Would you take 8 more years of Obama?

Touche.

 

This all stems from greed from our pentagon, not wanting to share influence but instead wanting all of the influence to itself. They say those who forget history, are bound to repeat it and I guess in this case, it's true. If Hillary is elected, they can do what they wish.. Pentagon and all. But should it escalate, and should we lose. I will stand there and say "This is why superpowers shouldn't go to war."

The Germans made the mistake of supporting Hitler, come high waters. I'm not making that mistake. If I see a bad geopolitical move I'm calling it out. We got bigger fish to fry than containing Russia.

 

Lol it absolutely does not make us look like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Financially and militarily, it doesn't change anything. We're still built in on every region. You keep ignoring what I say about how we deal with China. I just want that same relationship. You're getting all defensive because you're scared that without the US being your big brother and allowing you to chip at Putin, you think you'd be in danger. Instead of looking at this the right way, you're looking at this the incredibly stupid way.

Extend a hand to Russia. Give them incentives to adhere to NATO-ish behavior. Maybe even hammer out details, as AN said earlier, to bring them in. Build a partnership, not an enemy. Thus, they'd be even more helpful to European allies.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol it absolutely does not make us look like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Financially and militarily, it doesn't change anything. We're still built in on every region. You keep ignoring what I say about how we deal with China. I just want that same relationship. You're getting all defensive because you're scared that without the US being your big brother and allowing you to chip at Putin, you think you'd be in danger. Instead of looking at this the right way, you're looking at this the incredibly stupid way.

Extend a hand to Russia. Give them incentives to adhere to NATO-ish behavior. Maybe even hammer out details, as AN said earlier, to bring them in. Build a partnership, not an enemy. Thus, they'd be even more helpful to European allies.

 

Yes it absolutely does make you look like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Stop ignoring and denying what I am saying.

*You have already commited
*Russia has mocked you
*you need to do something or you will look like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

WHAT is it you do not udnerstand? and stop changing the subject to europe. This isn't about me being a european. I'm writing from an american perspective.

 

They're blatantly disregarding us because we're still sanctioning them. My point is that the US need not give up ANY geopolitical positioning but allow Russia to be more involved. We're not the world's police. I know Europe is terrified of Russia, but you just need to get over that. They aren't a threat to anyone ESPECIALLY if we get them heavily involved in NATO and/or allied trade.

What Russia does or doesn't think about the US right now is irrelevant. We're sanctioning them to death for something that's over. I'm sick of arguing with you about this. You keep IGNORING intentionally our relationship with China. It's the exact same with Russia- but one major difference. We're stacking every line with trade with China, and sanctioning Russia. Russia wants a piece of the pie, I want a better economy, and Europe is acting like a little (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

Our Swedish friend here thinks that Russia is out to get everyone. Though Putin is a little prick, Russia really isn't a threat. Especially if we lift those outdated sanctions.

 

They disregarded you prior to the sanctions.

It's not about that. It's about the USA drawing lines but not backing them up.

*sigh* stop that...

lolwut mate? involved in nato? that's ludicruous. how about you take a look at history: Before all this mess with ukraine started, we traded with russia and nato openly pondered if it had a reason to still exist. But then russia starts to re-arm, and then invades countries. Russia does NOT want to just be friends, don't you understand that? What you are talking about.. we used to have that. Russia threw it away.

it's the whole world, not just russia, that will think you are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). and yes it does matter. don't you know anything about deterrance?..

I told you: it's on-going.

likewise, you just keep denying reality, and you don't know what has actually happened. neither the history of western-russian relations, or about in ukraine, as well as proposing utterly nonsensical stuff like russia joining nato.

Could be because China is actually rich, and Russia is poor as shiet. But also, China hasn't done what Russia is doing. But you can be quite sure that China is watching what happens between Russia and the west.. if China sees that Russia can get away with what they've done.. well, I think the chinese might just try something too. What china sees is that the USA is all talk but doesn't back it up. Asian countries see that the US doesn't help their friends, so maybe they will turn to china or russia instead.

