What's important?

[CO. Hoosier]

Trump/Putin's Helsinki presser was terrible. It was also typical Trump--but more so. His remarks were more than stupid. With his tweets and extemporaneous remarks he tests the boundaries of his support in all phases of his presidency. Trump deserves all the derision thrown at him. The exploding heads who previously talked about impeachment now talk about treason. Trump and the exploding heads are diminishing the effectiveness of Trump and the United States on many domestic and international fronts.

Yet, I still think all of the above will disappear the moment Trump is no longer president. It probably won't last beyond Trump's next tweet.

With regard to Russia, here are some of the Trump policies, and the internal Russian problems that are arguably the fallout of Trump policies that will last long after Trump and the turmoil he creates is forgotten.

Trump is selling sophisticated anti-tank weapons to Ukraine--over strong Russian objections. This is a new policy with the Trump administration. It's a clear signal that Russian adventurism along its borders has limits.

The US and others bombed Russia's Syrian buddy's chemical weapons facilities--with a message to Putin that the red line will be enforced. The Russians barely responded with a peep.

The US is ramping up LNG exports to unprecedented levels. This is a gut punch to Russia. The Russians have nothing to sell in the world except natural gas and vodka. Vodka won't sustain their economy. We are directly aiming at Russia with our LNG exports to Europe.

The US is imposing sanctions over Russia and Russians like never before--because of hacking among other things. The sanctions hurt the Bear.

Only days before Helsinki, Putin was met with the huge humiliation that Russia's F-35 countermeasure aircraft is a miserable technical failure. The Russians won't produce it. Notably, the link mentions that the SU-57 is the result of a Russian budget crunch. A crunch that will be aggravated with sanctions and competition for its sale of gas. Meanwhile, the F-35 is dominating the modern world of military aircraft.

On its domestic front, Russia is facing increased pressure to devote its increasingly meager resources to bettering the lives of Russians instead of its weapons and military adventures. Russia has cut its military spending for the first time in almost 20 years. Sanctions and the threat of a glut of natural gas in world markets are having serious impacts.

Here is the effect of US policy, which predated Trump, but Trump has doubled down on. Russia is getting its ass kicked at every turn. The sad part is that the world and certainly the US doesn't appreciate this because of Trump's public dumbassary. Patting your negotiating adversary on the back is a routine tactic, Trump carries that too far. I don't know if Trump or his advisors should get the credit for what is going on behind the scene of Trumpism, but whomever it is, the Bear is hurting and on the run.

But heads continue to mindlessly explode over the supposed powerful Bear and the weak Uncle Sam.

 

[sglowrider]

If it helps you sleep better...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I would argue the problem is consistency. This administration is schizophrenic on Russia. There are times it is important to be hard, there are times it is important to be open to change. We seem to do both at the exact same moment. The problem then becomes does one send an unintentional signal. Dean Acheson delivered a speech that contained these lines:

This defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus. We hold important defense positions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we will continue to hold. In the interest of the population of the Ryukyu Islands, we will at an appropriate time offer to hold these islands under trusteeship of the United Nations. But they are essential parts of the defensive perimeter of the Pacific, and they must and will be held.

The defensive perimeter runs from Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our relations, our defensive relations with the Philippines are contained in agreements between us. Those agreements are being loyally carried out and will be loyally carried out. Both peoples have learned by bitter experience the vital connections between our mutual defense requirements.

So far as the military security of other areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack. But it must also be clear that such a guarantee is hardly sensible or necessary within the realm of practical relationship.​

North Korea took those lines to mean we would not defend South Korea and launched their attack. They had been begging for permission to do so for years, China and the USSR consented after that speech.

So there it is not just heads exploding that look at Trump questioning if we would defend Montenegro. Wars have started because of such talk.

 

[Rockfish1]

I would argue the problem is consistency. This administration is schizophrenic on Russia. There are times it is important to be hard, there are times it is important to be open to change. We seem to do both at the exact same moment. The problem then becomes does one send an unintentional signal. Dean Acheson delivered a speech that contained these lines:

This defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus. We hold important defense positions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we will continue to hold. In the interest of the population of the Ryukyu Islands, we will at an appropriate time offer to hold these islands under trusteeship of the United Nations. But they are essential parts of the defensive perimeter of the Pacific, and they must and will be held.

