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

[hollodero]

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except US troops have been drawn down in the past and are only recently being ramped up.  Your point about not being there to protect Germany, but US interests, is odd.  Protecting Germany is in the US interest.  How are troops there protecting US interests in a way other than defending weaker allied nations?  Also, while I get historically based fear of an armed Germany I think it's far less rational to fear Germany than Russia.

Well of course it's not rational. I merely meant to say that there is resistance to an armed Germany, and it's still a significant resistance, though of course not compared to the former century. But still. Wanting them to spend more on military is a shift, and it takes time to adapt to that shift. The 2% suggestion isn't decade-long old, it stems from 2014... now if Germany had used a lot of money immediately to buy lots of tanks and rockets and stuff, imagine the reaction. Take Lucie's reaction by half... still a pretty strong reaction.

Still, I am in favor of the 2% and yeah it's about time Europe took their defense in their own hands. Regarding US troops and defense. I don't think it's their main reason of existence. The US has bases everywhere in the world, often in countries that don't need protection from foes. These bases are just that, bases. For starting operations, places to retreat, places to organize operations from, a troop reserve etc. etc. Defending Germany is something I don't see among the top reasons. If it were about that, troops wouldn't be what's needed (rather anti-aircraft and such things).

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Annexing the Crimea occurred because Putin knew he could do it and the west, the US included, wouldn't do anything meaningful about it.

I don't refute that, but that's far from the only reason. Another one being that a former boxer believed it would be wise to revolt against a vastly corrupt, but democraticly legitimized government. Without having any plan beyond that, leading to turmoil, chaos and actual Nazis running homeland security (or something like that) and lots of other things. The opportunity created for Putin was far from being Obama's sole fault.
Europeans encouraging the boxer and his accoplices has a lot to do with it also. They all failed, Obama sure not excluded.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There are interventions in between sanctions and a deceleration of war

Like what?

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Russia invading the Crimea is far more akin to Iraq invading Kuwait.

Far more akin, yes, but hardly the same thing. Saddam was a decade-long US ally looking for the promised reward for leading a war. Putin is no such thing.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump was presented with a fait accompli on Crimea.  Ascribing any blame to him on the subject is disingenuous.

Yes it is, and I don't blame him for the annexion, of course not. I do blame him for obviously taking the position that this is done and no longer worthy of consideration or any kind of backlash. As if Putin just sat that one out. I disagree with that position.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The question is, how do we proceed from here?  Let things simmer as is or try and change them in a meaningful way?

I don't know. If it were up to me, I'd probably take a hard look at banning the oligarchs from doing business in the west. Also I'd think about a global initiative against the cyber threats. Thiungs the TRump adminstratin doesn't even consider (also Germany and others, it's not solely Trump's fault)
What I'm most certainly against is trying to be cozy with Putin. That's the wrong way to treat him, and I'm not really willing to change my mind on this. I also think it's wrong to let Crimea be Crimea just because that wasn't Trump's fault, and I'm also against ignoring the Russian propaganda attacks, like Trump seems to be willing to do. Is that unfair to say? He states he believes what Putin says, after all.

(07-11-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What I'm getting at is who is the long term threat and how do we proceed.  Russia is not driven by ideology, they are driven by national furor, a desire to be relevant and Putin's greed.  The are the obvious threat, but not even remotely the biggest one.  China is driven by ideology and national furor.  There is no peeling them away from anyone because they are the polar opposite.  It is possible to pull Russia back into the western orbit.  They have far more cause for animus towards China then they do towards the West, that they don't express it now is due to many factors.  The bottom line is this, do we accept Russia as a Chinese vassal state and all that implies or do we try and change that?  Your argument seems to be we can't change it so why try.  

I have a slightly different take on that. I don't see Russia as a Chinese vassal state, and I think the Chinese are too smart to treat them as such. If any, the Chinese are now in business with Russia due to the western sanctions, and they are closer now. And what could one do against that? Lifting the sanctions and letting Pution do whatever he pleases just so he likes us better than China is not the way to go. Not in my book, anyway.
(If Obama had suggested that course of action, you'd have quite a lot of things to say about that, and so would I.)

Do you have an answer to your question (how to proceed)? Would tht really be to lift the sanctions and try a softer approach? I couldn't quite figure out your exact position here.