REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Putin's Real Long Game

POSTED BY: G
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 20:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 829
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, August 1, 2017 11:05 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-2
14589


Slightly older but still 2017 and still so very accurate:

Putin’s Real Long Game
The world order we know is already over, and Russia is moving fast to grab the advantage. Can Trump figure out the new war in time to win it?

excerpt:
"What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad, to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests.

Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the Kremlin’s new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be “green men,” the unlabeled Russian-backed forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent interference in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself. And the only way forward for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created, plow through the chaos, and focus on building what comes next."

Me: Trump doesn't have to "collude" or do anything except be the inept president he's showing great skill for. He's not a details person and there's no one else home. Positions are unstaffed, decisions are unmade. It feels like no one is president sometimes. The idea that the NYTimes has put forward recently, that Putin sure messed up when he thought he could trust Trump to help Russia out, is greatly misjudged. Trump is being exactly what Russia needed, Captain Chaos.

Great article, more:

"We can only confront this by fully understanding how the Kremlin sees the world. Its worldview and objectives are made abundantly clear in speeches, op-eds, official policy and national strategy documents, journal articles, interviews, and, in some cases, fiction writing of Russian officials and ideologues. We should understand several things from this material."

"First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively — not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It’s all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It’s what Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s ‘grey cardinal’ and lead propagandist, dubbed ”non-linear war” in his science fiction story “Without Sky,” in 2014.

Second, it’s all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives. This is the Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013. Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It’s a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.

Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not “propaganda” as we’ve come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as “active measures” and “reflexive control”. Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.

Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn’t a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it’s what the Kremlin calls a “multi-vector” foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate — ideally temporary and limited — centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an unstable new world order of “all against all.” The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in ‘solving’ crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).

This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008 to disrupt the expansion of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine to disrupt the expansion of the EU. They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 1, 2017 2:46 PM

REAVERFAN


Yup. Obama and Hillary knew Putin for what he really is. Trump likes him because he's what Trump wants to be; an all-powerful dictator.

He's played Trump for a fool from day 1.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 10:35 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


I'm taking silence as confirmation for the facts presented unless they are otherwise contradicted.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 11:37 AM

6STRINGJOKER


Nah... just bored of the Russian narrative, and didn't feel like trolling the antifa wannabe clown.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 1:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Same here.

I started yawning about one para in; there are so many points to dispute, but then I thought .... why bother?

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 3:54 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Same here.

I started yawning about one para in; there are so many points to dispute, but then I thought .... why bother?




I'm absolutely fine with that pov - just remember it when you get ALL CAPS PISSY because I have no interest for the 50th time in discussing something with you -m'kay?

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yanno, GSTRING, what I have a problem with is when I ask you a question for the 50th time and you pretend like its a big surprise. Or when you ... the master of personal attacks, lies, and deflection ... pretend like I'M the one who always diverts the discussion into trivia, or refuses to "discuss" anything. (And don't make me quote you because I will.)

At some point, I WILL address the idiocies and propaganda in this article. The problem is, it begins with the first sentence and there's just SO MUCH bullshit in it, that would be a very long post, and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.

It's not the article that's causing the Why bother? reaction, it's you.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 5:32 PM

RIVERLOVE


Why bother? It's just more made-up bullshit from the disgraced libtard rag Politico.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 2, 2017 10:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The "completionist" part of me won ...

Quote:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-2
14589

Putin’s Real Long Game
The world order we know is already over, and Russia is moving fast to grab the advantage. Can Trump figure out the new war in time to win it?

That's assuming that there IS a war, and that this article knows its nature. More on that later.

Quote:

"What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not.
What all administrations - and the public- fail to realize is that the USA has been continuously AT WAR ALREADY since 2003, and precious few years before that when we weren't "intervening" somewhere.

1991- Gulf War
1995, Clinton ordered US and NATO aircraft to attack Bosnian Serbs, and again in 1999
1998 cruise missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan.
1996 failed CIA coup against Saddam Hussein.
2003 Afghanistan (still occupied)
2003 Iraq
2000- 2008 drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia
2011 Libya
2011 - arms shipments begin to "Syrian rebels"

Having been "at war" for so long, I have to wonder- What IS the goal of our war?

Quote:

It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war.
OUR war, we definitely don't even notice, although we've killed somewhere between 250,000 to 1 million people. Most people wouldn't even recognize it as one long war, haven't totaled up the costs, and can't even imagine that there is a goal. To them, these are just random events that we stumbled our way into, in our desire to "help" the world.

Quote:

This war seeks, at home and abroad, to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests.
Yes, I would agree, The war that WE have been waging meets all of those criteria!

Quote:

Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the Kremlin’s new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be “green men,” the unlabeled Russian-backed forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula
and hold a referendum

Quote:

and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent
alleged, no evidence provided

Quote:

interference in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself.
There's so much bullshit in this statement, I'm no even sure how to unpack it. First, it assumes that we're fighting a war, and it's not of our own making. In reality, we have been destroying or intervening in nations willy-nilly for almost all of our history, so if it's a "war" we're fighting, it' a war we chose. Then it points to this bullshit story about Russia interfering in our elections, when there is no credible evidence whatsoever pointing in that direction, and evidence pointing to the NSA/CIA as the possible perps.

Quote:

And the only way forward for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created
YES! THIS IS ALL PUTIN'S FAULT! All of the chaos on Afghanistan and Iraq and Libya and Syria and Sudan and Yemen and the UK and France and Germany ... clearly! All Putin's doing!

Quote:

plow through the chaos, and focus on building what comes next.
Yes, we must never look back and learn from our mistakes! Far easier to just pin all of the blame on someone else!

Quote:

"We can only confront this by fully understanding how the Kremlin sees the world.
And must always avoid any self-reflection of OUR role ... yanno, the most powerful nation in the world, the indispensable nation, bears no responsibility whatsoever for today's clusterfuck

Quote:

Its worldview and objectives are made abundantly clear in speeches, op-eds, official policy and national strategy documents, journal articles, interviews, and, in some cases, fiction writing of Russian officials and ideologues. We should understand several things from this material."
And now, since I can guarantee that the readers of this article have NEVER sat thru any of Putin's speeches .... as I have ... they will present a completely distorted view of what the Russian administration has actually said.

Quote:

"First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively — not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It’s all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It’s what Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s ‘grey cardinal’ and lead propagandist, dubbed ”non-linear war” in his science fiction story “Without Sky,” in 2014 ....
This is almost as good as SECOND citing Firefly as a font of wisdom about how people behave. Yanno, I like Firefly a whole lot, but ... really???

Quote:

Second, it’s all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives ....
Or, as our American war machine likes to put it ... full spectrum dominance

Quote:

...rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments.
Nonetheless, we must be afraid! Very afraid!

Quote:

Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.
Huh? Because "populism" and "nationalism" are ... somehow .. undemocratic??

Quote:

Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not “propaganda” as we’ve come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as “active measures” and “reflexive control”. Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.
Yep. As opposed to the RNC and the DNC, which also manipulate us into acting against our own best interests???

Quote:

Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn’t a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it’s what the Kremlin calls a “multi-vector” foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate — ideally temporary and limited — centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S
militaristic and financial hegemony

Quote:

the goal is an unstable new world order of “all against all.”
Not true. The undergirding philosophy of Russia is called "multi-polarity", in which all nations are respected equally and their sovereignty equally protected by international law.

Russia is a relatively small nation. It's not a production powerhouse like China, nor does it have the financial resources of the USA, the population of India, or the combined resources of the EU. Despite the fact that it has a decent military, it is still far far below that of the USA, which spends more than most of the rest of the world COMBINED.

So, what model benefits Russia? "Might makes right"? Hardly. "We will bury you? not that either. The ONLY MODEL under which Russia prospers is the one where their rights are respected; that they- and all nations- are free from the threat of "intervention" by a hog-wild superpower. Russia has NO INTEREST in picking fights because they can't win. All they can do is defend themselves and a few critical partners.