The defensive perimeter runs from Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our relations, our defensive relations with the Philippines are contained in agreements between us. Those agreements are being loyally carried out and will be loyally carried out. Both peoples have learned by bitter experience the vital connections between our mutual defense requirements.

So far as the military security of other areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack. But it must also be clear that such a guarantee is hardly sensible or necessary within the realm of practical relationship.​

North Korea took those lines to mean we would not defend South Korea and launched their attack. They had been begging for permission to do so for years, China and the USSR consented after that speech.

So there it is not just heads exploding that look at Trump questioning if we would defend Montenegro. Wars have started because of such talk.

In more innocent times, it might have been regarded as important not to have a Russian stooge in the White House.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In more innocent times, it might have been regarded as important not to have a Russian stooge in the White House.

So Russia has announced they are ready to implement the deals reached at the summit. I sorta wish someone in America knew what those deals were.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

But heads continue to mindlessly explode over the supposed powerful Bear and the weak Uncle Sam

Let me also say if you have followed the debates here, it is the conservative wing that portrays that image. I have suggested repeatedly that Russia is not a threat to conquer western Europe even if Germany spends no additional money on defense. Even if the US cut defense spending and Germany spends no more, Russia is not holding a parade past the Eiffel Tower ala Hitler. Russia's goal is not to destroy NATO with tanks and planes. But it is the conservative wing that believes NATO is military in peril and that is why Germany must immediate spend more. And that is why Trump himself wants NATO spending upped to 4% of GDP.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I would argue the problem is consistency. This administration is schizophrenic on Russia. There are times it is important to be hard, there are times it is important to be open to change. We seem to do both at the exact same moment. The problem then becomes does one send an unintentional signal. Dean Acheson delivered a speech that contained these lines:

This defensive perimeter runs along the Aleutians to Japan and then goes to the Ryukyus. We hold important defense positions in the Ryukyu Islands, and those we will continue to hold. In the interest of the population of the Ryukyu Islands, we will at an appropriate time offer to hold these islands under trusteeship of the United Nations. But they are essential parts of the defensive perimeter of the Pacific, and they must and will be held.

The defensive perimeter runs from Ryukyus to the Philippine Islands. Our relations, our defensive relations with the Philippines are contained in agreements between us. Those agreements are being loyally carried out and will be loyally carried out. Both peoples have learned by bitter experience the vital connections between our mutual defense requirements.

So far as the military security of other areas in the Pacific is concerned, it must be clear that no person can guarantee these areas against military attack. But it must also be clear that such a guarantee is hardly sensible or necessary within the realm of practical relationship.​

North Korea took those lines to mean we would not defend South Korea and launched their attack. They had been begging for permission to do so for years, China and the USSR consented after that speech.

So there it is not just heads exploding that look at Trump questioning if we would defend Montenegro. Wars have started because of such talk.

A couple of things. First. I think your deep point has no traction in this part of any debate about the consequences of Trump talk. Trump tweets. Exploding heads react. Trump reacts to the reaction. Your point is lost on this. I don’t think there is any substance here except for how it diminishes real substance, as I tried to point out.

Second, I don’t think Montenegro is part of a defensive perimeter for NATO or the US. It’s a mistake to have a defense pact with them.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Let me also say if you have followed the debates here, it is the conservative wing that portrays that image. I have suggested repeatedly that Russia is not a threat to conquer western Europe even if Germany spends no additional money on defense. Even if the US cut defense spending and Germany spends no more, Russia is not holding a parade past the Eiffel Tower ala Hitler. Russia's goal is not to destroy NATO with tanks and planes. But it is the conservative wing that believes NATO is military in peril and that is why Germany must immediate spend more. And that is why Trump himself wants NATO spending upped to 4% of GDP.

That’s a fair point. But the lesson of the end of the Cold War is that Russia doesn’t have the wherewithal to keep up. We can’t exploit that idea without maintaining the leverage gained by making it impossible for Russia to keep up.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Second, I don’t think Montenegro is part of a defensive perimeter for NATO or the US. It’s a mistake to have a defense pact with them.

Montenegro IS a member of NATO now. We have a defense pact with them because of that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

A couple of things. First. I think your deep point has no traction in this part of any debate about the consequences of Trump talk. Trump tweets. Exploding heads react. Trump reacts to the reaction. Your point is lost on this. I don’t think there is any substance here except for how it diminishes real substance, as I tried to point out.

