1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

In the one post you put me "overestimating Russia's might" yet you refer without mentioning the EU-Nato countries sanctions against Putin and with your hair raised to a "regime change in nuclear Russia".

 

Your post states that "Trump will not make such a mistake" when he in fact is making the mistake and dozens of others in full public view.

 

Putin is a vile Czarist-Chekist who wants to neuter the United States and to rule over Europe and its wealth. Few realise or recognise how much Putin has a historical Russian passion to dominate China too. Talk to the Russians and read the literature so you can discover the deep distrust and rivalry between Russia and China. When Russian military and civilian strategic policy makers talk military conflict, they talk about China, not the USA. And they do it every day.

 

The triangulation since 2000 is Russia-China against the USA. After that it's between Russia and China to be king of the hill. Which is why the powers that be in the USA will never allow any of this to come to pass.

Western cold warriors and russiaphobia.

23 minutes ago, Gene1960 said:

I take your point. You maybe right and only time will tell.

Right now I don't see any actions by Mr. Trump. He is only talking. We will see what he and his team will be doing in the future.

Of course I am not very well read and not versed enough in history. As an ex-sailor I'd say that the USA overextended itself military during the recent years with a number of unnecessary wars. Europe has reduced its military spendings and lays in the mess. That's why Russia looks more powerful that it is and Putin occupied too much space in the media's narrative.

Maybe you are right about the impact of USA - EU sanctions against Russia and its economy. I even can imagine that the sanctions had some negative impact on Russia's military. Who knows. Their actions in Syria are efficient if brutal and impressed those who understand. But anyway, their military capabilities are limited and Russia's economy is in a bad shape and it cannot sustain a high intensity conflict for longer than two-three months without use of nukes. And no one wants a nuclear war, particularly in Europe.

That's why I am expecting that Putin will seek a compromise and you were wrong saying that he would deal with the USA from the position of strength.

And I won't be surprised if President Trump and Checkist Putin will begin the new round of negotiations on the nuclear disarmament in 2017.

 

There is nothing good when Europe fears Trump more than it fears Putin. It becomes untenable when Europe fears the two of 'em together.

 

The world presently to include our own allies fear the United States more than any other country.

 

Japan and South Korea are screwed now in their need to fend off both CCP Dictators in Beijing and Russia in East Asia and the western Pacific. Asean is screwed already by this election of Trump and Taiwan especially is severely compromised.

 

The list of literal horrors gets very long. Next time you see the American flag be run up the flagpole you might want join me wherever you are to bend over and kiss your arse goodbye, because unless and until Trump is derailed decisively and soon, it's all over for the USA globally. Which means also domestically in the economy and in every other respect.

10 hours ago, gemini81 said:

 

A non war monger who won't start more huge wars unlike Clinton and the establishment is how he sees him.

 

Guess you didn't watch the whole thing then. Fun bit start around 0:38. I know it hurts.

11 hours ago, Gene1960 said:

What?!?

Once again you are overestimating Russia's might. Trump will not make such a mistake.

He's no neoconservative to be blind. He's sober enough not to dream of a regime change in nuclear Russia without any idea what's going to happen with the nuclear arsenal as a result.

And useful idiot, a bit harsh, isn't it?

 

Russia negotiates (that is, if it will negotiate) from a position of strength when it comes to Syria.

 

Russia is there by invitation, which regardless of scorn rightfully poured on Assad's regime, is a wee bit more than the US and the coalition got going.

 

Russia is way more well entrenched locally, and with enough military assets at hand - enough so that to make the US pause, because no one wants a head on confrontation.

 

I think many of the standoffs between the US and Russia (or lately, the US and the PRC) can be characterized by these two elements - who's got more international legitimacy (or the perception of), and who gets a foothold first.

9 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Western cold warriors and russiaphobia.

Russia hasn't changed.  It takes two to tango.  So far, Russia has not indicated a desire to change.  Ask those in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc, etc. 

 

Plus, it wasn't that long ago many nations were brutalized by Russia.  Many in power then are still in power now.  Unlike the US.  Remember, Putin was a KGB field agent.

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Trump expressed support for toppling Gaddafi, though. Granted, this was back in 2011...oh, wait.

 

 

 

 

Everybody who voted for Trump needs to watch this.  What an about face!  Unreal.

52 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Russia hasn't changed.  It takes two to tango.  So far, Russia has not indicated a desire to change.  Ask those in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc, etc. 

 

Plus, it wasn't that long ago many nations were brutalized by Russia.  Many in power then are still in power now.  Unlike the US.  Remember, Putin was a KGB field agent.

I saw some Christopher Hitchens You-Tube thing that made it very clear equating the current regime to the old Soviet system is very wrong. No doubt some in Russia yearn for the Old Empire, as do some in the UK. For old (low case) Empires it's about entrenching, and not losing what you have, it's not about expansion. The only expansionist forces I see in the modern world are the US, China, Islamists, and Europe. The UK has opted out, I suspect Russia has as weĺl. 

1 hour ago, nausea said:

I saw some Christopher Hitchens You-Tube thing that made it very clear equating the current regime to the old Soviet system is very wrong. No doubt some in Russia yearn for the Old Empire, as do some in the UK. For old (low case) Empires it's about entrenching, and not losing what you have, it's not about expansion. The only expansionist forces I see in the modern world are the US, China, Islamists, and Europe. The UK has opted out, I suspect Russia has as weĺl. 

Worth reading.  Interesting many articles comparing the current country Russia to the USSR state that Russia existed before, and after, the fall of the USSR.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/back-u-s-s-r-how-todays-russia-soviet-era-n453536

 

Not much has changed.  Including Putin's desire for an empire equaling what was there when he was born.

6 hours ago, nausea said:

I saw some Christopher Hitchens You-Tube thing that made it very clear equating the current regime to the old Soviet system is very wrong. No doubt some in Russia yearn for the Old Empire, as do some in the UK. For old (low case) Empires it's about entrenching, and not losing what you have, it's not about expansion. The only expansionist forces I see in the modern world are the US, China, Islamists, and Europe. The UK has opted out, I suspect Russia has as weĺl. 

 

In 2000 when Putin took over at the Kremlin he had to take control of it and the Russian government. He brought in everyone he knew from his KGB time and, moreover, everyone he and they knew from the military intelligence agency the GRU.

 

They or their chosen successors run the Russian government. All of it derives from the original Cheka of the Stalin era, which is why Putin is often termed a Chekist. It's an antiquated term and agency, however, successor agencies of the Cheka are of course KGB and GRU, among others.

 

In USA, the WW2 Office of Strategic Services commanded by Army Col. "Wild" Bill Donovan* did U.S. military and diplomatic intelligence. When CIA was created several years after the war, Colonel 'Wild' Bill set up the entire works at Langley, behind a fence and a sign: U.S. Department of Commerce.  These spook things are both organic and reproductive, regardless of any particular country.

 

(James Comey can only envy the creeps and cutthroats Putin has running his government and the state.)

 

Vladimir Putin's Novorossiya may mark just the start of his empire-building ambitions

Vladimir Putin has deftly tapped into Russians' sense of patriotism, evoking Moscow's defeat of the Nazis, while pursuing what critics say are alarming similar policies of expansionism - but sanctions are biting

 

In August, the Night Wolves, an ultranationalist biker gang that the president has been photographed with, guest-starred in a triumphant evening musical broadcast from Crimea, alongside footage of Ukrainian troops marching in Nazi-style goosesteps. Mr Wilson likened it to the spoof Mel Brooks musical Springtime for Hitler – the difference being that the Russian version was not intended to be funny.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11277180/Vladimir-Putins-Novorossiya-may-mark-just-the-start-of-his-empire-building-ambitions.html

 

"Ultranationalist" is virtually always the euphemism for fascist.

 

 

 

*Donovan's service included Ambassador to Thailand in which Donovan as a major-general after WW2 had had a great interest and involvement, to say the least.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ.The big difference, I would say, is that in the old days the Soviets thought they had a chance, backed by their ideology, whereas nowadays they know they would have no chance. Of course, if they cut Europe militarily from the US, the whole game changes. But I doubt if even Russia is that stupid. It wouldn't take long for Germany and France to re-militarise. And nobody's gonna take on these guys willy-nilly. Like I say, it's mostly about Russia defining her own borders, and access to resources. There's nothing to fear. China is trying to expand, which is stupid, like they don't already have enough problems. The biggest problem is Islam. Never underestimate the power of religeon - I'm screwed, I have nothing, but I have Islam.

7 hours ago, nausea said:

I saw some Christopher Hitchens You-Tube thing that made it very clear equating the current regime to the old Soviet system is very wrong. No doubt some in Russia yearn for the Old Empire, as do some in the UK. For old (low case) Empires it's about entrenching, and not losing what you have, it's not about expansion. The only expansionist forces I see in the modern world are the US, China, Islamists, and Europe. The UK has opted out, I suspect Russia has as weĺl. 

