This shat just went next level

[houndawg]

Apparently Trump is really pissed about a CIA leak referring to a special golden service that he ordered up for entertainment while on a business trip to Russia.

Could go a long way to 'splain that strange mop he wears on his head..

the color, anyway...

[houndawg]

Uhhhh...quite easily...for several reasons.

China plays the long game better than anyone...and is far more ruthless.

Russia and the US have FAR more in common than China and the US.

Culturally, Russia and China are world's apart (see #1 and #2). The Chinese aren't interested in assimilation.

Lastly, to compare the threat posed by China, with 1.4 BILLION people, to the threat posed by Russia, with 143.5 million people, is absurd.

Everyone plays to their own interests. Everyone. But Russia can be more of an ally than China. However, Russia is being demonized because of their proximity to our European friends. There is a great effort to flip a few eastern European governments...and then the largest country in the world, and all its untapped resources, is open for business. Think the Arctic won't become a giant, heavily trafficked trade route if that happens?

Cripes, environmentalists should be fighting for an independent Russia as a bulwark against an all out assault on the Arctic.

I don't understand why people here keep saying that Russia is a "natural ally" of the US. Hasn't been true since 1917. We almost went to war with them in 1962, and there aren't that many cultural similarities. I'll grant you that the problems with China run deeper, but saying that we should drop everything and embrace the Russians is naive. Cold War apparatchiks still run that country, which has NO democratic/republican (small "r" in both cases) traditions. Don't do anything stupid, but keep them at arm's length.

At least they're white.

[houndawg]

We are natural allies given that our interests intersect in many more ways than they diverge.

China is a large part of that, and the fact that we are not economic competitors is another. In terms of the trajectory of the 20th century, the 100 years since the fall of the Romanov is not all that significant. There was a LOT of pro-American sentiment in Russia prior to 1917' but remember that there was also a lot of pro-American sentiment in Russia in the 1980s. American made blue jeans were the hottest item in Moscow, American pop culture was informing Russian pop culture, etc. When the wall came down we had the easiest foreign relations opportunity in the history of our country and we blew it.

When the Soviet Union broke apart, we immediately began courting every single former Soviet Republic, except one- Russia. We took the Soviet Union down in an economic sense, and then while Muscovites were standing in bread lines, we were courting the entirety of Eastern Europe for NATO membership, and offering nothing to Russia in terms of assistance in governance or economics. Russia was literally an anarchic state without the bomb throwers, and that is the fastest route to oligarchy.

Russia is a "natural" ally in terms of the fact that our "enmity" was solely created by our own actions. If we to had not expanded NATO, it could be argued that there would be no Vladimir Putin. Sergey Lavrov is the standard bearer of a populist anti-American movement among Russians young and old who harbor a lot of resentment towards America not because of our relations from 1920-1990, but because of our actions since 1990. Vladimir Putin is just the manifestation of the populist movement in Russia. Boris Yeltsin wasn't a Cold War apparatchik and his successors wouldn't have been, either had WE not been acting like the Cold War was still in full swing.

There are a million and one reasons why will will never have many friends in the Levant or in China. There is literally no rational reason for our enmity with Russia. Keep sanctions in place for now (as a lever for future nuclear disarmament without cheating), and simultaneously ramp down NATO's presence and influence in Eastern Europe. Take advantage of Russia's highly educated tech sector to locate a few high end businesses there in return for economic reforms (weakening the oligarchs)- and we'll have our natural ally in 15 years. They will also leave Ukraine alone with little to no prodding. All we need is a few good faith efforts.

Don't go all soft on us because Russians are hard people, Ivy. There are plenty of abhorrent people in the world who we prop up and the Russians are nowhere near as bad.

