more talk then bite.
Russia still acts like it's the 60's. I question Putin's resolve. In a conventional war, the United States would mop the floor with Russia.
Certainly they still have a formidable nuclear arsenal, but would they actually use it because of a proxy war in Syria?
The thing is, though, nukes are very expensive to maintain. There are many reports of abandoned silos as well as near ancient tech involved with nukes (that includes ours). Russia used to parade around their nukes during the cold war and it was later discovered that many of those were just empty shells. Putin is upset that we are still setting up missile defense systems in Europe which he feels threatened by. Russia has not had the money to stay at the forefront of tech when it comes to the 4-pronged approach of the missile offense/defense system. If they were to launch any nukes we could dispose of them while they were still in Russian airspace. Russia knows it does not want to try and play that game with us.
U.S + Nato = Easy win
Russia Reveals 'Satan 2' Nuclear Missile Capable of Destroying Texas in One Blow
I still stand by my earlier statement but GOD DAMN that thing is a beast!
If we left Putin and Assad alone, would they leave us alone?
Depends on by what you mean when you say "alone". Putin doesn't like that we build strategic missile defense bases on our NATO allies soil in Europe. He sees that as a threat to Russia (it kind of is but only if he starts flexing) whereas our allies see it as the only thing keeping Russia from pulling stunts like he did in the Ukraine.
When it comes to Assad that is just a huge clusterf***. Assad is committing war crimes against his own people and is buddy/buddy with Putin. We look kind of stupid there because Obama drew a line in the sand about chemical weapons, Assad called that bluff and crossed that line then Obama didn't do anything. I understand Obama's hesitancy to not get our troops involved in another ground war with no foreseeable end and the American people def don't want that.
Geopolitical matters are always complicated af and I'm sure there is many more nuanced things I'm missing in my description but that's the gist of it. Putin wants to be able to throw his weight around without anyone throwing much back and our EU NATO allies really like it when we keep that kind of behavior in check.
What? Are you off your meds young one?
There's nothing that the US and ALL its allies haven't done in concert to bring down Russia (short of direct military attack) that they haven't done already.
a) Sectoral financial sanctions
b) Partially engineer an oil-price collapse
c) Color Revolution in the Ukraine
d) Proxy War in the Donbass
e) Immense & unprecedented propaganda campaign
f) NATO build-up
g) EU trying every stupid energy policy imaginable so that purchases of Russian natural gas are minimized.
h) Pushing Turkey (and Ukraine) as NATO's vanguard against Russia.
i) Trying to reignite the Chechen conflict.
j) Pushing Azerbaijan to attack Armenia
k) Trying to lure Belarus away from Russia
l) Threatening all Central Asian -stans with destabilization via Jihadi proxies.
m) Encouraging Jihadis to attack Russian targets anywhere.
n) Bringing down of Russian civilian airliner (allegedly by terrorists) over Egypt, then have the British FM publicly state: "Putin should take this as a warning"
o) Asking from India to break-off relations with Russia (and just google the Indian PM's reply to this Western demand)
p) Endless provocations and attempts at escalation on both the Syrian & Ukrainian fronts.
q) Frequent usage of naval & aerial military assets all over Russia's vast periphery.
r) Daily threats by Western officials on all levels.
s) Many other things that I am now forgetting.
Guess what my friend, Russia when united internally, is exactly the wrong country to be messing with. The entire western world and all their slavish pooches will be reminded of this stark lesson in the coming years. The most perceptive in the West have already realized: http://observer.com/2016/10/syrias-civil-war-is-over-russia-won/
I take it that you are quite light on history, the military capabilities of Russia, geopolitics as well as the long-tern prospects for the global energy industry (since you are obviously only being informed by outlets such as CNN & The Guardian. Since this is the case, you should refrain from silly statements such as those made above.
I see we have our first Russian state agent of propaganda here on the Hype. Half the list you have up there is plain old nonsense. We aren't in the 1800-1900's anymore champ. Nobody has to try and fight a ground war with Russia during the winter. All we would have to do is launch a coordinated cyber-attack in conjunction with drone and air strikes and it's a wrap for Russia. Why do you think Putin has been pissed at us for so long? Because we've littered Europe with missile defense capabilities to keep his ass in check. I'm ex-military and am quite well versed in what we are capable of doing so bring your BS Russian propaganda elsewhere.
Yes, you are missing things like context, you show no grasp of what the confrontation is all about, who exactly the proxies are, the difference between Ukraine and countries that are not half-Russian, the sequence of events, the concept of false flags etc etc...
Assad is killing his own people? So you think that Putin & Assad & Iran have nothing better to do but kill random unarmed Syrian civilians? To be sure, civilians always get caught in the crossfire, but how did the great democratic alliance of NATO put it so many years ago? Collateral damage if I'm not mistaken. Or do you think that when NATO warplanes drop bombs only "evildoers" die?
Why don't you do it then?
How many of those conflicts are outdated remnants of the cold war with the Soviet Union?
How much of it was the direct result of recent Russian aggression?
War should be avoided if possible.
Just curious how much Putin pays people like you to spread nonsense like this on the internet? Hopefully, a box of Russia's finest vodka is included in there for you be able to wash it all down.
Haha comrade, you've got it twisted. I'm ex-military and don't have any say so of who we attack. The Russian military has damn fine men serving it they were just unlucky enough to get stuck with horribly outdated equipment and a government that would rather spend their money building nukes like the one I posted above instead of investing in its fellow countrymen and infrastructure. Make no doubt about it, we could bring Russi down to nothing without ever stepping foot on their soil.
The U.S and others called for Assad to step aside.
