Trump hinted he plans massive War in Middle-East

[Svad]

Yeah, great.

Trump deploys most of your military in the ME, and Putin /lols when he invades Europa, and NATO is unable to do a crap about it, because the US is engaged in the ME.

War on a very large scale in both the ME and on the European continent, WW3 ensues and we are all fragged.

And Trump will tell the media "But Putin promised me he wouldnt invade Europa"...

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah because betting against the US has been a winning one in the history of the world. but sure Cybran. Put your money on it.

Russia's decline is motivating it's policies, including Crimea. But the fact of the matter is "Russia today" is a fraction the size of it's empire 30 years ago, and smaller still the Russian Empire proper. It's been a downward slope. Three re-organizations around the same idea - Russian imperialism - that all reach an ignominious end.

You can bet your life the fourth form of Russia will be even more contracted, modest and less relevant.



What do you think I've been doing?

This is arguably worse for them. Not my preferred outcome, but now we get years to do the same deed.

Skroe, Cybran is from turkey, and he is a staunch supporter of Erdogan from the posts he has made since forever.

Erdogan and Putin are BFF's and so Cybran loves Russia and Putin...

[Cybran]

Yeah because betting against the US has been a winning one in the history of the world. but sure Cybran. Put your money on it.

Careful. I bet on Trump's victory miles ahead.

[Skaiz]

Man I love this news of "hinting" at things. It's like it's confirmed and real, but instead is just more fear mongering. What excellent news! Thanks for the post!

[Skroe]

Without getting into nation-bashing, what is it about the Russian Empire/USSR/Russian Federation that prevents its people and government from establishing a long-lasting, stable state in Eurasia?

A lot of things.

First it's massive and shares borders with 14 countries. It's extremely sparsely populated, tremendously diverse and highly decentralized. Large parts of Russia, in all 3 forms in the past 130 years, have had varying, but often high, degrees of autnomy. To dome degree, it's been a superstate in name only at various points. Much more a confederation.

It's always been surrounded by great power rivals. The French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. It's sheer physical size - artificial in nature because of 18th and 19th century land grabs that make it physically huge but again, empty - mean that it is forced to define it's interests extremely broadly. The US for example, has vacillated in its Middle Eastern commitment over the past 70 years. And stick around another 70 and there is a good chance you'll see it flux another three or four times. Our geographic isolation allows us to pick and choose when we need to commit huge amounts of resources, and when we should not.

It's long straddled deeply unstable parts of the world. China and the Russian Far East, were incredibly unstable as a region in the early 20th century, rife with warlordism and roving armies that sacked cities like it with 10th century still. Europe, let's not forget, used to be the "trouble spot" in the world. Today, Russia's soft belly lays across the entire arc of instability.

There is also the issue of money. Money underwrote the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and now the "American Empire" so to speak. Extreme wealth broadens interests. By firture of being rich, those superpowers, in a positive feedback loop, both saw necessary to rise to global or regional pre-eminence, but also had the resources to pay for it. Russia never has. It's done well with its limited resources, but as principally a land based power, it has never been able to capitalize on trade and economic trends that made the British Empire, and now the US, so rich (and also predominantly sea powers).

Russia is just all wrong to be a stable, enduring superpower. And Vlamdir Putin knows these challenges which explains pretty much everything about his foreign policy the past 15 years. He knows that Russia as he knows it, will not survive between a European Union that thrives and a powerful China. It will be sandwhiched in, an impoverished neighbor to a richer power to the east and west. That is why he is trying to destroy the EU and why he is trying to placate China (though China and Russia's historic rivalry will never end). Fundamentally, Eurasia cannot support three large powers in a stable situation. It could probably support both the EU and China due to the geographic distance and distance in interests, but it could not support a permanent EU / Russia or Russia / China dynamic. Both pairings interests will force clashes, and eventually, one winner and one loser.

Once again America's gift is it's incredible geography. It is one reason why American superpowerdom will perpetuate itself: we can be the power to chose to a far greater degree, where to allocate resources, and because of the sea and our Navy, trade will continue to underwrite it. America is not too big, but not too small either. It's perfectly sized for it's global role. By contrast China and India are under immense strain just due to their population size.

