President Trump - Dealing with the Russians

[Boethius]

I think it's the parity RU is seeking.. Leave UA alone (which is pretty much what's happening anyway

I disagree with this.  Russia has always attempted to exert influence on Ukraine (since independence), and that has not abated.


PS - I don't think a President Trump would care about this, nor would he care if Russia invaded Ukraine.

[BC]

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.

You seem to get me a bit wrong.. what I write is not what I want nor what I think should happen but instead my thoughts on what may be happening and what I believe may be Putin's end game.  I'm not promoting handing over anything or giving and taking this or that, instead logically weighing the situation, circumstances and possible outcomes. 

I'm not worried at all about EU, nor Italy who have maintained good relations with RU that go quite a ways back.  Putin's end game as I see it at least partially involves taking advantage of political weaknesses to form alliances for future petro energy and pipeline agreements. In the medium term mainly supplying EU and longer term US as markets and prices tighten.  I highly doubt he will want to disrupt good customers or their consumption in any way.

[2tallbill]

You seem to get me a bit wrong.. what I write is not what I want nor what I think should happen but instead my thoughts on what may be happening and what I believe may be Putin's end game.

I think Putin's end game is having more people to shake down and steal from
while promoting a positive nationalistic fervor at home. Adding countries to
Putin's sphere won't make Russia or their new satellites stronger or safer the
new satellites would definitely would be more prosperous, free and safe apart
from Russia than with them. 

[BC]

Gator,

Again thanks for your helpful insights.

We had ties with the Kurds and with rebel groups.

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.

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.   

First there is that complex mix..  Rebels, Kurds on the US side, ISIS or whatever one calls it nowadays and the Syrian Govt.  RU backs the Govt and would be doing Turkey AND Assad a favor by helping take care of the Rebels and Kurds.. so in Putin's eyes two birds and one stone after which both Assad and RU can go after what remains of ISIS.  Would such logic fit your better knowledge of the parties involved?

Yes, Putin wants RU to be the superpower in the region and if he can somehow wrangle a bit of order in that chaos then that's a plus in my book.  It's a power play and short of a huge US military boots on the ground effort involving many casualties nothing can really change the direction Putin is setting.  In fact I doubt any US military effort would work..  Neither would a 'pure' RU effort for that matter.. but Putin AND Assad might be able to do it.  If Putin then can bring TU into the mix by resolving Syria/PKK/Kurd issues then that would indeed be a win for him.  Just a long term longshot thought.. IF RU/SY/TU are able to put an decent act together it's fairly logical to consider IR joining in and convince IQ to consider signing up.  Now that would indeed be a major feat.  Would this be even remotely consistent with your 'know'?

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.

   

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.

On these two points, although I was very against us action in Iraq I'm not being Putin's cheerleader but can see how my posts may come across as such.  Sure when someone FUBAR's the US will be first to man up.. but my thoughts are about setting precedents in a liberal legal sense and not right/wrong involved in specific incidents.

[BC]

I disagree with this.  Russia has always attempted to exert influence on Ukraine (since independence), and that has not abated.

PS - I don't think a President Trump would care about this, nor would he care if Russia invaded Ukraine.

I was referring to Putin saying to the West not to interfere (leave alone), in UA. Guess I was a bit unclear in haste.  Yes Putin wants to exert influence on Ukraine.

Clinton will probably have a harsher stance with RU than Trump, but I doubt under the circumstances she or anyone for that matter can steer unfolding events in UA or the mideast for that matter.  I don't think invading UA is in Putin's play book.  He has gained enough to be a thorn in the side and that's what he is after.  Pretty much the same as he did with Georgia..  Keeping a foot in the door is what he wants and that is working fairly well for him without destroying other ties to the west, especially EU.

[Faux Pas]

Clinton will probably have a harsher stance with RU than Trump, but I doubt under the circumstances she or anyone for that matter can steer unfolding events in UA or the mideast for that matter.  I don't think invading UA is in Putin's play book.  He has gained enough to be a thorn in the side and that's what he is after.  Pretty much the same as he did with Georgia..  Keeping a foot in the door is what he wants and that is working fairly well for him without destroying other ties to the west, especially EU.

