President Trump - Dealing with the Russians

[BC]

You are confusing an application level use (a web browser) with the underlying technology needed. 

No, I do understand the difference.  My point was to show that there were many ideas and contributors, even outside the US whom together produced what we see and use today.  I don't dispute that that a road is needed for the car to drive on and yes DARPA provided the first TCP/IP 'road' used today based on prior work of others. Nor do I dispute that the US plays the leading role in further developing these technologies and putting it into the hands of businesses and common folk for useful purposes and research, like learning that Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the first telephone

[jone]

Boy, you guys are getting sophisticated.  I dunno what you all are talking about. These packets that everyone is talking about, aren't they about a centimeter long?

[Gator]

Who invented the telephone? And don't google.

It matters little who was involved with inventing it.  Success goes to the person who patents a practical  model and commercializes it. 

[Gator]

I think in her first term Clinton will concentrate on domestic and economic issues to gain support for a second term effort. 

It does not matter if a US president is thinking about just the next 4 or 8 years.  Such is short term.  In contrast, Putin's plans are long term, and he will patiently develop them and let them play out.     "Vladimir Putin has a master plan to destroy Europe, divide NATO, reclaim Russian influence in the world, and most of all to marginalize the United States and the West in order to achieve regional hegemony and global power."  - Source:  Putin's Master Plan by Douglas E. Schoen.

[BC]

It does not matter if a US president is thinking about just the next 4 or 8 years.  Such is short term.  In contrast, Putin's plans are long term, and he will patiently develop them and let them play out.     "Vladimir Putin has a master plan to destroy Europe, divide NATO, reclaim Russian influence in the world, and most of all to marginalize the United States and the West in order to achieve regional hegemony and global power."  - Source:  Putin's Master Plan by Douglas E. Schoen.

Surely Putin wants to re-establish RU as a global player and a part his playbook is to capitalize on opportunities that arise.  Destroy Europe? what for? It's a great resource and nothing would be gained by destroying it.  Does RU wish to have more influence in the European sphere, something on par with US influence? Of course.  Split NATO? Possibly.. but which part of NATO? - Again I'm sure he would enjoy a US / NATO split but again it would be to gain influence and gain parity with US, not to take over.   Of course all this marginalizes the US and UK but should we view that as a negative?  The US has enjoyed almost 4 decades as The Superpower both economically and militarily, but at the same time has played several very bad hands which has weakened it's powers, limiting economic resources and thus influence, even military influence.  You can bet he will capitalize on that

Funny thing though he is getting a lot of reward for very little investment.  He did not cause the crashes that weakened the US and global economies.  He did not start futile wars that instead of strengthening influence has eroded it in important parts of the world.  He did not cause Brexit, that ultimately splits off a good portion of US influence in EU.  He did not cause the US and Canada to fill the markets with cheap oil and eat up reserves, building future dependency rather than decreasing it.  Although some may believe he is helping to wreak havoc in the US political system, he's just watching it happen.  He did not cause a coup in Turkey, but is grooming a new and important ally in a turbulent region whilst NATO puzzles about what to do.  And lets not forget improving relations with his southern neighbor China.

Yes, he is much more patient and like Karate will leverage blunt force to his advantage.  That's why I think he would love for Trump to take office as further opportunities will abound with Trump's brute approaches.  You are right, his game is long and the west has been playing right into it for almost two decades now.  I doubt catching up is possible this late in the game without huge risks.

I think it's time to face the facts that a new status quo among world powers is forming.  Global dominance? Sure there is always a chance for that but I don't see the benefits.  Global parity? Yes.. I can see distinct advantages with that approach.

[BillyB]

I think it's time to face the facts that a new status quo among world powers is forming.

You're not giving us any ideas on how to stop Russia from changing the world to their liking. It's what you want.

[BC]

You're not giving us any ideas on how to stop Russia from changing the world to their liking. It's what you want.

Is parity not acceptable?  Or should the US enjoy a monopoly with hegemony?

I see only two logical solutions, either find ways to sit at the same table and work things out or another expensive Cold War or worse.

