Jump to content

Russia


F  CHARLIE

Recommended Posts

I have had this thought for awhile and felt like I want this community to discuss the topic before I talk to others about it.  It is about the idea that Russia has declared war (in a form) on the west.  Maybe that a bit radical of a statement but I want to lay out the basic premise.  It begins with Syria and Russia's hand in that conflict.

 

Lets start with the origins of the conflict:

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html

 

Article describes the early stages of the civil war.  I want state that Assad was oddly heavy handed.  Didn't the US invade Iraq for the purpose of reshaping the Middle East?  Didn't the US give heavy support to Libyan rebels to over-through Gaddafi?  Seems a bit risky to be so harsh in response to protests as to cause a split in your country and to not try to repair the problem before it got out of hand.  I mean, who cares that you beat the rebelling group at this point.  You stand on an ash heap.

 

Next we go to this event:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/world/middleeast/syria-homs-death-toll-said-to-rise.html

 

At the time it virtually guaranteed that the conflict would widen and, more specifically, that a new faction would emerge that neither side could control.  This was pre-isis I remind you.  I remember the news reporting that our intelligence believed that if the conflict didn't end that radicals would flow into the region.  In a half a year isis formed.  The point is that if the security council would have acted at that time then the horror we have seen since would not have happened.  I don't know what would have happened but we are living in a worse case kind of scenario (at least for Europe with the refugees and terror attacks) as it is. 

 

Now we fast forward again:

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/europe-s-far-right-enjoys-backing-russia-s-putin-n718926

 

This, along with their involvement in the US election, attack on Ukraine and these kinds of stories:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-and-syria-weaponising-refugee-crisis-to-destabilise-europe-nato-commander-claims-a6909241.html

 

and that I find it curios that recent terror attacks have been occurring in the during this key period prior to elections (am I accusing someone of something there) leads me back to the point of the topic; the idea that Russia has been waging a form of war against the west.  I think we really do need to start seeing this as such and begin acting accordingly.  I won't check the thread until tomorrow but am curious about the results of this discussion.  Thank you in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much yes, but obviously this isn't an armed conflict (yet). We are basically now entering or have entered the 2nd Cold War. When we look back in history books years from now that will be what all this will be called. The question is what happens regarding any actual armed conflicts, be it with Russia, or Syria, or even North Korea. Also can't rule out something with China down the line. Safe to say, the next 20-30 years are going to be some of the most dangerous and violent we've seen in over 70 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little doubt that Russia is more active then before

  • in cyber warfare: the hacks of the U.S. election, and attempted hack of the Frensh election
  • in on the ground warfar, the Ukraine situation
Though I'm not sure on them arming syrian refugees. The 'problem' in europe aren't pro-russia/Assad refugees - heck not even pro-ISIS refugees (wether such thing exist on significant scale, or is just ISIS boasting is food fo an other thread), but radicilized locals who fall in the clutches of ISIS.

(the terrorist attack in Manchester, the 2016 Brussels attacks, ... )

 

If russia has been arming refugees, these armed refugees have not yet become an issue (or at least one of "glowbel news worthy" scale)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's war between the west and Russia, what I do think is that the countries in Europe should spend more of their $$$ in the army (minimal 2% of their total budget). I live in the Netherlands and we don't spend 2% of our total budget to our army while we should do that. I mean: We sold our tanks to other countries (we work together with a German tank division now), that's ridiculous in my opinion, in a wealthy country as the Netherlands, we should atleast have tanks in our army!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's war between the west and Russia, what I do think is that the countries in Europe should spend more of their $$$ in the army (minimal 2% of their total budget). I live in the Netherlands and we don't spend 2% of our total budget to our army while we should do that. I mean: We sold our tanks to other countries (we work together with a German tank division now), that's ridiculous in my opinion, in a wealthy country as the Netherlands, we should atleast have tanks in our army!!

