6 ms·

Russia can’t do anything, Unless you are Ukraine(invaded), Georgia or Europe (remember that fuel crisis and pipelines) that is. Or the United States in our cas

Russia can’t do anything, Unless you are Ukraine(invaded), Georgia or Europe (remember that fuel crisis and pipelines) that is. Or the United States in our case. Or Syria (Russia is assad’s Primary backer).. So yeah, remember when Democrats ridiculed Romney for his Russia statements and Obama and HRC declared it was time for a “reset button” for the bad relationship betweeen the Bush white goose and Russia? Or how about their efforts to back certain black lives matter groups and pro police group on the other hand to stroke racial tension does that not matter? Or their current effort to discredit Republican Who have split from Trump. We still live in that world, And the consequences for people both in the United States and outside of the United States are immense. At some point this stops looking like normal relationships and start looking like an act of war

roenxi 8y ago
> Russia can’t do anything, Unless you are Ukraine(invaded), Georgia or Europe (remember that fuel crisis and pipelines) that is. Yes, Russia would be a concern to me if I lived in Europe. > Or the United States in our case. That is neither an argument nor a fact, so I can't really address it. > Or Syria (Russia is assad’s Primary backer).. Isn't Russia supporting the legitimate government in Syria? Obviously that isn't supporting US interests, but it is hardly a radical position. > So yeah, remember when Democrats ridiculed Romney for his Russia statements and Obama and HRC declared it was time for a “reset button” for the bad relationship betweeen the Bush white goose and Russia? No, don't follow US politics that closely. It would be nice to see the US reset its bad relationship with Russia if I'm reading that right. The world is better if we all try to get along civilly. > Or how about their efforts to back certain black lives matter groups and pro police group on the other hand to stroke racial tension does that not matter? Pardon? I don't understand. > Or their current effort to discredit Republican Who have split from Trump. Approximately half the political apparatus is constantly trying to discredit the other half, and the other half is usually infighting quietly and jocking for positions. Russian trolls aren't going to be able to get in before the Democrats have started savaging them. > We still live in that world, And the consequences for people both in the United States and outside of the United States are immense. Yes. > At some point this stops looking like normal relationships and start looking like an act of war No they don't. Acts of war involve material harm at some level. I know Trump isn't that popular, but he has ballpark similar ratings (~1 person in 20 difference) to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or even Obama at this point is the presidency [1]. If the Russians are somehow having an impact, it isn't upsetting anyone unduly, let alone an act of war. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
- InTheArena 8y ago
  If your definition of legitimate includes government use of chemical weapons against their people, I suspect we are not going to agree on much. Regardless, a little history lesson. One of the things Obama ran on was that the United States policy towards Russia was needlessly antagonistic due to the influence of evil neo-conservatives. Hillary went so far as to buy a staples "Easy Button" and present it to the Russian diplomats in her fist meeting with them afterwords... The same HRC that the Russians just mucked with massively during the last election. I've really come to the conclusion given their support and attacks against both Democrats and Republicans, White and Black, liberals and conservatives that the current Russian government doesn't care about helping a candidate - they want to destroy the civil fabric of the United States. So yes, enabling dictators to gas their own people, encouraging race riots, and attempting to subvert Democracies by interfering with elections are Acts of war.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Haha both of the April supposed chemical weapons attacks were a fraud. That's why no one reports on them anymore. In order to offer useful "little history lessons", you need to pay attention and remember farther back than last week. You're destroying your own "civil fabric".
    - ipioxu15 8y ago
      And you need to source your claims. Nobody has reason to believe a word of what you write. Presumably, it is based on claims by Russian and Syrian authorities. These are not impartial sources, and they delayed access of international inspectors to the site. OPCW has confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syrian government during the civil war at several separate occasions.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        You won't see this on Fox or MSNBC. They have commitments to fulfill, unrelated to journalism. If you like, there are some other places to look: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-g... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWAABd9CV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWAABd9CV4
jimmy1 8y ago
I am generally with you, the one exception being Syria. Time will tell if we were on the wrong side in Syria. If you understand Russian geopolitics, just taking Russian interests for account alone (not trying to wage some third party war with the US), it absolutely makes sense for them to have supported Assad. There were other ways to take him down, most of them were diplomatic. Instead, the US decided to fund Islamic Extremist mercenaries which don't necessarily have a great world wide reputation, either. Generally, I am not a fan of the US's "regime change" strategies, at least in the middle east. They were unmitigated disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is still struggling with warring factions, Syria would have descended into chaos with 3 interested parties struggling for control (pretty safe to say the Saudi-backed fighters would have won, after another bloody conflict, of course), and of course, it will remain to be seen what happens in Yemen which curiously has very sparse media coverage here in the US. Warning - my own opinion - I think historically, American regime change efforts were more likely to be accepted and succeed when the values of America roughly aligned with the values of the nation in conflict. This is clearly not the case anymore in the Middle East (maybe once was in the US, but not anymore) One thing Western Cultures just can't seem to be able to grasp is just how large the resistance of a country that takes their faith seriously to the liberal agendas that have taken root and are antithetical to Islam. It's the one thing governments fail to understand time and time again.
- sequence7 8y ago
  Russia supports the Syrian regime because it contains the only Russian overseas naval base [1]. This is the same reason Russia anexed Crimea, which is now conveniently a Russian naval base. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tart...
  - jimmy1 8y ago
    Regardless of the reason, or reasons (there are many reasons Russia supported Assad, strategic military reasons being one of them as you mentioned), that was my point: That Russia had legitimate reasons to support Assad. The interests of Russia simply did not align with the interests of The United States. This happens sometime in the world, but taking that further and claiming it was somehow to hoist malicious intent on the United States is where the stretch was made and where you enter the dangerous rhetoric zone.
misja111 8y ago
"At some point this stops looking like normal relationships and start looking like an act of war" Well, as far as 'normal relationships' are concerned, the USA have quite a reputation to uphold. E.g: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt... https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-testifies-on-nsa-spying-affair/a-37576690 https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-testifies-on-nsa-spying-affair/... https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-intel-committee-to-probe-us-spying-on-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-intel-committee-to-pr...
ttflee 8y ago
> Russia can’t do anything If I were Putin, I would provoke tensions between China and the U.S. and profit. Yes, China has ambitions to become a greater power, and U.S. has its interest to curb China. Russia, as other emerging economies, has geopolitical fears of an expanding China.
HeadsUpHigh 8y ago
The pipelines where never actually going to happen( for anyone that was a realist). You give a country that is struggling anyway a strong card, you should expect them to use it. As an EU citizen that was a moronic move on our part.

