Donald Trump and US politics

"

morbo wrote:

"

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.

The politicians probably, as a whole, aren't. The public, however, seems to be - and politicians will always look for ways to exploit public opinion. Rule number one of any self-respecting authoritarian state: have a nice enemy to point fingers at and use as an excuse and justification to do whatever the hell you want. Slowly take away freedoms and checks to you power, and if anyone raises their voice, accuse them of being unpatriotic, traitorous scum and shout: "Security! Peace! We gotta make sure them bad guys won't get us!".

Sound familiar?

"

morbo wrote:

"

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.

Both the U.S. and Russia want their spheres of influence. That has not changed. And Putin was trained at the KGB, if you think his geostrategic views have nothing to do with that, ok.

As for Bar´s comments. Sounds familiar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYhnnN1eLxM

(Vox channel: "How Steve Bannon sees the world")

Oh, I'm not saying anyone is innocent of this, far from it.

"

Bars wrote:

The politicians probably, as a whole, aren't. The public, however, seems to be - and politicians will always look for ways to exploit public opinion.

I think in this case is the other way around: US politicians create public opinion. In the last 16 years, the US has been invading and destabilizing everyone and everything around Russia, while at the same time screaming "watch our for ebil Putin"!!.

The communists were defeated, Soviet Union collapsed, Russia impoverished... Yet the US politicians were still pressing the offensive over the last two decades. It never stopped. There must be something in the collective US political establishment, that makes them obsessed with Russia. (meanwhile the pseudo-communist China is becoming a superpower)

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Both the U.S. and Russia want their spheres of influence.

Sure. The US sphere of influence is supposed to be set right on the RU border.

"

Bars wrote:

Oh, I'm not saying anyone is innocent of this, far from it.

I know. You just gave me a nice cue.

"

morbo wrote:

Sure. The US sphere of influence is supposed to be set right on the RU border.

A big part of the sphere of influence is called Europe. Some EU countries are right on the RU border. Finland for a longer period of time than e.g. Estland(I have friends in Lapland, 18 km away from the Russian border).

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

A big part of the sphere of influence is called Europe. Some EU countries are right on the RU border. Finland for a longer period of time than e.g. Estland(I have friends in Lapland, 18 km away from the Russian border).

Yeah and? I wonder why "warmongering Russia" has not invaded Finland yet. Since they aren't even in NATO, they should be ripe for the taking. Snatch that cuck-Swedistan too, while they are at it. /s

Obviously I'm talking about US instigating "regime changes" and destabilizing countries like Ukraine. Imagine if Russia destabilized Mexico and supported a US hostile government there. You'd be calling it "Russia's sphere of influence"?

"

morbo wrote:

"

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.

I agree with the statement in bold 100%. The USA got involved in destabilizing that country and creating the environment for which the annexation of Crimea by Russia could occur. The Russian people supported Putin in his annexation of Crimea.

People in the USA talk about how bad, evil and un-democratic that Putin is, even though he's elected in a Democratic system and has enormously high approval ratings in his country. I'm nothing but cynical about their reasons for attacking Russia and Putin.

I really don't think Putin is that bad, considering they're using similar types of rhetoric to go after Trump. But I've never personally given much weight to who neo-cons and neo-liberals consider to be "Villains".

There is an inherent "Russophobia" still present among Americans, and even Europeans, just due to the history of adversarial relationships. And then fuel is thrown on the fire in the form of chauvinism (used by both the left and the right) to escalate this even further. What do these people want? Are they stupid? Would they prefer if we just exchange nukes with the Russians and leave the world blackened? Like the Metallica song?

Eltsin, who turned the USSSR into a fucking hellholish disaster, wasn't evil. Putin put it back on its feet, and he's Evil.

Right :)

The possibility of nuclear annihilation was severely diminished with the fall of the USSR, yet some would still seek to maintain a similar level of hostilities between both parties, regardless of the consequences.

The answer of why can only be determined by figuring out what is to gain from this, and who gains the most? Military industrial complexes around the globe benefit from the inflation of such threats with the sell of weapons. And overstating the need for such weapons. This is why I'm extremely cynical of reports that claim NATO isn't equipped to deter the Russians from invading Eastern Europe.