If The Russians Engineered a Trump Victory

[Odin]

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

[Ragnarök_62]

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

OK,  you also get to pick from 2 choices.

1.  Huge assed military along with deep social program cuts.
2. Ditch the empire and fun social programs adequately.

[Kinser79]

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

Won't work.  Russia is self-sufficent in food, energy and all resources except natural rubber for which they have enough oil for synthetic rubber.  You can't starve them out like say Luxembourg.

[SomeGuy]

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

How do you imagine that would work?

[Eric the Green]

Appeasement of Hitler and its failure was used for decades as an excuse for USA intervention. But now, we are in 4T. Maybe now the greater lesson is not to appease his successor in the Kremlin. NATO backing for the Baltics and sanctions on Russia will do for now, although a missile buildup might seem warranted too, in light of Putin's treaty violations. That was something I opposed before now. But he needs to be curbed if possible; otherwise he might be tempted to start a world war.

[Galen]

(03-10-2017, 10:03 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

Won't work.  Russia is self-sufficent in food, energy and all resources except natural rubber for which they have enough oil for synthetic rubber.  You can't starve them out like say Luxembourg.

Only some guy that has never learned anything about Russian history would think this would work.  The simple truth is that Russia has dealt with far worse things than sanctions by the US.  Look up what Russians refer to as the Great Patriotic War and spend a little time thinking about what you learn.

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 05:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Appeasement of Hitler and its failure was used for decades as an excuse for USA intervention. But now, we are in 4T. Maybe now the greater lesson is not to appease his successor in the Kremlin. NATO backing for the Baltics and sanctions on Russia will do for now, although a missile buildup might seem warranted too, in light of Putin's treaty violations. That was something I opposed before now. But he needs to be curbed if possible; otherwise he might be tempted to start a world war.

I didn't know that arms build ups and more missiles and threatening a nuclear power were part of that peace and love thing.  I'm trying to decide Eric if you're painfully stuck in the 20th century or if you're just too stupid to realize that if you want to be a bully you have to first select a target that is weaker than yourself--which Russia isn't.

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 05:52 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 10:03 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

Won't work.  Russia is self-sufficent in food, energy and all resources except natural rubber for which they have enough oil for synthetic rubber.  You can't starve them out like say Luxembourg.

Only some guy that has never learned anything about Russian history would think this would work.  The simple truth is that Russia has dealt with far worse things than sanctions by the US.  Look up what Russians refer to as the Great Patriotic War and spend a little time thinking about what you learn.

Not just then either, and not just Napoleon. Russian history is filled with tragedy. But one thing that has never worked on them is blockade. How would one even blockade a self-sufficient land power anyway?

[Odin]

(03-10-2017, 10:28 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

How do you imagine that would work?

I frankly care less if it actually changes anything in Russia, it is meant as a show of strength to the Russians to tell them that we aren't going to stand for their shit. It will also help ease fears among our Eastern European allies.

[Galen]

(03-11-2017, 09:00 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 05:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Appeasement of Hitler and its failure was used for decades as an excuse for USA intervention. But now, we are in 4T. Maybe now the greater lesson is not to appease his successor in the Kremlin. NATO backing for the Baltics and sanctions on Russia will do for now, although a missile buildup might seem warranted too, in light of Putin's treaty violations. That was something I opposed before now. But he needs to be curbed if possible; otherwise he might be tempted to start a world war.

I didn't know that arms build ups and more missiles and threatening a nuclear power were part of that peace and love thing.  I'm trying to decide Eric if you're painfully stuck in the 20th century or if you're just too stupid to realize that if you want to be a bully you have to first select a target that is weaker than yourself--which Russia isn't.

Not only that but he has never considered what happens when Russia is backed up against the wall.  Hint:  It doesn't end well for the attacker.  Ask Napoleon or Adolf how attacking Russia worked out for them.

[Kinser79]

Well typically the Russians trade land for time because they have a sekret weapon....General Frost. Both Napoleon and Hitler were unprepared for winter, and the meme that the Germans didn't issue winter uniforms is untrue (they did--its just that those uniforms were inadequate for Russia. Western Europe benefits from the gulf stream bringing warm water in their vicinity, Russia being continental does not benefit from that and thus consequently has a much colder climate in winter, and oppressively hot summers.