Quote:

The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine)
What ... wha ...??? WHO started and fostered these destabilizations in the first place?

Quote:

and by showing superiority in ‘solving’ crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).
Yes, those poor Saudi-funded radical jihadists. I feel sorry for them - don't you?

Quote:

This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008
Georgia fired missiles first. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar.

Quote:

to disrupt the expansion of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine to disrupt the expansion of the EU.
Ah, yes, the invisible "Russian invasion". Those unfindable lines of burnt-out tanks, those indiscernable military emplacements ...

Quote:

They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices."


Like I said, it's impossible to unpack all of the bullshit. This article attempts to portray the poor USA as long-suffering, peaceable, and ill-prepared to fight a war (when in reality, we have been fighting wars for decades) and "Russia" as the smart savvy aggressor. Stacking up the bodies, currency, territory, and nation-states under two columns, it looks to me like the USA is the aggressor.

It's true that we don't know how to fight anything other than a third-world country any more. If we can't bomb a nation with impunity or pay for proxy forces on the ground, we just don't know WHAT to do. The minute we face a nation with any self-defense capability at all, we fold like a cheap suit. This play-acting of innocence is nauseating.

So, what is Putin's long game??? As far as I can tell, it's "multipolarity". It's something he has spoken of often, and - as a model for a nation of that size- it matches Russia's long-term interests and capabilities. Because Russia really doesn't have the capability to take over the whole world. The only thing they can offer is a credible defense for some areas. And also, they are the other half of mutually assured destruction. It also matches Russia's history of creating overlapping economic and military partnerships with other mid-sized Eurasian nations, and - frankly- I don't see anything wrong with that.

I would be much more concerned about China's essential xenophobia and resource-scarcity, because if there is any nation with the drive and size and the organization to be the next world hegemon, it's China.

So, what is OUR long game? It has been to dominate the entire world. Is that the game we should be playing?

It's my humble opinion that "war" that YOU think we're facing isn't the war that we'll be fighting. The real war will be economic, and Trump- even if well-intentioned, supremely disciplined, and with the full cooperation of Congress - can't possibly win that war in the time that he has left.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:06 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And now we wait for GEEBERS' predictable response.
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno, GSTRING, what I have a problem with is when I ask you a question for the 50th time and you pretend like its a big surprise. Or when you ... the master of personal attacks, lies, and deflection ... pretend like I'M the one who always diverts the discussion into trivia, or refuses to "discuss" anything. (And don't make me quote you because I will.)

At some point, I WILL address the idiocies and propaganda in this article. The problem is, it begins with the first sentence and there's just SO MUCH bullshit in it, that would be a very long post, and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.

It's not the article that's causing the Why bother? reaction, it's you.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one







Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 7:31 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
And now we wait for GEEBERS' predictable response.



You mean the one where I say, "I predict Kiki will contribute nothing of value to this thread."

SIGNYM - more later, busy day, interesting response form you, but so much is predictable and easily dismissible. You seem to reject Russia as having any aggressive interests beyond their own borders. Not physically necessarily, but effectively, hell yes. Your view of Russia is of an emasculated, defanged Russia, always the victim, "we just want to get along." We both know that's just not Putin. In fact, just the opposite is true. Plus you make so many crazy bone head assumptions! I can't believe you believe anyone would believe you.
So I see your response as I see most of them: obvious deflect and a dodge. Some day you will entertain us with how you came to choose Russia as your guiding star - I bet it's a fascinating story and I bet you would tell it well.

When time permits...

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 7:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm going to repeat something from my previous post because I think it points to Putin's REAL, real long game, and that's the idea of "multipolarity".

Despite having heard about it for years, it's a model that's hard to understand because (1) we (the USA) have been practicing unipolarity since roughly 1991 (when the USSR collapsed) and bipolarity before that since roughly 1955 (post WWII recovery) and (2) there is no nation besides Russia currently practicing it as a foreign policy.

Our politicians, military, and population as a whole keep casting EVERYTHING in the unipolar/ bipolar framework. Everything is discussed in terms of "world domination", either by us or by somebody else ("Putin").

So it's taken ME, personally, a long to to accept multipolarity as Russia's basic foreign policy, and to understand its outlines. But despite its unfamiliarity, I've been banging Russia's foreign policy actions against various kinds of models, and it's the only one that seems to be consistent. Also, given that Russia is a mid-sized nation, it's the only one that makes sense, because they don't have the resources to be either a world hegemon or the other half of a bipolar configuration.

Three examples of Russia's multipolarity at work:

SAUDI ARABIA
It's confounding when Russia inks big nuclear deals with Saudi Arabia. SA is THE major promoter of terrorism in the ME; it promotes takfiri jihadism everywhere it goes, and (in conjunction with Israel and USA foreign policy) destroys Shia nations across the ME either by arming and funding jihadists (Tunisia, Sudan, Libya, Syria) or by direct invasion (Yemen) or economic sanctions (Qatar). Saudi terrorists, co-funded by SA and the USA, were in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets, later transferred to Chechnya where they stirred up a hornets nest among the local Muslims, and are now security risk in Russia, Syria and elsewhere (Chechens make up a significant portion of ISIS). In addition, SA is a brutal monarchy under which all women, all imported labor, and any religion besides wahhabism are severely repressed. If there is a regional security risk for Russia, SA certainly has to be one of the top three. If Russia were to take the knee-jerk USA approach, it would economically sanction AND militarily threaten Saudi Arabia, and possibly even invade or foment internal unrest. But Russia doesn't have the resources to carry out a military threat, which would be a significant drain on their economy. Even sanctions tend to be more self-harming than effective. AND BESIDES, in a multipolar world, NOBODY is the keeper of the world's morals. There is NO nation bullying or bombing other nations into accepting a "human rights" domestic policy; nations only get involved when one nation threatens others outside of its borders, and only then under the framework of international law. Since there is NO international law currently (the USA is allowed to break it with impunity) only limited defensive measures are allowed.

CHINA
In a fit of hubris, Obama stupidly decided that we would "pivot" to China, even as we were actively threatening Russia in Europe and destabilizing the ME. 2008 revealed to the Chinese leadership that tying itself to western markets was a flawed model. So with no big "up-side" to being tied to the west, and a significant "downside" of being militarily threatened by the west, China quickly revised its policy to include Russia as a partner. Together, they created the BRICS bank, the AIIB (bank), the SCO (military), and various other overlapping regional structures. (So, not "all against all" as the article says, but cooperation along different lines among various nations.) Despite the potential advantages, Russia has long avoided a formal military alliance with China. Basically, if China and Russia ally, they would create a structure which COULD dominate India and the rest of Asia. However, that doesn't fit Russia's multipolar vision, and nations like India and Pakistan (who both recently joined the SCO) are more likely to voluntarily join these various cooperative structures if they feel they can play China off against Russia.

TURKEY
Turkey is another one of those nations which has caused considerable grief to Russia's security and to its long-term ally, Syria. Erdogan is a megalomaniac; he has been arming and funding jihadists and laundering/selling ISIS oil, waiting with a knife and fork for the carve-up of Syria in his bid to create his own "caliphate". His army shot down two Russian pilots, killing one by shooting at the ejection seat as it drifted down on parachute. If that had happened to the USA, we would have invaded Turkey in a fit of outrage. Russia's response was fairly limited, but they kept pressing the Turkish Stream pipeline concept. The American-backed attempted coup in Turkey demonstrated what a backstabber the USA is, and swung Turkey towards Russia

***

Because Russia is the only nation currently promoting multipolarity, it's very hard to understand its potential outlines with only one example. "Multipolarity" would be something like "democracy" ... there is a broad spectrum of potential policies that fall under that rubric. The four principles that I've observed are:

1) Non-interference in other nations' internal affairs,
2) Nations behaving according to the rule of some sort of international law, and not allowed to break it with impunity.
3) Defense of the sovereignty of nation-states is allowed
4) Being a reliable partner in mutually-beneficial agreements

Beyond that, it's all pretty open.