I don't believe you could be more wrong than that statement there. Trump would likely do more and cause Putin to heel from any further aggression against UA or the ME. Financially and possibly the threat of military action. Hillary would likely toy with Putin much in the same way Obama has tried. Would you agree that has been a failed policy?

[2tallbill]

Gator,

Again thanks for your helpful insights.

First there is that complex mix..  Rebels, Kurds on the US side, ISIS or whatever one calls it nowadays and the Syrian Govt.  RU backs the Govt and would be doing Turkey AND Assad a favor by helping take care of the Rebels and Kurds.. so in Putin's eyes two birds and one stone after which both Assad and RU can go after what remains of ISIS.  Would such logic fit your better knowledge of the parties involved?

Yes, Putin wants RU to be the superpower in the region and if he can somehow wrangle a bit of order in that chaos then that's a plus in my book.  It's a power play and short of a huge US military boots on the ground effort involving many casualties nothing can really change the direction Putin is setting.  In fact I doubt any US military effort would work..  Neither would a 'pure' RU effort for that matter.. but Putin AND Assad might be able to do it.  If Putin then can bring TU into the mix by resolving Syria/PKK/Kurd issues then that would indeed be a win for him.  Just a long term longshot thought.. IF RU/SY/TU are able to put an decent act together it's fairly logical to consider IR joining in and convince IQ to consider signing up.  Now that would indeed be a major feat.  Would this be even remotely consistent with your 'know'?
   

On these two points, although I was very against us action in Iraq I'm not being Putin's cheerleader but can see how my posts may come across as such.  Sure when someone FUBAR's the US will be first to man up.. but my thoughts are about setting precedents in a liberal legal sense and not right/wrong involved in specific incidents.

Turkey is Sunni and Assad is Shia. While Turkey may be willing to play Russia against
the USA they don't and never will trust Russia. Remember Russia would give anything
to control the Turkish straits and as a result Turkey would never trust them.

Russia getting support from both the Shia and Sunni's will happen just after both accept
peace with Israel.

 

[BC]

I don't believe you could be more wrong than that statement there. Trump would likely do more and cause Putin to heel from any further aggression against UA or the ME. Financially and possibly the threat of military action. Hillary would likely toy with Putin much in the same way Obama has tried. Would you agree that has been a failed policy?

Direct US military action against RU is pretty much out of the question and would not be backed by EU countries.  Or how would you see such playing out?  Short of a pre-emptive nuclear strike...

But yeah... Trump might just be stupid enough to try even that...

[BC]

Turkey is Sunni and Assad is Shia. While Turkey may be willing to play Russia against
the USA they don't and never will trust Russia. Remember Russia would give anything
to control the Turkish straits and as a result Turkey would never trust them.

Russia getting support from both the Shia and Sunni's will happen just after both accept
peace with Israel.

But Turkey's govt is still quite secular.. so who knows what Putin might be able to broker if he is able to settle Syria..  RU certainly does not want to control or take over Turkey but instead work on common interests in the region.

[Faux Pas]

Direct US military action against RU is pretty much out of the question and would not be backed by EU countries.  Or how would you see such playing out?  Short of a pre-emptive nuclear strike...

But yeah... Trump might just be stupid enough to try even that...

It's not out of the question. In these times BC nothing is "out of the question". Look around there are marauders running rampant in the Middle East beheading 1000's for nothing other than being a Christian. Also beheading "bad" Muslims. Putin does as he wishes unabated. Do you seriously believe he has paid one bit of attention to Obama/Hillary/Kerry's rhetoric? Iran has been given the green light to nuclear weapons. China has bowed up in the Far East and the Clinton baby in Pyongyang is rattling his sabres again. What could possibly go wrong? 

You didn't answer the question, do you agree Obama/Hillary's policy with Putin is a failed one?

[Boethius]

I don't believe you could be more wrong than that statement there. Trump would likely do more and cause Putin to heel from any further aggression against UA or the ME. Financially and possibly the threat of military action. Hillary would likely toy with Putin much in the same way Obama has tried. Would you agree that has been a failed policy?

Trump has business interests in Russia.  So do his advisors.  They have none in Ukraine.  I doubt he would sanction the use of any military action against Russia vis a  vis Ukraine.

[Boethius]

I was referring to Putin saying to the West not to interfere (leave alone), in UA. Guess I was a bit unclear in haste.  Yes Putin wants to exert influence on Ukraine.

