America still speaks with forked tongue.

a reply to: anonentity

It very well could be a ploy to sniff out the leaks of those officials, and with further withdraw you can narrow it down and put in trusted officials to do their jobs.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Your solution to the fear of something happening is the 'U.S. should just go home' is not happening.

I didn't state that at all...

I did not offer a solution. I offered a point.

Your solution of the U.S, should go home anywhere things heat up isn't happening.

1. Again, I didn't offer a *solution*.

2. You state the obvious re: US not going home isn't part of their agenda.

If Russia continues to push...

The last time I checked, Russia isn't the one building up forces and bases outside of US borders...

the U.S. is obliged to counter or lose all credibility

1. Obliged based on what...?

2. Lose all credibility based on what...?

It is what it is.

What IS what it is...?

What a way to end your response using a simple expression to frame such a complex geopolitical issue.

Let's talk geopolitics. Not opinions.

a reply to: anonentity

60 Russian diplomats were expelled from the US (12 of which were assigned to the UN delegation).
The Consulate we closed was close to one of our Naval bases where Subs are based out of.
Even with the number of diplomats expelled each country has hundreds still present.

Russia did this to themselves with their murder of russians in foreign countries.

NATO has not conquered / controlled / etc any foreign nation.
The countries in E. Europe joined NATO because after they were occupied by Nazi Germany / USSR during WWII they were then occupied solely by the USSR until the 1990's. NATO was the only way they could deter Russian aggression. This was evident with Russias invasion of Georgia and Ukraine. Russia currently illegally occupies territory in both nations. Russia occupies territory in Moldova as well.

The only thin Russia has that makes them a problem are their nukes. Absent those Russia is not a threat to the US.
No country has any desire to invade / occupy Russia, contrary to their paranoid mindset.
Putin still doesnt comprehend the USSR is gone.
Putin still doesnt comprehend the cold war is over.
Putin still doesnt comprehend it not the 1980's anymore.

As for funding since the collapse of the USSR NATO countries actually decreased defense spending and downsized their militarty's. Russian aggression, Putin bragging he could take 5 NATO capitals before NATO could counter etc are just a few reasons why the sudden reversal in military spending by the west / NATO occurred.

Russia has interfered in the US elections as well as other countries. Just as the US and other countries have done the same.

Anyone who has ever looked at a map or a globe should know you cannot surround Russia. For starters their entire northern border is ocean. Their entire eastern border is the Pacific ocean or China or the kerplakistan countries.

The Korean war never ended. All that is in place is a cease fire and nothing more.
The USSR gave N. Korea the nuclear reactor that started their nuclear weapons program.
China has funded N. Korea and its military, including its nuke program.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: nwtrucker

Your solution to the fear of something happening is the 'U.S. should just go home' is not happening.

I didn't state that at all...

I did not offer a solution. I offered a point.

Your solution of the U.S, should go home anywhere things heat up isn't happening.

1. Again, I didn't offer a *solution*.

2. You state the obvious re: US not going home isn't part of their agenda.

If Russia continues to push...

The last time I checked, Russia isn't the one building up forces and bases outside of US borders...

the U.S. is obliged to counter or lose all credibility

1. Obliged based on what...?

2. Lose all credibility based on what...?

It is what it is.

What IS what it is...?

What a way to end your response using a simple expression to frame such a complex geopolitical issue.

Let's talk geopolitics. Not opinions.

For complex geo-political issues, your 'the U.S. should just go home', is opinion, itself, and Is simplistic.

The U.S. has less bases outside Russian borders than since the cold war. A fraction of the bases in Europe than in the cold war. Less planes, tanks and personnel.

Russia on the other hand has grabbed territory. Georgia, Crimea and eastern Ukraine.Not bases....territory.

Trump has stated, only a few days ago, that the U.S. will leave Syria as ISIS is largely defeated. I highly doubt Putin will do the same.

So spare me your bases near Russia. The U.S. has had bases since the cold war and Russia hasn't suffered one bit as result of those bases. No attacks. No wars. Nothing.

Russia is done as a superpower.

a reply to: nwtrucker

For complex geo-political issues, your 'the U.S. should just go home', is opinion, itself, and Is simplistic.

Fair enough.

Q: What is America doing in Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, atm? What was it doing in Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and many other places in the first place...?

twitter.com...

The U.S.has less bases outside Russian borders than since the cold war. A fraction of the bases in Europe than in the cold war. Less planes, tanks and personnel.

Is that fact or opinion...?

"Russia is ringed by missiles. It has NATO right up on its western border. This is unprecedented since the second World War. Most people in Britain, most people in the United States don't understand these dangers."- John Pilger

Let's assume for humour sake, it is fact: *less* still implies aggression. *Less* is still more. So basically, the US, with all its sanctions imposed and military manoeuvring over the past few years is doing *less* and are simply out to defend humanity and not for corporate and hegemonic interest that cost innocent lives and destroy the currency of life for many societies....?

Russia on the other hand has grabbed territory. Georgia, Crimea and eastern Ukraine.Not bases....territory.

