CDZ War with Russia?

[jwoodie]

While I think an all-out war with Russia is extremely unlikely, I can't rule out a hostile military exchange in third countries. This is what can happen when one side makes public threats which it is not willing to carry through with when the other side calls its bluff. The first side then feels the need to restore its domestic credibility by initiating some unrelated military action that would not otherwise have been contemplated.

I am concerned that our "red line in the sand" and "no fly zone" pronouncements regarding the situation in Iraq are creating just this scenario. What are our leaders going to do if Russia continues to ignore these threats and even intensifies its military actions over there? Will they feel obligated to save face by creating a new conflict?

 

[Bush92]

We will not go to war with Russia. Bigger threat is China.

 

[irosie91]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

 

[Toronado3800]

The negatives Donald has enumerated many times but one of the positives of picking a member of the status quo is we will likely maintain the status of fighting wars through proxies.

 

[irosie91]

The negatives Donald has enumerated many times but one of the positives of picking a member of the status quo is we will likely maintain the status of fighting wars through proxies.

try harder next time

 

[GaryDog]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

My grandfather would LHAO at this.

 

[Toronado3800]

The negatives Donald has enumerated many times but one of the positives of picking a member of the status quo is we will likely maintain the status of fighting wars through proxies.

try harder next time

I do not understand your questions or what you don't understand.

I said electing Hillary, who is an insider, is likely to produce more "business as usual". That business is a series of wars fought through proxies like we have had for 70 years.

I said Trump has enumerated the negatives of electing an insider many times. I wanted to be fair to Republicans by not saying electing Hillary was a positive.

What do you disagree with?

 

[Wyatt earp]

We will not go to war with Russia. Bigger threat is China.

That's not What russia is saying


Russian Television Warns of Nuclear War Amid US Tensions

 

[irosie91]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

My grandfather would LHAO at this.

what is LHAO and what is 'this'?

 

[irosie91]

The negatives Donald has enumerated many times but one of the positives of picking a member of the status quo is we will likely maintain the status of fighting wars through proxies.

try harder next time

I do not understand your questions or what you don't understand.

I said electing Hillary, who is an insider, is likely to produce more "business as usual". That business is a series of wars fought through proxies like we have had for 70 years.

I said Trump has enumerated the negatives of electing an insider many times. I wanted to be fair to Republicans by not saying electing Hillary was a positive.

What do you disagree with?

I do not agree that the USA is controlling world politics thru the use of hundreds of proxie armies over the planet

 

[GaryDog]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

My grandfather would LHAO at this.

what is LHAO and what is 'this'?

My grandfather would "laugh his ass off" at the suggestion that we're currently "at war" with anyone. He fought in WWII.

 

[irosie91]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

My grandfather would LHAO at this.

what is LHAO and what is 'this'?

My grandfather would "laugh his ass off" at the suggestion that we're currently "at war" with anyone. He fought in WWII.

oh---well the Navy boys out there in Arabian sea might feel a bit --------INVOLVED. It might interest you to know that todays navy kids are considered to be active duty in time of
war.

 

[irosie91]

The negatives Donald has enumerated many times but one of the positives of picking a member of the status quo is we will likely maintain the status of fighting wars through proxies.

try harder next time

I do not understand your questions or what you don't understand.

I said electing Hillary, who is an insider, is likely to produce more "business as usual". That business is a series of wars fought through proxies like we have had for 70 years.

I said Trump has enumerated the negatives of electing an insider many times. I wanted to be fair to Republicans by not saying electing Hillary was a positive.

What do you disagree with?

I do agree that a HILLARY pres----means STATUS QUO----just what she and her retainers want

 

[jwoodie]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

My grandfather would LHAO at this.

what is LHAO and what is 'this'?

My grandfather would "laugh his ass off" at the suggestion that we're currently "at war" with anyone. He fought in WWII.

oh---well the Navy boys out there in Arabian sea might feel a bit --------INVOLVED. It might interest you to know that todays navy kids are considered to be active duty in time of
war.

 

[GaryDog]

We are already at war------with the AXIS powers which include but are not limited to-----Iran, Russia, Syria

My grandfather would LHAO at this.

what is LHAO and what is 'this'?

My grandfather would "laugh his ass off" at the suggestion that we're currently "at war" with anyone. He fought in WWII.

oh---well the Navy boys out there in Arabian sea might feel a bit --------INVOLVED. It might interest you to know that todays navy kids are considered to be active duty in time of
war.

Active duty is not the same as "combat pay." And even combat doesn't mean we're at war.

 

[GLASNOST]

While I think an all-out war with Russia is extremely unlikely, I can't rule out a hostile military exchange in third countries. This is what can happen when one side makes public threats which it is not willing to carry through with when the other side calls its bluff. The first side then feels the need to restore its domestic credibility by initiating some unrelated military action that would not otherwise have been contemplated.

