Hillary Clinton Could Easily Push America into Open Conflict with Russia

[Cyberowl]

Lots of countries have border walls. In fact there's already a fence along most of the US/Mexico border, Which is why the idea is laughable considering all of the illegal immigrants get in by over-staying tourist visas and would get past the wall anyways.


Looking at Europe right now...
The nukes part is dumb. But like any other quote of his the media is probably taking it completely out of context.... Either way, stomping ISIS makes more sense than taking out Assad who is pretty much the last secular influence in the middle east. If Assad goes, nobody is taking out ISIS.
More out of context bullshit. He's talking about ending the trade deficit with China by renegotiating... which right now, your current relationship with China is; Sell off natural resources to China. China turns natural resources into shitty consumer products. US buys shitty consumer products. China wins. They buy your resources, then they get their money back by selling you goods that you don't need, and break after 2 days.

That's not a sustainable economy. You're getting ripped off hard. The US has a colossal trade deficit with China and it's entire economy is an over-inflated bubble getting ready to explode.

Now I understand why you'd rather go with Trump, thanks.

You are utterly clueless about international relationships, diplomatic tensions and economics.

[Skroe]

I'm fully aware of that. I haven't suggested Russia isn't a threat. I'm deriding his argument that Russia could "win", dismantle NATO and lap up the whole of Eastern Europe (or even part of it) anytime in the near or far future. (Okay, the far future is the far future, but in something like the next 30 to 40 years)

No Russia certainly can't "win". However that's not the danger.

The danger is that Russia does something rashly or desperately, or (and this is more true of China than Russia) does something it fully doesn't comprehend the consequences of that starts a disasterous chain of events.

Political leadership in countries can EASILY convince themselves of things. The US has done it (Weapons of Mass Destruction are in Iraq... slam dunk). Russia has done it. China has done it. The echo chamber is very real. It usually falls to highly professional beurcracies to inhibit the worst impulses of political leadership. During the worst periods of the Cold War, it was the highly professional figures working in the Soviet government which kept check on the rashness of it's leaders at certain junctures.

Modern Russia isn't an idelogical state like the USSR, but it's becoming something arguably worse: a state built around the edifice of loyalty to one man, Vladmir Putin. Recently Putin has been replacing his team with youngsters who grew up in the era of Putin. Why? Kremlinogists say that it is because Putin anticipates Russia's decline to accelerate in coming years and he's insulating himself by surrounding himself with people who don't remember Putin as anything but a great leader.

I'd be more concerned with an accidental with with Russia, pushed by a novice inner circle that convinced itself like Ulmita has up there, the US won't do shit, if Russia takes Estonia or something, than a calculated Russian leadership that's carefully thought this through.


That said, the above scenario is much more dangerous with respect to China than Russia. Russia's military may have been deeply politicized the last five years, but it still has deep historical connections to the US Military. During the Cold War, they talked, and talked a lot, so that Soviet Premiers were advised by people who had a good sense of the rationality of their American counterparts and vice versa. With China, the US has been trying to build those linkages for years. But the Chinese government is deeply paranoid about US officers ideologically compromising their PLA contacts, so those have never taken off. That's what makes the South China Sea situation so dangerous in part.

[Laerrus]

But seriously. Theoretically, Gary Johnson has enough support to pull off an electoral cockblock. In which case congress decides who becomes president. And they hate Trump and the republicans have the majority right now so they certainly aren't going to pick Hillary.

Support Johnson and you can save the world.

Don't know about staving the world, but I am definitely voting for him as his ideals fall more inline with my own. Both him and Stein are the only two 2016 POTUS candidates of any prominence that aren't A.) Idiots or B.) Assholes.

[Dextroden]

Okay. Someone please fucking tell me why people moan and bitch about how terrible Republicans are but will allow the Republican controlled House to decide the election.

[Gheld]

Now I understand why you'd rather go with Trump, thanks.

You are utterly clueless about international relationships, diplomatic tensions and economics.

That's not a counter argument. That's just you hurling insults without providing any intellectual substance.

[Gaaz]

Yeah my wall, my castle blah blah blah...

Let me put the cherry on top: Cook says hi x 2



Where r the F-22s bro?

[Ulmita]

No Russia certainly can't "win". However that's not the danger.

The danger is that Russia does something rashly or desperately, or (and this is more true of China than Russia) does something it fully doesn't comprehend the consequences of that starts a disasterous chain of events.