haha you'd get blown back, the United States is #1 in "defense" spending and we spend more than #2-#199 combined, gold bless America 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha you'd get blown back, the United States is #1 in "defense" spending and we spend more than #2-#199 combined, gold bless America 

also rank below some developing nations in academic categories and maintain the status of highest average weight per citizen, as well as the most incarcerated individuals by a massive amount but who really cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd how many European leaders are worried about a second Cold War yet won't spend 2% of GDP on defence. Instead they're quite happy to waste money on pointless efforts in Syria. Provoking Putin into illegally annexing Crimea didn't help, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's little doubt that Russia is more active then before

  • in cyber warfare: the hacks of the U.S. election, and attempted hack of the Frensh election
  • in on the ground warfar, the Ukraine situation
Though I'm not sure on them arming syrian refugees. The 'problem' in europe aren't pro-russia/Assad refugees - heck not even pro-ISIS refugees (wether such thing exist on significant scale, or is just ISIS boasting is food fo an other thread), but radicilized locals who fall in the clutches of ISIS.(the terrorist attack in Manchester, the 2016 Brussels attacks, ... )If russia has been arming refugees, these armed refugees have not yet become an issue (or at least one of "glowbel news worthy" scale)

 

I think its more about pushing refugees into Europe to further destabilize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is a cliche US position but I would advocate a joint invasion of Syria to oust Assad with the goal of returning refugees to the region. That conflict is being used by Russia to destabilize the west. The only reason Russia is confident here is because they don't believe we will invade. If your concerned about the Middle East becoming a worse situation than I say that it is time to correct the errors from ww1 and reorganize them based on their interests/cultures not ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason Russia is confident here is because they don't believe we will invade

Do consider how fast the U.S. is invading North Korea - the answer is not.

This is because one simply does not invade a country with a powerful ally.

 

And ... err ... dunno if you've been of the radar these last couple of months, but somehow I double Trump favors all out war with Russia.

 

it is time to correct the errors from ww1 and reorganize them based on their interests/cultures not ours.

competing intrests make this impossible.

 

Heck - consider the problem: When, for example, nobody wants to give the Kurds ground ... what ya gonna do? take it by force to give it to them?

Last time that was tried, the state of Israel was formed - and it's not like that thing is a beacon of stability ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do consider how fast the U.S. is invading North Korea - the answer is not.

This is because one simply does not invade a country with a powerful ally.

 

And ... err ... dunno if you've been of the radar these last couple of months, but somehow I double Trump favors all out war with Russia.

 

 

 

I am from the US so yeah....I know.  I am looking at Europe in this case and wondering if they will initiate action.  I agree with an earlier comment that Europe should begin arming itself.  I think that this is incredibly unfortunate that Europe consider this but Russia is threatening democracy itself.  It is playing a very dangerous game.  Europe hasn't acted in the past and I think they need to.  Korea is not a direct threat and is a weak state.  If China does not support it than it would crumble.  Its nuclear program is all about threatening the rest of the world into giving it food and aid.  Its a really sad stain on humanity.

 

 

competing intrests make this impossible.

 

Heck - consider the problem: When, for example, nobody wants to give the Kurds ground ... what ya gonna do? take it by force to give it to them?

Last time that was tried, the state of Israel was formed - and it's not like that thing is a beacon of stability ...

 

 

I know but is it not the solution?  Does this not solve many of the problems that arise from the area?  We spent $1 trillion and solved nothing.  What if we spend $500 billion to help reorganize the Middle East along ethnic and cultural lines (per their own input) and finally get peace? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korea is not a direct threat and is a weak state.

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say North Korea isn't a direct threat.

 

I know but is it not the solution?  Does this not solve many of the problems that arise from the area?  We spent $1 trillion and solved nothing.  What if we spend $500 billion to help reorganize the Middle East along ethnic and cultural lines (per their own input) and finally get peace?

"per their own input" - who is they? as pointed out: different people will say different things.

 

If the syrians don't want to give land to the kurds, and the kurds want the land ... do you give the kurds land?

And how will you prevent the syrians from instantly attacking the kurds to get - what they consider their - land back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the first time I've heard someone say North Korea isn't a direct threat.

why did someone resurrect prs ;-;

 

 

DPRK have no real interest in bombing other countries, it is just about showing off strength for aid and power. While their weaponry shouldn't be underestimated it is not a direct threat, with both China and ROK's new president trying to start with a diplomatic route this should settle down as long as the US don't intervene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...