2018 American Political Scene

[Firestorm]

Can China today in any way compare to what the USSR was back then

Militarily, no. But the USSR's military might had very weak economic legs. It may not have looked obvious then, but the whole structure was always going to crash and burn. The only question was when.

The Chinese on the other hand have combined the authoritarian government of the USSR with the ruthlessly efficient economy of the 20th century USA. AN altogether more dangerous beast in the long run.

[rj1]

that's not really a fair attack on the Presidents. HW Bush, Clinton, and Obama all thought fairly deeply on geopolitics. Bush Jr rather less but he had some very good people on his staff.

First, H.W. Bush I consider intelligent on it. Clinton's presidency on a geopolitical scale was a largely benign one. A lot of small things happened but they were nowhere close to what his 2 successors dealt with.

How was Obama any better than Bush Jr.? If you're going to hate on Bush Jr. entirely for Iraq, Obama did the exact same decision in Libya and all because worthless piece of crap Nicholas Sarkozy manipulated him into doing it for the Europeans when we had no strategic interest. There's then the disaster that was and is Syria, as well as the overthrow of the entire post-World War II geopolitical order with the Russian actions in Ukraine where skirmishes may occur but borders are no longer sacrosanct and that being the basis of widespread international peace.

[rj1]

Obama geopolitics in a nutshell. I wrote this in December 2015:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=35782171

"U.S. 'Not Seeking Regime Change in Syria', Kerry Says"

The Obama administration's foreign policy as represented by State Secretary John Kerry is the personification of that gif where Bugs Bunny draws lines in the sand that Yosemite Sam constantly crosses over. I don’t care what political beliefs you have, but you can either be for justice or you can be for noninterventionism, you cannot be for both at the same time. To carry out justice on the wrongs of society requires intervention by definition. The current administration defined their foreign policy from the outset as being one of nonintervention because everyone was pissed off with the last guy, which fine, that’s what the people wanted, yet lecture about upholding human rights and other stuff internationally. You can’t uphold human rights if they’re your overall driving purpose without intervention! All being noninterventionist from the outset states is that you’ve elected to castrate yourself into a eunuch by choice. To quote Teddy Roosevelt, “speak softly and carry a big stick”.

The administration a few years ago said the red line for when we would get involved in Syria was proof of chemical weapons warfare in the Syrian conflict, the line was crossed and nothing was done by the U.S., its allies, or the UN. We’ve had a longstanding goal of regime change on the grounds of war crimes committed by President Assad, we’re now against that because the Russians showed hard power trumps soft power every time. So what the hell do we stand for? Meanwhile this conflict has gone on for four-plus years, has multiple fronts (Bahrain briefly at the beginning, Libya, Egypt to a lesser extent, northern Iraq, Lebanon on a purely political level, and Yemen where the Saudis and Emiratis are getting their asses kicked by a collection of farmers), the anarchy has allowed a backward 12th-century group to come into lots of money and power and this group does not buy into the notion of Westphalian principles at all which means a whole lot more people have to put up with war and will die, and now the Russians and Turks are openly involved, unlike the Arabs these are real militaries, which can only lead to a much greater conflict that threatens to encompass even more people which is a stronger threat to global peace. And we have now shaken hands on the issue with a country that in the past 8 years has de facto annexed Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia, and Crimea and Donetsk from Ukraine, putting the world into a pre-World War II mindset where geographic integrity of states is not respected and the action leading to no repercussions, leading to once again, more war in the future.

We’ve had 3 idiots in a row when it comes to foreign policy become president, is it too much to ask that I at least want my president to have at least heard of Clausewitz and Machiavelli so they can make better decisions? Unfortunately, Hillary’s track record as State Secretary is very little in the way of positive results, Trump’s a moron, and some of the other Republican contenders don’t inspire.

and then something I quoted from probably here:

So...recent hitpoints:

-Assad can stay
-Biden calls on Turkey to remove troops from Iraq
-U.S. withdraws jets from Incirlik
-IMF recognizes Ukrainian debt to Russia
-No fly zone over Syria

This all points to basically complete capitulation of the West.

[Firestorm]

Letting Assad stay was making the best of a bad situation. Choosing the lesser of two devils. If Assad had been overthrown Syria would have turned into 1990's Afghanistan. The strongest of his opponents were murderous Jihadi nutjobs with various names. I don't see how they would be an improvement over him.

[DOR]

Their military just took over a port in Sri Lanka. How did the Indians let that one happen?

Last time I checked, Sri Lanka wasn’t a colony of India. Or, a province.

[astralis]

How was Obama any better than Bush Jr.? If you're going to hate on Bush Jr. entirely for Iraq, Obama did the exact same decision in Libya and all because worthless piece of crap Nicholas Sarkozy manipulated him into doing it for the Europeans when we had no strategic interest. There's then the disaster that was and is Syria

eh...what was the cost of Iraq vs Libya?

and there was, and is, no good solution for Syria. ditto with Ukraine, which was far more of a strategic disaster for Russia than it was for the United States. the Obama administration's main issue was that they were always thinking and reviewing, and never executing. that makes for generally mediocre foreign policy but on the other hand, avoids disasters like wanting to re-make the entire Middle East.

as well as the overthrow of the entire post-World War II geopolitical order with the Russian actions in Ukraine where skirmishes may occur but borders are no longer sacrosanct and that being the basis of widespread international peace.

that's rather overstating things. violating borders and frozen conflicts is not a new game for Russia; see Prague Spring, Russo-Georgia War, the Transnistria issue...

[Double Edge]

Letting Assad stay was making the best of a bad situation. Choosing the lesser of two devils. If Assad had been overthrown Syria would have turned into 1990's Afghanistan. The strongest of his opponents were murderous Jihadi nutjobs with various names. I don't see how they would be an improvement over him.

Nobody on this board was able to make that argument. I know, i tried numerous times to advocate his removal with all sorts of arguments. Mihais blocked me on all counts. There was no 'good' solution in Syria. This does not mean capitulation of the west. The west had no horse in Syria, the Russians did. So it would be capitulation by Russia to do nothing.

Militarily, no. But the USSR's military might had very weak economic legs. It may not have looked obvious then, but the whole structure was always going to crash and burn. The only question was when.

Point is nobody realised that at the time. Even the awesome CIA completely missed it when it did happen.

The Chinese on the other hand have combined the authoritarian government of the USSR with the ruthlessly efficient economy of the 20th century USA. AN altogether more dangerous beast in the long run.

Should China chose to go in that direction steps will be taken to deal with it.

There is no expansive revolutionary ideology with China like there was with the Soviets.

[Double Edge]

Their military just took over a port in Sri Lanka. How did the Indians let that one happen?

My reply here

[snapper]

The latest part of the 'agreements':

Vladimir Putin told Russian diplomats that he made a proposal to Donald Trump at their summit this week to hold a referendum to help resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine, but agreed not to disclose the plan publicly so the U.S. president could consider it, according to two people who attended Putin’s closed-door speech on Thursday.

Details of what the two leaders discussed in their summit in Helsinki, Finland, remain scarce, with much of the description so far coming from Russia. While Putin portrayed the Ukraine offer as a sign he’s seeking to bring the four-year-old crisis to an end, a referendum is likely to be a hard sell with Ukraine and its backers in Europe, who remain committed to an 2015 European-brokered truce deal for the Donbas region, parts of which are controlled by Russian-backed separatists.

White House officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If Putin’s account of Trump’s reaction is accurate, it would suggest a more flexible approach than the U.S. has shown to date on the issue. At the Helsinki meeting, Trump also agreed to consider a Putin request to question the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow over U.S. campaign-finance violations that critics say Trump should have dismissed outright.

Putin gave his latest account of the meeting during at a conference with top Russian ambassadors and officials at the Foreign Ministry in Moscow, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing the president’s comments to the part of the session that was closed to the public. One of the people said that Trump had requested Putin not discuss the referendum idea at the press conference after the summit in order to give the U.S. leader time to mull it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aine-at-summit

"No, no, no" to quote Thatcher.

[Firestorm]

Should China chose to go in that direction steps will be taken to deal with it.

There is no expansive revolutionary ideology with China like there was with the Soviets.

What do you think OBOR/BRI is? The method is different that is all. Anyway, we're getting OT perhaps.

[Ironduke]

So here is the delighful Muscovite 'illegal' (the latest arrested) in the Oval Office with Lavrov and Trumpkin. It is said by some that she (and her senior) were responsible for blocking Mitt Romney as Secretary of State. She is the redhead in the door.

Do your own face scan.

Lots of software out there; http://api.animetrics.com https://trueface.ai It's her. See also; https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...ed-russian-spy I may remind you that it was during meeting that Trumpkin leaked the info about the Israeli source in Daesh/ISIS to the Muscovites.

Here's a picture of Maria Butina and the woman alleged to be her during the Lavrov meeting at the White House.



It's clearly not Maria Butina in that White House photo. Maria Butina's jaw alone is three times larger than the other woman's, and her nose is broad and bulbous unlike the woman in the White House photo, not to mention other several other differences in their facial features.

I don't need facial matching software, my eyeballs are good enough to discern the difference, and that these are different women is as plain as day.

[Double Edge]

Last time I checked, Sri Lanka wasn’t a colony of India. Or, a province.

Reply here

[Double Edge]

I'm allowed to agree that the Europeans take our relationship for granted - Libya demonstrated that - while still thinking Trump is a dangerous asshole.

That term is usually employed by the opposition for leaders that start wars.

Thinking our allies should commit more to NATO is entirely different from viewing them as on par with the Russians in terms of friendship.

I see the two separately. It's just the timing of the two meets that makes it look like they are related.

Trump has a genuine disregard for open ended commitments. He has a problem with NATO and its more than just cost. He thinks NATO is not necessary anymore. If he had his way he'd dismantle any alliance he saw fit regardless of what anyone thinks, Putin included.

He doesn't want a fight with Russia. He cannot offer Russia anything so all we have are a few statements that to Putin really mean nothing but seems to have value because they've upset the conventional thinking.

[astralis]

DE,

He doesn't want a fight with Russia. He cannot offer Russia anything so all we have are a few statements that to Putin really mean nothing but seems to have value because they've upset the conventional thinking.

yet Russia was overjoyed by the summit-- see the comments by Lavrov.

for Putin, the fact that Trump made a complete and utter fool of himself was more important than any real agreement that the two Presidents came to. it weakens US influence as well as the alliance, both of which are top Russian strategic goals.

[Mihais]

DE,



yet Russia was overjoyed by the summit-- see the comments by Lavrov.

for Putin, the fact that Trump made a complete and utter fool of himself was more important than any real agreement that the two Presidents came to. it weakens US influence as well as the alliance, both of which are top Russian strategic goals.

Trump talking internal politics is some sort of hobby of his.

Wrt NATO there are 2 sorts of nations.Those near the Russians and those behind the first category.

Russian neighbours are buying American weapons,have US troops,albeit a few and have no real issues with Trump.Besides the echoes of anti-Trump attitudes prevalent in the Western media.
Aka Rumsfeld New Europe.
For the US these serve the wider interest of no strong collusion between western Europe and Russia at very little to no cost.
W Europe had no love for Trump since he announced his candidacy is ideologically aligned with Trump’s base opponents and does not give 2sh!ts about Russia.
The real question is which alliance is undermined and which influence is weakened?