So it is impossible that Trump's words could ever lead to a misunderstanding ala Acheson? I assume because Trump is always crazy no one could ever take him seriously? Yep, don't see how that is anything but negative.

 

[sglowrider]

So Russia has announced they are ready to implement the deals reached at the summit. I sorta wish someone in America knew what those deals were.

Surely they will only be the best deals. Anerika First.

 

[toastedbread]

Trump/Putin's Helsinki presser was terrible. It was also typical Trump--but more so. His remarks were more than stupid. With his tweets and extemporaneous remarks he tests the boundaries of his support in all phases of his presidency. Trump deserves all the derision thrown at him. The exploding heads who previously talked about impeachment now talk about treason. Trump and the exploding heads are diminishing the effectiveness of Trump and the United States on many domestic and international fronts.

Yet, I still think all of the above will disappear the moment Trump is no longer president. It probably won't last beyond Trump's next tweet.

With regard to Russia, here are some of the Trump policies, and the internal Russian problems that are arguably the fallout of Trump policies that will last long after Trump and the turmoil he creates is forgotten.

Trump is selling sophisticated anti-tank weapons to Ukraine--over strong Russian objections. This is a new policy with the Trump administration. It's a clear signal that Russian adventurism along its borders has limits.

The US and others bombed Russia's Syrian buddy's chemical weapons facilities--with a message to Putin that the red line will be enforced. The Russians barely responded with a peep.

The US is ramping up LNG exports to unprecedented levels. This is a gut punch to Russia. The Russians have nothing to sell in the world except natural gas and vodka. Vodka won't sustain their economy. We are directly aiming at Russia with our LNG exports to Europe.

The US is imposing sanctions over Russia and Russians like never before--because of hacking among other things. The sanctions hurt the Bear.

Only days before Helsinki, Putin was met with the huge humiliation that Russia's F-35 countermeasure aircraft is a miserable technical failure. The Russians won't produce it. Notably, the link mentions that the SU-57 is the result of a Russian budget crunch. A crunch that will be aggravated with sanctions and competition for its sale of gas. Meanwhile, the F-35 is dominating the modern world of military aircraft.

On its domestic front, Russia is facing increased pressure to devote its increasingly meager resources to bettering the lives of Russians instead of its weapons and military adventures. Russia has cut its military spending for the first time in almost 20 years. Sanctions and the threat of a glut of natural gas in world markets are having serious impacts.

Here is the effect of US policy, which predated Trump, but Trump has doubled down on. Russia is getting its ass kicked at every turn. The sad part is that the world and certainly the US doesn't appreciate this because of Trump's public dumbassary. Patting your negotiating adversary on the back is a routine tactic, Trump carries that too far. I don't know if Trump or his advisors should get the credit for what is going on behind the scene of Trumpism, but whomever it is, the Bear is hurting and on the run.

But heads continue to mindlessly explode over the supposed powerful Bear and the weak Uncle Sam.

You had me. Nice job. Thought you finally gave up on Trump till midway down your post. Clap clap.

I'll one-up you ...

No one in the history of the world has been tougher on Russia than Trump. We must applaud his effort. All hail Trump!

Tic.

 

[Rockfish1]

Trump opposed Russian sanctions, some of which he was grudgingly required to implement after Congress passed them by veto proof majorities. In exchange for the antitank weapons Trump approved, Ukraine ceased its cooperation with Robert Mueller. Trump is reportedly keen to do Putin’s bidding in Syria.

No one doubts that Russia is a bad actor constrained by its limited resources. It would be substantially less dangerous if Putin didn’t have our President in his pocket.

 

[Zizkov]

That certainly looks formidable, until you actually look at them closer.

Trump/Putin's Helsinki presser was terrible. It was also typical Trump--but more so. His remarks were more than stupid. With his tweets and extemporaneous remarks he tests the boundaries of his support in all phases of his presidency. Trump deserves all the derision thrown at him. The exploding heads who previously talked about impeachment now talk about treason. Trump and the exploding heads are diminishing the effectiveness of Trump and the United States on many domestic and international fronts.

Yet, I still think all of the above will disappear the moment Trump is no longer president. It probably won't last beyond Trump's next tweet.

With regard to Russia, here are some of the Trump policies, and the internal Russian problems that are arguably the fallout of Trump policies that will last long after Trump and the turmoil he creates is forgotten.

Trump is selling sophisticated anti-tank weapons to Ukraine--over strong Russian objections. This is a new policy with the Trump administration. It's a clear signal that Russian adventurism along its borders has limits.