Anyway, I hope you consider "multipolarity" as one of the models on which Russia might be basing its foreign policy. If you have any examples where you think this might not be the case, I would welcome a discussion.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:31 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The "completionist" part of me won ...



Have some:

https://www.geopolitica.ru/en/1290-multipolarity-the-definition-and-th
e-differentiation-between-its-meanings.html


"Alexander Dugin (your boy)
Nevertheless, more and more works on foreign affairs, world politics, geopolitics, and actually, international politics, are dedicated to the theme of multipolarity. A growing number of authors try to understand and describe multipolarity as a model, phenomenon, precedent, or possibility.

The topic of multipolarity was in one way or another touched upon in the works of the IR specialist David Kampf (in the article "The emergence of a multipolar world"), historian Paul Kennedy of Yale University (in his book "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" ), geopolitician Dale Walton (in the book "Geopolitics and the Great Powers in the XXI century: Multipolarity and the Revolution in strategic perspective"), American political scientist Dilip Hiro (in the book "After Empire: Birth of a multipolar world" ), and others. The closest in understanding the sense of multipolarity, in our view, was British IR specialists Fabio Petito, who tried to build a serious and substantiated alternative to the unipolar world on the basis of the legal and philosophical concepts of Carl Schmitt.

The "multipolar world order" is also repeatedly mentioned in the speeches and writings of political figures and influential journalists. It was thus that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who first called the United States the “indispensable nation”, stated on February 2, 2000, that the US does not want to “establish and enforce” a unipolar world, and that economic integration has already created "a certain world that can be even called multipolar" . On January 26, 2007, in the editorial column of "The New York Times", it was openly written that the "emergence of the multipolar world", along with China, "now takes place at the table in parallel with other power centers such as Brussels or Tokyo". On November 20, 2008, in the report "Global Trends 2025" by the National Intelligence Council of the U.S., it was indicated that the emergence of a "global multipolar system" should be expected within two decades.

Since 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama was viewed by many as the harbinger of an "era of multipolarity," believing that he would orient U.S. foreign policy priority to rising powers such as Brazil, China, India, and Russia. On July 22, 2009, Vice President Joseph Biden, during his visit to Ukraine, said: “We’re trying to build a multipolar world”.

And yet, all these books, articles, and statements do not contain any precise definition of what the multipolar world is (MW), nor, moreover, a coherent and consistent theory of its construction (TMW). The most common treatment for "multipolarity" means only an indication that in the current process of globalization, the undisputed center and core of the modern world (the U.S., Europe, and the wider "global West") is faced with certain new competitors - thriving or simply powerful regional powers and power blocs belonging to the "second" world. A comparison of the potentials of the U.S. and Europe on the one hand, and of new rising powers (China, India, Russia, Latin America, etc.) on the other hand, convinces one more and more of the relative traditional superiority of the West and raises new questions about the logic of further processes that determine the global architecture of forces on a planetary scale – in politics, economics, energy, demography, culture, etc.

All of these comments and observations are critical for building the Theory of the Multipolar World, but by no means piece out its absence. They should be taken into account when constructing such a theory, but it is worth noting that they are fragmentary and patchy in nature, not even rising to the level of primary theoretical conceptual generalizations.

But, despite this, the reference to the multipolar world order is increasingly heard in official summits and international conferences and congresses. Links to multipolarity are present in a number of important inter-governmental agreements and in the texts of national security and defense strategy concepts of a number of influential and powerful countries (China, Russia, Iran, and partly the EU). Therefore, today more than ever, it is important to take a step towards the start of a full-fledged development of the Theory of the Multipolar World, in accordance with the basic requirements of academic scholarship.

Multipolarity does not coincide with the national model of world organization according to the logic of the Westphalian system

Before closely proceeding to the construction of the Theory of the Multipolar World (TMW), we should strictly distinguish the investigated conceptual area. For this, we must consider the basic concepts and define those forms of the global world order which are certainly not multipolar and which, accordingly, multipolarity is presented as an alternative.

Let's start with the Westphalian system, which recognizes the absolute sovereignty of the nation-state and constructs the legal field of International Relations on this basis. This system, developed after 1648 (the end of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe), has passed through several stages of its development, and to some extent continued to reflect objective reality until the end of World War II. It was born out of rejecting the claims of the medieval empires to universalism and the “divine mission”, and it corresponded with the bourgeois reforms in European societies. It was also based on the assumption that only a nation-state can possess the highest sovereignty, and that outside of it, there is no other entity that would have the legal right to interfere in the internal policy of this state – regardless of which goals and missions (religious, political, or otherwise) guide it. Form the middle of the XVII century to the middle of the XX century, this principle predetermined European policy and, accordingly, was transferred to other countries of the world with certain amendments.

The Westphalian system was originally relevant only for European powers, and their colonies were regarded merely as their continuation, not possessing sufficient political and economic potential to pretend to be an independent entity. Since the beginning of the XX century, the same principle was extended to the former colonies during the process of decolonization.

This Westphalian model assumes full legal equality between all sovereign states. In this model, there are as many poles of foreign policy decisions in the world as there are sovereign states. By default of inertia, this rule is still in force, and all of international law is based on it.

In practice, of course, there is inequality and hierarchical subordination between various sovereign states. In the First and Second World Wars, the distribution of power among the largest world powers led to a confrontation between separate blocs, where decisions were made in the country that was the most powerful among its allies.

As a result of World War II, owing to the defeat of Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers, the bipolar scheme of international relations (the Yalta bipolar system) developed in the global system. International law continued to de-jure recognize the absolute sovereignty of any nation-state, but de-facto, basic decisions regarding the central issues of the world order and global policy were made only in two centers - in Washington and in Moscow.

The multipolar world differs from the classical Westphalian system by the fact that it does not recognize the separate nation-state, legally and formally sovereign, to have the status of a full-fledged pole. This means that the number of poles in a multipolar world should be substantially less than the number of recognized (and therefore, unrecognized) nation-states. The vast majority of these states are not able today to provide for their own security or prosperity in the face of a theoretically possible conflict with the current hegemon (the U.S.). Therefore, they are politically and economically dependent on an external authority. Being dependent, they cannot be the centers of a truly independent and sovereign will concerning the global issues of the world order.

Multipolarity is not a system of international relations that insists upon the legal equality of nation-states as the actual, factual state of affairs. This is only a facade of a very different picture of the world based on a real, rather than nominal, balance of forces and strategic capabilities.

Multipolarity operates not with the situation as it exists de-jure, but rather de-facto, and it proceeds from the statement of the fundamental inequality between nation-states in the modern and empirically fixable model of the world. Moreover, the structure of this inequality is that the secondary and tertiary powers are not able to defend their sovereignty, in any transient bloc configuration, in the face of possible external challenge by the hegemonic power. This means that sovereignty is a legal fiction today.

Multipolarity is not Bipolarity

After the Second World War, the Yalta bipolar system was developed. It continued to formally insist upon the recognition of the absolute sovereignty of all states, the principle on which the UN was organized, and carried on the work of the League of Nations. However, in practice, two centers of global decision-making appeared in the world – the U.S. and the USSR. The U.S. and the USSR were two alternative political-economic systems, respectively global capitalism and global socialism. It thus was that strategic bipolarity was founded on ideological and philosophical dualism – liberalism against Marxism.

The bipolar world was based on the symmetric comparability of the economic and military-strategic parity potential of the American and Soviet warring camps. At the same time, no other country affiliated with a particular camp remotely had the cumulative power to compare to that of Moscow or Washington. Consequently, there were two hegemons on the global scale, each surrounded by a constellation of allied (half-vassal, in a strategic sense) countries. In this model, formally recognized national sovereignty gradually lost its weight. First of all, countries associated with either hegemon were dependent on that pole’s policies. Therefore, the said country was not independent, and regional conflicts (generally developed in areas of the Third World) quickly escalated into a confrontation of two superpowers seeking to redistribute the balance of planetary influence on the "disputed territories". This explains the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Afghanistan, etc.

