US Politics - or: How I Learned to Love the Atomic Don

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

No, actually it doesn't. Fall of Soviet Union resulted in a decade during which Russia was a semi-failed state, and economy, life expectancy, standard of living and general personal safety took a nosedive. It is perfectly reasonable for an average Russian to consider that a tragedy.

Second, why do you think that Russia needs to conquer the Baltics to become a superpower again? It is geographically the largest country in the world, with the second strongest military, well-educated population and every imaginable natural resource within its borders. There is no logical causal relation between "We want to be a superpower" and "Let's annex Estonia!" If Theresa May said that she wants UK to be a superpower, does that automatically mean she wants to re-colonize India?

Why did it need Crimea and the Donbass if it is so awsome without these territories.  I understand Putin doesn't need the Baltics or Poland.  My concern is based on his past actions toward Nations that neighbor Russia.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

France and the UK are nuclear powers. If they wanted, they could threaten Russia with MAD to protect NATO members even if the US looks like its gotten too squishy under Trump. 

I don't think they want to do that, particularly the UK, but underestimating France and the UK's commitment to eastern European countries is how world wars get started.

I think I made this exact same point a little while ago

The Russians take America very seriously. I think they would take a British and French commitment to defend the Baltics with nuclear force seriously, but they would have to be 100% convinced it was genuine, and they'd know it'd be a tough domestic sell in Britain and France. I think they know Poland would unquestionably be a red line for Britain and France (since it has been before), but the Baltic States would be a more open interpretation. They also know that if NATO fails to defend the Baltic States, the alliance effectively collapses, which is in their interest.

Quote

Putin doesn't actually have to invade the Baltic states. He can just get Trump to unwittingly destabilize the entire world and they may reconsider their relationship with Russia. 

China is already all over this approach, coming to Davos and basically saying they're a beacon of stability and reliability in an uncertain world. It's actually a strong point, since no-one is really giving a shit about Tibet and human rights right at this moment with everything else that's going on. Canny play by them.

 

Quote

 

Second, why do you think that Russia needs to conquer the Baltics to become a superpower again? It is geographically the largest country in the world, with the second strongest military, well-educated population and every imaginable natural resource within its borders. There is no logical causal relation between "We want to be a superpower" and "Let's annex Estonia!" If Theresa May said that she wants UK to be a superpower, does that automatically mean she wants to re-colonize India?

 

 

 

Being geographically the largest country in the world means little. Singapore is one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries on Earth and it's also one of the smallest.

Russia also has a small population relative to its size: less than half the population of the United States in more than twice the area. That small population prevents Russia from turning itself into a proper economic or industrial powerhouse like China or India (whom it both trails in population by over 1 billion people each), so it can't open tons of factories as a way of growing its economy. That also prevents it effectively exploiting natural resources when those resources are hundreds or even thousands of miles from the nearest major highway, airport or seaport.

Second-strongest military is also highly questionable: NATO powers have generally better equipment (but Russia is stronger in individual areas, like anti-air and possibly artillery) and China has a far larger military and military reserve, although it is only unquestionably larger and superior at sea; Chinese land weapons, particularly tanks, are inferior, but in air power they are closer to parity. More to the point, China has far larger and more rapid production capabilities and can withstand large losses which Russia cannot, and China is not under massive international sanctions. Russia gets to 2nd only because it has the 2nd-largest nuclear arsenal, which is impressive but would (hopefully) play no role in a limited regional conflict.

Russia should certainly be stronger and richer than it is, and is being held back by infrastructure issues and a failure to diversify the economy, although it's been doing better in recent years (until the sanctions, anyway). It has a lot of IT and digital potential, certainly. But Putin's thought process seems to be that to get Russia back to the levels of the USSR, he needs to recreate the conditions of the USSR (apart from Communism itself) which requires Russia having territorial access to those lands it formerly controlled.

 

Quote

 

The Baltics loath the Russians. There is no way they would voluntarily get back in bed with them.

 

True. The actual Russian minority in the three countries actually seems to prefer life there as the economies are stronger and there's greater freedom. However, the Russians just need a small number of the Russian minority in each country to start complaining about oppression and prejudice and they can start making threatening noises.

Quote

Why did it need Crimea and the Donbass if it is so awsome without these territories.  I understand Putin doesn't need the Baltics or Poland.  My concern is based on his past actions toward Nations that neighbor Russia.

