321–330 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Now the threat is gone Ukrainians, Georgians, Chechens and many others would disagree.
Georgians? The ones who attacked the russian peace keepers in South Ossetia to ( as said by Saakashvili in person ) humiliate Putin!
This is somewhat overblown, there was a lot of talk about this as it became clear Trump was about to be elected. Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO so the US doesn't fund the vast majority of that alliance and he can cut some spending there. Whatever the mind set is, not much has changed. The US and all of its allies are stil…
"Yes Trump is stirring the pot a bit maybe to play Russia against China. Maybe it's to get Europe to spend a little more on NATO" I don't know in what world do you live, but you are just giving him too much credibility. It's as if you can't fathom him doing something bad in him.
Like any other human being, Trump is allowed to be right about some things, wrong about some things, and somewhere in the middle on the rest. People can support specific actions or areas of action without implicitly supporting all actions. The GP didn't even come across as all that Trump-apologist or even -supportive to me, just stating that the status quo has not crumbled despite the doomsayers claiming otherwise.
Let's all try and dial back on the polarization, please?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because of perceived issues rather than real ones 10 years of stagnation or decline of GDP in all top 5 countries of the eurozone (which account for 50% of all GDP of EU) is not a perceived issue.
I don't want to start some longish economic argument here, but given that the EU is primarily a trade union and only around 1% of the total GDP of all member states is spent on the EU by its members, or, in other words, spending to the EU budget by member states is ridiculously small in comparison to national spendings by the respective national governments, it's hard to find an argument that could somehow contribute…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Canada were to allow China to start building military bases and anti-ICBM defense sites on the Canada/US border, there'd be regime change on Parliament Hill within the week. Every empire needs aligned, friendly, or at least, neutral buffer states on their borders - and will violently defend incursions into their buffer zones. Observe the shitshow over Cuba - sixty years of sanctions, terrorism, assassination attem…
Because a neighboring country imported nuclear-capable offensive weapons. It wasn't just the alliance that was the issue.
Meanwhile, in the present, 21st century, the US is busy building a missile defense shield in Poland. [1] (While claiming that it is built to defend against, of all places, Iran. [2] Seriously?) It is intended to neuter Russian nuclear capability... Meanwhile, Minutemen ICBMs continue to be able to strike Russia.
I ask again - how would the US react if China, or Russia started building army bases, and anti-ICBM installations in Canada, Mexico, and Cuba? How would the American empire respond to a political incursion into its buffer states?
[0] http://www.ww.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapo...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defens...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is this getting downvoted? Use your brains. Ok, I was wrong. Two weeks. Mea culpa https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/europe/ukraine-cris...
B/c they can't invade fully, they need some pretext. Also even if they wanted to, they don't have the forces to occupy Kiev.
" Also even if they wanted to, they don't have the forces to occupy Kiev." Ukraine is currently on the level of a 3rd world country. Russia would have air superiority within 24 hours. And the Russian military is still a formidable opponent, even for the US. I think the argument that Russia can't occupy Ukraine, if she wanted, is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Just like Crimea?
Are you suggesting that "Krym is Russian teritory" in a same way "Falklands are a British territory" ? Are you suggesting that Ukraine invaded Krym and Russia had to respond? I think that is flat out wrong. I am not saying that you can't be of an opinion that invasion of Falklands was not justified and annexation of Krym was. I am just saying that these two incidents are not comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They declared war and did nothing (hence names like Sitzkrieg or Phoney War). Since Polish defense strategy was based on assumption that UK and France will fulfill their obligations it was a much easier win for Germany than it could've been otherwise. I'm suprised it's not talked about more outside Poland, but this betrayal cost millions of lives.
What betrayal? The UK and France did go to war against Germany, but they were not in a position to invade Germany in 1939. France suffered more than 4 years of German occupation as a result of its decision to declare war on Germany, a pretty high price for honoring its obligations to Poland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Just like Crimea?
Whilst a hypothetical (and impossible in practise) fair referendum in Crimea prior to the Russian takeover might have shown some support, I doubt it would have been a landslide if it was even a victory. The Falklands however - would have voted 100% to remain part of Britain. It's a silly comparison in many ways but you can't get away with the statement you just made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Trump spends a year giving Putin all the reason in the world to believe that he can destabilize the Baltics without worrying about war with the US, and we're supposed to trust that Russia will believe our current posturing instead?
Trump is pushing NATO countries to increase their spending so the US can decrease its expenditure. Full stop. He's left in-place thousands of forward deployed troops in Baltic states as a deterrent and confidence builder. This is a non-issue.
Until he stops saying NATO is obsolete and he won't defend an ally he perceives as not having fulfilled its obligations, I'm going to believe him.