Russia, for its size, just doesnt have enough people, isn't generating nearly enough revenue, and is simply not nearly enough the master of it's own fate. That is why a long lasting stable state where it is cannot last. It could do everything perfectly, and inevitably, China, Europe or a neigbhor we haven't imagined yet, will come along and say "I want your stuff". With the US, that's much harder.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, great.

Trump deploys most of your military in the ME, and Putin /lols when he invades Europa, and NATO is unable to do a crap about it, because the US is engaged in the ME.

War on a very large scale in both the ME and on the European continent, WW3 ensues and we are all fragged.

And Trump will tell the media "But Putin promised me he wouldnt invade Europa"...

- - - Updated - - -



Skroe, Cybran is from turkey, and he is a staunch supporter of Erdogan from the posts he has made since forever.

Erdogan and Putin are BFF's and so Cybran loves Russia and Putin...

He's from Bulgaria. He's a pro-Putin guy because he haste Germany and America.

[Berengil]

A lot of things.

First it's massive and shares borders with 14 countries. It's extremely sparsely populated, tremendously diverse and highly decentralized. Large parts of Russia, in all 3 forms in the past 130 years, have had varying, but often high, degrees of autnomy. To dome degree, it's been a superstate in name only at various points. Much more a confederation.

It's always been surrounded by great power rivals. The French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. It's sheer physical size - artificial in nature because of 18th and 19th century land grabs that make it physically huge but again, empty - mean that it is forced to define it's interests extremely broadly. The US for example, has vacillated in its Middle Eastern commitment over the past 70 years. And stick around another 70 and there is a good chance you'll see it flux another three or four times. Our geographic isolation allows us to pick and choose when we need to commit huge amounts of resources, and when we should not.

It's long straddled deeply unstable parts of the world. China and the Russian Far East, were incredibly unstable as a region in the early 20th century, rife with warlordism and roving armies that sacked cities like it with 10th century still. Europe, let's not forget, used to be the "trouble spot" in the world. Today, Russia's soft belly lays across the entire arc of instability.

There is also the issue of money. Money underwrote the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and now the "American Empire" so to speak. Extreme wealth broadens interests. By firture of being rich, those superpowers, in a positive feedback loop, both saw necessary to rise to global or regional pre-eminence, but also had the resources to pay for it. Russia never has. It's done well with its limited resources, but as principally a land based power, it has never been able to capitalize on trade and economic trends that made the British Empire, and now the US, so rich (and also predominantly sea powers).

Russia is just all wrong to be a stable, enduring superpower. And Vlamdir Putin knows these challenges which explains pretty much everything about his foreign policy the past 15 years. He knows that Russia as he knows it, will not survive between a European Union that thrives and a powerful China. It will be sandwhiched in, an impoverished neighbor to a richer power to the east and west. That is why he is trying to destroy the EU and why he is trying to placate China (though China and Russia's historic rivalry will never end). Fundamentally, Eurasia cannot support three large powers in a stable situation. It could probably support both the EU and China due to the geographic distance and distance in interests, but it could not support a permanent EU / Russia or Russia / China dynamic. Both pairings interests will force clashes, and eventually, one winner and one loser.

Once again America's gift is it's incredible geography. It is one reason why American superpowerdom will perpetuate itself: we can be the power to chose to a far greater degree, where to allocate resources, and because of the sea and our Navy, trade will continue to underwrite it. America is not too big, but not too small either. It's perfectly sized for it's global role. By contrast China and India are under immense strain just due to their population size.

Russia, for its size, just doesnt have enough people, isn't generating nearly enough revenue, and is simply not nearly enough the master of it's own fate. That is why a long lasting stable state where it is cannot last. It could do everything perfectly, and inevitably, China, Europe or a neigbhor we haven't imagined yet, will come along and say "I want your stuff". With the US, that's much harder.

If Putin had a sudden epiphany and said " Oh sht, I need to change course here", what could he do to:

1) maximize Russian influence while minimizing other's fears of his country

2) help the Russian economy in the best way possible

3) address Russia's demographic problems

basically, I'm asking you if you were suddenly placed in charge of Russia and were required to give them the best possible future without making more enemies, what would you do?

[GennGreymane]

baaa...buuuu......but Killary is warmanger!

