Trump Slams Allies in favor of Putin (again)...

[hollodero]

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you, first off.  it's nice to be able to have an actual back and forth.  While you have a point I would counter that if Germany was at even minimal readiness levels the US could reduce troop levels in that region, saving millions, if not billions of dollars.  As of now the German military is in a pathetic state of readiness.

https://www.dw.com/en/only-4-of-germanys-128-eurofighter-jets-combat-ready-report/a-43611873
This is hardly the only source, google is replete with other examples.

lol, the Eurofighter. Ours often don't fly at all. They were quite expensive though... ok, aside from that flying disasters I sure believe things could be better in German military, especially funding-wise. No argument there. The US troops, however, aren't really there to compensate or to actually protect Germany, I believe. They're there for prevailing US interests. I don't really see troop levels reduced in either case, and if they actually are then it has nothing to do with German defense spending.
The second thing I would mention is that Germany spending on defense makes other countries nervous, and quite often it seemed one of the purposes of NATO to avoid just that. Their restraint to arm up was often very much desired and welcomed from others.

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it makes him limited.  Obama had major weaknesses in the other direction.  Putin knew Obama was severely risk averse.  This enabled him to annex territory for the first time sine WW2.  Obama did absolutely **** all about this and Putin knew he would.  Obama was good with the "free world" and weak as hell with the autocrats.  Time will tell on Trump.

Annexing the Crimea had multiple reasons and happened after a chain of events, it's not just on Obama. Being risk-averse isn't the worst trait in my opinion, for what would have been the alternative. War with Russia? No one would have wanted that. Maybe his threatening levels weren't quite as plausible, and there sure were mistakes made (I really wasn't a fan of Obama regarding his foreign policies, so it's not like I want to defend a hero of mine here). Overall though, I prefer Obama's approach which sure was welcome after the Cowboys led the country right into an awful war. His approach was far from perfect, but not comparable to Trump. Is the way I see it.

Obama implied quite severe sanctions and took a harder line against Putin, that sure was the end of that, but again I'm not sure what else could have been done aside from that. Trump, on the other hand, never even mentions Crimea and buddies up to Putin. I know what I'd prefer, and I can't see any equality between Trump and Obama's faults here.

In other words, if Obama had cozied up the way Trump did... folks would have called it appeasement. It would be different folk than those accusing Trump of that right now, me being very much amongst them. "More acquainted to their style"... I can't see that as excuse for what Trump is doing here with Putin. If Trump can't adapt his ways and his assessments to the necessities of his new job, he's in the worst job possible for him. Obama's faults are a distant runner-up to this behaviour mistake-wise.
(I sure think there's a completely different reason for Trump's behaviour, but ok.)

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Understandable.  I lived in Europe from 84-86, so I know the level of fear and apprehension caused by Russia.  I can understand a difference of opinion, but Russia has much more cause for conflict with China than the west.  If we can make them see that then we will all benefit.  All of us but China that is.

I have to mention though that the '84 Russia was a whole lot of different than the current Russia, and so were the fears of the people. Back then we pretty much feared nuclear annihilation. These days we fear subversion of our democracies. And rightfully so. European countries are constantly under Russian-led cyber attacks, and they aren't uneffective or unimportant fringe phenomena at all.

Brexit for example ws Russian funded, now sure the movement doesn't originate in Russia, but as close as that one went one could make the argument Russian efforts tipped that one. Other movements have roots in Russia as well, and same goes for #Calexit or #Walkaway of #releasethememo and thousands of meme wars and alternative reality placements, e.g propaganda campaigns, led in the most effective way these days. That do often work.

(07-10-2018, 11:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wish I could remember the source, but a US foreign policy expert stated that Putin had played a weak hand masterfully.  He will use any means to tweek his perceived opponents.  So, make him realize we are not his natural opponents.  He'd hardly be the most odious regime the west has had to deal with.  He's certainly less of a long term threat than China.  

I don't get where you're going here at all. First off, we can't make Putin realize anything. I can't see Trump (or anyone really) walking in the Kreml and making some decent points Putin has to think about.
Secondly, right now Russia is one of the most odious regimes, only beat by NK and IS and folks like those. The Russians are the ones invading other countries and attacking us (Europe and US), and I don't see the word "attack" as hyperbole. In these times, I don't see the point in shifting the focus to another potential long-time threat and just let Putin be Putin. That would be his dream, wouldn't it.
And I never would believe he'd focus on China instead of Europe. That's just not how Russia or Putin ticks historically and actually, and as long as China doesn't attack them that won't change. Also, think about how Putin reigns (oligarchy and money) and what he needs for that. He finds that in the west.
And playing a weak hand masterfully very much includes low financial effort-high output manoeuvers like troll farms, misinformation campaigns and hacking. But I sure feel you don't take that aspect as seriously as I am.