I don't know what you mean by "going all soft" on this subject, CID. I disagree with several points that you make, but I'll keep it respectful. Yeltsin may have been a corrupt buffoon, but he was a long-time CCCP member and Order of Lenin winner who named -- you guessed it -- Putin as his desired successor. While several former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO, not a single former Soviet republic has come on board, except the Baltic States -- where Russians are ethnic minorities. Most of those former republics are thugocracies themselves, still within the Russian geopolitical orbit. While you cite pop culture and blue jeans as optimistic signs for a future rapprochement with Russia, you don't address my point (made in another post) about a fundamental cultural difference: the historical weakness of private property rights in Russia. Centuries of serfdom are difficult to overcome. Richard Pipes cited that weakness as one factor in the Bolsheviks' rise to power, and it has hampered Russian economic development to this day. Outside of the energy sector, where Russia benefits from an abundance of natural resources, I can't think of a single business segment where Russia has prospered since 1990. Given the shrinking Russian population and its limited purchasing power, why would US manufacturing (or tech, for that matter) companies flock to relocate there?

In sum, I'm fundamentally more skeptical about long-term Russia-US relations than you are. I'm also not sanguine about teaming up with Russia against China, although there have been certain tensions between Russia and China in the energy and weapons sectors. Recall the 2001 "friendship treaty" between Russia and China, raised by China just last year in the escalating tensions about the South China Sea. I will agree with you and Cluck that meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations should be avoided where possible. Peace, out.

Their banking sector is about to do very well under the new Predidient

[Grizalltheway]

Apparently Trump is really pissed about a CIA leak referring to a special golden service that he ordered up for entertainment while on a business trip to Russia.

Could go a long way to 'splain that strange mop he wears on his head..

the color, anyway...

A new species of tiny moth has been named after Donald Trump, partly because the President-elect’s hairstyle resembles the moth’s distinctive yellow and white scales.

The minuscule creature, named Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, is the first species to bear the name of the soon-to-be president, whose inauguration is this Friday. It was discovered by Vazrick Nazari, a biologist and researcher from Ottawa, Canada.

http://time.com/4637403/tiny-moth-donald-trump/

[Pwns]

Those scientists will be getting a large grant by executive order very soon. Fine scientists. Great scientists. Very interesting work.

[CID1990]

We are natural allies given that our interests intersect in many more ways than they diverge.

China is a large part of that, and the fact that we are not economic competitors is another. In terms of the trajectory of the 20th century, the 100 years since the fall of the Romanov is not all that significant. There was a LOT of pro-American sentiment in Russia prior to 1917' but remember that there was also a lot of pro-American sentiment in Russia in the 1980s. American made blue jeans were the hottest item in Moscow, American pop culture was informing Russian pop culture, etc. When the wall came down we had the easiest foreign relations opportunity in the history of our country and we blew it.

When the Soviet Union broke apart, we immediately began courting every single former Soviet Republic, except one- Russia. We took the Soviet Union down in an economic sense, and then while Muscovites were standing in bread lines, we were courting the entirety of Eastern Europe for NATO membership, and offering nothing to Russia in terms of assistance in governance or economics. Russia was literally an anarchic state without the bomb throwers, and that is the fastest route to oligarchy.

Russia is a "natural" ally in terms of the fact that our "enmity" was solely created by our own actions. If we to had not expanded NATO, it could be argued that there would be no Vladimir Putin. Sergey Lavrov is the standard bearer of a populist anti-American movement among Russians young and old who harbor a lot of resentment towards America not because of our relations from 1920-1990, but because of our actions since 1990. Vladimir Putin is just the manifestation of the populist movement in Russia. Boris Yeltsin wasn't a Cold War apparatchik and his successors wouldn't have been, either had WE not been acting like the Cold War was still in full swing.

There are a million and one reasons why will will never have many friends in the Levant or in China. There is literally no rational reason for our enmity with Russia. Keep sanctions in place for now (as a lever for future nuclear disarmament without cheating), and simultaneously ramp down NATO's presence and influence in Eastern Europe. Take advantage of Russia's highly educated tech sector to locate a few high end businesses there in return for economic reforms (weakening the oligarchs)- and we'll have our natural ally in 15 years. They will also leave Ukraine alone with little to no prodding. All we need is a few good faith efforts.

