Donald Trump and US politics

"

morbo wrote:

So, he whole US government works for the KGB. Makes sense, totally believable.

"

Trump might turn to full aggression towards Russia in an attempt not to lose the support of the conservatives.

Why are neocons so obsessed with Russia? Can someone explain this? Why is RU always the enemy #1, to the point that US governments would support even neonazis and islamic terrorists, in their efforts against Russia.

They are not careless about Russian politics, which is good. That doesn´t mean they are agressive against Russia. I just said Trump might overreact, like he usually does.

I hope there will be some better cooperation with Russia soon, but within certain borders, like "No invasion and occupation of independent countries".

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

They're no longer capable of rolling through Europe unopposed. They might roll through a few former Soviet Block states, but that guarantees they start WW3. And the Russians don't have the military to fight WW3. I'm not even sure Russia could beat a combination of France and Germany. There is enough of a deterrent to keep them from invading anyone else, with or without NATO.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html

Btw they already have "rolled through a few former Soviet Block states" without triggering WW3.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

They are not careless about Russian politics, which is good. That doesn´t mean they are agressive against Russia.

Of course they are aggressive. In the last ~15 years the US has been constantly pushing and prodding Russia on all fronts.

The "anti-missile defense" in eastern Europe, the constant anti-russian propaganda, the complete destruction of middle-eastern (secular) states that were kinda friendly with RU - Iraq, Libya, Syria. Attack on Serbia and the creation of a fake and completely failed country - Kosovo. War in Georgia. The US sponsored nationalistic coup in Ukraine. All this, while the western propaganda is trying to depict RU as the aggressor, lol.

US is pushing NATO all the way to the Russian border, while claiming "it's only in self-defense". EU is full of US lapdogs who go along with the war games. But if there will ever be a war, EU will be destroyed first.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

They're no longer capable of rolling through Europe unopposed. They might roll through a few former Soviet Block states, but that guarantees they start WW3. And the Russians don't have the military to fight WW3. I'm not even sure Russia could beat a combination of France and Germany. There is enough of a deterrent to keep them from invading anyone else, with or without NATO.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html

Well, a French Sub took out an entire US carrier battle group in a war games trial (#REKT):

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162488/how-a-30_year-old-french-sub-sank-a-us-carrier-group.html

My point? They could say that the USA needs to spend more money and resources, even though they're by far the best funded military in the world.

I'm also not sure of who this Rand Group is, or whether their analysis is trustworthy.

And then comes the question of how much of a shit do I actually give about the Russians rolling over Latvia, or Estonia? Hint: none.

"

morbo wrote:

The "anti-missile defense" in eastern Europe, the constant anti-russian propaganda, the complete destruction of middle-eastern (secular) states that were kinda friendly with RU - Iraq, Libya, Syria. Attack on Serbia and the creation of a fake and completely failed country - Kosovo. War in Georgia. The US sponsored nationalistic coup in Ukraine. All this, while the western propaganda is trying to depict RU as the aggressor, lol.

US is pushing NATO all the way to the Russian border, while claiming "it's only in self-defense". EU is full of US lapdogs who go along with the war games. But if there will ever be a war, EU will be destroyed first.

In fact both countries have a geostrategic interest in the (middle) east, think Afghanistan or Syria. It was a strategic mistake though to expand EU and/or NATO without talking to Putin before. For many people here the Russian invasion was no big surprise, of course.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

And then comes the question of how much of a shit do I actually give about the Russians rolling over Latvia, or Estonia? Hint: none.

That´s the difference.
Not surprised.

Long live Russia and mr. Putin! Long live RT and Sputnik!
At least now I know something.

"

poor_hobbit wrote:

At least now I know something.

Something. That´s true.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

And then comes the question of how much of a shit do I actually give about the Russians rolling over Latvia, or Estonia? Hint: none.

The annexation of Crimea (historical Russian land, which was given to Ukraine by the communists a few decades ago), would have never happened, if it wasn't for the western sponsored coup in that country. Putin figured out it will be better to do a quick "surprise anschluss", than to fight an actual war later, when the coupist regime would organize and send forces into Crimea.

Russia does not have the ability or interest to roll over countries, like the Soviet Union did. And more importantly: it is not an ideological threat to the West, like the Soviet Union was. NATO has barely any reasons to exist anymore, so the US and EU "hawks" try to create reasons for NATO to exist, by being aggressive vs Russia and checking how far thy can push it.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

In fact both countries have a geostrategic interest in the (middle) east, think Afghanistan or Syria.

If you mean the war in Afghanistan in 1979, that was Soviet Union, not Russia. The cold war is over, the commies were defeated, but US politicians seem to be still stuck in the past.