War with Russia

[skyrover]

shirt said:

had a conversation with some middle class, well traveled/educated russians earlier in the week. whilst they don't agree with everything putin says they see him as a strong leader and he was right to 'retake' the crimea. i suppose its like us and the falklands in reverse, patriotism doesn't often sit very well with global politics yet the russians don;t seem to give a fk.

The trouble comes when one confuses patriotism and supporting your leadership no matter what.

There's a good chance many Russian's can see through the Kremlin's bullsh!t, but chose to be "good patriotic citizens" and go along with it.

[AreOut]

majority of Russians really do consider Crimea part of Russia and handing it to Ukraine as just an error of communist bureaucrats

imagine giving the strategic part of UK from England to Wales(for easier handling or what not) and after imaginary UK dissolution taking it back because it's very important from military point of view

[NRS]

skyrover said:

The trouble comes when one confuses patriotism and supporting your leadership no matter what.

There's a good chance many Russian's can see through the Kremlin's bullsh!t, but chose to be "good patriotic citizens" and go along with it.

Like us going in and doing the right thing in [some] dictatorships/ evil regimes? Although that ignores the ones that serve us well!

toppstuff said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

My issue is the imposition of our values on other countries, Russia is not Europe, the mentality and society does not want to be European they want to be Russian.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Saturday 20th December 19:15

If this is true, then Russia needs to accept that it has lost its relationship with its neighbour states. Other than the ethnic Russians in countries such as Ukraine, the rest of Eastern Europe positively and absolutely is NOT Russian. Countries like Poland are European. A portion of Ukrainians see themselves NOT as Russian.

If Russia wants to be respected as Russian, it is a two-way thing. Respect must be mutual.

Russia could have spent the last 20 years since communism ended building alliances. It has singularly failed to do so. This is their biggest problem IMO.

What would the US do if one of it's naval bases was at risk of being cut off, potentially due to the fault of the countries who seem to most interfere with the rest of the world? It's like the blame being squarely on Japan for the American start to WW2, despite the US having cut off its oil. Again ask yourself, what would the US have done in the same position? One of the reasons Russia hasn't done anything outside it's country in regards to trade etc is that it's happy to keep to itself. You see it in most conflicts in the UN - Russia doesn't want to do anything. We in the west want to jump in and solve everything ourselves (rather that should be to change it to our benefit). The only problem is a lot of the time it doesn't work, and things come around and around.

[MrCarPark]

What an economist thinks:

"Why has the Russian economy plunged SO SUDDENLY into the toilet?"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/28/just_how_b...

[skyrover]

NRS said:

What would the US do if one of it's naval bases was at risk of being cut off,

It would leave...

The difference being that most countries with US military presence want them to stay due to, economic, security and political concerns.

Would the US leave Diego Garcia if the UK asked them?

Probably... but would we ever do that?

[toppstuff]

MrCarPark said:

What an economist thinks:

"Why has the Russian economy plunged SO SUDDENLY into the toilet?"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/28/just_how_b...

Makes a lot of sense.

Putin really has truly screwed this up. He has made some terrible decisions both economically and politically. I can't see any option for 2015 other than finding a face-saving way of getting back to normal asap. There isn't really any else he can do. He has no allies. No friends. There are no countries anywhere ( including China ) who have any reason to help him.

[raftom]

Foppo said:

Has been said before Russians are a proud people do not tell them what to do.

They lived in semi-slavery until late nineteenth century, then had 70 years of communist dictatorship and now again gave their country to a de facto dictator. They're proud of what, bending their spines? There's a cultural inferiority complex deeply embedded on the public acceptance of their current government actions.

[NRS]

skyrover said:

NRS said:

What would the US do if one of it's naval bases was at risk of being cut off,

It would leave...

The difference being that most countries with US military presence want them to stay due to, economic, security and political concerns.

Would the US leave Diego Garcia if the UK asked them?

Probably... but would we ever do that?

It depends who it was, and where it was in the world. There has been quite a few places the US supports despite human right abuses etc. to maintain a military position in the area.

For those complaining about the intervention of Russia, this map shows where the US is involved. Glad to see we avoid interfering in other countries! Those pesky Russians!



Again, I am not saying Russia is right in what they have done, but again the US and the West are just being hypocritical in what we are blaming them for.

[toppstuff]

NRS said:

Again, I am not saying Russia is right in what they have done, but again the US and the West are just being hypocritical in what we are blaming them for.

This makes no sense. No sense at all.

The simple fact is that all of the countries which have US presence in some way, do so out of choice. These US bases are a legacy from WW2 and the subsequent cold war. They represent alliances, co-operation agreements and the fact that many of these countries also use US equipment such as aircraft, so a US base to support them makes a lot of sense. The Australian air force and Navy, for example, co-operate a lot, use US made aircraft. Billions of $ pass between these countries because of these alliances.