But yeah Russians, like most other animals, don't like being backed into a corner.

[Galen]

(03-11-2017, 09:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well typically the Russians trade land for time because they have a sekret weapon....General Frost.  Both Napoleon and Hitler were unprepared for winter, and the meme that the Germans didn't issue winter uniforms is untrue (they did--its just that those uniforms were inadequate for Russia.  Western Europe benefits from the gulf stream bringing warm water in their vicinity, Russia being continental does not benefit from that and thus consequently has a much colder climate in winter, and oppressively hot summers.

The way I learned it was the Russia has two unbeatable generals which are named General January and General February.  In 1942 they also had General December.

(03-11-2017, 09:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: But yeah Russians, like most other animals, don't like being backed into a corner.

Trouble is that the Russians aren't mere animals.  They may not fight for any particular government but they will fight for Mother Russia with a ferocity that most other people don't understand.  Putin is a Christian himself but he also knows this which is why he is encouraging the return Russia's normal culture.  Unless the US government regains some measure of sanity, he figures that he will need Russia's traditional culture to survive the coming war.  Putin may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

[Odin]

Who said anything about INVADING Russia? This is about a show of strength.

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 10:11 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 09:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well typically the Russians trade land for time because they have a sekret weapon....General Frost.  Both Napoleon and Hitler were unprepared for winter, and the meme that the Germans didn't issue winter uniforms is untrue (they did--its just that those uniforms were inadequate for Russia.  Western Europe benefits from the gulf stream bringing warm water in their vicinity, Russia being continental does not benefit from that and thus consequently has a much colder climate in winter, and oppressively hot summers.

The way I learned it was the Russia has two unbeatable generals which are named General January and General February.  In 1942 they also had General December.

(03-11-2017, 09:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: But yeah Russians, like most other animals, don't like being backed into a corner.

Trouble is that the Russians aren't mere animals.  They may not fight for any particular government but they will fight for Mother Russia with a ferocity that most other people don't understand.  Putin is a Christian himself but he also knows this which is why he is encouraging the return Russia's normal culture.  Unless the US government regains some measure of sanity, he figures that he will need Russia's traditional culture to survive the coming war.  Putin may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

On point 1. General Frost is a Field Marshal while Generals December, January and February are just Lt. Generals. The joke is based on a Russian Language idiom. One of the reasons why I miss Justin 77.

On Point 2. Yeah, the Russian people are tied to their territory and to their church. So strongly in fact that not even 70 years of communism could break it. And Stalin tried, he really really did try.

I myself have flirted with Orthodoxy but its still too culturally alien for me.

(03-11-2017, 10:56 AM)Odin Wrote: Who said anything about INVADING Russia? This is about a show of strength.

Russia interprets "showing strength" as a preparation for invasion. Considering that they've been invaded several times in the past five centuries. (Napoleon and Hitler obviously but less well known invasions too by the Poles, Swedes, and Turks too) I think they have just cause.

When a bear is sleeping it is a bad idea to poke it with a stick. An even worse idea is to poke it when its awake.

[Odin]

Robert Kagan: Russia’s ability to manipulate U.S. elections is a national security issue, not a political one.

Quote:It would have been impossible to imagine a year ago that the Republican Party’s leaders would be effectively serving as enablers of Russian interference in this country’s political system. Yet, astonishingly, that is the role the Republican Party is playing.

U.S. intelligence services have stated that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election with the intention of swinging it to one side. Knowing how cautious the intelligence community is in making such judgments, and given the significance of this particular finding, the evidence must be compelling. At the very least, any reasonable person would have to conclude that there is enough evidence to warrant a serious, wide-ranging and open investigation. Polls suggest that a majority of Americans would like to see such an investigation carried out.

It’s important at this time of intense political conflict to remain focused on the most critical issue. Whether certain individuals met with Russian officials, and whether those meetings were significant, is secondary and can eventually be sorted out. The most important question concerns Russia’s ability to manipulate U.S. elections. That is not a political issue. It is a national security issue. If the Russian government did interfere in the United States’ electoral processes last year, then it has the capacity to do so in every election going forward. This is a powerful and dangerous weapon, more than warships or tanks or bombers. Neither Russia nor any potential adversary has the power to damage the U.S. political system with weapons of war. But by creating doubts about the validity, integrity, and reliability of U.S. elections, it can shake that system to its foundations.