Good! After all, what Gorbachev did to sell out Russia at a time it was about to become a world superpower was treasonous. Re:

Russia is done as a superpower.

No s#, Sherlock...

Btw, what's going on in Venezuela for the past twenty years with the USA has absolutely nothing to do with its vast oil reserves, right...? It's all because Maduro government are bad guys like Putin's government, right...? So, the US imposed sanctions on Venezuela (it's people) are justified, right...?

Trump has stated, only a few days ago, that the U.S. will leave Syria as ISIS is largely defeated. I highly doubt Putin will do the same.

Putin and Russia were INVITED by the Syrian government to be there. The US was NOT. Again, what were the US doing there in the first place...?

Btw, re: the US will leave Syria is hyperbole. Does he mean leave Syria in the same way they found it...?

What about the bases in the oil rich territories of Syria where Israel, Turkey, and the US want to divide up (take away from Syria) and turn into a Kurdish stronghold...?

What are your thoughts on the Kurdish dynamics AND the US backed SDF involved in this complex geopolitical issue...? After all, it all ties into the US role being played.

'Inside Isis Inc: The journey of a barrel of oil': ig.ft.com...

And, oh how convenient is/was this below:

US-backed SDF captures Syria's largest oil field from 'Islamic State': www.dw.com...

So spare me your bases near Russia. The U.S. has had bases since the cold war and Russia hasn't suffered one bit as result of those bases. No attacks. No wars. Nothing.

What god damn planet are YOU living on?!

C'mon man, you don't ACTUALLY believe that ish now....do you?

Again: "Russia is ringed by missiles. It has NATO right up on its western border. This is unprecedented since the second World War. Most people in Britain, most people in the United States don't understand these dangers."

...and most do not have clue about this geopolitical s# storm despite their beliefs.

a reply to: Involutionist


I'm not going to bother with every single nation the U.S. is involved in. Yeltsin had zero choice. Break up what was an unmitigated disaster, the Soviet Union, or start WWIII.

You will have to modify your blanket condemnation as you lump multiple eras with different agendas, leadership and issues.

Being of White Russian and Ukrainian lineage, I claim an objectivity you apparently lack. Some is in correction of Obama, and to a lesser degree, Bush stupidities and mistakes. I really don't give a rat's ass whether Syria is in the same shape based on a before-after. The 'after' will include a virtually wiped out ISIS. You know...THE ISLAMIC STATE OF SYRIA AND IRAQ..Hello? SYRIA?

Spare me your splitting up of Syria for the Kurds...although that 'could' happen if Assad doesn't get Iran and it's forces out of Syria. That's Assad's call and ultimately will decide his fate, long term.

You say good for Russia taking that territory. I say it will be the end of Putin...kaput, if he doesn't also back out of it. Simple.

Nobody seems to give a crap about the Kurds, whatsoever. Iran is Trump's target, not Syria. Syria and Assad has been on their knees servicing Iran for decades. That has only added SA to Syria's woes.

Afghanistan is a no win scenario for the same reason as it was for Bush. Pakistan. To win in Afghanistan means a real good smack-down of Pakistan. Simple. Not going to happen, from what I can see. Therefore, get out of it. Period.

What you need to do is recognize Trump isn't operating on the same wavelength as previous Administrations. One step at a time. One issue at a time. Pipelines is the Syrian issue, not their oil. That's Putin's goal. Removal of ISIS is the excuse. Assad's 'invitation' to Russia is no different than Afghanistan's continued desire to KEEP U.S. involvement. To wit: personal survival by it's leaders.

Simply put, this isn't the '70s. The U.S. is not dependent on ME oil. There is no Soviet Union to counter. The dynamics are completely changed.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm not going to bother with every single nation the U.S. is involved in.

That's your problem right there—root of ignorance.

After all, to *not bother* is too miss the bigger picture since it all ties into together. America's war campaigns are not *isolated* geopolitical incidents. There is a *theme* at play. It is called *imperialism*.

You will have to modify your blanket condemnation as you lump multiple eras with different agendas, leadership and issues.

Trust me. I will. I have tons of unpublished threads on the subject.

However, in the mean time, you first...

Yeltsin had zero choice. Break up what was an unmitigated disaster, the Soviet Union, or start WWIII.

Is that fact or fiction...?

Please expound on your geopolitical reason given. How did you arrive at that perspective...?

Being of White Russian and Ukrainian lineage, I claim an objectivity you apparently lack.

What *you claim* is irrelevant....and demonstrates intellectual dishonesty — poor psychological debating tactic. As if *your claim* actually makes your vague statements suddenly seem less vague and possess merit.

In fact, you lack objectivity and offer nothing but subjectivity throughout this exchange in this thread and that is why you felt the need to state your *lineage*. But, since you are white Russian and Ukrainian *lineage*, I'm confident you will be able to expound on my question just above re: Yelstin avoiding WWIII...

What part of Russia and Ukraine have you visited or lived? I've been to Russia, but not Ukraine. And what is the difference in *lineage*....?

How old are you? I ask because I'm always interested in learning about geopolitics from those who have been around longer on this planet than myself. After all, those people *should* have a better understanding of reality at this point in time.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether Syria is in the same shape based on a before-after.

Of course you don't. After all, to care would be to demonstrate empathy, respect for the innocent lives turned upside down by America's selfish agenda; along with a fair minded intelligent approach to the matter.

So, I take it you also don't care what the U.S did to Libya—Africa's once most striving and modern nation? Or many other nations? (rhetorical)

The 'after' will include a virtually wiped out ISIS. You know...THE ISLAMIC STATE OF SYRIA AND IRAQ..Hello? SYRIA?

You really don't get it, do you? Why would America wipe out their asset—ISIS—that they created, funded, armed and trained?
I guess you didn't care to check out those links (rabbit holes) I shared with you in my previous post...? With a bit of critical thought and basic geopolitical understanding (past and present) one will begin to connect the dots.

Like, HELLO...?!

Spare me your splitting up of Syria for the Kurds...

The US, Israel, Turkey, S.A, Qatar and Jordan are not splitting up Syria for the Kurds. They are splitting it up for themselves and using the Kurds to do so.

That is just ONE aspect of the Syrian conflict. Think of it as a chess game (Syria Vs US) with a bunch of ping-pong games being played over it (Russia/Iran vs Israel/Saudi Arabia vs Turks vs Kurds and so on)

...although that 'could' happen if Assad doesn't get Iran and it's forces out of Syria. That's Assad's call and ultimately will decide his fate, long term.

You are right tho. That is Assad and the people of Syria to decide. And therefore, Iran and Russia should stay if INVITED to do so. Therefore, *is Assad doesn't get Iran and its forces out* (which were INVITED) will result in a response from the West and its allies proves my point about the evils of US interventionist policies. Let it marinate...

You say good for Russia taking that territory. I say it will be the end of Putin...kaput, if he doesn't also back out of it. Simple.

No. Not that simple at all. Not that cartoonish as you make it sound either...

Nobody seems to give a crap about the Kurds, whatsoever.

*Seems* that way, but is it that way...? They are pawns tho. Just like ISIS and "moderate rebels" are America and Israeli pawns..

So, who are Kurds the pawns of....? Rhetorical, but I look forward to your answer tho.

Iran is Trump's target, not Syria.

Iran has for decades been on America and Israel's hit list. How come...? Does it have anything to do with "the new silk road"...?

Syria and Assad has been on their knees servicing Iran for decades.

You mean like the US has been on their knees servicing Israel and Saudia Arabia for decades...?

Afghanistan is a no win scenario for the same reason as it was for Bush. Pakistan. To win in Afghanistan means a real good smack-down of Pakistan. Simple

Is it really that simple...? Please expound on the geopolitical policies and foriegn policy actions that allowed you to arrive at such a *simplistic* understanding of the matter?

And, what dynamics would have to be realized for it to be considered *a win* for the U.S?

Not going to happen, from what I can see. Therefore, get out of it. Period.

Oh, but who's going to watch over the poppy fields after American soldiers abandon doing so?

Don't you find the huge growing opiod epidemic plaguing the western world (especially America) since the start of that war interesting...?

What you need to do is recognize Trump isn't operating on the same wavelength as previous Administrations. One step at a time.

I do recognize that about him, despite the fact he, like all past Presidents, have dropped their foriegn policy pants to the military industrial complex. Again, marinate on the photo above of YOUR president BOWING his head to have *a chain/collar* placed around his neck by the Saudi king....

Pipelines is the Syrian issue, not their oil.

So, the conflict is STRICTLY centred around the Qatar pipeline that will feed Israel and western Europe and not the vast oil fields...? Got it.

That's Putin's goal. Removal of ISIS is the excuse.

That's funny, because it IS Russia and Assad forces that have ACTUALLY been destroying ISIS—not the US. I get the impression your worldview is based strictly on news-media, yeah...?

Again, tons of unpublished threads (written over a year ago) WITH documentation. They're coming too. Not because anybody here cares about the truth, including yourself. I just despise ignorant people and like killing time denying ignorance whenever I get bored.

Assad's 'invitation' to Russia is no different than Afghanistan's continued desire to KEEP U.S. involvement.

You're killing me, man. That one LITERALLY made me LOL.

To wit: personal survival by it's leaders.

I bet you couldn't name the leader of Afghanistan or how its political system operates without googling it. And yet, you had the gall to state that.

a reply to: Involutionist

One on hand it's OK Russia resorts to territorial grab as it's lost-wrongly, in your view- yet the U.S. is the imperialist nation.

I've seen this spin for decades. You claim objectivity and present none.

Post as you will. Russia is done. The U.S. has a bit more life, perhaps decades, before it suffers a similar fate. I don't play psych games. I leave that to you.

I tend not to bother with links from people with an agenda. Carry on, sir, carry on...while your ship sinks.