Foreign Policy Discussion: Russia

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, May 23, 2016.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

  2. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Putin was in Athens, Greece recently. He addressed the recent installation of the ABM deployment in Romania by NATO.



    The implication I got, is that Russia will respond, possibly by launching a first strike to take out the missile facility in Romania and this is fair warning, both to NATO, the US, and to Romania.
    If indeed he follows through, and Putin generally keeps his word, the US/NATO would either have to respond militarily - an escalation with nuclear implications - or back down from its mission of ABM deployment on Russia's borders. Choice #1 makes the US look like fools. Choice #2 could mean civilization as we know it is destroyed.

    In addition to Romania, and NATO's plan to erect missiles in Poland, NATO is ramping up just about everywhere that impacts Russia.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/sweden-dumps-neutrality-signs-major-agreement-with-nato/5527596

    https://www.rt.com/news/344697-nato-drills-kicks-europe/

    How much coverage and discussion is there about these things in the American "mainstream news?"

    If and win Russia strikes, the news will simply be reported as "Russian Aggression," an unprovoked strike at Ramania, Poland, etc. There won't be a Russian invasion, as Russian has not demonstrated intentions to invade and/or occupy these countries. Russia could have easily invaded and occupied the Donbass region of Ukraine. They did not. What is rapidly unfolding is a normal defensive reaction in opposition to US directed aggression, and its largely being done without any effort to accurately inform and discuss with the American public.
     
  3. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Because that's exactly what it will be. Nothing you've demonstrated in copious posts and attempts to justify Russian aggression would make it anything but what it is, aggression. Russia does not get to dictate Romanian defense. In fact, combine the Russian actions in the last 10 years and these threats it's understandable why countries like Romania are asking for defensive help.

    I've visited Romania twice in the last year for business reasons. Talking to cab drivers they very much long for Western ideals and detest Soviet-era cronyism.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You are wasting your time. Putin is always right. The West (especially the US) is always wrong. Until you say that, he's going to haggle with you to the point of absurdity even when he and his "sources" have been resoundingly discredited and proven wrong. You can blow a bunch of time going through that exercise or just accept that he's never going to see or even consider the world through any lens other than his own (while telling you that you're ignorant, naive, and wear blinders) and go on with your life.
     
  5. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    You two spend all of your energy trying to prove yourself right. I'll begin with Seattle Husker. Assuming Russia does make a first strike, I'll cede your point and call it Russian Aggression. Feel better now? We end up with nuclear war, but you're right, it's Russia's fault and it's more important that the United States upholds a Romanian taxi driver's desire to be defended from Putin and risk a nuclear confrontation.

    If Russia had any desire to overrun Romania they could probably achieve it in 24 hours. What good would it do them?

    Both of you are incredibly obtuse. You both are probably very intelligent as measured by standardized tests, but lacking in common sense.

    As for Dees, you are obsessed with proving yourself right. But I'm tired of being on the defensive. I've explained why its dangerous to expand NATO. It's dangerous because of how Russia perceives it. All you can do as say that Russia is wrong. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, THEY ARE GOING TO RESPOND ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY PERCEIVE IS A DANGER TO THEIR NATIONAL SECURITY. Now explain to me why you believe our present policy with respect to NATO buildups on the Russian border and erecting missiles next to Russia makes the world safer even if, or especially if, Russia is wrong in their interpretation.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2016
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    You seem to believe that Russia is benevolent and is only responding because of NATO expansion and haven't considered that their obvious aggressive behavior may be curtailed BECAUSE of NATO expansion. Could the NATO presence inside Romania (and others) be preventing Russian intrusion, like we see in Ukraine? You think that's fantasy but the facts of intrusion into former Soviet satellites give it much more foundation than the conspiracy theories you're continuously advancing.
     
  7. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Russia could have invaded Ukraine and marched to Kiev in a week. There has never been a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Can you name a single country since the breakup of the USSR where Russia forcibly removed the government, forcibly occupied the country, or forcibly annexed the country? No. Crimea was annexed but it was not done forcibly. There was a referendum. You will say it was illegal, but then you don't believe in self-determination; unless of course it's authorized and supported by the US government as in the case of the coup in Kiev.

    Can you name a single country in the last 15 years where the USA has forcibly removed the government, forcibly occupied the country, or forcibly annexed the country? On A and B its a long list and you can add Honduras to the Middle Eastern collection.
     
  8. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Define "obvious aggression" as it pertains to Russia.
     
