Trump hamstrung at home as he seeks closer ties with Moscow

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Yes, some of Russia's neighbors are worried, some aren't. You cite those who are. Thanks for making the point."

Nice try. You originally raised that point to make the President of Lithuania seem something of an outlier. Clearly, she's not. In fact,  all the European countries to the west of Russia fear Russian military intervention.  

Here's the rest

Poland

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/poland-wants-trumps-vow-of-protection-from-russian-activity

 

Romania

https://news.vice.com/article/romania-is-starting-to-freak-out-about-russian-designs-on-transnistria

 

Belarus

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-belarus-russia-relations-20170308-story.html

 

"Seems to have botched up the quote effort there. But again - there was no denial that NATO's role is to serve as a counter weight to Russia. The thing is that for some time now, and for various reasons, the balance was allowed to shift. What is being done now is a correction back to an accepted norm. If there was, indeed, a war on the horizon, defense spending would rocket to a much higher level than detailed."

Not what that article says. It isn't just a pendulum swing. Fear is motivating this.

 

 

 

No, you are misinterpreting what I posted. Try reading it again. Russia have neighbors all around. Not all are alarmed. Kinda funny after whining about mind-reading. And again, that countries neighboring Russia are worried still doesn't mean that war is imminent. It means that they are worried, and that they are hedging their position.

 

The article says what it says. The fact that NATO's defense spending and level of preparedness were allowed to slip are facts. I did not say anything about a pendulum - your addition. There was no argument offered that renewed spending is not in response to Russia's involvement and aggression in Ukraine. The point made was that level of expenditure cited will, more or less, bring required levels to norm. And norm does not mean fully ready for an all out war. That would require much much more, and take longer. If NATO was to increase spending, stocks, production and drills to such level, there's be way more tension. NATO isn't gearing up for war.

[lostlink]

No doubt the media magicians will be doing the Russia collusion illusion act during/after the G-20.

[Jingthing]

10 hours ago, soalbundy said:

We all know what Trump will say after the meeting.''We had a great talk.we have a fantastic relationship, all the negative news is fake and blah blah blah.

Yes, but what he says and what will actually happen will be different.

There is much reason to be concerned for those in the west but on the other hand for Putin supporters, much reason to be celebrating. trump goes into this in a very weak position of his own making (because he's totally unfit to be president).

 

Quote

 

The greatest threat facing the United States is its own president

...

Later this week, he will sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hamburg, Germany, during the Group of 20 meeting. Quite apart from the political optics of rewarding a man who attacked the United States with to help get Trump elected with such a meeting, the summit reveals why it is so dangerous to have an erratic president. Much of U.S. foreign policy comes down to personal diplomacy conducted by the president and his actions in the wake of such meetings. If a dedicated enemy of the United States and opportunist such as Putin determines to take advantage of Trump’s narcissism, ignorance, paranoia, business interests or brewing scandals, he will do just that.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/07/04/the-greatest-threat-facing-america-is-our-own-president/

Edited July 4, 2017 by Jingthing

[StraightTalk]

The scene is set for the post Brexit Europeans to forge excellent relationship with Russia including most of the former Soviet Union states.

China, Central & South America, most African & South East Asian nations and India lean towards the new Europe.

Their combined economic power will make it very hard for any president of USA to ignore.

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, you are misinterpreting what I posted. Try reading it again. Russia have neighbors all around. Not all are alarmed. Kinda funny after whining about mind-reading. And again, that countries neighboring Russia are worried still doesn't mean that war is imminent. It means that they are worried, and that they are hedging their position.

 

The article says what it says. The fact that NATO's defense spending and level of preparedness were allowed to slip are facts. I did not say anything about a pendulum - your addition. There was no argument offered that renewed spending is not in response to Russia's involvement and aggression in Ukraine. The point made was that level of expenditure cited will, more or less, bring required levels to norm. And norm does not mean fully ready for an all out war. That would require much much more, and take longer. If NATO was to increase spending, stocks, production and drills to such level, there's be way more tension. NATO isn't gearing up for war.

"Russia have neighbors all around. Not all are alarmed."

Virtually all Russia European neighbors to its west are alarmed.  To most people who take in interest in such things, that's a clear indication of a perception of a strategic threat. To you, apparently it's just noise. What this vast nation's distant asiatic neighbors may feel about it has no relevance at all to the European situation.

And my mind reading comment (whining really?), directed at your construal of my motives , is completely irrelevant. I'm not doing a mind reading act about these nations' state of mind. They are quite explicit about it. Maybe you should actually read some of those articles.

 

And speaking of mind reading. The people in Nato explicitly say their increase in funding is due in part to their perception of increased Russian threat. But you somehow ignore what they explicitly say and construe their motives for increased funding to be  " Bringing levels of preparedness to acceptable norm is not quite the same as asserting war is imminent"

(And by the way, where did I say that war is imminent?)

 

In short virtually all of Russia's European neighbors to its west say they feel threatened, you say that's not so significant because not all of Russia's neighbors feel the same way.

Nato explicitly says they're increasing funding in part because of the perception of the increased Russian threat; you assert that's not the case. It's just about "'Bringing levels of preparedness to an acceptable norm..."

 

The evidence that all of Russia's European neighbors on it's western border, feel threatened by Russia is overwhelming. And your denials in the face of it are distinctly bizarre.

 

[landslide]

Let's remember that during the Obama Administration, it was Hillary that spoke of the "Reset Button" for the US relationship with Russia.  She even presented Putin with a plastic reset button as a symbol.  Also, don't forget it was Obama who was caught on a hot microphone telling Medvedev to "tell Vlad that I will have more flexibility once the election is over and I don't have to run for re-election again".  If that is not letting your opponent know what your cards are, I don't know what is.  Trump will schmooze Putin, but I do not believe he will sell the country down the river.  He has already thrown down a gauntlet with the missile strike on the Russian's allie Syria following their nerve gas attack on their own people.

Edited July 5, 2017 by landslide
typo

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, landslide said:

Let's remember that during the Obama Administration, it was Hillary that spoke of the "Reset Button" for the US relationship with Russia.  She even presented Putin with a plastic reset button as a symbol.  Also, don't forget it was Obama who was caught on a hot microphone telling Medvedev to "tell Vlad that I will have more flexibility once the election is over and I don't have to run for re-election again".  If that is not letting your opponent know what your cards are, I don't know what is.  Trump will schmooze Putin, but I do not believe he will sell the country down the river.  He has already thrown down a gauntlet with the missile strike on the Russian's allie Syria following their nerve gas attack on their own people.

Has Trump ever said a harsh word about Putin? Ever? Doesn't that strike you as being a trifle odd? It does to most Americans.

As for the missile strike, he warned the Russians beforehand and their losses in that strike came to a grand total of zilch. Clearly a decisive - and definitely not empty - move.

[boomerangutang]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

That's more like the familiar run-of-the-mill anti-Trump rants - which other than not being keen on the style, I've nothing much against.

But here's this...If Putin is indeed both a (1) master (or superior, at least) player and (2) a rational player with limited goals, then he ought to be able to manage Trump (with or without supposed leverage). If Trump is managed, no existential problems. Going back to the historical comparison used, if Putin is the one less dangerous to World peace and Trump is the menace that needs to be managed, it becomes less clearer "who's who".

Morch opines, "he (Putin) ought to be able to manage Trump"

 

Have you ever had to watch over a bratty little kid for any length of time?  You can control him some, maybe most of the time, but he's going to go ballistic at some point. 

 

7 hours ago, Morch said:

Yes, some of Russia's neighbors are worried, some aren't.

 

7 hours ago, Morch said:

Russia have neighbors all around. Not all are alarmed.

A comparison:  A bully is threatening 3 kids half his size at one corner of the sandlot.  Are we to excuse him because he's not also bullying every other kid in the vicinity?

 

4 hours ago, lostlink said:

No doubt the media magicians will be doing the Russia collusion illusion act during/after the G-20.

                                The media has been telling the truth (cite one report which is factually false. You can't).  The media is doing what politicians should be doing: watching out for the best interests of Americans.

 

                         The media is finding truckloads of evidence of Russia/agents/hackers/Trump and his cadres' collusion.  How much has the Trump and his administration found on the Russia connections?  Nothing.  All they've done is respond to reports by the media.  Initially, they give knee jerk responses like "It's all fake news".  When they can't deny any more, because it's proven true (what the media reports), Trump and his sheeple grudgingly admit it's true but immediately add; "but still, it's all a witch hunt.  There's no there there.  It's a nothing sandwich."    

 

                                   For the entire time the Russian-Trump thing has been going on, Trumpsters have been acting like small town mafia.  Every action and everything they say shouts, "cover-up!"

 

                       I hope, when the FBI report gets published, that they're not shy about telling truths, and aren't cowed by the immense pressure from the WH to cover-up and/or drop the entire investigation.  I hope they wrap it up soon, because every day Trump, Kushner and the other criminals are in the WH, is another day they can harm America and its natural environment.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by boomerangutang

[Morch]

4 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Russia have neighbors all around. Not all are alarmed."

Virtually all Russia European neighbors to its west are alarmed.  To most people who take in interest in such things, that's a clear indication of a perception of a strategic threat. To you, apparently it's just noise. What this vast nation's distant asiatic neighbors may feel about it has no relevance at all to the European situation.

And my mind reading comment (whining really?), directed at your construal of my motives , is completely irrelevant. I'm not doing a mind reading act about these nations' state of mind. They are quite explicit about it. Maybe you should actually read some of those articles.

 

And speaking of mind reading. The people in Nato explicitly say their increase in funding is due in part to their perception of increased Russian threat. But you somehow ignore what they explicitly say and construe their motives for increased funding to be  " Bringing levels of preparedness to acceptable norm is not quite the same as asserting war is imminent"

(And by the way, where did I say that war is imminent?)

 

In short virtually all of Russia's European neighbors to its west say they feel threatened, you say that's not so significant because not all of Russia's neighbors feel the same way.

Nato explicitly says they're increasing funding in part because of the perception of the increased Russian threat; you assert that's not the case. It's just about "'Bringing levels of preparedness to an acceptable norm..."

 

The evidence that all of Russia's European neighbors on it's western border, feel threatened by Russia is overwhelming. And your denials in the face of it are distinctly bizarre.

 

 

Let me refresh your memory. The only reason we are discussing this is because another poster employed an inapt historical comparison, which for whatever reasons you're still trying to shore up. That's the long and the short of it. As pointed out earlier,  it's somewhat of a thing with you - picking up side arguments, derailing topics and twisting other posters words.

 

But to address the latest batch - I never said anything about Russia not being a threat. If anything, the opposite on many a post on this forum. What I did say is that there is no war in the cards between Russia and the West. That you choose to twist my words and imply meanings is just your style of debate, nothing more. There was nothing said about "just noise".  Countries nearer to Russia and those having a history of being under USSR control will surely display more alarm than others. I did no say worries are "insignificant". I didn't deny some of Russia's neighbors are alarmed. I do not think that the same level of alarm is displayed by all NATO members, but you may feel free to imagine otherwise. Off the top of my head, can think of one NATO member which not only isn't worried, but cozies up to Russia (to the point of contemplating a major arms deal).

 

NATO increased spending being a response to perception of Russia as a threat does not contradict anything in my posts. I did not "ignore" this at all, that's your own spin. Twist it all you like, really, but what NATO does is exactly as posted - bringing up its levels of preparedness. That it is related to seeing Russia as a threat goes without saying. That it implies anything more than that you'll need to demonstrate. As for "war being imminent" - I'll remind you again of the inapt premise under which you launched this tiresome side argument (historical comparison), and of at least on of the articles you linked above (the nightmare bit).

[Morch]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Morch opines, "he (Putin) ought to be able to manage Trump"

 

Have you ever had to watch over a bratty little kid for any length of time?  You can control him some, maybe most of the time, but he's going to go ballistic at some point. 

 

 

A comparison:  A bully is threatening 3 kids half his size at one corner of the sandlot.  Are we to excuse him because he's not also bullying every other kid in the vicinity?

 

                                The media has been telling the truth (cite one report which is factually false. You can't).  The media is doing what politicians should be doing: watching out for the best interests of Americans.

 

                         The media is finding truckloads of evidence of Russia/agents/hackers/Trump and his cadres' collusion.  How much has the Trump and his administration found on the Russia connections?  Nothing.  All they've done is respond to reports by the media.  Initially, they give knee jerk responses like "It's all fake news".  When they can't deny any more, because it's proven true (what the media reports), Trump and his sheeple grudgingly admit it's true but immediately add; "but still, it's all a witch hunt.  There's no there there.  It's a nothing sandwich."    

 

                                   For the entire time the Russian-Trump thing has been going on, Trumpsters have been acting like small town mafia.  Every action and everything they say shouts, "cover-up!"

 

                       I hope, when the FBI report gets published, that they're not shy about telling truths, and aren't cowed by the immense pressure from the WH to cover-up and/or drop the entire investigation.  I hope they wrap it up soon, because every day Trump, Kushner and the other criminals are in the WH, is another day they can harm America and its natural environment.

 

 

 

I have no time for simplistic faux analogies. About as useful as the previously posted off mark historical comparison. The view that Putin can manage Trump was aired by many posters (including, if I'm not mistaken, yourself) in many forms. With or without the alleged leverage. To take it a step further, some of you go on quite a bit about Trump being "owned" by Russia, being Putin's agent and whatnot. Make up your mind. No idea were you were going with the other simplistic analogy, but as it stands, very little to do with what I posted about.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, some of Russia's neighbors are worried, some aren't. You cite those who are. Thanks for making the point.

 

Seems to have botched up the quote effort there. But again - there was no denial that NATO's role is to serve as a counter weight to Russia. The thing is that for some time now, and for various reasons, the balance was allowed to shift. What is being done now is a correction back to an accepted norm. If there was, indeed, a war on the horizon, defense spending would rocket to a much higher level than detailed.

 

And no, I don't think I'm digging myself a hole at all. All I'm saying is that the sky isn't falling.

 

If there is a war on the horizon how long do you think it will take to build new aircraft, tanks even rifles, to build up stocks of food, ammunition, to even get uniforms, to recruit let alone train new soldiers who at this stage are still volunteers?

 

Overnight, a day, a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months or even longer?

 

Nowadays it is impossible to double production overnight as you will need a highly skilled factory force and they are simply not available at the snap of a finger, let alone both aircrews to fly them and groundcrews to keep them flying. The loss of 20 Spitfires a week in 1940 was acceptable, the loss of 20 F35s in a week in 2017 would be a disaster.

 

During WW2 it was quite easy to build fighter aircraft in a day or less. Nowadays it is more like a month.

 

Unit cost £12,604 (Estonian order for 12 Spitfires in 1939)

 

By May 1940, Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire, in spite of promises that the factory would be producing 60 per week starting in April. As the largest Spitfire factory in the UK, by producing a maximum of 320 aircraft per month, it built over half of the estimated 20,000 aircraft of this type.

 

Unit cost F-35A: $94.6M (low rate initial production lot 10 (LRIP 10) including F135 engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M) F-35B: US$122.8M (LRIP 10 including engine) F-35C: US$121.8M (LRIP 10 including engine)

 

By 2020, one year after the Fort Worth plant hits its full 17-jet-per-month stride.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

If there is a war on the horizon how long do you think it will take to build new aircraft, tanks even rifles, to build up stocks of food, ammunition, to even get uniforms, to recruit let alone train new soldiers who at this stage are still volunteers?

 

Overnight, a day, a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months or even longer?

 

Nowadays it is impossible to double production overnight as you will need a highly skilled factory force and they are simply not available at the snap of a finger, let alone both aircrews to fly them and groundcrews to keep them flying. The loss of 20 Spitfires a week in 1940 was acceptable, the loss of 20 F35s in a week in 2017 would be a disaster.

 

During WW2 it was quite easy to build fighter aircraft in a day or less. Nowadays it is more like a month.

 

Unit cost £12,604 (Estonian order for 12 Spitfires in 1939)

 

By May 1940, Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire, in spite of promises that the factory would be producing 60 per week starting in April. As the largest Spitfire factory in the UK, by producing a maximum of 320 aircraft per month, it built over half of the estimated 20,000 aircraft of this type.

 

Unit cost F-35A: $94.6M (low rate initial production lot 10 (LRIP 10) including F135 engine, full production in 2018 to be $85M) F-35B: US$122.8M (LRIP 10 including engine) F-35C: US$121.8M (LRIP 10 including engine)

 

By 2020, one year after the Fort Worth plant hits its full 17-jet-per-month stride.

 

What most NATO members spent in recent years was barely enough to maintain level of preparedness. As noted above, costs are rising, manufacture times are longer, there are competing expenditures demands and public opinion is what it is. The increase in defense spending may bring things up to where they were supposed to be. That's about it.

 

If war with Russia was to become a more immediate proposition, rather than a standing threat, we'd see higher defense budgets, more arms, munitions, and parts orders. There' would be a flood of maintenance, upgrade and construction contracts out. Troops would receive more training hours. A whole lot of other indicators.

 

And, of course, there's be more hot words exchanged, and more "almost" incidents. As a bonus, the Turkey thing would be addressed.

 

Economically, a major war is a lose-lose situation. No one can really afford it, and as wars nowadays do not end with clear victories like they used to, reparations aren't guaranteed. And that's without relevant nuclear military capable countries not being suicidal.

[billd766]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What most NATO members spent in recent years was barely enough to maintain level of preparedness. As noted above, costs are rising, manufacture times are longer, there are competing expenditures demands and public opinion is what it is. The increase in defense spending may bring things up to where they were supposed to be. That's about it.

 

If war with Russia was to become a more immediate proposition, rather than a standing threat, we'd see higher defense budgets, more arms, munitions, and parts orders. There' would be a flood of maintenance, upgrade and construction contracts out. Troops would receive more training hours. A whole lot of other indicators.

 

And, of course, there's be more hot words exchanged, and more "almost" incidents. As a bonus, the Turkey thing would be addressed.

 

Economically, a major war is a lose-lose situation. No one can really afford it, and as wars nowadays do not end with clear victories like they used to, reparations aren't guaranteed. And that's without relevant nuclear military capable countries not being suicidal.

 

Purely as an example, if the USA wanted to invade North Korea the build up would take up to a year for them to be ready as the shipping requirements alone would cause chaos because the reserve fleet is mothballed.

 

If N Korea wanted to invade S Korea it would only take a day or 2 as they have a massive standing army and would simply drive into S Korea by road. I don't think the Chinese or the Russians would care that much.

 

In Europe all the Russians would need to do is to drive forwards as the Nato and UE forces are run down with little in the way of a standing army and too many different languages and priorities to be much of a coherent defence force.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Purely as an example, if the USA wanted to invade North Korea the build up would take up to a year for them to be ready as the shipping requirements alone would cause chaos because the reserve fleet is mothballed.

 

If N Korea wanted to invade S Korea it would only take a day or 2 as they have a massive standing army and would simply drive into S Korea by road. I don't think the Chinese or the Russians would care that much.

 

In Europe all the Russians would need to do is to drive forwards as the Nato and UE forces are run down with little in the way of a standing army and too many different languages and priorities to be much of a coherent defence force.

 

I don't know that Normandy style invasions are still a thing. Same goes for the imagined way a Russian invasion to Europe would unfold. Doubt it's anything as straight-forward, or that NATO members (excluding new East Europe additions) are as helpless as portrayed. The US is unlike other countries, in that it can project massive military power quite rapidly all over the globe, if the need arises. It also got enough arms stocked in various regions to make deployment way easier and far more credible.

 

When talking about level of preparedness, it doesn't automatically imply full combat readiness vs. all possible threats and scenarios. There's usually a certain degree of realistic probabilities and existing constraints in the mix. Most times, I think it stands for the ability not to be caught with pants down.