roenxi 8y ago

> Russia can’t do anything, Unless you are Ukraine(invaded), Georgia or Europe (remember that fuel crisis and pipelines) that is. Yes, Russia would be a concern to me if I lived in Europe. > Or the United States in our case. That is neither an argument nor a fact, so I can't really address it. > Or Syria (Russia is assad’s Primary backer).. Isn't Russia supporting the legitimate government in Syria? Obviously that isn't supporting US interests, but it is hardly a radical position. > So yeah, remember when Democrats ridiculed Romney for his Russia statements and Obama and HRC declared it was time for a “reset button” for the bad relationship betweeen the Bush white goose and Russia? No, don't follow US politics that closely. It would be nice to see the US reset its bad relationship with Russia if I'm reading that right. The world is better if we all try to get along civilly. > Or how about their efforts to back certain black lives matter groups and pro police group on the other hand to stroke racial tension does that not matter? Pardon? I don't understand. > Or their current effort to discredit Republican Who have split from Trump. Approximately half the political apparatus is constantly trying to discredit the other half, and the other half is usually infighting quietly and jocking for positions. Russian trolls aren't going to be able to get in before the Democrats have started savaging them. > We still live in that world, And the consequences for people both in the United States and outside of the United States are immense. Yes. > At some point this stops looking like normal relationships and start looking like an act of war No they don't. Acts of war involve material harm at some level. I know Trump isn't that popular, but he has ballpark similar ratings (~1 person in 20 difference) to Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton or even Obama at this point is the presidency [1]. If the Russians are somehow having an impact, it isn't upsetting anyone unduly, let alone an act of war. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