In the bipolar world, there was also the third force – the Non-Aligned Movement. It consisted of some Third World countries that refused to make an unequivocal choice in favor of either capitalism or socialism, and that instead preferred to maneuver between the global antagonistic interests of the U.S. and the USSR. To some extent, a few succeeded, but the possibility of non-alignment itself assumed the existence of two poles, which in a varying degree balanced each other. Moreover, these "non-aligned countries" were in no way able to create a "third pole" owing to the main parameters of the superpowers, the fragmented and unconsolidated nature of the Non-Aligned Movement members, and the lack of any joint general socio-economic platform. The world was divided into the capitalist West (the first world), the socialist East (the second world), and “the rest” (the Third World). Besides, “all the others” in every sense represented the world periphery where the interests of the superpowers occasionally appeared. Between the superpowers themselves, the probability of conflict was all but ruled out due to parity (specifically in the guarantee of mutual assured nuclear destruction). This made it so that the preferred areas for the partial revision of the balance of power were the periphery countries (Asia, Africa, Latin America).

After the collapse of one of the two poles (the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991), the bipolar system also collapsed. This has created the preconditions for the emergence of an alternative world order. Many analysts and experts in IR rightly talked about "the end of the Yalta system ". While de-jure recognizing sovereignty, the Yalta Peace was de-facto built upon the principle of the balance of the two symmetric and relatively equal hegemons. With the departure of one of the hegemons from the historical scene, the whole system ceased to exist. The time of a unipolar world order or “unipolar moment" arrived.

A multipolar world is not bipolar world (such as we knew it in the second half of the twentieth century), because in today's world, there is no power that can single-handedly resist the strategic power of the United States and the countries of NATO, and moreover, there is no generalizing and coherent ideology capable of uniting a large part of humanity in a hard ideological opposition to the ideology of liberal democracy, capitalism, and "human rights", on which the United States now bases a new sole hegemony. Neither modern Russia, China, India, or some other state can pretend to be a second pole under these conditions. The recovery of bipolarity is impossible due to ideological (the end of the popular appeal of Marxism) and military-technical reasons. As for the latter, the U.S and NATO countries took the lead so much over the past 30 years that symmetric competition with them in the military-strategic, economic, and technical spheres is not possible for any single country.

Multipolarity is Not Compatible With a Unipolar World

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant the disappearance of both a symmetrical and powerful superpower, as well as a giant ideological camp. It was the end of one of the two global hegemonies. The entire structure of the world order from this point is irreversibly and qualitatively different. Herewith the remaining pole - led by the United States and on the basis of liberal-democratic capitalist ideology - is preserved as a phenomenon and has continued to expand its socio-political system (democracy, the market, the ideology of “human rights”) on a global scale. Precisely, this is called a unipolar world or the unipolar world order. In such a world, there is a single center of decision making on major global issues. The West and its core, the Euro-Atlantic community, led by the United States, found themselves in the role of the only remaining available hegemony. The entire space of the planet in such an environment is a triple regionalization (described in detail by the Neo-Marxist theory of E.Wallerstein ):
? - Core zone (“rich North”, “center”),
? - Area of the world periphery (“poor South”, “periphery”),
? - Transitional zone (“semi-periphery”, including major countries, actively developing towards capitalism: China, India, Brazil, some countries in the Pacific, as well as Russia, by inertia preserving significant strategic, economic, and energy potential).

The unipolar world seemed to finally be an established reality in the 1990s, and some U.S. analysts have declared on this basis the thesis of the "end of history" (Fukuyama). This thesis meant that the world will become totally ideologically, politically, economically and socially homogenous, and that now all of the processes occurring in it will no longer be a historical drama based on the battle of ideas and interests, but rather an economic (and relatively peaceful) competition of market participants - similar to how the internal policy of the free democratic liberal regimes is constructed. In this understanding, democracy becomes global and the planet is composed only of the West and its purlieus (i.e. the countries which will gradually integrate into it).

The most precise design of the theory of unipolarity was proposed by American neoconservatives, who emphasized the U.S.’ role in the new global world order. They sometimes proclaimed the United States as the "New Empire" (R.Kaplan ) or the "benevolent global hegemony" (U.Kristol, R.Keygan ), anticipating the offensive of the "American Century” (The Project for the New American Century). In the neocon view, unipolarity has acquired a theoretical foundation. The future world order was seen as a US-centric construction, where the core is the U.S. as a global arbiter and embodiment of the principles of "freedom and democracy", and a constellation of other countries is structured around this center, reproducing the American model with varying degrees of accuracy. They vary in geography and in their degree of similarity to the United States:
? - First, the inner circle – countries of Europe and Japan,
? - Secondly, the thriving liberal countries of Asia,
? - Finally, all the rest.

All the zones located around the "Global America”, regardless of their political orbit, are included in the process of "democratization" and "Americanization." The spread of American values goes in parallel with the implementation of practical American interests and the expansion of the zone of direct American control on a global scale.

At the strategic level, unipolarity is expressed in the central U.S. role in NATO, and further, in the asymmetric superiority of the combined military capabilities of NATO countries over all the other nations of the world.

Parallel to this, the West is superior to other non-Western countries in its economic potential, level of development of high technology, etc. Most importantly: the West is the matrix where the established system of values and norms which are currently regarded as the universal standard for all other countries in the world was historically formed. This can be called the global intellectual hegemony which, on the one hand, maintains the technical infrastructure for global control, and on the other, stands in the center of the dominant planetary paradigm. Material hegemony goes hand in hand with the spiritual, intellectual, cognitive, cultural, and information hegemonies.

In principle, the American political elite is guided precisely by this consciously perceived hegemonic approach, however, it is clearly and transparently spoken about by the neocons, while representatives of other different political and ideological directions prefer more streamlined expressions and euphemisms. Even critics of the unipolar world in the United States do not challenge the principle of the "universality" of American values and the desire for their approval at the global level. Objections are focused around what extent this project is realistic in the medium and long term, and whether the U.S. is able to bear the burden of the global world empire alone.

Challenges to such direct and open American dominance, which seemed to be a fait accompli in the 1990s, led some American analysts (specifically Charles Krauthammer, who introduced this concept) to posit about the end of the "unipolar moment".

But, in spite of everything, it is exactly unipolarity in one or another manifestation – overt or covert, the model of the world order – that became a reality after 1991 and remains so to this day.

In practice, unipolarity stands side by side with the nominal saving of the Westphalian system, which still contains the inertial remains of the bipolar world. The sovereignty of all nation-states is still acknowledged de-jure, and the UN Security Council still partially reflects the power balance corresponding to the realities of the "Cold War". Thus, the American unipolar hegemony is de-facto present, along with a number of international institutions that express the balance of other eras and cycles in the history of international relations. The world is constantly reminded of the contradictions between the de-jure and de-facto situation, especially when the U.S. or a Western coalition directly intervenes in the affairs of sovereign states (sometimes even bypassing the veto of such institutions as the UN Security Council). In cases such as the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, we see an example of a unilateral violation of the principle of state sovereignty (ignoring the Westphalian model), the refusal to take into account the position of Russia (Vladimir Putin) in the UN Security Council, and the loud objections of Washington’s NATO partners (France’s Jacques Chirac and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder).

The most consistent supporters of unipolarity (for example, Republican John McCain) insist on the enforcement of international order in line with the real balance of forces. They offer the creation of a rather different model than the UN, the "League of Democracies" , in which the dominant U.S. position, that is, unipolarity, would have been legislated. The legalization of a unipolar world and the hegemonic status of the “American Empire” in the post-Yalta international relations structure is one of the possible directions of the evolution of the global political system.