I suppose this is good for Ukraine (until the gov is taken over by Pro-Russians again) but it means little. Russia have no interest in taking over Ukraine or other parts of Europe for that matter. If there is one thing they learned, it is that occupation is very difficult and expensive, there is no reward. This is a Cold War relic. (The Baltics offer a strategic want/need, they are the only ones that really should be nervous)

They needed to occupy southern Ukraine because the bridge that Putin had promised for years was never built and the only access to Crimea was overland through Ukraine. The bridge is now finished, but I don't expect the Russians to withdraw anytime soon. They will not allow Ukraine to join NATO and the simplest way is to keep the Ukraine in turmoil.

The US and others bombed Russia's Syrian buddy's chemical weapons facilities--with a message to Putin that the red line will be enforced. The Russians barely responded with a peep.

I find it amusing that you think Putin gives a shit if we bomb Syria. As long as no ground troops are involved in any serious way, he doesn't really give a shit. He will continue to support Assad who will continue to control most of the country. Whatever else happens there is irrelevant.

The US is ramping up LNG exports to unprecedented levels. This is a gut punch to Russia. The Russians have nothing to sell in the world except natural gas and vodka. Vodka won't sustain their economy. We are directly aiming at Russia with our LNG exports to Europe.

As of January 2018 Russian natural gas exports to Europe are at an all time high increasing over 8% from the previous year. They are also building pipelines to China and Turkey. If you read the article you linked, you would see that the vast majority of the increased production is going to South Korea, Mexico and China. Falling gas prices are their biggest enemy.

The US is imposing sanctions over Russia and Russians like never before--because of hacking among other things. The sanctions hurt the Bear.

I'm glad you are on board with the sanctions, the GOP has poo pooed sanctions for a long time, but as we see they work. One of Trumps first ideas was to ease sanctions which didn't happen and as recent as 30 January 2018 refused to impose sanctions despite laws passed by congress. You can thank congress for this far more then Trump.

Only days before Helsinki, Putin was met with the huge humiliation that Russia's F-35 countermeasure aircraft is a miserable technical failure. The Russians won't produce it. Notably, the link mentions that the SU-57 is the result of a Russian budget crunch. A crunch that will be aggravated with sanctions and competition for its sale of gas. Meanwhile, the F-35 is dominating the modern world of military aircraft.

This has nothing to do with Trump in any way.

On its domestic front, Russia is facing increased pressure to devote its increasingly meager resources to bettering the lives of Russians instead of its weapons and military adventures.Russia has cut its military spending for the first time in almost 20 years. Sanctions and the threat of a glut of natural gas in world markets are having serious impacts.

Yes, sanctions work. Hopefully Trump doesn't go back to trying to ease them again. Russian domestic issues have been mess for decades, nothing has changed. This has nothing to do with Trump again.

Here is the effect of US policy, which predated Trump, but Trump has doubled down on. Russia is getting its ass kicked at every turn. The sad part is that the world and certainly the US doesn't appreciate this because of Trump's public dumbassary. Patting your negotiating adversary on the back is a routine tactic, Trump carries that too far. I don't know if Trump or his advisors should get the credit for what is going on behind the scene of Trumpism, but whomever it is, the Bear is hurting and on the run.

But heads continue to mindlessly explode over the supposed powerful Bear and the weak Uncle Sam.

The gains in US internal turmoil and US/Nato turmoil are far greater gains for Russia then anything you have listed. I imagine Putin is giddy and a bit surprised how well things are going right now.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The gains in US internal turmoil and US/Nato turmoil are far greater gains for Russia then anything you have listed. I imagine Putin is giddy and a bit surprised how well things are going right now.

This is the salient point. Russia, as it stands today, is a failed state. However, it is attacking its neighbors in kinetic ways and is attacking the Free World in cyber ways. Both are unacceptable to us. When they are acquitted of this by our administration, it gives propaganda victories to an enemy and gives excuses to allies to enter into more business with them. Russia should remain a failed state as long as despots are in charge. And despots will remain in charge if they have propagandist victories over the US and NATO. For a nuclear power, this is the worst combination for: a continuously failed state, rich with energy resources, that is run by zealot despots.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

If it helps you sleep better...

Surely they will only be the best deals. Anerika First.

Does posting about me make you, Hoops, Bill, Capital and zizkov sleep better?

