LOL, you are the one that has gone from anti-hillary to full blown trumpsky............ I am where I have been....
Russia, Nato and the return to cold war
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
LOL, you are the one that has gone from anti-hillary to full blown trumpsky............ I am where I have been....
ROFL @ "brookings" - a neocon nest of Clintonian vipers.
It doesn't even understand realpolitik and "spheres".BAC's article is one long Hillary bitching session
One time he said "NATO is obsolete" during the campaign..since then Mathis has gone to NATO headquarters
and gotten pledges of more cooperation and more contributions from members..it was a stupid statement but Trump says a lot of dumb stuff. Pay attention to what he does, not says.
Brookings!! you might as well be quoting the Deep State..lol
It doesn't even understand realpolitik and "spheres".BAC's article is one long Hillary bitching session
globalism is a dead letter. It's a multi-polar world and the way to navigate it is by temporary to permanent national alliances..That's exactly what Putin is doing. and he's poaching our alliances while expanding his.
Revert?? "spheres" are realpolitik not some grand UN impositions. understand and play the existing spheres.
his skepticism of the EU is well founded since Trump is a nationalist and not some kina pan_Americanism like Clinton and her call for open borders.Nationalism is realpolitik also.
One time he said "NATO is obsolete" during the campaign..since then Mathis has gone to NATO headquarters
and gotten pledges of more cooperation and more contributions from members..it was a stupid statement but Trump says a lot of dumb stuff. Pay attention to what he does, not says.
Brookings!! you might as well be quoting the Deep State..lol
Last edited:
Irony
Ya'll supported him & called him a populist, now he re-brands himself again & ya'll seamlessly call him a nationalist
Don't even notice it.Fuck hillary, lets talk about wtf the trumpf has done & is doing.............
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
65 Percent Want Special Prosecutor to Investigate Trump-Russia Ties, Including 43 Percent of Republicans: POLL
Concerns about the reported contacts are closely tied to partisanship, with 71% of Democrats saying they are “very concerned” about it while 54% of Republicans say they have no concerns “at all” about the reports.
Among Republicans, a majority feel Congress can handle the investigation, but a sizable 43% support the call for a special prosecutor, as do majorities of Democrats (82%) and independents (67%). Overall, the poll finds that 65% would rather see a special prosecutor handle the investigation, while 32% think Congress is capable of handling it.
http://www.towleroad.com/2017/03/trump-russia-ties/
Concerns about the reported contacts are closely tied to partisanship, with 71% of Democrats saying they are “very concerned” about it while 54% of Republicans say they have no concerns “at all” about the reports.
Among Republicans, a majority feel Congress can handle the investigation, but a sizable 43% support the call for a special prosecutor, as do majorities of Democrats (82%) and independents (67%). Overall, the poll finds that 65% would rather see a special prosecutor handle the investigation, while 32% think Congress is capable of handling it.
http://www.towleroad.com/2017/03/trump-russia-ties/
populism means political power from the populace -not from the so called establishment.Ya'll supported him & called him a populist, now he re-brands himself again & ya'll seamlessly call him a nationalist
Fuck hillary, lets talk about wtf the trumpf has done & is doing.............
Almost all politicians have a political base of support. Trump obviously does not. He won by popular(ist) support.
Nationalism is a facet of governing "America first" for shorthand.
you are missing the difference for the power base to thematics of governance-they are not the same
The United States Never Promised to Not Expand NATO: Says Gorbachev
It is abundantly evident that Russian President Vladimir Putin is no fan of NATO. Indeed, he displays a pronounced—almost obsessive—antipathy toward the Alliance. He claims that NATO took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union to enlarge to its east, in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. But no such promises were made—a point now confirmed by someone who was definitely in a position to know: Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...ato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
With your incorrect assertion, you actually sound like Kremlin propaganda. It your incorrect assertion was this far off from the truth, I really do not feel I should waste my time looking into your other assertions. Please check your information before posting. Rightwing blogs are not known for accuracy, truthiness, and standard journalistic practices.