 

You keep saying I'm "denying reality". Do you have some kind of magic time machine? You can't know what reality is until we let Russia pick themselves up from this economic crash. Just like after the Korean war, we had to make a decision with our then enemy China: How do we go moving forward (mind you, we're not even at war with Russia through any of this)? Russia can be very rich and also a major ally on Islamic extremism. Since I know for a fact you've never been in the military, you don't actually know just how important Russia COULD be for us on those fronts. You're very dismissive of the idea that we can make money off of Russia. That's exactly what shows all of us on this thread that you are ignorant. The whole world would MUCH rather a friendly US/Russia than enemies. Why? Because China, Japan, Brazil, Germany, Korea....all major economies, all rely on a stronger US economy.

This all stems down to YOU and how scared Europe is of a US/Russia business friendship.

 

Well, being fair. If the US were to ever swing eastward, Europe would lose its presumed protective bloc(and seeing your comments and mine, I believe Mr.Swedish is now considering that the US just might not be a protective bloc for the foreseeable future, even if Trump loses. They'll get four years of Hillary and a lot depends on how the world looks then.)

If it's fine and peachy, hey they were right and the result of being right is keeping power. But if they were wrong, citizens in Europe, Eurasia and the United States will all suffer, Hillary's presidency will be a disastrous footnote and the 2020 elections will make this one look innocent by comparison.

I don't necessarily want to swing Eastward. I'd like to have my cake and eat it too. I'd like to have Europe and Russia on agreeable terms. And if that can't happen, I would look to the East and try to make something happen with Russia and China. There's certain diplomatic moves that could be had, that if it works, we can create a new bloc with Russia-China-Japan-US. It would basically involve us untangling the mess that surrounds WWII as well as the historic Chinese-Japanese feud.

If we can work on that, then Eurasia and Asia would be within our sphere of influence and then Europe can go kick itself in the rear. Europe has a choice. To maintain the alliance, we need peace in Europe. If not, we're looking elsewhere. It's a crucial decision for Europeans to make.

Because until Russia is posing a major military threat(and by major, we mean an actual invasion, not a skirmish), Europe's crying is not going to get Americans into a third European theater. What Europeans neglect is that we started the Iraq war. Most Americans are more conscious than ever before.

No to war with Russia. No to even being involved with Syria. It's not in US interest.

 

Here's the problem, Hillary wants to hold those two super powers (Russia and China) "accountable". For what? Who knows. I do know that we have a limited time to end this (*)(*)(*)(*) with Russia and boost the hell out of our trade.

 

I voted "neither", but if my only choices were Obama or Hillary, I'd vote Obama.

 

yes, you are denying reality. In addition, you have a very wierd, and fallacious understanding of the world. The way you speak of Russia shows that you are completely clueless about the actual economic and military situations of Russia and the west. yes, I am VERY dismissive of the idea that you can make money off russia, and that russia "can be very rich". You simply don't know what you're talking about. Russia is poor as shiet, they have a third world economy, they're smaller than italy, and all projections show everything will just get worse for them. The only thing you can get from russia is energy, and the US already gets that from the ME and other places anyways. From the purely american PoW, Russia is completely irrelevant. It is only to europe and China that is has some value as a gas station. You trade more with switzerland than you do with Russia. You are completely clueless about how irrelevant Russia is to the USA, and yet you always talk of how great an ally they would be.

no, it seriously does not. You need to stop with these infantile personal accusations. it's irrelevant and ridiculous.

No, I told you (plural) already: I am speaking from an american perspective. Unlike others, I am capable of remaining neutral with respect to my personal stakes. If you want to know my personal opinion as a european, it is that europe should rearm so we don't have to care about what either russia or the US does.

As for the rest of your post... I can only urge you, as I have said to armySoldier, to actually go look up the facts. Because, with facts in mind, what you are saying is ridiculous. You are suggesting throwing away europe, which shares you ideology, which is the world's biggest economy, potentially 2nd most powerful military, in favour of russia who are poor and weak and who will be irrelevant in a few decades. That is just pure nonsense.

and also, you don't seem to understand what allies are for. Allies are meant to be against others. If you form a super alliance of russia-china-usa, who are you allied against? It doesn't make any sense. Don't you realise that the reason for the current alliances is against russia and china? if you are friends with everyone you are friends with no one. You can either keep your current allies -which together represent maybe around 75% of world gdp and miltiary spending (USA included)- or you can abandon them in favour of alliance with russia and china -together being perhaps 45% (usa included). That's a very stupid thing to do. Sorry for the language, but it's a very bad idea.

 

All we see out of this long, blabbering, post is "I'm super scared of Russia". Putin's a punk, but he's also greedy. Easy to manipulate.

 

the President was not like W bush, he went the other way and made spending on health care instead of wars.

both were bad though because they caused too much debt that was not necessary, only made their rich friends richer.

clinton will be more like the President than W bush, more spending that makes rich people richer at home rather than with wars abroad. though since she is more conservative, we can expect more defense spending for wars, but not as much as a republican like bush.

 

Actually, Obama took pride in following many of Bush's policies. He uses that as his argument to conservatives that say he's a bad President. You're one of the few people on planet earth that disagree with Obama on that.

 

i don't think mother Russia will let sweden or any of europe 'rearm'. the economic one world order must include Russia not be allied against it, because it has the force to take what it wants if backed into a corner economically.

it is in the interests of America to economically align with Russia since might makes right, and they are the only military power that truly serves as a check and balance to America in the world.

Russia does not just have to be a 'gas station', they are very smart people with a lot of potential, which is why they are the military power of europe.

 

Mr. Swedish Guy is just the mouthpiece for the pro-war with Russia campaign

 

I don't care if Europe has the bigger GDP. I don't even care if Europe has a more able military(and if so, the continent shouldn't need the US's help). Russia has nukes. The end. That's where the conversation stops for me. If Europe is going to drag me into this, I want to be on the side that professes not to be for it.

Russia isn't countering with its own sanctions. And for all of Europe's crying, the continent is still fairly in tact. "Ooh, but who knows".. Yeah, who knows but for now the continent is alive, well and in your mind thriving. So if you want the US/Europe relationship to continue, all we're asking is a simple thing: Make peace with the Russians, end this madness.

 

the President did continue to violate our individual liberty with continuing W Bush's patriot act, but most Americans are willing to give up their liberty for security unfortunately.

i am just saying the President is different than W bush in the way he made the rich richer.

 

in 2001 many Americans were willing to give up that liberty. Now? Not even close to as many. Especially after all that wikileaks came out.

 

easy to manipulate a kgb agent? jesus.. no, that is certainly not easy. What is easy though, is to beat them in an arms race. if you're looking for easy options, choose that one. But you aren't.. because you have this macho man-crush on putin. it doesn't matter how weak, poor or irrelevant russia is.. because they have putin, and you just love putin.

Really? We are actually, at this very moment, rearming. And what could russia do about it? Invade us? start a trade war? pff

It can include Russia, if russia accepts the rules. Why should we bend over to russian demands when they are weak and poor?

no, they do not.

might does indeed make right, but you don't understand just how weak russia is. Both in potential, and in actual power. fyi, nato, and even the usa alone, dwarfs russia in all regards.

if they are so smart, that must mean its part of their plan that nato heavily rearms, because russia caused that. Is it also part of their plan to get sanctioned by their main trading partner, and send their economy into recession? because they caused that too.

Drop this talk of "europe dragging you into things". ffs, ukraine isn't the the EU. it's on our border, but it's on the border of NATO too, which YOU are the leader of. The USA has been denouncing Russia just as much, if not more, than the EU has.

also, everyone has nukes these days, why do you care that russia has it? are you going to bend over for pakistan also if they come with stupid demands?

Russia IS countering with their own sanctions...

and again, it's actually the US, not the EU, which confronts russia around the world. You're clueless to the actual situation. Half the EU just wants to end the sanctions and continue trading with russia. France, germany, spain, italy.. they don't particularily care about what Russia does. The push for this comes from mainly the USA and UK. How tired am I not of ignorant chauvinist american comments about how europe (not only limited to your comments)???

 

America(by which we should confirm to be the Pentagon) reacts to the political needs of other established governments(and since our present government is left-leaning, it's leaning towards Europe in the latest spat with the Russians.)

Let's discuss NATO, it was once created by President Eisenhower to protect the Eastern European states from Russian/Soviet expansion. We have actually since deferred
and it's someone else who is the secretary-General. All we do, is give the most dues for NATO security operations.

Part of the key deal to taking down the Berlin Wall, in the minds of the Russians is that we would not reproach their borders. You guys have clearly violated that premise. And thus, Russia has responded accordingly.

So this idea that 'Europe just wants to trade with the Russians' and it's the big bad Ruskies is escaping reality. The reality is, Russia perceives a threat from Europe, and Europe perceives a threat from Russia. Only one of these is actually true.

So if your feelings of the situation are correct, it can be answered with one question: What have the Europeans done to deescalate tensions? I know what my Pentagon's doing, and I disagree immensely. But the situation would be on the way to calm with European help.

 

Ah, now you're acting like a baby claiming everyone now loves Putin. This is why no one takes Europe seriously. Good luck stopping the Russians from taking you.

 

Honestly, where do you get your information from? You seem to have gotten the situation with russia completely wrong. I mean, no offense, but you don't know what russia has been doing, what europe has been doing, or even what the USA's been doing.

No, this isn't a partisan issue. GWB condemned russia for attacking georgia, romney suggested russia was the main geopolitical foe, and in the primaries jeb, rubio, kasich, graham, christie.. nearly everyone (except trump ofc) agreed they needed to confront russia. And even with trump, his vp Pence still talks about confronting russia. I want to be clear: your claim is ridiculous, and I have no idea where you got it from.

I suppose you mean western europe, since eastern europe was under the control of the USSR, and they eventually formed the Warzaw pact. The iron curtain went from stettin (germany) to trieste (italy)...

You obviously do not know much about NATO. The "Supreme allied command europe", self-explanatory title, has always been an american. Since the founding, until present. Do you think NATO is some kind of little democracy club where everyone is equal? NO. The US has a special role, a much bigger role. Basically, it's a US run organisation, with certain positions being reserved for americans.

"you guys"?? seriously, what the hell have you been reading? Eastern european countries join nato -which the US runs- and somehow that is "our" fault? Europe doesn't lead NATO, the US does, so don't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing "blame" that on us.

again, you seem to be, no offense, completely clueless. No, Russia is not threatened by Europe. European militaries are mostly defensive. basically, only the UK and France have offensive capabilities, but these are not of any threat to Russia. Europe, or rather eastern europe, is threatened by Russia though, since they have a rather large offensive army.

But who is Russia threatened of? the USA (duh!) of course. It's american troops in eastern europe which bothers russia. it's american missile shields. You can just go listen to Putin himself, he'll tell you it's the americans.

Want to deescalate, calm things down? Sure, just roll over and let putin do what he wants, easy. but no, we are not trying to make things calm, we are trying to stop putin from invading coutries.

and now, a comment about your post in general: You do not know what you are talking about. Not what the GOP says about russia, not how nato works, not the situation between russia, europe, and the USA, not the history of their relations... You seem completely oblivious about russian-american relations. harsh, but it is my honest opinion. However, I have more faith in that you, compared to e.g. armysoldier, is actually open to reason. The facts about this are available for free on the internet. Go read up on the economic situation of Russia. go listen to what diplomats, militarymen, scholars, and politicians say about Russia and the US. And I don't mean on some crappy right wing talk radio, or stupid blog, but on actual forums where these people who actually know what they are talking about meet. listen to speeches/interviews from authors who study these things, and from defense ministers and generals.

edit: and in addition, your ideas that Russia could join NATO, or that the US could join the EU, are to be honest nonsense. If you read up on how nato and eu work, you would understand why.

You've been writing nonsense throughout this whole thread. I write good posts on why you are wrong, and all you can do is spew out two or three juvenile lines. I have no time for you.

 

I don't think I'm wrong, I think the situation has yet to unfold. And I think when the situation does unfold, I will be right to the sad
detriment of many people. But regretfully, I don't have the power to change people's minds or opinions.

 

You are wrong, not about the future which we do not know, but about facts which are already available.