Amerika? Do you ever think you are in over your head in a serious discussion?

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think Marvin is somewhat off on my conservative position on NATO. I do not think that Russia poses the same threat as the old Soviet Union, however, they do pose a certain threat. I think that the moderate military threat that they do pose, would still be enough to overwhelm our European allies should they desire. And remember, conflict does not necessarily mean occupation. They do not have to take over Germany to be problematic. In the case of a quick set of airstrikes, real damage could be done in a short amount of time. As it stands, the Germans would not be able to stave off any real attack whether by land, sea, or air on their own.

So my wish is that the Europeans develop a little more ability to stand on their own. At the very least a force that would serve to slow things down enough that if we did not have a large presence in theater, we could get one there. Better yet, a conventional force large enough to make an attempt on the part of Russia a non starter.

Where Trump angered me this week is that Putin and Russia are very much attempting to undermine us. He lambasted the Germans for a gas deal with Russia because they are a competitor and then a few days later he is doing the same sucking up that he accused Merkel of. It was a silly mixed message.

I think Trump's ego is getting the best of him. He feels that any admission that Russia meddled is somehow a knock against his win in the past election. In his mind the two can apparently not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Lucy01]

I think Marvin is somewhat off on my conservative position on NATO. I do not think that Russia poses the same threat as the old Soviet Union, however, they do pose a certain threat. I think that the moderate military threat that they do pose, would still be enough to overwhelm our European allies should they desire. And remember, conflict does not necessarily mean occupation. They do not have to take over Germany to be problematic. In the case of a quick set of airstrikes, real damage could be done in a short amount of time. As it stands, the Germans would not be able to stave off any real attack whether by land, sea, or air on their own.

So my wish is that the Europeans develop a little more ability to stand on their own. At the very least a force that would serve to slow things down enough that if we did not have a large presence in theater, we could get one there. Better yet, a conventional force large enough to make an attempt on the part of Russia a non starter.

Where Trump angered me this week is that Putin and Russia are very much attempting to undermine us. He lambasted the Germans for a gas deal with Russia because they are a competitor and then a few days later he is doing the same sucking up that he accused Merkel of. It was a silly mixed message.

I do not think Trump's ego is getting the best of him. He feels that any admission that Russia meddled is somehow a knock against his win in the past election. In his mind the two can apparently not be mutually exclusive.

I vote my Wallet, and Trump is doing an excellent job. People don’t have to look to a socialist government for a handout!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I suppose this is good for Ukraine (until the gov is taken over by Pro-Russians again) but it means little. Russia have no interest in taking over Ukraine or other parts of Europe for that matter. If there is one thing they learned, it is that occupation is very difficult and expensive, there is no reward. This is a Cold War relic. (The Baltics offer a strategic want/need, they are the only ones that really should be nervous)

They needed to occupy southern Ukraine because the bridge that Putin had promised for years was never built and the only access to Crimea was overland through Ukraine. The bridge is now finished, but I don't expect the Russians to withdraw anytime soon. They will not allow Ukraine to join NATO and the simplest way is to keep the Ukraine in turmoil.

I think you are right about access to Crimea. But Russian desires on Ukraine goes back to 1917 when Russia realized Ukraine provides food. You are correct in noting that Putin wishes to take over Ukraine through elections, but I think it is also prepared to use other means. We have previously established that we will not honor our previous bi-lateral Ukrainian agreements.

I find it amusing that you think Putin gives a shit if we bomb Syria. As long as no ground troops are involved in any serious way, he doesn't really give a shit. He will continue to support Assad who will continue to control most of the country. Whatever else happens there is irrelevant.

Putin sees strategic importance to Syria. He also realizes he can't afford to do a lot about it. I think anything that diminishes Assad diminishes Russian interests.

I'm glad you are on board with the sanctions, the GOP has poo pooed sanctions for a long time, but as we see they work. One of Trumps first ideas was to ease sanctions which didn't happen and as recent as 30 January 2018 refused to impose sanctions despite laws passed by congress. You can thank congress for this far more then Trump.

The Trump administration chose the sanction targets.

This has nothing to do with Trump in any way.

Except to the extent that Russia can't afford the jet.

Yes, sanctions work. Hopefully Trump doesn't go back to trying to ease them again. Russian domestic issues have been mess for decades, nothing has changed. This has nothing to do with Trump again.

True. This gives Uncle Sam leverage. I think Trump understands leverage.

