EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7160
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:00 a_flayer wrote: I thought it existed as an embodiment of preparedness to go to war with the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. Neither of which exist any longer. Has anyone told Putin? He seems to not be so sure that the Russian border ends where Ukraine starts. But seriously, although Russia is nothing like the threat the Soviet Union was in 50s it is still a large and expansionist nation that merits a collective response. Insisting that the Soviet Union is gone and therefore the threat is gone ignores that elements of it continue, such as the nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation, that the Russian Federation is essentially a successor state to the Soviet Union, and that the region as a whole has been destabilized by the fall of the Soviet Union. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:02 LegalLord wrote: Knowing what is public at the moment, I would say that Trump's inner circle being a complete circus is more likely than a vast Russian conspiracy. The connections are mostly of the "kinda-sorta knew this guy who knew this guy who works closely with Putin" form. And there is plenty of grounds upon which to question the competence of Trump's retainers. I have always assumed it was a few people who assumed they would get caught or that the oval office would be enough to shield them. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 21 2017 19:51 Acrofales wrote: Yet another demonstration of how bizarre the US congress works. How can a single senator hold up a vote? As I understood it, John Rambo McCain was pushing for it to pass by unanimous agreement so that we wouldn't have to sit down and talk about it, but Paul decided against it. And it's definitely something that is worth talking about. Montenegro is a perfect example of the kind of wishy-washy half-ally that deserves more debate than it received. And on top of that it's small enough to not have much to contribute, but strategic enough that it will need a fair bit of support. Decisions like this have a tendency to be made with more consensus than is appropriate (see Iraq) but in reality it does deserve some debate. Having unstable nations make up an important part of the alliance won't work so goodly in the long run. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:02 LegalLord wrote: Knowing what is public at the moment, I would say that Trump's inner circle being a complete circus is more likely than a vast Russian conspiracy. The connections are mostly of the "kinda-sorta knew this guy who knew this guy who works closely with Putin" form. And there is plenty of grounds upon which to question the competence of Trump's retainers. There's an awful lot of coincedences out there. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:02 LegalLord wrote: Knowing what is public at the moment, I would say that Trump's inner circle being a complete circus is more likely than a vast Russian conspiracy. The connections are mostly of the "kinda-sorta knew this guy who knew this guy who works closely with Putin" form. And there is plenty of grounds upon which to question the competence of Trump's retainers. while that may be true; it's also rather a false dichotomy, as those aren't the only two choices. they can also both be true. it certainly isn't likely to be a vast russian conspiracy though, more like a mild one with one or two people compromised somewhere. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote: Yeah, I'm curious about the debate over Montenegro. Anybody looking at a map can see that Russia can't invade Montenegro without going past other NATO countries' land borders, so I question what the point of it is. Seems like it's more likely to drag the US into some ex-Yugoslavian instability than it is to help us against Russian aggression. That has never stopped anyone from funding a proxy war or supporting the enemies of that nation. That was the majority of the cold war. The UK is part of NATO too and the threat of Russia invading them is about as likely as them invading the US. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:19 Doodsmack wrote: There's an awful lot of coincedences out there. A few people talking to somebody, some other guy lobbying for some guy who is sometimes pro-Russian, and a candidate with an unusually pro-Russian stance that sounds a lot like Republican "Putin strong leader, Obama weak ass" bluster, and some people lying under oath for reasons that are unclear. That's suspicious and worth investigating, but as of now I am more convinced that Trump is surrounded by idiots than that he's been bought out by Russia. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote: That has never stopped anyone from funding a proxy war or supporting the enemies of that nation. That was the majority of the cold war. The UK is part of NATO too and the threat of Russia invading them is about as likely as them invading the US. The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote: The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. But that would be the second time Russia just goes and annex's a country. Are we going to sit around and wait till Russia decides to annex another country for the third time? Or will we intervene on the second? | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NATO by comparison. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote: Yeah, I'm curious about the debate over Montenegro. Anybody looking at a map can see that Russia can't invade Montenegro without going past other NATO countries' land borders, so I question what the point of it is. Seems like it's more likely to drag the US into some ex-Yugoslavian instability than it is to help us against Russian aggression. The other issue is that, among other indicators of wishy-washy commitment, Montenegro was willing to deepen ties with Russia if NATO didn't work out so good. From the Russian side, there is of course a standard commitment to opposing NATO expansion - but little more than that. It's almost as if adding more poor commitments to NATO might be more useful for Russia than dragging itself into an ethnic conflict it doesn't want. Even with Serbia, a much more reliable and important partner in the region (the most important nation within the Yugoslavian remnants), Russia doesn't really want to commit much more than some arms sales. Death by a thousand East European ethnic conflicts is a concern that should be taken more seriously. On top of that, Montenegro is hardly a picture of stability. I can't understand why this is as uncontroversial as it is, unless I see it as a, "fuck yeah! Expand the anti-Russian alliance!" move. Which, with John Rambo McCain at the helm, is a reasonable supposition. But let's not make this disagreement into more than it is. Montenegro is going to pass. Let's just start now and prepare the welcoming party for #29. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21709 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote: The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. As Neville Chamberlain how that strategy worked out the last time he tried it. Incase your history needs a refresh. 'Let them have it and maybe they will stop there' is what the world tried when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. ...they didn't stop there. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:31 LightSpectra wrote: The UK has substantial military power, especially naval, and they have a vested interest in wanting to keep Europe stable by preventing Russian aggression. On the other hand, I really question if dragging everybody in NATO into regional instability is a worthy risk compared to Russian-funded partisans taking over such tiny country of (what I am assuming to be, but could be wrong) little strategic importance. I don't think it's a good idea to let Russia invade every "non important" country around really. Putin's strategy is to bully and/or invade every country that once was in the soviet orbit and wants to break free from russian influence. I think NATO´s mission is precisely to make sure it doesn't happen for its members (it probably is saving the baltic states) and their neighbours. If the west can prevent a new Georgia, it's a good thing. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:38 LightSpectra wrote: Russia hasn't annexed any countries. It annexed a part of Ukraine, but that's a much trickier situation than most people care to admit. All I'm saying is that it's worth questioning if another buffer against Russia is a worthy trade for perhaps having to intervene in some Serbian bullshit that's none of our business. I certainly would see the benefit of adding Belarus, Finland, Moldova, or any of the Caucasian states to NAT. It isn’t that complicated. Russia has been pushing to take that land for a decade or longer. I’ve heard stories about the push to take that land since I was in college. Russia saw some political instability in Ukraine, a US congress that was not to back a president and took its shot. The Ukraine is a sovereign nation and they stole land from them. It would be like the US charging into parts of Mexico because they dealing with drug cartels and we felt Texas needed to be bigger. Edit: Gorsameth beat me to the Neville Chamberlain reference. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42784 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:41 Gorsameth wrote: As Neville Chamberlain how that strategy worked out the last time he tried it. Incase your history needs a refresh. 'Let them have it and maybe they will stop there' is what the world tried when Nazi Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. ...they didn't stop there. I was reading recently that a group of senior military officers in Nazi Germany formed a group called Die Schwarze Kapelle and were waiting for Britain and France to stand up to Hitler so that they could seize the moment to depose him. Senior Nazi officials would all be murdered, the old guard leadership of the army would impose martial law, war would potentially be averted. They were ready to strike at Munich but Chamberlain couldn't pull the trigger. That said, those who blame Chamberlain often don't understand the degree to which pacifism was the dominant political ideology in interwar Britain. It's difficult for our generation to really understand what the Great War did to Britain ideologically, especially because pacifism emerged from The Second World War somewhat discredited. I could write substantially more on it but basically while it's obvious in hindsight that appeasement failed it's hard for anyone alive today to understand what it meant to ask the British people to send their sons back to Flanders. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On March 22 2017 00:22 LightSpectra wrote: Yeah, I'm curious about the debate over Montenegro. Anybody looking at a map can see that Russia can't invade Montenegro without going past other NATO countries' land borders, so I question what the point of it is. Seems like it's more likely to drag the US into some ex-Yugoslavian instability than it is to help us against Russian aggression. This sort of thing is why I'd rather see NATO be massively restructured - conflicts within Europe should be resolved by European nations. I'd like for Montenegro and that whole block of tiny little countries to join the EU in full so they can be part of the modern European way of solving conflicts (long extensive talks and endless negotiations). Only if some overwhelming hostile foreign entity comes in, then we can talk about bringing in the US to support us. It seems mental to me that what you're saying is somehow part of the discussion to begin with. Trump's comments regarding NATO are technically inaccurate - there is no debt and so forth - but I am inclined to think that sort of talk sheds a light on the embodiment of the attitude of the US towards the defensive alliance: "We pay the most, so we get to make the decisions." European countries spending more on their military is one way to combat this, but there is a limit to that kind of spending since there is absolutely no need for more military. Only if you like to go to war, as the US does, is there a need for 'defense' spending. | ||
| ||