Clinton will probably have a harsher stance with RU than Trump, but I doubt under the circumstances she or anyone for that matter can steer unfolding events in UA or the mideast for that matter.  I don't think invading UA is in Putin's play book.  He has gained enough to be a thorn in the side and that's what he is after.  Pretty much the same as he did with Georgia..  Keeping a foot in the door is what he wants and that is working fairly well for him without destroying other ties to the west, especially EU.

Oh, I think Putin would invade Ukraine if he believed it would be "painless" for Russia. 

Kyiv is at the centre of many Russian fairy tales.  It, like Crimea, has a somewhat "mythical" status among a lot of Russians. 

The loss of empire is painful.

[BC]

You didn't answer the question, do you agree Obama/Hillary's policy with Putin is a failed one?

I guess that would depend on what a successful policy would be..  That RU leaves Georgia, UA, leaves Syria alone, stops talking to Turkey, Iran, China and a host of other countries, goes into hibernation until the US prez tells them to do something?

If that's what you're expecting then no, they did not fail since no one could have succeeded.  You can't fail an impossible task.

If you find a hundred buck bill on the sidewalk, you gonna wave it around in a crowd and yell 'anyone lose this?' You or I would probably drop it in the salvation army bucket or make some kid or young mother happy.  Yeah, RU would say finders keepers, losers weepers.

[BC]

The loss of empire is painful.

Empires are built and lost, but the loss of pride is much more painful.  Isn't that really what RU wants again?

[Faux Pas]

Trump has business interests in Russia.  So do his advisors.  They have none in Ukraine.  I doubt he would sanction the use of any military action against Russia vis a  vis Ukraine.

No he doesn't and as for his advisors, Manafort doesn't count. Trump has stated numerous times he wants to get along with Russia and Putin. Russian money invested into Trumps U.S.  businesses doesn't count, does it?

IMHO, Syria is a powder keg that neither the U.S./NATO nor Russia can win. Russia is there to supposedly stop an ISIS vacuum incase Assad falls. That cause is noble but, that's not his reason. We have no reason for being there. We are there because of Obama and Hillary's need to get rid of Assad visa vis the Saudi's

[Faux Pas]

I guess that would depend on what a successful policy would be..  That RU leaves Georgia, UA, leaves Syria alone, stops talking to Turkey, Iran, China and a host of other countries, goes into hibernation until the US prez tells them to do something?

If that's what you're expecting then no, they did not fail since no one could have succeeded.  You can't fail an impossible task.

If you find a hundred buck bill on the sidewalk, you gonna wave it around in a crowd and yell 'anyone lose this?' You or I would probably drop it in the salvation army bucket or make some kid or young mother happy.  Yeah, RU would say finders keepers, losers weepers.

Actually BC I would consider anything making a safer world a success. Obama's policy has done quite the opposite and a Hillary presidency would be Obama 2.0

[BC]

Actually BC I would consider anything making a safer world a success. Obama's policy has done quite the opposite and a Hillary presidency would be Obama 2.0

I think it's safe to say the list could be easily expanded, going back decades.  It's not the fault of one party or the other.

What magic power would Trump wield to make the world safer?

[Faux Pas]

I think it's safe to say the list could be easily expanded, going back decades.  It's not the fault of one party or the other.

What magic power would Trump wield to make the world safer?

Magic powder? C'mon BC there is no magic powder. But relations were significantly better with Russia before Obama and Hillary's reset button. There was no ISIS and the ME was considerably more stable than today. Do you realize how close we are on the brink currently? I hope so because I don't think most people do. Does Trump have magic powder? No, nobody does but, we've seen what Hillary has. She has done nothing but stick a match to the powder keg of world peace. Is he going to be worse? I don't think he can but, it's possible

[Gator]

Turkey is Sunni and Assad is Shia. While Turkey may be willing to play Russia against
the USA they don't and never will trust Russia. Remember Russia would give anything
to control the Turkish straits and as a result Turkey would never trust them.

Russia getting support from both the Shia and Sunni's will happen just after both accept
peace with Israel.