The gains in US internal turmoil and US/Nato turmoil are far greater gains for Russia then anything you have listed. I imagine Putin is giddy and a bit surprised how well things are going right now.

Bingo. If Putin's plan was for us to loose confidence in our democracy, whether by his direct interference or by our left exploding heads, he has succeeded beyond is wildest dreams. Hillary and all the Russia, Russia, Russia people are his useful idiots.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And despots will remain in charge if they have propagandist victories over the US and NATO. For a nuclear power, this is the worst combination for: a continuously failed state, rich with energy resources, that is run by zealot despots.

That's a fair point. Do you think Russia's failures are good for US? Do you disagree with Trump's stated objective in trying to improve relations with Russia? We went through first the "reset" and then the "more flexibility" nonsense with nothing to show for either except more tension. I don't think Russia/US tension is a good thing.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That's a fair point. Do you think Russia's failures are good for US? Do you disagree with Trump's stated objective in trying to improve relations with Russia? We went through first the "reset" and then the "more flexibility" nonsense with nothing to show for either except more tension. I don't think Russia/US tension is a good thing.

We should be dangling a carrot of change in front of Russia. Show them the path towards righteousness and help them along the way when they get on the path.

Interfering in our election, attempting to destroy our way of life, and continuously attacking us in cyberspace is not the path of righteousness.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Interfering in our election, attempting to destroy our way of life, and continuously attacking us in cyberspace is not the path of righteousness.

I agree that it is not. Problem though, we are probably doing the same things to them in all reality.

These not quite my enemy but not really my friend type of relationships are hard to manage. I do not think that we have successfully handled Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even when we had some people in charge (Yeltsin) who were less antagonistic, we were still pushing to expand our military alliance to their borders. The problem that we have is that I think we acted rationally in the expansion and Russia probably acted rationally in thinking, "WTF, I thought we were past this...you guys are still planning to attack me."

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I think Marvin is somewhat off on my conservative position on NATO. I do not think that Russia poses the same threat as the old Soviet Union, however, they do pose a certain threat. I think that the moderate military threat that they do pose, would still be enough to overwhelm our European allies should they desire. And remember, conflict does not necessarily mean occupation. They do not have to take over Germany to be problematic. In the case of a quick set of airstrikes, real damage could be done in a short amount of time. As it stands, the Germans would not be able to stave off any real attack whether by land, sea, or air on their own.

That is fair for your position in the threads, but you weren't the only conservative arguing the NATO funding issue. I have no doubt Russia could make Germany's life miserable, but I doubt their ability to carry an offensive far from Russian borders. Offensive airpower is tough because it has to fly over defensive anti-air positions plus pilots lost are usually not retrieved. Supplies become difficult. Tanks need refitting and are moving away from the centers that do that. Same for all other supplies. Roads, bridges, rail, and dams are usually destroyed or damaged further complicating supply. Supply isn't sexy, I am theorizing Russia puts most of her money and quality people into combat units. I just think Russia would struggle enough against a combined German/French/Brit force that it wouldn't be worth the risk. Now if a Poland were allied with Russia and the supply line was that much closer, there is a significantly greater risk.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That is fair for your position in the threads, but you weren't the only conservative arguing the NATO funding issue. I have no doubt Russia could make Germany's life miserable, but I doubt their ability to carry an offensive far from Russian borders. Offensive airpower is tough because it has to fly over defensive anti-air positions plus pilots lost are usually not retrieved. Supplies become difficult. Tanks need refitting and are moving away from the centers that do that. Same for all other supplies. Roads, bridges, rail, and dams are usually destroyed or damaged further complicating supply. Supply isn't sexy, I am theorizing Russia puts most of her money and quality people into combat units. I just think Russia would struggle enough against a combined German/French/Brit force that it wouldn't be worth the risk. Now if a Poland were allied with Russia and the supply line was that much closer, there is a significantly greater risk.

To your point about supply trains, our investment in and execution of high-tech supply trains is our number one competitive advantage over every military out there. Far more important to our war fighting ability than our fancy schmancy tech.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

To your point about supply trains, our investment in and execution of high-tech supply trains is our number one competitive advantage over every military out there. Far more important to our war fighting ability than our fancy schmancy tech.

I saw the C-17 Globemaster conduct short takeoff and landing at the Dayton Airshow. That's just an example of the effort we put into moving cargo.

