How do the JPP Russia-phobes spin this?

[Airstrip One]

JFK was involved in a chess match that involved nightmarish stakes. Yes, the Soviets were hesitant to use their nukes but tensions between the two countries were amped-up to the point the prospect of nuclear war was quite real.

I prefer not to make that mistake with Putin. Especially, not over some half-baked theory about 'Russians stealing an election'. Or that *he might* do this or that thing in the Baltics or whatever.

We have plenty on our plate with NK---who have actually threatened to nuke us. The Iranians are threatening to start WWIII in the Middle East. Radical Islam.

Russia? Give me a break. The last thing we need is to go looking for enemies when we already have as many as we can handle.

We don't have to go looking for Russia to be our enemy - Russia is our enemy, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Russia is also substantially more dangerous than either NK or Iran. Physically, Iran can only harm us by destabilizing the region and thus hurting us economically. NK can at least hit the west coast, although that is still largely theoretical, still.

Obviously, radical Islam remains our primary enemy. It's not as dangerous as Russia, China, or NK, but it's obviously engaged in hostilities against us, and has no sense of rational self-interest to deter itself.

 

[Darth Omar]

We don't have to go looking for Russia to be our enemy - Russia is our enemy, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Russia is also substantially more dangerous than either NK or Iran. Physically, Iran can only harm us by destabilizing the region and thus hurting us economically. NK can at least hit the west coast, although that is still largely theoretical, still.

Obviously, radical Islam remains our primary enemy. It's not as dangerous as Russia, China, or NK, but it's obviously engaged in hostilities against us, and has no sense of rational self-interest to deter itself.

Ten to one odds, a radical Muslim will detonate a small nuclear device in a large city before Russia would launch anything.

You're nuts. You sound like a liberal.

 

[Airstrip One]

Ten to one odds, a radical Muslim will detonate a small nuclear device in a large city before Russia would launch anything.

You're nuts. You sound like a liberal.

That scenario is a movie script - it does not represent real life.

You love Russia like a leftist did until November 8th. Net you'll be damning Reagan.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

NUKE MOSCOW

 

[Darth Omar]

That scenario is a movie script - it does not represent real life.

The Twin Towers falling would have been scoffed at in similar manner in August 2001. Radical Islam is threat number one.

Until Russia actually threatens us they aren't even on the radar.

 

[Airstrip One]

The Twin Towers falling would have been scoffed at in similar manner in August 2001. Radical Islam is threat number one.

Until Russia actually threatens us they aren't even on the radar.

Okay Chamberlain. I'd like to have discussed Russia with you before Douchebag Donald became your god, and the left freaked-out.

 

[anatta]

We don't have to go looking for Russia to be our enemy - Russia is our enemy, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Russia is also substantially more dangerous than either NK or Iran. Physically, Iran can only harm us by destabilizing the region and thus hurting us economically. NK can at least hit the west coast, although that is still largely theoretical, still.

Obviously, radical Islam remains our primary enemy. It's not as dangerous as Russia, China, or NK, but it's obviously engaged in hostilities against us, and has no sense of rational self-interest to deter itself.

all that assumes Putin has land grab designs on the Baltics /west/whatever. Yet he was content with a long term lease on Sevastopol until we meddled in Uk politics- threatening the lease and Yanukovitch (sp).
That shows he has no designs on eastern Europe. Georgia? I he's happy enough without owning it.

He's federated Donbass away from Kyiv is about as much land war as you are going to get,
and that is because of Kyiv's behavior to the native Russians

Putin is an opportunist. He's not an innate hegemonist. he responds to realpolitik.

People with your mindset -and you are legion- are determined to set up confrontations and tank land wars over Poland and such crap.
You are very much John McCain in your views

 

[Airstrip One]

We were doing a pretty damned fine job of handling Putin until your man Obama came along with his moronic pro-Russian policies. Instead of denouncing us, clean-up your mess, anatta. Because, there wasn't any sort of war. You can't accuse us of warmongering with Russia, absent an actual, you know, confrontation. But you voted for Obama, and we got your lovely Libya, and the fucking moronic policy he set forth with Russia.