In contrast, Russia has no major economic, political or commercial alliances to speak of. All Russia does is bully or exploit its neighbours. Putin does not know how to be friends with other nations.

Your comparison therefore makes no sense.

[Mr Whippy]

Only a week or so ago the USA had Obama talking out loud for all to hear about how they'd act on NK's hacking of Sony, they had evidence. Well the FBI did.

Then it was Russia for a few days. Again, there was evidence.


And now it's apparently a disgruntled employee/s, like people were saying a month or two ago when the hack first happened.



The USA just seems to have a problem with any country that won't align with them. Join us or be economically, militarily, or politically nullified, while they tell their people about all these 'enemies' of the USA to justify their actions.

They're warmongers full stop. Being aligned with them makes me sick.



I truly hope Russia and China's relationship is strengthening and that there becomes an alternative to the US petrodollar, and USD reserve currency.

Now, I expect the USA will do everything it can to stop this, like ultimately taking us all to war over their uber wealth holders egos and greed, to protect the flawed and morally empty 'western' way of life for our apparent benefit.

But wouldn't the world be a better place with many world powers, rather than one world power as the USA would like?

Dave

[toppstuff]

Mr Whippy said:

I truly hope Russia and China's relationship is strengthening and that there becomes an alternative to the US petrodollar, and USD reserve currency.

Now, I expect the USA will do everything it can to stop this, like ultimately taking us all to war over their uber wealth holders egos and greed, to protect the flawed and morally empty 'western' way of life for our apparent benefit.

But wouldn't the world be a better place with many world powers, rather than one world power as the USA would like?

Dave

You have an odd perspective of the world IMO.

For all of its problems and grave errors, the US, IMO generally correct itself for the simple reason that they are constitutionally designed to not have despotic dictators in charge. I take comfort from the fact that the US has an effective two house system that can and does stop administrations from going too far, most of the time. The Iraq war was a mistake with all that WMD nonsense, but that resulted in a new President that simply took the US out of Iraq.

While hardly a consolation, the US is still a better option than having autocratic nutters like Putin being able to do what they like with zero accountability, or any means to remove them.

I disagree with every single part of your post. It is hysterical, lazy, Guardianesque nonsense without any substance. If you truly hope that autocrats and dictators grow in power to challenge western values, then you are living in the wrong part of the world or, alternatively, you are deluded about the simple realities of living under autocratic rule.

I am sure a few months living on the average income in China or Russia would lift the rose-tinted veil from your vision.

[NRS]

toppstuff said:

NRS said:

Again, I am not saying Russia is right in what they have done, but again the US and the West are just being hypocritical in what we are blaming them for.

This makes no sense. No sense at all.

The simple fact is that all of the countries which have US presence in some way, do so out of choice. These US bases are a legacy from WW2 and the subsequent cold war. They represent alliances, co-operation agreements and the fact that many of these countries also use US equipment such as aircraft, so a US base to support them makes a lot of sense. The Australian air force and Navy, for example, co-operate a lot, use US made aircraft. Billions of $ pass between these countries because of these alliances.


In contrast, Russia has no major economic, political or commercial alliances to speak of. All Russia does is bully or exploit its neighbours. Putin does not know how to be friends with other nations.

Your comparison therefore makes no sense.

Choice? Really? A number of those countries "choose" to because the US is effectively propping up their US friendly governments, at the expense of human rights for the general population. That is my (and many others) issue with the US complaining about Russia interfering in other lands. Of course you will get cooperation from the governments of other lands if they depend on what the US is providing them to stay in power! It's easy to mention Australia, but what about countries like Yemen which have oppressive governments yet are supported by the US because of the importance of it in the area. Compare the uprising there with Syria - the west supported the Syrian uprising there, and yet Obama’s counter-terrorism chief passed along the US president’s “strong support” for Hadi (the President of Yemen). Why? Well, it may be a coincidence Assad has links with Russia, but that's probably a complete coincidence, don't you think?

I guess you are right, it makes no sense at all.

[NRS]

toppstuff said:

Mr Whippy said:

I truly hope Russia and China's relationship is strengthening and that there becomes an alternative to the US petrodollar, and USD reserve currency.

Now, I expect the USA will do everything it can to stop this, like ultimately taking us all to war over their uber wealth holders egos and greed, to protect the flawed and morally empty 'western' way of life for our apparent benefit.

But wouldn't the world be a better place with many world powers, rather than one world power as the USA would like?

Dave

You have an odd perspective of the world IMO.