The Crimea is important as it gives Russia a port on the Black Sea. Being cut off from the Black Sea is disastrous for Russia.

Tallinn and Riga give Russia more naval power on the Baltic Sea and greater options in that theatre, as well as providing it with a stronger border with Poland, as well as linking up Kaliningrad with the mainland. They also dramatically increase the chances of Russia winning the Eurovision Song Contest.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I'm a really big fan. Much prefer it to vinegar based.

 

24 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Mustard based BBQ is an acquired taste.......  

Mustard based is a midlands low country thing.  Part of our strong German ancestry around here.  It is delicious.

[Mr Fixit]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

How do you know what he wants? Know that for sure? I don't think you do.

Please explain to us, oh enlightened one, just what Putin's long term strategic goals are.

If you have some kind of  secret source of information, which isn't in the media, by all means share it with the rest of us.

Ummm... I have a functioning brain? Russia has clearly and openly indicated many years ago that, following NATO expansion to their borders, Georgia and Ukraine were their "red lines". We can agree or disagree with their policies, but that is a fact. We all know what sadly happened in those two countries. Extrapolating that onto the Baltic states or even more ludicrously Poland is fearmongering perpetuated by people who need eternal enemies to justify their policies. Russia isn't interested in attacking eastern Europe any more it's interested in attacking Jupiter. It's up to those who claim the opposite to sufficiently support those claims with credible evidence.

[Jaxom 1974]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Could be. Particularly if Trump gets a great real estate deal there.

So...Estonia...

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Ummm... I have a functioning brain? Russia has clearly and openly indicated many years ago that, following NATO expansion to their borders, Georgia and Ukraine were their "red lines". We can agree or disagree with their policies, but that is a fact. We all know what sadly happened in those two countries. Extrapolating that onto the Baltic states or even more ludicrously Poland is fearmongering perpetuated by people who need eternal enemies to justify their policies. Russia isn't interested in attacking eastern Europe any more it's interested in attacking Jupiter. It's up to those who claim the opposite to sufficiently support those claims with credible evidence.

So what you are stating here today is that we know unequivocally what Putin's intentions are with the Baltic States and in Eastern Europe. And we have no reason to be concerned about those intentions.

That is what you are stating here right now. Am I correct?

[mormont]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/314783-assange-lawyer-conditions-not-met-for-assange-manning-extradition-offer

To the surprise of no-one, Julian Assange will not be giving himself up.

Quote

“Mr. Assange welcomes the announcement that Ms. Manning's sentence will be reduced and she will be released in May, but this is well short of what he sought,” said Barry Pollack, Assange’s U.S.-based attorney, via email.
“Mr. Assange had called for Chelsea Manning to receive clemency and be released immediately.”

 

[Mr Fixit]

9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So what you are stating here today. Is that we know unequivocally what Putin's intentions are with the Baltic States and in Eastern Europe. And we have no reason to be concerned about those intentions.

That is what you are stating here right now. Am I correct?

Does Putin want to weaken NATO as his current adversary? Sure. Would he cry if NATO disbanded? Nope. Would he like increased influence in eastern Europe? Yeah, I'd say so. Pretty much things that every country with geopolitical aspirations would want. I mean, would US like to weaken Russia? Would they like to weaken Russian ties to regimes Putin is cozy with? Would it be nice if the West had a stronger influence in internal Russian politics? We're talking Politics 101 here.

None of that means that Russia intends to invade eastern Europe. And you know what? European leaders also don't believe it (no matter what they publicly say). If, say, Germany or France really believed that there is a reasonable chance of war with Russia in the foreseeable future, you could be damn sure their military expenditures would skyrocket from currently anemic 1.x% of GDP. It's all pure propaganda BS.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, Hereward said:

The Baltics loath the Russians. There is no way they would voluntarily get back in bed with them.

The first statement is currently true, but the second is not, and I think you missed my point. If Putin wants to bring the Baltic states back into the fold through non-military means, then destabilizing the current world order is the best way to achieve that goal.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Does Putin want to weaken NATO as his current adversary? Sure. Would he cry if NATO disbanded? Nope. Would he like increased influence in eastern Europe? Yeah, I'd say so. Pretty much things that every country with geopolitical aspirations would want. I mean, would US like to weaken Russia? Would they like to weaken Russian ties to regimes Putin is cozy with? Would it be nice if the West had a stronger influence in internal Russian politics? We're talking Politics 101 here. None of that means that Russia intends to invade eastern Europe.