I am concerned that our "red line in the sand" and "no fly zone" pronouncements regarding the situation in Iraq are creating just this scenario. What are our leaders going to do if Russia continues to ignore these threats and even intensifies its military actions over there? Will they feel obligated to save face by creating a new conflict?

I agree with you. But there is more to it than that. You shouldn't forget the reason the mongers are 'there' in he first place. You've jumped over that fundamental issue and took up the thread in the middle. That's the same mistake most people make. I agree about 'public threats' and 'unwillingness to carry through with threats' and 'bluffing' and 'need to restore domestic credibility' .... but I am not so sure there is any 'unrelated military action that would not otherwise have been contemplated'. You make the assertion that your projected 'unrelated military action' is a response beyond their fundamental goal. Am I making sense or am I not explaining myself well?

The "red line in the sand" and "no fly zone" are specifically for the purpose of reaching their treacherous goals. True, that the Russians (in this case) are a thorn in Washington's side but the US is going to make a big mistake by their tunnel vision. The Whine House and Pentagram are just playing up this phony neo-Sovjet scare only to try justifying thwarting Putin's successes against ISIS. But that's their back-up plan, not their main goal.

Tell me the truth ... I didn't make any sense, did I. I know what I want to say I just don't know how to say it.

 

[GLASNOST]

Active duty is not the same as "combat pay." And even combat doesn't mean we're at war.

Lots of guys got combat pay in Vietnam whether or not they were combat soldiers, and ........ there was no 'war' declared anyway.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Myth of Russian Power | Huffington Post

 

[jwoodie]

Myth of Russian Power | Huffington Post

Did you even read this ridiculous article?

"Yet this narrative ignores two things. The first one is that the US and NATO did not muscle into Russia’s former satellites, but rather they were begged by those countries to expand to include them. The Baltics, Poland and the Vishegrad countries, Romania, Bulgaria and the rest of the Slavic Balkans were not stolen by the West. They took the first opportunity to flee the Russian yoke that history afforded them. Indeed, the Lithuanians and, most famously the Hungarians, tried to move out of Russia’s “natural sphere of interest” long before, with tragic consequences. Nor has NATO more recently tried to muscle into Georgia or Ukraine. Once again, it was peoples that have had enough of Russian domination that tried to choose a different path.

And the second is that the only thing that makes Russia a power is the fact that it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Were it not for this arsenal, any one of the UK, France or Germany could check Russian military adventurism on their own. To say nothing of the US or China. And indeed, Russia needs to throw its military weight around because it does not have much else going for it. The old ideological underpinning of empire, Communism, is gone, replaced instead with crude ethnocentric revanchiste nationalism. And the former industrial and scientific might of the Soviet colossus has been reduced to rubble, replaced by a narrow natural resource-driven economy, controlled by a restricted clique of the President’s friends, while independent entrepreneurialism is either quashed through local political corruption, or absorbed into the black economy."

The fact that satellite countries abandoned the former Soviet Union does not make Russia any less of a military power, and its updated nuclear arsenal backs that up.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Myth of Russian Power | Huffington Post

Did you even read this ridiculous article?

"Yet this narrative ignores two things. The first one is that the US and NATO did not muscle into Russia’s former satellites, but rather they were begged by those countries to expand to include them. The Baltics, Poland and the Vishegrad countries, Romania, Bulgaria and the rest of the Slavic Balkans were not stolen by the West. They took the first opportunity to flee the Russian yoke that history afforded them. Indeed, the Lithuanians and, most famously the Hungarians, tried to move out of Russia’s “natural sphere of interest” long before, with tragic consequences. Nor has NATO more recently tried to muscle into Georgia or Ukraine. Once again, it was peoples that have had enough of Russian domination that tried to choose a different path.

And the second is that the only thing that makes Russia a power is the fact that it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Were it not for this arsenal, any one of the UK, France or Germany could check Russian military adventurism on their own. To say nothing of the US or China. And indeed, Russia needs to throw its military weight around because it does not have much else going for it. The old ideological underpinning of empire, Communism, is gone, replaced instead with crude ethnocentric revanchiste nationalism. And the former industrial and scientific might of the Soviet colossus has been reduced to rubble, replaced by a narrow natural resource-driven economy, controlled by a restricted clique of the President’s friends, while independent entrepreneurialism is either quashed through local political corruption, or absorbed into the black economy."

The fact that satellite countries abandoned the former Soviet Union does not make Russia any less of a military power, and its updated nuclear arsenal backs that up.

Other than their nuclear arsenal their conventional military is no match for anyone in the west, let alone the US. Russia is no threat.