For all of its problems and grave errors, the US, IMO generally correct itself for the simple reason that they are constitutionally designed to not have despotic dictators in charge. I take comfort from the fact that the US has an effective two house system that can and does stop administrations from going too far, most of the time. The Iraq war was a mistake with all that WMD nonsense, but that resulted in a new President that simply took the US out of Iraq.

While hardly a consolation, the US is still a better option than having autocratic nutters like Putin being able to do what they like with zero accountability, or any means to remove them.

I disagree with every single part of your post. It is hysterical, lazy, Guardianesque nonsense without any substance. If you truly hope that autocrats and dictators grow in power to challenge western values, then you are living in the wrong part of the world or, alternatively, you are deluded about the simple realities of living under autocratic rule.

I am sure a few months living on the average income in China or Russia would lift the rose-tinted veil from your vision.

I think you're not differentiating what the US does internally and what it does for it's benefit externally. As mentioned in the last post, look to Yemen. I'm sure living for a few months on the average income of that US supported ally would lift the rose-tinted veil from your vision.

[Mr Whippy]

toppstuff said:

Mr Whippy said:

I truly hope Russia and China's relationship is strengthening and that there becomes an alternative to the US petrodollar, and USD reserve currency.

Now, I expect the USA will do everything it can to stop this, like ultimately taking us all to war over their uber wealth holders egos and greed, to protect the flawed and morally empty 'western' way of life for our apparent benefit.

But wouldn't the world be a better place with many world powers, rather than one world power as the USA would like?

Dave

You have an odd perspective of the world IMO.

For all of its problems and grave errors, the US, IMO generally correct itself for the simple reason that they are constitutionally designed to not have despotic dictators in charge. I take comfort from the fact that the US has an effective two house system that can and does stop administrations from going too far, most of the time. The Iraq war was a mistake with all that WMD nonsense, but that resulted in a new President that simply took the US out of Iraq.

While hardly a consolation, the US is still a better option than having autocratic nutters like Putin being able to do what they like with zero accountability, or any means to remove them.

I disagree with every single part of your post. It is hysterical, lazy, Guardianesque nonsense without any substance. If you truly hope that autocrats and dictators grow in power to challenge western values, then you are living in the wrong part of the world or, alternatively, you are deluded about the simple realities of living under autocratic rule.

I am sure a few months living on the average income in China or Russia would lift the rose-tinted veil from your vision.

There you go again comparing to China and Russia.

They don't have things right either, but that doesn't mean the USA does and is correct.


As for the USA being representative of the people, then why is the wealth gap widening at a very high rate and has now exceeded any point in history?

I assume that the average American wants to be paid less in real terms year on year for the last decade or so, and have a small wealthy elite that is growing in wealth entirely at their expense?

That doesn't make sense to me.



As for Iraq, isn't Obama putting more and more military hardware in Kuwait at the moment?

Give it a few months to six months and I expect there will be reports about ISIS terrorism and they'll have a large land force in Iraq again... no doubt then 'reports' will come out about how Iran is supporting ISIS, and that will allow escalations with Russia over Iran's role in the region... with a huge land army ready to pressure Iran from Iraq.
This will probably happen in time for the Saudis to start reducing oil production, and the conflict will help drive Putin under more pressure, and help push oil prices back to where they were.




Yes, a challenge to our values is good. Without a challenge our values may go awry... you could argue they already have.

Your post somewhat proves it. Average incomes in Russia and China are used to put my perspectives in place.

What about happiness and a fulfilled life? Do they really need high incomes to buy fancy cars and mobile phones and iPads on cheap credit? The purpose of life is lost on many in the west as they've forgotten what it is to actually have liberty and be free. We're increasingly slaves to our debt and for what?

Not having to worry about your nation taking you to war? Now worrying about how your children's generation will just be living as debt slaves as part of a failing western ponzi economy.



But hey, different perspectives are great. I like that you have faith in the USA. That means you will do something to make the USA a better place when the time is required for things to change for the better for the majority of people in the USA

Dave

[toppstuff]

Mr Whippy said:

Your post somewhat proves it. Average incomes in Russia and China are used to put my perspectives in place.

What about happiness and a fulfilled life? Do they really need high incomes to buy fancy cars and mobile phones and iPads on cheap credit? The purpose of life is lost on many in the west as they've forgotten what it is to actually have liberty and be free. We're increasingly slaves to our debt and for what?

Not having to worry about your nation taking you to war? Now worrying about how your children's generation will just be living as debt slaves as part of a failing western ponzi economy.

But hey, different perspectives are great. I like that you have faith in the USA. That means you will do something to make the USA a better place when the time is required for things to change for the better for the majority of people in the USA

Dave

I think you are conflating different issues and the result is a porridge of confusion and general discontent. You need to deconstruct things, IMO.

Lets take the issue of "happiness and a fulfilled life". Now in the west there is the assumption that everyone wants consumption and materialism - but the key thing here is CHOICE. We have the luxury of eschewing these things if we want. We can live a simple life and reject the excesses of the consumer society. It is, effectively, optional. Your kids don't have to have a materialistic lifestyle, they can embrace a life of personal satisfaction and service to others. There will still be a welfare system to stop them dying on the street if they can't support themselves.

People in autocratic societies have no such choices. You may look at other societies and see how they have "something" that you believe we have lost, but IMO this is an illusion. The "things" these other societies have, we can choose to have as well. We fortunate ones in western democracies do not have to succumb to the excesses of capitalism. Here, you are free to choose.

Do I have "faith" in the USA? I would not put it that strongly. But I would still choose the western system over any of the alternatives. I truly believe that we really do not know how lucky we are to live in the West. Truly - you have no idea how fortunate you are. No system is perfect; all of them have deep flaws. But the relative freedom to choose and be in control of our own destiny is our biggest gift compared to people in other systems, who have no life choices and generally just hope to continue existing for as long as they can.

[anonymous-user]

A life in the West is fking ace as long as the pursuit of that lifestyle doesn't mean making life difficult for someone else. Trade and ideas someone else said, brilliant, bring it on. I fear however that the Americans are now responding to commercial competition through military force and social destabilisation as they are losing the commercial advantage.
A multi-polar world is the ideal.

[toppstuff]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Totally agree.

And a multi-polar world is what we have.

US consumes things.

US operates reserve fractional banking system that circulates the debt.

China makes stuff and helps circulate the debt.

EU throws in a few hundred million consumers and massive social program.

Other countries throw in natural resources like oil and gas and iron etc. Fortunately there are enough of them to provide diversification if things go wrong locally.

We have a multi-polar world.

The only oddity in all of this is Africa. That place is chocked with enough resources and people to destabilise things in the future, if the rest of the world ever gets to depend on that continent.

Right now the world is getting by without Africa, but in time we are going to need their stuff to keep going. Politically, the place is a shambles. So this is likely to be the focus for problems in the future IMO, probably in the next generation and beyond.

Given that, for example, China now "owns" parts of the African bits that matter, I wonder how far China would go to defend these interests a few years down the line when they become more strategically and politically important?

But that is for the future. Right now we have a multi polar world IMO. There is too much hand-wringing and liberal self loathing going on here from some of you.

[anonymous-user]

Don't forget the North Pole stand-off!
Perhaps there needs to be an Arctic treaty just as the Americans pushed for in the Antarctic.
Looking at Russia and America - both were quite insular nations with patriotic/indoctrinated people. One kind of won a war with the other. One prospered, one didn't but both remain quite insular and therein lies the danger. Both appear to be seeing any ways quite different to their traditional beliefs as a threat, Russia with gays, with Western Europe, America with state sponsored healthcare and Islam, for example.

[Mr Whippy]

toppstuff said:

But the relative freedom to choose and be in control of our own destiny is our biggest gift compared to people in other systems, who have no life choices and generally just hope to continue existing for as long as they can.

My worry is where the USA may end up in that regard, rather than where it is right now, which as you say still provides people with a choice.

For example, a lot of freedom seems to have been given up to feel safe from terror.

I'd also argue that increasingly, corporations have their needs to make a profit and have perpetual growth addressed, before the majority of people have their interests addressed. Innovation seems somewhat stifled by corporations who don't want to change.

It increasingly seems that the interests of a few outweigh the interests of many, and that is in line with the wealth disparity which is growing... and there are no signs of that trend changing any time soon.


It feels like a crunch point is approaching.

Lower real salaries, rising debt, rising inequality. It's not going to end well and it seems nothing is being done to address these issues to prevent it getting worse.

[Jimbeaux]

NRS said:

skyrover said:

NRS said:

What would the US do if one of it's naval bases was at risk of being cut off,

It would leave...

The difference being that most countries with US military presence want them to stay due to, economic, security and political concerns.

Would the US leave Diego Garcia if the UK asked them?

Probably... but would we ever do that?

It depends who it was, and where it was in the world. There has been quite a few places the US supports despite human right abuses etc. to maintain a military position in the area.

For those complaining about the intervention of Russia, this map shows where the US is involved. Glad to see we avoid interfering in other countries! Those pesky Russians!



Again, I am not saying Russia is right in what they have done, but again the US and the West are just being hypocritical in what we are blaming them for.

The U.S. pays to be in those places. Nations compete to have bases. A little different TBH.