The United States has not been the only victim. The argument by at least one former Obama administration official and others that last year’s interference was understandable payback for past American policies is undermined by the fact that Russia is also interfering in the coming elections in France and Germany, and it has already interfered in Italy’s recent referendum and in numerous other elections across Europe. Russia is deploying this weapon against as many democracies as it can to sap public confidence in democratic institutions.

The democracies are going to have to figure out how to respond. With U.S. congressional elections just 20 months away, it is essential to get a full picture of what the Russians did do and can do here, and soon. The longer the American people remain in the dark about Russian manipulations, the longer they will remain vulnerable to them. The longer Congress fails to inform itself, the longer it will be before it can take steps to meet the threat. Unfortunately, the present administration cannot be counted on to do so on its own.

There’s no need to ask what Republicans would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot—if the Russians had intervened to help elect the Democratic nominee. They would be demanding a bipartisan select committee of Congress, or a congressionally mandated blue-ribbon panel of experts and senior statesmen with full subpoena powers to look into the matter. They would be insisting that, for reasons of national security alone, it was essential to determine what happened: what the Russians did, how they did it and how they could be prevented from doing it again. If that investigation found that certain American individuals had somehow participated in or facilitated the Russian operation, they would insist that such information be made public and that appropriate legal proceedings begin. And if the Democrats tried to slow-roll the investigations, to block the creation of select committees or outside panels, or to insist that investigations be confined to the intelligence committees whose inquiries and findings could be kept from the public, Republicans would accuse them of a coverup and of exposing the nation to further attacks. And they would be right.

But it is the Republicans who are covering up. The party’s current leader, the president, questions the intelligence community’s findings, motives, and integrity. Republican leaders in Congress have opposed the creation of any special investigating committee, either inside or outside Congress. They have insisted that inquiries be conducted by the two intelligence committees. Yet the Republican chairman of the committee in the House has indicated that he sees no great urgency to the investigation and has even questioned the seriousness and validity of the accusations. The Republican chairman of the committee in the Senate has approached the task grudgingly. The result is that the investigations seem destined to move slowly, produce little information and provide even less to the public. It is hard not to conclude that this is precisely the intent of the Republican Party’s leadership, both in the White House and Congress.

This approach not only is damaging to U.S. national security but also puts the Republican Party in an untenable position. When Republicans stand in the way of thorough, open and immediate investigations, they become Russia’s accomplices after the fact. This is undoubtedly not their intent. No one in the party wants to help Russia harm the United States and its democratic institutions. But Republicans need to face the fact that by slowing down, limiting or otherwise hampering the fullest possible investigation into what happened, that is what they are doing.

It’s time for the party to put national security above partisan interest. Republican leaders need to name a bipartisan select committee or create an outside panel, and they need to do so immediately. They must give that committee the mission and all the necessary means for getting to the bottom of what happened last year. And then they must begin to find ways to defend the nation against this new weapon that threatens to weaken American democracy. The stakes are far too high for politics as usual.

[SomeGuy]

(03-11-2017, 09:20 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 10:28 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

How do you imagine that would work?

I frankly care less if it actually changes anything in Russia, it is meant as a show of strength to the Russians to tell them that we aren't going to stand for their shit. It will also help ease fears among our Eastern European allies.

So you want to implement a policy of antagonism towards a nuclear power as a feel-good measure?  What happened to making them "cry uncle"? 

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 09:20 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 10:28 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:57 PM)Odin Wrote:

(03-10-2017, 09:50 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Whaddya want to do?  Threaten nuclear war over Riga?  Britain's guarantee of Belgian neutrality would seem cheap by comparison.

I want a policy of containment and increasing isolation of Russia until they cry uncle.

How do you imagine that would work?

I frankly care less if it actually changes anything in Russia, it is meant as a show of strength to the Russians to tell them that we aren't going to stand for their shit. It will also help ease fears among our Eastern European allies.

So you want to implement a policy of antagonism towards a nuclear power as a feel-good measure?  What happened to making them "cry uncle"? 

Look, let me see if I can try to diagnose Odin's issue. 