InTheArena 8y ago
If your definition of legitimate includes government use of chemical weapons against their people, I suspect we are not going to agree on much. Regardless, a little history lesson. One of the things Obama ran on was that the United States policy towards Russia was needlessly antagonistic due to the influence of evil neo-conservatives. Hillary went so far as to buy a staples "Easy Button" and present it to the Russian diplomats in her fist meeting with them afterwords... The same HRC that the Russians just mucked with massively during the last election. I've really come to the conclusion given their support and attacks against both Democrats and Republicans, White and Black, liberals and conservatives that the current Russian government doesn't care about helping a candidate - they want to destroy the civil fabric of the United States. So yes, enabling dictators to gas their own people, encouraging race riots, and attempting to subvert Democracies by interfering with elections are Acts of war.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Haha both of the April supposed chemical weapons attacks were a fraud. That's why no one reports on them anymore. In order to offer useful "little history lessons", you need to pay attention and remember farther back than last week. You're destroying your own "civil fabric".
  - ipioxu15 8y ago
    And you need to source your claims. Nobody has reason to believe a word of what you write. Presumably, it is based on claims by Russian and Syrian authorities. These are not impartial sources, and they delayed access of international inspectors to the site. OPCW has confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syrian government during the civil war at several separate occasions.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      You won't see this on Fox or MSNBC. They have commitments to fulfill, unrelated to journalism. If you like, there are some other places to look: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-g... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSXwG-901yU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWAABd9CV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWAABd9CV4

jimmy1 8y ago

I am generally with you, the one exception being Syria. Time will tell if we were on the wrong side in Syria. If you understand Russian geopolitics, just taking Russian interests for account alone (not trying to wage some third party war with the US), it absolutely makes sense for them to have supported Assad. There were other ways to take him down, most of them were diplomatic. Instead, the US decided to fund Islamic Extremist mercenaries which don't necessarily have a great world wide reputation, either. Generally, I am not a fan of the US's "regime change" strategies, at least in the middle east. They were unmitigated disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya is still struggling with warring factions, Syria would have descended into chaos with 3 interested parties struggling for control (pretty safe to say the Saudi-backed fighters would have won, after another bloody conflict, of course), and of course, it will remain to be seen what happens in Yemen which curiously has very sparse media coverage here in the US. Warning - my own opinion - I think historically, American regime change efforts were more likely to be accepted and succeed when the values of America roughly aligned with the values of the nation in conflict. This is clearly not the case anymore in the Middle East (maybe once was in the US, but not anymore) One thing Western Cultures just can't seem to be able to grasp is just how large the resistance of a country that takes their faith seriously to the liberal agendas that have taken root and are antithetical to Islam. It's the one thing governments fail to understand time and time again.

sequence7 8y ago
Russia supports the Syrian regime because it contains the only Russian overseas naval base [1]. This is the same reason Russia anexed Crimea, which is now conveniently a Russian naval base. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tart...
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Regardless of the reason, or reasons (there are many reasons Russia supported Assad, strategic military reasons being one of them as you mentioned), that was my point: That Russia had legitimate reasons to support Assad. The interests of Russia simply did not align with the interests of The United States. This happens sometime in the world, but taking that further and claiming it was somehow to hoist malicious intent on the United States is where the stretch was made and where you enter the dangerous rhetoric zone.

misja111 8y ago

"At some point this stops looking like normal relationships and start looking like an act of war" Well, as far as 'normal relationships' are concerned, the USA have quite a reputation to uphold. E.g: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt... https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-testifies-on-nsa-spying-affair/a-37576690 https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-testifies-on-nsa-spying-affair/... https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-intel-committee-to-probe-us-spying-on-israel/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/congress-intel-committee-to-pr...

ttflee 8y ago

> Russia can’t do anything If I were Putin, I would provoke tensions between China and the U.S. and profit. Yes, China has ambitions to become a greater power, and U.S. has its interest to curb China. Russia, as other emerging economies, has geopolitical fears of an expanding China.

HeadsUpHigh 8y ago

The pipelines where never actually going to happen( for anyone that was a realist). You give a country that is struggling anyway a strong card, you should expect them to use it. As an EU citizen that was a moronic move on our part.