Don't go all soft on us because Russians are hard people, Ivy. There are plenty of abhorrent people in the world who we prop up and the Russians are nowhere near as bad.

I don't know what you mean by "going all soft" on this subject, CID. I disagree with several points that you make, but I'll keep it respectful. Yeltsin may have been a corrupt buffoon, but he was a long-time CCCP member and Order of Lenin winner who named -- you guessed it -- Putin as his desired successor. While several former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO, not a single former Soviet republic has come on board, except the Baltic States -- where Russians are ethnic minorities. Most of those former republics are thugocracies themselves, still within the Russian geopolitical orbit. While you cite pop culture and blue jeans as optimistic signs for a future rapprochement with Russia, you don't address my point (made in another post) about a fundamental cultural difference: the historical weakness of private property rights in Russia. Centuries of serfdom are difficult to overcome. Richard Pipes cited that weakness as one factor in the Bolsheviks' rise to power, and it has hampered Russian economic development to this day. Outside of the energy sector, where Russia benefits from an abundance of natural resources, I can't think of a single business segment where Russia has prospered since 1990. Given the shrinking Russian population and its limited purchasing power, why would US manufacturing (or tech, for that matter) companies flock to relocate there?

In sum, I'm fundamentally more skeptical about long-term Russia-US relations than you are. I'm also not sanguine about teaming up with Russia against China, although there have been certain tensions between Russia and China in the energy and weapons sectors. Recall the 2001 "friendship treaty" between Russia and China, raised by China just last year in the escalating tensions about the South China Sea. I will agree with you and Cluck that meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations should be avoided where possible. Peace, out.

You're soft as in "Russia is bad, therefore we have no reason to be friends" soft! Cmon man leave that to the crybabies who think that way- like the divest Israel crowd.



First off, when I say "ally", I'm not talking about countries with whom our interests and values dovetail, like England, Canada or Australia. Turkey has been an "ally" although they are ostensibly as bad if not worse than the Russians. The same goes for Egypt and Israel.

Our interest in not being at odds with Russia greatly outweighs the alternatives. I don't look at Russia through a human rights lens any more than I look at Nigeria or Vietnam that way. I look at Russia through our own interests, and know that it is never in the interest of the US to be a continual odds with a country that could be friendly with a lot less effort. Especially one that has a nuclear arsenal the size of ours.

I'll clarify a few points- Boris Yeltsin was a party member just like every other politician in Russia prior to the breakup. Nothing in his background suggests he was ever a communist idealist, and his platform in the early 1990s was to convert Russia to a free market capitalist model. His entire platform was economic. Putin became president on the wave of anti-Americanism in Russia which was largely blamed on Yeltsin- that he did not do enough to stand up to the US or at least preserve Russia's place on the world stage (among other things... his was also a very corrupt cabinet like you said). Putin's rise was because of his stature as a populist strongman, and if anything Yeltsin's endorsement hurt him a little.

Moving on-

The Baltic States are by far the most important buffer states to Russia. They have the deep water ports and are the most vulnerable as the throughway to an invasion of Russia by European countries. The fear of invasion runs very deep in the Russian psyche and the fact that NATO GREW rather than shrank after the Cold War only fuels Russian suspicions. Russia was too disorganized to materially oppose the addition of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but the official announcement by NATO that Georgia was an aspiring member moved Russia to act. The Georgia model was a dress rehearsal for Ukraine and the Baltic States (where they are already agitating the ethnic Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia). It is no coincidence that the desire by ethnic Ukrainians to join NATO over the opposition of ethnic Russians in Ukraine was followed shortly by Russian tampering with Ukrainian elections, and later the destabilization of the eastern part of the country and the outright annexation of Sevastopol, which is the most important strategic location in the entire region (a deep sea port, again). Add to this th warming relations with Erdogan in Turkey, since good relations with Turkey increase Sevastopol's value tenfold. None of these things are happening in a vacuum- they are happening as a direct result of our own actions.

