Trump calls Germany 'captive' of Russia; demands higher defence spending

[tomacht8]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

You should be more concerned from the former eastern block comrade leader of Germany

If I have the choice between a mother Teresa type and a Goebbels type, the latter makes me more afraid.

[tumama]

23 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Sorry to say, but I don't think the European nations' collective military alone are a credible deterrent against Russia -- now or any time in the future. And that aside, the EU as a decision making body doesn't exactly have the best track record either.

 

There's a reason, as the OP article mentions, that the Baltic states are worried about future aggression from Russia, having seen what happened to Ukraine and Crimea. All of that argues for a continued U.S. military presence in Europe, and I think most European governments would agree -- especially those geographically closest to Russia.

 

As for European nations cultivating "friendly" relations with Russia, that's a bit hard to do when Russia is invading neighboring countries and assassinating expat citizens on foreign soil in Europe (in the latest case, being the UK). All of that has earned Russia condemnation both from EU nations and from most of the nations in the U.N.

 

If you think Russia is going to invade Europe you are delusional. Nice to see that you are peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories too. And what country has Russia invaded? The annexed Crimea after a public referendum. Territory that has been Russian for hundreds of years, where the overwhelming majority are Russian, and that was only recently given to Ukraine by a communist dictatorship. But maybe you are a communist too. If Kosovo could have self determination, why can't Crimea? The hypocrisy is just mind boggling. 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

If you think Russia is going to invade Europe you are delusional. Nice to see that you are peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories too. And what country has Russia invaded? The annexed Crimea after a public referendum. Territory that has been Russian for hundreds of years, where the overwhelming majority are Russian, and that was only recently given to Ukraine by a communist dictatorship. But maybe you are a communist too. If Kosovo could have self determination, why can't Crimea? The hypocrisy is just mind boggling. 

They invaded first and then staged a referendum.

And what about the eastern Ukraine. No Russian troops there?

What about Georgia?

Russian troops are in both those nations. So if that's not an invastion, what is it? A protracted picnic?

And it's not must me who fears a Russian invasion. The Baltic states are also concerned. after all, they have large ethnically russian population and Russia has asserted it's right to defend Russian populations which is apparently what it believes it's doing in the Ukraine and in Georgia. So why wouldn't Russia also target the Baltic states.

[tumama]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Tell that to the Ukraine and Georgia. And see if Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Norway, and others don't share concerns about Russian aggression.

 

Georgia started the aggression by attacking South Ossetia. Russia responded by a justified brief invasion. Crimea is populated by an overwhelming majority of Russians, and has been Russian for hundreds of years. It was only given to Ukraine recently under the communist dictatorship. Crimeans held a public referendum where they decided they wanted to join the Russian federation. If Kosovo could have self determination, why can't Crimea? Blatant hypocrisy.

 

There's no evidence that Russia is helping the rebels in eastern Ukraine. I'm actually disappointed that they don't. Because if US can arm, train and fund terrorists (a.k.a rebels) in Syria. Then why can't Russia be allowed to do the same in Ukraine?

 

[tumama]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They invaded first and then staged a referendum.

And what about the eastern Ukraine. No Russian troops there?

What about Georgia?

Russian troops are in both those nations. So if that's not an invastion, what is it? A protracted picnic?

And it's not must me who fears a Russian invasion. The Baltic states are also concerned. after all, they have large ethnically russian population and Russia has asserted it's right to defend Russian populations which is apparently what it believes it's doing in the Ukraine and in Georgia. So why wouldn't Russia also target the Baltic states.

 

No, they already had a treaty with Ukraine that they were allowed to have troops in Crimea. The whole thing started with US instigating a coup in Kiev. Russia saw it's military strategic interests in Sevastopol threatened, and also Russians living there. So they acted accordingly. Totally justified in my opinion. 

 

It's ironic people who call Putin a dictator, also don't believe in self determination for Crimea. Hypocrites. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by tumama

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

No, they already had a treaty with Ukraine that they were allowed to have troops in Crimea. The whole thing started with US instigating a coup in Kiev. Russia saw it's military strategic interests in Sevastopol threatened, and also Russians living there. So they acted accordingly. Totally justified in my opinion. 

 

It's ironic people who call Putin a dictator, also don't believe in self determination for Crimea. Hypocrites. 

I noticed you sidestepped the issue of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine and Georgia. Also, I believe Moldova.

And you ignored the concerns expressed by the Baltic States. And Russia's assertion that it has the right to intervene to protect Russian speaking peoples in other nations.

[tumama]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I noticed you sidestepped the issue of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine and Georgia. Also, I believe Moldova.

And you ignored the concerns expressed by the Baltic States. And Russia's assertion that it has the right to intervene to protect Russian speaking peoples in other nations.

 

I didn't, I already covered that in a post above. I should have mentioned that. Didn't see anyone bring up Moldova. 

 

Sure I can see how the Baltic states are concerned given the historic occupation by the Soviet Union. But Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore. They don't have any military, economic interests there. It wouldn't make sense for them to attack any of those countries. 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, maximillian said:

 

Who is/are MSM ?   Mouthpieces of government, Wall Street, MIC, deep state, CIA...