Political leadership in countries can EASILY convince themselves of things. The US has done it (Weapons of Mass Destruction are in Iraq... slam dunk). Russia has done it. China has done it. The echo chamber is very real. It usually falls to highly professional beurcracies to inhibit the worst impulses of political leadership. During the worst periods of the Cold War, it was the highly professional figures working in the Soviet government which kept check on the rashness of it's leaders at certain junctures.

Modern Russia isn't an idelogical state like the USSR, but it's becoming something arguably worse: a state built around the edifice of loyalty to one man, Vladmir Putin. Recently Putin has been replacing his team with youngsters who grew up in the era of Putin. Why? Kremlinogists say that it is because Putin anticipates Russia's decline to accelerate in coming years and he's insulating himself by surrounding himself with people who don't remember Putin as anything but a great leader.

I'd be more concerned with an accidental with with Russia, pushed by a novice inner circle that convinced itself like Ulmita has up there, the US won't do shit, if Russia takes Estonia or something, than a calculated Russian leadership that's carefully thought this through.


That said, the above scenario is much more dangerous with respect to China than Russia. Russia's military may have been deeply politicized the last five years, but it still has deep historical connections to the US Military. During the Cold War, they talked, and talked a lot, so that Soviet Premiers were advised by people who had a good sense of the rationality of their American counterparts and vice versa. With China, the US has been trying to build those linkages for years. But the Chinese government is deeply paranoid about US officers ideologically compromising their PLA contacts, so those have never taken off. That's what makes the South China Sea situation so dangerous in part.

Stop spreading paranoia and fear mongering. Russia isn't invading Europe. They only danger is if USA does something stupid, like trying to enforce a no fly zone over its close ally Syria. Then you should be afraid.

[Skroe]

Yeah my wall, my castle blah blah blah...

Let me put the cherry on top: Cook says hi x 2



Where r the F-22s bro?

If the Cook wanted to defend itself those pictures wouldn't exist because the Russian jets would have been shot down beyond visual range (and well beyond the range of their weapons).

Our F-22s aren't needed there.

BUT SINCE YOU ASKED

https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/2...-f-22-raptors/

Two Syrian Su-24 Fencer attempting to fly over a Kurdish-held area in northeastern Syria where U.S. SOF (Special Operations Forces) are operating, get intercepted by U.S. F-22 and encouraged to depart the airspace.
Twice in the last few days, Syrian jets performing air strikes close to where U.S. SOF are operating in northeastern Syria caused coalition aircraft to scramble.

On Aug. 18, U.S. jets were dispatched to intercept the Syrian attack planes that were attacking targets near Hasakah supporting regime forces fighting the Syrian Kurdish forces. About 300 U.S. military operate in the same area, training Kurdish forces who are fighting Daesh.

Syrian pilots did not respond to the radio calls of the Kurdish on the general emergency frequency nor did they acknowledge calls attempted by the coalition on the air safety channel used for communication with the Russian aircraft operating over Syria.

Anyway, by the time U.S. fighters reached the area, the Syrian planes had already left.

Following the first “close encounter” the Pentagon warned Assad regime to not fly or conduct raids in the area where the American SOF are operating. However, on Aug. 19, two Su-24 Fencers, attempted again to penetrate the airspace near Hasakah.

This time, the two Syrian Arab Air Force attack planes were met by American F-22 Raptors (most probably already operating in the same area providing Combat Air Patrol).

As reported by ABC, a U.S. official said the presence of American F-22 aircraft “encouraged the Syrian aircraft to depart the airspace without further incident. No weapons were fired by the coalition fighters.”

This is not the first time the F-22 presence deters foreign military aircraft from harassing U.S. forces.

In March 2013, few months after two Sukhoi Su-25 attack planes operated by the Pasdaran (informal name of the IRGC – the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) attempted to shoot down an American MQ-1 flying a routine surveillance flight in international airspace the Pentagon decided to escort the drones involved in ISR (intelligence surveillance reconnaissance) with fighter aircraft, including the Raptors.

In one very well-known episode, F-22 stealth jets providing HVAAE (High Value Air Asset Escort) to a U.S. Predator flew under the Iranian F-4E Phantoms that had intercepted the drone then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and radioed a famous “you really ought to go home” that allegedly scared the Iranian pilots off saving the drone.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop spreading paranoia and fear mongering. Russia isn't invading Europe. They only danger is if USA does something stupid, like trying to enforce a no fly zone over its close ally Syria. Then you should be afraid.

The only scary thing about Russia is that they drag us all down with them as they fall down Mount Olympus.

