Brexit Boris joins in the sabre rattling.
https://www.rt.com/uk/362606-boris-military-options-syria/
https://www.rt.com/uk/362606-boris-military-options-syria/
Are Russia preparing for WW3?
- Thread starter MoBeats
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Why would Russians want trump?
Sorry for the late response.
On your first point, I don't think the US genuinely supports the Kurds, doing so would put them at odds with their Turkish NATO allies, who are now actively hindering Kurdish gains by bombing their position in Northern Syria. Your proposal to back a Kurdish-led offensive against ISIS is a valiant one, but as far as regional aspirations go, I'd wager the US cares more about keeping the Turks happy than to please the Kurds and eradicate ISIS.As for these mythical 'secular Arabs' - can you name any of the organisations?
As for your second point, I very much doubt it.
didnt clinton say she was going to arm the kurds in the last debate - yeah as you say I cant see that going down well with the turks
edit - yeah already saying they are not happy
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/turkey-...-syria-syrian-kurdish-militia-pkk-terrorists/
Because Hilary wants war.
She can say what she wants but the reality on the ground is it won't happen.
There's historical precedence to this too, the Americans have always claimed they'd back the Kurds only to go missing when help was most needed. See the first gulf war when the CIA had asked the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and were promised support, only to backtrack and leave them at the mercy of Saddam's brutal retaliation.
You're adorable. Which war exactly?
Pretty easy. So far, Trump seems to promote a isloationist strategy (which would obviously play into Putins hand). Even if he should not stay at this stance when in office, his obvious deficiencies would weaken the position of the US around the world and most specifically amongst it allies.
For Putin, Trump is a classical case of divide et impera. He must look like a divine present to the Russians. An offensive, unfit, obvisously clueless isolationist president would be the best thing happening to them since the the winter of 1812.
Last edited:
I must admit I don't really follow any of this, but why would she want that?
Apparently Trump said that it'd be great if US and Russia get along like friends. In debate?
EDIT: (found one tweet)
feckin' orange hippy.
EDIT: (found one tweet)
feckin' orange hippy.
Ignore him. His level of understanding of politics in general and global security policy in particular are equal to that of an 12 year old. Sadly, that's neither an exaggeration nor can I actually assume he's older than that.
Fair enough, so in your opinion is war really a believable option? Can't see how anybody would profit from a WW3 really, especially how well connected the world is these days.
Come on Rams, surely someone wouldn't just make ludicrous rubbish up merely for attention?
No. And it hasn't been since Churchills Operation Unthinkable in 1945.
We haven't had a war outside of secondary or tertiary territory since the end of WW2.
THere are several reasons for that, some underlying, some more at the surface.
First of all, lets look at war as an concept and in history.
In theory, all wars between countries can divided into two categories: Some broke out because one side thought they had something to gain, other because one side thought they had nothing to lose (anymore). Ignore religion, even those belong to one of either category.
As you correctly said, the world is so connected these days, that category two is pretty much out of the equasion. At least for developed countries.
So, category one then. What's there to gain in a war? Historically territory, resources and manpower. The last one is pretty much obsolote these days, territory as such even more so. Resources? Well, that's something else. We have seen wars for resources in secondary or tertiary territory (outside the developed countries/in africa), some even with some kind of involvment of our superpowers. So, why has there been no outright war in primary territory since WW2?
The answer is simple. The answer is MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction. For the developed countries, the assurance that an outright war always implies the possibility of complete destruction (even if winning the conventional war) has always outweighed any possible gains. It's a risk not worth taking and the reason the cold war is called the "cold" war.
We have seen, of course, deputy wars. Vietnam in the 70's, Syria today. Belligerents thought (or are thinking) there is something to gain over their opponents there. In Vietnam, it was at first the US trying to secure influence in south east asia, after the soviets gained influence. The soviets then intervened because they thought they could gain supremacy in the region, the US stayed because they wanted to counter that. After all, it was a pointless war. The USSR never gained what was sought, the US could've just ignored Vietnam because it was never as influental as some made it out to be. But well.
So, so much for the theory.
But today, why isn't it an option, even something like Vietnam?
Because Russia is still and will remain weak. MAD still functions because they kept their nuclear weapons, but both in hard and soft powers, Russia is no match for a United Europe even. A strong translatlantic partnership is Putins nightmare (that's why they want Trump...). So, for now, Russia doesn't have the power to actually challenge anyone, which also means there is no need for the US to counter anything. Crimea was significant because it was the first "war" for territory in Europe since 1945, but it also was a marvelous blck flag operation for a region nobody really cared about. But Putin knows he can't pull that trick again. So he's down to things like Syria and the concept of divide et impera (Trump! And of course, his financing of various right wing parties in Europe) to relatively upping his soft and hard powers by undermining those of others. That's his game, not actual war.
Last edited:
He isn't trolling you. He just thinks you believe any old rubbish you read on the internet.
Because they have found a rational intelligent President like Obama a right pain in the arse.
I think you live in a bit of a fantasy land.
I actually just posted a little essay to underline why your opinion is total bullshit.
Nothing like that came from you and I doub't you are capable of doing so.
After reading your posts the last few weeks, I have to either doubt your intelligence, education or age. Take a pick! Combinations are allowed.
I wouldn't subscribe to the school of thought of Hillary actively seeking war, but I don't think its entirely far-fetched to suggest that we're more likely heading that way with her in the whitehouse than her moronic presidential opponent.
Let's not forget, she voted in favour of military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria - thankfully the latter never materialised beyond covert involvement thanks to Obama's senses, but the disasters of the previous three are enough to garner concern (remember her chilling "We came we saw he died"?). She's also pretty much in cahoots with all the military industrial complex and has even more or less involved Henry feckin Kissinger as one of her mentors, so she's not exactly lacking in hawkish credentials.
That's not to say we should start the countdown to WW3, but compared to Trump's more isolationist stance and strange bromance with Putin, I honestly think Hillary's the bigger threat in gravely provoking the Russians, especially with somewhere like Syria.
Let's not forget, she voted in favour of military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria - thankfully the latter never materialised beyond covert involvement thanks to Obama's senses, but the disasters of the previous three are enough to garner concern (remember her chilling "We came we saw he died"?). She's also pretty much in cahoots with all the military industrial complex and has even more or less involved Henry feckin Kissinger as one of her mentors, so she's not exactly lacking in hawkish credentials.
That's not to say we should start the countdown to WW3, but compared to Trump's more isolationist stance and strange bromance with Putin, I honestly think Hillary's the bigger threat in gravely provoking the Russians, especially with somewhere like Syria.
You're crediting Trump with having a consistent, coherent 'stance' where there is none. He himself has claimed to want to have an 'unpredictable' foreign policy, which is his way of covering the fact that he knows feck all about how he might react in certain situations. But everything we know about his temperament and what he's said about things like nuclear weapons suggests he's in awe of military power.
What did you think of his comment about blowing the Iranian navy out of the water?
Comparing her to Trump is not useful since he will not win. She is more hawkish and pragmatic compared to the idealistic Obama, but I don't think that will manifest itself in Syria as much as Iraq. And perhaps elsewhere...
You don't understand what I mean.
To understand how politics and international relations work, in order to make an analysis of current political events and to be able to make an more informed & balanced opinion I would recommend anyone to read well researched history books written by qualified historians.
War is always a possibility, it's one of the few things mankind are really consistently good at.
I'm trying to give you some well meant advice actually. I know it might sound patronising, but you can do a lot worse than adhering to the advice.
Either debate or feck off. Don't talk down to me because I don't subscribe to the mainstream.
Hilary has said she won't curtail to Iran, Russia, Korea. Though the sources may stretch the line doesn't mean there's no truth in it.
I understand exactly what you mean. It was more of a response to those that claim all the media is biased and take one side or the other based on emotion.
I probably didn't phrase the previous post as efficiently as I wanted.
How is he meant to debate with you, I mean really?
Most of your posts in your thread are just links with no narrative or explanation as to why you are posting them, the few that are accompanied by text are just direct quotes from said link!
I know I know, you posted a couple of videos and likely no one watched them, given you didn't say what they were or why you posted them I wouldn't take it personally though
When people try to engage with you, you just mock them for reading mainstream media or in one utterly laughable case you critise someone for bringing history into it!
How do you debate with someone with the everythings a conspiracy, your life's a lie attitude?
Don't answer that by the way it's rhetoric.
A convenient argument to fall back on isn't it, the world's a lie and everything you believe is made up, the world's run by three people...in a cave...even though they control all the world's money..etc etc
Don't get me wrong not everyone who likes the conspiracy angle gets on this way, but you take the cake, and then to tell someone to debate or feck off, struth
But in all seriousness please continue, your ignorance to what anyone else says is entertaining if nothing else
Last edited:
Great article - well worth a read.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-13/treat-russia-like-the-international-poison-it-is
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-13/treat-russia-like-the-international-poison-it-is
FFS. You can not say they did not try. A pics of US officials in Moscow, so what? Does this mean that the Russian government are in the wrong because they do not support the decisions of US/NATO? Treat Russia like international poison? It is not even the Russian government, it is just Russia, eh? Well if Russia is international poison, then the US is a universal butcher/killer/terrorist invading countries, overthrowing governments, killing millions and ruining country after country. Never supported what Putin did in Ukraine or Crimea, but US government is much much bigger evil than their Russian counterparts imo.
Although the article is clearly written from a western perspective, it makes a lot of good points. If we frame out Vietnam, Pinochet and other things prior to 1980, the US has largely played according to the rules set by the international community, with the obvious exception of Iraq. The west tried to integrate Russia into that framework and failed. You can argue with Afghanisthan, but at least is was done with good intentions and international agreement. Way to hell is paved with good intentions and all that ...
Russia under Putin actively tries to undermine the framework that has brought us the most peaceful decades in recent human history. The importance of what Putin did in Crimea is understated. He broke a contract regarding nuclear arms control (Budapest Memorandum, granting Ukraine territorial integrity for giving up its nuclear weapons, 1994)w hich will weaken the western stance on proliferation for the foreseeable future and he was the first to take territory for his country by force in Europe since 1945. Its the equivalent of the US annexing Nova Scotia really.
As long as he doesn't want to play by the rules, he should be treated as the broken, regional power he is. There is no reason to give in to his divide et impera approach. Unfortunately, too many people fall for this.
Mrs. Stein with some thoughts...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html
Tried to get into this link and my VS didn't like it so tried to read about it in RT and again my VS threw out a warning. Doesn't usually....I read both the Guardian and RT on a daily basis. What's going on?
She's right.
Absolutely.
It's unfortunate that she's up against a car crash of a candidate, gives a dangerous character like her a free path to the white house.
Genuinely curious, what were these good intentions?
In order to understand the current political climate I think it's important to ask ourselves how we arrived here and what are the causes. In a nut shell, I personally think that the power vacuum caused after the fall of the iron curtain is main the cause. Russia's influence dwindled after the fall. Russia is backing the Assad regime to protect their dwindling their influences in the Middle East. China has been backing the Russians in order to facilitate their ambitions and influence in the Southern and Eastern China seas as well as providing a counterweight to US influences. I do not think that it's either Russia's or China's intention or interest to start a full blown conflict with the US and its NATO allies. The US, on the other hand, proclaimed themselves as policeman of the World after the fall of the iron curtain, but have struggled to come to terms with this role. In order to protect their influences in the Middle East the US have taken actions, which in retrospect have turned out to be counterproductive. It is important to remember, however, that neither Syria nor the South China seas are critical to US interests. Nor are there ideological conflicts such as there were during the Cold War. Although the current situation is dangerous and requires delicate diplomacy before it escalates any further, I don't think that we need to build those bomb shelters just yet.
Getting ganged up on in here.
I'll change my approach.
Be nice guys.
I'll change my approach.
Be nice guys.
A pretty weak case from Stein. In her world view the US would disengage from its forward leaning international posture, which would only leave a void that will be filled by the next country on the pecking order - in this case Russia and China. Its not surprising that she is fearmongering for attention given her lack of relevance throughout this race and the fact that Sanders supporters never did flock to her as some expected.
I watched the videos. I also think it's harsh to call him a conspiracy theorist...he's attempting, I think, to point out that the narrative presented around Syria in our media is partizan and that the US are not guilt free in this particular conflict. This is not the same as suggesting the world is run by three people in a cave at all.
Not everyone can make their points as clearly and eloquently as your several paragraph long ad hominen demolition job...but I'm not sure his points have been made in a fashion that is clumsier than, say, Raoul's dictator apoligist posts of a couple of pages ago.
That's fine except we have had several epic (some ongoing) Syria-related threads in the CE forum in which plenty of posters have made these points repeatedly without spamming the threads with wacky (sometimes racist) 'alternative' news sources and claiming some kind kind of special access to the 'truth' unavailable to the rest of us.