 

My reply was to this post.

 

Hard to claim you can disagree on the facts, to include dates, names of people and agencies, nature of the agencies and of the people in them, and who has since the year 2000 run the government of the Russian Federation of which Vladimir Putin is the dictator of democracy.

Mai cow jai. What particular point to you disagree with. 

20 hours ago, Chicog said:

So what are the chances that the FSB have some nice video of Trump messing about with underage hookers on one of his many trips to Moscow?

 

Maybe that would help you apply for an editorial position for National Enquirer or Star.

1 hour ago, nausea said:

Mai cow jai. What particular point to you disagree with. 

 

Let's start with the fact that Putin's Russia is an expansionist force.

 

After Stalin grabbed eastern Europe at the close of WW2 he was boxed in by the containment policy of the USA. Stalin's dogma regardless had always been socialism in one country, USSR, meaning no wars of expansion. (Stalin had Trotsky murdered because Trotsky demanded a world proletarian revolution.) For Stalin, clandestine expansion fine, but no wars of expansion.

 

The czars before the USSR however were always imperialist expansionist, across the continent to the Pacific, then south to the Black Sea. Lotsa wars of conquest with their immediate and near neighbors -- Poland, Finland and so on. Czarist Russia significantly was terminated when the Japanese Navy sank the Russian fleet off Japan in 1905. Putin's post-Soviet Russia has returned to the historic expansionism of the czars, and with Stalin's doctrine of no wars.

 

Putin and his Novorossya. The Czarist-Chekist Putin. Novorossya is entirely external, not some kind of domestic renaissance. External.

 

The people and elites of the former Soviet republics well know their own history vis-a-vis Russia especially, from Scandinavia to the Black Sea, they know. Hence their rush to join EU but especially Nato.

 

With the Front Nationale running strongly in France, and Putin funding it in part, along with Putin's funding in part of other fascist parties in European countries, the military defense of Europe becomes problematical. Because if the extreme racist and angry right starts winning national elections in European countries too, then Nato is unreliable also.

 

Germany and Britain would have to assume a combined military defense of Europe with other subordinate allied countries, such as those in Scandanavia, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Spain, Portugal -- perhaps Italy and Greece -- and other smaller countries such as Belgium and Holland. Forget Turkey, and France is as always unstable.

 

Still, I strongly suspect there are people who are not open to this comprehension of the severity of Donald Trump's purposes, for whatever reason they and Trump may be motivated. And yes, there are some who are simply oblivious.

Russia has 2 foreign military bases. The US 662 in 38 foreign countries. Who is a neo imperialist? Time to bring the boys home and solve domestic issues, than worry about Russia's business.

21 hours ago, Chicog said:

So what are the chances that the FSB have some nice video of Trump messing about with underage hookers on one of his many trips to Moscow?

 

 

Hey, someone who sounds like a Putin Fanboy just initiated an offer to be an employment reference.

 

I'd be interested in your manner of the absolute rejection. 

10 hours ago, gemini81 said:

Russia has 2 foreign military bases. The US 662 in 38 foreign countries. Who is a neo imperialist? Time to bring the boys home and solve domestic issues, than worry about Russia's business.

Russia has more than 2, and several are inside countries where they've taken over.  Don't think the US has done that.  US bases are there with the approval of the local country. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad

56 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Russia has more than 2, and several are inside countries where they've taken over.  Don't think the US has done that.  US bases are there with the approval of the local country. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_military_bases_abroad

 

I couldn't help but see the quote you replied to by a poster I've had on Ignore for about three years, so I wanted to add to your point if that's okay....

 

 

Nations like Mongolia, Togo, Suriname and Gabon, may have less than 10 [U.S. military] officials stationed there. OTHER countries including the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Bahrain have more than a thousand US military personnel. Also, American BASES outside the US can range from small sites with a radio relay tower, to huge, multi-million dollar complexes. Often the US only counts its bases that are worth more than $10 million dollars, and situated on tracts of land larger than 10 acres.

 

http://mind-blowing-fact.com/u-s-many-military-bases-overseas/

 

 

Formal treaty allies such as Japan and South Korea have 130,000 combined U.S. forces between 'em. USA and Australia jointly operate the Alice Springs intelligence station and its 24 huge dishes that can detect Xi Jinping turning on his laptop to check his messages from Vlad and Wikileaks.  

 

Indeed, since 1789 when the Constitution was ratified by the original 13 United States of America many nations throughout the world continue to be either openly hostile towards democracy or aligned against USA.