[fathertime]

Is parity not acceptable?  Or should the US enjoy a monopoly with hegemony?

 

probably a bit too reasonable for hard line republicans, that will hopefully not hold president office anytime soon.  they know what is right for everyone and want to maintain as much control over the world as possible.


Fathertime! 

[calmissile]

Is parity not acceptable?  Or should the US enjoy a monopoly with hegemony?

I see only two logical solutions, either find ways to sit at the same table and work things out or another expensive Cold War or worse.

I think your dreaming.  Except for the period when the USSR was held in check by the western powers during the Cold War, the USSR and Russia has continued to expand its influence and country grabbing.  Putin has already stated is desires to regain all of the countries (states) that were lost during the breakup of the Soviet Union.  With the takeover of Crimea and sending troops to Eastern Ukraine it seems he is still on track to further his agenda.

If we get into a lovefest with Putin (sitting at the same table and being nice), what makes you think he will change his long term objectives of conquering other lands?
 

[Boethius]

But you have to look at what is driving that behaviour, and look at it from Russia's perspective.  I believe their behaviour is largely a reaction to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, and putting missiles on Russia's borders. 

[jone]

Is parity not acceptable?  Or should the US enjoy a monopoly with hegemony?

I see only two logical solutions, either find ways to sit at the same table and work things out or another expensive Cold War or worse.

I tend to agree with Calmissile on this one.  I don't think the Russians have any intentions of playing a parity game.  I believe that were they able to, they would try and infiltrate Narva to get a Baltic uprising.  First Estonia, then Latvia and Lithuania. 

The re-orientation of NATO forces to directly combat Russia is the direct result of the age old game, once again being played between the East and the West.  Parity is only acheived in Putin's mind when Russia once again controls the Baltics, Eastern Europe and the Stani countries.  Many of these countries do not wish to be controlled by Russia.  Their only hope is for a strong NATO.

[BC]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/05/28/putin-warns-romania-poland-over-implementing-us-missile-shield.html

not long ago.

Putin said the missiles coming out of Europe could easily hit Russia.

"We've been repeating like a mantra that we will be forced to respond... Nobody wants to hear us. Nobody wants to conduct negotiations with us."

We had a chance to work together with RU but Putin's offer back then was pretty much ignored.

[BC]

jone,

What would be the 'win' for Putin to try and force his way into EU countries?  That would be a rather bold military move that would serve no purpose, even for Putin.  Too much of a headache.  I believe his long game lies with gaining more ties with EU as US influence there weakens.  Most of EU were against going into Iraq.  Without UK in the EU influence game, support for any future US agenda will be much more difficult to achieve.

Meanwhile another economic crash would definitely put a pinch on US military spending.  We'll see how the economy does with rising interest rates.

[Gator]

The US has enjoyed almost 4 decades as The Superpower both economically and militarily, but at the same time has played several very bad hands which has weakened it's powers, limiting economic resources and thus influence, even military influence.  You can bet he will capitalize on that

"4 decades" confuses me.  We have been a Superpower for seven decades and the only Superpower for two decades.   

How did we do as the only Superpower?  Not perfect, yet we did not harm or intimidate others, excepting Saddam's Iraq.  Three points about Iraq:

1.  After 9-11 the US was supersensitive to any perceived threats of WMD.
2.  Our rules of engagement resulted in many dead and injured American soldiers.     
3.  We gave the Iraqi people freedom from a brutal dictator and the opportunity to choose their own government.
4.  We did not keep any oil to reimburse our huge costs for the war and rebuilding Iraq.   


Ask yourself, what would have happened if the USA rather than the USSR had collapsed, i. e.,    Russia became the lone Superpower.   There is an example today of what would have happened.  Syria is that example.  Russia is the only Superpower fully engaged in Syria. 

Compare the four points listed above for the US in Iraq with Russia  in Syria.

1.  Russia did not feel threatened other than the potential loss of a navy base if Assad fell.
2.  Russia's rules for engagement show no concern for human suffering, e. g., illustrated by Aleppo, highlighted by Ruusia's bombing a convoy delivering humanitarian aid.
3.  Russia is keeping Assad in power and is not giving the Syrian people the opportunity to govern themselves. 
4.  Who knows what Russia will keep, yet it will be something. 