Still, most consumers believe them just about anything they spout about.

Far better to trust the Macedonians.

INSIDE THE MACEDONIAN

FAKE-NEWS COMPLEX

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/

[bristolboy]

Just now, tumama said:

 

I didn't, I already covered that in a post above. I should have mentioned that. Didn't see anyone bring up Moldova. 

 

Sure I can see how the Baltic states are concerned given the historic occupation by the Soviet Union. But Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore. They don't have any military, economic interests there. It wouldn't make sense for them to attack any of those countries. 

Because if there's one thing that Putin doesn't regret, it's the collapse of the USSR.

Putin says he wishes the Soviet Union had not collapsed. Many Russians agree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/03/putin-says-he-wishes-he-could-change-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-many-russians-agree/?utm_term=.97351701b055

 

[tumama]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because if there's one thing that Putin doesn't regret, it's the collapse of the USSR.

Putin says he wishes the Soviet Union had not collapsed. Many Russians agree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/03/putin-says-he-wishes-he-could-change-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-many-russians-agree/?utm_term=.97351701b055

 

That is relevant how? Just because he wishes it didn't happen, doesn't mean he's gonna start invading countries for no strategic military or economic reasons. If he did want that, he would have armed, funded and trained the rebels in Ukraine. But he's not even doing that, despite the fact US is doing it right now in Syria.  

 

If US could bomb Belgrade to force them to give up control of Kosovo. Then surely Russia should be allowed to bomb Kiev to force them to give up control of rebel controlled areas in east of Ukraine. But is he doing that? Exactly. So your argument is moot.  

Edited July 13, 2018 by tumama

[sirineou]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Let's say China sells all its treasury bonds tomorrow? What do you think would happen?

According to  many experts, worldwide economic depression. 

Now let's say Russia cut of  Germany's   gas , what do you think would happen? Perjapse buy their gas somewhere else, or use less less of it?

Once we determine which would be a worst occurrence we can then also determine who is more "captive" 

 

[tumama]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

According to  many experts, worldwide economic depression. 

Now let's say Russia cut of  Germany's   gas , what do you think would happen? Perjapse buy their gas somewhere else, or use less less of it?

Once we determine which would be a worst occurrence we can then also determine who is more "captive" 

 

Who's more captive is irrelevant. The point is he's being a hypocrite when he says that. 

 

Having said that though, having your energy supply disrupted I would imagine would be far less impactful than seeing your whole economy tank. Eventually it's what will happen. China is just biding its time. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, tumama said:

That is relevant how? Just because he wishes it didn't happen, doesn't mean he's gonna start invading countries for no strategic military or economic reasons. If he did want that, he would have armed, funded and trained the rebels in Ukraine. But he's not even doing that, despite the fact US is doing it right now in Syria.  

Are you seriously trying to claim that Russia is not supporting the rebels in East Ukraine? There is overwhelming evidence that they are doing exactly that and that in addition, Russian troops have been used on numerous occasions inside Ukrainian territory.

 

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on this:

 

Russian Military intervention in Ukraine

 

The article contains nearly 600 separate references to primary sources which document the extent of Russian involvement.

[sirineou]

Just now, tumama said:

 

Who's more captive is irrelevant. The point is he's being a hypocrite when he says that. 

 

Having said that though, having your energy supply disrupted I would imagine would be far less impactful than seeing your whole economy tank. Eventually it's what will happen. China is just biding its time. 

 I agree on the relevance of the Trump statement, It was an Idiotic statement as most Trump statement are.This statement was directed at his base , he Knows his audience and he speaks their language.

   Unless  China is existentially threaten, China would never dump  US debt.  Such action would devalue the dollar and strengthen the Yuan  making Chinese imports into China's largest export market prohibitivly 

expensive.   It would hurt China just as much as it would hurt the US, the same applies to Germany and Russia. 

My point in this whole exchange was to point out the absurdity of Trump's statement, not to really argue who is more captive, The answer is  that neither is captive 

 

[tumama]

8 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Are you seriously trying to claim that Russia is not supporting the rebels in East Ukraine? There is overwhelming evidence that they are doing exactly that and that in addition, Russian troops have been used on numerous occasions inside Ukrainian territory.

 

Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on this:

 

Russian Military intervention in Ukraine

 

The article contains nearly 600 separate references to primary sources which document the extent of Russian involvement.

 

I glanced at that. Most of it can be explained away. They do share a border and incursions can happen. Even if all that were true, that is not what I call helping the rebels. They should be doing a lot more, and justifiably so. 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

I glanced at that. Most of it can be explained away. They do share a border and incursions can happen. Even if all that were true, that is not what I call helping the rebels. They should be doing a lot more, and justifiably so. 

They should be doing much more? ??Well, at least you're not trying to conceal your bias. ??

[buick]

On 7/11/2018 at 11:05 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Sorry to say, but I don't think the European nations' collective military alone are a credible deterrent against Russia -- now or any time in the future. And that aside, the EU as a decision making body doesn't exactly have the best track record either.

 

There's a reason, as the OP article mentions, that the Baltic states are worried about future aggression from Russia, having seen what happened to Ukraine and Crimea. All of that argues for a continued U.S. military presence in Europe, and I think most European governments would agree -- especially those geographically closest to Russia.

 

As for European nations cultivating "friendly" relations with Russia, that's a bit hard to do when Russia is invading neighboring countries and assassinating expat citizens on foreign soil in Europe (in the latest case, being the UK). All of that has earned Russia condemnation both from EU nations and from most of the nations in the U.N.

i tend to feel what happens in ukraine and crimea is up to russia.  that is their sphere of influence, ukraine was 'owned' by russia before the 'revolution' and it shouldn't be a big surprise that russia took back crimea when their 'ownership' of ukraine ended.  that said, i understand the concern of the baltic states (and others) that i consider outside the sphere of russia's influence.

 

i agree that the EU needs the US military in europe now but i'm not sure about your 'any time in the future'.  that is why i mentioned the concept of a transition and speculated about the time for such (is it 5 yrs, 15 yrs, maybe it is 25 ?).  it doesn't seem quite right that the USA will forever serve as the EU military force due to the EU's inability to come together and create a military force that is capable of protecting their members.  i would push that agenda more and the whole 2% spending thing less.

 

 

[FritsSikkink]

Look what the muppet said just now:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-wont-rule-out-ceasing-military-exercises-if-putin-asks/ar-AAzZYFL?ocid=spartanntp

[My Thai Life]

I don't completely agree with "the EU needs the US military in Europe now". The EU's GDP and military spend are far greater than Russia's. Though I do agree that the EU isn't organised for military decision making at the supranational level (apart from NATO).

 

Russia wants to weaken the EU (as does Trump), but not to invade it. Gas deals with Germany and the rest of the EU are a good thing for all concerned. The Russian cyber war, however, including Trump's election, Brexit, fake news, bots, is in full swing and needs to be dealt with.

 

A quick bit of history - the Crimea was part of Russia from 1783 (7 years after the USA was created I think) to 1954, and after that was part of the USSR. A quick bit of anecdotal evidence - I've had numerous Crimean, Ukrainian and Russian friends in the last 20 years, and they all considered the Crimea to be Russian. Much more justifiable than the Falklands or Guam for example.

 

What the West and the World needs now is some moral leadership: Trump is throwing this already tattered mantle away. The next president will have his or her work cut out to reclaim it, but it will be done, and Western values will continue to provide hope far beyond the west.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

They should be doing much more? ??Well, at least you're not trying to conceal your bias. ??

A bias clearly demonstrated across multiple posts in multiple threads.

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, buick said:

it doesn't seem quite right that the USA will forever serve as the EU military force due to the EU's inability to come together and create a military force that is capable of protecting their members. 

It doesn't seem that you are quite up to date with events (Nov. 2017):

"The European Union took an important step on Monday toward a substantive defense capacity, as 23 of the 28 member countries signed on to a program of joint military investment in equipment, research and development.

The intention is to jointly develop European military abilities and to make them available for operations separately or in coordination with NATO. The effort also aims to reduce the fragmentation of European military spending and to promote more joint projects to reduce duplication and waste."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/world/europe/eu-military-force.html

Trump is actually interrupting the military unification of the EU with his badgering and disruptive behavior towards the EU and NATO. Certainly something that would please Putin.

[tumama]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A bias clearly demonstrated across multiple posts in multiple threads.

 

And you are not? Oh yeah that's right, it's only bias when you have an opposing viewpoint. 

[buick]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

It doesn't seem that you are quite up to date with events (Nov. 2017):

"The European Union took an important step on Monday toward a substantive defense capacity, as 23 of the 28 member countries signed on to a program of joint military investment in equipment, research and development.

The intention is to jointly develop European military abilities and to make them available for operations separately or in coordination with NATO. The effort also aims to reduce the fragmentation of European military spending and to promote more joint projects to reduce duplication and waste."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/world/europe/eu-military-force.html

Trump is actually interrupting the military unification of the EU with his badgering and disruptive behavior towards the EU and NATO. Certainly something that would please Putin.

thank you for the update.  i'm glad to see this process getting started.  i try to leave trump out of this issue.  it isn't really about trump.  it is just a natural progression for the EU.  it is still a young union and i understand it might take some time.

 

edit: and keep in mind i responded to another member who had suggested the USA needed to be in the EU forever as they weren't capable of managing their affairs (not an exact quote but i'm too lazy to go back to find the actual post).

Edited July 13, 2018 by buick

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.  

[GroveHillWanderer]

23 hours ago, tumama said:

And you are not? Oh yeah that's right, it's only bias when you have an opposing viewpoint. 

No, bias is when you have a leaning towards any specific set of beliefs. Everybody's point of view is biased in one way or another. Whether you agree with someone's bias or not is a completely different matter.