 

[anatta]

JFK was involved in a chess match that involved nightmarish stakes. Yes, the Soviets were hesitant to use their nukes but tensions between the two countries were amped-up to the point the prospect of nuclear war was quite real.

I prefer not to make that mistake with Putin. Especially, not over some half-baked theory about 'Russians stealing an election'. Or that *he might* do this or that thing in the Baltics or whatever.

We have plenty on our plate with NK---who have actually threatened to nuke us. The Iranians are threatening to start WWIII in the Middle East. Radical Islam.

Russia? Give me a break. The last thing we need is to go looking for enemies when we already have as many as we can handle.

exactly. we can find ways to de-escalte the weapons when we decide to tone down the rhetoric.
That was Trumps idea.
You can see how baked in Russiaphobia is to the American psyche when ginned up by the Deep State and partisans.

Those fucking assholes prefer Cold War.
Fvck the Dems and John McCain and the IC leadership -warmongers all of them.

 

[anatta]

We were doing a pretty damned fine job of handling Putin until your man Obama came along with his moronic pro-Russian policies. Instead of denouncing us, clean-up your mess, anatta. Because, there wasn't any sort of war. You can't accuse us of warmongering with Russia, absent an actual, you know, confrontation. But you voted for Obama, and we got your lovely Libya, and the fucking moronic policy he set forth with Russia.

Obama had no "pro-Russian" policies. He couldn't deal with Putin at all.
Your premise is faulty.
I can damn side accuse you of warmongering when you prefer Cold War 2.0 to any attempts at realpolitik/rapproachment. This is what you want. what you prefer. You do not want detente.

Hey i voted for Obama as a reaction to Shrub's Iraq war . But after Libya I was disgusted with him and Hillary and went for Gary Johnson.
we all make mistakes -I try to learn from mine. Peace is won by trying, it's not a given

 

[anatta]

The Twin Towers falling would have been scoffed at in similar manner in August 2001. Radical Islam is threat number one.

Until Russia actually threatens us they aren't even on the radar.

well they are on the rdar for sure, but they are not an existential threat as long as we manage the relationship.
Compare that to Islamic terrorism -there is no way to manage it -the threat levels are not subject to any "management"

 

[Airstrip One]

Obama had no "pro-Russian" policies. He couldn't deal with Putin at all.
Your premise is faulty.
I can damn side accuse you of warmongering when you prefer Cold War 2.0 to any attempts at realpolitik/rapproachment. This is what you want. what you prefer. You do not want detente.

Hey i voted for Obama as a reaction to Shrub's Iraq war . But after Libya I was disgusted with him and Hillary and went for Gary Johnson.
we all make mistakes -I try to learn from mine. Peace is won by trying, it's not a given

Cold War is the natural state we have been in since Putin began to really ratchet-up his plans for a stronger Russia. It's not something you can dictate simply by ignoring it and hoping it goes away. All you can do is choose to capitulate.

 

[Darth Omar]

well they are on the rdar for sure, but they are not an existential threat as long as we manage the relationship.
Compare that to Islamic terrorism -there is no way to manage it -the threat levels are not subject to any "management"

We don't really disagree.

I meant not on the radar as a threat---to us. And if they aren't an existential threat, they aren't a threat to us.

Maybe Romney was onto something when he called them a 'geopolitical foe'---not a friend but something shy of an enemy. In other words, Putin isn't our best neighbor since he runs his mower at midnight, but he won't torch your house while your away at work like some other ones would if given half the chance.

In fact, Putin might even give you a heads up about the bad neighbors---like he tried to with the Boston Bombers.

You can't work with someone once you become enemies. We don't have to invite Putin to the house warming party but that doesn't mean we can't work with him on some geopolitical issues we have a shared interest in.

That's all Trump is after. The bromance is crap.

 

[Darth Omar]

Cold War is the natural state we have been in since Putin began to really ratchet-up his plans for a stronger Russia. It's not something you can dictate simply by ignoring it and hoping it goes away. All you can do is choose to capitulate.

Or escalate.

Hell to the no. You're not a leftist [though your knee jerk anti-Trumpism has clearly affected your thinking] but I simply can't believe they need to have their warmongering instincts tamped-down after Iraq.