It is absolutely clear that a multipolar world order not only differs from the unipolar, but is its direct antithesis. Unipolarity assumes one hegemon and one center of decision-making, while multipolarity insists on a few centers, herewith none of them having exclusive rights and thus having to take into account the positions of others. Multipolarity, therefore, is a direct logical alternative to unipolarity. There can be no compromise between them: under the laws of logic, the world is either unipolar or multipolar. Thenceforth, it is not important how such a particular model is legally formulated, but how it is de-facto created. In the era of the "Cold War", diplomats and politicians reluctantly recognized the "bipolarity" that was an obvious fact. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the diplomatic language from concrete reality. The unipolar world is the factual world order to date. One can only argue about whether it is good or bad, whether it is the dawn of the system or, alternatively, the sunset, and whether it will last a long time or, on the contrary, quickly end. Regardless, the fact remains fact. We live in a unipolar world, and the unipolar moment still lasts (though some analysts are convinced that it is coming to an end).

The Multipolar World is Not A Nonpolar World

American critics of rigid unipolarity, and especially the ideological rivals of neo-conservatives concentrated in the "Council on Foreign Relations”, offered another term instead of unipolarity - nonpolarity . This concept is based on the suggestion that the processes of globalization will continue to unfold, and the Western model of the world order will expand its presence to all the countries and peoples of the earth. Thus, the intellectual hegemony and hegemony of values of the West will continue. The global world will be the world of liberalism, democracy, free markets, and human rights, but the U.S. role as a national power and the flagship of globalization, according to proponents of this theory, will shrink. Instead of a direct American hegemony, a model of "world government" will emerge. This will be attended to by representatives of different countries, standing together with common values and striving to establish a unified socio-political and economic space in the whole world. Here again, we are dealing with an analog of Fukuyama’s "end of history" described in different terms.

The nonpolar world will be based on co-operation between democratic (by default) countries, but gradually the process of formation should also include non-state actors - NGOs, social movements, separate citizen groups, network communities, etc.

The main characteristic in the construction of the nonpolar world is the dissipation of decision-making from one entity (now Washington) to the many entities of the lower level - right down to online planetary referendums on the major events and actions affecting all of mankind.

The economy will supersede politics and market competition will sweep all the countries’ customs barriers. The state will become more concerned with its citizens’ care than traditional security, and it will usher in the era of global democracy.

This theory coincides with the main features of the theory of globalization and presents itself as a stage towards the replacement of the unipolar world, but only on the conditions promoted today by the U.S. and Western countries in regards to their socio-political, technological, and economic models (liberal democracy). These and their values will become a universal phenomenon, and the need for the strict protection of democratic and liberal ideals will no longer exist – all regimes that resist the West, democratization, and Americanization at the time of the onset of the nonpolar world should be eliminated.

The elite of all countries should be similar, homogeneous, capitalist, liberal, and democratic - in other words, "Western" – regardless of historical, geographic, religious, and national origin.

The project of the nonpolar world is supported by number of very powerful political and financial groups, from the Rothschilds to George Soros and his foundations.

This structural project addresses the future. It is thought of as a global formation that should replace unipolarity and be established after in its wake. This is not an alternative, but rather a continuation, and it will be possible only as society’s center of gravity moves from today's mix of alliance of two levels of hegemony - material (the American military-industrial complex and Western economy and resources) and spiritual (standards, procedures, values) – to a purely intellectual hegemony, together with the gradual reduction of the importance of material domination.

Namely, this is the global information society, where the main processes of ruling and dominion will be deployed in the field of intelligence via the control of minds, mind control, and the programming of the virtual world.

The multipolar world cannot be combined with the nonpolar world model because it does not accept the validity of the unipolar moment as a prelude to the future world order, nor the intellectual hegemony of the West, the universality of its values, or the dissipation of decision-making into the planetary multiplicity regardless of the preexisting cultural and civilizational identity. The nonpolar world suggests that the American melting pot model will be extended to the whole world. As a result, this will erase all the differences between peoples and cultures, and an individualized, atomized humanity will be transformed into a cosmopolitan 'civil society' without any borders. Multipolarity implies that the centers of decision-making must be high enough (but not solely in the hands of one entity - as it is today under the conditions of the unipolar world), and cultural specialties of each particular civilization must be preserved and strengthened (but not dissolved into a single cosmopolitan multiplicity).

Multipolarity is Not Multilateralism

Another model of the world order, somewhat distanced from direct U.S. hegemony, is a multilateral world (multilateralism). This concept is very widespread in the U.S. Democratic Party, and is formally adhered to in the foreign policy of President Obama’s Administration. In the context of American foreign policy debates, this approach is opposed to the neoconservatives’ insistence on unipolarity.

In practice, multilateralism means that the U.S. should not act in the field of international relations relying entirely upon its own strength and putting all of its allies and "vassals" before the fact in a mandated manner. Instead, Washington should take into account the position of partners, persuade and argue its suggested solutions in equal dialogue with them, and bring them over to its side by means of rational arguments and, sometimes, compromise proposals.

The United States in such a situation should be "first among equals", rather than "dictator among its subordinates". This imposes on the foreign policy of the United States certain obligations to allies in global politics and demands obedience to overall strategy. The overall strategy in this case is the West's strategy to establish global democracy, the market, and the implementation of the ideology of human rights on a global scale. In this process, the U.S., being the leader, should not directly equate its national interests with the "universal" values of Western civilization, on whose behalf they act. In some cases, it is more preferable to operate in a coalition, and sometimes even to make concessions to its partners.

Multilateralism differs from unipolarity by the emphasis on the West in general, and especially on its "value-based" (i.e. the "normative") component. Concerning this, apologists of multilateralism converge with those who advocate the nonpolar world. The only difference between multilateralism and nonpolarity is only the fact that multilateralism places emphasis on the coordination of democratic Western countries among themselves, and nonpolarity also includes non-state authorities (NGOs, networks, social movements, etc.) as actors.

It is significant that in practice, Obama’s policy of multilateralism, as repeatedly voiced by him and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is not much different from the direct and transparent imperialist era of George W. Bush, during whose period the neoconservatives were dominant. U.S. military interventions continued (Libya), and U.S. troops maintained their presence in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

The multipolar world doesn’t match with the multilateral world order because it opposes the universalism of Western values and does not recognize the legitimacy of the "rich North" - either alone or collectively - to act on behalf of all humanity and serve as the single center of decision-making on most majorly important issues.

Summary

The differentiation of the term "multipolar world" from the chain of alternative or similar ones outlines the semantic field in which we will continue to build the theory of multipolarity. Up until this point, we have talked only of what the multipolar world order is not, denials and differentiations themselves which allow us in contrast to distinguish a number of constituent and quite positive characteristics.

If we generalize this second positive part, arising from the series of made distinctions, we get approximately this picture:

1. The Multipolar world is a radical alternative to the unipolar world (that in fact exists in the present situation) due to the fact that it insists on the presence of a few independent and sovereign centers of global strategic decision-making on the global level.

2. These centers should be sufficiently equipped and financially and materially independent to be able to defend their sovereignty in the face of a direct invasion by a potential enemy on the material level, and the most powerful force in the world today should be understood as this threat. This requirement is reduced to being able to withstand the financial and military-strategic hegemony of the United States and NATO countries.

3. These centers of decision-making must not accept the universalism of Western standards, norms, and values (democracy, liberalism, free market, parliamentarism, human rights, individualism, cosmopolitanism, etc.) and can be completely independent of the spiritual hegemony of the West.

4. The multipolar world does not imply a return to the bipolar system because today there is no single strategic or ideological force that can single-handedly resist the material and spiritual hegemony of the modern West and its leader, the United States. There must be more than two poles in a multipolar world.