[Deleted]

He's from Bulgaria. He's a pro-Putin guy because he haste Germany and America.

Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece... same shit, same blood.


B8.

[Cybran]

I'm asking you if you were suddenly placed in charge of Russia and were required to give them the best possible future without making more enemies, what would you do?

He hates Russia, because communism wronged his grandparents back in the 60s in Latin America. His eyes are covered with a red tint of hatred and convert zeal towards capitalism.

He can't fathom that Russia is inhabited by real people.

[Deleted]

He can't fathom that Russia is inhabited by real people.

And ruled by a tyrant. But Putin wont live forever.

[Medievaldragon]

Man I love this news of "hinting" at things. It's like it's confirmed and real, but instead is just more fear mongering. What excellent news! Thanks for the post!

I used the word "hint" in the title, but I was wrong. This is not a hint. This is not Alternative Facts, it is a Fact that he plans a military attack. If you were the leader of Syria, or Iran, or Irak. Would you let US send missiles to several areas of your territory, or call it an act of war?

Tell me what part of this is not a confirmed statement by Trump that US is going to war?

We have been fighting these wars for longer than any wars we've ever fought. We have not used the real abilities that we have. We have been restrained. We have to get rid of ISIS. We have no choice. Radical Islamic terrorism, and I said it yesterday, has to be eradicated, just off the face of the earth."

There could be wars" .... " This is a level of evil that we haven't seen. And you are going to go to it, and you are going to do a phenomenal job. But we are going to end it. It's time. It's time right now to end it.

"The generals are wonderful and the fighting is wonderful. But if you give them the right direction, boy, does the fighting become easier and, boy, lose so fewer lives and win so quickly. That's what we have to do. We have to start winning again."

[CostinR]

And after it fell, the successor states in the region called themselves Roman, took Roman names and lived under Roman customs, even though the continuity of the imperial institution was gone (and passed to the East). I think with Russia, we'll be seeing something similar.

Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union. All that militaristic, nationalist crap that he plays is all to drum up nostalgia for public approval. In truth Russia is very, very weak. Russia is a meaningless threat.

It took a while for Obama to repair the reckless damage Bush did to the international order, but in some ways he never did (and arguably couldn't), because Bush broke "the trust". If Trump spends the next while running wild over whats left of it, his successors will find themselves inheriting a US with fewer allies and less access.

I think the DoD, Department of State, the CIA, and our allies will work to fence in Trump so that nothing he does has significant lasting repercussions.

What you're describing about ensuring Trump doesn't destroy everything I could say very well about Obama.

Obama might have repaired your image by appearing as a moderate as opposed to Bush but in truth I view Obama as the most radical president you've had in a long long time.

Read what Ron Paul, who although perhaps radical in his views worked as a moderate in Congress and got things done on a bi-partisan basis, has to say on Obama.



Obama had a good public imagine, conjured up by a media that licked his ass at every chance but what he did was beyond anything Bush dreamed of.

When your Pentagon and NATO leaders realized that Obama was a radical and not a moderate they did all they could with the help of the media to ensure he would not destroy the World Order and yet Obama came close to it anyway. Obama was never willing to play ball with anyone on anything, not with your allies not with your rivals.

The refugee crisis. It all started in Libya with that intervention. To hear the media say the tale it was Sarkozy and David Cameron that demanded it and made the decision while the US tagged along. In reality Obama made that decision and demanded everyone fall in line.

Germany, the nation closest to your Pentagon refused to get involved because they knew as Bob Gates knew that it would be a disaster. Sarkozy and Cameron ended paying the price for Obama's decision.

Then the refugees. Everyone from the media to the politicians publicly blames Merkel for it....and that's just downright unfair. It wasn't Merkel that intervened in Libya, it wasn't Merkel that ignored Erdogan in Turkey while arming Al-Nusra. It was Barrack Hussein Obama.

Right now we don't even know for sure if Turkey is even really a NATO member for what Obama did to us. He left NATO with no tanks or planes.

To put it simply, if that black son of a bitch had lost to Hillary or McCain in '08 or to Romney in 2012, actual moderates, there would be no refugee crisis, no Brexit, no Crimea, no radical Erdogan in Turkey, no Syria, no Libya, no ISIS. Obama undid every bit of progress that was made from 2006 to 2009 by Condi Rice.