A sidebar- our proposed missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic as a defense against Iran (snicker snicker) was also stupid, BTW. It was yet another self inflicted wound in our relations with Russia with absolutely nothing to recommend it.

My gripe is that we are not behaving in our own interests here. I could care less about property rights in Russia, or the fact that Putin likes to slip polonium mickies to journalists he doesn't like. That's small picture stuff and Putin isn't going to be around forever (although our relations will impact who replaces him). In the long term, we do not benefit in any way from adding additional freeloader countries to NATO, and we benefit in no way from antagonizing Russia without some threat greater than "they're thugs and they're hard on their neighbors". The amount of foreign policy sweat and tears we spend on Russia is absolutely ridiculous and would be much better spent on things like strategic cooperation, and keeping China from completely eating our lunch. Russia can be an important part of that because they are as wary of the Chinese as we are. Right now they are playing nice out of "the enemy of my enemy" thing.

[YoUDeeMan]

We are natural allies given that our interests intersect in many more ways than they diverge.

China is a large part of that, and the fact that we are not economic competitors is another. In terms of the trajectory of the 20th century, the 100 years since the fall of the Romanov is not all that significant. There was a LOT of pro-American sentiment in Russia prior to 1917' but remember that there was also a lot of pro-American sentiment in Russia in the 1980s. American made blue jeans were the hottest item in Moscow, American pop culture was informing Russian pop culture, etc. When the wall came down we had the easiest foreign relations opportunity in the history of our country and we blew it.

When the Soviet Union broke apart, we immediately began courting every single former Soviet Republic, except one- Russia. We took the Soviet Union down in an economic sense, and then while Muscovites were standing in bread lines, we were courting the entirety of Eastern Europe for NATO membership, and offering nothing to Russia in terms of assistance in governance or economics. Russia was literally an anarchic state without the bomb throwers, and that is the fastest route to oligarchy.

Russia is a "natural" ally in terms of the fact that our "enmity" was solely created by our own actions. If we to had not expanded NATO, it could be argued that there would be no Vladimir Putin. Sergey Lavrov is the standard bearer of a populist anti-American movement among Russians young and old who harbor a lot of resentment towards America not because of our relations from 1920-1990, but because of our actions since 1990. Vladimir Putin is just the manifestation of the populist movement in Russia. Boris Yeltsin wasn't a Cold War apparatchik and his successors wouldn't have been, either had WE not been acting like the Cold War was still in full swing.

There are a million and one reasons why will will never have many friends in the Levant or in China. There is literally no rational reason for our enmity with Russia. Keep sanctions in place for now (as a lever for future nuclear disarmament without cheating), and simultaneously ramp down NATO's presence and influence in Eastern Europe. Take advantage of Russia's highly educated tech sector to locate a few high end businesses there in return for economic reforms (weakening the oligarchs)- and we'll have our natural ally in 15 years. They will also leave Ukraine alone with little to no prodding. All we need is a few good faith efforts.

Don't go all soft on us because Russians are hard people, Ivy. There are plenty of abhorrent people in the world who we prop up and the Russians are nowhere near as bad.

I don't know what you mean by "going all soft" on this subject, CID. I disagree with several points that you make, but I'll keep it respectful. Yeltsin may have been a corrupt buffoon, but he was a long-time CCCP member and Order of Lenin winner who named -- you guessed it -- Putin as his desired successor. While several former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO, not a single former Soviet republic has come on board, except the Baltic States -- where Russians are ethnic minorities. Most of those former republics are thugocracies themselves, still within the Russian geopolitical orbit. While you cite pop culture and blue jeans as optimistic signs for a future rapprochement with Russia, you don't address my point (made in another post) about a fundamental cultural difference: the historical weakness of private property rights in Russia. Centuries of serfdom are difficult to overcome. Richard Pipes cited that weakness as one factor in the Bolsheviks' rise to power, and it has hampered Russian economic development to this day. Outside of the energy sector, where Russia benefits from an abundance of natural resources, I can't think of a single business segment where Russia has prospered since 1990. Given the shrinking Russian population and its limited purchasing power, why would US manufacturing (or tech, for that matter) companies flock to relocate there?