Is parity not acceptable?  Or should the US enjoy a monopoly with hegemony?

I see only two logical solutions, either find ways to sit at the same table and work things out or another expensive Cold War or worse.

We tried sitting at the same table to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria.  Russia itself, not Syria,  broke the ceasefire.  Sitting at the same table works if Putin respects international law.   Do you believe he respects international law?

[Gator]

Artic Region - a future conflict with Russia. 



http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/arctic-dreams/

Russia is doing more than protecting itself from NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe.  Russia is expanding in other areas. 

[jone]

jone,

What would be the 'win' for Putin to try and force his way into EU countries?  That would be a rather bold military move that would serve no purpose, even for Putin.  Too much of a headache.  I believe his long game lies with gaining more ties with EU as US influence there weakens.  Most of EU were against going into Iraq.  Without UK in the EU influence game, support for any future US agenda will be much more difficult to achieve.

Meanwhile another economic crash would definitely put a pinch on US military spending.  We'll see how the economy does with rising interest rates.

BC,

Just out of mild interest, do you know the percentage of GNP that the US spends on its military?  And the percentage that Russia spends on its military? 

[jone]

jone,

What would be the 'win' for Putin to try and force his way into EU countries?  That would be a rather bold military move that would serve no purpose, even for Putin.  Too much of a headache.  I believe his long game lies with gaining more ties with EU as US influence there weakens.  Most of EU were against going into Iraq.  Without UK in the EU influence game, support for any future US agenda will be much more difficult to achieve.

Meanwhile another economic crash would definitely put a pinch on US military spending.  We'll see how the economy does with rising interest rates.

Yeah, the only country that isn't protected by NATO that Russia covets in Eastern Europe is, you guessed it, Ukraine.    NATO is a deterrent.  As long as it is in place and the Baltics/Poland/etc. are members, there is too much at risk for Russia to create an 'uprising' like it did in Eastern Ukraine. 

I am very much for leaving NATO in place in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.  Perhaps this is the parity you seek?

[BC]

BC,

Just out of mild interest, do you know the percentage of GNP that the US spends on its military?  And the percentage that Russia spends on its military?

US 3.5% vs RU 5%  GDP  GNP should be fairly close.  In absolute $$ the US spends far more than RU.. like 4 to 5 times more..

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

[BC]

Yeah, the only country that isn't protected by NATO that Russia covets in Eastern Europe is, you guessed it, Ukraine.    NATO is a deterrent.  As long as it is in place and the Baltics/Poland/etc. are members, there is too much at risk for Russia to create an 'uprising' like it did in Eastern Ukraine. 

I am very much for leaving NATO in place in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.  Perhaps this is the parity you seek?

I think it's the parity RU is seeking.. Leave UA alone (which is pretty much what's happening anyway) along with the 'stan's and don't dilly dally around in other places where RU is involved like Syria pushing regime change unilaterally.  Terrorism is a global problem that has to be approached with global solutions.  RU may be in a better position to lead with some of those efforts as they too are affected and much nearer to the problem.

Considering history over the last two decades folks overseas are a bit distrustful of US military, economic and political policies that did not really panned out, causing long term problems affecting many.

[fathertime]

"4 decades" confuses me.  We have been a Superpower for seven decades and the only Superpower for two decades.   

How did we do as the only Superpower?  Not perfect, yet we did not harm or intimidate others, excepting Saddam's Iraq.  Three points about Iraq:

1.  After 9-11 the US was supersensitive to any perceived threats of WMD.
2.  Our rules of engagement resulted in many dead and injured American soldiers.     
3.  We gave the Iraqi people freedom from a brutal dictator and the opportunity to choose their own government.
4.  We did not keep any oil to reimburse our huge costs for the war and rebuilding Iraq.   


Ask yourself, what would have happened if the USA rather than the USSR had collapsed, i. e.,    Russia became the lone Superpower.   There is an example today of what would have happened.  Syria is that example.  Russia is the only Superpower fully engaged in Syria. 