He may not intend to invade. I don't think that is likely. But, he may very well try to undermined those regimes there. And the fact is that the Eastern European countries want NATO there. And we have given our promises to them.

We may not know exactly what kind of player Mr. Putin is. But, because of that reason, I think it is important give him a credible signal of what our response will be if he tries to interfere with those Eastern European countries.

The problem with Trump is that he seems to be kind of wishy washy on this matter.

[Mr Fixit]

14 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

He may not intend to invade. I don't think that is likely. But, he may very well try to undermined those regimes there. And the fact is that the Eastern European countries want NATO there. And we have given our promises to them.

And that is all well and good. No one is suggesting NATO shouldn't defend their members. What I was talking about is the media-perpetuated paranoia started and induced by what passes for political class these days that WE MUST DEFEND BALTICS PUTIN ATTACK DANGER DICTATOR OMG QUICK! 

I am not American, so I ask you people who are in good faith. If you did a professional poll today among ordinary Americans on the likelihood of Russian invasion of the Baltics, what answers would you get? Last I heard, over 50% of Clinton voters actually believed the Russians hacked the VOTING SYSTEM. Do you honestly believe my proposed poll would fare any differently? That's the danger of biased media that uncritically disseminates establishment talking points.

We all need to think for ourselves first and foremost. So yes, NATO has a legal obligation to defend their member states. They would do well to make that sufficiently clear to all potential adversaries, Russia included. It doesn't follow that it means we need to start a manufactured hysteria to prove our point. In fact, such irresponsible behavior will only ensure the continued instability. Then again, seems certain actors want such an outcome. 

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

And that is all well and good. No one is suggesting NATO shouldn't defend their members. What I was talking about is the media-perpetuated paranoia started and induced by what passes for political class these days that WE MUST DEFEND BALTICS PUTIN ATTACK DANGER DICTATOR OMG QUICK! 

But it is in issue. And we don't know exactly what Putin intends there. And Trump's wishy washiness on the issue isn't helpful. On this particular issue the response must be clear, so Putin can make whatever rational calculation he needs to.

5 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

I am not American, so I ask you this in good faith. If you did a professional poll today among ordinary Americans on the likelihood of Russian invasion of the Baltics, what answers would you get? Last I heard, over 50% of Clinton voters actually believed the Russians hacked the VOTING SYSTEM. Do you honestly believe my proposed poll would fare any differently?

I have no idea. No clue. Should I just make shit up?

Part of the problem is that some people don't read media sources carefully enough. If you read enough sources, I'd think you would rate an invasion as unlikely. You're kind of sounding like conservative here as in "Don't trust the liberuuul media!!!!" 

[Hereward]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The first statement is currently true, but the second is not, and I think you missed my point. If Putin wants to bring the Baltic states back into the fold through non-military means, then destabilizing the current world order is the best way to achieve that goal.

Why is the second statement not true, and how would destabilizing the current world order cause the Baltics to want to be ruled by the Russians again?

[Mr Fixit]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Part of the problem is that some people don't read media sources carefully enough. If you read enough sources, I'd think you would rate an invasion as unlikely. You're kind of sounding like conservative here as in "Don't trust the liberuuul media!!!!" 

Well, that's part of the game. Those who perpetuate mass hysteria count on the fact that many people won't read carefully enough or between the lines. 

And your damn right I don't trust liberal media. Or any mainstream media for that matter. Those guys can't really be trusted to cover a political or economic issue without bias.

[Mexal]

13 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

And that is all well and good. No one is suggesting NATO shouldn't defend their members. What I was talking about is the media-perpetuated paranoia started and induced by what passes for political class these days that WE MUST DEFEND BALTICS PUTIN ATTACK DANGER DICTATOR OMG QUICK! 

I am not American, so I ask you people who are in good faith. If you did a professional poll today among ordinary Americans on the likelihood of Russian invasion of the Baltics, what answers would you get? Last I heard, over 50% of Clinton voters actually believed the Russians hacked the VOTING SYSTEM. Do you honestly believe my proposed poll would fare any differently? That's the danger of biased media that uncritically disseminates establishment talking points.