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Russia had 100k troops in an area the size of Massachusetts and commandeered Ukraine's navy for the referendum. Is it any wonder that only the ethnic Russians showed up to vote? That's an invasion by any measure with the only difference that it was successful to the point that they didn't need to fire a shot.

    I'd agree with all of that and still Eastern Europe is falling over themselves to get into NATO. Ask yourself why? What is it about Russia (and Putin) that has them running away into the bosom of the big bad USA? You're full of justifications for Russian transgressions but unable to see the simple fact that nobody outside of Iran and a few puppet states want to be their ally. I'm not even making the case that America is noble. We've done some evil **** but still we are more noble than Russia, especially given our relative power supremacy.
     
  10. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    I'd agree with all of that and still Eastern Europe is falling over themselves to get into NATO. Ask yourself why? What is it about Russia (and Putin) that has them running away into the bosom of the big bad USA? You're full of justifications for Russian transgressions but unable to see the simple fact that nobody outside of Iran and a few puppet states want to be their ally. I'm not even making the case that America is noble. We've done some evil **** but still we are more noble than Russia, especially given our relative power supremacy.​

    It's not just that Eastern European countries are running away from Russia into the bosom of the USA. The USA is also pouring its influence into Europe to gain cooperation. Keep in perspective the USA is dominant in controlling financial resources (IMF, World Bank, etc.) and can pressure/bribe governments globally to do as the US wishes. There are only three countries in the MIddle East for instance, that do not have US military bases on their soil. Those countries are Iran, Syria, and I believe Lebanon. Guess which countries are under attack - if not militarily, then financially - by the United States.

    But aside from who is the more good and who is the more bad, Russia or the US, the overriding question that I'm concerned with, is what policy makes the best sense for myself and the United States citizenry? What is best for the typical US citizen doesn't necessarily align with the policy objectives of the US government (despite the fact that the Congress and President are elected), the Pentagon, the multi-national corporations, and the media which happens to be dominated by those factions listed. Excuse me, but I don't believe securing Eastern Europe is a national security threat worth risking a direct military confrontation with a nuclear power.

    There's no question American is historically noble, but in my opinion the America of today does not remotely resemble the American we hold nostalgic. For Pete's sake, of the two leading Presidential candidates, one allegedly did quite a bit of business through mafia ties, and the other is a treasonous liar who has a multi-billion dollar slush fund called the Clinton foundation. And the typical American response to that is to say Putin is Hitler.
     
  11. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Romania doesn't really want to join NATO and doesn't really fear Russia. It's just kowtowing to US influence and corruption. However, Crimea was just exercising its own self-determination and was under no influence from Russia. Again, Putin is always right, and the West is always wrong.
     
  12. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    If you describe my position as merely saying that "Russia is wrong," then you're not reading my posts. Like I said earlier, it's a waste of time to engage this issue with you.
     
  13. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    How pathetic. You have no answer so you run and hide.
     
  14. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

  15. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

  16. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I've answered your points countless times, and I've pointed out multiple and irrefutable errors in the "sources" you cite as gospel. You don't refute (and in fact have never refuted) anything I've posted. You just dismiss it and keep on regurgitating the same junk. It's a waste of time to keep going through that pointless exercise.
     
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I think this guy is a russian agitprop
    All sorts of russian crap started appearing in my junk/registration email box after an exchange wit him here
    Proceed at your own risk

    What have russians ever been good at?
    -- Vodka
    -- Chess
    -- Propaganda
    -- Invading neighbors
    -- Writing bad code/hacking
    Miss anything?
     
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    LOL! To be fair to Musburger, I haven't gotten any Russian crap in my junk mail.
     
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    By the way, add mail-order brides to your list.
     
  20. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Prolly should have put that first
     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    You ignorant fool. I'm haven't tried to refute anything you've said on this thread; because you've yet to say anything. The sources I've linked to in the thread are simply op-Ed analysis. It's not like I'm linking to event reporting that can be challenged as to whether or not there is factual basis.

    What Putin stated in the video is a direct warning. It's not a fabrication, he's stated the same thing twice within a week. There is no disputing that. Period. What difference does it make who downloaded the video. My point, and the opinion of those authors I linked to, is that whether or not Russsia presented any threat to Eastern Europe (I say no, but for the purpose of appeasing you we'll assume yes) such a threat posed no existential threat to the security of the United States. But our response to the perceived threat - increased militarization, etc. on Russia's border, has resulted in a direct threat that certainly could threaten not only our national security but our existence. You have not addressed that topic. Instead you choose to hide behind ridiculous assumptions that every scenario that's been laid out is a fictitious Russian conspiracy. My God, the Russian President himself publically announced Russia's position and gave a fairly specific guideline of what the Russian response might be. And you are too chicken **** or stupid to recognize that.
     