5. The multipolar world does not seriously consider the sovereignty of existing nation-states, which is declared only on a purely legal level and is not confirmed by the presence of sufficient power, strategic, economic, and political potential. In the XXI century, it is no longer enough to be a nation-state in order to be a sovereign entity. In such circumstances, real sovereignty may be only achieved by a combination and coalition of states. The Westphalian system, which continues to exist de-jure, no longer reflects the realities of the system of international relations and requires revision.

6. Multipolarity is not reducible to nonpolarity nor to multilateralism because it does not put the center of decision-making (pole) into the world government, nor to the club of the U.S. and its democratic allies ("global West"), the level of sub-state networks, NGOs, and other entities of civil society. A pole must be localized somewhere else.

These six points define the entire range for the further development of multipolarity and sufficiently embody its main features. Though this description significantly moves us towards understanding the point of multipolarity, it is still insufficient to be qualified as a theory. This is merely an initial determination with which the full theorizing just begins."

Meanwhile:

Trump is a lying sack of sh*t that no one can ever trust. When the head of the Boy Scouts calls out your lying in public, that's about as bad as it gets.



==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 11:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, G, do you have a problem with the concept of a multipolar world?

Do you find something amoral, unethical, or counter to American interests in that concept?


-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 2:47 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, G, do you have a problem with the concept of a multipolar world?

Do you find something amoral, unethical, or counter to American interests in that concept?




You missed the whole point of my post.

I posted thousands of words from Dugan blathering on the subject like some mental ward resident and then showed it all meant nothing - poof. His kind of endless mental masturbation, like yours, like Bannon's, and now like Miller, perfectly illustrates how pointless it is. You think the person waiting for radiation treatment cares if they live in a multipolar world? That's how people with actual legislative power get side tracked from the work of governing, of their responsibility to put in the hours getting dirty with the details. It builds agendas that become so full of themselves and their clever ideas that they end up being completely disconnected from where they started in the first place. Before you know it people are simply voting for party without the thought of what they are voting for. They can ignore people because "they have these big ideals!"

So yeah, I have a problem with political concepts in general. I don't need a concept to know bridges are crumbling, Health care's a mess and Trump's a lying sack of sh*t.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 3:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I posted thousands of words from Dugan blathering on the subject like some mental ward resident and then showed it all meant nothing - poof. His kind of endless mental masturbation, like yours, like Bannon's, and now like Miller, perfectly illustrates how pointless it is.
If this discussion about Russia is all so "pointless", WHY DID YOU POST YOUR OWN ORIGINAL ARTICLE?

Quote:

You think the person waiting for radiation treatment cares if they live in a multipolar world? That's how people with actual legislative power get side tracked from the work of governing, of their responsibility to put in the hours getting dirty with the details.
Yanno, curiously, you effing moron, YOU'RE the one who keeps trying to turn the conversation to "RUSSIA!" I'm the one who keeps trying to discuss real problems.

Quote:

It [you] build[s] agendas that become so full of themselves and their clever ideas that they end up being completely disconnected from where they started in the first place. Before you know it people are simply voting for party without the thought of what they are voting for. They can ignore people because "they have these big ideals!"
Then why don't you follow your own advice? Why do you keep dragging the theme back to your piece of crap about "Putin's Real Long Game" in the first place, endlessly blathering about "RUSSIA!" and telling people to "Be afraid, be very afraid""?

Your propaganda piece didn't work on me. But you did manage to try to deflect from your own original post!

And here's the connection between multi-polar world, and health care:
If we weren't trying to be the world hegemon, and if YOU weren't so busy trying to scare people about nothing, maybe we could stop spending 50% of our budget on the military and 90% of our attention on RUSSIA! and actually address some of our important problems: debt, jobs, environment, healthcare.


God, you're such a fucking idiot.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 3, 2017 4:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY

Quote:

and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.


See?

So predictable! You should get some better tools in your "troll" toolkit!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 9:24 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY

Quote:

and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.


See?

So predictable! You should get some better tools in your "troll" toolkit!

-----------




"Too wordy" because you use words to deflect and misdirect, not understand. It's an obvious ploy. I know these games, hon.

Dugan's rambling doesn't DO anything. In it's net effect, it might as well be noise, like so much of what you post.

Is this purposeful misunderstanding, misdirection, or just plain ignorance:

"If this discussion about Russia is all so "pointless", WHY DID YOU POST YOUR OWN ORIGINAL ARTICLE?"

Where or when did I ever say discussing Russia was "pointless???" Haven't you been reading this forum???

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 1:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GSTRING,
Quote:

"Too wordy" because you use words to deflect and misdirect, not understand.
Yanno, GSTRING, I thought that the article that YOU posted was too wordy. Worse, it was an accusatory propaganda piece based lies. Yanno, YOUR style of posting, but longer. Nonetheless, I responded in detail with my hypothesis that Putin's REAL long game was "multipolarity", using events as specific examples to illustrate how I came to that opinion.

If you think I'm wrong, then bring up points or examples which disprove my hypothesis ("multipolarity" as Putin's real long game). Engage in the discussion, stop trying to DEFLECT from the discussion.

BTW- the impression that I get from you is that you're like the frightened squid: When confronted with something scary, you eject a cloud of "deflection" and "too wordy" and personal insults, and then under the cloud of your own deflection, you run away. You do it every time! The discussion is wrenched away from the original idea, and into a tit-for-tat name-calling session, just like what you wanted.

You're way too scared to discuss events IN DETAIL because you're afraid that the fundamental weakness of your POV will be exposed and, my god, learning something new (for you) is a frightening experience! But that's how I knew what you would do next, and you didn't disappoint! And you're STILL not disappointing! Next, you'll call me a "Russian troll" - maybe not in THIS thread, but somewhere, I'm sure.

Troll.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 4:25 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GSTRING,
Quote:

"Too wordy" because you use words to deflect and misdirect, not understand.
Yanno, GSTRING, I thought that the article that YOU posted was too wordy.



Oh god - your brain is broken. That's why I posted it, ya lunkhead. To show you the worthlessness of your wordy posts. No offense, but you are incredibly stupid.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 9:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Not the article by Dugin, your FIRST post. The one that claims that we should all be very afraid because they have sussed out Putin's "real" long game .

Or, are you disavowing the content of your original post as well?

In THAT case... carry on.



-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 4, 2017 9:19 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
BTW- the impression that I get from you is that you're like the frightened squid: When confronted with something scary, you eject a cloud of "deflection" and "too wordy" and personal insults, and then under the cloud of your own deflection, you run away.



Too funny - you describe yourself perfectly.

When I got no response to my original post and inquired, you said:

"I started yawning about one para in; there are so many points to dispute, but then I thought .... why bother?"

You started a thread about 'Mooch and when I said you were wrong here's why, and oh btw, after he was fired he started leaking, you said: "..................." nothing. You ran.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 12:01 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


100% unsupported opinion. Yep. Typical GEEBERS, trolling again.
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
SIGNYM - more later, busy day, interesting response form you, but so much is predictable and easily dismissible. You seem to reject Russia as having any aggressive interests beyond their own borders. Not physically necessarily, but effectively, hell yes. Your view of Russia is of an emasculated, defanged Russia, always the victim, "we just want to get along." We both know that's just not Putin. In fact, just the opposite is true. Plus you make so many crazy bone head assumptions! I can't believe you believe anyone would believe you.
So I see your response as I see most of them: obvious deflect and a dodge. Some day you will entertain us with how you came to choose Russia as your guiding star - I bet it's a fascinating story and I bet you would tell it well.

When time permits...






Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 7:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GSTRING- I missed this of yours because we xposted (look at the times). Here is my response
Quote:

SIGNYM - more later, busy day, interesting response form you, but so much is predictable and easily dismissible. You seem to reject Russia as having any aggressive interests beyond their own borders.
I'm not sure I even know what you mean by "aggressive interests". Do you mean ... willing to act aggressively against border nations? -
Quote:

Not physically necessarily, but effectively, hell yes.
Do you have any examples of Russia acting non-physically against border nations?