We all need to think for ourselves first and foremost. So yes, NATO has a legal obligation to defend their member states. They would do well to make that sufficiently clear to all potential adversaries, Russia included. It doesn't follow that it means we need to start a manufactured hysteria to prove our point. In fact, such irresponsible behavior will only ensure the continued instability. Then again, seems certain actors want such an outcome. 

I'm just not seeing the hysteria. I read a lot of news but maybe I'm reading the wrong sources. Can you point to a few examples of manufactured hysteria in the biased media towards a Russian invasion of the Baltics?

Fact is, the incoming administration's relationship with Russia is like nothing we've ever seen. It doesn't logically follow the relationship the US has had with Russia over the past 60 years, nor does it make sense given Russia's actions in purposely trying to sway the election. So if the incoming administration's only change to the Republican platform was to soften their stance on Russia/Ukraine (and lie about it), the incoming administration consistently devalues the purpose of NATO in public, the incoming administration consistently lies about their relationship with Russia and Russia becomes more proactive in affecting world affairs (legal or otherwise), do you not think it's cause for concern? Do you not think that it's worth talking about the consequences of these actions and what it could mean over the next 4 years?

As an aside, American ignorance is famous. I don't see what point you're proving with your proposed poll. If you put a poll out there asking if Obama was the antichrist, you'd get 25% people agreeing. 

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

And your damn right I don't trust liberal media. Or any mainstream media for that matter. Those guys can't really be trusted to cover a political or economic issue without bias.

Well then, please share your secret sources.

I personally don't want to go through life being an idiot or at least l'd like to go through life being a little less of an idiot. If there are some secret sources out there will help me be less of an idiot, I'd be happy to know about them. As long as we aren't talking about InfoWars or something.

Anyway, I will say, it probably is important to read several sources.  No one article is going to be perfect. But, when we get into this conspiracy stuff, I just roll my eyes a little.

[Mr Fixit]

14 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I'm just not seeing the hysteria. I read a lot of news but maybe I'm reading the wrong sources. Can you point to a few examples of manufactured hysteria in the biased media towards a Russian invasion of the Baltics?

I don't have the time for a thorough research, but just go ahead and type Russia or Russia Baltics in Google and see where it gets you. You will see close to ZERO neutral or positive news articles on whatever subject or issue. 

For example I found these headlines on the first 2 pages of Google News in the last month:

Russia's Secret Weapon to Invade the Baltics and Crush NATO: Soldiers Falling from the Sky

Russian activist: If Putin regains Ukraine, the Baltics are next

US Special Forces deployed at Russian border to defend Baltic states ‘scared to death’ by Vladimir Putin

U.S. Lending Support to Baltic States Fearing Russia

Baltic states like Latvia are wary of where Trump’s overtures to Russia could lead

Why Russia's military adventures worry Europe

How Russia could sweep NATO from the Baltic Sea

NATO: RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT INTERCEPTED 110 TIMES ABOVE BALTIC IN 2016

US stations troops in Baltic states facing 'threat' from Russia

A NECESSARY RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN THE BALTICS

Yeah, I'd say propaganda is in full swing.

[Week]

25 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Yeah, I'd say propaganda is in full swing.

This may be propaganda - however, I'm not sure that I would classify mainstream media as predominantly propaganda. I consider it (e.g. CNN) to lack nuance, detail, and a general contextual understanding of the topic. Perhaps that is exactly what makes it effectively propaganda.

 

I just don't believe that it is necessarily intentional insofar as delivering a specific message - I think it is A: Laziness and B: Ratings driven (dumbed down - easily digestible via CC at an airport). Would you disagree in general or with respect to specific media outlets? 

I would - of course - classify FoxNews as propaganda. There clearly is a messaging intent and framework - or at least there has been historically. 

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Tallinn and Riga give Russia more naval power on the Baltic Sea and greater options in that theatre, as well as providing it with a stronger border with Poland, as well as linking up Kaliningrad with the mainland. They also dramatically increase the chances of Russia winning the Eurovision Song Contest.

They need Vilnius as well to get land access to Kaliningrad (the land route would be Lithuania + either Latvia or Belarus)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

57 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Why is the second statement not true, and how would destabilizing the current world order cause the Baltics to want to be ruled by the Russians again?

It's unwise to say things can never happen, and I didn't mean to imply that the Baltics would be willing to be ruled by Russia, just become allies and potentially agree to something similar to the EU. Destabilizing the EU and NATO could possible produce those results.