  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You act as though this thread is a topic of first impression. It's not. The opinions linked and the justification for Putin's threat to use give against Romania rely on the same speculative and discredited horse crap you've spouted on numerous occasions. It's a waste of time to revisit it all with you.
     
  23. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    More gibberish. You just don't get it do you. You continue to be fixated on whether or not retaliation by Russia is justified or not. For the umpteenth time, that's not that point. It doesn't matter whether or not Russia is justified in retaliating. The fact is, they believe they are justified and they will. Are you a complete moron to the degree you can't comprehend this?

    First of all there's nothing speculative of which you assert. This is simplistic.

    Fact: NATO is rapidly conducting exercises, erecting an ABM system, and shipping military hardware toward Russia's borders.
    Fact: The US and Europe have applied sanctions on Russia.
    Fact: Putin publically stated twice that the ABM deployment in Romania will not stand, nor the future deployment in Poland, and that these countries have put themselves in the cross hairs.

    This isn't complicated. Nor is it speculative. The US and NATO are playing a dangerous game of bluff with a nuclear power that takes this as a serious threat. And your response is nothing more than "its silly for the US to reconsider any of this because Russia's assumptions are wrong."

    Suppose I think I hear you say something I find offensive. I then tell you that I'm going to bash your head in. And as you watch me pick up club, you laugh because you believe my behavior isn't justified. Then I bash your brains in.

    IT DOESN'T MAKE A HILL OF BEANS WORTH OF DIFFERENCE IF I'M JUSTIFIED OR OR NOT WHEN I SMASH YOUR FACE. THE FACT IS, IF I'M GOING TO BASH YOUR HEAD IN, YOU CAN BE COMPLETELY RIGHT THAT I DIDN'T HAVE A REASON - YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A BLOODY NOSE.

    Deez, I'm convinced I was wrong about you. Indeed, you have proven yourself to be incapable of understanding even something so simplistic a child can understand. I've made a childlike analogy to help you. Maybe you'll get it eventually.
     
  24. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Trust me. I understand your point. l don't think the US or Romania should live in fear for defending themselves or for doing something that they have every right to do. If Putin wants to attack Romania and start WWIII, then so be it. A deranged bully (and he would be if he attacks) should not be appeased, and his threats sure as hell shouldn't intimidate other nations into weakening their defense posture to kowtow to him. If we go along with that, there will be no end to it. He'll push and threaten until there are Russian troops in Berlin again. Screw that.

    And by the way, he won't attack Romania. He knows he'd be signing his own death warrant. He also knows he'd have no meaningful global support. Putin isn't that dumb.
     
  25. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Thank you. You could have saved many keystrokes if you'd just plainly spoken your mind from the beginning. I take it you are an advocate of the Wolfawitz Doctrine and neocon perspective that dominates US foreign policy. I think it's been a foolish misalocation of lives, resources, and good will. Oh well.
     
  26. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    You take it wrong.
     
  27. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    That's the key. He's into self preservation just as most narcissistic dictators are. Musburger mistakes sabre rattling and posturing for actions. He wants to take Putin at his word with the current threats yet were I to put up a video of Putin claiming the soldiers in Crimea weren't Russian (they had removed all their insignia's) he'd have some sort of rationalization at the ready. Evidently picking and choosing when to believe Putin is the modus operandi.
     
  28. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    1. The Georgian invasion of South Ossetia crossed a red line. Putin acted.
    2. The threat to Crimea crossed a red line. Putin acted.
    3. The attempted coup in Syria crossed a red line. Putin acted.
    4. The ABM missile deployment in Romania crossed a red line. We shall see.
     
  29. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    The stakes are infinitely higher. We can justify not stopping the acts you mentioned and even supporting some of them. If he attacks a NATO ally and murders a bunch of US troops in the process, we wouldn't be able to justify anything short of a massive and pretty horrific response. If Putin gets away with it, NATO would be exposed as meaningless, and it would likely mean the end of the US as a significant global power. And if all that happens, Putin won't stop with the ABM facility.
     
  30. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    That's exactly right. The stakes are higher. Whether NATO is or isn't meaningless, is its purpose to defend all of Europe? Is its purpose to continually grow and expand membership? If not, how wise is it to follow that trajectory when Russia announces they plan to oppose those objectives militarily? And if expansion of NATO is an objective in terms of protecting Eastern European countries, how much safer are these countries now that Russia has labeled them a target as long as the ABM system resides there?
     

Share This Page