 

Turkey has opposed Assad for the past few years.  One of the rebel groups opposing Assad in the north is Turkic with close ties to Turkey.  The Russian jet that Turkey shot out of the sky was bombing the Turkic rebels.    Don't forget the Kurds who have been long time enemies with Turkey.  . 

[Slumba]

Thinking people are against:

any war which does not benefit the USA, or require military intervention (with a high standard having to be met);

hassling nations that we should be engaged in peaceful trade with rather than trying to grind them down with conflicts and saber-rattling;

young men being killed, maimed, and having PTSD so severe they commit suicide, all so that Israel can throw its weight around in the ME and implement in a piecemeal fashion the Oded Yinon Plan

listening to the lying pro-Israeli neocons (see prior point)  whose visceral hatred of Russians and Germans has nothing to do with us (it is why the EU is pushing Germany to take so many rapefugees - part of their genocidal hatred of Germans);

sacrificing young men and money to prop up the petro-dollar, and then having what should be the natural benefits of being the world's reserve currency, siphoned off and stolen instead by Wall Street and WashDC self-enrichment

wars for oil and for the construction of gas pipelines (which is what Syria is about - a pipeline to EU from Qatar thru Turkey to Bulgaria)

I will mention only in passing that the countries like Libya, Syria etc. that have been destroyed - are the only ones without a central bank tied into the Rothschild/BIS cartel - I suppose that is some kind of conspiracy theory?

That is a big, unspoken reason that Trump is getting support from people, especially vets who have figured out that "war is a racket".

When it is proven (as I believe it will be) that Hillary/Obama did in fact create, support, and supply ISIS ... what will the Hillary-lickers on this forum have to say ? 

Hillary is part of the Perma-War Party, as was Bush (yup he fooled a lot of the conservatives); Trump indicates he is not.

[Anotherkiwi]

When it is proven (as I believe it will be) that Hillary/Obama did in fact create, support, and supply ISIS ... what will the Hillary-lickers on this forum have to say ? 

And what will you (and Trump) do when it is proven that they didn't?  I've posted this before, but it obviously bears repeating - I have no quarrel with anyone exercising their right of free speech, but anyone doing so also bears the responsibility of ensuring that what they say is the truth.  That commodity seems to be in short supply in a couple of threads here.

[Boethius]

No he doesn't and as for his advisors, Manafort doesn't count. Trump has stated numerous times he wants to get along with Russia and Putin. Russian money invested into Trumps U.S.  businesses doesn't count, does it?

Yes, Russian money invested in Trump businesses does count.  He courts a lot of Russian busienss.

IMHO, Syria is a powder keg that neither the U.S./NATO nor Russia can win. Russia is there to supposedly stop an ISIS vacuum incase Assad falls. That cause is noble but, that's not his reason. We have no reason for being there. We are there because of Obama and Hillary's need to get rid of Assad visa vis the Saudi's

I'm not certain Russian's aims in Syria are noble. 


I don't have an issue with Western powers not intervening in Syria.  I am more concerned about Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe.

[Boethius]

Empires are built and lost, but the loss of pride is much more painful.  Isn't that really what RU wants again?

It probably wants respect on the world stage.  But, I do think it wants control of its former empire, if not as part of a re established USSR, then as countries within its sphere of influence.  The funny thing is, if, as a state, Russia behaved normally, most of those countries would be in its sphere of influence.

[Slumba]

And what will you (and Trump) do when it is proven that they didn't?  I've posted this before, but it obviously bears repeating - I have no quarrel with anyone exercising their right of free speech, but anyone doing so also bears the responsibility of ensuring that what they say is the truth.  That commodity seems to be in short supply in a couple of threads here.

I can't speak for Trump. For myself, I have clearly qualified it as my opinion.  Seems obvious enough.

[Faux Pas]

Yes, Russian money invested in Trump businesses does count.  He courts a lot of Russian busienss.

No it doesn't count. You said Trump has business interest in Russia. He does not. If you say he does, show me. If there are Russians invested in his holdings outside of Russia then that is clearly not the same thing

I'm not certain Russian's aims in Syria are noble.

I'm certain they are not. But my position is to get the hell out of Syria and let Putin have his way. We shouldn't have been there in the first place (neither should Russia)

I don't have an issue with Western powers not intervening in Syria.  I am more concerned about Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe.

Eastern Europe is a European issue. Europe doesn't appear interested