Compare the four points listed above for the US in Iraq with Russia  in Syria.

1.  Russia did not feel threatened other than the potential loss of a navy base if Assad fell.
2.  Russia's rules for engagement show no concern for human suffering, e. g., illustrated by Aleppo, highlighted by Ruusia's bombing a convoy delivering humanitarian aid.
3.  Russia is keeping Assad in power and is not giving the Syrian people the opportunity to govern themselves. 
4.  Who knows what Russia will keep, yet it will be something. 

Simplistic apples to oranges comparison.


Fathertime!

[BC]

"4 decades" confuses me.  We have been a Superpower for seven decades and the only Superpower for two decades.   

How did we do as the only Superpower?  Not perfect, yet we did not harm or intimidate others, excepting Saddam's Iraq.  Three points about Iraq:

1.  After 9-11 the US was supersensitive to any perceived threats of WMD.
2.  Our rules of engagement resulted in many dead and injured American soldiers.     
3.  We gave the Iraqi people freedom from a brutal dictator and the opportunity to choose their own government.
4.  We did not keep any oil to reimburse our huge costs for the war and rebuilding Iraq.

1. The response to 9/11 and actions in Afghanistan were widely accepted and supported as appropriate.
WMD was an excuse for regime change in Iraq.  We know that now and those 'in the know' knew it back then.
2. Those same rules of engagement caused hundreds of thousands of lives to be lost on the other side.
3. We destroyed existing social and ruling structures creating a vacuum instead of allowing them to change on their own terms. Brutal is relative. Dictators, even 'brutal' one's exist even today.  Change can only be brought about from within.
4. Trump is right on his point that the money spent in Iraq could have been better invested elsewhere, or not saving

Ask yourself, what would have happened if the USA rather than the USSR had collapsed, i. e.,    Russia became the lone Superpower.   There is an example today of what would have happened.  Syria is that example.  Russia is the only Superpower fully engaged in Syria. 

Compare the four points listed above for the US in Iraq with Russia  in Syria.

1.  Russia did not feel threatened other than the potential loss of a navy base if Assad fell.
2.  Russia's rules for engagement show no concern for human suffering, e. g., illustrated by Aleppo, highlighted by Ruusia's bombing a convoy delivering humanitarian aid.
3.  Russia is keeping Assad in power and is not giving the Syrian people the opportunity to govern themselves. 
4.  Who knows what Russia will keep, yet it will be something.

1. Who had stronger ties to Assad.. the US or Russia?
2. I believe the convoy incident was retaliatory action for US bombing Assad troops IIRC (correct me on this last point if I'm wrong)
3. Putin has clearly stated that a repeat of Iraq, leaving a vacuum is not productive at this time.  Get the terrorists and deal with Assad later when the dust settles.  Again only the Syrian people can decide about regime change.  It's very complex there.. too complex to tackle it all at one time.
4. Yes, they want to maintain some influence in that part of the world.

We tried sitting at the same table to negotiate a ceasefire in Syria.  Russia itself, not Syria,  broke the ceasefire.  Sitting at the same table works if Putin respects international law.   Do you believe he respects international law?

Both sides are blaming each other.  Too many cooks stirring the pot.  Lets not get into international law... glass houses and stones don't mix.

[Gator]

1. The response to 9/11 and actions in Afghanistan were widely accepted and supported as appropriate.
WMD was an excuse for regime change in Iraq.  We know that now and those 'in the know' knew it back then.

Who knows what was known.  It was quickly proven that those "in the know" didn't know much, as those calling for a regime change claimed the Iraqi people would embrace democracy.    Iraqi chemical weapons indeed existed,  having been used against the Kurds and later sold to Syria.  Decisions were made too soon after 9-11, yet the nation was hypersensitive. 

2. Those same rules of engagement caused hundreds of thousands of lives to be lost on the other side.

The restrictive US rules of engagement saved untold thousands of civilian lives.  Most civilian killings resulted from Iraqi Sunni vs. Iraqi Shia conflict and terror, and did not involve US military.  The US Air Force pilots complain the RoE against ISIS are too restrictive.  Many missions return with their bombs.  Remember how we did not bomb the ISIS oil tankers in fear of killing drivers..