1.  Odin's team lost the election for glaring and obvious reasons to anyone who looks at the election objectively.

2.  Odin is incapable of looking at the election objectively, a trait he shares with all partisans be they Republican or Democrat.

3.  Since the Democratic Party is dominated by Regessive Leftists and abandoned the working classes it is incapable of self-reflection.  Lacking that ability they have to find scapegoat or else suffer the effects of cognitive dissonance.

4.  The DNC has found its scapegoat in Russia for some reason--Vault 7 seems to indicate that the CIA's cyber warfare department [or whatever] often uses Russian Proxies so as to make any of their hacks look like they come from Russia.  Never mind the obvious fact that any other country that has a cyber warfare department would do exactly the same.

5.  Since Odin has been told that the Ebil Russians with their Ebil Putin (who is literally Hitler) by the approved Party Organs (Salon, Huffpo and etc) he now wants the country to poke a bear with a stick even though anyone who has looked at the issue objectively understands doing so will only end in disaster.

But why will it end in disaster?  For two reasons:  A.  Bullying other countries is all fine and dandy if you want a war of choice (please note I do not necessarily endorse doing that) but bullying only really works if one's target is weaker than oneself.  Russia is not weaker than the US.  B.  Starting a war with Russia might go great and all at first but eventually either the nukes come out or you have Russian Tanks rolling down the Champs d'Elysees.

So the result of poking the Bear is either 1.  Human decimation through nuclear conflict, or 2.  The imposition of Russian Rule over Europe in total.  And I have no doubt that the Russians would launch nukes at the US should any cold war with them turn hot.  Putin might not be crazy but HRC would be easily manipulated.

Thankfully the people elected Daddy and instead of WW3 we get autistic screeching from the left.  All in all I think we've come out ahead.

[Galen]

(03-11-2017, 11:07 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 10:11 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 09:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Well typically the Russians trade land for time because they have a sekret weapon....General Frost.  Both Napoleon and Hitler were unprepared for winter, and the meme that the Germans didn't issue winter uniforms is untrue (they did--its just that those uniforms were inadequate for Russia.  Western Europe benefits from the gulf stream bringing warm water in their vicinity, Russia being continental does not benefit from that and thus consequently has a much colder climate in winter, and oppressively hot summers.

The way I learned it was the Russia has two unbeatable generals which are named General January and General February.  In 1942 they also had General December.

(03-11-2017, 09:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: But yeah Russians, like most other animals, don't like being backed into a corner.

Trouble is that the Russians aren't mere animals.  They may not fight for any particular government but they will fight for Mother Russia with a ferocity that most other people don't understand.  Putin is a Christian himself but he also knows this which is why he is encouraging the return Russia's normal culture.  Unless the US government regains some measure of sanity, he figures that he will need Russia's traditional culture to survive the coming war.  Putin may be many things but a fool is not one of them.

On point 1.  General Frost is a Field Marshal while Generals December, January and February are just Lt. Generals.    The joke is based on a Russian Language idiom.  One of the reasons why I miss Justin 77.

On Point 2.  Yeah, the Russian people are tied to their territory and to their church.  So strongly in fact that not even 70 years of communism could break it.  And Stalin tried, he really really did try.

I don't know Russian but the point of the joke definitely stands.  As for trying to stamp out Russia's traditional culture, Stalin tried so hard that he made Hitler look like a second story man with body count he racked up.

(03-11-2017, 11:07 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 10:56 AM)Odin Wrote: Who said anything about INVADING Russia? This is about a show of strength.

Russia interprets "showing strength" as a preparation for invasion.  Considering that they've been invaded several times in the past five centuries.  (Napoleon and Hitler obviously but less well known invasions too by the Poles, Swedes, and Turks too) I think they have just cause.

This is a crucial point that Odin misses because he is also clueless about history in general and Russian history in particular.  Probably doesn't know what the Great Patriotic War was and understanding that would probably enlighten him as to why poking Russia with a stick is a really bad idea.

[Galen]

(03-11-2017, 12:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Look, let me see if I can try to diagnose Odin's issue. 

1.  Odin's team lost the election for glaring and obvious reasons to anyone who looks at the election objectively.

2.  Odin is incapable of looking at the election objectively, a trait he shares with all partisans be they Republican or Democrat.