Donald J. Drumpf is a war monger. There is no way to put lipstick on that pig. He supported the Iraq War in the beginning, he talked of "stealing" Iraq's oil, he is always talking about bombing the shit out of everything, and his first budget proposals reflect his moral priorities: massive increased in spending for the military, and vast cuts for public services for the American people.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
NUKE MOSCOW
quoting Brookings is like quoting the Clinton campaign.
Please feel free not to engage.
Bakes promise was nebulous -agreed on that, but it's clear expanding NATO beyond the GDR was never in the cards -implied or not..
So what happened after that? Implied or not NATO expanded, and not just a little bit but right up to former Soviet Block states like Romania , and the US used that expansion to even influence the Euromaiden and the Orange Revolution.
Get that? the US meddling in a border state of Russia's election , and undermining Yanukovych because of his economic ties to Russia?
I'm not going to debate Trump's military.. If you don't understand sequestor greatly diminished US military readiness
and cut back our Navy to very low numbers -it's pointless.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition.html
“The record shows that I’m right,” he said. “When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone’s asked me that, I said, very lightly, ‘I don’t know, maybe, who knows?’ essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important [than going to war].”
Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20. In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. on Iraq.
Trump continued: “Perhaps he shouldn’t be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations.”
++
You haven't met any Ukrainians or Georgians, have you? I have. I have relatives in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine, and have visited and travelled there.
Yes, in principle Putin would like to reconstitute the old Russian empire in some form or other.
There are many Ukrainians and Belarusians who would take offense at your implication that they are culturally Russian and belong in Russia's sphere of influence. A Georgian might actually punch you in the face for suggesting they submit to the Russians.
Hitler also thought it was his right to unite the "Germanic" peoples of Scandinavia and central Europe under German domination. It is an old argument we have seen before, an argument used to justify hegemony and empire.
It is fair to say that these east Slavic nations have some shared history with Russia, and that there are ethnic Russian speaking minorities who have some sympathy for Russia. I certainly saw a lot of those types in Belarus. But to support armed insurrection and military aggression against your neighbors, as Russia did in Ukraine and Georgia? Is that something you are seriously going to defend/excuse/gloss over?
Last edited:
Would you be willing to trade 100,000,000 Americans for those Georgians?
Moving the goal posts? You went from unequivocally saying there was a Promise to not expand NATO, to saying here it was nebulous and unclear?
Don't like Brookings as a source?
Yet the claim that the negotiations towards this treaty included guarantees barring Nato from expansion into Eastern Europe is entirely unfounded.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/russia-nato-expansion-memory-grievances
Your hero Donald J. Drumpf is a war monger, and your support for him is premised on the fact that he want to expand the war on ISIS, "bomb the shit out of people", steal Iraq's oil, supported Bush's invasion of Iraq, and proposed a seemingly unprecedented military buildup at the expense of vast cuts to public programs for American citizens. Trump has spent his whole life as a wanna be alpha male, chest beating gorilla. If you want to believe he is interested in diplomacy, soft power, negotiation, and peaceful resolutions to conflicts you are either deluded or misinformed. .
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Obviously the Ukraine and Georgia are a different matter, but, don't a majority of the people in Belarus support reunification with Russia?
Then Baker conversation wasn't recorded. There is disagreement as to what was said and understood.
Regardless the NATO GDR expansion was never expected to be so cloying, so intrusive on Russia as to what actually happened with wholesale NATO expansion..
So if you want to claim some kind of victory about a nebulous understanding -i'm fine with that.
The problems all come from NATO expansions,and US meddling in the Ukraine -
which is not to say Russia isn't free from blame either - they obviously violated the Budapest Memorandum
by going into Crimea -but why did they do so?
They did it because US meddling in the Orange Revolution put their long term lease of Sevastopol at risk.
Putin/Russia has to have access to that naval base - so they did what they had to do and annexed Crimea
( by their Little Green Men) -and now have built a land bridge from Russia to Crimea.
IOW's we forced their hand - Victoria Nuland doesn't care about Russia's legitimate security needs!
And that's the real theme of my approach to Russia. Obama's uni-polarism along with NATO expansion
pushed Putin so far for no real strategic reason,that Putin had to push back for his security needs..