 
3. We destroyed existing social and ruling structures creating a vacuum instead of allowing them to change on their own terms. Brutal is relative. Dictators, even 'brutal' one's exist even today.  Change can only be is best brought about from within with diplomatic methods.

Your point was proven in Iraq, yet Obama/Clinton used NATO military to change regime in Libya and supplied rebels to achieve same in Syria.  We attempted three different models for regime change in the Middle East and none worked.   

4. Trump is right on his point that the money spent in Iraq could have been better invested elsewhere, or not saving

That's not the point.  We are contrasting Russia and the US.  You seem to be thinking that Russia is no worse than the US in its foreign policy.  In Iraq, the US took nothing to offset it trillions of costs. 
 


 

1. Who had stronger ties to Assad.. the US or Russia?

We had ties with the Kurds and with rebel groups.


2. I believe the convoy incident was retaliatory action for US bombing Assad troops IIRC (correct me on this last point if I'm wrong)

An order of magnitude difference.
 

3. Putin has clearly stated that a repeat of Iraq, leaving a vacuum is not productive at this time.  Get the terrorists and deal with Assad later when the dust settles.  Again only the Syrian people can decide about regime change.  It's very complex there.. too complex to tackle it all at one time.

Good point, yet what Putin calls terrorists are anyone opposing Assad.  Putin is directing little force at ISIS.   Some of the rebel groups Putin is bombing had been terrorized by Assad for years. 


4.  Yes, they want to maintain some influence in that part of the world.

Yes, and I guarantee you they want something bigger.    Russia will be the only Superpower in the region.   Russia is now aligned with Shia countries.  Over the long term Russia will try to forge relationships with Sunni countries.   Methods to be determined.  As I stated before, the US does not have sufficient interests in the Middle East to warrant a presence much less a confrontation. The door is open for Europe to step up, and it should considering Europe depends upon Russia and the Middle East for most of its energy.   

Both sides are blaming each other.  Too many cooks stirring the pot.

You are repeating Putin's position.  Before you decide the US is just as bad as Russia, maybe you want to read what your government has to say, the same administration whom you have supported unequivocally for years.   

 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-suspends-contacts-with-russia-on-syria/ar-BBwWYE8?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Lets not get into international law... glass houses and stones don't mix.

It is not about specific laws but about overall justice and world peace.  It seems you are suggesting there is no difference between Russia and the US.  Please show where the US has done anything resembling Crimea.    Please compare what the US and Russia have done when downing by mistake a civilian airplane.   

[BillyB]

Is parity not acceptable?  Or should the US enjoy a monopoly with hegemony?

I see only two logical solutions, either find ways to sit at the same table and work things out or another expensive Cold War or worse.

What countries do you want to hand over to Russia to create parity? Can the little countries have a say in who they want to align themselves with? If Russia can create much more economic prosperity, peace, stability and security over America for any country that wants to align themselves with Russia, I'm all for those countries seeking something better. You want the little guys to align themselves with less to achieve equality and balance of power. Would you like Italy to be the first to seek an alliance with Russia? If aligning with Russia over the EU and America is not good for Italy, then it's not good for any country. Ask Ukraine how that worked out for them.

[jone]

Simplistic apples to oranges comparison.

Fathertime!

The reaction of yours is simplistic.  Tell it to the Syrians living in Kurdish or rebel held territory that are getting wiped out.  Gator has a good grasp on the Middle East.  (I wonder why.)  I appreciate hearing what he has to say.

[fathertime]

The reaction of yours is simplistic.  Tell it to the Syrians living in Kurdish or rebel held territory that are getting wiped out.  Gator has a good grasp on the Middle East.  (I wonder why.)  I appreciate hearing what he has to say.

Yes yes, let him speak of course, nobody was attempting to silence him.  I don't really agree with the phony comparison though, and the way he characterized it.  I kept it simple!


Fathertime!