Quote:

Your view of Russia is of an emasculated, defanged Russia, always the victim, "we just want to get along." We both know that's just not Putin.
We do? It seems to me that every action of Putin's has so far been defensive, because for every action of Russia's I can point to a preceding aggressive action by the USA.

Quote:

In fact, just the opposite is true.
But, no examples.

Quote:

Plus you make so many crazy bone head assumptions!
Such as?

Quote:

I can't believe you believe anyone would believe you.
I gave examples, and I'm prepared to give more to back up my point. What about you? Do you have any historical evidence to bolster your point, or are you just going to keep in making evidence- free accusations - as usual?

Quote:

So I see your response as I see most of them: obvious deflect and a dodge.
I see yours as a completely hollow prejudice.

Quote:

Some day you will entertain us with how you came to choose Russia as your guiding star - I bet it's a fascinating story and I bet you would tell it well.
Some day you should tell us how you got to be so paranoid about Russia.


-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 9:57 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


SIGNYM - "It seems to me that every action of Putin's has so far been defensive..."
Hacking our elections was defensive? SIGGY -1

SIGNYM - "But, no examples."
You *need* to be reminded of Crimea? SIGGY -2

Me - "Plus you make so many crazy bone head assumptions!"
SIGNYM - "Such as?
"Obvious this whole collusion thing is over." SIGGY -3 and falling like a stone.

SIGNYM - "Some day you should tell us how you got to be so paranoid about Russia."
Not paranoid, realistic, more educated. And it came from hearing you posting one flimsy defense after another - thanks for opening my eyes. The more I listened the more slanted you became - a great class in how the Soviet mind works.



==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 10:01 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
100% unsupported opinion. Yep. Typical GEEBERS, trolling again.
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
SIGNYM - more later, busy day, interesting response form you, but so much is predictable and easily dismissible. You seem to reject Russia as having any aggressive interests beyond their own borders. Not physically necessarily, but effectively, hell yes. Your view of Russia is of an emasculated, defanged Russia, always the victim, "we just want to get along." We both know that's just not Putin. In fact, just the opposite is true. Plus you make so many crazy bone head assumptions! I can't believe you believe anyone would believe you.
So I see your response as I see most of them: obvious deflect and a dodge. Some day you will entertain us with how you came to choose Russia as your guiding star - I bet it's a fascinating story and I bet you would tell it well.

When time permits...





Congratulations! You have earned another Worthless Troll Badge!

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 12:54 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by GEEBERS:
Congratulations! You have earned another Worthless Troll Badge!

Congratulations! You have earned another Worthless Troll Badge!





Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 5:00 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

SIGNYM - "It seems to me that every action of Putin's has so far been defensive..." SIGGY
Hacking our elections was defensive? GSTRING -

Until I see actual EVIDENCE, this is a non-event. And, no, I don't take our security state's pronouncements at face value; do you?

Quote:

SIGNYM - "But, no examples."
You *need* to be reminded of Crimea? GSTRING

Do you need to be reminded that the USA, using George Soros and State Department-funded NGOs, along with State Department officials who were recorded picking the next government of Ukraine, and crazy John McCain who never met a war he didn't like, plus the mysteriously-sourced snipers who pushed the demonstrations over the edge, got rid of a DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED GOVERNMENT? And that EARLY ELCTIONS had been arranged, but even THAT was too much to wait for? It was a USA-arranged coup, GSTRING, no matter what you want to think about it. Russia's actions were a response to American provocation. Defensive.

Same thing with Georgia - they fired first. As for Syria ... WE were trying to destabilize the government as per the nation-destruction rampage we've been on for 20+years. The Russians were invited in to DEFEND against American aggression. I know what Russia's been doing, but what's OUR excuse?

Quote:

"Plus you make so many crazy bone head assumptions!"- GSTRING
"Such as?"- SIGNY
EXAMPLE: "Obvious this whole collusion thing is over." GSTRING

We shall see. As I said, I hope that a REAL investigation will reach the truth, not the gossip and bullshit that you've been hyping.

Quote:

"Some day you should tell us how you got to be so paranoid about Russia."- SIGNY
Not paranoid, realistic, more educated. - GSTRING

Says you. You can't even be bothered to look for reality.
Quote:

And it came from hearing you posting one flimsy defense after another - thanks for opening my eyes. The more I listened the more slanted you became - a great class in how the Soviet mind works.- GSTRING
And once again, the completely unfounded insinuation that I'm somehow not American. Dood, I've got a very long hx here in the board, longer than you. Do you really think that I planted myself here FIFTEEN YEARS AGO on the off-chance that many years from then, I would get to post to three idiots? Do you realize what an idiot that makes you look like?

Also, somebody should tell you: There's no more "Soviet Union" and hasn't been for almost 20 years!

And you pretend to know Putin's "real" long game when you can't even stay up-to-speed with 20-year-old events??

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 5, 2017 5:42 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, what model benefits Russia? "Might makes right"? Hardly. "We will bury you? not that either. The ONLY MODEL under which Russia prospers is the one where their rights are respected; that they- and all nations- are free from the threat of "intervention" by a hog-wild superpower. Russia has NO INTEREST in picking fights because they can't win. All they can do is defend themselves and a few critical partners.

... given that Russia is a mid-sized nation, it's the only one that makes sense, because they don't have the resources to be either a world hegemon or the other half of a bipolar configuration.

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 6, 2017 9:57 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM: And once again, the completely unfounded insinuation that I'm somehow not American. Dood, I've got a very long hx here in the board, longer than you. Do you really think that I planted myself here FIFTEEN YEARS AGO on the off-chance that many years from then, I would get to post to three idiots? Do you realize what an idiot that makes you look like?

Also, somebody should tell you: There's no more "Soviet Union" and hasn't been for almost 20 years!

And you pretend to know Putin's "real" long game when you can't even stay up-to-speed with 20-year-old events??



That's your retort? "There's no soviet union!" ?? Really? Nothing better than that?

I have no idea where you're from or who you are. You are definitely doing the work of a Russian troll though, whether by accident or on purpose. You have over played your hand many times. The most glaring was the "Hillary has Lupus" or whatever sickness was being peddled by your troll masters during the campaign. You posted that into the ground. That was chapter and verse from their playbook and exactly what I saw - at exactly the same time - on other forums and comments sections of news 'zines. The R-Troll social army loved that one. You might as well have been waving a Russian flag.

"Do you really think that I planted myself here FIFTEEN YEARS AGO on the off-chance that many years from then, I would get to post to three idiots?" You keep trying to float these incredibly stupid arguments that end up just making you look... incredibly stupid. Try harder, m'kay?

Carry on.

==============================

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 6, 2017 2:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

That's your retort? "There's no soviet union!" ?? Really? Nothing better than that?
I have no idea where you're from or who you are. You are definitely doing the work of a Russian troll though,

Well as KIKI so deftly put it: Wow, straw-manning, a personal attack, and a complete void of TOPIC, all in 34 words!

My point was in my last thread, which you completely deflected! My hat's off to YOU, you lying sack of troll-shit! You remain true to your trollish roots, no matter how many times people keep trying to communicate facts to you!

*****

So, my point was this: Russia doesn't have the resources to be either a world hegemon or the other half of a bipolar configuration.

Now, here'e the reality: ALL modern technological militaries have multiple assets at their disposal. The United States is FIRST among them.

We have been fertilizing our military/ security state for decades upon decades. Our security state has contacts in media all over the globe, works hand-in-glove with State Department-funded NGOs like AID and NED, exchanges cyber-info with over a dozen other nations, pays for proxy armies and contractors; steams carrier groups all over the world; bombs and invades nations with impunity; inserts spec ops, trainers and contractors everywhere; maintains over 800 military bases; and forwards a nuclear arsenal second to none. We are dedicated to FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE, which means total superiority on land, in the sea, air, and space; in cyber operations and the information, psychological and financial sphere.