 

The anti-America, pro-Mad Max crowd might also take note that, as the principal founding member of the United Nations US has peacekeeper forces in many of the countries, such as for instance in the Sinai -- to save bandwidth by naming but one.

 

USA also has USAF and other personnel in Thailand, to mention still another country, to train Royal Thai Air Force pilots and personnel, and to develop air and naval commanders professional military expertise.

 

Who knew btw that Singapore uses Thai air force facilities and airspace to train its air force pilots simply because there isn't sufficient air space over the city-state to do it themselves in their own place. Singapore use Australia besides.

 

All the same the Mad Max Boyz will carry on.

Publicus: Don't introduce facts here!  You'll upset the anti-US crowd! LOL

On 11/13/2016 at 3:55 PM, Jingthing said:

trump's coming in POV is radical isolationism and caving to Russia. More like licking Putin's grabables (sic). Events will likely adjust things. He's totally unprepared and unfit for the office. God help us.

 

Agreed entirely of course.

 

And maybe God's hand is already at work in the Republican Party caucus respectively in the Senate and also in the House...

 

 

GOP Foreign-Policy Power Brokers in Congress Could Foil Trump

 

On Russia, Syria, and other top security issues, Trump may find his campaign priorities hamstrung by Republican leaders in Congress.

 

NOVEMBER 16, 2016

 

On Tuesday, Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the incoming president’s proposed thaw of U.S.-Moscow relations was “unacceptable.”

 

 

"I disagree with that," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell...said of Trump's comments. "NATO is the most important military alliance in world history. I want to reassure our NATO allies that if any of them get attacked, we'll be there to defend them." 

 

“Statements like these [by Trump] make the world more dangerous and the United States less safe,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Trump critic who is one of the Republican Party’s leading foreign policy voices and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

 

“I can only imagine how our allies in NATO, particularly the Baltic states, must feel after reading these comments from Mr. Trump. I’m 100 percent certain how Russian President Putin feels – he’s a very happy man,” he said.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/gop-foreign-policy-power-brokers-in-congress-could-foil-trump/

 

Republican Senators are quietly (at least so far) trying to get colleague Sen. Bob Corker who is the middle of the road chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to be Trump's secretary of state. It remains an uphill climb but it's not as steep a climb as it had been last week for instance.

 

Republican senators are lining up to actively oppose one of the two leading SecState candidates, the GW Bush UN Ambassador John "Nukes" Bolton who has publicly advocated bombing Iran yesterday, today, tomorrow. Sen. Rand Paul said today on MSNBC he and "two or three" other Republican Senators will vote against the nuclear warhead Bolton.

 

(Chances for Romping Rudi Guiliani to become SecState are getting slimmer by the day, if not the hour, leaving Trump pretty much backed into a corner on Sen. Corker who is widely respected as a balanced guy. For a couple of decades both the Republican Senators from red Tennessee have been well apart from the cowboy colleagues among 'em on most foreign policy issues.)

 

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas has also spoken firmly against the Trump notions of Russia, Nato and other vital issues of national security and foreign policy. While Sen. Cotton is opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, he's also against the Bolton bombastic bombing of 'em out of general principle, i.e., simply because it's Iran. 

 

 

Quote

 

Trump’s comments in a New York Times interview “would seem to put him on the same page with Mr. Putin,” Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview with Reuters.

 

A letter signed by a bipartisan group of 39 national security experts said Trump’s “inflammatory remarks” do not represent the interests of the United States.

“The strength of our alliances is at the core of those interests,” said the group, which includes prominent Republicans such as former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and former State Department Counsel Eliot Cohen.

http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/republicans-warn-against-trumps-nato-plan-says-would-be-the-end-of-the-alliance-2928860/

 

 

 

We're beginning to see why Trump has already begun to hole up in Faulty Tower in NYC instead of at one of his big properties in Washington. The ever present heat in the Washington kitchen is already too strong for Trump. Trump can't call on Ma and Pa Kettle for any recipes that would satisfy the seasoned or sophisticated appetites making multiple demands on him. Bewildered is a good word. Trump 'n chips.

58 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Publicus: Don't introduce facts here!  You'll upset the anti-US crowd! LOL

 

Indeed, the right wing hollers in thread after thread year in and year out against the facts and the analysis. The best they can do is the cut and paste cliche' against it. Facts leave 'em out of the picture every time. Not to mention the analysis.

 

The Mad Max Boyz and their heroes Putin, Assange, Wilileaks, Snowden and -- in an astounding contradiction -- Ronald Maximus.