They are not a well country or people. If the story of Europe in the 19th century and 20th was learning how to deal with first, a Powerful France, and then, from the 1880s-1940s, a united Germany, then the story of the 21st century is how Europe and the world deals with a Russia whose empire has finally collapsed (the USSR just being another form of RUssian imperialism and the Russian Federation being the same thing under new management).

[Deleted]

Like the Russian guy said. Trump will be more of a problem internally than externally. Hillary will be business as usual times 100 because all the SJWs are going to give her a free pass because having a vagina makes everything she does progressive, even if it borders on criminality (like blindly rubber stamping weapon deliveries to "peaceful rebels" who mysteriously transformed into ISIS).

Childish response, please stop thinking about vagina's when discussing politics.

[Shalcker]

I do not think you know what you are talking about. NATO got involved because he was committing war crimes.

NATO was involved because Gaddafi was involved with financing French President campaign, and wanted money back...

[Gheld]

Childish response, stop thinking about vagina's when discussing politics.

Do you have an actual argument to present?

[Cyberowl]

That's not a counter argument. That's just you hurling insults without providing any intellectual substance.

Well, you don't see the effects something like banning immigration from countries like SA, U.A.E would have bilaterally. Or Mexico, for that matter. Remember the Canada - Eastern EU member states fiasco?

I'd rather not waste my time.

[Deleted]

Yeah my wall, my castle blah blah blah...

Let me put the cherry on top: Cook says hi x 2



Where r the F-22s bro?

You sound like a child.

As for that incident, it's PR move first and foremost aimed at the Russians.

Last week, two Russian SU-24 fighter planes buzzed a US Navy destroyer over the Baltic Sea. One of the planes flew within 30 feet of the ship, according to US officials. Secretary of State John Kerry protested, saying that the Russians were endangering the destroyer. The media in the West concluded that the Russians were simulating an attack on the destroyer. The Russians made no official statement, though a spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry commented to Interfax that Russia had done nothing that violated international laws or that endangered the destroyer or its crew. He expressed surprise that the Americans felt the need to be so “touchy”—and he was clearly pleased at the American response. Unofficially, the Russians dramatically inflated their account of what they did—an embellishment in many ways far more interesting than buzzing the destroyer.

To begin to understand this event, it is important to remember that such behavior was common during the Cold War and occurs with some regularity now as well. It involves not only Russia and the United States but also China and some countries allied with the US, including Britain and Japan. In November, the Turks shot down a Russian plane intruding on Turkish air space.

The media’s claim that the Russians were simulating a real attack on the destroyer is not credible. An attacking aircraft does not swoop down on a ship these days. It launches anti-ship missiles from a position that it hopes is outside the range of the destroyer’s anti-aircraft systems.

A destroyer would pick up an attacker with search radar at least 100 miles out. As it approached to fire its missiles, fire-control radar would lock on the aircraft, and if an anti-ship missile were fired, the destroyer would launch Standard surface-to-air missiles at the plane. The ship and aircraft would both activate electronic warfare systems to confuse the opponent’s radar and incoming missiles. On the destroyer, fire-control radar would lock onto the incoming missiles and attempt to destroy them with missiles fired from the ship. If that failed, the ship would open intense fire on the incoming missiles with a Phalanx cannon. The attacker’s strategy would be to saturate the destroyer with missiles to overwhelm the ship’s defense systems, so multiple aircraft would be used in the attack. Finally, since the destroyer would likely be operating with a carrier battle group, when the Russian fighters were still hundreds of miles out, F-18s would be scrambling to intercept.

This is a very simple description of air-sea combat. Visual contact between ship and plane would be unlikely. A Russian aircraft coming in low and slow over an American destroyer would be blown into small pieces by the time any pictures were taken. It is not that the destroyer can’t be sunk by an aircraft, or that an aircraft would always lose in such an encounter. The crux of the matter is that this is not how an attack would be carried out. That is why the risk involved in such hostile actions is low. In reality, neither the aircraft nor the destroyer interpreted what was happening as hostile. The Russians were simply trying to jerk the Americans’ chain.

The US was operating near Russian waters, and the Russians decided to show their displeasure (not that the US cared). The US tried to make the event appear as a near disaster (not that the Russians cared). The level of outrage expressed by the Americans was a bit greater than usual, given that the US Secretary of State decided to personally protest and indicated that the Russian planes risked being shot down (a possibility, yes, but an unlikely one). The encounter grew a bit heated but was still conducted within normal bounds on both sides. More intriguing was where Russian information operations (also known as psychological warfare, disinformation, propaganda, or lies) took the story.