We have 55 TIMES more military bases than Russia, 12 TIMES more aircraft carriers, and approximately TWICE as many long-range aircraft, ALL FORWARD PROJECTIONS OF USA POWER.

Now, the USA has made it plain, over and over again that our aim is to control the globe.

And you're gibbering about Russia???

WHAT IS RUSSIA'S AIM? Russia CAN'T take over the world, it can't even be the other half of a bipolar world, it is literally too small (as you might have noticed when the USSR was dissolved)..

The article that you posted said itself, although it attempted to twist the information into something nefarious. It's called "multipolarity". What it means is that individual nations will be allowed to pursue their own economic and social development without being in thrall to the world hegemon or wondering when the boot heel is going to come down to crush them.

So, do you find something morally reprehensible with that goal, or somehow counter to American interests?

*****

Unlike the USA, which bullies, bombs, destabilizes, and sanctions its way through the world, backstabbing and sacrificing its erstwhile partners in favor of quicker or more profitable results, Russia has been focusing on being a reliable economic partner, dedicated to finding win-win relations with all of its contacts. HOW LONG will it take for formerly friendly world leaders to become completely disgusted with American storming around the world, kicking over tables wherever it pleases? I'm not saying this just to say "America is bad, Russia is good". I'm desperately trying to point out that WE had better improve our foreign policies or we will be left in the dust.


-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 7, 2017 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Now GSTRING, since YOU brought up Russia's real long game with that puerile post of yours ... what's say we continue the discussion about "multipolarity" and whether or not that adequately describes Russia's recent strategy?



-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 7, 2017 9:55 AM

KPO

Anti-Russia before it was cool.


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's called "multipolarity". What it means is that individual nations will be allowed to pursue their own economic and social development...


Does it mean that countries like Poland and the Baltic states should be free to join NATO, if they so wish?

I think it's very enlightened of you to come to embrace NATO enlargement.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:01 AM

KPO

Anti-Russia before it was cool.


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's called "multipolarity". What it means is that individual nations will be allowed to pursue their own economic and social development...


Does it mean that countries like Poland and the Baltic states should be free to join NATO, if they so wish?

I think it's very enlightened of you to come to embrace NATO enlargement.


What, you've no desire to talk about "multipolarity" any more, Sig?

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 8, 2017 12:57 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Nope! Just busy.

Well, originally NATO was not to move eastward, by agreement. Well I guess the USA government started breaking treaties since it committed genocide on native Americans, and it hasn't stopped since!

But of course nations are free to join NATO. Each nation should be free to join in whatever security or economic group it chooses.

HOWEVER, these groups should also be governed by international law. One of the things I find troubling about NATO - aside from its willingness (under USA prodding) to destroy nations - is the forward placement of presumably "defensive" missiles on Russia's border. Their original rationale- as a defense against Iranian missiles, which was a laughable excuse to being with, no longer holds. But the missiles are still there, and have destabilized yet another nuclear weapons treaty, bringing the world even closer to Armageddon. Unless you're insane, I think we can both agree that's not a good thing.

These issues need to be worked thru by negotiation.

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 6:13 PM

KPO

Anti-Russia before it was cool.


Quote:

Nope! Just busy.

Ah Siggy. Never change.

Quote:

Well, originally NATO was not to move eastward, by agreement.

Not true, from what I've read. Or at most 0.5% true. There was no agreement - certainly no written treaty like with the Native Americans. Russia didn't seek one. A verbal agreement? Nope, not even. So what was there? There was this: a few Western diplomats from one or two NATO countries - speaking for themselves - suggested to Russia that NATO would not be interested in expanding.

The rest of your post I can live with. You disapprove of NATO as an organisation (shock), but accept the right of countries to join NATO - and thus, the basic righteousness of NATO's eastward expansion. Now let's forget this nonsense about "NATO surrounding Russia" or "expanding aggressively to Russia's borders" or whatever.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 6:46 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


KRAPO = bullshit

Quote:

Russia's got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise

Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014. Together with Russian military provocations against NATO forces in and around the Baltic, this move seems to validate the observations of Western analysts who argue that under Vladimir Putin, an increasingly aggressive Russia is determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe.

Leaders in Moscow, however, tell a different story. For them, Russia is the aggrieved party. They claim the United States has failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, a deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification. In this view, Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense.

The West has vigorously protested that no such deal was ever struck. However, hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise. Although what the documents reveal isn’t enough to make Putin a saint, it suggests that the diagnosis of Russian predation isn’t entirely fair. Europe’s stability may depend just as much on the West’s willingness to reassure Russia about NATO’s limits as on deterring Moscow’s adventurism.


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-d
eal--20160530-snap-story.html


From the LA Times, one of the better MSM outlets.

Yanno, I have way too much to do to counter your constant lies.



-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 7:54 PM

KPO

Anti-Russia before it was cool.


First of all, your article agrees with me that "no formal deal was struck".

Second, from your article:

Quote:

Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” ... No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

Wrong. This is a common misunderstanding of what was pledged. The Russian president at the time, Gorbachev, has himself debunked this:

Quote:

Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.”


https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-no
t-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no
/

What the Russian president does say:

Quote:

To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.


As for the encroachment of NATO troops, military facilities:

Quote:

Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March, NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.




-------------------------------------------------------

"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."

Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 9, 2017 8:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Because "hundreds" of transcripts, meeting notes, and memos just couldn't be correct, in your view.

When leaders get together, THEY don't negotiate deals, it's their underlings. Leaders mainly swoop in and sign when negotiations are completed. The hundreds of records which DID indicate that this was discussed thoroughly certainly weren't penned by Gorbachev and Reagan personally, right?

You're right- there was no written, formal agreement. Nonetheless, it should easy to see that - unless the West WANTED to be provocative it would have certainly refrained from emplacing missiles right on Russia's border.

Flip the situation around. There's no FORMAL agreement that Russia won't place missiles in Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico .... but what if it did? WE would certainly accuse them of aggressive behavior, and we'd be right.

DO WE WANT TO NEGOTIATE? OR DO WE WANT TO (continue to) BULLY, SANCTION, BOMB, AND DESTROY OUR WAY THRU THE WORLD?

What is our goal here? Defense? Or a never-ending quest for total world domination?

-----------
By the way, GSTRING, I predicted your response PERFECTLY
* ... and then you'll say I'm "too wordy". And then you will - as always- refuse to address the pertinent points, and respond with even more lies and even more bullshit personal attacks.*

And voila! Here it is http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61835&mid=1
035581#1035581

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Accusing Someone You Disagree With Of Being A Russian Troll Is Admitting You Have No Argument
Tue, December 12, 2017 15:05 - 97 posts
Putin Orders Withdrawal Of Russian Troops During Surprise Syria Visit
Tue, December 12, 2017 14:52 - 4 posts
Trump's Swamp Thing
Tue, December 12, 2017 14:46 - 20 posts
Lynch. Comey. Dirty Debbie. Hillary. The FBI-DNC link, and the DOJ, again. It's one giant deep state clusterfvck
Tue, December 12, 2017 12:03 - 67 posts
POTUS Trump's Greatest Failures
Tue, December 12, 2017 11:16 - 44 posts
this is what a starving polar bear looks like
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:57 - 4 posts
Where are the democrats? Waiting for the Deep State to get rid of Trump?
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:47 - 23 posts
Trump not invited to Paris December climate change summit for now, says France
Tue, December 12, 2017 10:43 - 8 posts
Shout out to Second - hope you are doing well
Tue, December 12, 2017 08:51 - 211 posts
Male Role Models
Tue, December 12, 2017 08:46 - 112 posts
Bomb Exploded Times Square
Tue, December 12, 2017 08:26 - 9 posts
The Evidens
Tue, December 12, 2017 06:22 - 733 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL