Jump to content


Photo

Russian Nato Political Military Moves


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 12 December 2016 - 1013 AM

Stuart Except once again, it doesn't really make sense. I mean are we really saying we would allow Russia, a country we didn’t trust according to this narrative, to join the G8, but are so militarily scared of them we wont let them join NATO?

 

 

 

Nations that are rivals, and even enemies, trade goods and services.  So coordination of economic policy is naturally more inclusive than the requirements for military alliance.    Russia gets into the G8 way more easily than into NATO.

 

Last week you floated the idea of Russia membership prior to the Baltic States joining in.  Had NATO allowed that to happen around 1991, prior to the entry of the WP members, Russia would then have been in a position to have vetoed any more members joining.  What do you mean, America?  The Baltic States are surrounded by NATO.  There is no reason for them to join NATO?  The other members of the WP and former SU would theoretically have never been able to get into NATO.

 

Ink Russia joining NATO is an oxymoron of such proportions it's paradoxical to even discuss it.

 

 

Right, but it's Stuart's blog, so we're discussing it.  Stuart tends to frame issues to maximize Russian responsibility for everything.   The failure of Russia to join NATO falls in the same pattern.  CNN does the same thing– on CNN everything  questionable the US does on the world stage is either for freedom, or was accidental.  That’s probably why CNN is going crazy on the Russian email hacking right now – it drives the elite nuts that their Machiavellian calculations were exposed for all to see, (I assume CNN itself is smart enough to go with encryption for its internal communications). 

With NATO's responsibility, the pattern tends to be that it can be assigned responsibility for its actions if what it did was morally or legally the correct decision, or if the irresponsible action was well intentioned or misguided.  But never coldly calculating, malicious, duplicitous, or aggressive.  But if NATO had decided in 1991 that Russia would not be allowed to enter NATO, that falls outside all of the "good" possibilities and is more along the lines of the "bad" ones - a realpolitik calculation.   Therefore, that cannot be true, it must be Russia's fault exclusively.


Edited by glenn239, 12 December 2016 - 1018 AM.

  • 0

#22 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 12 December 2016 - 1053 AM

 

Stuart Except once again, it doesn't really make sense. I mean are we really saying we would allow Russia, a country we didn’t trust according to this narrative, to join the G8, but are so militarily scared of them we wont let them join NATO?

 

 

 

Nations that are rivals, and even enemies, trade goods and services.  So coordination of economic policy is naturally more inclusive than the requirements for military alliance.    Russia gets into the G8 way more easily than into NATO.

 

Last week you floated the idea of Russia membership prior to the Baltic States joining in.  Had NATO allowed that to happen around 1991, prior to the entry of the WP members, Russia would then have been in a position to have vetoed any more members joining.  What do you mean, America?  The Baltic States are surrounded by NATO.  There is no reason for them to join NATO?  The other members of the WP and former SU would theoretically have never been able to get into NATO.

 

Ink Russia joining NATO is an oxymoron of such proportions it's paradoxical to even discuss it.

 

 

Right, but it's Stuart's blog, so we're discussing it.  Stuart tends to frame issues to maximize Russian responsibility for everything.   The failure of Russia to join NATO falls in the same pattern.  CNN does the same thing– on CNN everything  questionable the US does on the world stage is either for freedom, or was accidental.  That’s probably why CNN is going crazy on the Russian email hacking right now – it drives the elite nuts that their Machiavellian calculations were exposed for all to see, (I assume CNN itself is smart enough to go with encryption for its internal communications). 

With NATO's responsibility, the pattern tends to be that it can be assigned responsibility for its actions if what it did was morally or legally the correct decision, or if the irresponsible action was well intentioned or misguided.  But never coldly calculating, malicious, duplicitous, or aggressive.  But if NATO had decided in 1991 that Russia would not be allowed to enter NATO, that falls outside all of the "good" possibilities and is more along the lines of the "bad" ones - a realpolitik calculation.   Therefore, that cannot be true, it must be Russia's fault exclusively.

 

Not my blog. I believe in free an open debate, so if its on relevance with the original topic, address it.

 

And once again, he uses the opportunity to attack the man, instead of the argument. Seriously Glenn, Instead why dont you actually create an argument to address mine? that is what debate is, not belittlement.

 

NATO didnt accept Russia into NATO because Russia didnt ask. It flirted with it, gave heavy hints it was interested, but never laid down 'gee, we would like to join'. Largely I suspect because it would smack of joining an organisation it believed defeated it. Mainly because Putin really doesnt give a flying toss about European security. Which is fine, but equally one has to ask the obvious question, why? Because as I suggest above, that any fracturing of the present European order, may well turn out to not be in Russias advantage. Lets see 1795, 1848, 1914, 1939, what do they all have in common? European order falling to bits, and Russia getting the shaft as a result. 

 

I might add, in the present globalised society, nations are no longer rivals. That is an very anachronistic way of looking at the world. Today we have partners. That is what globalised trade is. Nation states exist by default, if you were creating something new today it would probably be more like a multinational corporation.


  • 0

#23 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0515 AM

http://www.express.c...-europe-kremlin

Britain and NATO ready to launch a 'MAJOR WAR' with Russia in Europe, Kremlin claims

Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko also claimed Theresa May’s Government has used “overt hostility” during talks with Russia.

The diplomat wished for “real co-operation” between the old Cold War enemies and also claimed he did not consider Britain as a threat.

 

I guess this is what they mean by 'Post truth'.


  • 0

#24 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0517 AM

I might add, I dont particularly give this any credence as it is the Daily Star, but it would be useful to get some local input on it.

http://www.dailystar...world-war-3-ww3


  • 0

#25 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,026 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0552 AM

Stuart, there is a Multiquote button. And a Edit button, too.


Edited by sunday, 13 December 2016 - 0552 AM.

  • 0

#26 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0605 AM

Stuart, there is a Multiquote button. And a Edit button, too.

 

I know, but im too stupid to figure out how they work. :)


  • 0

#27 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0919 AM

sunday Stuart, there is a Multiquote button. And a Edit button, too.

 

 

 

Stuart often does a block reply, which gives the appearance to addressing specific issues even while using the block reply to avoid them.   


  • 0

#28 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0923 AM

No, its actually I really cant work out how to use the quote button without screwing up a post. I can use the edit button just about.

 

You dont like what I write Glenn, dont read it. Its not hard is it?


  • 0

#29 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0929 AM

 

Stuart And once again, he uses the opportunity to attack the man, instead of the argument.

 

 

 

Even the way you structured the purpose of your thread in the preamble precluded the possibility that we ever make a move Russia feels compelled to respond to.  I find concept that the US doesn’t drive world events which other countries then respond to be...quite original.  Sure, Putin does nasty stuff for his own agenda, but do you think it was Russia that requested NATO start talking to Georgia about NATO membership?  You think it was Russia that requested NATO bomb Serbia?  Do you think Putin called up the US Navy and asked for guided missile cruisers to patrol the Black Sea?   The US drives events with Russia as much as or more than it reacts to them.

 

The argument that Russia could have joined NATO in the 1990’s had it requested it I find to be impossible for various reasons, yet you consider it so natural that my focus rapidly moved to why you would make the assertion.  It’s like saying that Germany in 1913 could have joined the Triple Entente.  No Stuart, it couldn’t have – the Triple Entente would have simply created conditions of entry that would have been a humiliation, and the more Germans proved willing to be humiliated the more the terms would have moved to make it so.

 

Instead, why dont you actually create an argument to address mine?

 

 

 

You’re asserting without evidence that in an alternative universe where Russia had actively pursued NATO membership after 1991 it would have succeeded.   We’ll never know.   My opinion is that this was quite unlikely.   There were too many hurdles on the NATO side for Russia to have gotten in.  One example, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, Russia in NATO could have paralyzed the West’s response by vetoing all military action against Serbia.   

 

NATO didnt accept Russia into NATO because Russia didn’t ask.

 

 

 

If Russia had requested entry after 1991 I think a series of negotiations would have commenced in which criteria would be set down that Russia could not meet, and over time like Turkey and the EU, it would become clear that NATO had no intention of Russia ever meeting the entry requirements.  These discussions would have the form of a  negotiation but the appearance of a one-sided humiliation. For example, if Russia is joining NATO, what would the purpose of Russia nuclear arsenal continuing to exist?   The US umbrella shall protect Russia now.

 

Largely I suspect because it would smack of joining an organisation it believed defeated it.

 

 

 

You’re mixing up two concepts.  The first would be the negotiation for union between equals, like a couple talking about getting married.  The second is the negotiation between the victor and the defeated, like Rome talking to Carthage after the Battle of Zama.  A Russian request to join NATO would  have been Zama, not marriage.  .

 

Because as I suggest above, that any fracturing of the present European order, may well turn out to not be in Russias advantage.

 

 

 

The EU will survive or break up independently of Russian actions.  Personally, I think Europe has passed some sort of hurdle towards eventual unity that it will overcome even the breakup of the EU.

 

I might add, in the present globalised society, nations are no longer rivals. That is an very anachronistic way of looking at the world. Today we have partners. That is what globalised trade is. Nation states exist by default, if you were creating something new today it would probably be more like a multinational corporation.

 

 

 

Sermon time?  Ok, here’s my sermon.  It’s all about domination and submission, haves and have nots.  You want Russia to submit to the West and if it will not submit, it has to be cowed into submission by economic means, internal political division, or even militarily if this could somehow be accomplished without risk.  You are a friend of a Russia that knows its place and an enemy of a Russia that does not.   This is all perfectly defendable attitudes, of course.  But for some reason, you just won't come out and admit it. 

 

The “globalised” society  you mention is a knock-on benefit to the effects of increased trade relations allowed by communications technology (trade tends to be more win/win than win/lose).  It is also due to the interplay between the haves (1st world) and have nots (3rd world).  In Canada, a similar thing occurs.  We are a wonderful cultural milieu because of gradual transfer of power, status and wealth from the haves (British heritage) to the have nots (indigenous and immigrant populations).  As long as this trend continues, we will continue to be wonderful.  If it stops, we will stop being wonderful.  So too is the new world order; once the have nots have transferred all the power and economy possible from the haves through cooperation, cooperation will lessen and become rivalry.  Globalization works so long as the world's economies grow.  Globalization will collapse if this no longer occurs. 

 

 


  • 0

#30 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0938 AM

 

Stuart No, its actually I really cant work out how to use the quote button without screwing up a post.

 

 

 

I have the exact same issue with the quote feature on this site - it doesn’t work on my system.  But I also have copy-paste and Word, so I just copy-paste into Word, type out the detailed reply, then copy paste back onto the forum.  If the quote button works, I use it to create the captions.  If it does not, (which happens every now and again) I use Word to bold the poster's caption to form a quote, (the bold always works).

So no, the reason you do block replies is not the hiccups with the quote feature, it's because you want to do block replies.  Why?  Your 35,898 vs. my 2,677 posts would be my guess - you're posting so much everywhere that you have no time to actually read or think about what people are saying to you.


Edited by glenn239, 13 December 2016 - 0938 AM.

  • 0

#31 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,144 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 0953 AM

Stuart merely reflects the reality the UK has adopted vis a vis Syria. The emergency debate in the Commons is remarkable given that the jihadis have capitulated and are awaiting parole. It's not his fault, it's the tea.


  • 0

#32 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1021 AM

 

 

 

 

Even the way you structured the purpose of your thread in the preamble precluded the possibility that we ever make a move Russia feels compelled to respond to.  I find concept that the US doesn’t drive world events which other countries then respond to be...quite original.  Sure, Putin does nasty stuff for his own agenda, but do you think it was Russia that requested NATO start talking to Georgia about NATO membership?  You think it was Russia that requested NATO bomb Serbia?  Do you think Putin called up the US Navy and asked for guided missile cruisers to patrol the Black Sea?   The US drives events with Russia as much as or more than it reacts to them.

Actually the header I gave is pretty clearly open to both sides of the debate. Do I think the present crisis is primarily driven by Russian political issues? Yes. Am I open to the idea that Western nations have made the situation considerably  worse than it might be? Well as Ive suggested for the past 15 years ABM was a stupid idea, so clearly so.  Ive never asserted that there is not a US dynamic to the problem. Where I think YOU are completely wrong is the idea that if the West suddenly gave Russia everything it wanted, that it would be content.  Even if this were verifiable, and it isnt, It strikes me as a foolish idea to throw away notions of our own security to provide for our own security. :D Russia rejects the idea of making itself indefensible, justifiably, so what does Europe get out of doing the same thing? Hence the reason for a mutual defence treaty. Its the only way to reconcile the problem Russia has of thinking the only security it has is Europes insecurity, and vice versa. An ultimate settlement of East West relations, if it is not NATO, will very likely be something like it.

 

 

 

The argument that Russia could have joined NATO in the 1990’s had it requested it I find to be impossible for various reasons, yet you consider it so natural that my focus rapidly moved to why you would make the assertion.  It’s like saying that Germany in 1913 could have joined the Triple Entente.  No Stuart, it couldn’t have – the Triple Entente would have simply created conditions of entry that would have been a humiliation, and the more Germans proved willing to be humiliated the more the terms would have moved to make it so.

 

Im not talking about the 1990s. The situation I talk of existed for the briefest period between 2000 and 2003. You find it impossible because you dont want to believe it. Look at the approaches Russia made, and ask yourself whom would have chosen to have blocked it, particularly in the 2001 timeframe.  . I can look the book out, but its on the record that George Robertson communicated to the Russians, whom expressed some interest,  'Well if you want to join, you have to make an offical approach'. And Russia did not make the final move, and settled for a lesser relationship that had Russians based in Brussels, again a curious situation to allow if we didnt trust Russia in this period. So clearly the final decision on it not happening was not the west, it was Vladimir Putin. Read up on this yourself, Im pretty sure the evidence will bear me out. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post it, id find it an interesting read. In short, the blame for NATO existing to the exclusion of Russia, is Russia's own choice, not ours.

 

 

You’re asserting without evidence that in an alternative universe where Russia had actively pursued NATO membership after 1991 it would have succeeded.   We’ll never know.   My opinion is that this was quite unlikely.   There were too many hurdles on the NATO side for Russia to have gotten in.  One example, during the breakup of Yugoslavia, Russia in NATO could have paralyzed the West’s response by vetoing all military action against Serbia.   

 

 

Im merely suggesting it was not tried because Putin decided not to, for whatever reasons that might be.  Short of some parallel dimension defying machine, clearly we cant know what would have happened, but it strikes me as unlikely to be worse than the present situation is becoming. It didnt happen because of Vladimir Putin. Nobody else got the chance to defy the possibility, and my own view, if the US president got behind it, it would have happened. Funnily enough, contary to what most people seem to remember, relations between Vladimir Putin and George Bush in the early 2000's were actually pretty good.  Bush was a Christian, and both had heartfelt discussions on the subject. More to the point, Bush needed Putin for the war on terror.  Might it have failed even then? Perhaps. Though im damned if I can see why.

 


 

 

If Russia had requested entry after 1991 I think a series of negotiations would have commenced in which criteria would be set down that Russia could not meet, and over time like Turkey and the EU, it would become clear that NATO had no intention of Russia ever meeting the entry requirements.  These discussions would have the form of a  negotiation but the appearance of a one-sided humiliation. For example, if Russia is joining NATO, what would the purpose of Russia nuclear arsenal continuing to exist?   The US umbrella shall protect Russia now.

 

 

 Again, its contary to the evidence.  Russia was allowed into the G8 with narry a murmur, why precisely would NATO be any different? You seem to be suggesting because we were concerned of Russia's threat.  Which to my mind, even if it were true in the 2000's, and it wasnt because the Russian military was broke, it commends closer ties, not less. Again, if we didnt want to bring Russia in from the Cold, why let them join the G8? It makes no sense.

 


 

 

You’re mixing up two concepts.  The first would be the negotiation for union between equals, like a couple talking about getting married.  The second is the negotiation between the victor and the defeated, like Rome talking to Carthage after the Battle of Zama.  A Russian request to join NATO would  have been Zama, not marriage.  .

 

Actually it would have been more akin to West Germany joining the allies that defeated it, in defending itself. Or indeed the former warsaw pact nations. So not quite such an alien concept as you insist. What makes Russia any more proud and keen to protect its independence than say, Poland?

 


 

 

The EU will survive or break up independently of Russian actions.  Personally, I think Europe has passed some sort of hurdle towards eventual unity that it will overcome even the breakup of the EU.

 

Actually there are a number of news reports that suggest the Euro is in bad shape, and I would not put money on if the Euro goes under, it wouldnt take the EU with it.  Again, a personal view.

We recently had Italy vote against a reform to integrate its constitution closer to the EU, which is a long way form wanting the leave the EU, but not perhaps the ringing endorsement you might expect from a nation that has sucked the hind tit of EU subsidy for years.

http://www.independe...i-a7456306.html

We of course had Brexit, and there seems now to be increasingly a choice between 3 Presidents in France whom only differ in the level of disgruntlement they have with the EU. Im also hearing lots of disgruntlement with the EU in Portugal Yes, it may well weather the storm. But im not going to take it for granted.

 


 

 

Sermon time?  Ok, here’s my sermon.  It’s all about domination and submission, haves and have nots.  You want Russia to submit to the West and if it will not submit, it has to be cowed into submission by economic means, internal political division, or even militarily if this could somehow be accomplished without risk.  You are a friend of a Russia that knows its place and an enemy of a Russia that does not.   This is all perfectly defendable attitudes, of course.  But for some reason, you just won't come out and admit it. 

 

Yes domination, of the corporation. Read Niall Fergusons book on Kissinger, he pointed to the rise of Globalisation and how obsolescent the Nation state was in the era of jet planes and mass communications. That was in 1965, before the rise of the internet, satellite TV, and offshore hedge funds. Russia is fighting a reality that we are all fighting one way or another, that the Nation state is a force of some significance of the worlds stage. As far as security, it still does. As far as economic policy, in fact in many cases in foreign policy, it really doesnt.  Russia itself realises this, which is why all its leaders prefered to bank in London.

The “globalised” society  you mention is a knock-on benefit to the effects of increased trade relations allowed by communications technology (trade tends to be more win/win than win/lose).  It is also due to the interplay between the haves (1st world) and have nots (3rd world).  In Canada, a similar thing occurs.  We are a wonderful cultural milieu because of gradual transfer of power, status and wealth from the haves (British heritage) to the have nots (indigenous and immigrant populations).  As long as this trend continues, we will continue to be wonderful.  If it stops, we will stop being wonderful.  So too is the new world order; once the have nots have transferred all the power and economy possible from the haves through cooperation, cooperation will lessen and become rivalry.  Globalization works so long as the world's economies grow.  Globalization will collapse if this no longer occurs. 

 

Except in the west as a whole, that no longer is true. Hence the rise of Brexit and the rise of Trump (and to be honest, the rise of Putin as well). They are all a rejection of globalisation. Ultimately doomed I suspect, but it doesnt mean they dont have real effects in the interim.

 

 

 

There, now that is a debate. I thank you. :)


  • 0

#33 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1022 AM

Stuart merely reflects the reality the UK has adopted vis a vis Syria. The emergency debate in the Commons is remarkable given that the jihadis have capitulated and are awaiting parole. It's not his fault, it's the tea.

Its not my fault if Russia insists on putting polonium in it. ^_^


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 13 December 2016 - 1022 AM.

  • 0

#34 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1025 AM

 

 

Stuart No, its actually I really cant work out how to use the quote button without screwing up a post.

 

 

 

I have the exact same issue with the quote feature on this site - it doesn’t work on my system.  But I also have copy-paste and Word, so I just copy-paste into Word, type out the detailed reply, then copy paste back onto the forum.  If the quote button works, I use it to create the captions.  If it does not, (which happens every now and again) I use Word to bold the poster's caption to form a quote, (the bold always works).

So no, the reason you do block replies is not the hiccups with the quote feature, it's because you want to do block replies.  Why?  Your 35,898 vs. my 2,677 posts would be my guess - you're posting so much everywhere that you have no time to actually read or think about what people are saying to you.

 

The reason why I dont do it is every time ive tried using it, it says ' you quoted too many blocks' and I tend to have to rewrite posts about 15 times. When I did it above to demonstrate it is possible, I lost about 2 posts and had to rewrite them.

I regret all this causes you so much pain. :D

 

 

No, the reason why Ive got 35000 posts is that ive been posting here since 2000. Its not much of an achievement when you have been posting for 16 years. Thats less than 6 posts a day, and back in the day, tanknet was far, far busier than it was now.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 13 December 2016 - 1026 AM.

  • 0

#35 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1247 PM

Stuart if you were creating something new today it would probably be more like a multinational corporation.

 

 

 

Niall Ferguson wrote a book on the British Empire about a decade ago.  I can’t remember much of it, but one claim that really stuck in my mind was he said, during the period of British rule in India, that each year the British ‘skimmed’ about 1% of the Indian GDP and exported it to the empire.  This had the effect of preventing India from growing economically, but the British made out just fine.

 

http://www.economist...yman-missing-20

 

Nobody really knows how much money is stashed away: estimates vary from way below to way above $20 trillion.

 

The Economist does a little year end report on economic growth – for the west it was maybe 2% or so on average.  But a couple things stand out.  First, almost everyone runs a government deficit.  So how much of that 2% growth was real, and how much is bullshit accounting from the borrowing?  (If we subtract the GDP budget deficit from the GDP growth, it's much closer to zero growth).  Second, and to your point, if like the old British Empire the corporations have “skimmed” 20 trillion from national GDP and taken it offshore, are we actually growing or, like with India, should we discount the  corporate “skim” (which we may never see again) when calculating GDP?  And if we did subtract that skim (until it came back from the offshore tax haven), would our actual GDP's per capita even be shrinking?

 

You suggests corporations might be the future.  Perhaps you’re right, but I see they were also part of a distinctly more imperial the past – The East India Company would not know many things about today’s global corporate practices, but the art of skimming, they’d know exactly what’s going on with that these days.  I mention this because much of the confrontation with Russia I see as having some similarity to  older imperial jostling.  Back then the game was to control territory to exploit the labor force and local resources.  These days territory doesn't matter, the game is to sell advanced technology toys to the derkas, who have money but can't produce the high end toys themselves.   Russia is almost a unique actor in this view of things - it is not of the West, but it has the technology and toys and so can 'jostle' for contracts throughout the world.  Ideology, particularily of the NATO and EU type, serve to exclude large markets wholesale.  Can't sell SU-35's to a NATO country, right? 


Edited by glenn239, 13 December 2016 - 1255 PM.

  • 0

#36 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1357 PM

Here’s Gorbachev’s take on what's going wrong, (he’s no fan of Putin) -

http://www.msn.com/e...ggNb9&ocid=iehp

 

He blasted what he described as Western "triumphalism," saying it remains a key factor in tensions between Russia and the West.

Gorbachev also praised outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama. But he deplored what he described as a misguided policy toward Russia pursued by the U.S. and its allies both during his presidency and now.

"They have been badgering Russia with accusations and blaming it for everything," Gorbachev said. "And now, there is a backlash to that in Russia. Russia wants to have friendly ties with America, but it's difficult to do that when Russia sees that it's being cheated."

Gorbachev sees the West's overbearing attitude as being critical to where we are now.   "Blaming it for everything".  He seems to think this approach will be a formula for disaster, if continued.  And you do want to continue, correct?

 


  • 0

#37 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,144 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 1923 PM

I want mushroom clouds for Blighty.


  • 0

#38 mattblack

mattblack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,614 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 2029 PM

I want mushroom clouds for Blighty.


What is your problem? Really,I don't get it.
  • 0

#39 Gregory

Gregory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 13 December 2016 - 2121 PM

 

I want mushroom clouds for Blighty.


What is your problem? Really,I don't get it.

 


obvious-troll-is-obvious.jpg


  • 0

#40 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,231 posts

Posted 14 December 2016 - 0319 AM

 

Here’s Gorbachev’s take on what's going wrong, (he’s no fan of Putin) -

http://www.msn.com/e...ggNb9&ocid=iehp

 

He blasted what he described as Western "triumphalism," saying it remains a key factor in tensions between Russia and the West.

Gorbachev also praised outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama. But he deplored what he described as a misguided policy toward Russia pursued by the U.S. and its allies both during his presidency and now.

"They have been badgering Russia with accusations and blaming it for everything," Gorbachev said. "And now, there is a backlash to that in Russia. Russia wants to have friendly ties with America, but it's difficult to do that when Russia sees that it's being cheated."

Gorbachev sees the West's overbearing attitude as being critical to where we are now.   "Blaming it for everything".  He seems to think this approach will be a formula for disaster, if continued.  And you do want to continue, correct?

 

 

Well he is right about Triumphalism.  I think you can blame the 2008 crash on a misguided belief that because ours system prevailed over Communism it was inherently flawless. There was also the idea that globalisation was the final cherry on the cake of capitalism, which you can put down to Bill Clinton. Clinton was far more misguided in his Russian policy than Obama, whom you can pretty much categorize as arch appeaser.

 

The trouble with Gorbachev,  as always he is playing to the crowd. He is jumping on board a powerful stream of Russian nationalism to rebuild his reputation, which in Russia at least is in tatters, justifiably really. So you have to treat the rest with caution. What exactly did Obama do other than hold out the hand of friendship and keep jabbing that overcharge button? Well there was ABM, overlooking of course he had a handshake deal with Dimitri Medvedev over it which seemed to clear that up. Libya? Can blame that on the evil French and British, and Obama did. Ukraine? Didnt have anything to do with it at all. Syria? Well he did arm rebels. But that was only after they decided to revolt in the first place, so Im not convinced he actually created the problem, any more than he crated the 'Arab Spring'. So whichever way you add it up, there was a narrative of negativsm towards Obama which, if the Kremlin had played smarter, would very likely have given them damn near everything they believe they are going to get out of Trump.

 

The central problem was, they never believed Obama would be elected, because the American oligarchs wouldnt allow him. And secondly, they never  beleived he was free to operate, because the American oligarchs wouldnt let him. Which is part of the reason why im deeply cautious that anything will get better under Trump. For a couple of years, it might. But Putin is sure to find another pretext to push him back in the corner and start the bad relations again. Its far too useful a ploy for Russian domestic reason, which is far more to do why relations are bad than anything Obama did.

 

Blaming Russia for everything? Like what, Invading Ukraine? They did. MH17 being shot down? They were. Alexander Livinenko being murdered? They did. So im not really sure what he is objecting to in unfairness here personally.

 

Personally I want good relations with Russia. But as a realist I have to say its unlikely, when 9/10s of the reasons exist in Vladimir Putins head.


  • 0