I thought Trump was supposed to be the loose cannon that would drag us into a pointless war?

 

[anatta]

Or escalate. <--

Hell to the no. You're not a leftist [though your knee jerk anti-Trumpism has clearly affected your thinking] but I simply can't believe they need to have their warmongering instincts tamped-down after Iraq.

I thought Trump was supposed to be the loose cannon that would drag us into a pointless war?

thank you -perfectly stated and saving me a reply to Clorate

 

[anatta]

We don't really disagree.

I meant not on the radar as a threat---to us. And if they aren't an existential threat, they aren't a threat to us.

Maybe Romney was onto something when he called them a 'geopolitical foe'---not a friend but something shy of an enemy. In other words, Putin isn't our best neighbor since he runs his mower at midnight, but he won't torch your house while your away at work like some other ones would if given half the chance.

In fact, Putin might even give you a heads up about the bad neighbors---like he tried to with the Boston Bombers.

You can't work with someone once you become enemies. We don't have to invite Putin to the house warming party but that doesn't mean we can't work with him on some geopolitical issues we have a shared interest in.

That's all Trump is after. The bromance is crap.

You are on a roll.
Russia is a "geo-political foe" indeed -they are NOT just a regional power as Obama called them.
But it doesn't mean we need to constantly stoke the weapons systems, or refuse to find common ground.

Putin is a rationalist, Treat him as such and quit the Russiaphobia,

NATO expansionism serves no military/ geopolitical purpose other then to create more avenues for misadventure

 

[Airstrip One]

You are on a roll.
Russia is a "geo-political foe" indeed -they are NOT just a regional power as Obama called them.
But it doesn't mean we need to constantly stoke the weapons systems, or refuse to find common ground.

Putin is a rationalist, Treat him as such and quit the Russiaphobia,

NATO expansionism serves no military/ geopolitical purpose other then to create more avenues for misadventure

No one wants us to seek common ground more than Putin. That gives him the opportunity to do as he pleases, and assume that we'll simply keep shrinking the goalposts - much as he saw us retreat from the red line in Syria.

 

[Airstrip One]

Or escalate.

Hell to the no. You're not a leftist [though your knee jerk anti-Trumpism has clearly affected your thinking] but I simply can't believe they need to have their warmongering instincts tamped-down after Iraq.

I thought Trump was supposed to be the loose cannon that would drag us into a pointless war?

Douchebag Donald hasn't altered my approach to Russia. He is the first registered Republican to not care about Russian hegemony, and has led all of his Trumptards to that same place. Just like their complete abandonment of conservatism, I imagine they will remain indifferent to Russia.

 

[anatta]

No one wants us to seek common ground more than Putin. That gives him the opportunity to do as he pleases, and assume that we'll simply keep shrinking the goalposts - much as he saw us retreat from the red line in Syria.

Syria is a Russian client state. Naturally Putin wants to keep it that way.

But Putin didn't call the shots there until Obama's infamous "red line" -when Kerry gave Lavrov an opening to have Russia remove Assad's chem weapons.

If Obama had worked with Putin ( taken his security needs as real) instead of constantly trying to freeze him out-
we would have had an equal say in any Syrian negotiations, instead of being frozen out.
Not that we might have shaped Syria ( im not sure any power can do that except Assad/Putin/Iran) but at least we wouldn't be sitting on the sidelines complaining.
++
as to seeking common ground:
instead of meddling in Uk elections,and NATO expansionism and Putin hacking the DNC -you get low level talks going as to what each side holds as key needs.
That keeps the confrontatiions down. It leads to Summits/ like it did with the USSR.

You are arguing Putin is not a rationalist- he clearly is, as well as a great geo-political "chess player"

 

[anatta]

Douchebag Donald hasn't altered my approach to Russia. He is the first registered Republican to not care about Russian hegemony, and has led all of his Trumptards to that same place. Just like their complete abandonment of conservatism, I imagine they will remain indifferent to Russia.

where do you see where Trump isn't concerned with "hegemony"?
-have you heard any of Ambassador Nikki Haley's speeches on the Ukraine?