Kremlin- Clinton Victory Would Have Led to World War 3 Between Russia and the US

a reply to: Isurrender73
My concerns are not about Syria this year, but what happens in the rest of the world in the years following.
I've already said that I don't advocate picking a fight with Putin about Syria. I'm just worried about the message that is being sent if giving way in response to intimidatory threats about nuclear war becomes a habit.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TrueAmerican
I always thought we were getting too (geographically) close to Russia in the Crimea business. Following the Hitler analogy, that was, at the most, Putin's Rhineland.
Another difference from 1938 is that Czechoslovakia was part of the European community, and so a genuine concern for the West in a sense that Arabic democracy is not.

Czechoslovakia had bilateral treaties with UK, France and Soviet Union. Only Soviet Union proposed willingness to support us if UK and France would participate. They did not.

But I do not think its adequate analogy. Times had changed and there is NO reason for Putin to annex Donbass or Baltic states - there is no tactical nor strategic reason to do it.

Russia had imminent interest in annex of Crimea because of Sevastopol - strategic naval base - while 70% of crimeans consider self as "Russians". This happened in situation where there was imminent risk of totally disastrous development in Ukraine (and it really was and is hell).

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
But I do not think its adequate analogy. Times had changed and there is NO reason for Putin to annex Donbass or Baltic states - there is no tactical nor strategic reason to do it.

Yet he continually makes noises about the possibility of aggressive action. Why? My answer- not to attack, but to make the West nervous about an attack and thus intimidate them into backing down in other areas. That is my problem with the current situation.
I am also aware from my historical reading that Russia has been attempting to control things far beyond her western borders for nearly three centuries, since the War of the Austrian Succession. If bears had spots, they would not change them.

Russia had imminent interest in annex of Crimea because of Sevastopol

You will see from my previous comments on this thread that I was not contesting the legitimacy of Russian interest in Crimea.
When the crisis was being discussed on this forum, I was consistently advocating compromise on the status quo, with Russian control of Crimea in exchange for leaving the rest alone.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TrueAmerican
I don't think we're really so far apart. I would not advocate starting a fight with Russia over the affairs of Syria. My concern would be long-term, if Trump was likely to fulfil Putin's hopes and co-operate all the way down the line.
I am in England, with no good safe ocean barrier. Russia was on our door-steps from 1945, and intermittently from about 1745.

What has Putin asked for.

1. Get out of Syria.
2. Lift the sanctions.
3. Talk Peace.

The Obama Admin said no to 1 and 2 so Russia said no to 3. What else was Putin supposed to do? He is the leader of Russia he is supposed to have Russian interests in mind.

We put him in the corner because he was complacent. Now he s standing up to the US, like he should.

The US will not recognize the Russian control of Crimea. The Russian annexation of a part of a sovereign nation is why things are tense.

EDIT* The US might after Trump takes office which is partly why Putin was backing Trump.

a reply to: DISRAELI

First of all, I appreciate your view of Crimea question.

For the rest: It is saber rattling. Western world do it also and I do not want to be judge in this pissing contest.

Do you know any reason why would Russia occupy Baltic states or Norway? Or - God safe - Ukraine? There is no gain, only troubles in doing so.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

And yet Rachel Maddow is somehow sqwaking about how Trump is going to start a nuclear war.


That's cute.

Not surprised by this view from Russia.
Hillary was always the WWIII candidate.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

The Kremlin also say they don't bomb hospitals in Syria , I guess we are to believe that too.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Ask yourself why Russia would even say that.

I'm thinking that Putin was scared of her.

a reply to: gortex

Are you saying Russia is bombing hospitals on purpose?

As this election had shown, stop blindly believing everything you hear from your mainstream media, because most likely, they are intentionally misleading you, and lying to you

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: TrueAmerican

Ask yourself why Russia would even say that.

I'm thinking that Putin was scared of her.

He would say that because he knew Hillary would just be a continuation of the current administrations policies, and war with Russia would of been the outcome. Not really rocket science here, but rockets would of been used... err nvm.

a reply to: Nikola014

Are you saying Russia is bombing hospitals on purpose?

If they're bombing them by accident then there seems to be a degree of incompetency in the Russian military.

As this election had shown, stop blindly believing everything you hear from your mainstream media, because most likely, they are intentionally misleading you, and lying to you

Of course , because I blindly believe what I'm told.
Same old song and dance Nikola.

a reply to: gortex

Come on, gortex, it's a waste of time for us to discuss whether or not Russia is intentionally bombing hospitals.

Look at how Russia and Iran and Syria are handling terrorists in Aleppo. Even though they blocked all the exits out of the city, and are using innocent people as human shield, something that's common among terrorists, Russian lead coalition is defeating them with almost minimal civilian casualties.

It's not much of an argument to say Russia is bombing hospitals on purpose, because it just does not make any sense

a reply to: Nikola014

Come on, gortex, it's a waste of time for us to discuss whether or not Russia is intentionally bombing hospitals.

This we agree on mate.

I don't usually comment on politics at all but in this instance I will....I think it is better that our president is a man only because of the existing tensions between the male and female energy on the Earth right now... with as much tension as there is between Russia and the US we didn't need the added tension of the male female energy right now.

The women have done a good job of subduing the macho testosterone driven side of the male energy so I think negotiations between Trump and Putin should remain on a civilized level.

I mean just think if Putin had an argument with his wife just before an important meeting with Hillary....at that moment just the fact that he had to deal with more female energy would escalate the tension...

I am in no way putting women down by making this statement. ..I am only bringing to the forefront a point that may be overlooked.

originally posted by: Tardacus
That`s the nice thing about trump he isn`t a politician he doesn`t care about political stuff, he`s a businessman so if U.S. companies can make money by trading with Russia than that`s what will happen.

a country that is 20 trillion dollars in debt can`t afford to be picky about who they trade with.
Trump is smart enough to know business and politics should always be kept separate.

It must be nice being that naive.
All it would take for Trump to go to war, is low blood sugar levels and someone making a jibe at his small hands.
You really think he's even tempered? WOW.
Being leader of a super power is more than just Trade. He's going to be the most studied man on the planet
with arrows coming from all sides. He'll spend more time putting out fires than getting things done.

a reply to: TrueAmericanwhat i don't understand is why they want to help saudis they are the ones who demand the regime change because they want to run a damn pipeline through syria .we all know they were the real turds behind 9/11 but the people in power act like WHAT OUR GOOD FRIENDS WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING. well now trump going to be in charge maybe we can partner with russia and wipe out the true menace and then concentrate together on space exploration and maybe go to mars and beyond

a reply to: Profusion

It's still propoganda. Russia is getting eatin alive by the sanctions. They will say anything to scare people in order to try and get them lifted. I doubt Trump will lift them. It's give and take. If they give back Crimea to Ukraine sure. Rolling in and taking part of a Sovereign countries land is still a nasty fact. Bring it to the table Trump I support you just don't be a push over.

I'm glad that my quantum reality split off just at the right moment ...

a reply to: TrueAmerican

So Mr. Glaziev is saying, indirectly, that, yes, Russia did intervene in the US election, in Mr. Trump's favor, but only to stave off WW3.

That's very noble of them.

One assumes that the first Russian strike would have followed the moment the results of the voting were announced. How could it be otherwise?

Personally, I think Putin needs to talk to this guy because he's being very indiscreet. Well, at least we know that as far as Mr. Putin's advisor is concerned, the era of MAD is over, and at the first sign of a cranky American politician the Russians go nuclear. Sergei's got some 'splainin' to do, I think.