 

[IUCrazy2]

To your point about supply trains, our investment in and execution of high-tech supply trains is our number one competitive advantage over every military out there. Far more important to our war fighting ability than our fancy schmancy tech.

Absolutely. And because of that capability it often means that we take an outsized role in international efforts. That can be both beneficial and a hindrance to our foreign policy. If the international community is meddling in your country, chances are the U.S. military is there in some capacity. In some instances, the local population will see that as a good thing, in others they will not.

Additionally, this set up does give rise to some of the Trump like sentiment where the international community is 120 some odd countries talking and the U.S. doing the work. That is not 100% fair, but there is a bit of truth there

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

We should be dangling a carrot of change in front of Russia. Show them the path towards righteousness and help them along the way when they get on the path.

Interfering in our election, attempting to destroy our way of life, and continuously attacking us in cyberspace is not the path of righteousness.

We need a reset

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We should be dangling a carrot of change in front of Russia. Show them the path towards righteousness and help them along the way when they get on the path.

This sounds like one of the pillars of Trump’s North Korean policy. The left excoriated him for it.

I agree with you. Russia could be a huge export market for us and others.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

We need a reset

Why?

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

Why?

I was missing the tic....

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So Russia has announced they are ready to implement the deals reached at the summit. I sorta wish someone in America knew what those deals were.

With the above said, I oppose a subpoena of the interpreter. We cannot set that precedent even for a Russian plant.

 

[toastedbread]

. Russia, as it stands today, is a failed state.

Wait, what? Failed state? You totally lost me there. There is absolutely no standard on planet Earth in which Russia even remotely approaches failed state status.

 

[toastedbread]

We should be dangling a carrot of change in front of Russia. Show them the path towards righteousness and help them along the way when they get on the path.

The problem is that you can't negotiate with a party who is uninterested in negotiating. Putin is perfectly happy with the way things stand. What should we offer? In exchange for what?

In my view, they engaged in an act of war. They are attacking our allies with nuclear weapons. We should not be offering the carrot.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Wait, what? Failed state? You totally lost me there. There is absolutely no standard on planet Earth in which Russia even remotely approaches failed state status.

Ehhhh, let’s get serious here. They do not have free and fair elections. Failed state.

They don’t respect foreign IP and nationalize imported IP when they need to. Failed state.

They have state-run TV/controlled information feeds to their people. Failed state.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The problem is that you can't negotiate with a party who is uninterested in negotiating. Putin is perfectly happy with the way things stand. What should we offer? In exchange for what?

In my view, they engaged in an act of war. They are attacking our allies with nuclear weapons. We should not be offering the carrot.

This is precisely the point. There is no acceptable reason for why Trump gives them propagandist victories. We should say “get your $hit together and here’s how” and when they ignore us the sanctions continue.

 

[hoosboot]

Ehhhh, let’s get serious here. They do not have free and fair elections. Failed state.

They don’t respect foreign IP and nationalize imported IP when they need to. Failed state.

They have state-run TV/controlled information feeds to their people. Failed state.

I'm not a fan of toasted's general worldview, but the factors you've listed aren't what most people I see use to determine whether something is a "failed state". In fact, I don't find those elements in most definitions of "failed state" that I can find. For example, take the one from yahoo dictionary,

"a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control."

or the one from Encyclopedia Britanica,

"Failed state, a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries."

or this from the Global Policy Forum,

"Failed states can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty. Within this power vacuum, people fall victim to competing factions and crime, and sometimes the United Nations or neighboring states intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster. However, states fail not only because of internal factors. Foreign governments can also knowingly destabilize a state by fueling ethnic warfare or supporting rebel forces, causing it to collapse."

None of those sound like Russia because most classic definitions of a "failed state" focus on the ability to exert power over its land and people. Lack of control and power over internal affairs are certainly not a feature of Putin's Russia. So, while we may not consider Russia a nation to admire or emulate, it's not a "failed state".

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I'm not a fan of toasted's general worldview, but the factors you've listed aren't what most people I see use to determine whether something is a "failed state". In fact, I don't find those elements in most definitions of "failed state" that I can find. For example, take the one from yahoo dictionary,

"a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control."

or the one from Encyclopedia Britanica,

"Failed state, a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries."

or this from the Global Policy Forum,

"Failed states can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty. Within this power vacuum, people fall victim to competing factions and crime, and sometimes the United Nations or neighboring states intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster. However, states fail not only because of internal factors. Foreign governments can also knowingly destabilize a state by fueling ethnic warfare or supporting rebel forces, causing it to collapse."