Obama should go down in history as the singular worst nightmare to befall your country.

[Slirith]

Its in everyones best interest to have a stable middle east.

*snicker* /10chars

[Volardelis]

So some people voted Trump to avoid war

Only to possibly get war.

[sethman75]

Is this somekind of "two wrongs make a right" spin on things?

No i think most people call it fact

[Wyrt]

Putin's Russia is not the Soviet Union. All that militaristic, nationalist crap that he plays is all to drum up nostalgia for public approval. In truth Russia is very, very weak. Russia is a meaningless threat.



What you're describing about ensuring Trump doesn't destroy everything I could say very well about Obama.

Obama might have repaired your image by appearing as a moderate as opposed to Bush but in truth I view Obama as the most radical president you've had in a long long time.

Read what Ron Paul, who although perhaps radical in his views worked as a moderate in Congress and got things done on a bi-partisan basis, has to say on Obama.



Obama had a good public imagine, conjured up by a media that licked his ass at every chance but what he did was beyond anything Bush dreamed of.

When your Pentagon and NATO leaders realized that Obama was a radical and not a moderate they did all they could with the help of the media to ensure he would not destroy the World Order and yet Obama came close to it anyway. Obama was never willing to play ball with anyone on anything, not with your allies not with your rivals.

The refugee crisis. It all started in Libya with that intervention. To hear the media say the tale it was Sarkozy and David Cameron that demanded it and made the decision while the US tagged along. In reality Obama made that decision and demanded everyone fall in line.

Germany, the nation closest to your Pentagon refused to get involved because they knew as Bob Gates knew that it would be a disaster. Sarkozy and Cameron ended paying the price for Obama's decision.

Then the refugees. Everyone from the media to the politicians publicly blames Merkel for it....and that's just downright unfair. It wasn't Merkel that intervened in Libya, it wasn't Merkel that ignored Erdogan in Turkey while arming Al-Nusra. It was Barrack Hussein Obama.

Right now we don't even know for sure if Turkey is even really a NATO member for what Obama did to us. He left NATO with no tanks or planes.

To put it simply, if that black son of a bitch had lost to Hillary or McCain in '08 or to Romney in 2012, actual moderates, there would be no refugee crisis, no Brexit, no Crimea, no radical Erdogan in Turkey, no Syria, no Libya, no ISIS. Obama undid every bit of progress that was made from 2006 to 2009 by Condi Rice.

Obama should go down in history as the singular worst nightmare to befall your country.

I hear blaming liberals for everything is a great way of uniting the nation and reaching across the partisan isle.

[CostinR]

I hear blaming liberals for everything is a great way of uniting the nation and reaching across the partisan isle.

Blaming Obama = / = not blaming liberals. The people who voted Obama thought and hoped he'd end the political circus of Clinton and Bush, he promised it. He didn't. He made it far worse.

[belfpala]

Blaming Obama = / = not blaming liberals. The people who voted Obama thought and hoped he'd end the political circus of Clinton and Bush, he promised it. He didn't. He made it far worse.

Strange, I see and hear all the time some version of "TEH LIBERULZ!!!!" intended as a disparaging remark.

And Obama is a fascist dictator, remember, not a liberal, so marybe you're confused. /sarcasm.

[Wyrt]

Blaming Obama = / = not blaming liberals. The people who voted Obama thought and hoped he'd end the political circus of Clinton and Bush, he promised it. He didn't. He made it far worse.

That Ron Paul quote is blaming liberals.

[Glorious Leader]

That Ron Paul quote is blaming liberals.

Its always the liberals fault. Obama gets elected. Stupid liberals. Trump gets elected. Well you liberals earned it. At this point it should be fairly clear that this anti pc anti sjw is mostly just projection.

[Dentelan]

If US will not start fighting ISIS it will loose its moral argument to invade countries as they did in the past, and i think they wont let it happen. Also Trump has huge ego, he wants to show to US people real results like *Look, im president less than a year, and we've already took Mosul back* or something like that. Because Obama administration was really only about talking, they were not trying to fight ISIS for real. But hey, US people were talking for last 16 years that they are god blessed fighers against terrorism or some shit like that, cmon, there is god damn state of terrorists, go fight it.