The Russians need to convince their public that Russia is returning to “great power” status. President Vladimir Putin is embroiled in significant political challenges—from Ukraine to the price of oil and its effect on the economy.

[Gheld]

NATO was involved because Gaddafi was involved with financing French President campaign, and wanted money back...

Exactly.

The war crimes from Gaddafi were in the past. He was given an ultimatum years prior to that. Which was to drop state sponsorship of terrorism and to form a counter-terrorism force within his own nation... and Gaddafi not only complied, but he exceeded the conditions and well within the timeline he was presented.

There's not one reasonable person on earth who would call his death anything but a murder.

[Deleted]

Do you have an actual argument to present?

No, I only wanted to point out to you how childish your choice of words is. SWJ and vagina's are not big boy words when discussing politics.

[Dextroden]

@Gheld

No, tell me. I really wanna know. Why would the pick Johnson?

[Ulmita]

If the Cook wanted to defend itself those pictures wouldn't exist because the Russian jets would have been shot down beyond visual range (and well beyond the range of their weapons).

Our F-22s aren't needed there.

It must be freaking embarrassing to a person that takes such a hard on from America's military might eh? First rediculed you twice with the mighty Aegis, and then they actually bombed your base? hahha

BUT SINCE YOU ASKED

https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/2...-f-22-raptors/



- - - Updated - - -



The only scary thing about Russia is that they drag us all down with them as they fall down Mount Olympus.

They are not a well country or people. If the story of Europe in the 19th century and 20th was learning how to deal with first, a Powerful France, and then, from the 1880s-1940s, a united Germany, then the story of the 21st century is how Europe and the world deals with a Russia whose empire has finally collapsed (the USSR just being another form of RUssian imperialism and the Russian Federation being the same thing under new management).

Ohh no, they sent the F-22 to intercept the Syrian SU-24. OMG

[Deleted]

It must be freaking embarrassing to a person that takes such a hard on from America's military might eh? First rediculed you twice with the mighty Aegis, and then they actually bombed your base?

Read what I posted.

I also left out this bit.

The Russians need to convince their public that Russia is returning to “great power” status. President Vladimir Putin is embroiled in significant political challenges—from Ukraine to the price of oil and its effect on the economy. He wants to be seen as having rebuilt Russia’s military to make it the equal of the United States military. This was one of the points of Russia’s intervention in Syria, and it is also one of the reasons for this incident involving the US destroyer.
The Russians were delighted to see the event portrayed as a simulated attack on an American destroyer, and Kerry’s outraged reaction was also valuable to the Russians. Both made the event appear much more significant than it was and therefore made Russia appear much more significant than it is. But lots of people knew better than to be impressed, and eventually, this view supplanted overblown concerns. The Russians then decided to add another dimension to their version of the story. Shortly after the incident, stories started appearing on the Internet claiming that the Russian attack aircraft carried new electronic warfare equipment that had crippled the destroyer’s combat systems. If that story took hold, Russian ability to cripple the defense systems of a US warship would turn into a major story, marking a turning point in naval warfare.

This story isn’t true for two reasons. First, an electronic attack that could cripple all weapons systems would also have knocked out communications and navigation on board the ship, too. Consequently, the ability to maneuver the ship would likely be affected, if not negated. The ship showed no sign of such paralysis.

Second, if the Russians had such a system, it would be one of their most carefully guarded secrets. The last thing the Russians would want would be to let the Americans know they had this capability. If the Russians had successfully demonstrated a system like this, the US would be frantically analyzing what happened, trying to reverse engineer the system for US use, and making urgent upgrades to ships to foil such attacks. Finally, I would add that if this system required that Russian planes squat at 30 feet over a ship, the system would be useless; no Russian plane would be allowed to approach within dozens of miles of a US vessel.

So why did this story suddenly appear? The encounter was primarily a propaganda ploy that by itself had minimal significance. The US reaction made it seem more significant than it was. The Russians, in turn, tried to magnify its importance by spreading a claim that at least some people might believe—thus making Russia appear more militarily imposing than it is.

You, not a particularly smart man (child?!) bought in to a very silly story.


And what is this ''your base''? Since proxies (read : puppets) are deployed forces of X country?

[Rennadrel]

Cause ya know, it's not like Trump isn't likely to start a war with Russia the day he gets elected....

[Crissi]

This belongs in the Hillary Megathread

Closing