A state sanctioned assassination or capture of a foreign leader without a large scale UN or global consensus would open an entire different can of worms. We need to look no further than Gaddafi's toppling in Libya or Saddam in Iraq. Atleast we had the common sense to let actual Libyans and Iraqis do the dirty work of offing them. In the U.S bombed Assad in Damascus it would only create more anti-U.S sentiment amongst many in the region and make things continuously unstable.
BBC Newsnight interviewed some Russians the other night for their views on the country politically. It was pretty interesting.
The Russians said many Russians feared political change as it has often coincided with catastrophe and unrest in Russia. People are scared of what will happen once Putin leaves because he is a autocrat that controls the country in some ways more singularly than during the Soviet Russian Communist era and there isn't really anyone to fill his place.
Mush of Putin's foreign policy to project strength and cover up flaws and failings back home in Russia. Putin has also fostered a us against them mentality with Russians convincing some the West is out to weaken Russia and wants to see them fail. They like Putin as they feel he stands up to foreigner detractors and he has tried to restore Russian patriotism which took a dip in the nineties.
These conflicts have little to do with the past (if anything) and almost everything to do with the current stand-off between NATO & Russia. Blaming current events and conflicts on some archaic and unresolved historical grievance is a favorite pastime of intellectuals and academics but carries little water. To give you an example that you maybe much more familiar with, when black people riot in Fergusson or some other US city, it has nothing to do with the institution of slavery centuries ago or Jim Crow, but much more to do with current contradictions within American society.
In any case, my point is that NATO-GCC have not been cutting Russia any slack during the recent conflict (that they unilaterally initiated) but have tried everything within their power to bring Russia down. What they describe as "Russian aggression" are nothing but defensive reactions by Russia against the overt & covert hostility of the NATO-GCC Empire.
NATO-GCC expected an easy victory against Russia. They were mistaken.
1. What would the Russian state stand to win if some random people on the internet put the record straight? In any case, the Russian-funded media do not use the language or talking points that I am using, so you are very wrong to draw any parallels.
2. My approach in these matters is that of Realpolitik. Your approach seems to be highly idealistic. Your statements clearly assume that the only thing saving Russia from total and utter military defeat, is the benevolence & magnanimity of the US & its allies. This is not supported by any facts. US-NATO have been utterly ruthless with their geopolitical targets throughout the decades. The hostility demonstrated towards Russia by both the US & Europe has been unprecedented in recent years. There have been multiple public admissions by Western officials that the aim of their policies is to "bring Russia on her knees", "to affect regime-change in the Kremlin", "to kill as many Russians as possible", "to destroy the Russian economy", "to force Putin to back down"
Moreover, many NATO strategists (such as George Friedman, Robert Kaplan, Edward Lucas, Zbigniew Brzenski) have explicitly stated that the end-goal of the Western Alliance towards Russia is the break-up of that country.
Trust me, there is zero mercy on the part of NATO towards Russia, their aim is nothing but the complete and utter destruction of that country, which now, as in times before has risen from the ashes to defy the Western world in its entirety. And do keep in mind, this is the trouble that Russia can cause when she is still relatively weak and poor, imagine what things will be like when Russia is in a stronger position.
So no, your assumption (also articulated by some MSM "analysts") that the US-NATO can easily force Russia to back down, or even easily defeat her, but htey just can't be bothered, is either based on ignorance, wishful thinking or an embarrassed desire to hide the fact that one country has outwitted and outmaneuvered the entire North American-European-Turkish-Israeli-GCC Imperium.
The Russians have legitimate interests in both the post-Soviet space as well as the MENA region, and will be fighting for them from now on, tooth & nail. Russia is only now in the process of regaining her geo-strategic footing, but this time, the "free-world" won't be facing an ideologically rigid, caught in a Utopian mindset cumbersome power, but a far more flexible one, clever, selfish and cunning at every turn. NATO, along with all of their assorted vassals, better get used to the new reality.
I think it's important to keep in mind just how different the national mentalities are between the United States and the Russian Federation. Americans traditionally take for granted just how freakishly stable our government and statehood is. Our government has been in charge for longer than Russia's, Germany's, France's, heck, pretty much the entirety of Central and Southern Europe, and the vast bulk of the world's remaining countries. The worst we've had is a Civil War that still didn't quite go as insane as it could have. We have had only two neighbors since the mid-1800's, both of whom have by and large been peaceful neighbors ever since we stopped picking fights with them. Our experience of the two World Wars is entirely different from theirs; WWI was largely an opportunistic joining up with the winning side after transforming into the economic epicenter of the world thanks to the toll of the war on the UK, and WWII was an assumption of the British Empire's old mantle as the premier Western power and as one of the world's first two superpowers.
Russia, in the span of time that America has existed, has lost millions of people to conflict both external and internal, and even its longest-lasting governments in that time (Czarist Empire, Soviet Union) were marked by much more deadly factionalism among the ranking elite. And whereas America is still largely defined by abstract legal declarations and a more inconsistent cultural assimilation, Russia is defined by a distinct though sometimes schismatic ethnic identity. When Americans see other Americans living in other countries, we don't really bat an eyelash; being an American is a legal thing. That's not entirely true with Russians; if you speak the language and have enough other identifying characteristics, you are seen as Russian, whether you want to be or not.
And that's the biggest reason we can't really predict each other's movements, save for a decent judgement of our types of aggression towards each other. Russia has lost too many people in war to be as stupidly risky as weaker nations like North Korea; they play as brinksmanship, not posturing and provocation. And America still jealously guards our largely successful military past; we play brinksmanship too, albeit while being far more willing to wage economic warfare because we can literally afford it.