None of those sound like Russia because most classic definitions of a "failed state" focus on the ability to exert power over its land and people. Lack of control and power over internal affairs are certainly not a feature of Putin's Russia. So, while we may not consider Russia a nation to admire or emulate, it's not a "failed state".

This is a good point. Perhaps I was too jargonist in my colloquial usage of the term. I generally mean that Russia is an autocratic nation that is not poised for future success and growth due to their government policies.

 

[toastedbread]

Ehhhh, let’s get serious here. They do not have free and fair elections. Failed state.

They don’t respect foreign IP and nationalize imported IP when they need to. Failed state.

They have state-run TV/controlled information feeds to their people. Failed state.

I'm not a fan of toasted's general worldview, but the factors you've listed aren't what most people I see use to determine whether something is a "failed state". In fact, I don't find those elements in most definitions of "failed state" that I can find. For example, take the one from yahoo dictionary,

"a state whose political or economic system has become so weak that the government is no longer in control."

or the one from Encyclopedia Britanica,

"Failed state, a state that is unable to perform the two fundamental functions of the sovereign nation-state in the modern world system: it cannot project authority over its territory and peoples, and it cannot protect its national boundaries."

or this from the Global Policy Forum,

"Failed states can no longer perform basic functions such as education, security, or governance, usually due to fractious violence or extreme poverty. Within this power vacuum, people fall victim to competing factions and crime, and sometimes the United Nations or neighboring states intervene to prevent a humanitarian disaster. However, states fail not only because of internal factors. Foreign governments can also knowingly destabilize a state by fueling ethnic warfare or supporting rebel forces, causing it to collapse."

None of those sound like Russia because most classic definitions of a "failed state" focus on the ability to exert power over its land and people. Lack of control and power over internal affairs are certainly not a feature of Putin's Russia. So, while we may not consider Russia a nation to admire or emulate, it's not a "failed state".

The simplest example that came to mind earlier is the World Cup. A failed state is lucky to have a functional domestic football stadium. In the event that they do have a functional stadium, they are lucky if games are able to take place without being subject to terrorism/shooting.

The classic cases of failed states are places like Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan outside of Kabul. NW Pakistan. Lack of control is exactly it. There is basically no functioning state. it's borderline anarchy. The standard to be a failed state is rather high. (or rather low if you know what I mean)

There are tons of states without free and fair elections that are no where near failed states. There are also states with relatively free and fair elections who are closer to failed status. I.e. Philippines. India is arguably closer to a failed state than Russia.

About IP laws... In guessing you mention that because of your company business. That's not one of the main criteria for a failed state. Very far down the list. Typical things in a failed state are lack of access to potable water, electricity, toilets that flush, and actual warlords.

@hoosboot what on Earth is my worldview?! It's funny because I just asked myself that question and could not immediately come up with an answer. If I don't have an immediate answer, then how did you determine that our worldviews are diametrically opposed? How do you even define worldview? In what context?

Furthermore, why the need for the potshot in a completely unrelated topic? That's unbecoming of you.

 

[toastedbread]

This is a good point. Perhaps I was too jargonist in my colloquial usage of the term. I generally mean that Russia is an autocratic nation that is not poised for future success and growth due to their government policies.

I would describe Russia as a very weak and possibly failed democracy. We cannot ignore the fact that they do have elections. Some experts argue that elections alone meet the criteria for democracy. Clearly, they are not a liberal democracy. For awhile it was the in thing to call them a "hybrid-regime", though at this point, I think most drop the hybrid part. Not really up to date on comparative Russian politics.

I think the biggest challenge for Russia is simply the size of the state. Putin and his clan were milking the oil money. Arguably the oil spike of the 2000s saved him from the people as some of that money was used to placate them. There does not appear to be any serious opposition at this point.

 

[toastedbread]

For a nuclear power, this is the worst combination for: a continuously failed state, rich with energy resources, that is run by zealot despots.

Sorry to be a pickle, but one other minor quibble. Russia as a nuclear power is not the worst combination. In fact, imo it's arguably more positive than negative compared to other scenarios. Russia is relatively stable.

The worst case scenario is something like Pakistan, where individual field commanders are directly in command of tactical nuclear weapons. And that's ignoring the jihadi issues within Pakistan and the potential for actual lack of state control.