3.  Since the Democratic Party is dominated by Regessive Leftists and abandoned the working classes it is incapable of self-reflection.  Lacking that ability they have to find scapegoat or else suffer the effects of cognitive dissonance.

4.  The DNC has found its scapegoat in Russia for some reason--Vault 7 seems to indicate that the CIA's cyber warfare department [or whatever] often uses Russian Proxies so as to make any of their hacks look like they come from Russia.  Never mind the obvious fact that any other country that has a cyber warfare department would do exactly the same.

5.  Since Odin has been told that the Ebil Russians with their Ebil Putin (who is literally Hitler) by the approved Party Organs (Salon, Huffpo and etc) he now wants the country to poke a bear with a stick even though anyone who has looked at the issue objectively understands doing so will only end in disaster.

But why will it end in disaster?  For two reasons:  A.  Bullying other countries is all fine and dandy if you want a war of choice (please note I do not necessarily endorse doing that) but bullying only really works if one's target is weaker than oneself.  Russia is not weaker than the US.  B.  Starting a war with Russia might go great and all at first but eventually either the nukes come out or you have Russian Tanks rolling down the Champs d'Elysees.

So the result of poking the Bear is either 1.  Human decimation through nuclear conflict, or 2.  The imposition of Russian Rule over Europe in total.  And I have no doubt that the Russians would launch nukes at the US should any cold war with them turn hot.  Putin might not be crazy but HRC would be easily manipulated.

Thankfully the people elected Daddy and instead of WW3 we get autistic screeching from the left.  All in all I think we've come out ahead.

You left out the part where according to the Vault 7 material that was just released it is very possible that the CIA did some hacking and made it look like Russia did it.  Deliberately and directly trying to rig an election is just the sort of thing that has too little upside and too much downside for Putin.  Culturally Russians tend not to risk what they already have on the geopolitical stage.  Its not is if the US hasn't done false flag operations in the past, Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind.

So far we have come out ahead with the rather odd outcome of most ranking Democrats looking like characters out of Dr. Strangelove.

[Kinser79]

(03-11-2017, 10:49 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 11:07 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 10:56 AM)Odin Wrote: Who said anything about INVADING Russia? This is about a show of strength.

Russia interprets "showing strength" as a preparation for invasion.  Considering that they've been invaded several times in the past five centuries.  (Napoleon and Hitler obviously but less well known invasions too by the Poles, Swedes, and Turks too) I think they have just cause.

This is a crucial point that Odin misses because he is also clueless about history in general and Russian history in particular.  Probably doesn't know what the Great Patriotic War was and understanding that would probably enlighten him as to why poking Russia with a stick is a really bad idea.

Well what is interesting is that, at least traditionally, the term Patriotic in the Russian language meant that they were fighting for the soil that was occupied by their fathers.  The word comes directly to them from the Latin Pater.  The concept of a flag waving idiot (a common western notion as to what a patriot is) is relatively new to them.

(03-11-2017, 10:56 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-11-2017, 12:15 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: <snip> long post</snip>

You left out the part where according to the Vault 7 material that was just released it is very possible that the CIA did some hacking and made it look like Russia did it.  Deliberately and directly trying to rig an election is just the sort of thing that has too little upside and too much downside for Putin.  Culturally Russians tend not to risk what they already have on the geopolitical stage.  Its not is if the US hasn't done false flag operations in the past, Gulf of Tonkin comes to mind.

So far we have come out ahead with the rather odd outcome of most ranking Democrats looking like characters out of Dr. Strangelove.

I've not gone over much of the vault 7 material myself.  But I wouldn't put false flag operations past the Deep State.  They've done it before.  But the risk reward for the Russians even if they had been involved in the election past the usual both candidates send a proxy to talk to the Ambassador and Consuls is such that there would be a lot at stake and very little for them to gain.

Historically the Russians typically don't gamble on the world stage.  I doubt Putin is an exception to that rule--for all his faults he really is a very conventional ruler for Russia as is Medvedev who is essentially his Right hand.

It is strange that you bring up James Bond films.  Putin himself has used similar imagery but when he does it it comes off as cool rather than crazy like the Democrats have managed.





But I have a clear bias being a long time Russophile.