Bottom line: What I'm interested in is cutting out this insanity of Cold War 2.0.
That was Trumps idea-some type of rapproachment with Russia to achieve a real "Russian reset"
and not the silly plastic button Hillary offered up to Lavrov.
The IC and the Democrats hate the Russians -the Dems for partisan reasons,
and the IC for built in institutional Russiaphobia.
Yet they both did not interfere in Obama's Russian reset....the IC has a treasonous hatred towards Trump
and the Dem's are simply partisan fools hoping for the worst with Russia.
McCain cheers all this along for his egotistical 20th century worldview of the USSR>
HRClinton offered nothing new except her continuous love of all things interventionist ( Syria/Iraq/Libya
Last edited:
Belarus is basically a dictatorship, and thus there is no reliable polling I am aware of.
In principle, yes, there is a large ethnic Russian minority that seeks some form of economic, if not national unification with the Russian Federation. Of all the former soviet Republics, Belarus is the one most stuck in a time warp, and some there look back with rose colored glasses and fondness at the former Soviet Union.
That said, my opinion and my observations is that Belarusians more broadly place value on their indepdendence and do not appreciate attempts by Russia to make them a puppet state. If for no other reason, than their President Lukashenko is not the kind of guy who wants to share power or have his authority diminished by Russian overlords. Just what I know from reading and from personal experience, I am not a world class expert on Belarus.
Last edited:
Donald J. Drumpf was not the superior choice to Hillary Clinton, and most voting Americans agreed on November 7.
History is going to show what a costly and tragic mistake your vote for Donald J. Drumpf was. Just as it was with George Dumbya, who was such a horrible president, even the GOP won't let him show up at the national conventions.
Good luck with your hero worship of Drumpf. I don't know how any thinking, enlightened person can spend their days defending a deranged former reality TV star. Hope you get something out of it!
History is going to show what a costly and tragic mistake your vote for Donald J. Drumpf was. Just as it was with George Dumbya, who was such a horrible president, even the GOP won't let him show up at the national conventions.
Good luck with your hero worship of Drumpf. I don't know how any thinking, enlightened person can spend their days defending a deranged former reality TV star. Hope you get something out of it!
Last edited:
No way was I going to vote for a warmongering, borderline criminal,big donor driven, plutocratic, serial liar as Clinton.
I didn't vote for Shrub -I did vote for Bernie in the primary..
We had a couple of crappy choices for POTUS- in the end I voted as a federalist, anti-interventionist, and hope for the best.
What I have noticed about rightwingers, wingnuts, trumptards, and neocons is they always define themselves politically as being against something. Against Hillary. Against Obama. Against Al Gore. Modern wingnuts do not appear to have any principles at all, they simply define themselves as being against Democrats and Liberals. There is never any compelling reason provided for voting for Donald J. Drumpf, Mittens Romney, George Dumbya Bush, Dick Cheney, or Sarah Palin. Why, it is almost as if winguts are ashamed and embarrassed of their candidates!
I was, and always will be proud of voting for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (now rated 12th best president of all time, leaves office with 60 percent approval), John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. Shame and embarrassment of my votes is not something I am familiar with, which appears to stand in sharp relief compared to wingnut explanations for their voting choices!
But, feel free to stick with the story that Democrats forced you to vote for a deranged, sexist reality TV star because they had the nerve to nominate Hillary.
As for Russia, you and I are going to have to disagree. I find your opinion to be almost synonymous with Kremlin propaganda; what on God's green earth are you reading?
You seem the type that likes to get the last word in, so have it and carry on!
Last edited:
a large amount of the electorate voted for the "lessor evil"-obviously you don't understand electoral politics-
specifically the choice we had last year.
As to "getting the last word in" - you really aren't worth it, you show no abilities to understand Ukraine other then surface noise
and a good part of your critique of my desire for an end to Cold War 2.0 is lame labeling me as a "propagandist"
For someone who traveled to eastern Europe, and claims insight , you have little- other then standard issue Brookings type c/p.
You are basically a Democratic shill with no real understanding of either of the candidates except gross generalizations and the need to put people in camps of "wingnuts"
You offer nothing new -your views are hackneyed and partisan.