In sum, I'm fundamentally more skeptical about long-term Russia-US relations than you are. I'm also not sanguine about teaming up with Russia against China, although there have been certain tensions between Russia and China in the energy and weapons sectors. Recall the 2001 "friendship treaty" between Russia and China, raised by China just last year in the escalating tensions about the South China Sea. I will agree with you and Cluck that meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations should be avoided where possible. Peace, out.

Ivy, it is very strange that you think that relocating American businesses to Russia, and Russian private property rights, as the important...errr...cultural...factors in improving relations.

When did Poland have fantastic private property rights? Saudi Arabia? Heck, the Americas were settled, not so long ago, by the edicts from European royalty, who doled out property to their politically connected friends (does the name William Penn mean anything to you)? And speaking of property rights, America isn't that far removed from slavery.

Yes, we've come a long way...but let's not pretend we've been angels on that path.

My mother traveled to Russia for three weeks and found the people there very friendly. Now, her group was in tourist areas, but she was surprised by their knowledge of history and the breadth of their conversations. It was much more open than she expected it to be. Their connection to Europe is real. Sure, they were taken on a different path by their leaders...but they are little different from us. Unlike Muslins, or folks from other cultures, if you took a poll, you would not have most Russians saying people should die or burn at the stake because they insult Mohammed/Jesus/or women's rights.

The real problem is that the entrenched Russia politcal/business elite are a bit more ruthless than ours. But, to be fair, they watch the West try to steal their markets and overthrow, sometimes by violence, their natural allies. Yes, despite your reluctance to publicly acknowledge what we, as a government, and as individuals, do kill people to get our way. And not on a small scale. All in the name of democrac...wait...I still can't finish writing something like that without laughing.

We threaten, maim, murder, and torture people to get our way. We have done those things, and we still do. The Banana Republics weren't named for their generous public food distribution drives for their countries' people. We actively support, and maintain, governments that make Russia look like choir boys.

So don't toss out some idea that we could not get along with the Russians when we are in bed with many different cultures and despots around the world. The only reason we don't have better relations with Russia is that our business leaders don't like the fact that the Russian leadership won't let us walk all over them...they like their control. And there is the little profitability matter of propping up the idea that there is a big, bad, enemy out there.

The Russian people, however, if given the chance, would warm up to us rather quickly.

[Ivytalk]

With all due respect to my CS bruthas CID and Cluck, we're talking past each other on this. I never said that Russia has to be our friend, and I stand by my historical arguments. CID is mad at NATO for tolerating "freeloaders" -- a point I never argued. If they don't pay up, boot 'em out, or devote fewer US resources to protecting the deadbeats. CID also defines the term "ally" in the Kissingerian/Palmerstonian sense of common interests, as opposed to treaties. Again, it's a straw man argument. My point is that we have every reason to be skeptical of Russian goodwill going forward. I'm not saying that we need to bomb them back to the Stone Age, or kill all their leaders, much less "antagonize" them. It will be interesting to see how long the Trump-Putin bromance lasts.

As for Cluck, I'm happy that his mom had a nice vacation in Russia. My wife and I spent a long weekend in St. Petersburg, and our experience with the Russians was totally different: fearful people who made no effort to be friendly. Cluck has an almost Obama-like tendency to tear down America's business and political motives at every turn -- that "moral equivalence" thing again, everybody does it, we're no better diplomatically or otherwise than any other state actor -- and he apparently sees all US corporations as United Fruit in Honduras. Again, it's a cynical argument that avoids my main point: we need to be wary when dealing with Russia.

[CID1990]

With all due respect to my CS bruthas CID and Cluck, we're talking past each other on this. I never said that Russia has to be our friend, and I stand by my historical arguments. CID is mad at NATO for tolerating "freeloaders" -- a point I never argued. If they don't pay up, boot 'em out, or devote fewer US resources to protecting the deadbeats. CID also defines the term "ally" in the Kissingerian/Palmerstonian sense of common interests, as opposed to treaties. Again, it's a straw man argument. My point is that we have every reason to be skeptical of Russian goodwill going forward. I'm not saying that we need to bomb them back to the Stone Age, or kill all their leaders, much less "antagonize" them. It will be interesting to see how long the Trump-Putin bromance lasts.

As for Cluck, I'm happy that his mom had a nice vacation in Russia. My wife and I spent a long weekend in St. Petersburg, and our experience with the Russians was totally different: fearful people who made no effort to be friendly. Cluck has an almost Obama-like tendency to tear down America's business and political motives at every turn -- that "moral equivalence" thing again, everybody does it, we're no better diplomatically or otherwise than any other state actor -- and he apparently sees all US corporations as United Fruit in Honduras. Again, it's a cynical argument that avoids my main point: we need to be wary when dealing with Russia.

Of course we need to be wary of dealing with Russia- they're ruthless and they act totally in their own interests.

That's where I see a lot of common ground between us-

For example, I think NATO is no longer necessary. It serves no other purpose than to drain our coffers in return for countries that don't need the protection. Never mind that NATO is the granddaddy of all entangling alliances.

Russia behaves badly against NATO interests because they are afraid of what NATO could become if one day it comes under the sway of someone who sees Russia as an obstacle to hegemony on the mainland.

Scaling back NATO with an eye to eventually dissolving it would benefit both the US and Russia. We don't have to let them take our daughters to the prom, Ivy.. we just need to stop poking the trailer trash down the road in the eye. We CAN get along

[Ivytalk]

With all due respect to my CS bruthas CID and Cluck, we're talking past each other on this. I never said that Russia has to be our friend, and I stand by my historical arguments. CID is mad at NATO for tolerating "freeloaders" -- a point I never argued. If they don't pay up, boot 'em out, or devote fewer US resources to protecting the deadbeats. CID also defines the term "ally" in the Kissingerian/Palmerstonian sense of common interests, as opposed to treaties. Again, it's a straw man argument. My point is that we have every reason to be skeptical of Russian goodwill going forward. I'm not saying that we need to bomb them back to the Stone Age, or kill all their leaders, much less "antagonize" them. It will be interesting to see how long the Trump-Putin bromance lasts.

As for Cluck, I'm happy that his mom had a nice vacation in Russia. My wife and I spent a long weekend in St. Petersburg, and our experience with the Russians was totally different: fearful people who made no effort to be friendly. Cluck has an almost Obama-like tendency to tear down America's business and political motives at every turn -- that "moral equivalence" thing again, everybody does it, we're no better diplomatically or otherwise than any other state actor -- and he apparently sees all US corporations as United Fruit in Honduras. Again, it's a cynical argument that avoids my main point: we need to be wary when dealing with Russia.

Of course we need to be wary of dealing with Russia- they're ruthless and they act totally in their own interests.

That's where I see a lot of common ground between us-

For example, I think NATO is no longer necessary. It serves no other purpose than to drain our coffers in return for countries that don't need the protection. Never mind that NATO is the granddaddy of all entangling alliances.

Russia behaves badly against NATO interests because they are afraid of what NATO could become if one day it comes under the sway of someone who sees Russia as an obstacle to hegemony on the mainland.

Scaling back NATO with an eye to eventually dissolving it would benefit both the US and Russia. We don't have to let them take our daughters to the prom, Ivy.. we just need to stop poking the trailer trash down the road in the eye. We CAN get along

CID, if some bad boy invaded Slovenia because it hated Melania Trump, would Article 5 be invoked?

I guess the biggest risk nowadays is if Russia invades one of the Baltic States on one pretext or another. I wonder whether Putin, "great Russian" that he is, would push the NATO envelope that far.

[houndawg]

Of course we need to be wary of dealing with Russia- they're ruthless and they act totally in their own interests.

That's where I see a lot of common ground between us-

For example, I think NATO is no longer necessary. It serves no other purpose than to drain our coffers in return for countries that don't need the protection. Never mind that NATO is the granddaddy of all entangling alliances.

Russia behaves badly against NATO interests because they are afraid of what NATO could become if one day it comes under the sway of someone who sees Russia as an obstacle to hegemony on the mainland.

Scaling back NATO with an eye to eventually dissolving it would benefit both the US and Russia. We don't have to let them take our daughters to the prom, Ivy.. we just need to stop poking the trailer trash down the road in the eye. We CAN get along

CID, if some bad boy invaded Slovenia because it hated Melania Trump, would Article 5 be invoked?

I guess the biggest risk nowadays is if Russia invades one of the Baltic States on one pretext or another. I wonder whether Putin, "great Russian" that he is, would push the NATO envelope that far.

They could take them before lunch and NATO won't do shit.

[CID1990]

Of course we need to be wary of dealing with Russia- they're ruthless and they act totally in their own interests.

That's where I see a lot of common ground between us-

For example, I think NATO is no longer necessary. It serves no other purpose than to drain our coffers in return for countries that don't need the protection. Never mind that NATO is the granddaddy of all entangling alliances.

Russia behaves badly against NATO interests because they are afraid of what NATO could become if one day it comes under the sway of someone who sees Russia as an obstacle to hegemony on the mainland.

Scaling back NATO with an eye to eventually dissolving it would benefit both the US and Russia. We don't have to let them take our daughters to the prom, Ivy.. we just need to stop poking the trailer trash down the road in the eye. We CAN get along

CID, if some bad boy invaded Slovenia because it hated Melania Trump, would Article 5 be invoked?

I guess the biggest risk nowadays is if Russia invades one of the Baltic States on one pretext or another. I wonder whether Putin, "great Russian" that he is, would push the NATO envelope that far.

Aaaaaannnnd you just hit the dirty little secret

Article 5 would not be invoked in this age, unless Russia rolled tanks through Poland and CZ and continued on to Berlin- and then only maybe. We aren't going to war over the Baltic States. And the main reason for that is that most of the other NATO countries are paper tigers. We'd shoulder five times the load we did in WWII.

That's reason number 6.93 why NATO has outlived its purpose and we should dissolve the pact. The whole idea behind NATO was that an aggressive state communist regime was bent on taking over the entire EU mainland. That stopped being the case a long time ago.

[YoUDeeMan]

CID, if some bad boy invaded Slovenia because it hated Melania Trump, would Article 5 be invoked?

I guess the biggest risk nowadays is if Russia invades one of the Baltic States on one pretext or another. I wonder whether Putin, "great Russian" that he is, would push the NATO envelope that far.

Aaaaaannnnd you just hit the dirty little secret

Article 5 would not be invoked in this age, unless Russia rolled tanks through Poland and CZ and continued on to Berlin- and then only maybe. We aren't going to war over the Baltic States. And the main reason for that is that most of the other NATO countries are paper tigers. We'd shoulder five times the load we did in WWII.

That's reason number 6.93 why NATO has outlived its purpose and we should dissolve the pact. The whole idea behind NATO was that an aggressive state communist regime was bent on taking over the entire EU mainland. That stopped being the case a long time ago.

The problem is that people like McCain are still living in the cold war mentality.

[BDKJMU]

MH17 crash murder suspects absent as trial kicks off with reading nearly 300 names of those killed

The names of the 298 people killed in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine were read aloud Monday by a Dutch prosecutor as a trial kicked off against three Russians and one Ukrainian allegedly responsible for having the commercial passenger plane shot out of the sky.

After a painstaking investigation into the crash, an international team of investigators and prosecutors last year identified four suspects: Russians Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Oleg Pulatov as well as Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko.

All four men were senior commanders in the Russian-backed Donetsk People’s Republic, a separatist group that was fighting Ukrainian forces at the time of the crash, according to The Guardian. Though they were not extradited from Russia or Ukraine, the trial against them began in their absence Monday at the Judicial Complex Schiphol, located near the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in the Netherlands, where Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 or MH17, took off on July 17, 2014.

The Boeing 777 bound for the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur was shot down over a conflict zone in eastern Ukraine by a Buk anti-aircraft missile, killing everyone on board. The victims were from 17 different countries. Most – 198 people – were Dutch. Malaysians, Australians, Indonesians and British citizens also perished....

https://www.foxnews.com/world/malaysia- ... cts-absent

[93henfan]

MH17 crash murder suspects absent as trial kicks off with reading nearly 300 names of those killed

The names of the 298 people killed in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine were read aloud Monday by a Dutch prosecutor as a trial kicked off against three Russians and one Ukrainian allegedly responsible for having the commercial passenger plane shot out of the sky.

After a painstaking investigation into the crash, an international team of investigators and prosecutors last year identified four suspects: Russians Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinskiy and Oleg Pulatov as well as Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko.

All four men were senior commanders in the Russian-backed Donetsk People’s Republic, a separatist group that was fighting Ukrainian forces at the time of the crash, according to The Guardian. Though they were not extradited from Russia or Ukraine, the trial against them began in their absence Monday at the Judicial Complex Schiphol, located near the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in the Netherlands, where Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 or MH17, took off on July 17, 2014.

The Boeing 777 bound for the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur was shot down over a conflict zone in eastern Ukraine by a Buk anti-aircraft missile, killing everyone on board. The victims were from 17 different countries. Most – 198 people – were Dutch. Malaysians, Australians, Indonesians and British citizens also perished....

https://www.foxnews.com/world/malaysia- ... cts-absent

60 Minutes did a segment on this several weeks ago. The case against the Russians is a slam-dunk (including before and after photo evidence of the launch vehicle with one rocket missing just after), but Putin will obviously never allow them to be extradited.

If I was the leader of The Netherlands, I'd have them all assassinated. But they're pussies, so they won't.

[89Hen]

Damn, I just did a google search on the flight and a bunch of body pictures came up. Never seen a plane crash where there were bodies still in tact buckled in their seats. These folks must have fallen to their death while still alive. I can't unsee it.

[BDKJMU]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/malaysia- ... cts-absent

60 Minutes did a segment on this several weeks ago. The case against the Russians is a slam-dunk (including before and after photo evidence of the launch vehicle with one rocket missing just after), but Putin will obviously never allow them to be extradited.

If I was the leader of The Netherlands, I'd have them all assassinated. But they're pussies, so they won't.

You’d think to Putin these guys are a bunch of no bodies. Putin wouldn’t mind sacrificing a few mid level officers to improve his standing & maybe gain leverage with West.

[Ivytalk]

60 Minutes did a segment on this several weeks ago. The case against the Russians is a slam-dunk (including before and after photo evidence of the launch vehicle with one rocket missing just after), but Putin will obviously never allow them to be extradited.

If I was the leader of The Netherlands, I'd have them all assassinated. But they're pussies, so they won't.

You’d think to Putin these guys are a bunch of no bodies. Putin wouldn’t mind sacrificing a few mid level officers to improve his standing & maybe gain leverage with West.

Putin is the same as his butt-buddy Trump: will never admit a mistake, no matter what it is. This will never happen. He has all the “leverage” he needs.

[UNI88]

You’d think to Putin these guys are a bunch of no bodies. Putin wouldn’t mind sacrificing a few mid level officers to improve his standing & maybe gain leverage with West.

Putin is the same as his butt-buddy Trump: will never admit a mistake, no matter what it is. This will never happen. He has all the “leverage” he needs.

Plus if he throws them to the wolves, they might spill the beans on him.

Radiation poisoning would seem like an appropriate "accident" for them.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk